Town of Natick - Selectmen's Meeting 6/18/01

BOARD OF SELECTMEN

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Charles M. Hughes at 7:00 p.m.

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

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 18, 2001 in the amount of $1,494,187.08. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $3,516,357.11.

On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Stern, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the May 1, 2001 meeting.

SKATE PARK DEDICATION

Mr. McKinley offered to represent the Board at the dedication of the Skate Park on June 23, 2001.

Mr. Hughes also noted that the dedication of the Wilson portrait would be held on June 25th in the Library.

JOYCE MOSS: NATICK THEN & NOW

Downtown Manager Joyce Moss along with Brian Peoples, President of the Natick Center Associates, made a slide presentation depicting Natick Center and the transition over the past six years. Ms. Moss noted that the Natick Center Associates worked in partnership with the Town as well as with many other groups in Town. The Center Associates saw themselves as more than a group of businesspeople. Their membership consisted of more than 300 residents.

Mr. McKinley noted that the Board was finalizing its list of objectives and was there something the Board could do to further the partnership with the Town to assist the Center Associates with some of the plans going forward.

Ms. Moss expressed her appreciation for Mr. McKinley’s comments, but said she couldn’t respond tonight. Some strategic planning had been done early in the year and it was found that the need for additional parking in the downtown was so overwhelming that the parking issue had to be addressed. She thought the downtown was going to be moving ahead on a number of fronts, but it was decided that the resources should be put into the parking study. From the strategic planning session, there was a whole lot of priorities and the Center Associates Board will be meeting and responding to the Selectmen about them.

ZBA: SPECIAL COUNSEL

ZBA Member Stephen Perry appeared before the Board with a request to hire special counsel. Mr. Perry explained that the ZBA has an application for development under 40B for a high rise to go behind the Cloverleaf Mall. The ZBA needs to have counsel to advise it. Because of the complicated history of this parcel, there are some legal issues as to whether 40B applies or if the applicant should come before the ZBA in a separate variance request. The ZBA feels it needs to have special counsel familiar with the statute. The applicant has both local counsel and one of the largest firms in Boston. Proposals have been received from four firms, and the ZBA was recommending Palmer & Dodge. Mr. Perry noted that Palmer & Dodge has offered to discount their rates. He recognized that the rates were still high, but it was a rate of $320.00 and Hale & Dorr was over $400.00 per hour. The proposal to use Palmer & Dodge came as a result of having used them in other matters. Mr. Perry stated that he was familiar with the lawyer who submitted the proposal and thought highly of him.

ZBA: SPECIAL COUNSEL (contd)

Mr. Hughes noted that one of the applicants seemed to have estimated the cost at about $10,000. He asked if Mr. Perry had any sense of Palmer & Dodge’s cost. Mr. Perry responded that he thought the ZBA could control that by what they (Palmer & Dodge) were used for. He explained that it was a three-step process. The ZBA has its hearing and if the application wasn’t granted, there is an appeal to a state agency and following that could be litigation. The $10,000 wouldn’t cover the three steps, and he wasn’t sure the $10,000 would be the full extent of what would be needed for the first level, but he didn’t think it would be too much. He thought a lot of double billing could be avoided with Palmer & Dodge.

It was Mr. Hughes’ recollection that some portion would be paid by the applicant. He asked if there would be a limit. Mr. Perry responded that it was the ZBA’s view that the statute allows them to charge the applicant for a consultant, which would include engineers. Although the applicant offered to pay some legal fees, it would be inappropriate for the ZBA to require or request it. Nonetheless the applicant repeated that he would be willing to pay legal fees and as far as he (Mr. Perry) was concerned if the applicant wants to contribute, that would be fine.

Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Perry were recommending hiring Palmer & Dodge to follow through all the steps – consulting, a brief at the state agency and litigation. Mr. Perry said he thought he would have to see how it goes.

Mr. Hughes proposed setting a monetary limit and Mr. Perry responded that he thought that would be appropriate for hearings before the ZBA and research and if there was a proceeding before the state agency, they could come back. When asked about a budget, Mr. Perry suggested $15,000 to be on the safe side. He noted that the ZBA has already had a couple of meetings without the law firm present so he didn’t think the cost would be terribly high.

Mr. Stern inquired as to the criteria used to rank the proposals. Mr. Perry responded that the proposals were read, they looked at the size of the firm and the cost. One proposal was from a sole practitioner recommended by the applicant and the ZBA members were a little

uncomfortable that the proposer had been recommended by the applicant. Hale & Dorr looked like a pyramid type of staffing and he (Mr. Perry) knew they were very expensive. With Palmer & Dodge it looked like the people doing the work were the right people. Town Counsel’s firm had some experience, but the ZBA thought they needed the expertise of the people at Palmer & Dodge.

Mr. McKinley pointed out that there were a couple of law firms in this area that were established in zoning and asked if any of them had been solicited. Mr. Perry advised that he didn’t know what the Community Development office did, but the names the ZBA came up with these.

Mr. McKinley seemed to recall that Palmer & Dodge represented a party currently in litigation with the Town. Mr. Cohen was not sure and said he would have to check.

Although he understood the argument, Mr. McKinley stated that he was not crazy about paying downtown legal rates. He was disappointed that some local firms that were very experienced in zoning had not been solicited. There were a couple of firms out here with lower rates who would serve just as well.

Mr. Perry responded that the ZBA expected to use counsel in a limited capacity. They (ZBA) were doing a lot of the background data themselves. They wanted top notched talent as this was a very sophisticated legal issue with this property.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if it was the intent of the ZBA to utilize a lot of other consulting firms for engineering and landscaping as a lead to Palmer & Dodge. The consultants would be a source of information and give it to Palmer & Dodge for review.

