Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Paul R. McKinley at 6:30 p.m.

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

ALSO PRESENT: Donna Challis, Secretary

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on May 20, 2002 in the amount of $468,072.61. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $977,632.82.

Mr. Stern, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to real property. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:30 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Ball arrived at 6:45 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. respectively.

The open session was called to order at 7:15 p.m.

LETTERS OF RECOGNITION:

SENIOR WOMAN OF THE YEAR: Harriet Buckingham

SENIOR MAN OF THE YEAR: Eugene Dugdale

A Letter of Recognition was presented to Harriet Buckingham in recognition of her service to the community and for being named Senior Woman of the Year.

A Letter of Recognition was then presented to the Senior Man of the Year, Eugene Dugdale. Mr. Dugdale was honored for his contribution to the community.

POLICE OFFICER OF THE YEAR

Arthur Peros was honored as the Natick Police Officer of the Year. Police Chief Mannix presented Officer Peros with a Citation and a Plaque. The Citation spoke of Officer Peros’ twenty-eight years of service as a Police Officer and his commitment to his duties.

Mr. Stern, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved approval of the minutes of the March 4, 2002 meeting. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ball abstained.

NORTHEAST AIDS RIDE: REQUEST PERMIT

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Stern, to approve the Northeast Aids Ride’s request to hold the Aids Ride through Natick on June 23, 2002. Unanimously voted.

ROTARY CLUB OF NATICK: REQUEST BANNER

On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Stern, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Rotary Club of Natick’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of June 24-July 5, 2002.

REGAN DOWD, FRANCONIA AVENUE: BLOCK PARTY

Mr. Hughes moved approval of Regan Dowd’s request to close Franconia Avenue on June 2, 2002 subject to the hours being the same as last year and subject to Sergeant Davis’ endorsement as well. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

BACON FREE LIBRARY: REQUEST TO CLOSE STREET

The Board unanimously voted to approve the Bacon Free Library’s request to close Mill Lane on June 16, 2002 from 5:00-9:00 p.m. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball.

Wellesley Sewer Tie In

Mr. McKinley explained that the proposal was for the Town of Natick for costs plus ongoing expenses to provide sewer services to a small number of residents in Wellesley. Both the Board and Town Counsel reviewed the contract, and there was one question that Mr. Stern will attempt to review tomorrow. Otherwise the Board was prepared to go forward upon Mr. Stern’s resolution of that one issue.

A motion was made by Mr. McKinley to approve the contract for the Wellesley sewer tie in pending Mr. Stern’s resolution with Town Counsel that there was a method in place for the Town to get its money in case the Wellesley residents don’t pay. Mr. Stern to report back tomorrow night and the Board would then sign the contract. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

In response to an inquiry from Mr. Hughes, DPW Director Charles Sisitsky advised that the homes involved in the sewer tie in get Natick water. Asked if those residents obey the water ban, Mr. Sisitsky noted that they were obligated to obey the ban just like the people in Dover.

Mr. Sisitsky recommended awarding the bid for Chapter 90 road improvements at various locations to the low bidder, Aggregate Industries in the amount of $711,694.00.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what locations were being done, and Town Engineer Mark Coviello responded that the streets being done this year were Harwick, Porter, Oakland, Pelham, Pleasant Street in South Natick from the bridge about 700’, Mill Lane, Maple Street, Washington Street from North Avenue to Shattuck, Park Avenue, Pleasant Street in North Natick, and a portion of Ranger Road from Mill Street to Tournament Road.

In a memo to the Board, John Craig DPW Business Manager, provided the following breakdown of the funding for the $711,694:

DPW DIRECTOR (contd)

Chapter 90 Reimbursements - $506,000

Special Article – Boden Lane Curb 193,000

FY02 Highway Budget – Materials 12,694

Mr. Hughes asked how many years of Chapter 90 funds the $506,000 represented, and Mr. Coviello advised that it was the year’s allocation. The Town had banked $250,000 from the previous year.

In regard to Mill and Pleasant Street, it was Mr. Hughes’ understanding that the MWRA was going to do something in return for realigning the sewer. Mr. Coviello advised that the MWRA couldn’t give the Town the money for it to be done under one comprehensive contract so the Town took the work the MWRA was going to do inkind and applied it to another street. Mr. Hughes thought there was some curbing being done on Pleasant Street as part of the MWRA, but Mr. Coviello advised that the Town was to put in the granite curbing and sidewalks and the MWRA would do the road resurfacing.

Mr. Ciccariello requested an explanation of the scope of the work being done, and Mr. Coviello explained that there were different applications for different streets because of the condition of the street. The worst street was Ranger Road and that street will be completely ground up, a new base and a new top coat applied, and the sidewalks will be fixed and a berm put in. Mill and Pleasant in South Natick will be resurfaced and new sidewalks put in consistent with the South Natick master plan. Maple Street will have granite curbing and concrete sidewalks. The remaining streets will have a leveling course, casting adjustments, new berm, sidewalks rebuilt and a chip seal.

