Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes 10/15/01

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

ALSO PRESENT: Frederick C. Conley, Town Administrator; Paul E. Cohen, Deputy Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary;

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on October 15, 2001 in the amount of $1,320,842.41. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,232,118.73.

LETTER OF RECOGNITION: JOSEPH WEISSE

A Letter of Recognition was presented to Joseph Weisse in appreciation of his service to the community. Mr. Weisse had served on the Commission on Disability for seven years, six of which he was chairman.

Mr. Weisse was also presented with a plaque from the Commission on Disability in recognition of his contribution to the Commission. Making the presentation was Commission chairman Joan Sherizon.

On a motion by Mr. Stern, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the August 20, 2001 meeting.

NATICK PUBLIC SCHOOLS: REQUEST BANNER

On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Natick Public Schools request to hang a banner across Main Street from November 8-17, 2001 for American Education Week.

AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: REQUEST BANNER

The Board unanimously voted to approve the American Cancer Society’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of November 19-25, 2001 as part of the Great American Smoke Out campaign. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. McKinley.

NATICK RECYCLING COMMITTEE: REQUEST BANNER

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved approval of the Natick Recycling Committee’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of November 26-December 1, 2001. Unanimously voted.

NATICK RECREATION & PARK: REQUEST TO CLOSE STREET

In a memo to the Board, Recreation & Parks Supervisor Richard Cugini requested permission to close Park Street from 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. in

conjunction with the Town-wide Halloween celebration scheduled for the Natick Common on October 27, 2001. Mr. Cugini also requested that

Adams Court and Court Street be closed between 1:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m. on October 27th for the Halloween parade.

There was some confusion on the time of the closing for Park Street as the memo indicated 12:30 a.m. Mr. McKinley moved approval of the two street closings subject to Police Chief Dennis Mannix’s approval and subject to the time being 12:30 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

At a later point in the meeting, Mr. Cugini arrived and confirmed that the 12:30 a.m. was a typo and should have been 12:30 p.m.

NATICK RECREATION & PARK: LUGE CLINIC

Discussion of this item was postponed until the arrival of Mr. Cugini.

INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT AS CONSTABLE

The Board interviewed two candidates for appointment as Constable to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of Gerald Clougher. The two candidates were Thomas Morris and Clifford Kaizer.

In his interview, Thomas Morris told the Board that he had been associated with the Town in some manner for the last 55 years having served in the Natick Fire Department for 42 years as well as on the Municipal Complex Committee, Finance Committee and Town Report Committee. Mr. Morris advised that he had run in the last election for the constable position.

Clifford Kaizer noted that he was a lifelong resident and had done some work for the Town here and there. He had worked for the Recreation Department and spends most of his time volunteering for the state Veterans Association.

By paper ballot the Board unanimously voted to appoint Thomas Morris as a Constable. The vote was as follows: Mr. Hughes – Yes

Mr. McKinley – Yes

Mr. Ciccariello – Yes

NATICK RECREATION & PARKS: LUGE CLINIC CONTINUED

Richard Cugini, Superintendent of Parks & Recreation requested permission on behalf of the Luge Association to hold a luge clinic on October 21, 2001 on Algonquin Drive.

Mr. Hughes inquired if the neighbors knew about the proposed clinic, and Mr. Cugini responded that a notice was sent to the neighbors at 1-15 Algonquin. He received three calls asking about the event and if they would be able to get in and out of their driveway. It was explained to the neighbors that they would be able to get in and out through Woronco Drive.

Mr. McKinley asked if a police officer was going to be on duty, and Mr. Cugini advised that there wouldn’t be. When Mr. McKinley responded

that he thought there should be an officer, Mr. Cugini noted that he had brought this to safety officer Robert Davis and Sergeant Davis

didn’t recommend an officer. Mr. McKinley stated that he would be more comfortable with an officer there.

Mr. Cugini also noted that saw horses would be put up at the end of Algonquin and there will be hay bales set up.

Mr. Ball wanted to be certain that there was no danger of these kids zipping across Union Street, and Mr. Cugini noted that they would be starting at the Union Street end so the kids won’t be on Union Street for any reason.

Mr. Stern inquired as to the length of road to be closed and was told by Mr. Cugini that it was about l/4 mile. Mr. Stern commented that he agreed with Mr. McKinley that there should be at least one police officer and he would feel more comfortable with one at either end.

Mr. Hughes stated that he had some concerns. It was quite a hill and he too would feel better with a police officer there.

A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. McKinley, to approve the Luge Association’s request to hold a luge clinic on October 21, 2001 subject to the presence of at least one detail officer. Following some discussion the motion an amendment was accepted by the maker and seconded of the motion to include the stipulation that the Algonquin Homeowners Association be an additional insured. Unanimously voted.

