Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Paul R. McKinley at 6:00 p.m.

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

ALSO PRESENT: Donna Challis, Secretary;

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on June 17, 2002 in the amount of $493,312.41. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $197,487.15.

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Stern, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation, and contract negotiation of non-union personnel. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:00 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.

The open session was called to order at 7:30 p.m.

LETTER OF APPRECIATION: ARTHUR MILLS RETIREMENT

Arthur Mills, the Town’s Electrical Inspector, was presented with a Letter of Appreciation in recognition of his years of service to the Town of Natick.

LETTER OF APPRECIATION: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH ROGER WADE – THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE TOWN

Director of Public Health Roger Wade was presented with a Letter of Appreciation in recognition of his 30 years of service to the Town of Natick.

With corrections as noted, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the March 18, 2002 meeting. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball.

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the March 21, 2002 meeting.

RECREATION & PARKS: NATICK DAYS BANNER

Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved approval of the Natick Days Committee’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of September 2-September 10, 2002. Unanimously voted.

VNA: REQUEST PERMISSION TO HANG BANNER

The Board was in receipt of a request from the VNA to hang a banner across Main Street for the period November 22-December 9, 2002 in advertisement of their holiday fundraiser.

Mr. McKinley recalled that there used to be a cutoff date for hanging banners, and Ms. Challis advised that former Fire Chief Richard Fredette had requested that approvals for banners not be given for the period December 1-April 1. Anything after December 1st was at the discretion of the Chief.

Mr. Hughes moved approval of the VNA’s request to hang a banner for the period November 22-December 1st and beyond December 1st at the discretion of Chief Brien. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

APPOINTMENT OF TOWN ADMINISTRATOR

Mr. McKinley prefaced the discussion by thanking all the people who had brought the process to this point, particularly the Search Committee chaired by Terri Evans. The work they did in identifying potential candidates and narrowing the choice was considerable. He thanked his colleagues for their efforts over the last several weeks, and noted that each member of the Board had talked to all candidates and a

APPOINTMENT OF TOWN ADMINISTRATOR (contd)

variety of independent reference checks. A considerable amount of time had gone into the process and there were two reasons for that: The Board took the responsibility of appointing a new town administrator very seriously. The selection of a town administrator was always an important decision and the selection of an individual to replace Mr. Conley was perhaps even more so. The three individuals forwarded to the Board were so good that it was very hard to make a decision. Most of the members of the Board have made up their minds (on the appointment) and although he didn’t know who it would be, it was difficult to choose.

In explaining the process to be followed, Mr. McKinley noted that the Board members would have a moment to add any comments or thoughts and then there would be a vote. Depending on the outcome of that vote there may be some further discussion and a further vote on a universal decision and some discussion on the negotiation team to meet with the selected candidate to determine if the Town and the candidate can come to agreeable terms. That would be followed by a brief recess to notify the candidates of the outcome.

Mr. Ball stated that he was reminded of a quotation in the local paper that he attributed to David Baier. Mr. Baier was on the Search Committee and said he saw the committee’s job as making the Board’s selection process as difficult as possible, and he (Mr. Ball) thought the Search Committee had succeeded wonderfully well.

By paper ballot, the Board voted to appoint Philip Lemnios as the new Town Administrator. The votes were as follows:

Mr. McKinley voted for Charles Aspinwall

Mr. Stern voted for Philip Lemnios

Mr. Ciccariello voted for Charles Aspinwall

Mr. Ball voted for Philip Lemnios

Mr. Hughes voted for Philip Lemnios

Mr. McKinley commented that Mr. Aspinwall and Mr. Lemnios were that good that he would have to flip a quarter.

Mr. Hughes moved to make Mr. Lemnios’ appointment unanimous. Mr. McKinley seconded and the motion was unanimously voted.

On the formation of a negotiating team, Mr. McKinley noted that in a previous meeting the Board of Selectmen decided on one member of the Board, one member of the Search Committee, the consultant, and Town Counsel. The team would consist of Mr. Stern, Terri Evans, Mark Morse the consultant, and Town Counsel John Flynn.

Mr. Hughes moved appointment of the negotiating team as listed by Mr. McKinley. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

A recess was called at 7:45 p.m. for Mr. McKinley to notify the candidates. The meetings resumed at 7:50 p.m. Mr. McKinley advised that he had spoken with the three candidates, and Mr. Lemnios was excited about coming to Natick.

METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER CEO: MARK CLEMENT

Something unexpected had arisen and Mr. Clement requested a postponement of the meeting with the Board.

PAY AS YOU THROW TASK FORCE: INTERIM REPORT

Mr. McKinley noted that there had been some confusion as to when the Pay As You Throw Task Force (PAYT) was to present their interim report.