Mr. Ball questioned on what basis the decision was made to install or not install granite curbing. Mr. Coviello advised that if the curbing was concrete, it would be replaced with granite or if there was a master plan that calls for granite, the granite will be put in.

Given some results in Wellesley, Mr. Stern asked if the chip seal process had been perfected. Mr. Coviello acknowledged that chip sealing cannot be used in all applications. It was usually for low volume roads and it was being done on roads that had been chip sealed before. Mr. Stern interpreted that to mean that the Town was not chip sealing any roads that had not been chip sealed once, and Mr. Coviello confirmed that as correct.

A motion was made by Mr. Ball to award the contract for 2002 road improvements to the low bidder, Aggregate Industries, in the amount of $711,694.00. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.

Contract Sherman Street Sewer

Mr. Sisitsky recommended that the Board award the contract for the rehabilitation of the Sherman Street sewer to the low bidder J. D’Amico, Inc. in the amount of $170,834.

Three bids had been received on the project: J. D’Amico, Inc. for $255,584.35; CN Corp. for $284,724.80; Silva Const Corp for $286,295.75. Mr. Sisitsky explained that this was a unit price contract as opposed to a lump sum contract and the final cost was determined by the amount of units. He was proposing that some of the

DPW DIRECTOR (contd)

units for sewer work on the side streets be deleted and just do Sherman Street. That would eliminate certain work items and bring the cost down to $170,834. In the specifications the Town reserved the right to do that.

Mr. McKinley asked if the work now being proposed satisfied all the work the DPW originally planned to do on Sherman Street. Mr. Sisitsky advised that it did and added that it was important to get the line replaced. It was the line that serves the hospital.

Mr. Ball asked if all of the bidders understood this, and Mr. Sisitsky’s response was, ‘yes’. Mr. Ball explained that he wanted to be sure that it was and is a level playing field and no preferential treatment other than D’Amico was the low bidder for the whole thing.

Noting that the appropriation available was $174,000 and the bid was $1709,834, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if any ledge removal or unforeseen conditions were taken into account. Mr. Sisitsky advised that the $170,000 included contingency money. Borings had been done and the DPW had a good idea of what was out there. When asked if the cost was unlikely to exceed the $170,000, Mr. Sisitsky’s response was, ‘yes’.

Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Stern, moved to award the contract for the rehabilitation of the Sherman Street sewer to the low bidder, J. D’Amico, Inc. in the amount of $170,834.35. Unanimously voted.

Mr. McKinley explained that the Board had asked Acting Town Administrator Thomas Groux and Finance Director Robert Palmer to put out a RFP for auditing services and were recommending that the Board talk to two – Tofias and Powers & Sullivan. Because it was close to the end of the fiscal year, a timely decision was requested.

Representing Tofias was Kevin Petrosino. Mr. Petrosino noted that Tofias had done the audit for June 30, 2000 and June 30, 2001 succeeding Verdolino & Lowey. They were very excited about the opportunity to be re-appointed as the audit firm for the Town and felt very familiar with the Town and the Collector’s Office and can offer a streamline approach. They had the resources to provide this audit in the time specified in the RFP and would commit to the Board to take a proactive approach. He introduced Mark Busby, the Director of Marketing and a principal of the firm.

Mr. Hughes noted that for the size of the firm Tofias seemed to have a relatively small number of municipal clients and asked if the number had increased or decreased.

Mr. Petrosino responded that when the practice merged with Verdolino & Lowey, they took six cities and a school district. Most of the cities and towns were in the final year of their contract except for Natick, and Tofias received new contracts with four of those. They were not able to continue the relationship with three, but they were very active in the municipal and government arena. They had three RFP’s in the mix and an additional one going out this week. Tofias was here to stay and

AUDITING SERVICES (contd)

they wanted to grow their practice and believed Natick was a very important aspect of that and wanted to continue the relationship.

Mr. McKinley noted that Mr. Petrosino had mentioned that Tofias had inherited Natick, but for all practical purposes Tofias has been Natick’s auditors for the last two years. Mr. Petrosino confirmed that as correct, and added that they had used from Verdolino & Lowey staff but for 2001 they did not have to tap into that resource. When asked if the principals that the Town did business with were still available, Mr. Petrosino advised that they were a telephone call away and could assist.

To Mr. McKinley’s comment that it appeared as though Tofias’ municipal clients were declining, Mr. Petrosino responded that Tofias had just re-upped with the City of Lynn for a new three-year contract and they will be adopting Gasb 34 this fiscal year. Tofias had Newburyport, Lynn, Natick and a charter school plus 3 RFP’s out there and another one going out this week. Mr. McKinley pointed out that Tofias started with 6 and now has 3 and inquired as to what happened to the other three. Mr. Petrosino explained that one was their very first audit and they (Tofias) brought to their attention two significant omissions. A new administration came in and the client decided to look at different audit firms. Mr. Petrosino stressed that Tofias was here to stay and wanted to continue the relationship with Natick. Asked about the other two clients, Mr. Petrosino replied that it was a similar situation where a new administration came in.