In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ball inquired as to the insurance arrangements with the Luge Association and Town of Natick. Mr. Cugini advised that the Town would be named as an additional insured. He also noted that he went to the Franklin clinic and the hill was a lot steeper than this one. Kids can stop with their feet. It was not like on the ice.

Mr. Hughes noted that there was a homeowners association that owns the common land and asked if they were being named as an additional insured. Mr. Cugini was not aware that they (homeowners association)

NATICK RECREATION & PARKS: LUGE CLINIC CONTINUED (contd)

were but he would ask the Luge Association to do that if the Board wished. Mr. Hughes hoped that that would be done, and Mr. Ball offered an amendment to the motion requiring that the Algonquin Homeowners’ Association be additional insured.

THOMAS STEELE: RCN SERVICE UPDATE

Thomas Steele, RCN Vice-president and counsel for regulatory affairs, apologized for missing an earlier meeting and explained that Stephen Grossman, with whom the Board had previously dealt, had left the company.

Mr. Steele noted that since April 2000 when the agreement between RCN and the Town of Natick was signed, the industry has gone through some difficult and challenging time. They have still built out 9,874 homes of which 8,380 they can now service.

Mr. Ball inquired as to when Mr. Steele expected that RCN would be able to service those homes with underground service. Mr. Steele

acknowledged that RCN had not applied for any underground permits and would not be doing any underground construction soon. There were no

plans to do any in 2001 and they were reviewing plans for 2002. During this past year they were judging their success by the number of homes within their network, but that formula was changed dramatically by Wall Street and they want to see profitability. That was a challenge for RCN. RCN was building a state-of-the art plant and it was expensive to build, particularly underground.

Mr. Steele continued that in order to meet ‘profitability’ and bring in more than they spend, RCN had to severely curtail its spending. There were some sizable layoffs. RCN had to take a hard disciplined look at how they were spending money and had to prove in the 3rd and 4th quarter of this year that they could be profitable and he was hoping they would be successful.

When the franchise agreement was negotiated with Natick, Mr. Steele said he knew that competition was important and the second important thing was the I-Net. That (I-Net) was not something that returns anything on RCN's investment and was something they did to match a level funded playing field with the competitor. That (I-Net) has been a high priority.

Mr. Steele told the Board that curtailment of spending money has forced RCN to turn back franchises and amend their agreements in Marblehead, Saugus, Milton. The Towns have been understanding about RCN’s dilemma and that they (RCN) were now in a survival mode. RCN was trying to get through this period. Mr. Steele noted that RCN was not in breech of their agreement with Natick, but he thought they will be late in underground construction. Right now they were focused on getting competition here so the Town can feel the benefits of competition and get the I-Net up and running which will require some underground construction.

Mr. Steele stressed that it was not that RCN did not have the money. They have enough to complete (the infrastructure). The question was timing and whether RCN can generate enough to keep it going to get Wall Street excited and allow RCN to invest further in the community.

Mr. Ball pointed out that the contract signed in April 2000 stipulated that RCN was required to offer service to all of Natick 18 months after the signing. Mr. Steele noted that there was a provision in the contract that the 18 months was conditioned upon the permits being granted in a timely fashion. Mr. Ball pointed out that there was the underlying assumption that permits were sought. He then asked Mr. Steele if RCN planned to ask for an extension of that time limit and if so when.

Mr. Steele responded that he was anxious to put this off and was hoping to have a better idea of what RCN’s budget will look like. He thought that they would know what the budget will be by the end of this month. They have been successful in their efforts to be profitable, and hopefully that will free up some capital, but they have to prioritize the way they are building and Natick will be part of it. He assured the Board that he would tell them RCN’s plans. Mr. Steele noted that RCN had to amend the license in Brookline, and he will be back to the

THOMAS STEELE: RCN SERVICE UPDATE (contd)

Board to explain the plans and the Board can determine what action to take.

Mr. Stern noted that the bulk of calls he gets were from a resident who has been promised service in his condo 3-4 times and received personal assurance that service will be turned on. The individual tries to work at home, and RCN was in his building. Mr. Steele was familiar with the gentleman to whom Mr. Stern was referring, but wasn’t sure RCN had wired the building and questioned if it was through Framingham or Natick. Mr. Stern noted that that was Mr. Steele’s job to find out. Mr. Steele responded that he was just as frustrated as Mr. Stern and explained that the issue was telephone service and 911. If RCN is his building, Mr. Steele said he would get serviced. It was a complicated problem.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that last Friday someone came to his door and again today and questioned if RCN’s intent was to market by knocking on doors vs any other method. Mr. Steele’s response was, ‘yes’, adding that there was a direct sales team who should have identification.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to a date by which Mr. Steele might want to report back, and Mr. Steele said he would appreciate two weeks. It was agreed that Mr. Steele would be scheduled for the November 5th agenda.

