BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
September 8, 2009
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly.
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Walters Young, Deputy Town Administrator, Martha L. White, Town Administrator (arrived at 8:15 p.m.); Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on September 8, 2009 in the amount of $1,567,631.16. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,869,260.58.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Connolly announced there would be a public meeting at the VFW on September 14, 2009, 7:30 p.m. regarding the traveling Viet Nam Memorial Wall. Anyone who would like to offer assistance was welcome to attend.
Mr. Ciccariello reminded everyone of Natick Days to be held on September 12, 2009 from 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
PROCLAMATION: SENIOR CENTER MONTH
The Chair of the Council on Aging, Lori Rosen along with Council on Aging members Elizabeth Killeen and Mary Ross accepted a proclamation declaring the month of September 2009 as Senior Center Month.
Senior Center and Human Services Director Moira Munns advised that the Secretary of Elder Affairs had visited the Senior Center that afternoon and thanked the Board for sending a representative to greet her along with a representative from the administration. She read a letter from the Secretary.
Ms. Rosen noted that one activity for Senior Center Month was the open house on September 24 from 4:00-7:00 p.m. She looked forward to seeing as many of the Board of Selectmen as possible and challenged the Board to a rematch of the chair volleyball game. There were many other activities planned throughout the month and she hoped people would participate.
THE COMMISSION ON DISABILITY: THE RIDE
The following letter from the Natick and Framingham Commissions on Disability was read into the record:
The Disability Commissions of Natick and Framingham have learned that the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA) is considering a cut in RIDE paratransit services by reducing the service hours for new and future riders in their towns. Both Commissions on Disability are opposed to any such reduction.
When the MWRTA was established three years ago, the disabled community was promised that the RIDE service would continue to be the same. These assurances came from the Selectmen and from State Senator Karen Spilka.
At first the disability community was told that the RIDE service would continue to be provided by the MBTA. This did not happen. Consequently, it was revealed that the MWRTA would take over the RIDE service, but assurances were made that the level of service would remain the same. This has also turned out not to be the case. Instead, RIDE users will no longer have direct trips into Boston and the surrounding towns but, instead, must transfer from an MWRTA vehicle to an MBTA RIDE vehicle at the edge of the RTA territory. Moreover, riders will now have to pay a trip fee for both the MWRTA and the MBTA portions of these rides, thus doubling the fares for trips into Boston and the surrounding towns.
In addition, MWRTA is considering reduced hours of service for new RIDE users who sign up for RIDE service after July 1, 2009. Current ride users, who have been with the RIDE before July 1, 2009 would be “grandfathered” in order to keep the same hours of service which they have always had (i.e. what the MBTA provides). In comparison, the reduced hours, would limit RIDE service for new users to the same hours of operations as fixed-route buses. For new RIDE users, this means no service after 7:30 p.m. on weekdays, Saturday service only between 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM and no transportation service at all on Sunday. This is patently unequal service for new vs already existing disabled riders.
The MWRTA offers important transportation options so that people can use alternate transportation, other than their vehicle. The majority of people with disabilities who use the RIDE service are unable to drive. The RIDE’s door-to-door service may be their one and only transportation option. For wheelchair users, even fewer options exist when trying to find wheelchair accessible transportation.
The Disability Commission of Natick and Framingham understand that these are difficult financial times for all. However, very often it is important programs, such as these, that are among the first to be cut when monies are tight. Nonetheless, we oppose the plan to limit service for new RIDE users and feel we were mislead as to what would happen, at the time when the MWRTA was first formed.
In summary, as the stewards of the Disabled Community, we are voicing our opposition to the MWRTA plan of limited service hours for new RIDE users. We are asking that the Board of Selectmen of each of our towns take the appropriate action to ensure that transportation options are equal for all disabled consumers of our respective communities.
Sincerely,
Joan Sherizen Karen Dempsey
Chairperson Acting Chair
Natick Commission on Disability Framingham Disability Commission
Chairperson of the Commission on Disability Joan Sherizen told the Board that it was brought to the Commission’s attention that the changes as outlined have come about at a time when there were budget cuts and deficits. The Commission understood the difficulty of the financial times but had to ask for the Board’s support in moving from an unequal situation for the disabled community to one that was equal for new vs existing riders. At this point there were 10 new riders and although they could not project how many new riders there would be, the number will continue to accrue so the inequality will grow. She would like the Board of Selectmen to be aware of the situation and perhaps in the budget discussions make sure money was allocated so the number of new riders had the MWRTA funds behind them so they could
get the same service as exists for current riders.
When asked to comment, the Director of the MWRTA (MetroWest Regional Transit Authority), explained that when the RTA was formed there was an equal opinion by the folks who were deciding to put the RTA together that it would be unfair to take away the service provided by the MBTA to the disabled community. At that time the RTA contracted with the MBTA to provide that service directly and money was budgeted through the state contract assessment and local assessment. As time went on the MBTA decided it would no longer do the service and wanted the MWRTA to pick up the service which the MWRTA has done.
Mr. Carr noted there was a transition piece and it has taken about two years of work to do it. What Ms. Sherizen was talking about was where it was going from here and what would be the inequities if the service continued to be grandfathered and the cost. To provide the service as compared to the fixed route was almost three times to one. It was very expensive. The regulations specify that any service providing fixed route service was obligated to provide the (paratransit) service but only during the hours being provided for the fixed route. The MBTA was providing service from 5:30/6:00 a.m.-1:00 a.m., seven days a week, 365 days a year. The MWRTA was still going to provide service but going forward there were two stumbling blocks – the sustainability and trying to bring in the other communities
and provide what the law requires and the budgetary constraint.
Mr. Carr continued that Natick and Framingham had the finances to provide more services because they had a huge assessment for the MBTA. Natick should be in good shape for the next 5-10 years. The problem was the 70% match from the state. It was always a challenge every year of getting the regional transit authorities in the game of the budget. This year the line item was $44 million and another $15 million out of the transportation bond fund. That brought it up to just a little more than last year but building in 2.5% increases put it pretty close. They (MWRTA) had to look at the budgetary items in a responsible way. It (limiting paratransit service) was not something they wanted to do. They were trying to look at the region collectively and do what’s best for the region.
Charles Hughes, Natick’s representative to the MWRTA Board, did not wish to add anything to Mr. Carr’s comments.