Mr. Ball partially took the blame for the confusion. He understood that Mr. McKinley desired to have the report on June 17th, but apparently in subsequent discussions between Mr. McKinley and Ms. Miller, the Chair of the task force, a decision was made to postpone it. He (Mr. Ball) was unaware of the postponement and asked to have it on tonight’s agenda.

Mr. McKinley acknowledged that it was his intention to have it tonight, but agreed to the postponement and would get them on the earliest possible agenda.

MIDDLESEX SAVINGS BANK: PARKING WAIVER

Mr. McKinley noted that at the previous meeting the Board had reviewed the application from Middlesex Savings Bank requesting a waiver of three parking spaces so they could move their backup generator. There were several concerns raised at the meeting: 1) There is a shortage of spaces as it is and was it really necessary to give up any more; 2) Given how infrequently, with the exception of one time last year, the generator operates was it an issue that warrants having a business spend over $100,000 to solve; 3) Investigate any other possible solution.

It was the Board’s feeling that it seemed like although the Board of Health voted the letter of the law, it may not be the best overall solution.

Public Health Director Roger Wade told the Board that it first came to the Board of Health’s attention four years ago and they (Board of Health) realized at that time how severe the problem was when the generator was running. The bank was running it more often at that time and it was more than 30 decibels above background. This was considered preventable. However, because of some of the same concerns the Selectmen just expressed, the Board of Health moved slower on it, but they did send the order out and met with the bank quickly to make them

aware there was a problem. The bank hired a consultant in 1999 and outlined four possible scenarios, none of which they thought would accomplish the goal.

Mr. Wade continued that since Middlesex Savings Bank cut back on the amount of time it was being tested, they (Board of Health) knew it wasn’t going to come to a head until it (generator) served the purpose for which it was intended and ran for an extended period of time for a bank emergency. When it ran for 12 hours overnight, the Board of Health re-opened discussion with the bank and the bank agreed there was a problem. The garage was the best place because of the residence on the other side. Probably the best thing pre construction would have been to put it below the garage, but that can’t be done now. Putting it in the garage meant losing the parking spaces, but Mr. Wade stressed that it was pretty tough living there (next to the generator).

Mr. McKinley pointed out that the regulations provide for several exceptions such as lawn mowers, so there was recognition that for periods of time one was subjected to noise. Mr. Wade, however, advised that the list was very specific.

Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the bank had explored every other alternative possible. He saw reference to putting it on the roof and if the roof was not structurally adequate, could it (roof) be beefed up or was it cost prohibitive or had the bank considered securing an updated generator.

Middlesex Savings Bank Vice President/Administration Bruce Weisberg assured the Board that they had looked at all other possibilities. Putting it on the roof would require extra steel. The generator has 142 hours on it and purchasing a new one won’t get anywhere at this point.

Mr. McKinley inquired what would happen if the parking waiver wasn’t granted, and Mr. Hughes responded that the bank couldn’t use the generator. Mr. Wade said he thought it was zoning question and thought the ZBA could grant a variance, but because the Board of Selectmen was granting a waiver, the ZBA didn’t grant a variance. Even if the Board of Selectmen didn’t grant the parking waiver, the ZBA could, but it would lengthen the process for the bank and would mean that for more than four years the tenant has had to put up with this.

Mr. Stern inquired if Mr. Wade had contacted the state to see whether the generator used on this basis could be included as an exception to the noise regulations or was the decision based on Mr. Wade’s interpretation. Mr. Wade responded that it was his interpretation, based on the lack of similarity to the exceptions.

Aside from one power outage where the generator ran all night, Mr. Ball asked if there had been any other instances. He knew it was loud, but the issue of how disturbing a noise was had two components – one was how loud and the other was how often it occurred. He shared Mr. McKinley’s concern that the bank was about to undertake a $100,000+

MIDDLESEX SAVINGS BANK: PARKING WAIVER (contd)

expense to correct something that was very infrequent. One option to explore was to ask the state whether it could be an exception.

Mr. Wade responded that even if he did that, this was something that was left up to the Board of Health to enforce. Different options were explored with the bank for four years, and they talked to the property owner and the tenant. There was another unscheduled test when the tenant was home and nearly went through the ceiling. The problem was that you never know when it was going to run other than the testing and it was not fair to subject a resident to something that was correctable and preventable.

If the Board approved the waiver and the generator was moved, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the noise problem would be solved or would it still be violating the regulation. Mr. Weisberg explained that the intent was to get it to state levels by moving it below and building around it. Mr. Wade added that the consultants were very confident that this location would meet the standard. They (consultants) would not make any such claim no matter what they did in the current location.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Stern, to approve the Middlesex Savings Bank’s request for a parking waiver of three spaces, which will allow them to move their backup generator. The motion was passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley was opposed.