A member of the audience A. Richard Miller told the Board that he signed with RCN and was interested in it working well. He noted that there was already an ability to get community projects and community news out to AT&T subscribers, but when he moved to RCN he saw 2-3 black channels. Right now the information was there, but he questioned how that would get over to people with RCN. He asked that that be acted on quickly. Mr. Hughes advised that there was a public access channel that was working on that.

Peter Golden – Worcester St. Property

Mr. Golden recalled that some months back he stood before the Board to speak about problems he was having with the site of the old Exxon gas station at 206 Worcester Street. The ZBA acted favorably, from the neighbors’ perspective, and the lot will be maintained as residential. Mr. Golden showed the Board a petition which the neighbors believed represented the best interest of the neighborhood, and he noted that 24 households had been represented at the ZBA hearing.

Mr. Golden continued that the other day he passed by the lot and discovered one of the owners of the facility doing repairs. When he inquired as to what he (owner) was about, he responded that he was going to have the facility as a used car lot and would bring suit against the Town and had done so already and the ZBA decision has been reversed. Mr. Golden noted that he talked with the Town Administrator today and spoke with the Deputy Town Administrator who assured him that it was standard procedure for the Town to defend against such suits. He asked if that were the Board’s perspective as well – that the Town would stand on behalf of the neighbors and the ZBA.

Not having seen the ZBA decision, Mr. Hughes noted that it would seem to him that in the normal course of events the Town would defend a

decision. However, if Town Counsel read the decision, and again Mr. Hughes stressed that he hadn’t seen the decision, and it was not based on the facts of the law, maybe the Town wouldn’t defend the suit.

Mr. Golden asked if he should turn to Town Counsel, but Mr. Hughes pointed out that if a suit hasn’t been filed, he didn’t think Town Counsel would be involved. Mr. Golden responded that he understood that the suit has been filed, but Mr. Hughes advised that the Board hadn’t seen anything.

Mr. Golden also noted that the lot was unkempt and has become a truck stop. Anything the Board can do on behalf of the residents to see that the lot was protected and barricaded again would be appreciated.

To Mr. McKinley’s comment that Mr. Golden had alleged that the lot had been abandoned, Mr. Hughes responded that it was not the lot. It was the use and the ZBA finds that the lot reverts back to residential.

Mr. Ball inquired as to the date of the ZBA decision and was told by Mr. Golden that it was June 29, 2001. Mr. Golden reiterated that

CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)

anything that could be done by the Town to put an end to the truck stop phenomenon would be appreciated. He also noted that the abatement process and the noise was diminished somewhat but the residents will be living with it for the next 2-6 years.

Mr. Golden also raised the possibility of putting up a sign on the approach to the Oak Street light similar to the one in Wellesley that says ‘light ahead’. As people come down from Apple Hill the road curves slightly and suddenly there is a light. There have been three serious accidents there in the last three months.

Mr. Hughes asked that the matter be referred to the Safety Committee.

Chairman of the Natick Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee, A. Richard Miller, told the Board that he had had a request for Natick to send a letter to CSX expressing its interest in acquiring parcels along the Cochituate rail trail. The Board was not being asked to act at this time, but to get a letter of interest in. He had talked to Sarkis Sarkisian, Community Development Director, and Mr. Cohen and knew there was a draft letter prepared. He also noted that Framingham was way ahead of Natick.

Mr. Ball asked if in generating a letter to CSX indicating an interest in acquisition of the land, Mr. Miller meant purchasing. Mr. Miller responded that he didn’t know. He hoped not. In Framingham and Sudbury there was a no cost transfer being negotiated at this time.

Cathode Ray Tubes Resolution

Mr. Miller referred to a resolution supporting the take back program for cathode ray tubes and noted that about l-l/2 years ago 51 towns acted on this. This was the best effort he has heard of to date. The group sponsoring the resolution hopes to get a state law passed.

Mr. Miller noted that Pegan Cove Park was part of the EPA package and it has had some improvements long overdue in it. One piece of that

just got solved this past week. A sign had been torn down five years ago and a new one put up. A new sign went up over this past week where the traffic can see it. He thought it was satisfactory, but he

understood that some of the neighbors were unhappy because the memorial notice wasn’t large enough. If the neighborhood still had a problem, he would suggest a memorial plaque on a stand just on the way into the park. He would speak in favor of that to DEM.

ALCOHOL RENEWAL POLICY: Continuation of Public Hearing

Mr. Ball reported that he and Mr. Stern had met with some of the licenseholders and Mr. Marcantonio after the last meeting to see if they could come up with a resolution of the issues raised. Before the Board was a draft policy, but there were two issues associated with this that haven’t been put to bed. One is the designation of the organizations such as TIPS, Bar Code that would be approved by the Board. That approval should weigh heavily on the recommendations from the Police Department. He (Mr. Ball) spoke with Chief Mannix and requested that he designate an officer to attend a training session given by each of these and come back with his opinion on the training and if he thought that training was adequate. Sergeant Davis was still in the process of attending the sessions, and Chief Mannix wasn’t sure when that would be complete.

