BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
June 16, 2003
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Jeffrey A. Stern at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Jeffrey A. Stern, John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on June 16, 2003 in the amount of $535,945.04. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,000,524.52.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation and real property negotiations. 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 7:15 p.m.
PROCLAMATION: July 4th
A proclamation in honor of the July 4th celebration in Natick was presented to the Co-Chair of the Fourth of July Committee, Bruce Weisberg.
MINUTES
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to approve the minutes of the April 22, 2003 meeting. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ball abstained, as he had not attended the meeting.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION: ARTS COUNCIL PAULA GRIMES
With regret Mr. Hughes moved to accept the resignation of Paula Grimes from the Arts Council. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
The Board requested that a letter of gratitude be sent to Ms. Grimes that included condolences for the recent loss of her son.
NATICK FOURTH OF JULY, PARADE, USE OF COMMON
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Natick Fourth of July Committee’s request to hold the annual Family Fun Day on the Common on July 1, the
flea market on July 4, and to hold the parade on July 4 beginning at Stop & Shop following Route 27 to the center.
The Board was also in receipt of a letter from the Co-Chair of the Natick Fourth of July Committee Bruce Weisberg requesting the Board’s permission to hold the fireworks on July 5 at the Natick Mall.
Mr. Ball questioned if the Board had ever voted on the fireworks before, and Mr. Hughes advised that the Board had not. It was noted that the Fire Department had requested the Board’s approval prior to issuing the permit.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the fireworks display and requested that the Fire Department provide the Board with an explanation of what had changed in terms of the permitting process. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
NATICK FOURTH OF JULY, PARADE, USE OF COMMON (contd)
Mr. Stern asked that the Town be issued a certificate of insurance, and Mr. Weisberg advised that the Fire Department was in possession of the certificate.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO ARTS COUNCIL: a. Aina Mieszkowska
Aina Mieszkowska told the Board that she had been a resident of Natick for three years and was looking to contribute to her community. Her background was in the arts with a BA in history and a Masters in literature. She had also served as a theatre director.
Mr. Ciccariello moved the appointment of Aina Mieszkowska to the Arts Council. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE FROM HIRO SUSHI, INC. TO 24 ASSOCIATES, LLC D/B/A ONE FORTY-EIGHT ON CENTRAL
Representing 24 Associates, LLC d/b/a One Forty-Eight on Central were Attorney Joseph Gentili of Capobianco & Gentili and the owner Mitchel Maxwell.
Before the Board was an application from 24 Associates, LLC d/b/a One Forty-Eight on Central for a transfer of the common victualer’s license currently held by Hiro Sushi, Inc. for premises at 148 East Central Street. Mr. Gentili believed all the required documents had been submitted along with letters of recommendation from the City of Newton and Wellesley Board of Health.
Mr. Ball inquired as to the type of food would be served and was told by Mr. Maxwell that it was original cuisine of Mediterranean and Asian.
Mr. Hughes inquired if Mr. Maxwell was the current holder of the Vidalia’s license in Wellesley or if he managed it. Mr. Maxwell advised that he was the manager on the license. Asked if it was approved by the ABCC, Mr. Maxwell replied that that was correct.
Mr. Ball moved to approve the transfer of the common victualer’s license held by Hiro Sushi, Inc. for premises at 148 East Central Street to 24 Associates, LLC d/b/a One Forty-Eight On Central. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S ALL ALCOHOL LICENSE FROM HIRO SUSHI, INC. TO 24 ASSOCIATES, LLC D/B/A ONE FORTY EIGHT ON CENTRAL
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Attorney Joseph Gentili stated that he was representing the applicant with regard to the transfer of the license held by Hiro Sushi, Inc. to 24 Associates. All of the required documents had been submitted including notification of Mr. Maxwell’s completion of the AIM program.
Mr. Gentili advised that the existing sushi bar would be eliminated and returned to the seating that existed at the restaurant prior to Hiro Sushi. There will be no service of food in the waiting area. It had been asked whether there would be a request for service of beverages in the waiting area, but as there would no food service, no such request was being made (to serve alcohol). The only service of alcohol would be at the tables with the service of food.
Mr. McKinley questioned how the seat count got to 100 when the application indicated that only 84 tables and chairs were being bought. Mr. Maxwell explained that the additional seats would be where there was now a sushi bar. Mr. Gentili added that the financing included working capital for buying furniture, etc., but what was missing from that were assets bought from the current owner.
Mr. Stern inquired as to the current licensed capacity, and was told by Mr. Gentili that it was 100. Asked by Mr. McKinley if he would certify that there would be no less than 100 seats, Mr. Maxwell’s response was, “absolutely”.
PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S ALL ALCOHOL LICENSE FROM HIRO SUSHI, INC. TO 24 ASSOCIATES, LLC D/B/A ONE FORTY EIGHT ON CENTRAL (contd)
Mr. Maxwell also noted that the area where people now sat with their legs below the table would be removed and tables put in to accommodate a few more.
