Town of Natick - selectmen's minutes 6/11/01

BOARD OF SELECTMEN

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Charles M. Hughes at 6:30 p.m.

PRESENT: Charles M. Hughes, Jeffrey A. Stern, Jay H. Ball, John Ciccariello. Absent: Paul R. McKinley

ALSO PRESENT: Frederick C. Conley, Town Administrator left at 7:20 p.m.; Paul E. Cohen, Deputy Town Administrator, Donna Challis, Secretary;

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on June 11, 2001 in the amount of $1,310,423.16. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $31,494.53.

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Stern, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to compensation of nonunion personnel, and real property. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:30 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.

Mr. Hughes announced that Natick had been designated as a No Place For Hate Town, and he would like to thank Joining Hands for Peace and everyone who worked hard for this to occur. There was a document that had to be signed and returned certifying that Natick accepts the designation of being a No Place to Hate, and he was looking for authorization to sign the document on behalf of the Town.

Mr. Ball so moved. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

With corrections, Mr. Ball moved approval of the minutes of the April 23, 2001 minutes. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

ROBERT RAISCH, TUCKER STREET: BLOCK PARTY

On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to approve Robert Raisch’s request to close Tucker Street on June 16, 2001 (rain date June 17th) for a block party.

CONFIRMATION OF TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello moved to confirm the Town Administrator’s appointment of the following to the Golf Course Oversight Committee:

Edward Salamoff for a term to expire 6/30/04

Barbara Chinetti for a term to expire 6/30/03

Peter Garland for a term to expire 6/30/03

Michael Dank for a term to expire 6/30/02

David Baier for a term to expire 6/30/02

Mr. Conley informed the Board that Lucy McKinley does not wish to be reappointed to the Personnel Board. He proposed the reappointment of Maureen Fessenden for a term to expire 6/30/04 and Edward Jones for a term to expire 6/30/04. Mr. Ball moved to confirm those two reappointments to the Personnel Board. Seconded by Mr. Stern and unanimously voted.

Mr. Conley recommended the re-appointment of Deputy Town Administrator Paul Cohen to June 30, 2004. Since Mr. Conley’s term expires as of June 30, 2002, Mr. Hughes questioned why Mr. Conley did not want the two appointments to run together. Mr. Conley responded that that was what was done historically and only got out of kilter because of Mr. Rourke leaving during the term. He (Mr. Conley) had no objection to doing either one (appointment to 2002 or 2004).

Mr. Ball stated that he had a problem with co-terminus appointments. Not having them co-terminus adds a sense of stability if one officer is unable to serve, the other was still under contract.

CONFIRMATION OF TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S APPOINTMENTS (contd)

A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, to confirm Paul Cohen’s appointment as Deputy Town Administrator for a term to expire June 30, 2004. Unanimously voted.

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Stern, moved to confirm Sarkis Sarkisian’s appointment as Planning Director for a term to expire June 30, 2004. Unanimously voted.

On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Stern, the Board unanimously voted to confirm Mr. Conley’s appointment of Robert Palmer as Treasurer/Collector for a term to expire June 30, 2004.

INTERVIEW FOR COUNCIL ON AGING: DINO TRUBIANO

Dino Trubiano told the Board that he had lived in Natick since 1958. He raised his family here, coached soccer, worked in a nursing home, and was interested in working on the Council of Aging.

Mr. Ball moved to appoint Dino Trubiano to the Council on Aging. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

ELIZABETH BRANSFIELD: UPDATE MBTA ADVISORY BOARD

Elizabeth Bransfield, Natick’s representative to the MBTA Advisory Board, gave the Board an update on the MBTA.

She advised that in 1999 the Legislature created a new MBTA declaring the area constituting the authority and the inhabitants there ...”a political subdivision of the Commonwealth” with concomitant powers as specified in the bill. This increased the size from 78 to 175 cities and towns. To manage this Authority is a 9 member Board of Directors that is chaired by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Transportation & Construction. The other 8 members are appointed by the Governor for 2-year terms.