It was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding this was a subsidized service. Mr. Carr advised that the MWRTA paid $25 for a RIDE and the fare was $2. If there was a transfer to the joint venture system into Boston that was another $2 but their cost was $47.
To Mr. Ostroff it sounded as though the responsibility to take people outside the RTA was something the RTA did not have responsibility for. Mr. Carr noted there was a responsibility to bring the person to a transfer zone. Asked if that was different than his (Mr. Carr’s) understanding when he first started doing this, Mr. Carr responded that when the MWRTA first started doing it he thought there would be no problems because the MBTA would be doing it. He didn’t know why, but they renegotiated their contract.
Mr. Ostroff wondered if there was any way to talk about coordinating. It seemed to be inefficient for people to have to take two separate Rides to get into Boston. Had there been any discussion?
Mr. Carr explained that 10 years ago they had transfers and nobody liked them because they were inefficient. He hoped that it was getting better and although it was a pain it was less of a pain than it used to be. Most people recognize that transfers were part of traveling. As an RTA you couldn’t always take people the whole way into Boston. The Ride had those resources because they were one RTA. Now there were two separate authorities which creates different logistical problems.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if there were other RTAs that border the “T” service dealing with the same issue of transfers. Mr. Carr advised that Brockton actually had two (transfers). He added that these were vehicle to vehicle transfers. The vehicle that brought you there didn’t leave until the other vehicle came to pick you up. If the other vehicle didn’t show up in half an hour, the vehicle that brought you there would complete the trip.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to the current hours during which The Rider was available. Mr. Carr noted that under the MWRTA for those grandfathered it was 5:30 a.m.-1:00 a.m. seven days a week 365 days a year. For new riders it was 5:30 a.m.-8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday was 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. and there was no service on Sunday. That was a place where there was a need to grow and if that was done it would kick in the ADA service.
Mr. Connolly stated that he was a member of the Commission on Disability and asked if the statement in the letter, “At first the disability community was told that the RIDE service would continue to be provided by the MBTA. This did not happen. Consequently, it was revealed that the MWRTA would take over the RIDE service, but assurances were made that the level of service would remain the same”, was a true statement. Mr. Carr responded that for the information available at that time it was absolutely a true statement.
In follow-up Mr. Connolly asked if the MWRTA did not take this over if The Ride may be disbanded. Mr. Carr advised that was on the drawing board. Mr. Connolly questioned if we were doing the best we could do for The Ride right now. Mr. Carr affirmed that the RTA was doing the best it could right now for The Ride.
Mr. Connolly expressed concern over the differential of the money appropriated and the money needed (to expand The Rider). Mr. Carr acknowledged the money was the common denominator and he was working on some ideas. Some federal funds were available under the new Freedom money which was to be used specifically for transportation like this where service was provided above what was required.
Asked if the Board was doing everything it could, Mr. Carr’s reply was, “absolutely” adding that Mr. Hughes was becoming extremely knowledgeable.
Mr. Connolly then asked Ms. Sherizen if things were moving in a good direction. Ms. Sherizen responded that she thought the concern was more about the transferring but she wanted to bring the Board’s attention to the inequality between the new and the existing riders. Even if the Freedom money was received, there were no promises that it would be directed to the inequality and the Commission needed the Board of Selectmen to work with the RTA to address the inequality. After July 1 the new riders have less opportunity which limits accessibility and access.
To Ms. Van Amsterdam the crux came down to hours and a decision could be made to expand the hours of the fixed route and make it such that all disabled riders were getting service during that time. Looking at what the budget may look like the next fiscal year, she asked Mr. Carr to describe some scenarios.
Mr. Carr noted that it was difficult to say year to year what you would have although there were a few things you could count on in transportation and federal funding was one. It was usually pretty consistent. If the system were to grow, he would be looking at adding a Saturday service to Marlboro and they were looking to get some fixed route service into Wayland, Weston, Sudbury that have none. From a transportation perspective they were pleased, but they could do better. They weren’t going to be growing the fixed route system in place. Largely they were going to be concentrating on getting some of the other communities in the RTA on ADA. Natick also needed that. He couldn’t promise the whole service would be fully cooked from 6:00 a.m.-1:00 a.m. seven days a week. To provide that
service required the infrastructure and dispatchers and that cost a lot more than during the day. He reiterated that the MWRTA was looking at the fixed route service for those communities without.
Ms. Van Amsterdam thought the Board needed to be cognizant that this was an RTA and the MWRTA would be addressing the needs of other communities and their disabled riders. She applauded the Natick and Framingham Commissions on Disability for being advocates, but everyone had to be cognizant that when Natick agreed to join the RTA, the Town agreed to be part of a larger group. She didn’t envy Mr. Carr for having to balance all the needs and she thought it behooved the Board to have Mr. Carr come back and report on the broader perspective of what the MWRTA was doing for all disabled persons for towns that were part of this authority.
The Board of Selectmen were elected to represent the citizens of Natick, but it would be good to hear from the other towns in the authority and gain their insight from a broader perspective. She asked about another presentation and both Mr. Carr and Mr. Hughes said they would be happy to do it.
Mr. Carr noted that every community brought its needs to the MWRTA Advisory Board and they worked together.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that the system was still in its infancy and it would always be subsidized. He suggested sending letters to the legislators saying that these needed to be funded appropriately.
Mr. Carr advised that the legislature was the most important funding source and without the efforts of Senator Spilka and Representative Linsky the MWRTA wouldn’t even be in existence. A letter from the Board of Selectmen supporting what Ms. Sherizen had to say would not fall on deaf ears.
John MacGilivray, the Town’s liaison to the Commission on Disability told the Board that Ms. Sherizen was doing an outstanding job advocating for the disabled in Natick. A number serve on The Ride task force and they were looking at many issues including the inequity. They were talking about a web site to get feedback from people using the “T”. He thought that was in the infancy, but a lot was being done to work it out and he thought it would be something Natick/Framingham would be proud of in the not too distant future.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to send a letter to the legislators letting known the concerns of the Commission on Disability. If Framingham wanted to also sign the letter, they were welcome. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR CONSTABLE VACANCY
The Board had received two letters of interest to fill the Constable vacancy left by the death of Sebastian Grupposo – from Kevin Flynn and Paul Nardizzi. Mr. Nardizzi notified the office that he was withdrawing his name from consideration.