Mr. Perry advised that the intent would be to have a traffic study done by a traffic consultant paid by the applicant and the results would be shared to Palmer & Dodge, but the ZBA was not looking to them for guidance. They were looking to Palmer & Dodge for what were the ZBA’s obligations under 40B and was the applicant correct in what he was saying.

ZBA: SPECIAL COUNSEL (contd)

Mr. Stern stated that it was his belief that if the ZBA was going to have counsel involved, counsel should be involved at the preliminary stages – not brought in after findings were made. The infant stage of these developments was one of the most critical and when the groundwork was laid, counsel should be present to advise and guide. He didn’t necessarily agree that a sole practitioner can’t stand up to a major firm. He had knowledge of this practitioner and he was a nationally known expert and he (Mr. Stern) didn’t discount his abilities one shred. To him (Mr. Stern) this was something to consider very carefully.

Mr. Perry advised that the next meeting was August 6th and the ZBA was anxious to have counsel in advance of that meeting. There have already been two meetings without counsel and it has been awkward.

Mr. McKinley asked if the money would come from a Finance Committee transfer. Mr. Cohen advised that it would not. There was a litigation

budget and with the start of the new fiscal year, there would be money in the budget.

Two motions were made. Mr. McKinley moved to authorize the ZBA to contract with Palmer & Dodge for legal counsel regarding the Cloverleaf project not to exceed $15,000. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and after some discussion the motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Ciccariello voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Stern was opposed.

Mr. Stern moved to approve the ZBA’s use of Mark Bobrowski for legal counsel on the Cloverleaf project not to exceed $10,000. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello. A previous motion passed and no vote was taken.

In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the ZBA had checked any references on Mark Bobrowski – other than the fact that he was recommended by the applicant. Mr. Perry advised that they (ZBA) did not, but acknowledged that Mr. Bobrowski came well recommended.

Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian explained that this Chapter 40B application was unique. It was the only one in the state where an applicant was asking to undo a prior ZBA decision and a special permit issued by the Planning Board. This was a first in Massachusetts and he was recommending that the Town have a legal firm and experts.

Although he was empathetic to Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Stern, Mr. McKinley explained that it was that diversity of talent and resources that Palmer & Dodge brought that made him lean toward them. With a sole practitioner you were depending on the expertise of that one individual. With Palmer & Dodge, if the principal attorney needs some advice, chances were that person will be in the firm or there would be a legal clerk to do some research.

DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION: TREASURER/COLLECTOR

Finance Director & Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer introduced the Assistant Treasurer Melanie Phillips.

Ms. Phillips explained that the department’s main function was billing the taxpayers and collecting the taxes. They do real estate, personal property, excise, water & sewer and MWRA charges, parking tickets, betterments and special assessments such as the RUST and Title 5 plus liens. When someone doesn’t pay the taxes, the department sends out demands, issues warrants and then goes to tax title or legal action. The department was hoping to make that a methodical process in a regular collection cycle.

As Assistant Treasurer, Ms. Phillips told the Board that part of her function was to safe keep the funds of the Town and invest those funds. Both she and Mr. Palmer were bonded. Payment of bills and payroll were under her and Mr. Palmer’s guidance and they were responsible for any authorized borrowing.

In Fiscal 2002 Ms. Phillips said the plan was to make the office more customer service friendly. They were looking to change hours to include a weekday evening, and they were looking to train the staff to

be knowledgeable in the applicable Mass General Laws and basic software applications. For Fiscal 2002 they were also looking to create an investment policy and looking to keep a cash flow analysis. Ms. Phillips

DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION: TREASURER/COLLECTOR (contd)

also highlighted some of the security measures being followed such as keeping the door to the Collector’s office closed during the day.

Ms. Phillips continued that they would like to have a scanner at the window and would like to transfer data electronically and set up an E-Mail address for the taxpayers. For additional security, they would like to have cameras around the window and a card entry between the Collector and Assessor.

Regarding receivables, ninety-day notices have gone out for water & sewer, and Ms. Phillips noted that for tax title, they were trying to inform the taxpayer and steer them toward refinancing wherever possible. They were trying to get the Town paid by helping the taxpayer. Personal property accounts will be sent to collection. For the excise tax, they were using a deputy collector. Parking tickets were being collected by MMA.

Ms. Phillips provided the Board with an overview of the staff and their respective roles. As the Assistant Treasurer/Collector, Ms. Phillips stated that she was responsible for supervising the staff, the daily workflow, providing reporting to the Treasurer & Comptroller, weekly cash transfers for warrants/payroll, maintaining accounts and special accounts, investments/research vehicles/rates, collection of past due receivables, bankruptcy accounts, problem resolution, policy/procedures.

Level 6 clerk, Beth Kelley was responsible for printing the water bills, posting water receipts, run batch payments, posting, maintaining bankruptcy files, and telephone calls.

Level 5 clerk, Peggy Spencer was responsible for MLC preparation, cashier, reconciling bank accounts, daily bank deposit, and telephone calls.

Level 4 clerk, Carol Wurth was responsible for general posting, problem research, tax title posting, parking ticket deposit, sort mail, back-up cashier, batch payment backup and telephone calls.

The second level 4 clerk, Tina Pilla was responsible for posting, prep of weekly receipts transfer, process refunds, telephone calls, back-up cashier.

Mr. Stern inquired as to how much cash was in the office on a daily basis. Ms. Phillips responded that it depends on the time of the year when the tax bills go out. They have a policy that when there was $10,000 in cash, they go to the bank. In slow times there was probably $8,000 and other times l/2 million.