The directors appointed by the Governor are comprised of: l) selected from a list provided by the Mayor of Boston; l) selected from a list provided by the executive officers; 1) selected from a list provided by the 14 inner cities excluding Boston; 1) selected from a list provided

by MAPC on behalf of the outer 51 cities and towns. One member must be an experienced in environmental protection and one in consumer protection.

Ms. Bransfield advised that the change which has the greatest impact n the new MBTA is its creation as an independent authority. The budget is submitted to the Advisory Board of the Authority which is made up of a representative of each of the 175 cities and towns. The chief elected official is designated as the community’s representative, but a designee may be named.

Ms. Bransfield continued that each municipality has one vote plus fractions of votes which are equivalent to its weighted proportion of the vote. The weighted vote changes from year-to-year. The Advisory Board approves the MBTA budget or reduces budget items as the Board deems appropriate, approves the program for Mass Transportation and its revisions, reviews the authority’s annual capital investment program, and receives notice of proposed fare changes of 10% or more or a decrease in system wide service of 10% or more.

The Authority’s sources of funding come from: fares, assessment, 20% of sales tax but not less than $645 million, non-fare income such as advertising sales. The total assessment is expected to decrease to not less than $136,026,868 by FY2006 and after FY 2006 the total assessment shall be adjusted each July by the increase in inflation over preceding 12 months, but no increase can exceed 2.5% over the previous year.

Natick’s FY 2002 assessment is $802,905.00 down $43,487 or 5.14% from FY 2001. Natick’s weighted vote is 2.1243 out of 375 total votes.

Mr. Ball inquired as to what benefits the Town derives from the $802,000 besides the commuter rail. Ms. Bransfield responded that in the proposed capital improvement, the garage is mentioned again with Natick providing the land and getting 140 parking spaces with the rest going to the “T”. The Ride is a T program, and the Town gets the benefit of the Neighborhood Bus system with the MBTA paying up to $65,000-70,000.

ELIZABETH BRANSFIELD: UPDATE MBTA ADVISORY BOARD (contd)

Mr. Hughes asked about the mention of the garage, and Ms. Bransfield noted that it was shown as things for the future. There was no timeframe and it was the last item.

DESIGN SELECTION COMMITTEE: SENIOR CENTER

The Board advertised for four citizens to serve on the Design Selection Committee to review the RFPs for architectural services for the senior center. Letters of interest was received from five applicants.

A motion was made by Mr. Ball to expand the committee to eight. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

The Board interviewed Louise Mearian, Dorothea Cappola, and Bruce Wright who all expressed their interest in serving on the committee. Mysore Ravindra was attending another meeting in the building and unable to leave that meeting. Lucille Belmore had a prior commitment and could not attend.

A motion was made to appoint Louise Mearina, Dorothea Cappola, Bruce Wright, Mysore Ravindra, Lucille Belmore to the Design Selection Committee for the Senior Center. Seconded by Mr. Stern and unanimously voted. The other members of the Committee were John Ciccariello representing the Board of Selectmen, Fay D’Avignon representing the Council on Aging, and Diana Ryder as the Director of the Senior Center.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE DESIGN SELECTION COMMITTEE

Chairman of the Golf Course Advisory Committee and a member of the Clubhouse Design Selectmen Committee, Edward Salamoff, reported that six proposals had been received from architects for designer services for the construction of the golf course clubhouse and maintenance buildings. They chose to interview four, but one backed out leaving three. At the completion of the interviews, the committee unanimously agreed on the following ranking:

Weaver & Associates Architects

Daniel Architects, Inc.

Line Company Architects

In the interviews each company was asked to comment on the schedule, on the design and on the budgets. The geotechnical report was reviewed so that it was understood that there was a lot of peat and soft ground. Also discussed was the staff to be assigned to this project, their experience, and workload.