Mr. Ciccariello referenced the difference in Tofias’ proposal from one year to another under Gasb34 and asked if there was a reason for that and was there anything the Town could expect with Gasb34 that was not covered in the proposal.

Mr. Petrosino explained that the initial adoption and conversion was where the significant costs would come into play. There would be some costs associated with engineering firms, but he felt after the initial investment was made the maintenance to adhere to Gasb 34 would not be as significant as the year one implementation period.

Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Petrosino to describe what he (Mr. Petrosino) thought his firm brought to the Town of Natick. In response, Mr. Petrosino stated that Tofias brought a continuation as part of the audit. There would be the same staff as the past two years. Tofias was an overall leader in public accounting firms. It was one of the largest in the state and had affiliates and resources throughout the country.

Representing Powers & Sullivan were managing partner James Powers and manager Chris Rogers.

Mr. Powers told the Board that if selected, he and Mr. Rogers would be Natick’s individual team. They were who would be seen before the Board doing the day-to-day management of the account.

Mr. Powers continued that Powers & Sullivan had specialized in municipal audits for over 15 years. They had 30 team members and their

AUDITING SERVICES (contd)

base was 90% municipal. Each team member does at least 10 different municipal audits and both he and Mr. Rogers were 100% municipal. Mr. Powers noted that their firm had taken on a leadership role in the municipal practice and he would make some commitments to the Town. Any commitment they made, they would live up to and he felt they had demonstrated that when they took on a large project a couple of years ago in the Collector’s office. He returns telephone calls or E-mails the next day, and they do not screen telephone calls. To him that was a level of service commitment. If the Town needed them, they would be available, and they (Powers & Sullivan) would be honest and up front at all times. Powers & Sullivan would be working for the Town and sometimes they (Powers & Sullivan) will have to tell the Town things.

Mr. Powers noted that Powers & Sullivan communicated frequently with an audit committee, Board of Selectmen or Town Administrator to let people know the progress. They won’t keep the Town in the dark, and they would also update the Town employees on emerging issues. Gasb 34 was of great concern to everybody.

Mr. Powers continued that the RFP had listed some measures for consideration in evaluating the firms. The RFP had asked for the firm’s level of professional qualifications, and Mr. Powers responded that currently Powers & Sullivan audited over 80 municipal entities and that has been going up steadily. They have over 10 Phase I Gasb34 implementations and out of 106 retirement systems, they audit 20 each year. Last year they did about 45 end of the financial reports for the Department of Education.

The RFP had requested a demonstration of the level of expertise, and Mr. Powers noted that Gasb34 would dramatically change the financial statements. It was critical for the Town to adopt Gasb34 because of all the bonding the Town does. Gasb34 was not a new standard. It was new for implementation, but the announcement came out in 1999. Mr. Rogers and he had given over 25 seminars. About a year ago the Department of Revenue, hired Powers & Sullivan to write a practical guide for implementation of Gasb34, and they were assisting the state to convert to Gasb34 and were assisting all of their clients to meet the requirements. Mr. Powers also noted that the firm recognized the need to be efficient and to minimize costs. They purchased new software and designed the software to produce Gasb34 statements.

In conclusion, Mr. Powers stated that Powers & Sullivan wanted Natick as a client and they would meet and exceed every deadline in the RFP and help the Town implement Gasb34.

Mr. Stern asked about the audit budget, and Mr. Palmer advised that $35,000 was budgeted annually for the audit. He added that the budget had not increased significantly for about five years and did not include anything for Gasb34.

Mr. Stern pointed out that in his cover letter Mr. Powers said he would welcome the opportunity to negotiate a fee structure in detail. He asked Mr. Powers to explain why he (Powers & Sullivan) was worth more than the other firm.

AUDITING SERVICES (contd)

Mr. Powers thought the reason was Powers & Sullivan’s experience and what they do. He knew how long it took to do the audit. He has been doing municipal audits since the late 1970’s, and knew how long it took to do what needs to be done for a complete audit and the fee was a function of time. Natick was almost a $100 million operation. He also knew the PERAC requirements and had the expertise in-house to fulfill those requirements. He thought the audit would take 425 hours to complete all the projects for Fiscal 2002 and probably about 575-600 hours in the future. Mr. Powers stressed that he never wanted to have his audit manager worry about a fee structure and try to shave off-hours. For a $100 million organization, this (proposed fee) was on the low end of the scale.

Mr. Stern asked if Powers & Sullivan was completely finished with the special project for the Town – were the manuals written and no loose ends. Mr. Rogers advised that he was here eight months ago for the last policy manual, and Mr. Powers pointed out that there were no reportable conditions in the management letter any more with the reconciliations. He thought the project was complete.

Noting that Powers & Sullivan was a 26 person and 3 partner firm, Mr. Ciccariello questioned how a 30 person firm audited over 80 clients and performed specialized services. Mr. Powers explained that he wouldn’t be spending 250 hours here. Powers & Sullivan had developed a process that was efficient and they don’t wait until the year end. They have people in the office and all they were doing was getting ready for this year’s audit. 50% of the audit was completed before June 30th and in every one of those 80 communities they don’t miss deadlines. If the Board was concerned that he wouldn’t service Natick, Mr. Powers offered to resign at the end of the fiscal year if the audit was not done in the timeline.

