Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Meeting

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Stern, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation, real property negotiation, and compensation 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.

Prior to officially approving the contract for the new Town Administrator, the Board unanimously voted to conclude Thomas Groux’s contract as Acting Town Administrator effective immediately. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Stern, seconded by Mr. Hughes.

Mr. McKinley thanked Mr. Groux for his help in steering the Town through choppy waters for the past six months. Mr. Ball stated that it had been a privilege working with Mr. Groux and he (Mr. Ball) had voted reluctantly to conclude his contract. On behalf of the Board, Mr. Ball then presented Mr. Groux with a parting gift.

Mr. McKinley explained that there were two contracts with the new Town Administrator, Philip Lemnios. One was an interim agreement, effective immediately, whereby Mr. Lemnios would work part-time for the rest of the summer. The second contract became effective the day after Labor Day when Mr. Lemnios would begin full-time.

Ms. Rehl told the Board that she had been an associate member of the Conservation Commission for about two years. She ran a landscaping business and has been helping the builders and residents think about what they were planting in the backyard. She had a BA in Agriculture and an MBA.

Mr. Gardner stated that he was a new member of the Natick community and could think of no better way to serve than on the Conservation Commission. He was a chemist by training and had a deep experience in environmental education and communication. Until recently he had been the Education Program Manager for an environmental research center at MIT and worked with leaders of business and industry, governments, academia and students from around the world.

There were two vacancies on the Information Systems Advisory Board left by the expiration of Louis Julian’s and Vincent Evangelista’s terms. Mr. Julian had submitted a letter indicating that he did not wish to be reappointed. The Board was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Evangelista requesting reappointment.

Mr. Lista stated that he had been a resident of Natick for eight years and had children in the school system who actively participate in the recreation activities. He had been working in technology and technology consulting for much of his 21 years of professional experience and had worked in large consulting firms and government and education.

Mr. Ball inquired as to Mr. Lista’s view of the relationship between the IS Board and the Town IS department. Mr. Lista responded that he was making some presumptions that the advisory level was to assist with technology related decisions and as it relates to any ancillary services and education.

Mr. Ross told the Board that he had been a resident for 11 years. His background was electrical engineering and in addition to his BSEE he had taken a number of technology courses. He had worked as a consultant and at this point he felt he could offer the advisory board his inside experience both in military projects and health related

Mr. Ball asked about Mr. Ross’ familiarity with the hardware, and Mr. Ross responded that he was involved in the design of equipment for over 30 years and was involved in computer type systems and communication systems. His most recent experience was a medical device company as a business systems analyst, and he was very familiar with networks.

Mr. Ball then asked Mr. Ross for his impression about the relationship between the IS Board and the IS Department, and Mr. Ross responded that the IS Board was normally advisory rather than hands on although there may be times when the department may need some help in reviewing budgets, discussing options in outside contracting and someone who has been in the business world with that kind of experience can provide advisory support to the IS department.

Mr. Chernack stated that he had lived in Natick since 1976 and his daughters went through the school system. He had coached his daughters in soccer and was now sitting on the sidelines reading about what’s been happening and thought it would be good to jump back in and participate. He had over 30 years in IS and considered himself a businessman with a specialty in IT. He had a MBA from Babson and was certified as a project program manager.

Mr. Ball asked Mr. Chernack to summarize his experience with networks, and Mr. Chernack responded that in his last big project he was in charge of retiring the old digital network. He went into that project not knowing too much about networks, but one of his strengths was that he could pick up the subject quickly, and he believed he knew the big picture.

When asked by Mr. Ball if his view of the IS Advisory Board differed from what was said by others, Mr. Chernack responded that he felt that it started off in an advisory role and if people asked questions or looked for consulting, how strong a role would have to be worked out.

Mr. Ostroff stated that he sent in his application because he had been working with the IS Department and Board over the past year to try to help improve the Town’s deployment of the internet for conducting Town business. Feeling that the Board had received applications from many qualified people, Mr. Ostroff said he would like to withdraw his name from consideration. However, he would like the Board to hold the IS Board to a very high standard. There was a great opportunity to help improve the process of government and he thought the IS Advisory Board could help play a role and harness some volunteer opportunities to stretch the dimes. He also thought the Selectmen could play a role in requesting updates from the Advisory Board.