Mr. Stern pointed out that the same clerk functioned as the cashier and did the bank deposits. He questioned what kind of controls were on the cash. Ms. Phillips explained that the clerk counts the cash and

settles with another individual every morning. There were two people involved and they balance to the receipts that come in.

Asked by Mr. Stern if that met accounting standards for cash control, Ms. Phillips responded that she would think it does.

Mr. Stern then noted that he was concerned with the office providing advice for taxpayers that may be put into tax title, to refinance. Ms. Phillips noted that the taxpayers weren’t being told to do that (refinance). They (taxpayers) were being shown a way to pay their tax title off and save money at the same time because they were paying 16% on tax title and mortgage rates were much less. It was a suggestion. Not something the office insists they do.

Mr. McKinley felt that both Ms. Phillips and Mr. Stern were right. He felt that Mr. Stern made a good point about objectivity, but after all the years of bad customer service to hear a department was helping taxpayers, his first reaction was what a great idea. However, the Collector’s office did have to be careful. Ms. Phillips assured the Board that the office was careful and that they only suggested that the taxpayer may want to talk to a bank.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to the development of an investment policy, and Ms. Phillips responded that it was something for Mr. Palmer and her to

DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION: TREASURER/COLLECTOR (contd)

talk about. It was on their list of things to do, but they have had bigger fish to fry.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how long the Collector’s office waits before sending out the demands, and was told by Ms. Phillips that they were sent at 30 days past due – 60 days past the date of issue.

Mr. Palmer referred to two memos submitted to the Board – one on the status and procedural reorganization of the department and the other on change of service providers.

In reviewing the memos, Mr. Palmer noted that the goal for account reconciliation was to have routine operations reviewed on a monthly basis with cash receipts, abatements, refunds, and adjusting entries in balance with both Collector’s receivable files and Comptroller’s general ledger balances. Historically that hasn’t been done and that has changed. There were many years that were outstanding. Real Estate went back to 1984 and tax title back to the 1930’s.

Mr. Palmer continued with consulting services, noting that the Powers & Sullivan review included an analysis of the outstanding real estate, personal property, tax title, and motor vehicle excise. These were expanded to include water/sewer receivable and police detail billing. Tofias, Fleischman & Shapiro were engaged to review the receivable balances to determine if reconciliation was being done between the Treasurer/Collector and the Comptroller.

As to the status of the receivable accounts, Mr. Palmer reported that the real estate and personal property account review and correction for fiscal years up to FY2000 was complete and monthly reconciliation was being achieved. All account balances have been reviewed, correcting for misapplied payments, with adjusting entries to balance with the

general ledger; there has been a review of account credit balances, correcting for duplicate lock box processes, with adjusting entries to balance with the general ledger, and final adjustments and ongoing reconciliation with the Comptroller was in progress with finalization to occur shortly.

Mr. Palmer continued that motor vehicle excise accounts have been reviewed and corrected for all years. Review and corrections to the Town’s receivable accounts are complete and final adjusting entries are in process. Review and corrections to the Deputy Collector’s receivable accounts are complete and final adjusting entries are in process. Final adjustments and ongoing reconciliation with the Comptroller is in progress with finalization to occur shortly.

With respect to Tax Title Accounts, Mr. Palmer advised that they have been reviewed and in the final phase with corrections being completed. Mr. Palmer told the Board that this was the area that needed the most work and was probably a 2-3 year process. He explained that the final phase in tax title research and real estate reconciliation was the certification of amounts from FY2000 that were transferred from the active receivable into the tax title accounts but not reported to the Comptroller. The extraction of this information was completed for the detailed tax title balance as of January 25, 2001. The l/26/01 results were in final review and will be supplemented with any redemption that occurred between July 2000 and January 2001.

Mr. Palmer went on to water/sewer billing which he described as needing the greatest amount of work. The status was as follows: Detailed reports of W&S billing have been completed on a regular basis over the last fiscal year; a more detailed breakdown of the W&S accounts has been completed for March-May 2001 monthly basis; final adjusting entries to reconcile with the Comptroller are not at present complete; it is anticipated that the adjusting entries will be complete for June 30, 2001.

Police Detail billing. Mr. Palmer described the status as follows: A detail breakdown of the current receivable was attached to the label; a small amount of receivable was resident on the older billing system; reconciliation of these accounts will be completed for each month April-May 2001; it was anticipated that any adjustment to reconcile with the Comptroller will be minimal.

Mr. Palmer listed the following as the most pressing needs to complete the reconciliation with the Treasurer/Collector: Reorganize the

DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION: TREASURER/COLLECTOR (contd)

physical location of Collector records for each receivable; restructure the method of reporting to the Comptroller in a clear and complete manner; Schedule a monthly meeting with the Assessor, Comptroller, and Treasurer/Collector to verify reconciliation of accounts; improve communication and timeliness of turnovers to the Comptroller.

In summary, Mr. Palmer stated that the expectation that all pieces of account reconciliation would immediately fall into place and TFS&Co would be able to simply review and confirm that “reconciliation process is being done timely” was an unrealistic expectation. The volume of work completed and the improvements in the operations over the time period January through June 2001 has been phenomenal. The routine

reconciliation of all accounts is nearly complete. The improvements that are in process will result in a financial operation that fully supports the needs of the Town.

Mr. Palmer then reviewed the memo on change of service providers. He advised that the existing work assigned to the Deputy Collector will remain but all future work will be assigned to an alternate Deputy Collector/Service Agency. Computer Enterprises has been selected from several agencies to provide these services. Consideration was given to prior experience, services available, cost, and convenience.

