Town of Natick - Selectmen's Minutes

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

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

ALSO PRESENT: Frederick C. Conley, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary;

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on August 6, 2001 in the amount of $704,781.46. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $763,316.66.

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. McKinley, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation.

A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so adjourned at 6:30 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.

The open session was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Stern, moved approval of the minutes of the June 11, 2001 meeting. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Hughes, Mr. Stern, Mr. Ball, Mr. Ciccariello voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley abstained as he had not attended the meeting.

PAMELA & ROBERT KOSKOVICH: SQUASH END BLOCK PARTY

On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve Robert & Pamela Koskovich’s request to block the easterly end of Walcott Street from Cottage street through 8 Walcott Street on September 8, 2001 from 2:00-9:00 p.m. for a block party. (rain date September 9).

DAGMAR KLINGER: WABAN STREET BLOCK PARTY

On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve Dagmar Klinger’s request to close Waban Street on August 25, 2001 from 5:00-9:00 p.m. for a block party.

Mr. McKinley noted that historically the Board had asked Safety Officer Robert Davis to look at these requests and was that being done. Police Chief Dennis Mannix responded that his department looks at, posts it on the board and lets the dispatchers know.

APPOINTMENT OF POLICE OFFICER

Chief Mannix requested the conditional appointment of Brian Bosselman as a Natick Police Officer. The appointment to be conditioned upon Mr.

Bosselman’s successful completion of medical and psychological evaluations, physical ability test, and graduation from the Mass Criminal Justice Training Council Municipal Police Officer Academy.

Chief Mannix highlighted Mr. Bosselman’s background, which included a B.A. in sociology from Framingham State College and certification as an emergency medical technician.

A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello to offer Brian Bosselman employment as a Natick Police Officer subject to the conditions listed above. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.

DEPARTMENT REVIEW: POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Department Review was presented by Chief Mannix. Using a power point presentation, Chief Mannix reviewed the table of organization, the old beat structure, the new area command, and Compstat.

Chief Mannix explained the duties of each of the four lieutenants beginning with Lieutenant Al Grassey who headed the criminal investigation with 4-day investigators, l night investigator, l night

DEPARTMENT REVIEW: POLICE DEPARTMENT (contd)

sergeant investigator, and l evidence technician working under him. Lieutenant Al Morgan was in charge of patrol services and had the bulk of the personnel which was broken into three areas A,B,C. Lieutenant Peter Mason was the executive officer, and Lieutenant Nicholas Mabardy headed up community services.

The bulk of the presentation centered around the Compstat implementation. Compstat is an abbreviation for comparative statistics. Chief Mannix explained that the Town was divided into 3 areas of command. Area A was the commercial area around the Mall, Area B covered much of the downtown area, and Area C was comprised of North Natick, Oak Street, down to Dover & Sherborn. Area C was the largest area, but got fewer calls for service.

Each area had an area commander, sergeants, and patrolman. Area A was commanded by Sergeant Thompson, Area B by Sergeant Lamont, and Area C by Sergeant Longtine. The areas had relatively equal workloads. There are meetings on a monthly basis, and the area commander gives a report to him (Chief Mannix) on what happens in the area, and suggestions are made to the commander on how to deal with the problems.

Chief Mannix concluded that he was confident that in the long-term Compstat would be far superior to lower the crime rate.

As to the goals for the department for next year, Chief Mannix told the Board that his immediate goal was to get the Citizens Police Academy going in September and to have an inservice training program. Chief Mannix also reminded everyone of the Natick Night Out Against Crime being held on the Common on August 7th.

Mr. McKinley noted that Compstat was a little controversial, but it was not obvious why it was controversial. He inquired as to what were the objections to it and what was the prognosis. Does it remain controversial or was it finding acceptance.

Chief Mannix responded that there were people who don’t think it is the best way. Change can be difficult. There were some who felt if a change was going to be made and if they didn’t have to work harder, but smarter, they would like a quid pro quo for the cooperation they extend. The Superior Officers have accepted it. The patrolmen have been cooperating now, but have their contract desires that they would like to see met. Chief Mannix felt that it was a change in working conditions that they (patrolmen) would like to have some compensation for. To do it properly, Chief Mannix felt the officers would probably have to work harder but they probably should have been doing that all along. Compstat makes them responsible for what was happening. They can’t tell him (Chief Mannix) that they didn’t know about something.

Mr. McKinley asked if it was correct that no one was working any more hours than they used to work. Chief Mannix responded, ‘no’, but added that it was a different responsibility. The officers have to attend neighborhood meetings.

Mr. McKinley then asked if the Chief would say that Compstat was ‘settling in’, and Chief Mannix replied that he thought it was and he thought it would get better.

Mr. Hughes asked about the inservice training and if Chief Mannix envisioned other departments using the training. Because Natick doesn’t have enough officers to do the academy by themselves, he would open it up to other communities.