Mr. Ball noted that previously a comment had been made about changing auditing firms, but there was a philosophy that ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’, and he wondered why Mr. Palmer felt the need to change auditing firms every few years. Why was that thought to be a good practice?

Mr. Palmer explained that when the Town entered into the last agreement it was not with Tofias. It was with Verdolino & Lowey with the understanding that at the end of the contract, the Town would solicit new auditors and Verdolino & Lowey wouldn’t be invited to submit a proposal because they would have been the Town’s auditors for 12 years. Tofias was accepted to do the audits because Pat Race was available in the first year and the Town was going through change sin the Collector’s office. In discussing it with Mr. Groux, it made sense to prepare an RFP and solicit proposals.

Mr. Ball responded that he was not looking for a history, but for why Mr. Palmer or Groux felt it was necessary to change auditing firms. In the private sector, in which he worked and owned stock, they had the same auditors for 40-50 years. What benefit accrued to the Town by doing this?

Mr. McKinley stated that the benefit was what Mr. Ball alluded to. In effect the new auditors would be auditing the previous auditors and

AUDITING SERVICES (contd)

getting a fresh look and a different perspective. It was not that the previous auditor was doing a bad job. It was just good to have a fresh pair of eyes. The Town was coming to the end of a three-year appointment and the Board has to either reappoint or change. That dictated the timing.

Mr. Hughes didn’t want to presuppose that the Board was going to change. A contract was up and it made sense to explore different possibilities. It was a way to see where the Town was at.

Chairman of the Finance Committee, Frank Foss, was in the audience and given the opportunity to comment, but declined.

Mr. McKinley announced that he intended to abstain from the voting as he learned after the process was initiated that a member of his wife’s family was associated with one of the two firms.

Mr. Hughes stated that he was not prepared to go forward that evening. He would like to re-read the proposals and moved to table the matter to June 3rd. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO NATICK BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE: a) SUSAN GEISER

Susan Geiser told the Board that she was interested in the Cochituate rail trail and she had been attending the committee’s meetings as an associate member.

Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to appoint Susan Geiser to the Natick Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Unanimously voted.

CHRISTINA & MICHAEL LOCHHEAD: WATER BILL

Mr. Lochhead, formerly of 26 Rockland Street, told the Board that at the closing of their home, they discovered that the outside meter was reporting inaccurately. On September 19, 2001 they received their final water bill and were surprised that it was $3,077. They had only been in the home for 4-l/2 years and was not prepared to deal it. They paid for it out of the proceeds of the closing and appealed to the Board.

Ms. Lochhead stressed that they were not trying to get out of paying their fair share of the water they used, but felt they were overbilled. Prior to receiving the bill, they were unclear of the cost of water and checked in with neighbors and friends on the cost and found during the four years that the water bills during their stay seemed to be reasonable. Their water usage did go up with the addition of their two children. After receiving the bill on September 19th, they collected some data from comparable Natick families with the same size and same house and found theirs was on target or slightly above. The MWRA provided them with an average for Natick and their usage was on par with those averages.

Ms. Lochhead submitted some backup information with graphs analyzing their usage. She pointed out that as they increased the landscaping and added children, their usage did go up and seemed to be above average.

CHRISTINA & MICHAEL LOCHHEAD: WATER BILL (contd)

Mr. McKinley asked if the MWRA average included residences with sprinklers. Ms. Lochhead advised that there was no way to differentiate, but the MWRA thought that given the age of the children, they should be at the average. Mr. Lochhead noted that they did not have an irrigation system, and Ms. Lochhead added that for most of the years, there was some type of water ban.

Ms. Lochhead acknowledged that the outside meter was broken, but she thought more likely that the meter was broken prior to them moving in. She called the Collector’s office and got the final reading from when they purchased the house in November 1996. They had put new locks on the home and didn’t live there for several weeks. Beth in the Collector’s Office said the date of the final water reading was December 3rd which was after the date they closed on the house, and there was no way any meter reader could have gotten into the home on December 3rd. There were different locks and no one was there. She suspected that had the inside meter been read at that time, there would have been an inflated reading over the 317 units. If the meter was read on December 3rd, it was the outside and not the inside meter.

Mr. McKinley questioned how the closing took place on November 29th without a final water bill, and Mr. Palmer advised that primarily it was on the part of the buyer. There was nothing that forced a final read.

Asked if her attorney raised the issue of a final water read, Ms. Lochhead responded that the previous owner put up $1,000 from the proceeds to cover the water bill and the Lochhead’s were given something that said paid in full. They (Lochheads) were not contacted by anyone in the Water Department to give them access to the home so either they broke into the home with no evidence which was ridiculous or more likely they read the outdoor meter assuming it was correct and the meters would match. It seemed more reasonable that the meter would have been broken during the 36+ years the previous owner lived there than the 4+ they lived there.