Mr. Ciccariello felt that the Board should get a letter from the Building Department saying that they reviewed it and it was acceptable.
Mr. Hughes noted that he wasn’t counting 100 seats and asked if the floor plan he was looking at was the way it was supposed to be. Mr. Maxwell advised that he was going back to the original plan prior to the Hiro Sushi renovations and there would be 100 seats.
Mr. Ball commented that there was not a plan before the Board for what Mr. Maxwell proposed to do. The plan presented was not what the floor plan would look like when the restaurant opened. Again Mr. Maxwell
gave assurance that there would be 100 seats. The original floor plan would be used.
Mr. McKinley said he counted 100 seats and felt comfortable with Mr. Maxwell’s certification that there would be 100 seats. Mr. Maxwell was planning on removing the sushi bar and installing some tables and chairs. Mr. Stern, however, requested an updated plan.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, to close the public hearing, but the question arose whether the Board could still accept the revised plan and certification from the Building Inspector if the hearing were closed. With the consent of the maker and seconder the motion was withdrawn. Mr. Hughes then moved to continue the public hearing to June 30, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. Lemnios clarified that the applicant was being asked to submit a proposal of what the floor layout would look like so it could be reviewed by the Building Inspector.
CARPENTERS UNION
Representing the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America were Matthew LeBlanc, the Regional Representative and Kevin Kelly.
Mr. LeBlanc stated that they were before the Board at the request of their Natick members to present a policy known as the Responsible Employer Policy. The policy was meant to ensure that construction projects provide the maximum benefit to the citizens of Natick, ensure quality projects, and a safe working environment for the people who build these construction projects.
Mr. LeBlanc explained that a responsible employer policy was about the standards a community demands from contractors building public works projects, and it would make sense for Natick’s standards to be the same as every community concerned with the law and its citizens. The standards include: payment of lawful prevailing wages, apprentice training, health insurance, worker’s compensation insurance, and classification of employees correctly – not as independent contractors.
Using a Power Point presentation Mr. LeBlanc reviewed each of the provisions. He noted that payment of lawful prevailing wages meant that the Town gained control. The Town can withhold payment or remove if a contractor was not paying the prevailing wage. The Attorney General’s Office only had six prevailing wage investigators for the State. By the time they investigate, the contractor has completed the job and was long gone. This gave the Town more control to take an immediate action.
The policy stipulates that apprentice training must be provided. The trades were a way to get people good paying jobs and become responsible tax paying residents.
CARPENTERS UNION (contd)
Health insurance prevented the strain on local hospital resources. It prevented passing costs along to taxpayers and responsible employers. Over 500,000 people in Massachusetts did not have health insurance and the State budget cuts would force more people off Medicaid.
State law required worker’s compensation insurance, and contractors who do not provide it had an unfair advantage. By breaking the law and miss-classifying their workers they save 33%.
Mr. LeBlanc advised that in 1992 $501 million in revenue was lost by miss-classification, but the State wasn’t doing anything because there were not enough investigators.
Would the policy cost the Town more money, Mr. LeBlanc emphasized that the answer was no. Prevailing wage was already mandated by law and payments to health benefits, retirement, worker’s compensation, were accounted for in the prevailing wage. The policy would protect the citizens and give the Town local control and ensure that Natick residents obtained a fair wage.
Mr. LeBlanc thanked the Board for the opportunity to make the presentation and offered to answer any questions.
If the Town was already required to pay prevailing wages on municipal projects, Mr. McKinley inquired as to the necessity for the policy. Mr. LeBlanc explained that the issue was not really the wages being paid. Part of the reason was to ensure a level playing field for all contractors who bid. There were unscrupulous contractors who miss-classify and get an unfair advantage. This hoped to address the difficulty in the public bidding process and make sure all contractors were law abiding.
Mr. McKinley didn’t find Mr. LeBlanc’s explanation a help and asked Mr. Ciccariello, as an architect and former Planning Board member, if the Town builds a new high school and was required to pay prevailing wage, what more than that was the Town required to do. What was the benefit of endorsing the responsible employer policy.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that any general contractor bidding public projects had to be DCAM certified. What’s happened on some projects was that a general contractor would get a list of subcontracts that did not require filed subcontractors. You must file if the subcontract was over $10,000 and usually they would carry the lowest filed sub-bid. Some general contractors worked it to not require filed subcontractors and go out and seek subcontracts. This was prevalent in the dry wall trade where a contractor would hire a $10,000 self-employed dry waller. The burden on the general contractor was to ensure that any subcontractor he entered into an agreement with complied with state
statutes. If he didn’t and was found in violation, he can be disbarred. In the past there were too many general contractors that would circumvent the law by hiring these subcontractors. He (Mr. Ciccariello) didn’t think it was the responsibility of the Town to be monitoring those activities. There were public bid laws in effect. Once a contract was awarded, it was the responsibility of the awarding officer to make sure there was compliance. Submission of payroll certificates, minority participation certificates, etc. were required.