The second issue, which Mr. Ball noted he just learned of this evening, was some concern expressed about the requirement to provide a roster of employees at each renewal including the social security number and date of birth. He agreed that the social security number should be stricken and as to the date of birth, the only issue was whether the individual was old enough to handle alcohol. Mr. Ball suggested modifying the requirement so the employer only indicates that the employee was over a certain age. Other than that, Mr. Ball said he had had no feedback.

Mr. Stern thanked everyone who gave input. He thought everyone provided thoughtful and insightful information and that was reflected in what was before the Board.

Dan Trent, Chief Operating Officer of Campbell/Trent who operates AIM, noted that when his company had a workshop here, they called the Police

ALCOHOL RENEWAL POLICY: Continuation of Public Hearing

and asked them to send Sergeant Davis. Sergeant Davis came down and said he would send a letter to the Board of Selectmen advising them of what he thought of the AIM program. Mr. Trent said he wanted to meet the Board personally to see who Campbell/Trent would be working with.

American Legion manager, Edwin Hasgill liked the elimination of the date of birth and social security number from the requirements, but wanted to see the 30 day limitations for new employees to be trained go to either 60 or 90 days. If an employee was hired part-time, working one day per week, that only gives him four days to evaluate the person. He didn’t think it was fair to him as an employer or to the employee to try to make a decision on four days working time.

Peter Turlo, Natick Wine & Spirits Manager, felt that the effective date wasn’t clear and questioned if the licensees had to have the people certified by February 1st or by the end of November. Mr. Ball explained that the intent was that the policy would be in effect for

licenses issued in November, but current licenseholders up for renewal would have until February 1st.

Mr. Turlo advised that the TAM program was now called BAT (Beverage Alcohol Training) which was basically a more comprehensive TIPS. He felt that both programs would be adequate for off-premises licenses.

On the 30-day training requirement, Mr. Turlo stated that he too would have trouble with 30 days. He had some feedback from Framingham and they found that in practice the 30 days was difficult to judge part-timers and trying to schedule the course.

Based on some informal conversations with owners of package stores and clubs, Mr. McKinley said the idea of a trainer within the establishment was raised. If a club manager could be certified as a trainer, he/she could train the employees which means that a standard would be established. He felt it was a good idea, but the next question was what’s the definition of a certified trainer.

Mr. Ball noted that TIPS offers a course for training a trainer and AIM may also do so. It was a more intensive level. Those options were available to clubs, restaurants, package store, but he was not sure he wanted to see that as part of the policy. It could help them train and evaluate new hires.

Mr. Ball requested a continuation of the hearing until October 22, 2001 and hopefully Sergeant Davis will have his report to the Board.

Mr. Hasgill asked about the certified trainer, and Mr. Hughes explained that Mr. McKinley’s point was to make it available as an option. The intent was not to require a licenseholder to have a certified trainer.

Paul Carew, manager of the Natick Elks, noted that he had spoken to Mr. McKinley and personally thought the idea (of a certified trainer) was a great one. He had been through the course four times and would like to be certified to teach anybody involved in alcohol policy at the Lodge.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, to continue the public hearing to October 22, 2001. Unanimously voted.

FIRE CHIEF APPOINTMENT REPORT

Mr. McKinley and Mr. Stern served as a subcommittee to do a fact-finding report in conjunction with the appointment process for a new Fire Chief.

Mr. McKinley noted that the assignment was for Mr. Stern and he to spend time with each candidate and other members of the department and try to gather as much basic data as they could on both candidates. In doing so, Mr. McKinley didn’t think that removed the importance of each member of the board to speak with the two candidates. He and Mr. Stern met this morning, compared notes and tried to summarize what they thought they could agree to. The most important observation that he (Mr. McKinley) could make was that both men, Deputy Sabourin and Deputy Brien, were eminently qualified. There were no facts, no opinion that anyone thought that either man wouldn’t make a good chief.

FIRE CHIEF APPOINTMENT REPORT (contd)

Mr. McKinley continued that he found in talking with people that the two men were very different men and to some extent that enriches the opportunity for selecting a good chief because there were two

individuals who approach management a little different and the Board has the option of deciding which option of management it might prefer. Mr. McKinley stated that he would be ready to vote for either one of them and hadn’t decided which one he would vote for because they were both good.

Mr. Stern said he would echo Mr. McKinley’s initial comments and that he had enjoyed meeting both candidates tremendously. Mr. Stern noted that he had no preconceived notions as to the competency of either candidate as he did not know either one. He spent considerable hours talking with both men and talking with the rank and file and hoped to continue to do that through next week. Mr. Stern said he felt the Town would be well served by either candidate. There were definite different management styles and different philosophies, and he (Mr. Stern) felt that everyone should take the time and find out for himself which way they would like to go.