Ms. Applegate stated that she had attended Board of Selectmen’s meetings and there seemed to be some lack of receiving things from IS and that committee may not have had as much leadership to help out. Her background was in information technology for 10 years and was a trained meeting facilitator and a trained business analyst. For the last four years she was in telecommunications and would like to reach out to more volunteer efforts in the Town as she thought the Town was missing some great opportunities.

Mr. Ball inquired as to Ms. Applegate’s knowledge of fiber optic, and Ms. Applegate responded that she couldn’t do the work herself but knew enough to know when someone was trying to pull the wool over her eyes. As a project manager she could sort that out and can take some special projects, go away, do the research and come back.

Ms. Applegate used the RCN contract as an example and noted that she attended a meeting when RCN was describing what was being delayed and why. That type of issue could be referred to the IS Board and the IS Board could work on it and come back to the Selectmen.

Mr. Hughes noted that the Board had received seven additional letters of interest and he had suggested scheduling them for tonight and possibly adding an additional 2-3 to the current membership. He had no objection to adding any or all of them. Natick Center Associates has refused to join the committee.

Mr. Ball took issue with Mr. Hughes’ statement that Natick Center Associates declined to participate. He clarified that the Board refused to accept the candidate they submitted. Mr. McKinley countered that the candidate they (Natick Center Associates) submitted did not meet the qualifications agreed to by the Board. Mr. Ball pointed out

The Board interviewed the following candidates who had expressed an interest in being appointed to the study group: Mary Litwak, Roger Beer, Dr. D. Whitney Hall, Dight Crain, Lawrence Wolozin. Francis Bardellini and Scott Joseph were not present. Mr. Bardellini had called the office to say he would be away on vacation but was still interested.

Ms. Litwak told the Board that she was an interior decorator and after reading about the deliberation over sushi bars, decided she would like to be a part of the study group. When asked for her understanding of the charge of the committee, Ms. Litwak stated that she thought it was to look at the laws on the books and see if there should be changes.

Mr. Hughes explained that it would be the Board of Selectmen that would decide if there would be any changes. The study group was put together to see if it would make any recommendations for change and to study whether there were any inconsistencies in the regulations.

Mr. Wolozin told the Board that he had been a Natick resident for 37 years and had been the owner/operator of the Mills Falls restaurant in Newton. Currently he was doing some restaurant consulting and some teaching at Mass Bay. He agreed that some semblance of order should be realized and some minimum standards set.

If Mr. Hughes wanted 13 members on the committee, Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would move to appoint them all. Mr. Hughes felt that there was an interesting cross-section of applicants and had no objection to appointing them all. So moved by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.

Based on their findings, Natick was very vibrant and prosperous and compared favorably in the state and region in most health indicators. Children’s health was probably the best of the best. Nearly 100% of the children were insured and immunized, and 99% of the women have access to pre-natal care. Nearly 100% of the children have access to health services. There was a strong family support system and good schools. Child safety was always the biggest concern and Mr. McKinnon encouraged the Town to continue to focus on the safety. The challenges were parent-child communication and injury prevention.

Mr. McKinnon reviewed the findings pertaining to adolescent health and reported that nearly 100% of the kids were insured and nearly 100% had access to health & related services. There was a strong family structure and well-respected school system. There was also an awareness of public safety & prevention issues and adolescents in Natick were less likely than students in the state to use drugs.

For adult health the good news was that nearly 100% of adults were insured and nearly 100% had access to health & related services. Natick adults seemed more physically active, had lower smoking rates, and very low STD/HIV/AIDS rates. There was a good awareness of public safety & prevention issues.

Mr. McKinnon listed the challenges for adult health as cardiovascular disease and risk factors, diabetes, lack of physical activity & obesity, mental health -–depression, anxiety, lack of sleep, heavy drinking. He noted that diabetes was particularly high in Natick and lack of sleep was reported at high rates. Binge drinking seemed high in Natick. Mr. McKinnon noted that high rates may be seen because of the high public health access, but nonetheless the rates were still high.

As to health related services, the good news was that Natick had easy access to a full array of health and social services and generally get the health and social services they need. A majority of Natick residents choose to access and receive health and social services in the Natick area.