POLICE CHIEF CORRESPONDENCE

Police Chief Dennis Mannix referred to a memo to the Board requesting the termination of Police Officer Andrew Thorpe.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if every effort had been taken with the officer in question to resolve the matters outlined in the memo. Chief Mannix responded that the supervisors who work with this employee said they had taken corrective action, but didn’t believe it had been effective.

Mr. Ball inquired as to how many new officers have come on board over the last ten years and was told by Chief Mannix that there had been 20-25. Mr. Ball then asked if there had ever been a situation like this where the Chief recommended termination. Chief Mannix advised that there was not.

Mr. McKinley inquired as to the thinking of the supervisors, and Chief Mannix responded that after reviewing the circumstances of certain things that occurred with the supervisors as well as Officer Thorpe’s general performance in so far as investigating crimes and his own (Chief Mannix) observation, he (Chief Mannix) didn’t believe the community orientation he thought would be there was there and didn’t believe it would be there in the future.

Asked if that was based on the last 12 months, Chief Mannix’s response was, ‘yes’.

Mr. Ball noted that Chief Mannix had said that he was basing his recommendation in part on thoughts of the direct supervisors. He asked if as part of the process, Chief Mannix had talked to Officer Thorpe on these issues. Chief Mannix advised that he personally did not talk to Officer Thorpe.

Mr. Stern asked for some examples of some of the corrective actions undertaken, and Chief Mannix responded that there was an incident in West Natick and Officer Thorpe was advised how to do surveillance, but he didn’t follow instructions. He didn’t accept the judgment of his supervisors. His reports needed to be amended and the supervisors tried to work with him on writing reports, but they didn’t think it was going to change. Chief Mannix pointed out that the probation period served as a period of observation and it didn’t mean the person was thought of negatively. It was a judgment that the person was or was not going to be a police officer the Town wants.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the number of supervisors responsible for overseeing Officer Thorpe, and Chief Mannix advised that there were three supervisors on the midnight shift. One works with the officer four nights. Asked if there was 100% consensus (on dismissing Officer

POLICE CHIEF CORRESPONDENCE (contd)

Thorpe), Chief Mannix responded that it was not 100%. It was a majority.

If the Board was not to act on the recommendation at this time, Mr. Ball inquired as to what would be the consequences. Chief Mannix advised that the Officer would receive tenure on June 20 and it would involve certain Chapter 31 rights and protections that he (Officer Thorpe) was not entitled to right now and would make it difficult to dismiss the officer under these circumstances.

Jack Canzoneri identified himself as legal counsel representing Officer Thorpe and asked to speak on his behalf.

Mr. Canzoneri believed that the Chief’s premise that Officer Thorpe was on probation was faulty. Officer Thorpe became employed on January 29, 2001 and that was more than one year. He proceeded through the academy and around June 18, 2001 graduated from the academy. The Chief’s contention was that the official time for counting the one-year probationary status did not begin until he (Officer Thorpe) completed academy training and began with the department. He (Mr. Canzoneri) believed that was a legal position that was rejected by Civil Service, and he urged the Board to double check that proposition otherwise the Town will be subject to liability for the losses the officer suffers.

Mr. Canzoneri believed that Officer Thorpe was owed all the due process owed to a tenured officer and cited the case of Smith vs Brookline. He felt that this case was not one that was unclear. It was clear as a bell that the time for counting the one-year status begins at the time he starts academy training and that started January 29, 2001. Mr. Corizone urged the Board to hold off and afford Officer Thorpe all due process he was entitled to on this date under Civil Service including investigation into specifics of the charges, notice of which they (Mr. Corizone and Officer Thorpe) didn’t have, and investigation into the specifics of each of the supervisors who presented a complaint to the Chief and the credibility of those supervisors.

Mr. McKinley noted that if the Board accepted Mr. Canzoneri’s recommendation to table and if the Chief was right, it would go beyond the Chief’s date for when the probationary period ended. Mr. Canzoneri then noted that when an officer was on administrative leave, it didn’t count toward tenured status. He cited the case of Commissioner vs

Joseph Cecil. Chief Mannix confirmed that Officer Thorpe had been on administrative leave since last Friday.

Chief Mannix reiterated that he believed the probationary period ended June 20. In the Brookline case, Civil Service did rule that the probationary period began the first day of employment; however, the Norfolk Superior Court overturned that decision and it was under appeal to the appeals court. The Norfolk Superior Court held that the first day became the first day after the academy since the statute says someone must perform the duty of a police officer for 12 months.

Mr. Stern asked Chief Mannix to define administrative leave and if the Chief agreed that placing an officer on administrative leave tolls the running of the probationary period. Chief Mannix responded that to the best of his knowledge that was correct.