Mr. Stern stated that he would like to see what the Town’s remedies were in the event of a breach from the general contractor. Part of the proposed act was rights and remedies and it gave the Town certain remedies. He would like to see what remedies the Town had as a general course in our contracts to know if this was something that would be of interest to the Town or not necessary.
Mr. McKinley stated that he would like to know if the Town had ever been in violation of these provisions. There have been a whole bunch of projects over the last 5-10 years.
CARPENTERS UNION (contd)
Kevin Kelly of 8 Lotus Path thanked the Board for listening to concerns and introduced a fellow Natick carpenter Bruce Whitney to speak to how his family had benefited from the apprentice training.
Bruce Whitney told the Board that he was a 40 year resident of Natick and raised six children here. Two of his sons were in Natick. All graduated from Natick High School and one worked with him in a home remodeling company and then joined the Carpenter’s Union and apprenticed for four years. His son was now running work for one of the biggest companies around. If he had not gotten the training he received in Millbury, he wouldn’t be doing as well as he was now. It was one of the most important parts of the responsible employer policy language. It gives an opportunity for high school graduates to learn a trade, be skilled.
Mr. Whitney continued that one of the biggest concerns and one advantage was that it (responsible employer policy) gave the Board of Selectmen a lot more power to stop a contractor before he starts when shown proof that in the past the contractor had worked unscrupulously and payment can be stopped if the contractor was not doing the job. It was important for the Town to be able to take care of things quickly. He hoped the Board would give a lot of consideration to the responsible employer policy and look into it.
Mr. Kelly added that this was not just a union issue. It was leveling the playing field. The wish of the Town was not to be responsible for the contractors they hire, but he believed the Town needed to be and not let the unscrupulous contractors come in and pay someone as a sub and then issue a 1099 and all of a sudden that individual was responsible for a $5,000 tax bill.
NSTAR: UPDATE DOUBLE/TRIPLE POLES
Representing Nstar were Joanne O’Leary, Community Relations Representative, and Paul Heanue, Operations Director.
Mr. Heanue introduced himself as the new operation manager in the Nstar Framingham Service Center. Prior to being in Framingham, he was the operation manager in Walpole. One and a half to two weeks ago Ms. O’Leary spoke to him about a Board of Selectmen’s meeting that took place some time back at which a commitment was made to remove 60 double poles. That was the first he heard of that commitment. He reported that since that prior meeting 32 poles were removed that no longer had Nstar, Comcast, Verizon or Natick fire alarm wires attached to it.
Mr. Stern inquired as to the future plans, and Mr. Heanue responded that some members of the Town were given a demonstration and trained on the double pole database. One change that will take place with the database will allow for each utility company to be electronically notified when the company has come off.
Mr. Stern pointed out that the Board heard this same thing many months ago and he had reason to believe that the list presented to the Board was substantially incomplete. On Cottage Street the example he found the last time was that Nstar showed one double pole, but he counted 13 on the street. Mr. Heanue advised that he had a supervisor ride the street and there were a number of double poles on the street and with the exception of one, all of the others have other utilities still on them. Mr. Stern felt that that may well be, but questioned who was responsible to see that the others were removed.
Ms. O’Leary noted that the database would take a lot of tweaking, but they had a commitment, and if everyone used the system it would become an accurate database. She called Comcast and Verizon to let them know there needed to be some work done. She got a commitment from Verizon and they have removed 80. Nstar’s responsibility was to remove old poles as soon as they could. The training provided here was to give the users, and Mr. Lemnios, who would view the database an opportunity to see what’s happening and who was holding up the process. Ms. O’Leary acknowledged that Nstar didn’t meet the 60-pole commitment, but
NSTAR: UPDATE DOUBLE/TRIPLE POLES (contd)
she was working with Mr. Heanue and field supervisors to get them removed.
Mr. Stern inquired as to what steps would be taken to get an accurate assessment so there was a database that meant something. Ms. O’Leary reiterated that there was a lot of tweaking to be done. The poles they were able to remove, they have. She would ask the field supervisors to go look at it tomorrow and see that it matches.
Mr. Stern noted that he had knowledge of a triple pole on Mill Street, which from an aesthetic and safety standpoint was gruesome.
Ms. O’Leary agreed. She noted that the issue of double poles had come up with a lot of communities and the issue had been brought to the Nstar executives. However, Nstar can’t remove the poles until all the
wires were removed from all of the utilities. She encouraged everyone to continue to work together.
Referring to the most recent list submitted to the Board, Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the June 12, 2003 list showed 22 poles ready for removal and questioned when they would be coming down. Mr. Heanue explained that it was a continuing juggling of resources. To make Natick’s service stronger for the summer, those were the same people who do work on the infrastructure. A commitment was made to get 60 out three months ago, and he would make a commitment to get 25 out by Labor Day.
If what was in front of the Board was supposed to represent the total in Natick, a lot was missing, which meant that the data base as a tool wasn’t useful. There were a large number of double poles. The Board could beat up Nstar but it was also Verizon and Comcast and perhaps a more integrated concerted effort was needed. He wondered if the approach to double poles shouldn’t be reconsidered.