In the section entitled prevention and public safety, Mr. McKinnon defined the good news as being nearly all residents report feeling safe in their neighborhoods at night (men 95%, women 90%), low crime and victimization rates, 100% of swimming pool owners report having a locked fence around their pool, helmet use rates seem high, nearly all homes were equipped with working smoke alarms.

Mr. Ciccariello commented that he was alarmed by the alcohol abuse in the adolescent section in that 5 out of 10 reported consuming alcohol in the past month and 25% were willing to get into a car with someone who has been drinking. Where was the education in the school system.

Ms. Kermode advised that the Natick Community Coalition was taking this report and taking a look at the results. Three sub-committees have been formed – one for adult, one for children, and one for adolescents. The plan was to involve a lot of agencies as well as residents and determine priorities and what can be done about them. A planning grant was applied for, but wasn’t received. Once the sub-committees come up with definite plans some other committee would see what can be implemented and will target certain foundations and resources to implement those programs.

Asked if the School Committee and Council on Aging had seen the report as yet, Ms. Kermode responded that Diana Ryder Senior Center Director had a copy and some members of the School Committee have copies. Peg Broekel, Chairman of the School Committee, has been involved.

Given that so many of these were either youth or elderly related, Mr. McKinley thought those were the two organizations that would benefit greatly from what the study has learned. He felt that it was very hard to deal with the youth without going through the School Committee.

Ms. Kermode noted that both Ms. Ryder and Council on Aging Chairman Jerry Pierce were on the committee as well was Jim Hill and Kirk Buschenfeldt from the High School, someone from the middle school, and the supervisor of nurses. Ms. Kermode said she would check with Ms. Broekel to see if the School Committee wanted a presentation.

Mr. Bois noted that one concern was how much time the position would be available to work on other matters outside the order. He found that he did have time to do some other things. He submitted a grant application to DEP for an environmental management system grant for Springvale and got $17,000 to hire a consultant. An RFQ has gone out and was expected back July 17th. Hopefully work would start by the end of the month.

Mr. Ball inquired as to how much time Mr. Bois was spending dealing with the schools, and Mr. Bois responded that he was spending about 50% of his time on EPA and 25-30% with the schools. He noted that following the enforcement action, the DPW spent a lot of time bringing itself up to compliance so he decided to look at the schools.

Mr. McKinley commented that the real key in the future to not only limit out liability but to do it right the first time was to be sure that all the employees understood any potential hazardous materials. He asked if Mr. Bois was confident that in the near future the Town would be at a place where all the employees have a good foundation on what was and wasn’t appropriate.

Mr. Bois agreed that success was knowing that everybody knew what they were doing. He felt the training program being developed for Springvale would help employees understand their job and the requirements they have to meet. Once that was established he hoped to move that template to the DPW, the schools, and apply it to different operations in the Town.

He noted that the task force members entered into this endeavor with a limited knowledge of PAYT and received and reviewed a great deal of information on the subject. Four sub-committees were created and each one had a representative here tonight to make a presentation on their area.

The report of the Bag subcommittee was presented by Denise Nelken. The bag subcommittee dealt with what kind of system should be in place – stickers vs barrels vs bags. A special bag with a specific color and the Town of Natick seal could be used or stickers could be used on regular store bought trash bags or there could be barrels with stickers. The subcommittee chose 11 towns with different programs, developed a questionnaire, and talked to the municipal staff of each. The criteria for choosing the town were if they had curbside pickup and curbside recycling and were similar to Natick in size and more or less a suburban setting.

Ms. Nelken told the Board that the recommendation was to go with bags as the disposal system for a PAYT program. They recommended using the standard size which was 30 gallons and had the capacity to hold 25 pounds of solid waste. The subcommittee was now in the process of looking at what to have printed on the bag, who will be the vendors, and the color. They were leaning toward blue with black writing. They

Ms. Nelken had circulated an example of the bag. Mr. Stern was concerned that the bag looked flimsy and birds and animals could rip the bags apart and spread trash all over. Ms. Nelken gave assurance that the bags were sturdier and thicker than you could buy in the store.

Carol Gloff, who was also a member of the Finance Committee, reported on the financial piece. She explained that the subcommittee approached the finances from several perspectives. One was looking at what the market would bear. An informal survey was done of neighbors and friends on the price and the general consensus was that $2.00 per bag was too much but $1.50-$1.75 was a price people could be comfortable with. That price was similar to other communities with this type of system in place.