Mr. Ball congratulated the Chief on revitalizing the Citizens Police Academy. He was delighted to see it back in operation.

POLICE CHIEF: ACCEPTANCE OF POLICE PSYCHOLOGIST

Chief Mannix noted that the Town had used Dr. Barry for a number of years as the examining psychologist, but Dr. Barry has now retired. The Department of Personnel Administration requires the Town to use the same psychologist to evaluate every candidate. He (Chief Mannix) has now been working with Dr. Glenn Cahn and Dr. Cahn needs to be approved by the DPA.

Mr. McKinley noted that the process hasn’t changed, only the physician. Chief Mannix confirmed that as correct.

A motion was made by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ball, to name Dr. Glenn Cahn as psychologist for the Police Department and submit a

POLICE CHIEF: ACCEPTANCE OF POLICE PSYCHOLOGIST (contd)

revised psychological screening plan to the DPA for approval. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

POLICE CHIEF/FINANCE DIRECTOR: POLICE DETAIL BILLING POLICY

Mr. Mannix noted that in the past when there were clients in the arrears in payment of police detail bills, the Treasurer provided him with a list and he could deny them future details. The Finance Director Robert Palmer has advised that he will again provide him (Chief Mannix) with a list of overdue accounts.

Mr. Hughes pointed out that there was almost $45,000 over 90 days old. Mr. Palmer responded that $117,000 was outstanding at the end of the fiscal year and the adjusted amount was around $77,000 which was about

15% uncollected. The area of concern was the $45,000 and about $14,000 of that will be coming from the state for Town projects. Mr. Palmer pointed out that the uncollected amount was about l/2 what it was a year ago. For the most part it (uncollected) involved about l/2 dozen accounts.

Mr. Palmer suggested a policy whereby anyone who was delinquent over 90 days would not be extended a police detail. Mr. McKinley asked about 30 days, and Mr. Palmer responded that he would do whatever the Board wanted but usually by 90 days out the Town has collected from those people who were going to pay. The heaviest collection was before the due date and then after that 30 days and then the rate of collection starts to decline. Mr. McKinley thought 60 days may be reasonable.

Mr. McKinley then asked if it made sense to consider a prepayment for all traffic details. Mr. Palmer’s response was, ‘no’. He noted that most of the companies usually pay within 30-60 days. Perhaps the only ones for a prepayment would be ones where they haven’t had details before.

When asked by Mr. Hughes if the Police Department could handle a policy whereby the first time if you don’t pay, no detail, Chief Mannix responded that right now they don’t prepay and there weren’t any cash payments. Generally a detail was requested by telephone.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to how much notice the Police Department got for a detail, and was told by Chief Mannix that sometimes it was very little. Sometimes the day before. He added that he wasn’t aware there were any vendors that were that much in arrears, but with an aging list from Mr. Palmer he would be aware (in the future).

Mr. Hughes stated that he was not as much concerned with the aging list but was a little concerned with the problem identified by Mr. Palmer where people get one detail and that was all they will ever need and then they were gone. The cost to collect becomes economically prohibitive.

Chief Mannix advised that there weren’t that many with one detail, but if someone comes in, his department could collect from them while they were there. Arrangements can be made to do that.

Mr. Stern expressed concern with Mr. Palmer’s memo of recommendations for a police detail policy, particularly the 180-day provision before going out to collection. If the money hasn’t been collected in 180 days, there may not be anything to collect against. The business may be bankrupt. He would prefer to see that number cut in half. If it was going to go to collection, do it while there was something to collect.

Mr. Palmer pointed out that these were just recommendations. He noted that he was just trying to make this fit with other revenues that were collected. If it is moved to 90 days, this will be the fastest revenue you try to collect.

Of the 14 accounts which constitute the bulk of the overdues, Mr. Stern inquired as to how many were still getting details. Mr. Palmer

responded that right now all of them (would get a detail) if they asked for one. Mr. Stern requested an updated list.

Mr. Ciccariello agreed that 90 days was too excessive, and he would like to see the detail paid up front if the vendor doesn’t have a permit. By having a permitting process, proper notification can be given to the Police and allows the Town a method to look at someone’s credit and decide if they should pay up front. He would like to see

POLICE CHIEF/FINANCE DIRECTOR: POLICE DETAIL BILLING POLICY (contd)

some sort of permit process set up where people can’t set it up over the telephone. People would have to get a permit, file it with proper time to review and schedule the detail. He preferred putting the burden on the user. Right now the people working the overtime were getting paid and the Town was fronting the money.

Mr. Palmer preferred to see a policy established whereby the first time a vendor asks for a police detail they have to pay up front. He pointed out that in the case of NSTAR or RCN, they weren’t being permitted every time they use a detail and there were cases when a company wouldn’t need any other permits.

Mr. Ball asked what would happen if a detail was denied because the crew didn’t have a check. Chief Mannix responded that if it creates a public risk, the company will have to stop working.