Mr. Lemnios advised that he had a meeting on June 12 with Ms. O’Leary and other representatives. There was a report that was generated and when Nstar finished it was entered into the system that it was ready for the next entity. Ultimately Nstar was the owner and certain clauses in the agreement gave Nstar the ability to get the work accomplished if the next party didn’t accomplish the work. He understood that Nstar didn’t want to remove someone else’s wires, but Nstar owned the poles and there were attachment clauses. He thought Mr. McKinley was correct that brining in other entities may help. He also thought that Nstar was trying to get a better handle on the database but this was a low priority for all the utilities. These were commitments, but if something else intervenes
they would come back in three months and say this or that happened and they couldn’t meet the commitment. This was an attempt to bring some organization to the chaos, but it was a low priority.
Mr. Heanue noted that Nstar has been improving the infrastructure and had done miles and miles of tree trimming and other work. A lot of money and time has been spent in Natick. Ms. O’Leary added that a commitment had been made to do pole removal every Friday, but the crew got pulled off of that because of infrastructure improvements.
Mr. Lemnios inquired as to the total number of poles in Natick. Mr. Heanue didn’t know, but generally they were every 100 feet.
If the Board wanted to be totally proactive, Mr. McKinley felt that the Board should beat up on everybody and not just Nstar. Mr. Lemnios agreed, and noted that he was looking to develop a GIS view of where the double poles were and then put some priority on which poles to do first. The database had no automatic function where Nstar said they were done and alerts the next line, no aging function, and from what he could discern had very little accountability built in.
Mr. Ball thought Mr. McKinley was right that the Board should not beat up on Nstar alone. It was his intention to beat up on all of the utilities. He then noted that on February 24, Mr. MacElhaney made a
NSTAR: UPDATE DOUBLE/TRIPLE POLES (contd)
commitment that 60 poles would be removed by May 31. Sixty poles have not been removed. There have been 32 removed. He recalled Ms. O’Leary saying when they met with Mr. Lemnios that there was a commitment from the field supervisor to remove any double poles that were ready to be removed. Ms. O’Leary confirmed that that was what she had said. Mr. Ball continued that Mr. Heanue committed to getting 25 of the remaining 30 done by Labor Day, and he requested that Nstar be invited back in for the September 2 meeting. He stressed that the Board was very serious about this and would also take steps to beat up on the other utilities as well.
Mr. Ball then asked about the GIS that Mr. Lemnios was referring to, and Mr. Lemnios explained that the Town had GIS folks in-house and if the Town could get information from Nstar, they (Town GIS) could produce it. The Town had all the plots in the system and could produce it without difficulty if we had that information.
When asked to pursue it, Mr. Heanue said he would but didn’t know if they could do it technically. Mr. Ball noted that Mr. Heanue was being asked to find out the location and map coordinates in Nstar’s records and then the Town could produce maps of all locations and double pole locations.
Mr. McKinley noted that the Town had a connection with the fire alarm and suggested leading by example. Mr. Lemnios advised that the fire alarm removal was pretty much up-to-date. Mr. Ball noted that there was a commitment from Gordon VanTassel (fire alarm technician) to regularly look at the online database for those that were his problem.
Mr. Ball then raised the possibility of inviting Verizon, Comcast, RCN, fire alarm and pose the question to each of them about what they were doing with respect to this situation. Mr. Lemnios suggested that he could set up a subcommittee meeting and try to get all of the reps together.
Mr. Lemnios questioned if the people in the field even knew the database existed. Mr. Heanue advised that they did. When asked if the field people used it, Mr. Heanue responded that he presumed Verizon, etc. were using it but couldn’t say for certain.
SKATING RINK RFP
A letter was read from Ronni Rausch in support of the proposal submitted by Michael Mabardy for Natick Comets Forum, Inc.
In a memo to the Board, Mr. Lemnios submitted a bid analysis of the two responses to the Rink RFP.
a. Facility Management Corp.
Robert McBride, President of Facility Management Corp., told the Board that his company was formed in 1992 and currently operate 16 public skating rinks. They operate 13 of the 18 DEM skating rinks and provide management and operations for three municipal skating rinks in Burlington, Chelmsford, and Arlington. It was a private company that had its genesis when he was the manager and part owner of a rink. It was formed to put what he learned in the private sector into the goals for the public sector.
Mr. McBride stated that FMC submitted their proposal to the Town with the goal of improving the physical structure, which he believed to be in dire need of capital investment and needed to be upgraded. FMC was proposing to invest over $800,000 in capital improvements including purchasing the existing equipment and turning it over to the Town. The focus was keeping the facility open generating new revenue. The broadest ice allocation would be to the local programs.