Ms. Gloff continued that the subcommittee looked at what it costs to get rid of solid waste and referred to the document in the handout that provided that summary. The costs were divided into fixed and variable. Fixed were things like salary & wages and benefits. Variable was the tipping fees which in 2003 was expected to be $100 per ton and $103 in Fiscal 2004. Other variables included overtime pay, fuel, tires and highway tolls. DEP recommended not covering fixed costs (in the PAYT program). Depending on the number of tons which was now 11,000 tons but could drop to 8,000 tons, the cost to the Town from buying the bags to getting rid of them would be $1.58-1.62 per bag.

Ms. Gloff told the Board that the committee’s recommendation was $1.75 per bag. That gives a little overage. She pointed out that these were estimates. She also noted that the committee estimated the cost per bag from purchase to disposal by assuming that every bag was filled to capacity and that was not likely to be the case. There was no reason to think the amount would go up but it could go down. That was very typical. She further noted that what was being talked about were 30 gallon bags and the committee could come back with a recommendation for a small bag for a lesser price, but they were not there as yet.

Brinley Vickers discussed the outreach and education aspects and stressed the importance of starting the education and outreach now. The task force is looking at the possibility of articles in the local papers, informational programs/scrolling messages on Pegasus, community outreach meetings at a wide variety of venues, publicity at Natick Days this fall, updating and reprinting of the Green Pages to include information on the PAYT program, display table at Morse Institute Library, etc. Once the program was approved by the Board of Selectmen, the task force would move forward with those and other activities to publicize this program.

As for the DEP grant, Mr. Russell noted that the task force would be requesting a letter of commitment from the Board to be sent with the application, but he would like the Board to table it for a couple of weeks due to the fact that there was a workshop scheduled and he wanted to be sure the criteria needed to apply for the grant hadn’t changed. Based on the Fiscal 2002 grant for PAYT, Natick could be eligible for $10 per household or close to $100,000 and that could do the mailings, help purchase the bags and educational material such as the brochures. He planned on submitting that application this summer depending on what happened July 18th.

Mr. Hughes inquired if in the Towns surveyed, if the cost of the bag changed if people used bags not to capacity. Ms. Gloff advised that that specific question was not asked. She added that at some point the price of the bag could be adjusted but the Board wouldn’t want to do it frequently. The program has to run for 1-2 years before getting a good feel for how things will work.

Chip Laffey, a member of the PAYT and Superintendent of Sanitation in Needham, advised that the first year would be a shake out and what the Town may end up with (in extra revenue) would be retained earnings. The DEP recommends trying to change the price of the bag as little as possible and try to hold the price of the bag for three years.

Mr. McKinley commented that he was very impressed with the job done by the task force and asked if it was the consensus of the Board that the task force proceeds down this path. Mr. Russell noted that another report was due by October 1st, and Mr. McKinley responded that when the Board voted the trash fee it was until June 30, 2003. Something has to be in its place at that time and it wouldn’t be a trash fee. Mr. Russell assured Mr. McKinley that the program would be ready.

Mr. Ball called attention to the 1992 draft of Sanitation policies that was in the briefing books and asked that the Board address ‘C’ that sets a maximum of 10 bags or barrels. He noted that there were people out there who put out substantially in excess of 10 and while it didn’t take much more time to pick up 3-4 than one, it was different for 10-15 bags. He was given to understand that there were people who abuse this policy and the DPW turns the other cheek. Considering the trash collection and disposal cost, he felt the Board should vote to reaffirm that particular portion of the policy.

Mr. McKinley inquired as to the number of households putting out more than 10 bags. Mr. Russell responded that he didn’t think it was a real problem and the DPW had tried to be the good guys. He suggested tracking it for awhile, and Mr. McKinley thought that would be useful.

On behalf of the committee, Mr. Cugini requested the partial closing of the following streets on September 14, 2002 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He noted that he plan had been reviewed and approved by both the Safety Officer Robert Davis and the affected downtown merchants:

Christina Lochhead reminded the Board that she had appeared before them on May 20th contesting the final water bill for the home they sold at 26 Rockland Street. The conclusion had been reached that when they bought the Rockland Street home in November 1996 the inside meter had not been read and the Board wanted to determine when the last inside reading had been done.