Mr. Stern continued that he was not prepared to vote tonight as he felt he needed more information. He was extraordinarily impressed with the people Natick has on the front lines and he feels very comfortable going to sleep at night knowing who was in those stations.

Mr. Ball noted that the Board had been given the opportunity to review the personnel files of both candidates and he was struck by the absence of certain information in the personnel files. There was nothing in either file about either Deputy Sabourin or Deputy Brien as individuals. There was none of the kind of information that he had seen in personnel files in the private sector, and to him the absence of anything other than vacation schedules, raises, sick time was conspicuous.

Having spent 25 years in corporate management, Mr. McKinley said that he too was struck by how little was in the personnel files. He was used to seeing a more in depth analysis of performance behavior patterns although frequently when he sat down with the individual the impression he gained from the personnel files was wrong. In this case it was probably to the Board’s advantage that the files were sterile. Mr. McKinley stressed the importance of the members of the Board talking to both candidates and talking to the men on either side – the existing chief and the rank and file.

Mr. Stern noted that one observation he had in discussion with a lot of the line officers was that there was a conception that one candidate was the leading or preferred candidate. That was definitely not the case and couldn’t be further from the truth. There were no preconceived notions. Both candidates have started at zero with him. He wanted to make it very clear to anyone watching that this was a process being done carefully, methodically and thoughtfully and hopefully will come to a resolution shortly.

Mr. Hughes noted that the personnel file question might be a good one for each of the candidates and added that he (Mr. Hughes) too had made the same observation to Chief Fredette.

Mr. Ball said he agreed that sometimes personnel files can be misleading but they can identify an issue or issues seen by the

reviewer. He found them (personnel files) to be a healthy jumping off point. Mr. McKinley responded that he didn’t disagree, but Mr. Ball has seen the files, it ‘ain’t’ there and you better go find it.

Deputy Sabourin told the Board that he was under the impression from the last meeting that this process would be over by tonight and he had planned a vacation. He could make himself available, but needed to know if anyone planned to do any interviews. If so, he could come back, but if no one has the intention of interviewing him this week, he would go ahead with his plans. He would be back on Sunday.

Mr. Ciccariello indicated that he would like to meet with Deputy Sabourin, but it could be Sunday night. Mr. Hughes advised Deputy Sabourin to go on vacation.

2002 ALCOHOL LICENSE FEES

On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to schedule a public hearing on the 2002 alcohol license fees.

RATIFICATION OF LIBRARY CONTRACT

Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to ratify the contract between the Town and 1116 Library Personnel. Unanimously voted.

MILLBURY: DEP REGULATIONS

Mr. Conley requested the authority from the Board to lobby for the Town. He explained that EPA was putting additional requirements on Millbury and permitting them to pass those costs along to the towns. He was trying to oppose that with the Board’s authority.

Mr. McKinley pointed out that it was DEP and they (DEP) have found a one-line sentence in some state law that applies to Millbury opening up the last remaining cell for ash disposal. The consequence of doing so will not only increase the costs of construction but will cause delay. DPW Director Charles Sisitsky was asking for permission to act on behalf of the Town to lobby for DEP to take a more liberal interpretation of the law.

Mr. Conley indicated that he would contact the Town’s representatives on behalf of the Board. Mr. Ball noted that he showed Representative Linsky the memo from the DPW and he said that there had already been some discussion in committee and the consensus was that they (committee) were in favor of DEP doing what they were doing. Representative Linsky suspected that the Town wouldn’t get help in the DEP backing off.

Mr. McKinley noted that this was not a new law. This was DEP attempting to apply what they believe was an existing regulation.

A motion was made by Mr. McKinley to write a letter in support of a more liberal interpretation of the law than DEP was taking. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

Mr. Hughes noted that the Board was in receipt of the raw data requested by Mr. Ball.

Mr. Ball advised that he had done some analysis of the information and referred to the Excel spreadsheet supplied by DPW Director Charles Sisitsky. He began by noting that there was an assumption made that fuel costs 5-l/2 per gallon. Mr. McKinley, however, pointed out that as he read the spreadsheet, the fuel was 5 per mile, not per gallon.

Mr. Ball then noted that his memo of July 24, 2001 had requested a statement from each employee using a Town vehicle to describe how many times during the past 12 months he has had to use it to respond to an after-hours emergency, and the nature of each emergency. To him that request was clear and of the 17 vehicle users, only five have responded. Many of the remainder were covered by Mr. Sisitsky’s memo which was very generic and only said they have to respond to emergencies. Mr. Ball said he wanted to know whether someone who takes home a vehicle does in fact respond to emergencies and if so how many. He would like to know that somebody who takes a vehicle home responds to emergencies and the nature and if it was an emergency that does not require what was in that vehicle, he would prefer that that person not have a Town vehicle and the Town bearing the expense of him taking it home over weekends. With the exception of Chief Mannix, Chief Fredette, Robert Graham, and Michael Melchiorri the Board has not gotten that response.