A motion was made by Mr. Ball to adopt a policy for police detail billing that would encompass the following:

First time users who do have a credit history must prepay or bring a check at the time of the detail;

Accounts over 60 days in arrears are denied additional details

Accounts over 90 days go to collection. (Changed to 120 days)

Mr. McKinley seconded the motion, but proposed changing it to 120 days before going to collection. Mr. Ball agreed. The motion was unanimously voted.

Mr. Stern inquired as to the effective date, and both Mr. Palmer and Chief Mannix advised that August 13, 2001 would be acceptable. The Board agreed.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH: DEAD BIRD POLICY

At the last meeting, Mr. Ball had requested that Roger Wade, Director of Public Health be invited in to explain the Board of Health’s dead bird policy. Mr. Hughes advised that Mr. Wade was away last week and was unable to respond to the request. He (Mr. Wade) will have something in writing to the Board of Selectmen before the next meeting.

RATHBUN ROAD CONSERVATION RESTRICTION

Representing the Conservation Commission was Commission member Randy Johnson.

Mr. Johnson explained that what was being proposed was to put a very small parcel into a conservation restriction on a single lot on Rathbun Road. The reason it was being proposed was that the Commission originally denied construction on this lot. The applicant appealed to the DEP and the DEP order allowed the construction of the lot, but the order paid attention to some of the Conservation Commission’s concerns. One of those concerns was the proximity of the water body and one of

the negotiated items of the superceding order was the restriction on a fairly narrow strip that runs behind the house, adjacent to the wetlands area. The proposal is to restrict the present owner and future owners from developing the area that abuts wetlands. This was not a typical conservation restriction in that it is very small. It was a product of the regulatory process.

Mr. Ball asked if the restriction would go on the deed, and Mr. Johnson’s response was that it would be in perpetuity. Asked if the Conservation Commission had accepted it, Mr. Johnson advised that they had.

It was Mr. McKinley’s reaction that the Town loses with this. The builder gets his house and a tax reduction when in fact it was well within the buffer zone and couldn’t be developed anyway. The Town gets no additional control so why should the Board do this.

Mr. Johnson responded that he agreed with Mr. McKinley to some extent, but it does give a much more tangible concrete protection. The homeowner would be aware of it up front and hopefully prevent the Conservation Commission from having to be a watchdog. It is a regulatory convenience and he (Mr. Johnson) thought the smallness of

the property made the tax reduction almost insignificant. It doesn’t include the wetlands area.

Mr. McKinley commented that the restriction was only on the 10-20 foot strip behind the house, and Mr. Johnson confirmed that as correct.

RATHBUN ROAD CONSERVATION RESTRICTION (contd)

Mr. McKinley moved approval of accepting the Conservation Commission restriction for property owned by Christopher D’Antonio on Rathbun Road. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

HEARING: WESTBOROUGH BEVERAGE CORPORATION ALCOHOL LICENSE

Representing Westborough Beverage Corporation was Attorney Brian Levey of Bowditch & Dewey; Kenneth Soares, Manager of Wesborough Beverage Corporation; John Paragules, District Manager; Michael Pascone, Regional Buyer.

The hearing was scheduled on the allegation that an employee of Westborough Beverage Corporation (Sam’s Club) sold alcohol to a minor on June 1, 2001. The sale to a minor was part of a sting operation conducted by the Natick Police Department. In addition, Sam’s Club was operating with no approved manager for the premises and corporation officers and directors who had not been approved.

Mr. Levey told the Board that his client was deeply regretful of the incident and did not deny that it took place. It was very regrettable that the incident took place and they understood the sale to a minor puts that person’s safety at risk and the public safety at risk. It was to be avoided at all costs.

Mr. Levey noted that this was an isolated incident and a very unexpected incident at Sam’s Club. The Club has been in existence for 9 years without any violations. It (Sam’s Club) has a rigorous training program for any clerk who works in the liquor store. They are required to take a written pretest, watch a video, take a written post

test and then chat with the manager of the store at which point they are reminded that they can’t make one mistake.

Mr. Levey continued that a little less than one person per month was denied a sale. The clerk involved in this case was over 40 years old and had been a Sam’s Club employee for over 2 years and had received several promotions in the store. This person had been instructed on the law and had previously denied sales to minors. An ID had been requested of the minor, but an ID had not been produced. The procedure was not followed. It was a mistake and the employee was regretful that it happened. Sam’s deeply regrets this happened and the employee was immediately terminated. All of the liquor clerks have been retrained subject to the testing and videotape again. Internally the message has been sent that there is zero tolerance for making this type of mistake.

Regarding the corporate papers, Mr. Levey advised that Sam’s has been trying to get a document out of the DOR to be sent to the ABCC to get the general manager name change. He understood that the problem occurred when Sam’s filed a domestic tax return rather than a foreign return. That got squared away last week and they were then informed that Sam’s owed $200 in tobacco tax. That was sent Fed Ex on Thursday and received by the state on Friday. The only thing needed is a confirming letter from the DOR to the ABCC.