Kevin Flynn told the Board that he lived in Natick for 25 years and raised three kids here. For the past 30 years he has been a licensed private investigator and for the past 17 years served as a Constable in Wellesley.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the differences in the positions from community to community and Mr. Flynn responded that they were either elected or appointed. In Wellesley it was appointed. At the time he was appointed his business was also there.
Ms. Gloff noted that she ran into one of the current constables and their comment was that there was a lot of work. She asked Mr. Flynn if he had the time, and he responded that he did, adding that he wouldn’t undertake a venture if he didn’t feel he could do it 100% of the time.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how his business as an investigator played into the role of Constable. Mr. Flynn felt that it played into it. A Constable was a license to conduct a service for which a fee was collected. It was not a public service. Lawyers use Constables to serve papers. The Sheriff’s Office can serve papers but they were truly overburdened.
Ms. Gloff inquired if he was aware of the Charter & By-Laws and what responsibility was given to Natick’s Constables. Mr. Flynn replied the he knew the history and the laws governing a Constable. He was not aware if there was a special by-law and couldn’t imagine what it would be other than posting papers for the Town itself.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to appoint Kevin Flynn as Constable to fill the vacancy left by the death of Sebastian Grupposo until the March 2010 election.
ROSS SIMONS: APPLICATION FOR JUNK DEALERS LICENSE
Before the Board was an application from Ross Simons of Warwick, Inc. d/b/a Ross Simons for a Junk Dealer’s license for their premises at the Natick Collection, 1245 Worcester St. Representing Ross Simons was Mark Dellasandra, General Manager of the Natick Collection store.
Mr. Dellasandra noted that Ross Simons had been in business for 52 years and had junk dealers licenses at other stores including their store in Rhode Island. In Rhode Island they kept logs and filed forms with the Policy Department with a copy to the Attorney General. Here in Natick he was informed they would need to keep logs in the store and submit the log weekly to the Natick Police Department. He assured the Board that the store would follow all the rules and by-laws. The merchandise would be kept at least 10 days before sending it to the corporate office.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the landlord (Natick Collection) had a limit on the number of stores with a junk dealers license. Mr. Dellasandra was not aware of any.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to grant Ross Simons of Warwick, Inc. d/b/a Ross Simons a junk dealers license for premises at 1245 Worcester Street.
JEWEL TIME, INC. D/B/A TIME SQUARE: APPLICATION FOR JUNK DEALERS LICENSE
Representing Jewel Time, Inc. d/b/a Time Square in their application for a Junk Dealers license for premises at the Natick Collection was the owner Kul B. Jain.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to grant Jewel Time, Inc. d/b/a Time Square a Junk Dealers license for premises at the Natick Collection, 1245 Worcester Street.
ATTORNEY GEORGE RICHARDS: VILLAGE AT NATICK CENTER HOOP 2 PROJECT
Mr. Ciccariello announced that Mr. Richards presentation had been moved to the September 21 meeting.
SASSAMON TRACE UPDATE
- Update on Budget and Course Performance
Superintendent of Recreation & Parks Richard Cugini noted that members of the Golf Course Advisory Committee and members of the Supporters of Sassamon Trace were present.
Mr. Cugini reported that for FY09 round-wise the course had the second best year but compared to FY08 it was less. In December early January he met with the Board and the discussion at that time was that the rounds declined and revenues were down. This was typical of many golf courses in the area. Revenues were estimated at $573,517 but were down about $60,000.
In the second half of FY09, a few adjustments were made and revenues increased by $22,000 just over the second half of the season. The Golf Course Manager was able to reduce the operating budget by $66,000 through taking a look at the pay plan, cutting back on electrical costs, judicious use of irrigation, and carefully looking at how the pro shop was stocked. Between the extra $22,000 and the savings of $66,000, Fiscal 2009 finished much better than anticipated when he was in here in December/January.
For Fiscal 2010 Mr. Cugini reported that the first two months were up compared to prior fiscal years in rounds but the out-of-town fee was reduced by $2 so revenues were off by $4,751. The instructional program dropped in July and August. June and July were very wet so it was surprising to have the increase in rounds. On the expense side things were so wet that there was considerable savings in irrigation. This past week $2,500 was spent in water which was the same as this week.
Looking at the fiscal year, revenues weren’t ahead but the expenses were down so it was going on the right curve. People were playing 9 holes vs 18 to save money. He believed some people were very loyal to the course but it would be a constant battle.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if consideration had been given to the 500 additional rounds generating more pro shop revenues and golf cart rentals. Was the $4,700 really dropped revenue or has that been maintained through the carts and food.
Mr. Cugini responded that a little was gained from the carts, but season ticket holders that paid in Fiscal 2009 already paid for the beginning of FY10 and that was a factor as well.
Ms. Gloff believed the $4,700 was the net. Mr. Walters Young added that course revenues through FY10 were $4,751 less than in a comparable timeframe.
Mr. Walters Young recalled that when they last met on the irrigation proposal he took away a series of questions that needed to be answered –legal, environmental, procurement, and feasibility.
Under legal Town Counsel was asked to answer three questions regarding the potential sharing of water from a water resource area on the property of Alex Dowse. Specifically he was asked:
- With the information provided from Mr. Dowse’s attorney and the review of applicable laws, can the Town use water set-aside via a private agricultural exemption for irrigation purposes. Town Counsel’s answer was yes, so long as that irrigation was directly related to the agricultural business conducted on the Dowse property. It was not necessary that the irrigation system exclusively serve the agricultural business conducted on the Dowse property.
- Does the existing lease need to be amended with Mr. Dowse for this agreement to take place? If it does not, what was the proper legal means to enter into this agreement? Town Counsel’s response was any agreement with Mr. Dowse would need to at minimum reference the existing lease. Amending the existing lease would be preferable, and could be done either through a full renegotiation of the existing lease, amending portions of the lease or amending the lease via a separate document.
- What responsibility does the Town have to continue the arrangement regarding the sharing and distribution of water if there is a change in use to Sassamon Trace? Town Counsel advises that the Town should explicitly state that should the course cease to operate, the irrigation system agreed to by this memorandum would end.