Dr. Salamoff gave special thanks to committee members Frank Pepi and Mysore Ravindra for their architectural expertise and asking the right questions.

Mr. Cohen noted that this was an RFP situation. The firms were listed in order of preference and then a contract was negotiated with the top. If an agreement could not be reached, it would then go to the second.

Mr. Hughes recalled that the proposed fee was $70,000, and Mr. Cohen confirmed that as correct.

Andrew Weaver, the president of Weaver & Associates, was introduced. Mr. Weaver thanked the committee and Mr. Cohen and said he looked forward to working with the committee and the Town. It was an exciting project and very doable.

Mr. Hughes noted that the flyers in the back of the RFP showing the golf courses Weaver & Associates had worked on seemed to be palaces, but the Town was kind of limited in terms of funds and location. He asked if Mr. Weaver thought he could design something that would fit with the location and funds available.

Mr. Weaver’s response was, ‘absolutely’, adding that he had done a number of projects with tight budgets. He understood that for Natick this was an important project and it was important to balance budget concerns with the quality. Mr. Weaver stated that he was excited to work with the committee to make this function as efficiently as possible and build within the parameters given.

Mr. Ciccariello moved to approve the rankings of the Selection Committee and authorize the administration to negotiate a contract with

RECOMMENDATIONS OF GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE DESIGN SELECTION COMMITTEE (contd)

Weaver & Associates Architects. Seconded by Mr. Stern and unanimously voted.

TNRC: 55 MIDDLESEX AVENUE

Barry Cluff, Principal of TNRC, presented the Board with a request to assign his rights under the Purchase & Sales agreement for the purchase of 55 Middlesex Avenue to Stephen McComisky. Mr. Cohen noted that an opinion had been received from Town Counsel that Mr. Cluff can transfer his rights if written permission is given by the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Cluff explained that the reason for his request to assign the property was because it no longer fits his needs.

Mr. Hughes asked if the intention was to assign the P&S at the same purchase price. Mr. Cluff’s response was, ‘yes’.

It was Mr. Hughes’ recollection that this piece of property was purchased for parking and as a result of this purchase the Board voted to waive certain parking requirements for development on Summer Street. He (Mr. Hughes) questioned how assignment of the P&S affected the waiver.

Mr. Cluff responded that the project for which it (55 Middlesex Ave) intended was dead. That prompted Mr. Hughes to ask if the Board should reconsider the waiver and have Mr. Cluff come back again when he (Mr. Cluff) had something else. In response Mr. Cluff noted that the Board had waived 25% of the required parking for the Summer Street building. The ZBA decision (for Summer Street) was contingent upon him following through and purchasing this land and dedicate it (55 Middlesex Avenue) to parking. That building (Summer Street) is dead.

Mr. Cohen commented that this assignment would void the ZBA permit for the Summer Street property. Mr. Cluff concurred that that was essentially correct.

Mr. Hughes pointed out that the new purchaser was the second highest bidder.

Mr. Stern asked if the assignee would be able to perform on the time specified. Mr. Cluff’s response was, ‘yes’.

Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Cluff was making arrangements over the deposit, and Mr. Cluff advised that it was all taken care of.

Mr. Ciccariello was concerned about the purchase price being the same as the bid price, but Mr. Hughes noted that the Town was selling the property and Mr. Cluff was just assigning the P&S to Mr. McComisky.

A motion was made by Mr. Stern to approve the assignment of the P&S between the Town and TNRC for the purchase of 55 Middlesex Avenue to T. Steven McComisky. Seconded by Mr. Ball and after some discussion unanimously voted.