Mr. Hughes noted that Sam’s Club was not contesting the fact that someone at Sam’s Club sold alcohol to a minor. Mr. Levey confirmed that as being correct.

Mr. Hughes then noted that Sam’s Club was not contesting the fact that they haven’t had a valid manager approved since April. Again Mr. Levey confirmed that as being correct, adding that the Board of Selectmen approved Mr. Soares, but it was held up because of the DOR.

Mr. Stern asked if the fact that Sam’s instituted a re-testing program was crisis management or policing and will re-testing be done on a consistent basis. Mr. Levey responded that Sam’s did not plan on instituting re-testing as a policy, but if the Board of Selectmen would like them to do that, they would be happy to do it.

Mr. Stern then inquired as to what point in time it came to Sam’s Club’s attention that there was no approved manager on the site. Mr.

Soares advised that the first letter came in mid-April and there was some question whether it was Sam’s Club or Wal Mart that owed the taxes.

Mr. Hughes asked Sergeant Davis if there had been any other violations from Sam’s Club, and Sergeant Davis responded that to the best of his knowledge there have been none. This was the first time the Police attempted to procure alcoholic beverages in Sam’s Club. He (Sergeant

HEARING: WESTBOROUGH BEVERAGE CORPORATION ALCOHOL LICENSE (contd)

Davis) found it intolerable that an 18-year-old can buy a fifth of Baccardi Rum without an ID.

Mr. Ball recalled that last year there were two fatal accidents on Route 27. Both involved high school students and alcohol. Mr. Ball stated that he was not concerned with the $200.00 and paper trail, but he had a great problem with Sam’s having sold alcohol to an underage

individual. He appreciated that it had been responded to by retraining and Sam’s Club would entertain the institution of a continuous program of retraining, but a message needs to be sent to both Sam’s and everybody else that the Board wasn’t kidding about the sale of alcohol to minors.

Mr. Stern asked if Sergeant Davis was aware of any alcohol related calls from the Sam’s Club lot. Sergeant Davis responded that to the best of his knowledge there were no alcohol disturbance calls. Mr. Levey noted that on one occasion when a sale was denied, there was a call to the Police, but the customer left the store before the Police got there.

A 10 minutes break was taken due to a power outage. The meeting resumed at 8:20 p.m.

Mr. Ball moved that Westborough Beverage Corporation’s license be suspended for two days on a consecutive Friday and Saturday. At Mr. Stern’s request Mr. Ball agreed to amend the motion to require ongoing testing and education. In discussion with the licenseholder, the dates were established as August 10 & 11, 2001. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.

It setting the dates it was pointed out by Mr. Hughes that anything the Board does was subject to a five-day appeal period.

In speaking to the motion, Mr. McKinley stated that he was very empathetic to Mr. Ball’s motion and the death of several young people in Town over the past year amplifies the seriousness. He, however, would be willing to listen to alternative suggestions from Sam’s Club and have some discussion of what might be an appropriate penalty should there be a second offense in the next 24 months. A message had to be sent.

Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think two days seemed like much of a message to a big corporation and thought it was pretty insignificant in light of all the incidents over the past several years. He favored seven days.

Mr. Stern pointed out that whatever the Board did would set a precedent for future incidents and the Board needed to be thorough and consistent in what it did. He was impressed with Sam’s Club’s response to the incident. He was not condoning what happened, but he thought they (Sam’s Club) had gone a long way in establishing what a policy might be for a licenseholder education program for employee training. He didn’t agree with seven days as he thought that represented a sanction which was too harsh.

Mr. Hughes expressed his support for Mr. Ball’s motion for a two-day suspension. To him it was a reasonable deterrent for what happened and recognizes the actions Sam’s Club has taken to remedy the situation so it never happens again.

Mr. Ball referred to Mr. McKinley’s suggestion of what might transpire if a second violation were to occur within a two year period. Mr. Hughes, however, didn’t want to bind the board. Every case that comes in front of the Board will be different in facts and circumstances.

Mr. Stern inquired if Mr. Ball would accept an amendment that will require ongoing testing and education for employees. Mr. Ball responded that he would, but asked how Mr. Stern intended to apply this to other licenseholders or would the Board make this a requirement of

Sam's and not others. Mr. Stern proposed that it be made a requirement of all licenses upon renewal.

Mr. Ciccariello asked Chief Mannix if the Police Department had any policy or education for first-time offenders. Chief Mannix advised that there was no in-house program like the TIPS program, but he was sure there were classes out there. Mr. Hughes requested that that information be transmitted through the Chief to the Board of Selectmen, noting that this was a hearing on this particular violation.

HEARING: WESTBOROUGH BEVERAGE CORPORATION ALCOHOL LICENSE (contd)

Mr. Levey reiterated that it was the policy of Sam’s Club before the incident to do the written pre-test, the video, followed by the post test as well as a session with the store manager. He had no problem leaving that as a condition of the permit plus some periodic retesting. He also added that if the Board votes to suspend the license, his client has agreed not to file any appeal from the suspension.