There were a number of environmental issues. As staff continued to research the complex issues surrounding this proposal, another concern was raised regarding the Town’s agreement under MEPA for the provision of irrigated water at Sassamon Trace. Although Town staff does not believe that this proposal would invoke a change to the MEPA plan, input should be sought from MEPA as to what was the appropriate method of review. The Town’s Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois has identified five potential options to pursue for review:
- The Town could take no action MEPA. Taken literally the town wasn’t changing MEPA’s amended decision on the allowable source of irrigation water. As long as the Town was compliant within the Agricultural Requirements the argument could be made that the decision was not changing with the supplemental irrigation water from the Dowse Farm and the project could go forward without further MEPA involvement.
- The Town could ask MEPA informally. MEPA could say the Town was all set and nothing was needed.
- The Town could ask MEPA for an advisory opinion. An Advisory opinion could be requested under MEPA’s regulation on whether the use of the supplemental irrigation water was a change needing further MEPA review. MEPA had 20 days to respond to the request which could be a decision for additional information.
- The Town could ask MEPA for a waiver. The request would be based on hardship or avoiding or minimizing damage to the environment. The regulatory process to receive a waiver was significant.
- The Town could submit a Notice of Project Change and request a finding of insignificance. A notice could be submitted with support information the material change of using supplemental irrigation water from the Dowse Farm and request a finding of insignificance from MEPA resulting in the further MEPA review.
To date the staff has not asked MEPA for any sort of review pending approval of the Board of Selectmen to proceed with the project.
The question of procurement raised at the last meeting asked if there were any applicable procurement issues that need to be resolved before entering into this arrangement. The simple answer was no. The procurement laws – namely MGL ch. 30B or 30 s.39M – governing municipal procurement apply for any work performed with Town funds. If the money, labor and time were donated in their entirety by private sources, those improvements did not fall under applicable Mass General Laws. The only portion of the total project which did not fall under procurement laws was that being performed by the private property owner on his property.
On the feasibility, Mr. Walters Young noted that the last memorandum produced by staff reviewed the potential savings of partnering with Mr. Dowse and using water from his resource area to supplement the water used for irrigation at the golf course. Those numbers, however, were preliminary because they were dependent upon visitation by the USDA extension officials to not only evaluate the project but give Mr. Dowse approval. Town staff had raised two primary questions which required the input of the USDA:
- What will limit the town or Mr. Dowse’s use of the water resource area?
- What assurances, if any, can be provided that the projected water quantities will be available in future years?
Mr. Walters Young advised that the USDA has met with Mr. Dowse and given their approval for the creation of the water resource area. Unfortunately, the Staff has not received the documents yet, and, therefore, cannot at this time proceed with a refined analysis or report the USDA’s findings. Staff believed the documents would be received by the Town by tomorrow allowing for review to happen over the next week and a half a refined feasibility and financial analysis ready for the Board’s meeting of September 21.
The recommendation was to allow staff to analyze the USDA documents to answer questions 1 and 2 under feasibility and report back to the Board with findings at the meeting of September 21.
In structuring the negotiation Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to how assurance would be given to the Town of the expectation to receive “x” gallons of water if Dowse came back because of the way the contract was written and said he has increased his planting on his agriculture restricted land and needed more water. How much give and take for that part of the analysis? Who would place the limits on Mr. Dowse and his usage of this water moving forward?
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that she had been through the document prepared many years back. Mr. Dowse and his brother were excellent businessmen and they structured the agreement to definitely benefit them. She wanted to be sure the Town was crafting language to protect the Town.
Mr. Walters Young that it would be subject to the agreement and renegotiation. A lot rests on what the USDA agreement said. If it said that land could produce “x”, the negotiations proceed from that and the Town would have a certain level of water. To him it would be specified in the agreement.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked about Town Counsel’s recommendation with regard to the existing agreement and how he would advise the Town to proceed in terms of language contained in the agreement and whether he believes that should be altered.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that Town Counsel didn’t make a recommendation. Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned if Town Counsel had been asked and who needed to give that direction.
Mr. Walters Young advised that Counsel was asked to inform the administration if the lease had to be amended and if so what was the preferred method? The answer to the first was yes. The opinion was standard in terms of its advice as to what needs to be amended. Cases could be made on both sides. The lease agreement could be amended by an appendix on the other hand they could try to renegotiate the entire lease. That would likely take some time. If the Board had a direction they wished the staff to go, the staff stood ready to fulfill it.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested that MEPA be asked for an advisory opinion now so it would be known ahead of time before entering into negotiations. MEPA’s opinion may impact negotiations and the amount of work Mr. Dowse and the Town had to do. It might impact legal fees. He would rather have something in writing than a discussion over the telephone.
Mr. Walters Young explained that the staff thought waiting to ask for an advisory opinion was prudent until the Board decided to enter into an agreement. If the Board decides to do nothing, a review has been triggered.
Mr. Ciccariello countered that MEPA’s opinion may impact the Board’s decision. He didn’t see any harm in just asking for an opinion.
Regarding the procurement, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the opinion was from Town Counsel or the Procurement Officer. Mr. Walters Young advised that it was chiefly from the Procurement Officer.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that a few years ago when charter schools became popular they were raising private funds and doing renovations to buildings and not doing the public bid process. The ruling came down that even though private sources of funds were being used, the municipality was investing municipal funds to operate the school system and that triggered compliance with public bid laws. He would like a legal opinion on that.
Procurement Officer Christopher Bradley explained that the past practice had been that if the funds were directly provided to the service being provided it was excluded from MGL. That has been his practice. He was not aware of the construction issue with the charter schools.
Mr. Ciccariello requested a legal opinion.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he seconded Mr. Ciccariello’s suggestion of getting an advisory opinion and wanted to get a sense of when it (irrigation plan) would happen. Was there an expectation that this could be done before the irrigation season in the spring or was that unrealistic?
Mr. Walters Young noted that it was September 8 and if things were mobilized with speed, the work may be done in the fall, but the likelihood of seeing any use of this in the last few months of the fiscal year was limited.
Mr. Cugini added that the feasibility had to be checked first. Mr. Dowse’s goal was to do it before freezing. If that didn’t work he would have to wait until spring and catch a dry period.