Lock Box services. The Collector’s office has experienced recurring problems with the existing lock box provider primarily related to timely and accurate processing of receipts. Several potential providers were interviewed, site visits conducted, and cost analysis completed. Computer Enterprises was selected after consideration of prior experience, services available, cost and convenience. The change in provider is less expensive than current services, provides for daily vs twice weekly processing. There will be a Dedham PO box address.

Tax Title Legal Counsel. Based on prior experience and the inability to obtain information on a timely basis, Mr. Palmer felt it was clear that a change in legal counsel was necessary. A final decision was pending, but the firm of Rosen & McCarthy, LLP has presented a comprehensive proposal that may be a good fit for the Town. The attorney utilized by the former Collector/Treasurer has been advised that his services are no longer required, that all records are to be turned over, and a final status report was to be prepared.

Receivable software: The firm of Point Software has been selected to provide real estate, personal property, tax lien/title, motor vehicle excise, and water/sewer receivable software. The decision to change providers for software was based on the current vendor’s inability to provide adequate support for efficient daily operations. On a regular basis delays and/or a complete lack of response to requests for technical assistance were experienced. The first applications real estate and personal property were scheduled for installation June 20, 2001. The remaining applications, motor vehicle excise, tax title, and water/sewer billing, to be completed by September 1, 2001.

Bond advisor. Mr. Palmer noted that the Treasurer had used BayBank as bond advisor. That bank was sold to Fleet and Fleet sold it off. He (Mr. Palmer) has moved to Steve Knight at Unibank. Mr. Knight was formally with BayBank.

Mr. Palmer noted that there was still borrowing on the treatment plant and he was waiting for the settlement from the Labs to pay off that debt. The Town was five years out and has to go to a permanent borrowing. Unibank was willing to give the Town a two-year note with no early payoff provision.

Mr. Stern inquired as to the process followed in arriving at Rosen & McCarthy. Mr. Palmer responded that he spoke with several attorneys and got a proposal from them for both an hourly and a fixed rate. Rosen & McCarthy’s rates were competitive and the proposal comprehensive.

Mr. Stern noted that he read in the newspapers recently that the Labs settlement was going to pay for relining the two water mains and he would like a clarification of what the settlement was going toward and the source of payment for relining the water mains. Mr. Palmer explained that the proceeds from the Labs settlement were primarily earmarked toward construction costs of Springvale. For the relining,

DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION: TREASURER/COLLECTOR (contd)

part was from water & sewer surplus and part a borrowing. Mr. Hughes asked if the net of the $3.1 million (from the Labs settlement) not used to pay off the Springvale treatment plant would go into surplus. Mr. Palmer responded that there was no designation of that money, but he would think the intent as it had initially been structured, needs it to be a priority.

Mr. McKinley inquired as to how much it was costing the Town by not having the Labs settlement. Mr. Palmer responded that the interest for five years was about $1/2 million. Mr. Hughes pointed out that it would depend on when you considered the beginning of the delay.

Mr. McKinley remarked that he was irritated with the Army and he felt it was time for them to pay up or the Town should send them an interest bill. He asked that the Board direct special counsel Lauren Rikleen to engage in conversation with the Army that the Town was rapidly running out of patience and they should either pay us or renegotiate.

Looking at the customer balance summary for police details, Mr. Ciccariello noted that there was some substantial dollars. He questioned how someone could run up $20,000 in details in one month – specifically Verizon.

Mr. Palmer responded that Verizon went back to December when they were originally billed. They have made payments but haven’t paid all.

As there was a substantial amount of money on this list, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if there was a policy that shuts off details to anybody who does not meet their obligations. Mr. Palmer advised that there had been some talk about doing that. Up until now he has been trying to make sure it was billed timely, but there is no check to see if there is an outstanding account. That was a policy that needs to be hammered out with the Police. They (Police) schedule the details.

Mr. Hughes asked if this (police details) was one of those things where the scheduling was there, but the balances were here. Mr. Palmer responded that he had not heard a positive back from the Police that they will proactively deny people details (if there is an outstanding account).

Mr. McKinley remembered a discussion about this a year or so ago at which time the Board directed that Police details be withheld on accounts that were delinquent. At that time it was described that if someone called for a detail, the Police went out an officer, the officer got paid, and the Town sent out the bill and waited several months for payment. He (Mr. McKinley) felt the Police Department needed to be more proactive in this process by checking the computer to see if an applicant was on the list and refuse that detail if the applicant was delinquent. The Police Department has to step up to the

plate, and if a warning shot had to be fire across the Chief’s desk, the Board would fire it.

Mr. Palmer responded that he didn’t disagree. He assured the Board that his department would do its part to make sure the Police Department was apprised of who has not paid. He noted that he could tell the Police Department what the Board would like to have as a policy and review that in a month or so to see if that is happening. Mr. Palmer noted that he had had a conversation with the officer previously doing the details and they talked about using the computer. He didn’t mind making them a list saying these were 90 days and they can’t get a detail until the bill is paid. That was easy.

In Mr. Ciccariello’s opinion, the simplest policy would be to have a form. Before getting a detail, the applicant would be required to come to Mr. Palmer and get a sign off that they have paid in full all money due.

Mr. Hughes requested that Chief Mannix be invited to attend a Selectmen’s meeting in order to develop the policy. There is $100,000 that is too old and this problem has been around forever.

POWERS & SULLIVAN: UPDATE TREASURER/COLLECTOR OFFICE

Representing Powers & Sullivan was Chris Rodgers.

Mr. Rodgers provided the Board with an update on what had transpired since their last report on October 27, 2000. In a letter to the Board,

POWERS & SULLIVAN: UPDATE TREASURER/COLLECTOR OFFICE (contd)

dated October 27th, Mr. Rodgers outlined the items completed and the items remaining: Completion and implementation of policies and procedures manual, analyzing and converting the tax title and utility billing receivables to the updated UNIS version and analyzing and converting the Police detail receivables to Quickbooks Pro.