Mr. Stern commented that it was not necessary to make a decision this evening since the status was now protected, but Chief Mannix stated that he would have to defer to legal counsel. He (Chief Mannix) was under the assumption that the Board would have to make a decision this evening, but didn’t know that for a fact.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that in the correspondence it said that on October 16, 2000 the Board voted to conditionally offer employment to Andrew Thorpe. When did Officer Thorpe actually start receiving a paycheck from the Town of Natick as a member of the Natick Police Department? Chief Mannix advised that it was in January 2001 when he began the academy.

Mr. Canzoneri began to highlight the Cecil case, but Mr. McKinley noted that he didn’t want to get into an argument on how the law interprets the calendar. There was a disagreement on whether Officer Thorpe was past the probation deadline or immediately upon it, and it makes a difference on the action. There was some issue having to do with

POLICE CHIEF CORRESPONDENCE (contd)

whether the officer and his counsel have seen the document, but if the Board accepted that Officer Thorpe was within the probationary period, it didn’t carry the same weight as a tenured employee. In either case there was a very serious issue that the Board needs to think about carefully and act as responsibly as they could on behalf of the officer and the Town of Natick.

Mr. Ciccariello expressed some concerns as to how someone got on the payroll in January 2001 and received a paycheck as an officer, but his actual start date for being on the force was different. To him it was relevant it spoke to when Officer Thorpe started his employment vs when the probationary period started.

Mr. McKinley noted that that was the argument and he didn’t know if that could be resolved tonight.

Mr. Stern concurred, and added that given the gravity of the decision, he wondered if the officer’s attorney would be willing to agree or had the ability to agree to a freeze period so the Board could have a chance to analyze the legal arguments and be advised by counsel.

Mr. McKinley pointed out that Chief Mannix had advice of counsel on this, and the guidance Mr. Stern was seeking had already been provided by Town Counsel. Chief Mannix confirmed that he spoke with both Mike Lehane and Joe Bartulis, Labor Counsel from Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, and both attorneys agreed that he (Chief Mannix) was on firm legal ground although there was no case law other than Norfolk Superior Court which overturns the previous case. His best advice from them was to proceed the way he was proceeding. The cases he cited to Mr. Lehane and Mr. Bartulis were the same cases mentioned by Mr. Canzeroni.

Mr. McKinley pointed out that there were two arguments that get convoluted – which date was the real date and whether Officer Thorpe was an individual the Town wants to keep on the force. Chief Mannix’s recommendation was, ‘no’, and those two things had to be kept separate. Does the Board want to accept Chief Mannix’s recommendation or not.

Mr. Ball acknowledged that the Board was the appointing authority, but from a realistic standpoint, and he didn’t think in this case or any other, the Board was going to become a court and listen to arguments pro and con. He found himself in a position that in the last analysis the head of the department with whom the Board charges the responsibility of building and maintaining a police force recommends, after what he says was careful consideration, that Officer Thorpe be terminated. Mr. Ball stated that he didn’t feel capable or confident to second-guess that, and he would only ask if the Chief reached that decision in a professional manner and there appears to be no evidence that he had not. As much as he recognized that voting to accept the Chief’s recommendation affects the livelihood and career of this young man, the burden was on the Board to decide and he believed in and had confidence in the professional head of the department. In the years he (Mr. Ball) had been on the Board, he never felt Chief Mannix steered the Board in the wrong direction. He regretted having to, but he would go with the Chief’s recommendation.

A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Stern, to accept the recommendation of Chief Mannix and terminate Andrew Thorpe’s employment. Unanimously voted.

Speaking to the motion, Mr. Stern stated that he felt the arguments presented by the officer’s attorney raised some issues. He agreed with Mr. Ball that the Town had a Chief in whom the Board had a great deal of confidence and respect and deference should be given to that. The gravity of the situation has profound effects on the officer and shouldn’t be taken lightly. The Board had to make the decision and he (Mr. Stern) felt it was incumbent on them to explore all the issues raised in the letter and make sure they were comfortable with them.

MATICK GOLF CENTER: WATER BILL

Barry Lattuca, owner of the Natick Golf Center, told the Board he had been discussing the water bill problem with the Water Department for a few years. Recently he submitted a letter to the Board in an attempt to bring the Board up to speed. A few bills were almost double and some were more than double the previous year’s and he felt there was a

MATICK GOLF CENTER: WATER BILL (contd)

problem with the meter. It was the amount of water that he felt was inaccurate.

Mr. Stern noted that the Board had received a memo from Finance Director Robert Palmer stating that the Board had no ability to deal with these bills because the amounts had been committed to the real estate taxes. Given that this was a condominium, Mr. Stern inquired as to whose real estate taxes the bills had been committed to.

Mr. Palmer advised it was the responsibility of the individual unit owner. Asked if it was pro-rated to each unit separately, Mr. Palmer responded that the lien needed to be broken out and put on the master. He noted that this was not a new problem with the Golf Learning Center.