A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to request an advisory opinion from MEPA. Unanimously voted.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if on the 21st the Board was going to talk about who would be doing the negotiating and how. Would the discussion move forward in terms of the existing agreement and what’s contained in the existing lease agreement play into a negotiating factor? Mr. Ciccariello felt that was a discussion for executive session.
c.Maintenance Contract
Mr. Cugini requested permission to put out an RFP for the maintenance contract of the golf course that exhausts the end of December. He has been working with the Procurement Officer and Town Counsel and would like to get it out as quickly as possible with the hope it would be back in a month. He planned to advertise and contact the 3-4 companies that expressed an interest. Once the responses were returned, the review process would start.
Mr. Ciccariello favored going out for an RFP as he thought it would impact the Board’s decision moving forward and there was no obligation to award a contract.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to authorize the issuance of an RFP for the Sassamon Trace maintenance contract. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Connolly complimented Mr. Walters Young, Mr. Cugini, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Flynn on the thoroughness of the RFP noting that he was impressed with the efforts of Friends of Sassamon Trace, the Advisory Board, and the staff.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who would evaluate the responses and was told by Mr. Cugini there would be a committee of 3-5 similar to the copy center. Probably a member of the Board of Selectmen or Town Administrator, a turf manager, a member of the Golf Course Advisory Committee.
A member of the Friends of Sassamon Trace Barbara Chinetti had offered to take the Board members on a tour of the golf course and Ms. Van Amsterdam was looking forward to it. Mr. Ostroff had taken the tour and thanked Ms. Chinetti for being a great tour guide. He felt the course had become a punching bag because it wasn’t generating the profit anticipated 10 years ago, but the Board had to play the hand it was dealt and move forward. He commended the Friends, the Advisory Committee and Mr. Cugini and his department for providing a great recreational amenity. A few years from now the bonds for construction will be paid off and we will be glad we did what we did.
Following a five minute recess, the meeting was reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
PROCUREMENT OFFICER: AWARD COPY CENTER CONTRACT
Procurement Officer Christopher Bradley advised that the process began in the spring with an RFP. The draft was developed from a previous one. There was a discussion at the department heads meeting and a committee to evaluate the responses to the RFP was formed. After reviewing the proposals and interviewing the companies, the committee ranked the companies. Xerox ranked first followed by Ikon and Oce. After the rankings the price proposals were opened. Xerox was $243,942.53; Ikon $179,175.20; Oce $180,555.00.
The Committee recommends hiring Ikon as the responsible and responsive offeror providing the most advantageous proposal on the basis of evaluation criteria and pricing. The Town had experience with Ikon as the contract for the last six years.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to how the price compared to what the Town has been paying and Mr. Bradley responded that it was a little more but included in the price was toner and staples for which we now spend $7,000-$12,000.
Mr. Ciccariello asked what’s in the budget and Ms. White explained that it was split among the departments. Each department paid for what they utilized.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked if price proposals were received for the two additional one year extensions and Mr. Bradley said yes. Xerox remained the same for the second two years; Ikon went up each of the following two years but that would be subject to negotiation for each. The Town was not obligated beyond the first year.
Ms. White advised that Town Counsel had reviewed the contract.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to award the Facility Management Services contract to Ikon for the nine month period of September 1, 2009-June 30, 2010 in an amount not to exceed $179,175.29 with an option to extend the contract for up to two one year periods.
NATICK ELKS: APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE
Representing the Natick Elks was the manager Arthur Hurst.
Mr. Hurst noted that the Elks had a club license that allowed them to run functions for the purpose of raising money for charity and allowed them to serve alcohol to members and their guests. The club had a luau coming up for club members. Ticket sales were lagging and the suggestion was made to open it up to the public. Without consulting him (Mr. Hurst) an ad was run in the paper. While he couldn’t guarantee no one from the public would be there, he assured the Board that steps would be taken that it didn’t happen again.
Mr. Ciccariello referenced an opinion from Attorney David DeLuca of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane advising that an entertainment license would be required for this event.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to grant the Natick Lodge #1425 of the Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks an entertainment license for a Hawaiian Luau to be held on September 21, 2009 on the premises at 95 Speen Street.
COMPTROLLER QUARTERLY REPORT
Town Comptroller Charles Panagopoulos noted that he had prepared a memo telling the Board how things were going and running in the Comptroller’s office.
A new Payroll Clerk was hired and she was performing really well and picked up a lot of things from his staff person. The intent was to have the Payroll Clerk work out of the Treasurer’s Office in 2-3 weeks. She was still in the Comptroller’s Office to learn the School summer payroll process.
The part-time Accounts Payable person was working out excellently but she started July 1 which was a crazy time with the fiscal year end. She was learning a lot and was a good asset to the department.
Mr. Panagopoulos continued that since the last few months things have been implemented. There have been a lot of changes in the office, but nothing was perfect. Considering the staff and where they were with the audit, he thought they were ahead of schedule and thought things looked good. He was never satisfied but would be satisfied when everything was complete and the books were closed and certified.
Mr. Panagopoulos emphasized that his staff was wonderful and their work ethic was above and beyond. He couldn’t ask for anything more out of them.
Ms. Van Amsterdam commented on the need to schedule a meeting with the Audit Committee and Mr. Panagopoulos said he preferred to do it as soon as possible.
Noting that the certification of free cash was scheduled for October 20, Mr. Ostroff asked if that was on target and what turnaround time did the DOR need. Mr. Panagopoulos couldn’t imagine the DOR taking any more time than with Schedule A. That took about 1-1/2 weeks. He hoped to have free cash certified by October 20, not submitted.
Mr. Panagopoulos explained that Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) was a brand new accounting standard that every state and municipality had to implement this year. Right now it was looked at one year at a time, but GASB 45 requires that instead of one year the Town has to report the accrued liability on the balance sheet. The bad part was looking at the number which was $118,478,809 for the entire accrued liability. The good news was that it has always been there. The difference was that the number would now be seen on the statements and that number will continue to grow every year.
The Town was faced with how to control that number – should a trust fund be set up and money set aside. Right now Natick was in compliance with the reporting requirement. Eventually state and local governments may be required to have a funding plan but right now the focus was just on the language of the law and that was reporting.
Mr. Ostroff thought it was perhaps 1-1/2 years ago that the Town Administrator mentioned this as a potential funding obligation that at some point the Town would have to set aside funds to meet the obligation.
Mr. Panagopoulos agreed, but reiterated that for now it was just a matter of reporting but that may change.