Mr. Ciccariello asked that Mr. McBride elaborate on the Community Investment Program mentioned in the executive summary of the proposal. Mr. McBride explained that he had the philosophy that public ice rinks should benefit everyone in the community and to that end they would dedicate l/2% of the total gross revenue of the rink to scholarships,
SKATING RINK RFP (contd)
sponsor hockey programs, and charitable events. He wanted to make sure that people who never go into the rink get a benefit.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the proposal suggests that there would be no more than a 5% increase per year in user fees over the life of the agreement, but elsewhere it had talked about 10%. Mr. McBride responded that it was a maximum of 5%. The financial plan Section 3 of the RFP allowed more than 5%. Mr. McBride noted that he looked at what he felt was needed and bases his fees on that rather than an arbitrary percentage increase.
With respect to the individuals working in the facility, Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. McBride intended to retain their services. Mr. McBride replied that he respected Peter Tsilekis (current rink manager) and would like to keep him on. He would like to work out an arrangement to keep Mr. Tsilekis there as well as the other staff.
Mr. Hughes noted that Mr. McBride would be leasing out several aspects of the operation and asked if that was a lease between FMC and the operator. Mr. McBride responded that he proposed to lease out the pro shop and the snack bar. He could do it in-house, but he would like to keep the operator there now on board. Vending and snack machines would be operated by the management.
Referring to the capital improvement maintenance plan, Mr. Hughes inquired if the proposed timetable with an investment of $843,829 was based on the assessment of the equipment Mr. McBride was buying. Mr. McBride replied that the priority was to keep the building operating.
He took the items that needed to be done first and front-loaded the plan. The first three years was pretty much the entire investment.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to any down time, and Mr. McBride advised that that had been factored in. The longest time would be for the chiller system, which was a down time of about six weeks. It would be done in May into June with the facility reopening the middle of June.
Continuing, Mr. Hughes asked about the equipment FMC had that could be moved around in terms of needs and how close would the nearest facility be. Mr. McBride responded that he had a maintenance garage in Worcester center, but there was some equipment in all of their facilities. He estimated equipment was within 15-20 minutes of Natick and some equipment would be stored in Natick.
Noting that Mr. McBride had indicated that he (Mr. McBride) had come to an agreement with the current operators to purchase all existing equipment, Mr. Lemnios inquired as to what that would mean relative to transition. Mr. McBride advised that he would pay the Comets a $75,000 deposit and two equal payments on the anniversary of the agreement and then the ownership would be turned over to the Town. He was trying to keep the cost of equipment down so the maximum could be invested in the facility. The user would see a seamless transition with no down time.
In a series of questions to Mr. McBride, Mr. Lemnios asked if Mr. McBride recognized that all capital improvements became the property of the Town. Mr. McBride’s response was, “yes”. When asked if he agreed to submit independently audited financial statements, Mr. McBride’s response was, “correct”. Mr. McBride again answered, “correct” when asked if he committed to a user fee increase of up to 5% subject to the rink oversight committee. He also answered “correct” when asked if he agreed that the oversight committee was at the sole discretion of Natick.
Mr. Hughes inquired if Mr. McBride had had experience in other towns working with an oversight committee, and Mr. McBride replied that the Burlington rink had an oversight committee that met monthly. He added that he believed what the Town came up with of reviewing on a quarterly basis made a lot of sense. It gave freedom for FMC to operate and gave the Town control over what went on.
SKATING RINK RFP (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello referred to the first page of Section 2 in the RFP that spoke about Burlington being able to generate some additional revenues that accrued to an enterprise fund and asked how they (FMC) helped to continue the rink. Mr. McBride explained that it was a private ice rink purchased by Burlington and operated as a business. In 1998 they were running an $18,000 a year deficit. FMC started marketing the facility, made some changes and it began to generate a $30,000 surplus plus pay $20,000 in payment-in-lieu of taxes. FMC had a strict management agreement, but Burlington maintained strict control over it and controlled the fees.
Mr. Stern noticed that Burlington had given FMC a performance based bonus, and Mr. McBride confirmed that the oversight committee had voted to award FMC a performance bonus based on what they were able to do in turning the facility around. Most of money was donated back to the Town in the form of scholarships.
Mr. Hughes asked about FMC being able to operate the rink 23 hours a day. Mr. McBride advised that they could, but it was not reality. However, if someone wanted to rent ice at 11:30 p.m., FMC would rent it to them if it was in accordance with the by-laws and they were reputable. FMC wanted to maximize the use.
b. Natick Comets Forum, Inc.
Appearing on behalf of the Natick Comets Forum, Inc. was Michael Mabardy.
Mr. Mabardy presented letters from people who used the rink for hockey, public skating, figure skating.
Mr. Mabardy stated that he didn’t know if he could compete with FMC, but had submitted a bid that gave all of the capital improvements the Town was looking for. He had years of dedication and love for the sport and on top of 32 years volunteering with the Comets, he volunteered in Little League, girls softball, basketball. He had never run a rink, but had run other businesses in Town.
Mr. Mabardy continued that everybody was trying to recruit Peter Tsilekis because of his knowledge and devotion. To run an effective business, you needed to circle yourself with the most qualified people you could get. Mr. Tsilekis has been asked to go with Mr. McBride, Rivers, and he (Mr. Mabardy) had asked him to come with him, and he (Mr. Mabardy) was happy to say that Mr. Tsilekis had agreed to stay should he (Mr. Mabardy) be awarded the bid.