Mr. McKinley advised that that was the time period when the water billing was moving to the Collector’s and the records can’t be found, but it has been determined that a new meter was installed in 1989 and both inside and outside were set to zero at that time. Although it couldn’t be proven one way or the other, Mr. McKinley was willing to accept the assumption that the inside meter was not read in 1996. However, in 1989 both readings were zero and in September 2001 the Lochhead’s sold the house. He proposed pro-rating the difference.

A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, and unanimously voted to authorize Mr. Palmer to compute the charge for the water used by the Lochhead family at 26 Rockland Street during the 18 quarters they owned the home and pro-rate the charge over the total period of time since 1989 when the new meters were installed. The Lochhead’s to be issued a refund.

Barry Lattuca from the Natick Golf Center, explained that it was his position that for a few quarters something was wrong with the meters. He had submitted copies of the bills in question, and pointed out that even in their highest use period, the usage was less than the quarters shown.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that in a letter to the Board Mr. Lattuca stated that the Golf Center had been dealing with this for three years with the Water Department. Mr. Palmer responded that he was not aware of the dispute on the bill until Mr. Lattuca filed a letter with the Board of Selectmen. He added that probably someone in the Collector’s office who was being asked questions might say that the Board of Selectmen could make adjustments, but once it has gone to lien the advice should have been that the person had lost their right of appeal.

Mr. Ciccariello recalled that at the last meeting, the Board had asked Mr. Sisitsky if anybody from the water department had looked at this meter and the answer was, ‘no’, but they would and would advise the Board if the meter was faulty. Mr. Ciccariello questioned if that had taken place. Mr. Palmer responded that that wasn’t his domain, but in talking with the DPW the meter was new in 1994 and certified as accurate. There was some concern that the pump connected to the meter could impact the reading, but it was his (Mr. Palmer) understanding that the DPW went back to Ti-Sales who provided that meter and their indication was completely different than what was stated by Mr. Lattuca at the meeting. If a pump were there, it would draw more water through than it could read. The meter could probably be pulled out now, but even if it tested correctly it may not be a good test because you would

Mr. Anselmo reviewed the events that had taken place beginning with receipt of the bill on December 1st. The bill was almost double what he normally received and called the DPW on December 3. On December 6 it was determined that there was a major leak somewhere under the slab foundation. The plumber came out and said the entire system needed to be replaced and he couldn’t perform the work for 5 days. He (Mr. Anselmo) called the Selectmen’s office and informed Mr. Palmer of the situation. December 11th the plumber started the work and finished three days later. Mr. Anselmo explained that he was not asking the Board to eliminate the cost but to help alleviate the cost. The total amount of the bill was $760.80 and usually his bill was around $300.00. The adjustment he was looking for was $461.00.

Mr. Stern concurred and moved that the Board abate the sewer portion of the overage ($461.00) which was approximately $115.00. Mr. Anselmo would be required to pay for all the water used and for all of the MWRA charge. The exact amount to be calculated by Mr. Palmer. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes was opposed.

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to approve the application for the transfer of the common victualer’s license held by Alfred Hanna & Gamel Babany d/b/a Pizza Plus for premises at 16 North Main Street to Y.S.A., Inc. Pizza Plus.

Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Donohue had talked to the Board of Health, as there had recently been an issue where the Middlesex Savings Bank generator exceeded the state noise level limit. Mr. Donohue advised that he had received the state numbers from the Board of Health.

Mr. Donohue responded that this was an aboveground tank that was double walled. There were leak detectors for ruptures, and there was a second wall with an automatic page out. Plus there was a guard on duty during all non-business hours. In terms of noise, Mr. Donohue noted that the location was the northwest corner of the facility facing Route 9. The numbers were presented at the Planning Board review. The Board of Health and Fire Department had decibel readings, and it was his (Mr. Donohue) understanding that they were pretty good. Mr. Donohue noted that this generator was a standby unit and only operating during power losses.

Mr. Ciccariello asked about monthly testing, and Mr. Donohue advised that it would be tested monthly. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello questioned if there was any restriction on the hours of testing. Mr. Donohue responded that he would like to do it early during the week day, probably before 7:00 a.m., but he could adapt the timeframe.