Mr. Ostroff noted that a couple of months ago he was testifying in support of two home rule petitions and preceding him was Brookline talking about their plans for funding OPEB. Some communities have begun to do that.
Mr. Panagopoulos felt that the Town shouldn’t have to wait for another law to say you had to look at funding. The Town should look at it now so when it came out there was a plan in place. He would meet with the Town Administrator, Deputy Town Administrator and Treasurer.
Ms. Gloff commented that no one envisioned this would be a situation where someone would say the Town needed to come up with the $118 million on the spot. It would be more like funding the pension fund.
Mr. Connolly asked about the number and Mr. Panagopoulos advised that in FY09 it was $7 million. In FY10 it was $15 million for what had to be paid every year but the $118 million represents what the Town would have to pay for future employees and retirees.
Asked if the Town had these funds, Ms. White responded that the obligation has always existed and the Town had to fund the health care costs for current and future retirees. GASB45 now requires the Town to figure out how large the liability was and put a number to it, but the obligation has always been there. It was not a new liability just now the Town was required to report the size of it.
Mr. Connolly interpreted that to mean it was a paper trail and Ms. White agreed that was true so far but there was a concern that at some point forward funding that liability may be mandated to catch up. Even if there wasn’t ever a requirement to fund the liability there was a concern now that the liability had to be shown how the bond rating agencies would view it. Would there be a negative impact which was why some communities have taken steps to pay down the liability and she thought it was something for the Town to look at when in a better position.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
Russell Brown told the Board that Tracking #327834 in a report issued by MacTech Engineering talked about a spill of mineral oil into Lake Cochituate and showed where it started and where it went out into the Lake. However, the catch basin system didn’t go to the Lake from that side of the property. It went into the MWRA water system on that side of the property. There was only one catch basin system on the property that worked. It was inside the boiler room. Last May there were 4,000 gallons of motor oil inside used to lubricate the machinery.
The report described the transformers were broken into, but Mr. Brown advised that it wasn’t broken into and the oil was not mineral oil from the transformer because the catch basin didn’t go into the Lake. The catch basin that went into the Lake was in the boiler room where there was a huge storage of oil and then it was gone. They cleaned the area with rages and dumped the oil to get rid of it into the catch basin and it went into the Lake. It was a criminal act. It filled up the entire Pegan Cove with oil and did a number on the wildlife. The slick travelled all the way through the system and travelled through all three lakes.
Mr. Brown stated that he was furious with the way it was covered up. There was a very large conspiracy involving the Town of Natick, DEP, MacTech, and Natick Paperboard. The oil that went into the Lake was the 4,000 gallons he saw sitting there one day. No one did anything when the Cove was filled with oil. Nothing got done and it was a disgrace.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if this happened recently, and Mr. Brown responded that the dump took place in May of last year. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked about Mr. Brown’s concern and he replied that it was illegal and it was ignored. The Newark Group had the audacity to think they could flush this thing in the direction they want it to go.
Ms. White advised that she had met with Mr. Brown before going on vacation and spent many hours looking into the concerns raised. There was indication that the boons were put into place. The volume was not the 4,000 gallons but there was some concern with the property. She went out there with the Environmental Compliance Officer and Fire Chief to look at the catch basin to see where the release originated; however, they didn’t get that far in the site visit because they found an active fire on the property. There was a deliberately set fire in one of the buildings. The Fire Chief was working with the Newark Group to get the property better secured because it was not well secured. There was a release but it didn’t appear to be a 4,000 gallon release. It doesn’t appear that the
boons were installed and it appears that it was mineral oil.
Mr. Brown responded that there were 17 containers each containing 250 gallons of oil which was about 4,000 gallons. The Newark Group admitted it was there in 2005 and admitted that it was cleaned up, but they never got a permit. They simply dumped it and it was motor oil not mineral oil. He saw it and the next day he looked in there and it was gone.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if this was being taken any further, and Ms. White advised that the next step was to try to locate the manifest for the oil barrels.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked Ms. White if she had talked to the Town Engineer on the drainage and Ms. White said no, adding that they were looking inside the building and discovered the fire and left the property for the Fire Department to do their work. She was still working on this with the Environmental Compliance Officer.
Mr. Connolly noted that Mr. Brown had given him a letter with his suggestions and he forwarded that to the Fire Chief. He (Mr. Connolly) would like to be able to separate the rumors from the facts and asked that the topic be made an agenda item.
Stanley Cohen told the Board that when the Veterans Council appeared before the Board a few weeks ago on the Viet Nam Moving Wall he made a statement in error and would like to correct it. Any money left over would not be utilized by the Natick Veterans. Any money left over would go to Washington, DC Viet Nam Moving Wall.
Michael Williams noted that he had known Mr. Connolly for eons, but never knew anybody else in the Selectmen’s office until he decided to open the After School Workshop. At the time his thought process told him there was a need for the teenagers to have something to do. He got an entertainment license and spent $15,000 to get it going, but his Dad got real sick and he shut it down. His license came back before the Board for renewal and he could have paid the 2009 fee to renew and stayed open and nobody would have known the difference. The Board told him his previous license was now void because it was past the January 1 timeframe for renewal and to get another license he would have to do all the paperwork over again.
Mr. Williams noted that Mr. Ostroff told him it would be a moot point because he (Mr. Ostroff) wouldn’t have voted for it anyway.
Mr. Ostroff interjected that he had no problem with Mr. Williams saying whatever he wanted to say but he would need to respond.
Mr. Williams continued that the first time he came before the Board he was impressed with the process but he did not like the way the Board did business sometimes; i.e. the McDonald’s franchise that was held hostage.
In an attempt to get to the point Mr. Ciccariello asked a series of questions to which Mr. Williams responded that he had a sign permit and that he needed a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Ciccariello thought Mr. Williams’ present use was retail to sell billiard tables and pool tables and that a certificate of occupancy wouldn’t be issued because what he was proposing was the same type of use. Mr. Williams advised that was not correct and that he received a certificate of occupancy at the same time as he was shut down. Mr. Ciccariello requested a copy.
Mr. Williams expressed his frustration that this was his whole point. When people came into his place no one asked him any questions. He was legal in Natick to do business. He didn’t understand why he was shut down.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that Mr. Williams was a training center. Products were sold and as a by-product he (Mr. Williams) trained people how to use the product. If the decision was made to do an entertainment center where other individuals were brought in to occupy under an assembly use group, that couldn’t be done in the present form.