Again Ms. Lochhead stressed that they were not trying to get a free ride, but based on her calculations she felt that a fair assessment would be 321 units. They paid the $3,077 and felt they were due a refund and would like to leave it up to the Board to rectify the situation.

Mr. Ball summarized that Ms. Lochhead was purporting that when the Lochhead’s purchased the home there was already a discrepancy between the inside and outside meter which was not detected at that time. The meter was broken, but clearly not completely non-functioning. The Lochhead’s were asking the Board of Selectmen to resolve an error between the inside and outside which was not detected and, therefore, it was the prior owner who should have been charged for that discrepancy.

Ms. Lochhead felt that that was a fair assessment and added that no one knew when it broke. The outside meter had to be broken to some extent and it was likely that it occurred in the 36 years prior to the Lochhead’s and the previous owner would have had the lion’s share. She didn’t even know there was a meter in the basement until they closed.

CHRISTINA & MICHAEL LOCHHEAD: WATER BILL (contd)

Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Palmer knew if there had been an inside reading at any time prior to the Lochhead’s purchase. Mr. Palmer had no idea, but thought the DPW would know if an inside vs outside reading had been done.

Ms. Lochhead stated that since the outdoor meter was used to get them into the home, the outdoor meter should be used to get them out.

At Mr. McKinley’s suggestion, the Board agreed to table the matter until Mr. Palmer could get a certification of when the last inside vs outside reading was done. A certification of the last inside read would determine a baseline for the real usage by the Lochheads, and if an adjustment were warranted, it would be made and if it weren’t, there would be no adjustment. Mr. Ball requested that Mr. Palmer also find out when the outside meter was installed.

APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE: TSITOS ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A THEO’S PIZZA

Before the Board was an application for a transfer of the common victualer’s license from Theo’s House of Pizza to Tsitos Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Theo’s Pizza for premises at 231 North Main Street. Representing Theo’s Pizza were Chris Pappas and Tsios Dimitri.

Mr. Pappas told the Board that Mr. Dimitri had been managing the restaurant from 1996 to the present and finally made arrangements to purchase the business. Prior to 1996 Mr. Dimitri’s father manager the business from 1986-1996.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to the number of seats and was told by Mr. Dimitri that there were 44.

A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Stern, and unanimously voted to approve the transfer of the common victualer’s license for premises at 231 North Main Street to Tsitos Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Theo’s Pizza.

TCAN: WAIVER OF BUILDING PERMIT FEES

Mr. Stern recused himself from the discussion and left the table.

Chairman of The Center for Arts in Natick (TCAN), Joseph Hurwitz, requested a waiver of the building permit fees for construction at the Summer Street building. He noted that TCAN was a non-profit arts center drawing people into Town and with the rehab, they expected to draw more than 50,000 people into the downtown annually. With this project, TCAN will be rehabbing a deteriorated firehouse into a jewel. He expected the total waiver to be less than $10,000 coming in two pieces: l) The contract will be let for the historic rehab which was about $1,500 and 2) the fee for the actual construction which would be about $8,500.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if bids had been received on the project, and Mr. Hurwitz advised that the project had been awarded. The total bid was $189,000 for the Mass Historic piece of which approximately 20% was for things other than construction and the rehab will be $1.13 million of which about $330,000 was for demolition, etc. and that didn’t require a building permit.

TCAN: WAIVER OF BUILDING PERMIT FEES (contd)

Mr. Hurwitz noted that in the RFP process one concern of the Town was being sure that if something happened to TCAN, the Town could step in and take over. TCAN was prepared to provide an easement on the east side of the building facing the alley and that would strengthen the Town’s priority position in that building.

Mr. Ball asked if the rehab work included seats and things. Mr. Hurwitz advised that it did not include furnishings and fixtures, but there were no building permits required for furnishings and fixtures.

Mr. Hughes asked about the zoning issues, and Mr. Hurwitz advised that all zoning issues were settled.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if this was Phase I of the project, and Mr. Hurwitz explained that Phase I was initially just the first floor, but TCAN felt it would be more efficient to do Phase I and part of Phase II because of building code requirements. By doing the basement area which was considered part of Phase II, they could have 290 people. Asked if there was another phase down the line, Mr. Hurwitz responded that the exterior will be completed, but there will be some internal work. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello questioned if TCAN would be pulling any permits in the future and would they request a waiver in the future.

Mr. Hurwitz stated that he believed this was a one-time situation, but he couldn’t guarantee it. If a permit were needed to put up wallboard, he would expect the permit to be low enough (not to request a waiver).

Mr. McKinley moved to grant TCAN the requested waiver. Seconded by Mr. Ball. No vote was taken on the motion. After further discussion a motion was made by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ball, and unanimously voted to table discussion to June 3rd.

In discussion of the motion to waive the fee, Mr. Hughes stated that although sympathetic to TCAN, he found it difficult to waive the fee when the Board was asking people to pay for trash, pay for busing, and the library can’t maintain full hours. He also felt that this argument could be made by any non-profit organization in Natick.