Mr. Rodgers noted that the Board has received a financial policies manual. The procedures manual has taken several turns over the past several months. It was decided that they (Powers & Sullivan) would develop a very detailed manual. Over the past 4-5 months the Finance Director was searching for a new software vendor for accounts receivable and that was still ongoing, but he (Mr. Rodgers) believed that one has been found. In an April 20, 2001 meeting with Mr. Palmer, Mr. Cohen, the Comptroller and the auditing firm, it was his (Mr. Rodgers) understanding that the detailed policies and procedures were not going forward at this time; however, the policy framework would be appropriate and that was what he sent last week.

Mr. Rodgers continued that the police detail receivables were now being billed weekly. Using software called QuickBooks Pro, the backlog was caught up. There was about six months that hadn’t been billed and that was turned over to the Finance Director. As far as he (Mr. Rodgers) knew it was being run weekly.

Regarding tax title, Mr. Rodgers noted that the Town decided not to go to MUNIS. One initial thought to really verify what was true and accurate was to look at municipal lien certificates. It would be a cumbersome process and it didn’t make sense for Powers & Sullivan to do it because it would cost too much money. Mr. Palmer came up with a

different approach which Mr. Rodgers said he thought would work and was a good solution. It will take some time.

Mr. Rodgers noted that Powers & Sullivan hadn’t been involved with the utility billing process.

Mr. Rodgers said he knew that the policies and procedures manual was a much desired document. As soon as the Town was ready, Powers & Sullivan would schedule a time to come in and get that done. The framework was done and it was a matter of laying out the details.

Mr. McKinley commented that in his interpretation of Powers & Sullivan’s assignment regarding the policies and procedures, it was not his expectation that the Town was hiring the firm to write a detailed operations manual. The document he (Mr. McKinley) read this weekend comes close to what he was expecting to get. It lays down the ground rules and protocols for day-to-day tasks. The point was there well-established policies and procedures for methods of operation, and he (Mr. McKinley) thought that that document exists. From his point of view Powers & Sullivan has done that piece of the puzzle and the next step was to get Mr. Palmer and Ms. Phillips to review it and come back and say they accept this and were willing to work within these procedures.

Mr. Palmer responded that both he and Ms. Phillips had seen the document and agree that they were logical procedures to follow. The only thing being talked for Powers & Sullivan to do on procedures is to marry the procedure manual into the policy. Mr. Hughes asked if that meant that Mr. Palmer wanted Powers & Sullivan to marry the drafted policies manual with the software manual. Mr. Palmer advised that that was correct, adding that he was looking to install the software for the real estate property tomorrow. The excise tax will be installed very quickly. The one that will take longer is the utility billing and that can be completed between now and September.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to when the Board could expect this whole project to be over and finished. He asked if Mr. Rodgers could come back in September for a final report and all the other work would be done. Mr. Palmer’s response was, ‘absolutely’.

Mr. McKinley called attention to Page 8 of the report on agreed upon procedures in which there was a recommendation for material weaknesses. He asked if that could be one of the tests in September – looking for all those things to be fixed.

TOFIAS, FLEISHMAN, SHAPIRO: REPORT ON EXAMINATION OF BOOKS

Kevin Petrosino of Tofias, Fleishman, Shapiro updated the Board on the examination of the books they conducted as part of the transition from an elected to an appointed treasurer/collector. He noted that TFS’s project was not only a review of accounts receivable but to assure that the bank reconciliations were being done on a timely manner. Their project was to begin subsequent to Powers & Sullivan’s component. TFS has been able to do the cash component, but not the accounts receivable. They extend their review of bank reconciliations to April and found that the Town has been reconciling bank accounts in a timely fashion. They (TFS) had some observations on who was doing what and

how it was being done, but he thought with the transition with Ms. Phillips taking some of the components out of the Comptroller and more exclusively handling it out of the Treasurer’s office those questions would be answered.

Mr. Petrosino continued that TFS intended to be able to complete the reconciliation on accounts receivable by the time they do the year end audit. They hoped to have it done prior to that but because of delays this spring, they will not be able to complete the reconciliation and the tie-ins between the Treasurer/Collector and the Comptroller’s office until the audit was completed. By the time they issue the audit and management letter, the reconciliations will be cleaned up. Their (TFS) project was to take a snap shot as of March 31st and roll them forward. For accounts receivable on real estate and personal property, TFS was going to use January 26 as the cut-off and from that point on assure that for February, March, April and so on the offices were reporting back and forth and reconciling on a monthly basis.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to the delay between getting the accounts receivables from Mr. Palmer and the Comptroller Ruth Cashman.

Mr. Petrosino responded that the whole process was a bigger bear than anybody anticipated. Some of these components went back 10-15 years. The Town has to make sure that when we come up with what we think the detail balances are that a reconciliation has to be done with the general ledger and the Town has to be doing what it should be doing. The whole process should be done within the next couple of months. For whatever reasons there have been delays – Town Meeting in the spring and keeping current with the current activity in addition to going back and reconciling the out of balances.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to how close the reconciliation to old balances was so that it can move forward from March 31st. Mr. Petrosino advised that it was getting very close. Every account was looked at on real estate, personal property, excise. Some go back to the early 1980’s. This was not something you simply go from never reconciling to whipping it up and having it done. In going through the water & sewer it was found that certain components hadn’t been reported at all so there couldn’t be a reconciliation until those components were brought in.