In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ball asked if he were correct that this was the property the Board agreed to sell to Mr. Cluff because in

part it would provide him an opportunity to provide parking for Summer Street. Mr. Cluff responded that the two were not initially connected. The bid was January 12th and at that time he did not have anybody’s approval to do anything. Subsequent to becoming the high bidder, he chose to dedicate the land to parking for a proposed building on Summer Street and in so doing enhanced the application before the ZBA and the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Ball commented that the decision of the Board to sell the property was independent of the Summer Street project. Mr. Hughes confirmed that as being correct.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that this project came before the Planning Board through a comment process and it was suggested to the applicant that the Planning Board would never support the parking with the parking proposed in the original concept. He thought that Mr. Cluff probably knew when he attempted to buy the property that he would use it (Middlesex Ave) for that purpose. Mr. Ciccariello questioned why the

TNRC: 55 MIDDLESEX AVENUE (contd)

bidder couldn’t buy the property and then sell it to the person he would like to assign it to.

Mr. Cluff responded that there were transaction fees which can be eliminated by the assignment which he believed was the purpose of paragraph 26(a).

To Mr. Stern’s inquiry as to who would hold the money, Mr. Cluff advised that the Town holds the assignee’s money, but the Town already had the money from him (Mr. Cluff) in the bank. If Mr. McComisky doesn’t show up on June 23 with the balance, there was no closing. The Town has $5,100 of his (Mr. Cluff’s) money which stays with the Town no matter what. There was no risk to the Town.

Mr. Hughes requested an opinion from John Flynn regarding the parking waiver and have Mr. Cluff come back at another meeting to discuss that issue.

SAFETY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Police Chief Dennis Mannix, Chairman of the Safety Committee, reviewed the recommendations from the committee’s May 8, 2001 meeting.

The Committee continued its discussion of the safety recommendations of the Charles Street residents and recommended adoption of the plan and that the Selectmen work with DPW Director Charles Sisitsky and Natick DPW to seek a funding source for the improvements.

A. Richard Miller discussed the upcoming bicycle safety week and suggested a bicycle safety awareness campaign including re-emphasis of the Police Department’s bicycle registration program. Chief Mannix indicated that he would discuss the matters with the Community Services Division Commander and make recommendations.

John Manning, Deputy to the Soldier Systems Commander for Installation Management questioned the lane markings on Kansas Street from the main gate to Route 27. Sergeant Davis explained the three-lane markings, and Mr. Manning understood and was satisfied that they should remain as marked.

The committee received a complaint from Stanton Healy, Chief Operating Officer of DogWatch on Michigan Drive that access to his company’s loading dock was being blocked by cars parked on Michigan Drive.

The Committee’s recommendation was to establish NO PARKING zones on Michigan Drive by placing signs in the following areas:

On the north side of Michigan Drive, 430 feet east of the intersection of Oak Street and Michigan Drive

On the north side of Michigan Drive, 520 feet east of the intersection of Oak Street and Michigan Drive

On the south side of Michigan Drive, 435 feet east of the intersection of Oak Street and Michigan Drive

On the south side of Michigan Drive, 500 feet east of the intersection of Oak Street and Michigan Drive

Mr. Ball moved approval of the placement of NO PARKING signs as recommended. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

Kinsman Place resident Thomas Carr expressed concern over the Board’s action of May 21 with regard to Charles Street. As he watched the meeting on TV he agreed that with the information presented it seemed to be a no-brainer and that action needed to be taken to make it a safer neighborhood. However, in considering it he was concerned about the long-term ramifications of the Board taking action to address the concerns of three residents in a quick way at the expense of other projects.

Mr. Carr stated that he was also concerned about the ramifications to his street. Charles Street was essentially the same for the last 30 years. It has sidewalks. Cars go up it, but people knew that when they bought there. Kinsman Place gives access to Route 9 & Route 27. It is smaller than Charles, has no sidewalks, and just as many kids. With the proposed changes, Mr. Carr said he was concerned that the amount of traffic going up Kinsman Place will increase and put the

CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)

children and elderly of the neighborhood at risk because they don’t have sidewalks and the properties were only 50-100 feet from the road.