Mr. Mabardy noted that he put a bid in 5-6 years ago when the first proposal came out. His proposal was rejected and he was glad to see that a lot of his proposals from the first bid were being required in the current proposal.
Mr. Mabardy acknowledged that he didn’t put a bid in that was in the best interest of the Town, but it was certainly in the best interest of everybody who used that rink. He would run the rink as early and as late as the Town by-laws would let them. He had a lot of time, devotion, and heart to put into that rink. He spends 30-40 hours in the hockey program and has been the president of the Comets for the past eight years. He was there (at the rink) and looking out for just one rink and they would give it the best they could.
Mr. Hughes noted that in the proposal Mr. Mabardy wanted sole discretion as to who served on the oversight committee. Mr. Mabardy clarified that it said ‘with my consent’. Instead of the Town just appointing people, he would like to have a say in the committee.
Hopefully people on the committee would be picked by the Board of Selectmen with agreement by him so from the first day there would be a strong communication instead of just throwing a committee at him and he wouldn’t know who that might be. He would like to know who Natick Comets Forum would work with. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the RFP described the committee by position, and Mr. Mabardy responded that he
SKATING RINK RFP (contd)
did not wish to comment in public but was willing to discuss that with the Board once the committee was appointed.
Referring to the organizational chart submitted in the proposal, Mr. Stern inquired as to who was on the Natick Comets Forum Board of Directors and was told by Mr. Mabardy that it would be people from each group of users – someone from the figure skating group, he hoped Coach Lamb, himself as president, Peter Tsilekis as rink manager. The office manager would be Mr. Tsilekis and the financial/accounting would be his own accountant. Mr. Stern stated that he was interested in knowing who sat on the Board of Directors, but Mr. Mabardy advised that as of yet he didn’t have a Board of Directors. When asked if Natick Comets Forum, Inc. was incorporated as of yet and existed, Mr. Mabardy replied that it did not exist as yet.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the proposal indicated that any capital improvements in the final year would not relegate back to the Town, but would be retained by Natick Comets Forum. He inquired as to what improvements Mr. Mabardy anticipated in the final year. Mr. Mabardy noted that the current rink manager was holding back on capital improvements because they weren’t sure how long they would stay. They appeared to hold money back because they didn’t want to do the improvements and then be asked to leave the rink. He explained that he put that clause in there so the rink would be run to the best of the ability to the very last day. It showed the Town that the improvements would be done and run to the best to the very last day. If no capital improvements were made in the last year, there was
nothing to depreciate, but it guaranteed that the rink would not be shut down the last 7-8 months during which they (Natick Comets Forum) had control of the rink.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how much Natick Comets Forum intended to invest in capital improvements, and Mr. Mabardy responded that he was going to front load $375,000 into the first two years to get the major improvements done. He was putting in $75,000 for the first three years and $50,000 for the remainder of the last five years. That still didn’t include all major repairs - not be confused with improvements. Major repairs were still required at the rink which they (Natick Comets Forum) would also do to maintain the rink.
Mr. Lemnios noted that the bid package clearly stated that all leaseholder improvements belonged to the Town at the conclusion of the lease. By submitting a bid that had an alternative, Mr. Lemnios asked if Mr. Mabardy recognized that it was in conflict with the bid specifications required. Mr. Mabardy said he recognized that and he
had tried to explain that he had every intention of keeping the rink operating.
Mr. Stern voiced some concern with the financial statements. Section 4 of the bid specifications called for audited financials, but Mr. Mabardy was proposing unaudited. Mr. Mabardy stated that he felt unaudited were appropriate because it was a private business. The Town doesn’t audit any other private business. No other private businesses have to show their audited statements. It was not a non-profit.
Mr. Stern then noted that Mr. Mabardy had chosen to use the name Natick Comets and asked if there were any common interests between Mr. Mabardy’s group and the Natick Comets. Mr. Mabardy replied that he chose that name because the Comets were the primary user of the rink – Natick Comets Forum not to be confused and not related to the Comets hockey group. When asked if no individual who served on the Comets would sit on the Natick Comets Forum Board, Mr. Mabardy responded that not as of yet, but he would ask a member of the Comets Board to sit on the Natick Comets Forum Board to keep a better relationship. Years ago there were members (from the Comets) on the Board of the West Suburban Area.
Mr. Lemnios noted that Mr. Mabardy’s bid was silent on transition. Did Mr. Mabardy have any agreement with the current operators and if there were no agreement, if he (Mr. Mabardy) were asked to start operating in
SKATING RINK RFP (contd)
one month, how would he propose to have a transition. Mr. Mabardy advised that he talked to one member of the existing CCYC and made them a proposal. He (CCYC member) said he had to talk to his board and he was going to get back to him. That was at the beginning of May when the first bid came out.