Mr. McKinley explained that it was not his intention to set a precedent but to encourage the successful completion of this project because if offered a dividend for Natick as a whole. Mr. Hughes countered that the Town had already done that by selling the property at less than fair market value, and if TCAN decided to renovate the 2nd floor, they would be back (for another waiver).

Regarding precedent, Mr. Ball noted that the Board had waived the fee for the Congregational Church.

Mr. Ciccariello stated that he had mixed emotions. He too was a proponent of TCAN but had some serious issues. He would prefer not voting tonight so he could find out if other waivers had been granted and the exact amount of the fee based on the construction dollars.

PUBLIC HEARING: MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES, LLC: GRANT OF LOCATION; OVERHEAD, UNDERGROUND

Representing MCI Metro Access Transmission were Tim Smith of Hinckel & McCoy Engineering, and David Bissonnette, Real Estate Specialist for MCI Worldcom.

Mr. Smith reviewed the history of the petition for an underground grant of location for 30 feet of conduit on Dewey and East Central Street to Verizon on East Central Street. Part of the project included overhead wiring in the eastern section of Town. Mr. Smith noted that the petition was filed in August 2001 and the Board of Selectmen held a hearing on November 5, 2001. The Board discussed the trenching portion of the route and required a $7.00 per foot fee for 10 years or $2,100. Subsequent to that, he found some fire alarm conduit owned by the Fire Department that might be used to eliminate the trench, and the Deputy Fire Chief said he would be interested in allowing MCI to use it, but it was up to the Board of Selectmen. Discussion continued with Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian about the use of the fire alarm conduit. It was 20 feet of existing fire alarm cable and MCI would give $2,100 in addition to a reel of fire alarm cable.

Mr. Smith continued that he had been dealing with Mr. Sarkisian about a fee for the aerial portion that would cover 267 poles and some on Route 9 that came under Mass Highway. A permit has been filed and received from the Mass Highway Department. What was being discussed was an administrative fee to be paid to the Town to install fiber and the fee negotiated was $15.00 a pole or $4,350. They also entered into an agreement with Mr. Sarkisian about street trees, and MCI was willing to donate a fee of $1,500 to pay for street trees. That was a total of $7,950 plus the fire alarm cable that was valued at $3,000-5,000.

Mr. McKinley asked if Special Counsel Peter Epstein had reviewed the agreement and given his blessing, and Mr. Sarkisian’s answer was, ‘yes’. He noted that one change was MCI Worldcom would not be doing the tree planting, but would be giving the Town money.

In response to an inquiry from Mr. Stern, Mr. Sarkisian advised that the trees were approximately $300 a piece plus a couple of hundred to plant. He added that MCI had refused to fund any more than the $1,500 and didn’t want to do the planting. When asked how that would be reconciled with Mr. Epstein’s letter that said Mr. Smith had agreed to install the trees, Mr. Smith responded that he did not agree to install the trees. He agreed to the $1,500 and the attorney told MCI that the Town would charge a reasonable administrative fee. The agreement was that $4,350 was a reasonable administrative fee and the trees were something that MCI decided to donate.

Mr. McKinley questioned if the agreement was consistent with the policy developed last year, and Mr. Sarkisian responded that the policy was not in place regarding the aboveground. He added that he thought it was a fair agreement.

Mr. Hughes pointed out that Route 135 was about to be torn up and would this work mean it would have to be done twice. Mr. Sarkisian replied that it was all aboveground and was utilizing the existing underground conduit.

PUBLIC HEARING: MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES, LLC: GRANT OF LOCATION; OVERHEAD, UNDERGROUND (contd)

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, and unanimously voted to close the public hearing.

Mr. Hughes then moved approval of the grant of location for MCIMetro Access Transmission Services subject to Peter Epstein’s review. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

In a memo to the Board, Finance Director Robert Palmer, made some recommendations for the trash fee policy. Mr. Palmer explained that based on the Board’s vote, $1.51 million needed to be raised and in the recommendations before the Board, he tried to accomplish that. He looked at how many people would be exempted based on the same criteria for water & sewer and how much would be uncollected. There was also an opt-out provision. His initial thought put the fee at $180.00, but he was asked to come back with the lowest amount possible, and that was $175.00. Although he did not know how many people would opt out, he assumed 300-400. The number of people who qualified for exemptions was known and based on the water and sewer bills, he could assume the number of non-pay. He estimated 8-10% would not pay and applying those numbers, about $1.48M would be raised. He noted that the revenue had to be collected during the fiscal year to set a tax rate.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if the only exemptions being proposed were Clause 17C and 17D, and Mr. Palmer responded that there had to be a quantifiable program for people to be exempted and these were the only programs for the elderly. Unless the Board wanted to set up a whole different set of criteria, this was the option available.

Mr. Ball recalled there being 7 or 8 exemption programs, but Mr. Palmer was only listing two. Mr. Palmer advised that the only other program that had to do with age was deferral of taxes.

Mr. Stern felt the assumption of 8-10% for non-pay, late pay, and opt out seemed awfully high and questioned what provisions Mr. Palmer had made to re-evaluate when there was some hard data. Mr. Palmer responded that he didn’t have a good feel for how many people would opt out, but felt the late payments were relatively accurate based on the water & sewer. He noted that he wouldn’t have firm data until it was l/2 way through the year.