Mr. Carr asked that the Board reconsider its action of using Chapter 90 money for the project.

Mr. Hughes asked that the Safety Committee look into Mr. Carr’s concern.

John Crisafulli stated that he was concerned about the upkeep of Moran Square. A lot of people have spent a lot of time and money to make the park what it is today, but there is a lack of maintenance. There is no lawn so primarily it needs to be kept clean and the shrubs and flowers attended. The flowers were no longer there because no one was taking care of that part. Retiree Bob White has been keeping it neat and clean, but Mr. Crisafulli thought it should be someone’s responsibility to take care of it. It was not volunteers’ responsibility to keep it

neat and clean. It was the north gate to Natick Center. It was very busy and should be checked daily.

Mr. Crisafulli added that the Town should take pride in the buildings and parks and maintenance was something that was lacking. Wilson Middle School was an example as was the high school.

Mr. Hughes asked that Mr. Cohen speak with Mr. Sisitsky and see what’s done.

Mr. Ball questioned if the maintenance of the flowers and shrub care had been compromised because of a reduction in the hours of the two people who do that work. Mr. Cohen responded that the compromise was more by the change in people. It was his understanding that the people who were doing it were no longer interested in doing it. He would look into it further. Mr. Ball asked that Mr. Cohen report back.

Mr. Crisafulli noted that one important thing important to the maintenance was the lack of water. On occasion Abe Kaloustian has agreed to let them use his water, but Mr. Crisafulli didn’t think it was fair for Mr. Kaloustian to supply all the water.

c. Shining Light Award

Jan Phelgar of the Natick Education Foundation distributed nomination forms for the Shining Light Award that was established by the NEF in 1997 to recognize a member of the community each year who had gone above and beyond to contribute to the community spirit. Nominations were due by June 29th and the award would be given at a celebration on September 25, 2001.

DESIGN COMMITTEE: NATICK DISTRICT COURT RENOVATIONS

Mr. Cohen reminded the Board that at a previous meeting he had requested the establishment of a committee comprised of himself, the Finance Director, and the Building Maintenance Director to work on the District Court renovations. In bringing Town Administrator Frederick Conley up to speed, it came out that the people referenced above, other than himself (Mr. Cohen), were not available to work on the project and Mr. Conley suggested that the committee be expanded.

Mr. Cohen noted that he wanted to have a committee to work on this and time was of the essence as he wanted to come forward with this at Town Meeting. When asked for his suggestion, Mr. Cohen responded that he would like to have personnel from the Courthouse as well as from the Town. He suggested Sue Shea, Judge Singer and the Regional Court Administrator. On the Town’s side he needed some resources, but he and Mr. Conley were unable to come forward with a recommendation this evening.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that eight applications had been received and he thought that Mr. Cohen wanted to get through the interview process. If that was what he (Mr. Cohen) wanted to accomplish in the next two weeks, Mr. Ciccariello said he would be happy to sit in on it. Perhaps Ms. Shea and Judge Singer could get up through short listing the top three firms. That was fine with Mr. Cohen.

DESIGN COMMITTEE: NATICK DISTRICT COURT RENOVATIONS (contd)

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, to establish a Design Selection Committee for the District Court feasibility study consisting of Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Cohen, Judge Singer, and Susan Shea. Unanimously voted.

EAST SCHOOL LEASE PROPOSALS

Mr. Cohen noted that the lease of the East School property had been advertised. There was a site visit on May 15 and bids were opened on June 6th. Three proposals were received.

One was from Natick Family Network and Kids Connect. This was a consortium developed by Debra Sayre and community based family services. Each group would oversee the management of the site and be responsible for their portion of the rent. It was an expression of interest and not a formal proposal. There was no indication of the ability to meet the requirements specified in the RFP.