Mr. Stern asked if Mr. Palmer was saying that each unit owner does not get an individual tax bill – that one was issued to the condo and somebody divides it. Mr. Palmer responded that if it went to final lien and advertised it would be, but the condo requested that it be put on the master parcel. Mr. Stern questioned if the Town had the right to do it that way, and Mr. Palmer reiterated that if it was liened permanently, it would have to be billed out separately, but it can be done on the master now.

Mr. Palmer’s memo stated that there was no malfunction in the meter, and Mr. McKinley asked if that was a fact. Mr. Palmer’s response was, ‘yes’. There was no meter malfunction. Other than the fluctuation, there were no errors in the meters themselves.

In making the determination that the meter on this property was not malfunctioning and operative, Mr. Ciccariello asked if it had been tested. Was the meter disconnected and brought off site and checked or was another put in its place?

DPW Director Charles Sisitsky was in the audience, but told the Board he was not familiar with the subject and didn’t know the specifics.

When asked what would be the normal process when someone thought their meter was malfunctioning, Mr. Sisitsky explained that there was equipment at the office where the meter can be taken out of service, put on the equipment, and tested for accuracy. Normally a $25.00 fee would be paid if there were no problem with the meter. He didn’t know if that had been done in this case.

Rosario Lattuca, co-owner of Natick Golf Center, told the Board that he called Ti-Sales and learned that the meter was meant to have water go through at 60 pounds of pressure. In Natick Golf Center’s case they had a pump on the other side and that created 120 pounds of pressure. This was a compound meter, which was actually two meters in one, and he thought that may have contributed to the fluctuation. They used that compound meter in 1995, but weren’t using it now.

Mr. Hughes moved to table until Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau could report on the testing of the meter. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

Maintenance of Parks and Public Areas

Mr. McKinley explained that concern had been raised about the maintenance of public areas in general and specific areas such as

Middlesex Path, Moran Square, the Common, and the Board thought it would be interesting to know the DPW’s policy and procedure for maintaining landscaping.

With respect to the horseshoe curve (Middlesex Path), Mr. Sisitsky advised that the landscaping had been done by a grant received by the Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian from the state, and it was never turned over to the DPW and assigned to them to maintain. The DPW has over 54 sites in Town that seven people in the division maintain. Sites get added and it gets harder to maintain with limited manpower. He asked for additional help, but it wasn’t granted and they do the best they can with the limited resources. Mr. Sisitsky thought the DPW did a good job with what they had on Moran Square and he thought the Common looked good.

DPW DIRECTOR (contd)

John Cunniff, LFNR Supervisor, noted that he had gone through the whole list of sites his division maintains with the Finance Committee and the job they do at those sites. They were supposed to be taking care of 20 baseball fields and some areas get mowed three times a week. Certain times of the year they set their priority around the high school sports to make the fields presentable and safe and something of which the Town can be proud. When they get into the off-season, it gives them a chance to do some of the other work.

Mr. Cunniff continued that the Town eliminated the Tree Department, but unfortunately the work didn’t go away and his division tries to take care of the calls the best they can. There was a schedule, but sometimes it can be hard getting everything done. There were always things coming up like right now was graduation. They have to pick up trash around Town twice a week with 112-115 barrels. These little jobs take time and they have suffered budget cuts.

Mr. Cunniff noted that there were people taking care of the flowers at Moran Square, but that money was removed. Those same people used to do the Common and the South Natick Dam Park. There was one volunteer who takes care of the Common.

Mr. Hughes requested that Mr. Sarkisian attend the next meeting to find out about Middlesex Path.

Mr. McKinley suggested that maybe consideration should be given to striking a better balance. Maintaining those areas was important and spoke mountains as to how we felt about ourselves.

Mr. Hughes asked what was happening at Shaw Park. It was all fenced off so nobody could use it. Mr. Cunniff advised that it had been fenced off for repair. The fence was to keep people off so the grass would grow.

Mr. Ball noted that Moran Square was a real jewel when it was maintained by staff who were now not in the budget. It has gone to seed. He pointed out that there was at least one garden club and active gardeners and had any effort been made to enlist the aid of those people on a volunteer basis.

Mr. Cunniff responded that those organizations have been investigated and the person who takes care of the Common was trying to enlist anyone she can find to help with Moran Square. The garden clubs have their own agenda for the areas they do. He has not been successful in enlisting volunteer help. Once in awhile people will pitch in, but to get people to do it all summer was difficult.

Mr. Sisitsky gave Mr. Sarkisian credit for having gone out of his way to be creative in trying to get private entities to maintain public spaces and was successful on Speen Street. As part of the mitigation package, the hotel agreed to maintain the median strip and another entity does south of that.