Mr. Petrosino stated that he thought every effort had been made to get everything done and reconciled and he thought what had been accomplished had been miraculous. Certain areas need to improve and that will help the reconciliation. One was the communication and sitting down on a monthly basis and he didn’t see anyone on the staff who will resist doing that. When TFS was doing the audit, they (TFS) should be able to review all of these accounts.

Mr. Hughes noted that the end of the fiscal year was in two weeks. TFS would come in July/August and the Board would get a management letter in October. Mr. Petrosino responded that he anticipated that the reconciliation process would be done when the audit was done. There might be some dribs and drabs going into the next year but the majority should be done. He believed the reconciliation was done through 2000 and the 2001 was a work in process.

Mr. Cohen pointed out that the fiscal year ends in two weeks. This was a busy season and he thought the Board should hear from the Comptroller as to whether she thought this was realistic from her view. All the work from the Collector has to be reconciled with Ms. Cashman.

Mr. Petrosino advised that his goal was to come back in July to look over the reconciliation process. They would probably start the field work for the audit in September.

TOFIAS, FLEISHMAN, SHAPIRO: REPORT ON EXAMINATION OF BOOKS (contd)

The Comptroller, Ruth Ann Cashman, told the Board that this year-end closing would probably be the worst one of her life. The Annual Town Report has to be compiled, she has to get the figures ready for the Department of Education and do a Schedule A which is a complete analysis of revenues and expenditures completed by October 31. In the meantime the auditors will arrive in the middle of September. It was up to the Collector’s office to get her these receivables as quickly as they can, and once she received them, she would review them.

If the receivables get to her by the end of the fiscal year, Mr. Hughes asked Ms. Cashman if it were realistic to have the auditors in by the end of September. Ms. Cashman responded that she didn’t have a choice. Mr. Hughes then commented that once it gets done, there shouldn’t be this problem any more. It was catch up for 15 years. Ms. Cashman and Mr. Palmer agreed.

Mr. McKinley asked if there was anything the Board of Selectmen could do to assist the process – perhaps short-term help. Ms. Cashman’s response was, ‘no’. Mr. Palmer pointed out that the current operation hasn’t been sacrificed to do this. Double duty was being done.

FINANCE DIRECTOR: STATUS ON UNCOLLECTED TAXES

Mr. Palmer noted that the tax titles were the ones that would take some time to get through. One item that was continuing to be an issue was the advertisement for tax taking. He referred to a list of all receivables and advised that Fiscal 2000 and prior would be advertised shortly. In a memo to the Board, Mr. Palmer laid out the following timeframe for FY00 and prior:

Certified notice: July 1, 2001

Posting July 1, 2001

Advertisement July 15, 2001

Recording of tax Taking Prior to September 15, 2001

Mr. Palmer also noted that he had not let the Fiscal 2001 lag behind and demands would be issued and mailed over the next two days. That was probably a minimum of two months earlier than historical. The timeframe laid out in his memo for Fiscal 2001 was as follows:

Demands Issued June 19, 2001

Certified Notice August 1, 2001

Posting August 1, 2001

Advertisement September 1-15, 2001

Recording of Tax Taking Prior to November 15, 2001

Mr. Palmer pointed out that for Fiscal 2001, the uncollected amount was less than 2/10 of 1%.

Mr. Palmer continued that for water & sewer when the receivables go to lien, outstanding accounts get transferred to real estate. Right now

the account was a full year delinquent when it goes to lien. He was proposing to install software the end of the summer and look at billing for the 3rd & 4th quarter that closes that to four months.

Mr. Hughes noted that the tax title account that was due and outstanding was $1.3 million with interest of $1.85 million. He questioned how someone had a house in tax title and owed $40,000. Was there a problem in the taking? Mr. Palmer responded that there has been a lack of activity in the past, but if the taking is valid, they will become active rapidly. He was researching.

Mr. McKinley inquired if there was a mechanism other than transferring the water balances to tax lien. Mr. Palmer advised that there wasn’t. When it gets to 90 days, he sends a demand but the true collection was to place it on the real estate tax. Mr. Palmer thought the by-law could apply to a water & sewer delinquency.

Water Problem – Campus Drive

West Street resident Mary Brown thanked Mr. Ciccariello for coming out and seeing what was happening on Campus Drive during the (Father’s Day) rainstorm. She also thanked Mr. Stern for taking the call and Mr. McKinley for returning the call.

Ms. Brown told the Board that it was a very serious matter. This was the first time in history that Campus Drive had to be closed down. The culvert was under water and the brook was up to the stone wall. The debris and sewage going into Dug Pond was a health hazard and a safety

CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)

hazard. She noted that she would like to be on the agenda when she had the pictures.

APPROVAL OF LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN: WINTER WOODS

Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian referred to the document before the Board and explained that this was a permanent protection for the land to be kept as open space. A sign has been designed that will be placed in front of the property. That sign is required in order for the Town to be reimbursed the $250,000. Mr. Sarkisian said he hoped to present the signed management plan and receive the money back by July 31st.

Mr. McKinley asked if any of the land in this plan was the subject of the court proceeding. Mr. Sarkisian advised that it wasn’t. Mr. Sarkisian also noted that the Conservation Commission had signed off on the plan.

A motion was made by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Stern to approve the land use management plan for Winter Woods. Unanimously voted.

Mr. Cohen advised that he had had some discussion with Town Counsel regarding the concern with the termination language in the Westgate Academy proposal. Town Counsel did not feel the language made the bid invalid and the Town could proceed. The other concern raised was Westgate’s request to be connected to the Town’s I-net. Mr. Cohen advised that he spoke with the applicant and they agreed to waive that

request (for I-Net). Mr. Cohen then introduced representatives from the Westgate Church Christian Academy to speak on their proposal.