If Mr. Mabardy was not able to make an arrangement to purchase, Mr. Lemnios inquired as to how he proposed to operate and how his bid addressed that issue. Mr. Mabardy replied that Mr. Tsilekis had made contact with people they planned to do the capital improvements with and if there wasn’t an agreement with the current board, he could make a telephone call and be ready to go. If the zamboni and compressor were removed, Mr. Lemnios questioned how quickly they could be replaced. Mr. Tsilekis responded that it would be 6-7 weeks.
Mr. Hughes found the indemnification section of the proposal to be a little confusing particularly the section with the Town of Natick agreeing to indemnify NCF, Inc... from any claims, causes of action or damages resulting from environmental contamination on the premises whether pre-existing or occurring in the future. Mr. Mabardy explained that NCF would take responsibility from the time they took over the rink. There was a history of problems prior to this and he wanted to be sure that he was not responsible for what’s already taken place over the past 30 years. If NCF had a contamination problem that was NCF’s fault because of the way they performed, NCF would be responsible for it. When asked how he would take responsibility for it, Mr. Mabardy
replied that NCF would be insured for it and would monitor it daily, weekly.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the RFP required a $250,000 performance bond, but Mr. Mabardy’s proposal offered a $75,000 bond. As to why he made the change, Mr. Mabardy responded that he didn’t feel NCF would have more expenses than that. Mr. Lemnios questioned if it was safe to say that Mr. Mabardy recognized it ($250,000 bond) was a minimum bid requirement and that requirement had not been met. Mr. Mabardy’s response was, “yes”.
Section H, Page 9 of the RFP had a series of financial plan requirements, reporting requirements, review requirements, and Mr. Stern inquired if Mr. Mabardy had met those in his response. Mr. Mabardy replied that it appeared that he did not put in a financial plan in the RFP.
Mr. Lemnios thanked both bidders for submitting bids. He felt that both parties were interested in operating the facility. Chapter 30B laid out specific requirements, and any bidder to be considered qualified to go to the next level must submit the minimum bid requirements. Mr. Mabardy’s heart was in the right place and he cared a great deal about this rink and the children of Natick. The rink in its current state required a significant capital investment and the complexity, because it was not being offered in prime condition, got away from Mr. Mabardy a little bit. Under Chapter 30B he (Mr. Lemnios) could not recommend that the Board consider the bid any further because certain bid qualifications were not met. His recommendation would be that the Board of Selectmen authorize him and Town Counsel
to enter into negotiations with FMC to bring a contract back to the Board.
Mr. Hughes noted that each response included two parts, and neither of the price proposals had been reviewed. Mr. Lemnios confirmed that as correct, but given the non-price proposal of one, which was non-conforming, that RFP should not be considered any further. He read from the Chapter 30B handbook and noted that unfortunately Mr. Mabardy’s bid was not completely responsive because certain elements were changed by the bidder. The bidder was offering a different set of circumstances than the Board asked for and given that, there were not a lot of options relative to that bid.
If tonight the Board authorized Mr. Lemnios to negotiate with one bidder, Mr. Hughes inquired as to how long a period was expected before there was a new operator in the rink. Mr. Lemnios advised that it was
SKATING RINK RFP (contd)
his intent to enter into negotiations immediately and have a contract back to the Board in 3-4 weeks. Probably the first meeting in July.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Lemnios was suggesting that the Board not review the price proposal at this time. Mr. Lemnios responded that the Board could review the price proposal, but FMC had the elements embedded in the pro forma.
Based on the non-performance, Mr. McKinley didn’t think there was any choice. However, looking through the bid proposal and the clear commitment and motivation of Mr. Mabardy and his group, Mr. McKinley felt the Board had to find a way for Mr. Mabardy and representatives of the Comets to continue to be represented. The figure skating people and the high school teams had representation and there had to be fair use and access to the facility so no one group dominated and pushed the other out.
Mr. McKinley moved to direct Mr. Lemnios to begin negotiations with Facility Management Corporation for the purposes of seeing if an agreement could be reached. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
In speaking to the motion, Mr. Ciccariello stated that he appreciated the fact that the Board got two responses. Both individuals put a lot of time and effort into it. Clearly the FMC proposal covered a lot of issues brought up in the RFP and talked about transition from the present operator. It talked about a lot of things the Board didn’t even consider such as the Community Investment Program. Their proposal spoke to how they intend to maintain and improve the facility and ensure the Town was protected and kept this asset for the Town.
NSTAR PETITON: POLE RELOCATION PLEASANT STREET
In a memo to the Board, Rights & Permits Engineer William DeRosa stated that the DPW had no objection to the petition to relocate Pole #152/7 on the southwesterly side of Pleasant Street 205 feet northwest of Merrill Road and install one anchor guy on Pleasant Street. The work was necessary to accommodate new curbing.
Mr. Ball questioned if the anchor guy was going on private property, but Mr. Stern noted that the pole was now in the public way.