Mr. Williams responded that he had talked to the Building Inspector and was told it was under 50 people. Mr. Ciccariello clarified that Mr. Williams could train people on the use of the product, but he couldn’t do a Texas Hold em.
When asked if he wanted to use the facility as a recreation center, Mr. Williams’ reply was not now because the building didn’t have sprinklers. He (Mr. Williams) believed he got railroaded and didn’t like it when a member of the Board of Selectmen came in and the Chief of Police asks him to shut down because the Board of Selectmen had some concerns. He questioned why he wasn’t put on the agenda, and Mr. Ciccariello responded that he told Mr. Connolly that he (Mr. Williams) could come under Citizens Concerns.
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young advised that he informed Mr. Williams on Friday that he was not on the agenda, but could come under Citizens Concerns.
Mr. Williams noted that right now he was a training center because of the sprinkler system but it was legal to have people come down and learn how to play the game. Mr. Ciccariello clarified that if somebody was purchasing the product they could be trained in the use, but Mr. Williams couldn’t have kids or adults come in and suggest he was training them.
Ms. White pointed out that some of the handouts talk about tournaments, but Mr. Williams countered that the Town stopped him.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello what he wanted to use the building for, Mr. Williams responded that he wanted to do a non-profit thing but couldn’t because of the sprinklers. He had to try to eke out a living and was going to have a training center but now he was being told he was shut down because of the assembly use. He questioned why people across the street from him could give music lessons.
Mr. Ciccariello explained there was a difference between an assembly use and training and he (Mr. Ciccariello) would be glad to meet with Mr. Williams and the Building Commissioner to walk through the building code. As far as being on the agenda, when he got the information from Ms. Challis, he (Mr. Ciccariello) said it would be too difficult to this on the agenda and would be easier to come to Citizens Concerns. He (Mr. Ciccariello) immediately called the Building Department and talked to the Inspector in the afternoon. Mr. Ciccariello reiterated his offer to set up a meeting to work with Mr. Williams so there was a clear understanding of what he could do in the building.
Mr. Ostroff wanted the members of the Board and the public to know that part of being an official was at times people say things with which you disagree. He noted that he considered everything that came before the Board on its merits and in the best interest of the community and he took issue with what Mr. Williams said. If Mr. Williams wanted to get together with him, he would be glad to do it. After the article was published he went there and was concerned about some things that were being said and chatted with a member of the Police Department, but they were doing their own investigation.
FY 2010 CAPITAL PLAN UPDATE
Ms. White noted that the Charter & By-Laws required an update of the capital plan to the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee at this time. An updated plan was provided to the Board along with a series of proposals for funding she would recommend for the upcoming Fall Town Meeting.
Ms. White advised that this was a work in progress and the administration would continue to work with department heads to prioritize. She had heard from a couple of the department heads that their priorities were different than put forward. It was likely that changes would be seen. Another critical element was free cash certification as that would strongly govern what would be put forth at Town Meeting.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if there was anything in the capital plan about improving the lighting in the crosswalk. Ms. White advised that there was not adding that it was a $10,000 threshold and she wasn’t sure it would arise to that level. Ms. Van Amsterdam suggested that the Wellesley system on Route 16 be looked at as it worked extremely well.
Mr. Ostroff noted that he had been working with the Safety Committee on a couple of ideas. The Safety Committee was meeting on September 15 and hopefully Mr. Connolly and he could attend. They (Mr. Ostroff and Mr. Connolly) worked with Lt. Lauzon and Community Development Director Patrick Reffett to identify some short and long-term changes to be made in the downtown – maybe changing some parking, new paint and looking at some signalized upgrades. There were plans for a signal at this intersection but it ended up not happening. He would report back to the Board on September 21.
Mr. Connolly noted that he had been complaining about this for 3-4 years. Mr. Ostroff, Lt. Lauzon, Mr. Reffett and he went out and talked about different things that could be done. They talked about LED signs and he was pleased to see them. With the Police out front and starting to write tickets, Mr. Connolly thought that would work and he thought there had been an effort to send the message.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF FINANCIAL SUMMIT
Ms. White informed the Board of the plan to have the financial summit be an annual event to provide information on the Town’s financial situation prior to Fall Town Meeting and commencement of the fall budget process. This year’s event would be held on September 16 at the Library. It was another attempt to provide information to the community about the Town’s finances.
Ms. White noted that the summit was important to the administration. They would be looking at trends. How have the indicators changed over the last 10 years and were we on a good trend or a bad trend and looking at comparisons with other communities. She hoped to have a good turnout from the community, members of boards and committees and the Board of Selectmen.
Rather than each individual board or committee doing a posting it was suggested that the Selectmen’s office do one blanket notice for all boards and committees.
Mr. Ostroff asked about posting all the information on the web site. Ms. White advised that all information would be posted on the web site, but she hadn’t figured out the timing whether it would be in advance of the event. The event will be taped by Natick Pegasus.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
With the number of articles to be considered, Mr. Ciccariello proposed adding a few meeting dates.
Ms. Gloff suggested a day time meeting. There were 28 articles put forth by the Charter & By-Law Review Committee and since she was the Chair of the CBRC she would probably be answering the Board’s questions.
Mr. Ostroff raised the possibility of piggy backing on the Finance Committee. All those meetings were posted to have members of the Board in attendance. The Finance Committee will have dozens of hours of hearings and he wondered if the Board had to make a recommendation on every article. At Town Meeting often the Board said little or nothing on the article and if the Board was going to have a hearing he would like to see a more constructive role at Town Meeting.
Ms. Gloff noted there will be nine Finance Committee meetings and while she would be attending a lot of them as the Chair of CBRC, having the Selectmen join them would put her in an awkward position. Because the Board of Selectmen was the executive board of the Town she felt some independence should be maintained. She didn’t have a problem posting the meetings so members could attend the Finance Committee hearings but personally she would rather not see the Board join them in their discussion.
Mr. Ostroff appreciated Ms. Gloff’s point and withdrew his suggestion.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board didn’t get up on the floor at Town Meeting because it wasn’t their job but Town Meeting was made aware of whether the Board supported or didn’t support the article.