Mr. Stern inquired if there were plans for any type of container in the event of a rupture of the double hull and would it be inside a wading pool. Mr. Donohue responded that it was a double wall, and if there was a leak or rupture, it would be caught in the second tank.

When asked about the distance to Route 9 and the nearest abutter, Mr. Donohue told the Board that to Route 9 was over 180 feet. It was 760 feet from the end of the Apple Hill property line, 160 feet to the west to Loehman’s and 580 feet to the back of the facility parking lot and then the wooded area begins.

Mr. Stern asked about natural gas on the property and Mr. Donohue advised that there was natural gas. Mr. Stern then questioned why he was going with diesel and natural gas. Mr. Donohue explained that he had confidence in the equipment and this wasn’t an isolated area. There was a potential of the gas line breaking and this lets it be self-contained.

If the generator was being used as a standby for when power was lost, Mr. Ciccariello questioned why 1,200 gallons were needed. Mr. Donohue advised that there had been 17 power outages from July 1999-2001. Last year there were three outages in three days. They were looking for 24 hours in terms of continuous time and this (1,200 gallons) gives them 2/3 of that.

Given the information the Board had at the moment, Mr. Stern stated that he was not comfortable approving or encouraging aboveground diesel. He would like to see more information and costs on natural gas from both a not having fuel trucks and spills and an emissions point of view. Mr. Ciccariello raised the possibility of propane, but Mr. Stern said he would rather have no tank and have it underground.

Chris Litchfield of Carlisle Terrace questioned why the neighbors weren’t informed of this during the Planning Board meetings. This was the first she had heard of it, and she would have liked to know the same things as Mr. Stern about the different types. She was concerned with the noise and safety.

Mr. Donohue assured the Board that, as a tenant of Apple Hill Math Works was concerned with the safety. Metropolitan Life was concerned and wanted to be sure there was a finished produced and it was properly maintained. He felt he had done all the right things.

Mr. Hughes moved to grant Metropolitan Life Insurance a license for the aboveground storage of l,200 gallons of diesel fuel for a backup generator at Math Works. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Stern and Mr. Ciccariello were opposed.

RCN representative Katie Kirkpatrick told the Board that she was pleased to say that all the I-net sites were completed through to testing with positive test results on everything. The end user equipment contractor has received all the results from RCN and somebody was dedicated within the office to be a resource in getting the equipment installed and up and running. She understood that it was running smoothly.

They (RCN) were now working on the Pegasus studio and have done what they could do. Permission was needed from the owner and he (owner of the Clark Block) was looking for RCN to provide access for his tenants for broadband service. The building was walked out and the tenants were being contacted. It was moving along rapidly.

Mr. Ball pointed out that the connection of Pegasus was not part of the June 30 requirement. It was not part of the original contract. He then noted that the 100% done and tested didn’t include the gazebo, and Ms. Kirkpatrick agreed. She added that the sites not included in the June 30th deadline were the Bacon Free Library where approval from the Historical Commission was needed, the East School, and the gazebo.

Thomas Steel, Vice President and Regulatory Counsel for RCN, reminded the Board that there had been two letters sent to RCN - one on the I-Net and the other on the underground service. His response was to seek relief, particularly on the underground portion and he was still before the Board asking for an extension of the deadline to complete the construction. It was about 83% complete for residential homes. He noted that RCN was not and cannot spend the money at this time for underground construction anywhere including Natick. Just when he thought it couldn’t get worse, Enron came along and then Worldcom. It was hard to get the capital to do this kind of construction. RCN had enough capital to continue but needed relief and he was looking for an extension to October 2003.

Mr. Ball questioned if in granting the request for an extension to October 2003 to build out the entire town there was anything implicit that removed any financial responsibility RCN had under the contract. Mr. Steel advised that there wasn’t – everything else remained.

Mr. Ball noted that the contract said that for every day RCN failed to provide the service there was a fine. He asked if Mr. Steel was asking the Board to forgive all or any portion of that fee. Mr. Steel advised that he was, adding that if the Board followed through on the procedure to determine if there was a breech, RCN had an opportunity to cure the breech and if they don’t, the remedy could be liquidated damages. It doesn’t happen that one day you wake up and were in breech of the contract. There was a process.