Mr. Ball continued that at this point he felt if people weren’t willing to respond, they shouldn’t be driving Town vehicles. Presumably this was done to benefit the Town, not the individuals. If this (Town vehicle) was perk, call it a perk and deal with it. If the Board concurs that it was a reasonable request, he would ask that the Board direct the Town Administrator’s office to once again seek this information.

Mr. McKinley noted that he had come across some information that for employees who drive vehicles it was viewed as part of their

VEHICLE POLICY (contd)

compensation and shows up on their W2. It was a perk and the employees were paying taxes on it. Mr. Ball countered that the Town was paying for the perk, and Mr. McKinley again acknowledged that it was a perk. The only issue was how often they use it for emergencies.

Mr. McKinley used the comparison of some fire equipment vs the number of times the equipment was used, but Mr. Ball maintained that that was different. These vehicles were not ambulances. If a water main breaks at 2:00 a.m., you want some guy with a truck and tools to shut off the water, but he questioned what emergency the Town Engineer has that requires the Town to supply him with a vehicle. Maybe there was a reason, but he (Mr. Ball) would like to have that explanation. Ditto with Mr. Wade.

Mr. McKinley responded that Mr. Coviello (Town Engineer) had demonstrated the new GIS system so that he could respond to any situation and call up the gas company or other utilities. To him (Mr. McKinley) having that all in one place where it might be needed immediately was valuable. For the small amount of money it was

costing, he thought it was worth it to have that information at our fingertips when it was needed. Mr. Ball responded that that argument could be extended to lots of people in the Town.

Mr. Hughes suggested that the Board get the information and make a decision. This has been on the agenda since July and he asked that Mr. Conley get the information requested by next Monday.

Mr. Ciccariello noticed that the analysis did not include the cost of insurance and asked that that be included as well.

Mr. Conley referenced a chart prepared by Mr. McKinley and distributed a memo from him (Mr. Conley) reviewing all pending issues. He noted that the pending issues have been hanging around for a long time and need to be addressed. There were 21 different categories.

As the Board had just received Mr. Conley’s memo on pending issues, Mr. Hughes suggested tabling until the meeting of October 22nd.

With respect to the list of goals and objectives, Mr. McKinley attempted to get each Board member to identify one that was the single most important thing on the list that needs to be accomplished.

Mr. Hughes classified the improvement of the Town’s financial position and 3-5 year plan as the most important. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Ball concurred. Mr. Stern concurred but thought there were other issues that were just a hair below that and need attention as well.

Mr. McKinley then asked the members of the Board for the second most important item. Mr. Hughes noted that the high school renovations and gravel pit were coming up on the radar screen, but Mr. McKinley cautioned against being trapped by the radar screen. The high school renovations, although the Board knew it was critical and the Board will have to be involved, Mr. McKinley thought it was highly unlikely that it will be forgotten. It was not a Board of Selectmen objective. It was the School Committee.

Mr. Ciccariello cited squaring away the water and sewer billing system as there were still a lot of disputes and it impacts the Town’s resources.

Mr. Stern stated that he didn’t agree with using the high school as an example. It was school property, but it was the single biggest project the Town will undertake and we are the Town. He also noted the planning issues such as downtown parking and the study that was way overdue. There was the resolution of Lookout Farm issues with a letter from an attorney that needs to be on the radarscope. It was not for the Board of Selectmen to ignore and let another board deal with it. It may not be resolved for years, but the Board needs to be involved.

Mr. McKinley agreed and explained that he didn’t mean to suggest that the high school wasn’t important. Perhaps Lookout Farm was a better example. Not only was it the Board’s obligation to tackle, but if it doesn’t, what other board will. Mr. McKinley said he took downtown parking and Lookout Farm. Mr. Hughes advised that Downtown Manager

GOALS & OBJECTIVES (contd)

Joyce Moss would be before the Board in December with a parking presentation.

Mr. Ciccariello reported that the Lookout Farm Advisory Committee met a few weeks ago and was meeting tomorrow. Some headway was being made in clarifying the issues. He expected to have an answer to some of the questions raised in the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Ball listed the gravel pit, downtown parking, Lookout Farm, and the high school as his goals.

Mr. McKinley summarized a list of six goals that he thought would make up the Board’s Fiscal 2002 goals and objectives: 3-5 year financial plan, high school renovations, gravel pit, improved water & sewer billing, downtown parking, Lookout Farm.

Mr. Hughes suggested voting on the final list at the next meeting.