Mr. Hughes requested that Mr. Levey inform the Board as soon as possible of approval from the ABCC. Mr. Levey agreed that he would notify the Board as soon as it was in hand.

If Sam’s Club was agreeing not to appeal, Mr. McKinley asked if the suspension dates could be agreed upon now. Mr. Levey proposed this weekend – August 10 & 11. The Board agreed and the dates were incorporated into the motion.

In response to Mr. Hughes’ inquiry, Mr. Levey reiterated that Sam’s Club was waiving the appeal period.

PUBLIC ACCESS CORPORATION: AGREEMENT

Discussion of the Public Access Corporation agreement was tabled to the following meeting.

TOWN ENGINEER: MIDDLE STREET DRAINAGE UPDATE

Town Engineer Mark Coviello reported that since the last time he appeared before the Board, the DPW has gone out and completely surveyed the drainage system that serves the Middle Street area. He referred to a diagram that denoted the houses and the intermittent stream that flows down into the railroad track bed. The area was surveyed both visually and with a camera. Several obstructions were found in the piping that was contributing to the problem. On Sawin Street, roots were found and the DPW was in the process of clearing that piping system and will re-camera that line. Further up the drainage system in Middle Street, cobblestones of significant size were found in the drain line. That has caused some obstructions, but clearing those won’t be the total solution to the problem.

Mr. Coviello noted that the house at 11 Middle Street had a l/2 step out the basement about 60 feet from the intermittent stream at the same elevation as the bottom of the stream. The house built six months before 11 Middle Street was a duplex with a 3-foot crawl space. Their yards flood, but they do not report damage because they don’t have a

full basement. 11 Middle Street has a full basement at the same level as the brook and complicates things.

Mr. Coviello continued that the DPW has prepared an article for Town Meeting to address drainage concerns in this area and about five other areas. In this particular case the only long-term solution was putting some kind of control device further upstream to contain some of the water. The size of the pipe can’t just be increased because it will flood the rail bed. That was not a solution. For all new developments that come through, the developer is made to retain the stormwater on site. In this case (Middle Street) the Town didn’t have that opportunity. The houses on Middle Street had appropriate frontage and didn’t need a subdivision approval, they just simply had to apply for a building permit.

Mr. McKinley asked if he was correct in hearing that the out flow of the drainage system was onto the railroad system. Mr. Coviello advised that that was correct, adding that the surface water flows down the railroad bed and ultimately discharges into Pegan Cove. It was not untypical for most rail beds. Most (rail beds) serve as drainage ditches.

With the house being the same grade as the stream running behind it, even getting a detention basin upstream, Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Coviello had any hope of them (11 Middle Street) having a long-term dry basement. Mr. Coviello responded that the basement was dry for the most part, but it was like the flood plain.

Mr. Coviello advised that he didn’t have an estimate of the cost. The plan was to have a consultant prepare conceptual design plans for these areas and possibly go to Town Meeting in the spring for final design and construction.

In light of the discussion of some mitigation work at Pegan Cove, Mr. McKinley then asked if it made sense to consider some filtration system

TOWN ENGINEER: MIDDLE STREET DRAINAGE UPDATE (contd)

for Pegan Cove. Mr. Coviello responded that he thought it was a big component of the plan to have a filtration system.

DPW DIRECTOR: WATER & SEWER REPAIR POLICY

DPW Director Charles Sisitsky noted that for many years the Town has had a policy of repairing water & sewer lines on private property up to and including the meter and for the sewer up to approximately 10 feet from the foundation. They would respond to a sewer plug or water leak. In recent years its become more of a problem and the DPW can’t continue to do it in this manner for the following reasons:

People are putting in more and more elaborate landscaping, wider patios and porches and they are picky about having it restored to the original condition. The DPW crews were very good at responding to emergencies, but not good at landscaping. Because the Town doesn’t charge for these repairs, he didn’t think the DPW should have that responsibility.

In some of these developments where there is cluster housing or attached units the property lines don’t have the normal traditional property line. A lot of times utilities that go from the street to these houses cross several houses and there weren’t always easements across some of these private properties making

it impossible to go on somebody’s property to dig up a pipe for someone else’s property.

For slabs the water lines come up in the middle of the house. If there was a rotted out pipe, the DPW was responsible because it is before the meter and they have to burrow under the slab or crawl through kitchen cabinets to get to the pipe. He (Mr. Sisitsky) didn’t think the DPW should be doing that.

Mr. Sisitsky proposed that the DPW no longer provide that service on private property – that the DPW’s responsibility end at the street line and the homeowner would have to hire a private contractor. A survey has been taken of towns around the area and almost every town requires the homeowner to do that. If that policy was adopted, it would free up some of the manpower now devoted to these repairs and allow the DPW to do other work.

Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau added that out of the towns surveyed only a couple did work on private property and they charged per hour for each guy. Everybody now has inground irrigation systems and the Town has to pay to have someone fix it so it is costing the Town money.

Mr. Stern assumed that the policy would apply to commercial accounts as well as homeowners, and Mr. Perodeau confirmed that as correct.

Mr. Hughes asked if it was a matter of not wanting to do it any more or should the fee structure be redone. He knew that an adjacent town did it right to the inside.

Mr. Perodeau noted that Framingham does it on private property, but there were charges. Mr. Perodeau added that there have been a couple of complaints – one at Fieldstone that is a condo with a huge trellis, a brick walkway, trees. Another involved a terrace that had to be taken down.

Mr. Hughes asked about the DPW having a list of contractors to refer people to, and Mr. Sisitsky responded that he would offer people a list of contractors who do this kind of work but couldn’t recommend anyone. People can also look in the Yellow pages. He didn’t think it would be a burden on the homeowner to get someone to do the job.

Mr. Hughes stated that he anticipated the argument that the blockage was on the Town’s side of the pipe. Mr. Sisitsky advised that if the DPW gets a call the first thing they will do is to go out to the street and pull the manhole. If it is not plugged, the resident will know that it is on their property.

Mr. Ball commented that when he first read this he was negatively disposed. The idea of forcing a homeowner to not only deal with the Town but a plumber and landscaper and coordinate 2-3 vendors was unappealing, but he was convinced tonight that raising fees was not the answer. The nature of the homes precluded being able to do this. He would support stopping at the street.

Mr. Stern asked if at some point in time the Town started requiring easements when water & sewer service was put in. Mr. Sisitsky advised that it was not universally done, only when there was an obvious need.

DPW DIRECTOR: WATER & SEWER REPAIR POLICY (contd)

A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, to adopt a policy limiting the activity of the DPW in the repair of water and sewer lines to the street – water to the shut-off and sewer to the main. To be effective September 1, 2001.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to how people will be informed of the new policy, and Mr. Sisitsky responded that it would be posted on the web page and he would take out an ad.

Mr. McKinley stressed the need to compile the list of contractors.

FINANCE DIRECTOR & DPW: WATER METER PROGRAM

Finance Director Robert Palmer told the Board that as a result of reviewing policy and procedures for water billing, it was clear that the physical meter apparatus was a technology developed in 1958. This was something already recognized by the DPW. There were many errors because it is an older technology with several points of potential failure of those meters. The DPW knew those meters had to be replaced because of their age.

Mr. Palmer continued that a couple of different vendors who use the prevailing technology have been looked, and the recommendation was that the Town replace all its water meters and reading equipment. With the new equipment, the reader could drive down the street and pickup the reading and the only time the reader would have to go in was when the meter fails. The cost was estimated at a maximum of $2.7 million.

Given the Town’s borrowing status now and generation of lost revenue that the Town would see (from new meters), Mr. Palmer felt little or no increase would be seen in rates. His recommendation was to undertake the program over the next two years.

Asked about financing, Mr. Palmer responded that his recommendation was to borrow $2 million and the remaining come from water and sewer surplus. He recommended financing immediately since the rates right now were the cheapest.

Mr. Hughes asked about the $40-50,000 now budgeted for water meters, and Mr. Palmer advised that that would cover the general maintenance. There will be a component of the meter that will need to be replaced. There will be a one-time capital outlay, but that doesn’t significantly impact the long-term revenue to support the program.

Mr. Stern stated that he was concerned that if the Town entered into the program there would be a wholesale failure of batteries, etc. and every 7 years the Town will be going into homes to replace them. He questioned if there was anything else, and Mr. Palmer responded that this technology was going into many communities. Two had been looked at. One would have the transmitting device in the house and the other would be outside.

Mr. Stern inquired if the $2.7 million was going to result in buying new computer billing software, and Mr. Palmer responded that the Town was already committed to buying new billing software. There would be no additional cost outlay or resources that would be necessary to support the program.

When asked about the number of meters, Mr. Palmer advised that there were 13,000 meters. Mr. Ball pointed out that that would mean two

dozen would be done per day and he questioned if there was adequate staff to do that or if people would need to be hired. Mr. Palmer noted that the change in policy (no water & sewer repairs on private property) would free up some staff to work on this. Mr. Perodeau was a staff of three and to accommodate the public installation would during regular hours, some evenings and weekends. Mr. Palmer felt that Mr. Perodeau was convinced that the product would be better the DPW took control of the installation.

Mr. Ball noted that over a 2-l/2-3 year period there would be a mixed system. Mr. Palmer responded that hand held receivers were used now and the same person would use the same hand held receiver and when the new technology was used, there would be an automatic bleep.

Assuming the article was approved, Mr. Hughes asked if this would start in the spring. Mr. Palmer advised that the acquisition of the equipment would be bid at one time, but the installation would be done over 2-l/2 years.