Relining Bacon Street Water Main – Award Contract

Mr. Sisitsky recommended that the contract for the relining of the Bacon Street water mains be awarded to the low bidder, J. Fletcher Cream & Sons, Inc. He explained that this was Phase I of a two-phase project and one of the main problem areas creating manganese in the water. The bidding took longer than they wanted because the DPW learned of new technologies of relining water pipes and wanted to investigate. The bids came in well under the appropriation of $1.3 million.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what happens to the funds since this was $750,000 under budget. Mr. Sisitsky explained that those funds haven’t been spent or borrowed. He added that Phase II which was the North Main Street section would be advertised next year. An additional $1.4 million was appropriated for that and depending on the bids a lot of money won’t need to be borrowed.

Mr. Hughes asked about the start date, and was told by Mr. Sisitsky that Phase I was expected to start this summer. Asked if it was being done piecemeal, Mr. Sisitsky advised that it was and would take a lot of communication with the public.

DPW DIRECTOR (contd)

A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to award the contract for the relining of the Bacon Street water main to the low bidder, J. Fletcher Creamer & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $584,081.56. Unanimously voted.

Morse Pond Chemical Feed Facility – Award Contract

Mr. Sisitsky advised that last year Town Meeting appropriated $350,000 to enlarge the well house to put in a large holding tank, and the bids came in low. This was a safety issue.

Mr. Ball noted that usually bids came in reasonably close together, but in this case there was almost a 2-1 disparity between the low and the high and asked if Mr. Sisitsky could explain. Mr. Sisitsky responded that he didn’t know why the difference, other than the two bids were fairly close and then there was a big jump.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to the start date, and Mr. Sisitsky replied that it would be started and completed this summer.

Mr. Hughes moved to award the contract for the construction of the Morse Pond Chemical Feed Facility to the low bidder, Barbato

Construction Company in the amount of $148,693.00. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

Bids for Removal of Gravel Crusher at Gravel Pit

Mr. Sisitsky noted that the Town made the decision to cease mining at the gravel pit and the DPW was asked to have the crusher dismantled. An informal canvas of companies was done to see what kind of interest there was in doing the removal and one company said they would do it for nothing and another said $12,000, but would leave it on the site. The Acting Town Administrator felt the removal should be formally bid, and one bid was received for $18,766 to dismantle and remove it from site. The problem was that there was no appropriation.

Mr. Hughes questioned what happened to the no charge, and Mr. Sisitsky advised that they didn’t submit a bid. When the specs were prepared there were certain insurance requirements and the payment of the prevailing wage. That company didn’t want to bid on it under those terms.

Mr. Hughes asked if there was money available in the reserve fund, and Mr. Palmer advised that there was, but he recommended conditioning the vote on the transfer being approved.

Mr. Hughes moved to award the contract for the removal of the gravel crusher at the gravel pit to O.B. Hill in the amount of $18,766.00 conditioned upon the transfer from the Finance Committee being approved. Seconded by Mr. Stern and unanimously voted.

RCN representative Katie Kirkpatrick reported that with the exception of four sites, RCN was complete – the gazebo, Bacon Free Library, Pegasus studio, and East School. The East School was not done, but she understood that that site was reconsidered and it was put back in the process. She felt that RCN would meet the deadline, but she couldn’t guarantee it since one of the sites was an NSTAR connection.

Ms. Kirkpatrick assured the Board that deferral did not mean indefinite and she would like to wrap Natick up. By the end of next week, she hoped to be turning over the I-net to the Town and the Town will have a complete record of all these locations and the distances. With respect to the public access studio, Ms. Kirkpatrick advised that she found out this morning that NSTAR got the order but couldn’t touch it because it was an historic building. Mr. Ball contacted the head of the Historic Commission and he (Chairman of the Historical Commission) didn’t anticipate a problem. The Bacon Free Library has the same issues as the access studio and they will be addressed.

That left the gazebo and Ms. Kirkpatrick noted that Tom Steel, RCN Vice-President and Regulatory Counsel, would like to address that with the Board as he has some issues and concerns.

Saying that a site was complete, Mr. Ball asked if that meant it had been tested. Ms. Kirkpatrick advised that it had been tested both coax and fiber. Mr. Ball then asked about the high school, and Ms.

RCN: I-NET STATUS (contd)

Kirkpatrick that the number of cable drops required a node. The high school has its own node and a laser needs to be installed to make the

whole thing operational. Asked if that was RCN’s responsibility, Ms. Kirkpatrick responded that it would come from RCN. Since that was RCN’s responsibility, Mr. Stern inquired as to the expected delivery date and installation. Ms. Kirkpatrick didn’t have a specific date, noting that she only heard of the problem and it was on the list of first things to do in the morning. She thought it would be before the June 30th deadline.

Mr. McKinley commented that it looked like RCN had done a wonderful job and he didn’t doubt they would be done by June 30th.