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve the petition to relocate the pole and install the anchor guy.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the status of the development of a 3-5 year fiscal stabilization financial plan. Mr. Lemnios advised that a 3-5 year plan was being worked on. He noted that the Town had managed to make it through Fiscal 2003 without major reductions and there was a balanced budget for Fiscal 2004. Fiscal 2005 was being worked on.
Mr. Hughes commented that he thought one thing everyone was counting on was new development, particularly with Natick Mall. He inquired if the Natick Mall had filed anything as yet. Mr. Lemnios advised that nothing had been filed and added that he was not putting a lot of stock in that in his projections. He didn’t think there would be heavy construction until 2006.
Having heard at the end of April that the financial department had reconciled through April, Mr. Hughes questioned if they had reconciled through the end of May. Mr. Lemnios advised that they had been meeting weekly and it was his understanding that they were reconciled through May. They were doing some cleanup work on the reports being communicated.
Mr. Hughes then inquired as to the golf course review committee, and was told by Mr. Ciccariello that the review committee met last Thursday and would meet again Thursday night. Each member has started reading the documents. The auditors have started the process of working
GOALS & OBJECTIVES (contd)
through the Comptroller checking a copy of the contracts. The auditors were pretty impressive and he (Mr. Ciccariello) thought the Town would get a good thorough review.
With respect to affordable housing, Mr. Hughes stated that he attended a meeting where Sarkis Sarkisian, the Community Development Director, had a proposal for a housing overlay that could address some issues. He would like to ask Mr. Sarkisian to make that presentation to the Board.
Mr. Lemnios reported that there had been a series of meetings on parking downtown with the Natick Center Association, and they were shooting to bring a report to the Board on either June 30 or July 7 and have the Board adopt the meter regulations. The changes weren’t significant, but there were some, and it would be a good opportunity for the Board to get an overview of parking downtown. He recognized Sebastian Grupposo, Parking Clerk, for having been instrumental in getting the meetings together.
Mr. Hughes asked about the Fire Department audit, and Mr. Lemnios responded that he was working on developing an RFP.
Mr. Ciccariello informed the Board that bids for the golf course maintenance building were received on Thursday. There were two bids but one was submitted too late. The apparent low bid came in at $97,000 for a base bid and an alternate for adding another 25 feet. The low bid was being reviewed, and he had asked Mr. Lemnios and Finance Director Robert Palmer to look into how much was left for the maintenance building. Mr. Palmer indicated that there was $100,000 that had not been bonded. The preference was not to bond and the belief was that there was only $110,000-117,000 left for construction. Before making any recommendation, he would like to identify how much money was left because the DPW would undertake some of the work as part of this bid.
Mr. Stern inquired as to how close the Board and the Finance Committee was to getting monthly financial reports. Mr. Lemnios thought that it might start with quarterly and then get down to monthly. They were (finance departments) were working on building the cash flow model. It was not difficult to develop, but time intensive and the year-end closing would be going on shortly.
Mr. McKinley asked that Mr. Lemnios remind all the financial staff that the Board anticipated an audit report next year that had no reportable conditions.
With regard to the Morency Woods property, Mr. McKinley advised that the Framingham Town Meeting had referred it back to the Framingham Board of Selectmen. He would keep the Board posted on any further progress, but at the moment it sat in Framingham’s lap.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Water Bill – Mary Juliani
Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Lemnios to look into the request for a water bill abatement received from Mary Juliani.
b. Cobra Payment
Mr. Stern called attention to a letter dated May 26, 2003 from former Town employee Melanie Hiris regarding her Cobra payment. Both he and Mr. McKinley requested answers as to how it got to this point and why the Comptroller had taken the position she had.
c. Municipal Light Plant
Mr. Stern noted the proposed legislation to create municipal lighting plants and requested Mr. Lemnios to look into it.
Mr. Lemnios noted that he had worked in a community with a municipal light plant and they do work very well. It was a large investment for infrastructure, but it does enable a community to buy in a cooperate
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
manner as opposed to buying retail. It was very effective for the consumer.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the billing and was told by Mr. Lemnios that the Town would have a municipal light department that would do the billing. The Town could hire a line crew or contract for a line crew. Braintree was the largest municipal light plant with a huge commercial base that also offered cable service at about l/2 the cost. Mr. Lemnios further noted that Lexington was looking to establish a municipal utility and looking for support that would allow the acquisition of infrastructure not to be road blocked by the utility – that there be a mediated solution if a price can’t be agreed upon and DTE would establish a fair market value. Lexington was looking for support for that legislation.
Mr. McKinley thought the Board should consider organizing a study committee to see how it (municipal light plant) was working in other communities to see if it was something the Board wanted to look at. Mr. McKinley was designated as the point person to look into this and follow the legislation.
Mr. Stern felt that the Board had nothing to lose by sending a letter of support for the proposed legislation.
A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to send a letter of support for House Bill 1468. Unanimously voted.
d. Pay-As-You-Throw
Mr. Ball reminded everyone that the Pay-As-You-Throw would begin as of July 1, 2003.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
________________________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