FINANCE DIRECTOR & DPW: WATER METER PROGRAM (contd)

Mr. Ciccariello asked if the bid would have a price to do the complete installation, and Mr. Conley noted that it could be priced both ways. Mr. Palmer added that it could be done as an alternate.

Mr. Hughes pointed out that the warrant article was only borrowing for the purchase of the meters. If the Town decided to do the installation by outside contract, the warrant article would have to be amended to get more money. Mr. Palmer, however, noted that the article was worded for both acquisition and installation. It was his recommendation that the Town not borrow the full amount, only a portion. That decision would come back to the Board to authorize the contract and bids.

Mr. McKinley stated that his inclination would be to support the article.

Mr. Ball requested some literature on the metering system. He stressed that when this went to bid he wanted to be absolutely sure that this would be a competitive bidding situation. Mr. Palmer agreed to get the literature to Mr. Ball.

FINANCE DIRECTOR: WATER BILLING POLICIES

Mr. Palmer reviewed his memo to the Board with recommendations for a water billing policy. Those recommendations were as follows:

When an inside meter and dials were working correctly but the outside reading device has a mechanical failure that causes a lower reading than actual consumption, the recommendation was that the approximate duration of meter failure (6 months, 1 year, 2 years) be estimated and bill the consumer based on prevailing rates during that period. The supplemental billing would be equally spread over each billing cycle during the error period. The applicable rates would be based on actual billed amounts, supplemental billed units, and prevailing rate structure.

2. When inside meter and dials are working correctly but the outside reading device has a mechanical failure that causes a zero reading resulting in minimum bills, the recommendation was that the approximate duration (6 months, 1 year, etc.) of outside reading device failure be estimated and bill the consumer based on prevailing rates during that period. The supplement billing would be equally spread over each billing cycle during the error period. The applicable rates would be based on actual billed amounts (minimum billing), supplemental billed units, and prevailing rate structure.

3. The meter has malfunctioned/stopped and consumer has received “minimum bills” for a specified period of time. This period of time would be determined based on a review of prior consumption to determine the date the meter failure occurred. The recommended policy was to analyze the consumption for the two years prior to the malfunction. Determine the corrected amount to be billed based on the consumption analysis and the original bill issued. Issue the consumer a supplemental bill based on prevailing rates during that period. The typical consumption for the same period over the past two years would be the basis for estimating the correct amount that should be billed. The

consumer would be billed for the difference between the original bill and the corrected bill amount.

4. Account has been misclassified and consumer has received a bill with incorrect rates applied to metered consumption. An account review would be completed to determine the duration of the billing error. The recommended policy was to calculate the correct amount that should have been billed for the period. Determine the amount of supplemental billing based on the original bill and the corrected billing amount. Issue the consumer a supplemental bill based on prevailing rates during that period.

Any other billing errors would be reviewed and administered in a similar manner.

The supplemental charges would be due and payable thirty (30) days after supplemental billing. In the event that the supplemental bill creates a financial hardship a reasonable payment plan will be established.

FINANCE DIRECTOR: WATER BILLING POLICIES (contd)

For the most part, Mr. Stern said he thought the recommendations made a lot of sense, but he thought an intermittent step was needed for #3. He didn’t disagree with analyzing consumption for the prior two years, but thought it needed to be determined if the household had changed. Mr. Palmer felt that was a good point, and felt that that was something to look at if the property had remained in contiguous ownership. There can be a change in family size and that can be checked with the census. If there was a change in ownership those people were likely affected by a municipal lien certificate and the Town can only bill back to when the certificate was issued.

Mr. Ball expressed the opinion that it was imperative to recognize a meter failure as soon as possible. He questioned if it was reasonable

to assume with new software that the Town would be able to recognize a meter that has stopped or slowed down within 1-2 quarters. Mr. Palmer responded that if it has stopped, it should be known immediately. Ones that slow down were tougher and that was why the replacement program makes sense.

Mr. McKinley moved that the Board adopt the policies as recommended. Seconded by Mr. Ball. Mr. Stern wanted to see the calculations outlined in #3 take into account whether the property changed hands or there was a change in family size. Mr. McKinley as the maker of the motion and Mr. Ball as the seconder agreed to amend the motion to include Mr. Stern’s suggestion. Unanimously voted.

TREASURER/COLLECTOR: UPDATE UNCOLLECTED TAXES

Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer reported that the Town had had a good collection rate at year’s end of 99% and he would do a year end report and get it to the Board. Mr. Palmer advised that he was about to move forward with advertising for Fiscal 2001 (delinquencies). Demand notices have gone out and delinquency notices were going out.

Mr. Hughes noted that the Board had undertaken the sale of a number of pieces of property and has been told by one purchaser and Town Counsel that two of the properties don’t have clear title. He inquired if something would be done to fix that.

Mr. Palmer noted that he wasn’t sure that (clear title on those pieces of surplus property) had anything to do with tax taking. He has found that many tax takings still require work to cure that. What concerns him was the 200+ that were in tax title but not yet tax possession because of problems in the way they were advertised.