STM #1 WARRANT ARTICLES

Mr. Hughes advised that he met with the Charter & By-Law Review Committee this evening with regard to what he thought were the Board of Selectmen’s views on Article 3 (Town Administrator Appointment Process). Everyone would like to go to Town Meeting with the Charter Committee, Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee in agreement.

Raphael Herz, Chairman of the Charter & By-Law Review Committee, thought that his committee concurred with Mr. Hughes that agreement was the notion everyone was striving for. Mr. Herz reported that the Charter & By-Law Review Committee felt there were some good changes to the operative language and wanted to be sure to bring those changes to Town Meeting and get their approval. They voted to support a main motion with two amendments: l) Keep the screening committee with the current composition; 2) Keep the current agencies with each agency having one designee and the Board of Selectmen having four appointments. The Committee voted to support a recommendation to the Finance Committee which would offer both amendments so if the Finance Committee saw fit to chose one, they (Committee) would support it. The Charter Committee voted that they would not support the position that the majority of appointments be made by the Board of Selectmen, and if the FinCom went with a screening committee that had the majority appointed by the Selectmen, the Charter Review Committee would offer an amendment on Town Meeting floor to bring it back to four.

In response to a comment from Mr. McKinley, Mr. Herz advised that his committee could not come to a specific agreement on the number and the designees. Mr. McKinley interpreted Mr. Herz as saying that the Charter Committee would support amendment 2 if the Finance Committee decides that was the amendment they were prepared to support as meaning that the Charter Committee was still with amendment 1. Mr. Herz explained that the four people sitting on the Review Committee couldn’t come to agreement whether the screening committee should be as originally represented in the Charter or some refined number giving the Board of Selectmen four appointments. The Charter Committee couldn’t come to an absolute agreement on which was better.

In an effort to solve the dilemma, Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Herz felt if the Selectmen voted to support four appointed by the Board and five by other agencies would help the Review Committee to make up its mind. Mr. Herz responded that the Review Committee believed that the 4 and 5

would be supported by the Board of Selectmen. He thought if the majority of the Board of Selectmen agreed that four was the right number, it probably would help the process.

A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. McKinley, to support having the Board of Selectmen appoint four of the 9 members of the screening committee and the Planning Board, School Committee, Moderator, Personnel Board, and Finance Committee appoint one each of the other five. After some discussion, unanimously voted.

In discussion of the motion, Mr. McKinley noted that in the context of is it broken, should we fix it or leave it alone, where he came from the question was can it be made better. To take something that was 20 years old and only tested once and invented by people who never had to invent such a thing before was a credit to those people. It doesn’t help any that the result was an individual who did as much for the Town

STM #1 WARRANT ARTICLES (contd)

as Mr. Conley. He (Mr. McKinley) had very little comprehension for why there was some religious adherence to what was established 20 years ago. It was mostly potluck.

Mr. Herz noted that there were some very good things in the whole warrant article and he wanted to preserve those things and bring it to Town Meeting. The other notion was united we stand. The more agreement there was among the Charter Review Committee, Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee the more probable the success.

Mr. McKinley commented that he sensed a perception that the Board of Selectmen was trying to wrest control. When the process was first established 20 years ago, the Board of Selectmen never had a Town Administrator working for them and didn’t know how to hire or supervise a town administrator. The Town was a lot more sophisticated now. The Board of Selectmen knows a lot more of what a good and bad town administrator looks like. He believed that Mr. Herz would have to concede that to some extent the Board of Selectmen, more than any one, were closer to the issue and more qualified to select people they think were going to be successful as a town administrator. If the Town feels that broad representation of all parties was important, then he (Mr. McKinley) would have to say why was he hearing no argument for some of the other boards such as Conservation which was far more important than it was 20 years ago and no one was suggesting that someone from there be appointed.

Mr. McKinley also noted that for the other most significant management position, no one outside the responsible committee participated in that decision and where was the logic to that. If broad participation makes sense and good for the Town, then apply that to all or should people who have to supervise, were accountable, and the most knowledgeable have some percentage of say in the selection of that candidate. He recognized that there were certain organizations like the Finance Committee and School Committee that the Town Administrator was important to, but it was most important to the Board of Selectmen. To give the Board of Selectmen 12% of the piece didn't make sense.

Mr. Herz responded that the notion that times have changed and that the Board of Selectmen has a greater accountability with the Town Administrator were arguments to be considered. They were arguments

that had to be made in front of Town Meeting. Mr. Herz reiterated that the goal was to preserve the good items and to get Town Meeting approval. That was one of the criteria for the Review Committee – how to get Town Meeting to vote. If Town Meeting perceives that somebody was trying to do something, it will go down. United it stands a much better chance of success. The argument has to be made in a cohesive fashion for Town Meeting to see that something positive was being done.

Article 2: Funding Natick Pegasus

Mr. Ball moved to support Article 2. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

Article 1: Wilson Middle School – Additional Appropriation

Mr. Hughes suggested that the Board wait until the meeting of October 22 in order to hear the presentation made to the Finance Committee tomorrow.