Mr. Ball noted that the objective was to get RCN to do what RCN intended to do. He never saw RCN as a cash cow. RCN was in financial difficulty and he recognized that and wanted to help in any way reasonable so RCN could fulfill its contractual requirements. If the Board gave an extension to October 10, 2003, he didn’t want the Board to be in the position on October 10, 2003 of finding itself unable to hold RCN accountable from a financial standpoint. There were several legal steps that had to be taken such as sending RCN a registered letter and that has been done. The Board was also required to hold a public hearing relative to the breech and he was not sure when that hearing would take place.

Mr. Lemnios recommended that counsel put in writing what RCN’s proposal was and what sections of the agreement he (Mr. Steel) desired to affect. He agreed that there needed to be a review of what rights under the franchise agreement could be forfeited by granting an extension. He felt there should be some formal communication from RCN.

Mr. Steel advised that he had amendments in other communities and would be happy to share those with the Board. He pointed out that when the breech letters were sent, RCN spent $300,000 or more to get the I-net going. That investment gets no return to RCN and could have been used to do some cul-de-sac to get some revenue. He also advised that the Town wouldn’t lose its rights (in granting the extension) to go after liquidated damages.

Mr. Steel continued that the Board had RCN’s attention on the underground service and pointed out that RCN was looking to get homes. They were not going into new markets and were looking to expand the markets they have now. If the Board went to a public hearing and played it out further, he would be arguing that these were matters beyond RCN’s control and RCN should not be held accountable for a promise made several years ago.

Mr. McKinley felt that the Board should not lose site of what was implied. RCN experienced some financial problems. The Town felt the I-Net was important and recognized the underground was difficult and some sort of extension was reasonable to grant them. The request

Mr. Ciccariello concurred that it had been discussed before, but he wanted to see something in writing and some sense of if RCN were to proceed how long would it take to finish. Mr. Steel advised that it would be about 6 months (to finish the job once started). When asked about the cost to finish, Mr. Steel advised that it would be $4-5 million. Mr. Ciccariello said he would like to see all of that in the request – timeframe, cost, etc.

Mr. Ball stated that he was positively disposed to agreeing to an extension to October 10, 2003 for completion of the underground service with the stipulation that by so doing the Board was not compromising in any way its ability at that time to collection some portion of the damages. Mr. Stern, however, pointed out that if the Board were to grant an extension, it couldn’t have its cake and eat it too. The Board couldn’t go back retroactively.

If Mr. Steel were to put his request in writing and that process took 30 days from the date he submits it to the date it was reviewed by cable counsel, RCN’s exposure in the 30-day period would be $15,000. Mr. Steel responded that RCN had no exposure until a public hearing was held.

Mr. Hughes moved to table any vote on the request for an extension until there was something in writing from Mr. Steel and it was reviewed by Peter Epstein. It was agreed by the Board and Mr. Steel that the extension at the August 5, 2002 meeting. Unanimously voted.

Mr. Ball noted that the Board was also going to give some relief on the money that was owed to the Town for failure to install the I-net on time and he didn’t think that had been addressed. In response Mr. McKinley pointed out that the I-net had been installed. Mr. Hughes added that the I-net was done and if a public hearing were held now, it would prove that the breech was cured.

Deb Sayre informed the Board that as of now the current July 4th Committee was resigning and retiring and unless somebody stepped forward, there will not be another celebration. She noted that it was a great committee and everybody had been incredibly supportive, but the current committee was just tired.

Mr. Stern thanked Ms. Sayre for her years of hard work. He inquired as to the financial situation and if the parade last week had been paid for. Ms. Sayre advised that the parade had been paid and she believed the fireworks had been covered. There were some peripheral bills remaining, but there will be some money available for the following year. She noted that she also had full instructions and guidelines available for someone who wanted to pick it up.

Mr. Hughes distributed material from the last Budget Planning Subcommittee meeting. He noted that based on estimates there would be a shortfall in the Fiscal 2004 budget of between $3.5-4.5 million. Part of the difference would be the difference in pay-as-you-throw.