STEVE GROSSMAN: RCN UPDATE

RCN representative Steve Grossman appeared before the Board in follow-up to his May 21st appearance. He reported that on July 16 RCN began offering service to Natick residents and they have released 4,000 homes to marketing sales people going door-to-door. They will continue to release homes until all were released, but they need to do it in an orderly fashion so people can get a proper explanation of the service and timely installation dates. Mr. Grossman presented the Board with some of the marketing data.

As to the status of the I-Net, Mr. Grossman advised that it was built when the system was constructed throughout the year. The 22 sites have been wired with the exception of the gazebo and the AT&T studio. The next phase is the connection from the site to the networks and that is currently under way. There was a meeting with the Town’s Information Services Director Bob LaFranciose, and they were then contacted by the consultant hired by the Town.

With regard to the underground installation, this was currently in design and he (Mr. Grossman) would like to call and arrange for a meeting to discuss the underground construction procedures. He would set up a meeting with Paul Cohen to discuss the procedures.

Mr. Hughes noted that there hasn’t been any underground construction in Natick as yet, and Mr. Grossman confirmed that as correct.

If RCN was ready to serve 9,600 homes of the 12-13,000, Mr. Ball presumed that the remaining were underground. Mr. Grossman advised that they weren’t all underground. Some were in multiple dwelling unit complexes where RCN doesn’t have permission to wire yet.

In follow-up Mr. Ball inquired as to when Mr. Grossman expected the other 4,000+ to have the door-to-door knock. Mr. Grossman responded that it will continue through the summer and the fall. There were about l,400 apartment and condo complexes where RCN doesn’t have permission and they

STEVE GROSSMAN: RCN UPDATE (contd)

will continue to work on that. In the underground they need to work on putting a plan together to get the construction done.

Charlotte Lebowitz complimented the job done by the Police Department with the speed checks on Oak Street.

West Suburban Arena – Name Change

Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini referred to a letter sent to the Board of Selectmen concerning William Chase and naming the West Suburban Arena in honor of him.

Mr. McKinley stopped Mr. Cugini from continuing because of concern that information may be divulged that might be personal to Mr. Chase. Although he supported the idea, Mr. McKinley suggested that Mr. Cugini may want to speak one-on-one with the members of the Board.

Mr. Hughes asked that Mr. Cugini bring his concerns to the Town Administrator, and Mr. Conley can bring them to each of the Board and schedule something for the next agenda.

Given that the boiler was 41 years old and the estimated heating plant repair was $5,000, Mr. McKinley inquired as to the incremental cost of replacing the boiler now and questioned if that was a wise investment. Mr. Palmer responded that most of the heating repairs were to the venting system in the gym and classroom. He could get an estimate for a boiler replacement, but he thought it would be very expensive. Mr. Hughes added that the boiler replacement at the high school was estimated at $l/4 million per boiler.

Mr. Ciccariello recalled that when the Board originally talking about the least of East School there was number kicked around of less than $20,000 to do all the repairs and now they were looking at in excess of $90,000. He questioned how it got from $20,000 in discussions of how much to ask for rent to $90,000 which eats up the first year’s rent. It was his understanding that the paving repairs were included as part of the original bid for the demolition of the old East School and that no additional money would be asked. Now there was another $20,000 for paving above and beyond plus $20,000 of roof repairs without putting together a bid specification or hiring an engineering firm to prepare bid specifications and only going to 1 or 2 sources for a price. He was concerned with the cost and how to facilitate it to make sure it was done properly.

Mr. Hughes noted that Mr. Palmer’s memo indicates that the paving would be completed under the Town’s existing paving contract. Mr. Palmer responded that there was no bid requirement. In speaking about payment for demolition of East, it was indicated that there would be $15-20,000

remaining because the bids came in lower and that could be used for improvements. There have been $5,000 in bills for removal of hazardous waste and engineering costs that have eaten up a lot of that ($15-20,000). They were add ons that he never about at the time of the last conversation.

Mr. Ciccariello commented that this was the first time he had heard there was additional cost related to hazardous waste at East School. The Board had been told that Universal Engineering did a substantial investigation of hazardous waste and it was all included. During the past Selectmen’s meeting he (Mr. Ciccariello) was informed that everything was covered and now was being told that anywhere from $5-10,000 in additional cost had been incurred.

Mr. Palmer clarified that what was said (at the previous meeting) was that all building components were checked. These costs were not related to building components, and he (Mr. Palmer) did not see the manifest for the materials until today.

Mr. Ciccariello questioned if Universal did not go into the building and assess it, and Mr. Palmer responded that they did as it pertains to the tearing down of the building. He didn’t think Universal was aware there were components in the building that were stored there.

After rereading paragraph 2 of the lease, Mr. Stern felt that it was written to benefit the lessee when it should be reversed and benefit the Town. The lessee has the right but not obligation to terminate the