Mr. Ostroff questioned the point of the Selectmen’s recommendation. Ms. Van Amsterdam agreed with not becoming part of the Finance Committee process, but also agreed with Mr. Ostroff that the Board should speak as a Board. If the Board was not in support of an article, Town Meeting should know why.
Ms. White agreed that while not on everything, there were articles where the Board should express and explain their position to Town Meeting.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would have some further discussions with the Moderator.
The Board agreed to move the start time of the meeting of September 21 from 7:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and to schedule a meeting for 7:30 p.m. on September 24, 2009.
Sergeant Robert Dunlop, President of the Superior Officers, told the Board that he was speaking on behalf of both the Superior Officers and the Patrolmen groups. He wanted to be sure all members got the letter presented to the Board on the attempt to remove the Chief’s position from Civil Service again and he would like to see everyone work together to develop whatever options or plans were available. Their (unions) belief was to get the best chief was to go open and competitive with the text tailored for Natick.
Mr. Ostroff noted that he provided some information about Article 15 on the transfer of the Town Forest to Conservation Commission and would be meeting with the Town Forest Committee on Thursday. He had received some information from Town Counsel on the state statute relative to actions Town Meeting could take.
The other article he proposed relates to restaurant parking. The Community Development Director and he put together a recommendation and would present that to the Board at the September 21 meeting and bring it to the Planning Board on September 23.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to approve the warrant for the Fall Town Meeting. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff wasn’t sure he would have time to put something together on the Natick 360 report but would try unless someone else wanted to do something. After Town Meeting he suggested convening a meeting of the sponsoring boards.
Ms. White offered to take a stab at identifying the actions taken by the Board in the Natick 360. The financial summit was one and she thought there were a number of other items.
COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CONTRACT REVISION
Mr. Ostroff requested the Board’s consideration of amending the contract for the Cochituate Rail Trail conceptual design contract from the authorized $29,700 to $30,000. There was some confusion at the bidder’s conference over the performance payment bonds.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to reconsider the vote regarding the contract award for the Cochituate Rail Trail conceptual design contract. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to amend the contract with Fay, Spofford and Thorndike to $30,000. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to how much was left in the Mall mitigation funds, and Mr. Ostroff responded that originally it was $500,000. Town Meeting appropriated $130,000 and with this contract about $50,000 had been spent.
MINUTES
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2009 meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the February 2, 2009 meeting.
REQUEST FOR BLOCK PARTY: WABAN STREET
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve Sharon Lesher’s request to close Waban Street between Pitts Street and Nelson Court on September 20, 2009 from 2:00-6:00 p.m. for a block party.
ST. PATRICK’S PUBLIC ROSARY RALLY: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve Joanne O’Brien’s request to use the Common on October 10, 2009 from 1:00-3:00 p.m. for a public rosary rally.
EL SHADDAI BAPTIST CHURCH: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the El Shaddai Baptist Church’s request to use the Common on September 26 and October 24, 2009 for a church gathering. The approval was conditioned upon compliance with the policies governing the use of the Common and the payment of the $110.00 fee for each day.
TCAN: REQUEST TO OCCUPY THE SIDEWALK
Mr. Ostroff disclosed that he was a member of The Center for Arts in Natick with a statement on file. Both Ms. Van Amsterdam and Ms. Gloff stated that they were members of TCAN with no financial interest.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve The Center for Arts in Natick’s request to erect a 15’wide by 50’ tent in front of 14 Summer Street on October 3-4, 2009 for the annual gala subject to compliance with Safety Officer’s recommendation. Also approved was the blocking of the three parking spaces in front of TCAN while the tent was erected.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
- Veterans Services Officer
Ms. White informed the Board that Veterans Services Officer John MacGilivray had resigned and accepted a similar position with the City of Newton. As of yet she did not have a plan to put forward to the Board to fill the position. There could be a couple of options and she would like to come back to the Board. The resignation was effective September 21 so an interim appointment would need to be made.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that Wellesley and Needham were considering sharing an officer and he wondered if Natick could participate. Ms. White noted that those discussions had been underway for quite awhile.
- Chief Mannix’ Retirement Donations
Ms. White reported that acknowledgement had been received from the Natick Service Council of over $500 donated in honor of Chief Dennis Mannix’ retirement.
Ms. White advised that the Town received a grant through the Green Communities assistance planning program. This made the Town more competitive for a whole host of various grants.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
- Jewish War Veterans Ceremony
At a previous meeting Arnold Pinsley told the Board he anticipated a big crowd at the Jewish War Veterans ceremony scheduled for September 13. Mr. Connolly suggested that he could follow up with Safety Officer Lt. Lauzon to see if something could be worked out. There were no objections raised to Mr. Connolly having that discussion.
- Overrides – High School and Community/Senior Center
Mr. Connolly asked if the citizens were going to vote on the new high school and community/senior center in March.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that would occur if the Board of Selectmen voted to put the question(s) on the ballot.
Mr. Connolly was of the opinion that Nstar was thumbing their noses at the Board. He visited with Ms. White some time ago concerning a pole on Speen Street, but hadn’t heard from Nstar. This pole wasn’t just a nuisance. It was a safety concern.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that Nstar was doing work on Indian Ridge and given the Glen Street was just repaved she assumed they weren’t coming onto Glen.
Ms. White advised that that was her understanding. Apparently Indian Ridge experienced frequent power outages and Nstar had a plan to address that.
Ms. Van Amsterdam advised that the Expense Control Task Force went through the ambulance study document and was meeting with the Deputy Town Administrator and Fire Chief on Friday.
- West Natick Parking Garage
Mr. Ostroff reported that he had attended the Framingham Board of Selectmen meeting and they agreed to send a letter to the State in support of the West Natick parking garage. In return they asked for a letter of support for the Route 126/135 project. In 2006 the Board of Selectmen appointed someone to a study committee to help resolve that bottleneck and Mr. Ostroff said he would follow up to find out what was going on. William May, Natick’s representative, was in touch with Framingham and the Board may hear back from him soon.
Mr. Ostroff advised that he was in Boston today at the MMA where there was a discussion about the special election to fill Senator Kennedy’s seat. It was likely the Legislature would pass a law allowing the Town to put questions on the ballot.
- Home Rule Petition Status
Mr. Ostroff reported that the home rule petitions for the Eliot School and the parking fund had made it to the Senate and should be signed in a week or two.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
__________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