Mr. McKinley pointed out that Town Meeting was October 23 and although there was time to convey the position the Board took, there will be no time for the public to know.

Mr. Hughes noted that the School Committee will be requesting $1.5 million to be added to the bond to construct the Wilson Middle School which will bring that portion of the bond to almost $26 million and $1.1 million for Kennedy. This does not have to go back in front of the voters. The vote did not have a number in it – just the question of whether the construction of Wilson would be excluded from the restrictions of 2-l/2.

Mr. Ball questioned if Mr. Hughes believed that no one in the public would feel hoodwinked – that a fast one had been pulled on them. The vote did not contain a number, but the number was clear in everyone’s mind. He felt it was naïve to think there wasn’t going to be a cry over this.

STM #1 WARRANT ARTICLES (contd)

Mr. Hughes noted that he was just offering an explanation and that School Assistant Superintendent for Fiscal Affairs, James Connolly, had explained that it wasn’t being done trying to hoodwink anyone. The Schools made their best efforts to get a cost estimate and paid for 4-5 different cost estimates. They also cut out $1 million in original costs and even after making those cuts, the bids were still $1.5 million over. Mr. Connolly’s point was that any further cuts would either impact the programs or would give the Town the same problem as with the current building - using lesser materials and they would be back. That was the problem to be avoided. The request was to do it right this time in terms of the kind and quality of construction.

Mr. McKinley questioned if anyone thought the outcome of the vote would have been any different if the number bandied about would have been $26 million vs $24 million.

Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think so and neither did Mr. McKinley. The School Committee had five different estimates and did everything that

could be expected of them and more. He (Mr. McKinley) didn’t think the School Committee could be held up for the fact that the bids came in 10% off. He doubted that it would have made any difference if the

number were right. He hoped Town Meeting would recognized that distinction and vote the number. The school was needed.

Mr. Ball advised that he had discussed the $1.5 million with an architect friend of his. The Board had a presentation from Mr. Dunlap who said he had used the premiere estimating firm and on a similar school the firm came in within l/2%. He asked his friend how the firm could be so close on that one and so far from this, and his friend said it was just luck. If the estimates were within 10%, they were lucky. Apparently there was enough fluidity in the cost of doing this construction that it was not unusual (to be over budget), and Mr. Dunlap and Mr. Connolly made it clear that efforts had been made. To Mr. Ball this was a necessary evil.

SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS

Police Detail Billing

Mr. Stern recalled that on August 6th he had requested a list of receivables on police detail bills. He would like to put that issue to bed but without the information on receivables he can’t do that.

Fluosilic Injection Point

Mr. Stern noted that the Board had voted to hire a consultant to investigate the method of adding fluoride at the treatment plant, but he didn’t remember anything have been done with it.

Mr. Conley didn’t recall the issue, and Mr. Stern responded that Mr. Conley was not here at the time. Mr. Hughes asked that he check with Paul Cohen who was Acting Town Administrator at the time of the Board’s vote.

Senior Center Safety Issues

Mr. Ciccariello asked if the issues at the senior center had been addressed – installation of speed bumps, sand cleanup, sidewalks. He would like to get this resolved. Mr. Hughes asked that Mr. Ciccariello give the list of items to Mr. Conley for him to address.

Mr. Ciccariello called attention to correspondence addressed to George Bain, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, regarding the golf course. He urged that the concerns raised in the letter be addressed as no one wished to get back into a situation with the EPA.

Mr. Conley reported that he had met with Jackie Boucher (author of the letter). Another inspector has been hired who has signed a letter saying the Town was in compliance.

Senior Center Feasibility Study Contract

Mr. Ciccariello requested the Board’s approval to send the contract that has been negotiated with the designer for the Senior Center Feasibility Study to Town Counsel for review. Hopefully it would then be before the Board on November 5th. Mr. Ciccariello noted that one issue had been over fees of a new schematic vs renovation.

SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)

Mr. Stern asked that the minutes be reviewed and get a copy of the vote when the designer was selected. He remembered looking for a

feasibility study on renovations, but didn’t recall expanding the scope.

Mr. Ball noted that the Board had received a copy of a letter from Attorney John Burke on Lookout Farm violations and asked if these issues were being pursued.

As the Board’s representative on the Lookout Farm Advisory Committee, Mr. Ciccariello advised that the issues were being pursued and the committee was meeting tomorrow. This was the first opportunity for them to see the alleged violations in their entirety.

Mr. Ball pointed out that there was no signage to reflect that the Town Forest was given to the Town by the Hunnewell family. This was brought up 1-l/2 years ago about the need to honor the agreement and provide appropriate signage. He thought the Town owed the Hunnewell’s a great deal of debt and should honor the agreement.

Mr. Conley was asked to look into the matter of a sign.