Mr. Stern commented that for the non-payers, a substantial portion would eventually pay either through billing or going to lien. Mr. Palmer concurred, but pointed out that the payment would be in a subsequent fiscal year. If the money was collected in a subsequent fiscal year, Mr. Stern inquired as to where that money would go and was told by Mr. Palmer that it would go into the general fund.

On the opt out, Mr. Stern asked if Mr. Palmer had thought about requiring people to provide a written agreement between the homeowner and the private contractor. Mr. Palmer advised that that issue had been raised and it was thought that an agreement could demonstrate an acceptable alternative method. Mr. Hughes felt Mr. Stern was correct and one way to opt out had to be to show the agreement, but he didn’t think it could be the only way.

TRASH FEE POLICY (contd)

As to re-evaluating with hard data, Mr. Hughes felt that if Mr. Palmer had been conservative, instead of redoing the fee, that money should go against the pay-as-you-throw cost the first year. Pay-as-you-throw would not raise nearly the same amount as the trash fee. Mr. McKinley noted that PAYT claims to reduce tipping fees, but Mr. Hughes responded that the difference could still be $1 million.

Mr. Ball expressed concern with people opting out and leaving their trash out. He felt that the truck guys needed to know where to skip. He was also concerned with the small number of people who were disabled but were not 70 for whom the $175.00 represented a substantial burden. He asked if Mr. Palmer had an estimate of how many people would qualify if disabled was added to the category, but Mr. Hughes asked that Mr. Ball first define disabled. Mr. McKinley questioned what being disabled had to do with the ability to pay the fee, and why not use the context of low income. Mr. Palmer advised that he did not have the data and he had no way of being able to request income.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Stern, and unanimously voted to set the fee at $175.00.

A motion was made by Mr. Mckinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to designate Mr. Palmer as the administrative agent for the time being. Unanimously voted.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, and unanimously voted to adopt the two exemptions: Clause 17C & 17D.

Mr. Hughes moved that in order to opt out the form has to be signed and the person has to indicate the method by which he or she will dispose of their trash. If disposal was by private contractor, a copy of the contract should be provided or some letter of agreement with the private contractor. If a homeowner does not provide a written letter from a contractor, he/she must provide some other assurance acceptable to the administrative agent that his/her trash will be disposed of properly. Seconded by Mr. Stern and unanimously voted.

Mr. McKinley called attention to a letter from the Natick Housing Authority requesting that the entire Housing Authority be allowed out of the trash fee. He inquired as to what was happening now, and Mr. Palmer responded that he had talked to George Russell, Sanitation Supervisor, and was told that each week the Housing Authority was provided with a 30-yard roll off and the Town disposes of the roll off. The remainder of the units scattered over Town were picked up curbside. The roll off was $400-500 per week and that was not including the curbside.

Mr. McKinley asked if it could be argued that the roll off was covered in taxes, but the residences should be subject to the tax fee. Mr. Palmer noted that the Board could with any option it wished, but noted that this was an expensive proposition.

Mr. Ciccariello questioned why the 89 family residences should be exempted because they were Natick Housing Authority property vs 89 families living outside the Housing Authority.

TRASH FEE POLICY (contd)

Mr. Hughes inquired as to how many would qualify for the elderly exemption, but Mr. Stern thought it was irrelevant who lives in the unit. The exemption being talked about was to the Natick Housing Authority. The residents pay rent on a formula and there would be no effect on the tenant. He didn't think the rent could be raised and it may be that the federal and state government would pick up the difference. It was his belief that a pass through to the tenants was not allowed, but the Housing Authority may be able to get the money back from the government.

Mr. McKinley requested that a letter be sent to Edward Santos, Executive Director of the Natick Housing Authority, seeking a clarification regarding the ability to pass this through to other funding agencies.

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to authorize Mr. McKinley to vote for Richard Gooding, Town of Hopkinton for the MPO representative.

BUDGET PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE

Mr. Hughes reported that the Budget Planning Subcommittee had met on May 14th and agreed to meet again on June 16th. At that time Mr. Palmer and the Schools would provide a projection for Fiscal 2004 expenses with any suggested wage increases as a separate item because the contracts all end as of June 30, 2003. Mr. Palmer will provide an estimate in terms of raising revenue. It was the unanimous opinion that the trash fee will raise about $1 million more than the pay-as-you-throw and that shortfall will have to be made up. Health Insurance and debt service were also expected to go up.

To get a handle on the number, Mr. Hughes advised that the Schools and Mr. Palmer were asked to give an idea what would be looked at if we were going to make that revenue. The proposal did not include putting the school bus service back. That would stay as a fee based program. The fee may be lowered, but it would not be eliminated. He hoped to have something by the June meeting.

Mr. McKinley noted that he had received a telephone call from Representative Linsky who advised that the version of the budget passed by the House had Natick at level funding which was basically our assumption. Representative Linsky did not know what the Senate would do.