The second was from the Westgate Church which operates the Westgate Christian Academy, a private Christian school presently in Weston. Mr. Cohen advised that they had provided a total response in that they addressed the items called for in the RFP. Westgate estimated approximately 15 staff during their operation and estimated 60 cars dropping off children. They estimated 100 students in the first year and hoped to grow to 164 in year four.

Mr. Cohen noted that Westgate advised the Town of their need for the use of recreational facilities. They proposed to use the recreation area facilities during the school year (approximately the first week of September through the second week of June) for physical education programs and athletic practice time from 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Monday-Friday. In addition the Westgate Christian Academy reserved the right to request the facilities during certain special school events, such as staff outings, or field days, per Article 3 of the lease.

Mr. Cohen continued that Westgate had laid out a formalized list of rental payments that met the Board’s requirements of $90,000 for the first year and by year ten it would be $141,06.

Westgate Christian Academy requested some modification to the proposed lease – the most significant being the provision for them to retain the right to terminate the lease at any time prior to the expiration, without penalty, with a one year written Notice of Early Termination to the Town. They also were looking to connect to the I-Net, but Mr. Cohen didn’t believe that could be done.

If the Board determines Westgate’s proposal to be advantageous to the Town, Mr. Cohen said he would pursue it with Town Counsel to see if the proposal meets the technical requirements of the RFP.

The third proposal came from Accept Education Collaborative in the form of a letter of intent. The Collaborative was a regional service agency governed by 13 school districts of which Natick was a part. They indicated that they would be unable to meet the leasing requirements in the RFP. Their intention was to use space to operate the family network and were interested in leasing two classrooms for administrative needs. They would be open to a third party using the

gym which was 25% of the space. In terms of the rent, Natick Special Education could pay 25%. The Collaborative indicated that they could only enter a lease for one year and not more than three. Where it is an education collaborative in Natick, it was not subject to the formal bidding procedure. The Board could pursue it, but the Collaborative can’t make the rent or permanent duration.

Mr. Hughes commented that none of the proposals comply with the RFP, and Mr. Cohen agreed, adding that the one that came closest was Westgate. However, there were issues, particularly the one year opt out. If they were willing to eliminate that clause, Mr. Cohen believed the lease could be awarded to them (Westgate).

If Westgate didn’t agree to waive that provision, Mr. Hughes asked if that meant that it would have to be rebid. Mr. Cohen advised that it would have to be rebid as he thought that provision (one year opt out) was a material change.

EAST SCHOOL LEASE PROPOSALS (contd)

Mr. Hughes asked if it were the sense of the Board to at least see if Westgate would waive the one-year opt out. The members of the Board agreed, and Mr. Cohen was asked to follow-up with the opt out provision and the I-net connection.

Debra Sayre told the Board that she didn’t believe Accept Executive Director Mike Palladino’s letter was intended to be a separate letter of intent. She believed the letter was in support of Kids Connect along with Accept attempting to bring in other short-term uses into the building to get the Town the money for the rent. Neither Kids Connect nor Accept could do anything along.

Mr. Ball stated that he found the idea of a consortium very interesting and appealing, but unfortunately the consortium was not in a position to respond. Originally the rent was established at $120,000 and dropped to $90,000 and Mr. Ball said he was reluctant to go below that number. If the lease has to be rebid, Mr. Ball urged the consortium to have enough folks involved to get the $90,000.

A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello to sign the contract with the state for $250,509 in Chapter 90 funds. Unanimously voted.

GOALS & OBJECTIVES

Discussion was tabled for a week to give the Board an opportunity to review what was submitted.

DEPUTY TOWN ADMINISTRATOR: EXTENSION OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION

Mr. Hughes reminded the Board that when additional compensation for Deputy Town Administrator Paul Cohen in the amount of $138.00 per week was voted, the additional compensation was to end when the Town Administrator returned to work. No distinction had been made whether that meant Mr. Conley’s full-time or part-time return. Mr. Conley has returned to work part-time and was scheduled to be full-time the week of July 23rd.