Mr. Hughes advised that the committee was meeting again on August 14th to hopefully get the estimates in some sort of financial format so it can be presented to the Board and the Finance Committee for Fall Town Meeting. He pointed out that the $3 million deficit didn’t take into account salary adjustments. It included a 15% increase in health insurance, but that may be a low estimate.

As there were some concerns at the state level that the current forecasts were still overly optimistic, Mr. McKinley inquired as to what assumptions were used by the planning committee. Mr. Hughes advised that the assumptions were level funded and did not show a decrease in aid. He added that the reason for doing this now was to make any decisions for the Fiscal 2004 budget in and before the election.

Natick Housing Authority Director Edward Santos told the Board that the Housing Authority’s tenants were low and moderate income. Most of the clients were at the very low category and more in line with 40% of the median income and the trash fee becomes a very steep bill for them and becomes a dilemma for the Housing Authority. He also felt it had to be kept in mind that the Town’s problem that prompted this type of thing was the same problem the state had in funding the Housing Authority and the additional fees.

If it had remained in the property tax rate instead of a fee outside the property tax, Mr. McKinley inquired as to how it would have been floated to the tenants. Mr. Santos responded that the Housing Authority paid a payment-in-lieu of taxes to the Town every year. That agreement was tied to the current tax rate.

Mr. McKinley reiterated his question of how the fee would have been passed along to the tenants had it been in the tax rate, and Mr. Santos responded that at that point they wouldn’t have (passed it along to the tenants). Mr. Santos added that they were not a typical housing authority. They have been self-sufficient. He noted that listening to tonight’s discussion does raise the issue of what’s going to happen in the future and how the bags would work for the Housing Authority.

Mr. Hughes understood that the Housing Authority didn’t get any subsidies, but what about the tenants. Mr. Santos explained that there was a Section 8 program where the government paid a portion of the tenant’s rent, but he was not talking about any of those tenants in the exemption request.

Mr. McKinley questioned if the Board was allowed to create an exemption for low income and if it was granted to the Housing Authority, would the Board be required to grant it to anyone else in Town who meets that requirement. There have been requests from other people who claimed to be low income and they were turned down.

Mr. Hughes suggested that the tenants could apply for the exemption if they qualified for the exemption that was already in place. Mr. Santos replied that he saw what was out there in the newspaper and that was what prompted the Housing Authority to request the exemption as opposed to 400 letters requesting an exemption.

In a memo to the Board, Finance Director Robert Palmer, indicated that the Town’s direct cost for the dumpster was $35,000 year and Mr. Ball inquired as to what the Housing Authority paid in lieu of taxes. Mr. Santos wasn’t sure of the exact figure, but believed it was $12,000-15,000. Mr. Palmer noted that the in lieu of tax agreement with the Housing Authority needed to be reviewed. Asked if the payment got

Mr. Santos also confirmed as correct Mr. Ciccariello’s statement that the Natick Housing Authority did not receive any operating money from DHCD. When asked why not, Mr. Santos responded that the expenses did not exceed the income. Mr. Ciccariello suggested that in this case where there was an expense, that Mr. Santos could request reimbursement. Mr. Santos acknowledged that he could, but this year’s budget was already established and when you were locked into a budget cycle, it was difficult to make changes in a budget cycle.

Mr. Hughes proposed getting Mr. Santos a copy of the memo and have him review it with his board. As he (Mr. Hughes) understood it, the $175 fee per household was about $70,000 and the proposal was to make it $35,000 with the rationale being that the Town was not picking up every household. It was being brought to a dumpster.

Mr. Stern reported that he met both onsite and in Town Hall with John Wagner, the consultant from Weston & Sampson, to begin the process of doing closure plans. He walked the site with Mr. Sisitsky, Mr. Sarkisian, and Mr. Wagner and they looked at ways and means of accomplishing it and began to talk about the mechanics of getting it done. Mr. Sarkisian came up with the possibility of a $250,000 state grant through the Land Reclamation Grant and he was going to apply for it. The application was due September 3rd. The planning process was beginning and as much of the site as possible was being left available for community use. He understood that the Finance Committee approved the $18,000 transfer for the removal of the crusher, and he expected that to happen some time this summer.

Since the Board was not meeting again until July 22, Mr. Ball moved that if conditions warrant the implementation of a water ban that the Board authorize an odd/even mandatory water ban to begin when the DPW felt it was appropriate. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.