Mr. Hughes also advised that the Schools had not yet decided whether to go forward with the high school renovation even though it appears that the reimbursement was at least 7 if not 10 years out.

As a member of the pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) task force, Mr. Ball noted that there would most undoubtedly be a loss of revenue from PAYT, but how much of a shortfall was not known. It could be $1 million if the Town gave out the first bag free and charged $1.00 per bag. There were all kinds of formulas that the committee was struggling with and it was unclear what the net shortfall from the $1.5M trash fee would be. He thought it would unreasonable to go into this thinking that

BUDGET PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE (contd)

substituting PAYT for a trash fee would put the Town another $1M into the hole. He didn’t think it would.

Mr. McKinley thought that for all practical purposes PAYT would become an enterprise fund, but Mr. Hughes noted that $3.2M would have to be raised to do that and there was no way it was going to raise that amount.

Mr. McKinley reminded Mr. Ball that the Board was expecting an interim status report from the PAYT committee, and Mr. Ball advised that they would be ready for July 1st.

CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT TO GOLF COURSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

The Board unanimously voted to confirm Acting Town Administrator Thomas Groux’s appointment of Paul Power to the Golf Course Oversight Committee. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello.

The Board unanimously voted to confirm Acting Town Administrator Larry Rosen’s appointment of Larry Rosen to the Golf Course Oversight Committee. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello.

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the meeting scheduled as presented.

DCAM: SPEEN STREET PROPERTY

The Board agreed to table discussion to June 3rd.

SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS

Mr. McKinley expressed concern with the lack of programming and televising of government meetings on the local cable and recommended that the Executive Director and Chairman of the Pegasus Board of Directors come to the next Selectmen’s meeting to explain what was going on. The other members of the Board agreed.

Mr. Ciccariello reported that he was still working on the complaint against Auto Max on West Central Street and he would continue working on it. He had talked to Bob Raisch (the complainant).

Mr. Stern noted that in correspondence there was a letter from a High Street resident that was related to what Mr. Ciccariello was working on

Town Administrator Interviews

Mr. McKinley reminded the Board that interviews with the three Town Administrator finalist candidates had been scheduled for tomorrow night. There would be an executive session at 6:00 p.m. to review with Town Counsel the contractual obligations and interviews at 7:00 p.m. The candidates would be interviewed in alphabetical order.

Mr. Stern requested that the letter concerning Upland Road get to the Safety Committee and that the Safety Committee provide a recommendation as soon as possible.

SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)

Mr. Stern called attention to a letter in correspondence from DEP saying that the Town no longer needed to do mandatory water bans, but elsewhere in the letter it indicated that mandatory water bans were no longer needed once the upgrade to the treatment plant was complete. He questioned if DEP was talking about now or when the work was finished.

It was Mr. McKinley’s interpretation that once the Springvale treatment plant was complete, the Town will no longer have to use water flow as a determinant for when to turn off Elm Bank.

Mr. Stern requested a clarification from DPW Director Charles Sisitsky. Mr. McKinley also noted that DEP was requiring an updated emergency water plan by June 30th and asked that Mr. Sisitsky report on that as well.

Westborough Beverage Corporation

The Board was in receipt of a notice from the ABCC saying that they had put a hold on Westborough Beverage Corp’s petition for a change in manager, and change in officers & directors due to tax issues.

Mr. Hughes suggested that the Board send Westborough Beverage a letter advising them of such and saying it was the Board’s understanding that the change in manager has taken place.

Mr. Ball volunteered to represent the Board at the No Place For Hate dinner on May 30th.

Nicholas’ Restaurant

Mr. Hughes noted that about a year ago the Board had granted Nicholas’ a liquor license and nothing has happened. Nick’s told the Board that upon the grant of license they would stop the Saturday night at Nick’s, and he would like to know what’s happening. At the moment there was a hole in the back with a foundation.

Alcohol Policy Study Committee

Mr. Hughes noted that he had some thoughts concerning his proposal that the Town take a comprehensive view of the rules and regs. He proposed a five person committee consisting of a member of the Board of Selectmen, the Community Development Director, Police Chief, one member of the Natick Center Associates who was a resident of the Town and not a licenseholder, and two citizens.

The Board concurred with Mr. Hughes suggestion, and Mr. McKinley asked that the notifications go out and the vacancy posted.

Everett Street Property

Mr. Hughes noted that the Town owned a piece of property on Everett Street that had been under agreement, but the sale did not go through. If it was a buildable lot, it was worth more money, and Mr. Hughes felt that the Board should spend the $500 to see if it was a Furcolo lot.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, to ask Town Counsel to determine if this was a buildable lot. Unanimously voted.

SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)

Hopewell Farms Complaint

Quite some time before a resident of Hopewell Farms filed a complaint that the Town did not do his sewer repairs at a great cost to him. This was before the Board adopted the policy that the Sewer Department not work on private property. Mr. Hughes suggested that a letter be sent to the resident advising him of a date and time to appear before the Board to plead his case. The Board concurred.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

____________________________

John Ciccariello, Clerk