Mr. Hughes moved to continue Mr. Cohen’s $138.00 per week additional compensation to the week of July 23, 2001. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

WATER BILL: MORRIS FREILICH

Before the Board was a request from Morris Freilich of 28 Elwin Road for an abatement of his water & sewer bill. Mr. Freilich had discovered a water leak when his furnace was serviced. Mr. Cohen reminded the Board that this request was tabled from last week.

When asked for a recommendation, Mr. Cohen responded that this was an example of the issue of the leaks. No one in the administration is authorized to waive any charges which was why this was before the Selectmen. He suggested charging for the water, but since Mr. Freilich didn’t use the sewer or MWRA, not charge for that portion.

As a senior citizen living in a slab house that runs the risk of having the same thing happen to him, Mr. Ball said he was sympathetic. There have been a dozen or so instances where people had leaks they didn’t know about and only discovered them when they got an enormous bill and the request was always the same. The Board has always taken the position that it wasn’t the town’s fault either and the water was used and everybody pays for the water that flows into their home. He (Mr. Ball) couldn’t see the Board forgiving the entire amount because it would set a precedent, but he liked Mr. Cohen’s solution.

Mr. Ball moved that the Town absorb the sewer and MWRA portion and charge for the water in the amount of $359.05. Seconded by Mr. Stern. The motion failed on a 1-3-0 vote. Mr. Ball voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes, Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello were opposed.

Mr. Stern recalled that there had been a similar situation at the last meeting and the Board didn’t abate the MWRA and sewer charges. Only the MWRA charges were abated. Mr. Stern moved to establish a payment plan for Mr. Freilich giving the resident the maximum amount of time necessary to pay the water and sewer portion of the bill and abate the MWRA portion or $658.50. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

WATER BILL: MORRIS FREILICH (contd)

Mr. Ciccariello noted that his concern was that it might not only affect seniors but other families that may not be able to afford it. He felt the Town had to get the message out to individuals that live in slab on grades that they need to look at their water bills.

BUDGET PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE

Mr. Hughes reported that the Budget Planning Subcommittee would probably meet in August or early September.

SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS

Fluoride Injection Point

Mr. Ball noted that Myron Coplan had appeared before the Board and expressed the opinion that the Town was exasperating the manganese problem because of the fluosilicic acid being injected at a point upstream rather than downstream. Mr. Ball said he asked an independent source if Mr. Coplan’s statements were supportable, and he would now like to see an independent examination made of that question by someone

outside the Town’s water department. The Town is paying $2.7 million to reline some pipes to get rid of caked manganese, and he (Mr. Ball) would like an answer whether Mr. Coplan is correct, and what it will cost to change the piping and correct the situation.

Mr. Hughes asked that the Town Administrator first bring the Board a proposal as to what it (independent opinion) involves.

Mr. Stern expressed concern over the lack of information the Board was getting during the off weeks and noted that he was experiencing a great deal of frustration since he has to get most of what happens in Town from the local press. He suggested having a briefing memo sent during the off week so the Board can be prepared to respond to the press.

Along the same lines, Mr. Ciccariello noted that when he picks up the books on Friday for a Monday meeting, there is no opportunity to research things over the weekend. As these things arise, it might be helpful to get them out sooner.

Letters of Complaint

Mr. Stern called attention to three letters of complaint in the correspondence section of the briefing book. All three complained of inaction of the Town in responding to their issues and concerns:

Stephanie Smith – Water Street on drainage to property

Stephen Gill – Middle Street drainage problem

Hopewell Farms resident regarding water leak on Town side and the Town refusing to do anything about it.

Mr. Hughes asked that the Board receive some kind of report from Mr. Sisitsky on these complaints, adding that he too found it disturbing to have that many letters indicating no response. To have no response was inappropriate and he would like to know why.

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to personnel. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 8:55 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would not return to open session.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

______________________________

Jeffrey A. Stern, Clerk