Sam Hollow told the Board that the Westgate Church had been in Weston for 25 years and in the present facility for about 10. It is a growing church and they hoped to grown even more and to do that they hoped to get into a larger facility. They were hoping to temporarily separate the church and the school. East School will be primarily for the Westgate Christian Academy, but the church would like to use it for certain things that were similar in nature to the school.

Mr. Hughes asked about the church’s need for a one-year notice of termination, and Chairman of the Board of Elders’ John Soliski responded that both the church and the school were growing quickly. They (Westgate) were looking to eventually have a scenario to purchase a larger property and reunite the church and the school. The timetable for that was not clear at this time, but likely over the next 10 years, and they wanted to have the flexibility to do that. They recognized that it would take a number of years to purchase a site and construct a facility.

Mr. Hughes referred back to Mr. Hollow’s comment about other uses and inquired as to what those activities were. Mr. Soliski responded that it would be primarily in support of other ministries of the school – Bible Club one evening a week, use of the gym for the youth group.

Mr. Stern referenced item 3 – repairs to be addressed – and asked if anyone had gone through this list and attached a cost. Mr. Cohen advised that he had gone through the list and the Town had envisioned having to do all this work no matter who occupied the building. There weren’t any significant costs associated with this applicant. He felt that l/3 of the $90,000 lease would be dedicated to repairs of the building and he would go to Town Meeting in October and transfer those funds. He didn’t believe there were significant costs nor were they unforeseen.

Mr. Stern asked what the cost was, and Mr. Cohen responded that it was less than $10,000.

Mr. Hughes noted that the neighborhood had some concerns with using the fields when the school wasn’t there and asked Mr. Soliski if that were a problem. Mr. Soliski’s response was, “no”, adding that Westgate’s desire was to be good neighbors. A number of the congregation and parents who send their children to the Westgate Academy were from that neighborhood.

Mr. Hughes raised the issue of the one year termination notice, and Mr. Cohen advised that there would be specific defined conditions that will determine the termination; i.e. Westgate Christian Academy secures land and constructs a facility or in the event they outgrow the school,

EAST SCHOOL LEASE (contd)

there may be a defined student enrollment. Those were specific language items that would be put in the lease document. It was not just the case of another site becoming available and Westgate moves. Neither party (the Town nor Westgate) feels that is appropriate. The reason for the ten-year lease as opposed to five was that it was felt that whoever came in to use the building would want to have security in

the building. If a ten-year period wasn’t offered, it was felt that any person would be reluctant to put in the needed investment.

Mr. Stern inquired as to the capacity of the school and was told by Mr. Cohen that there were six parallel classrooms in a corridor. The average class size was 25 plus modular classrooms could be put on that facility for a larger capacity.

Mr. Ciccariello expressed concern with the number of cars dropping off between 8:15-8:30 a.m. It looked like about 60 cars dropping off at what was already a traffic nightmare. Mr. Ciccariello asked how Westgate intended to resolve that problem particularly coming out. The other issue he had was that Westgate (response to the RFP) talks about the tennis court, basketball and baseball field, but doesn’t talk about playground structures. In addition, he would like to have a definitive dollar amount of what Exhibit 3 was worth and how the Town intends to do all this work and do these repairs. Will it go out to bid? Will it be done in-house and how?

Mr. Cohen responded that he was not aware of any structural building problems. The paving was part of the clearing and demolition and re-landscaping of that site was incorporated into the budget. Mr. Cohen pointed out that the facility was used this past school year and the report given to him by the School Building Department was that systems were functioning. It was his understanding that the building meets code n access and egress. Mr. Cohen further noted that he was not aware of any significant problems with the roof and gutters but would go out with there with the building maintenance people and if need be hire a contractor. The door locks were not a significant cost and if the locks were going to be changed that was something the tenant does. Cleaning and trash removal was an in-house cost. As to the repair of the gym floor, this same thing was seen at Eliot School and he was confident it could get to a useable condition without a tremendous expenditure of funds – not more than a couple of thousand dollars.

Mr. Cohen continued that he was not aware of problems with outside lighting. An electrician would come in to do the work on the gym lighting and the same was true with the HVAC, but he was not aware of a significant problem. Mr. Cohen stated that he was not aware of any problems with the sewer lines nor was he aware of any issue with the oil and diesel tanks. It was aboveground. He repeated that $10,000 was his best guess and that would be paid from the income. Money would also be put aside to keep the site in operational condition.

As to the issue of the playground, Mr. Cohen noted that it would similar to when it was used as a school. The playground be used by the school during school hours.

Regarding traffic flow, Mr. Cohen said that his suggestion would be that if it was necessary, that there be a crossing guard.

Mr. Stern asked if building had a fire alarm system and if so when was it last inspected and certified. Mr. Cohen advised that there was a fire alarm system that was certified this past year before the Natick Children First and Head Start were allowed into the school.

When Mr. Cohen inquired as to which direction the Board would like to go (sign a lease, explore alternative with the other two, or chose a different direction altogether), Mr. Hughes expressed the opinion that if there was a bidder willing to pay $90,000, the Town should go toward a final lease and see where that goes as opposed to starting over again.

Audrey Seyfert, Assistant Superintendent of Natick Schools, reminded the Board that she had come before them to request temporary housing at East School and the Board was supportive. The program was vacated when the demolition work was done. Children First and Family Network funds programs for 0-3. It is a parent education program. At this point the program is homeless and they have been working diligently trying to find any kind of housing they can. The Department of Education has said that

EAST SCHOOL LEASE (contd)

if Family Network can’t make a commitment, the $150,000 grant may disappear. Right now they were temporarily at the library, but the library will only allow meetings with parents and in terms of programs, they need to find another space. The program is only one year and it has 400 families. To Ms. Seyfert this was a cost effective program for the community. When children turn 3 they go to Children First and hopefully come into school as better readers requiring less specialized services.