Mr. Ball explained that in order for the I-net to be up and running and the background of video data and telephone, it was necessary to purchase $240,000 worth of equipment. The Board voted not to approve the borrowing for that purchase until such time the Board felt there was a viable and functional I-net to hook it to. If the Board waited to June 30th, it would appear that because of the delivery schedule, that it would be difficult to install equipment into the schools prior to the beginning of the school year. The two weeks between now and June 30th were critical, and he proposed that the Board approve the borrowing for the purchase of this equipment now rather than wait to July.

Mr. McKinley noted that there was nothing in the package representing the bids and asked if it had been bid. Mr. Palmer advised that bidding was not mandatory. It was done historically but in this case he recommended that a note be issued through Unibank at 2.95% and he had taken the liberty on this project and on streetlights to get it prepared so it could close by July 1st.

Mr. Hughes asked if the vendor for the end user equipment had been bid, and was told by Mr. Palmer that it had been. The vendor was pre-qualified on the state bid list.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, to authorize borrowing in the amount of $240,000 to purchase the end user equipment on the I-Net. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

Ms. Kirkpatrick asked if this settled the issue with RCN and if they were still on the agenda for the first of July to follow-up on the breech. It was her understanding that by completing the I-net by the deadline, RCN would receive some consideration for the underground service.

Ms. Kirkpatrick was told that RCN would be on the July 8th agenda.

OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN

Appearing on behalf of the Open Space Advisory Committee were the chairman Stephen Gartrell, Irene DelBono, Michael Caccavale, and Director of Recreation & Parks Richard Cugini.

Mr. Gartrell stated that he was here for three reasons:

To present the Open space Advisory Committee Report

Review the Open Space Recreation Plan

Request the Board’s assistance. When the committee was appointed last year, they were given a charge with quite a few items. They

have made comments and recommendations on things such as AQV and worked with Framingham on the Morency Street property. After reviewing the charge and what had been done to date, they determined that the highest priority should be to update the open space recreation plan. That was critical because unless it was filed with the Commonwealth, Natick was not eligible for grants. Most of the committee’s time has been focused on that and even though it was an extended process, the committee felt it was critical to go through all the steps for a solid basis on which to build.

Mr. Gartrell highlighted the proposed plan beginning with the plan foundation. He noted that after considerable public participation process, including numerous public meetings and surveys, the Open Space Advisory Committee recommended the following goals and objectives:

Protect Natick’s Open spaces, including lakes, rivers and streams, and woodlands in a natural state that can be enjoyed by future generations.

OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN (contd)

Preserve and protect the Town’s water supply

Provide a system of walking and bicycle trails that connect our open spaces and provide a way to travel throughout the Town.

Ensure that playing fields and other recreational facilities support the needs of the population

Increase residents’ awareness of Natick’s open spaces, trails, natural resources, and recreational opportunities

Develop an organizational structure to enable achievement of open space goals

Continuing to highlight the plan, Mr. Gartrell noted the Community Setting portion of the plan which dealt with the regional context, Natick's history, population characteristics, growth and development patterns, infrastructure which included the transportation system, water supply system, and sewer service. Mr. Gartrell pointed out that over the next five years, Natick would be losing an average of over 60 acres of open space a year. The Town was almost built out.

Section 4 of the plan discussed the environmental inventory and analysis and water resources. Section 5 listed the inventory of lands of conservation and recreation interest, dividing the inventory into two categories – protected and unprotected lands.

Section 6 identified Community Vision and described the process followed to determine the vision and the goals. Section 7 presented an analysis of needs.

Section 8 defined the objectives. Section 9 identified the specific actions the Town could take to meet the goals.

Mr. Gartrell noted that Mr. McKinley had asked him how the Board could help the Advisory Committee, and one consistent recommendation was to establish a permanent Open Space Advisory Committee. The committee’s appointments were made for only one year and expire June 30, but the committee won’t be finished with the submittal by then. The open space plan will guarantee that the Town will be in a much better position of updating the plan when it comes due, and he would ask that with the

expiration of the terms on June 30th that the Board appoint a permanent Open Space Advisory Committee.

In establishing a permanent committee, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. Gartrell would be looking at the same size as present or a reduction in size. Mr. Gartrell responded that he found the size of the present committee to be workable with a nice broad range of skill and expertise. His recommendation was seven members.

In response to an inquiry from Mr. Hughes on the development of a management plan and budget for all Town open space, Mr. Gartrell stated that he had heard there was an issue about maintaining public open space and he was suggesting that the Advisory Committee work with the DPW and other groups to develop a master plan and make recommendations to the Board and Town Meeting with regard to maintenance. In follow-up Mr. Hughes questioned if he was talking about a separate department to take over the management of the Town’s open space, but Mr. Gartrell’s response, ‘no’. He (Mr. Gartrell) saw it as working cooperatively with the groups who maintain.

Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Gartrell would suggest that the permanent committee’s charge be any different than the charge given a year ago, and Mr. Gartrell responded that he felt that the original charge was adequate for the permanent committee as well.

Mr. McKinley proposed voting that night to extend the Open Space Advisory Committee’s appointments for a temporary period of time and figure out the development of a permanent committee.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, and unanimously voted to extend the appointment of the Open Space Advisory Committee to the first meeting in September.

Speaking to the motion, Mr. McKinley noted that that should allow time for the committee to finish this particular report. He also noted that the Conservation Preservation Act had been around for a few years with arguments on both sides, but the arguments were never confronted and he

OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN (contd)

wondered if the Open Space Advisory Committee was the right group to champion it. Mr. Gartrell’s response was, ‘no’, adding that he had worked in Newton where the CPA was successfully passed and to do it a coalition had to be built. At this point Natick has no core environmental group. The Open Space Committee, however, could bring groups together and sponsor a forum to discuss it and talk strategy.

Mr. Hughes stated that he would like to get some idea of what the Open Space Advisory Committee envisioned doing – getting its own grants, advising the Board of Selectmen, having its own budget. He would like to know the structure of the committee and what making it permanent meant.

Mr. McKinley requested the Open Space Committee to consider these things and come back with a recommendation.

With respect to the Open Space Plan, Mr. McKinley stated that he was very impressed with it and hopefully it will be used as a real management tool.

Mr. Gartrell encouraged the Board to attend the upcoming public hearing on the Open Space Plan.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: RULES & REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE OF WINE & MALT BEVERAGES IN RESTAURANTS AND FUNCTION ROOMS WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF NOT LESS THAN 50 AND NOT MORE THAN 99

Mr. Ball questioned why the seating was limited to under 100 seats since it was conceivable that a restaurant with more than 100 seats would want to serve just beer & wine. Mr. Hughes explained that this was what the Board had been asked to do by the people requesting the beer & wine, and it can’t be changed now unless it goes through the legislative process.

Since the Board voted to have sushi in restaurants over 100 seats, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if consideration was being given to having sushi bars for beer & wine. Mr. McKinley advised that it was, noting that these rules & regs mirror the policy for restaurants over 100, but limits it to beer & wine and under 100 seats.

Mr. Stern pointed out a typo on Page 4, No. 7 that duplicated a phrase.

A motion was made by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Stern, to adopt the rules & regulations, as corrected, for the sale of beer & wine in restaurants with a seating capacity of at least 50 and no more than 99. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Stern, Mr. Ball voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Hughes were opposed.

Mr. Ciccariello explained that he was opposed because of the sushi bars. He voted against them in the rules & regs for restaurants over 100 seats. Mr. Hughes stated that he was voting ‘no’ for the same reason.

PUBLIC HEARING: BEER & WINE LICENSE FEES

The Board was in receipt of a survey of surrounding Towns and what they charge for beer & wine licenses. The fees ranged from $200-2,000.

There was no one from the public who wished to comment.

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, and unanimously voted the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Ciccariello moved to establish the annual fee for a beer & wine license at $1,200. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.

Robert Raisch inquired if a time limit had been set for Auto Max to comply with the request to vacate the property.

Mr. Ciccariello advised that when he and Mr. Sarkisian met with the owners of Auto Max, the time period discussed was two weeks. He (Mr. Ciccariello) met with Mr. Sarkisian this afternoon because he (Mr. Ciccariello) had noticed very little activity there. Mr. Sarkisian will speak with the Building Inspector to take some formal action.

CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)

Mr. Raisch noted that the wrecked vehicles without licenses had been removed, but the operation seems to be growing and becoming a constant hazard to Route 135 traffic. The parked tow truck and vehicles often extend into the actual traffic lane.

Mr. Ciccariello agreed, adding that there seems to be an inordinate amount of vehicles extending onto Route 135.

RCN License Compliance

Mr. Raisch questioned if RCN was being assessed penalties and was told by Mr. McKinley that RCN had been notified, but the Board had not voted to assess a penalty as of yet or determined what it would be. Mr. Raisch thought the amount of the penalty was stated in the contract and had heard that it was $1,000 per day. Mr. Ball explained that there were two $500 per day issues – one with the I-Net and the other for underground service.

Mr. Raisch questioned if at the meeting all the facts of the issues were disclosed or were some discretionary. In the newspaper Mr. Ball had answered a comment of his saying that he (Mr. Raisch) spoke without all the facts, and he would like to be sure that when he came to a Board of Selectmen’s meeting, he was getting all the facts.

Mr. McKinley explained that what was in the briefing books doesn’t always come out in public because it would take too long, but it was a public record.