Ms. Seyfert continued that the collaborative proposed was primarily with Accept which services 13 entities. Accept was looking for administrative and staff development office space. Accept is a vendor for special ed. Ms. Seyfert stated that she envisioned this partnership between the two of them (Accept and Family Network) and then Ms. Sayre indicated that she would like to collaborate and that would increase the rent. In addition the DOE was interested in finding a small space and when all the components were added up, it may be a competitive bid.

Of the 400 families participating, Mr. Stern inquired as to how many were on the premises at one time and were there families from other towns. Ms. Seyfert responded that this was primarily a Natick program. There may be as many as 60 people on the premise at one time, but the number will vary.

Debra Sayre told the Board that since she last spoke to the Board she had several telephone calls from other organizations looking for office space – some for-profit, some providing services to the community. The collaborative was developing into more than education and some components were dependent on grants.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how much money the Town needed to offset the costs to break even. Mr. Cohen advised that it was probably $30-40,000 for custodial, but the bigger question was capital costs for maintaining it over a longer term. Long-term costs were probably around $60,000 for maintenance, upkeep and capital improvements.

Mr. McKinley requested an explanation as to what Children First was, and Ms. Seyfert responded that Family Network serves parents of children age 0-3. Family Network does parent education, provides training, workshops and drop in centers that provides insurance and educational literature. Children First is for children 3-5. Family

Network has a grant of $150,000 and Children First has a grant of $350,000.

Mr. McKinley questioned if the programs went 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Monday-Friday and was told by Ms. Seyfert that they did not. Family Network sometimes ran at night, sometimes the weekends depending on what the community feels was needed. Children First was funding for parents of low income who need an opportunity for child care to go back to work and also parent education and training.

Superintendent of Public Schools Dr. Jerome Goldberg explained that Children First was not a subsidized child care program. It enables parents to go back into the workplace and put their children into a substantially good day care. It was a phenomenal program. The 0-3 program was a program where parents learn parenting skills. It was Natick families being served. There wasn’t any data that would indicate to the Schools that without this program, the Town would incur other costs; however, he would speculate that without the program there would be other costs. He hoped the Board would take that into account.

Mr. McKinley commented that the Schools had this building (East School), moved out and surplused the property and was now standing here saying you want it. Ms. Seyfert pointed out that when the building was surplused, there was no idea that the Schools would be so fortunate to get a grant like this and need this housing.

To Mr. McKinley’s comment that the parent education took place nights and weekends, Ms. Seyfert responded that the drop in center was during the day and the library said they can’t have children coming in. Ms. Seyfert noted that she has gone to private businesses, churches, door-to-door with no luck.

Mr. Stern asked if this were a one-year fixed term grant or a repetitive grant. Ms. Seyfert responded that she had been notified that if there was housing the grant will be received next year. It was

EAST SCHOOL LEASE (contd)

repeating. Dr. Goldberg told the Board that he didn’t have the physical space in the school system to house the program. He reminded the Board about the overcrowding until the new Wilson was open.

Ms. Sayre noted that she wanted the Board to look at both needs (Family Network & Kids Connect). Kids Connect was for middle school and with the other services interested in the collaborative, it becomes a multi-need center.

Mr. McKinley pointed out that in a previous meeting the Board of Selectmen reviewed the acceptable uses for the facility and based on neighborhood input, the building can only be used for a school or day care. Some of the other things mentioned by Ms. Sayre may not be in the scope of the limited use. Mr. Hughes added that if the Board were going to change things, the Board would have to go back and change the RFP.

If the Board were to grant additional time, Mr. Stern asked Ms. Seyfert how much time would be necessary to develop a firm proposal so there could be a lease by August 1st. Ms. Seyfert advised that she could do it within thirty days. Mr. McKinley questioned if that would be

sufficient time for the other applicant to go forward if they were planning to use the facility this school year. It was Mr. Cohen’s best guess that probably what was being talked about was October and if it

were pushed back, it would probably be January 1st. Ms. Seyfert advised that she could try to do it two weeks.

When asked how much space she needed, Ms. Seyfert responded that she needed a minimum of two classrooms. That was where the collaborative came in. Family Network needed 5-6,000 square feet.

Mr. Cohen proposed the use of Cole, but Ms. Seyfert didn’t think there was room. Mr. Cugini (Superintendent of Recreation & Parks) didn’t think the program could be put there. Mr. Hughes suggested inviting Mr. Cugini to come talk to the Board about the possibility of using Cole. Mr. Hughes also reminded everyone that before putting the RFP out there were a number of people here expressing what the building should be used for. One bidder complies with the RFP and now the Board was being asked for more time when there wasn’t even a group put together and there was no guarantee of filling up the space.

Ms. Seyfert noted that there was a letter of intent, but Mr. Hughes pointed out that Ms. Seyfert said she thought she could pay $55,000. Ms. Seyfert responded that the DOE had upped that to $65,000.

When asked about her needs, Ms. Seyfert replied that she needed a space for two classrooms and if someone could help her find a space, that would be great. Mr. McKinley thought that Ms. Seyfert needed help and as nice as this school might be, it was not a good decision for the Town and not fair to the applicant who put in a legitimate proposal.

Mr. Hughes noted that if a lease can’t be worked out, then the Board could revisit it.

Mr. McKinley moved to accept the Westgate Christian Academy proposal and direct the Town administration to meet with the applicant and negotiate a lease under the terms and conditions described. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.