BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
June 30, 2003
6:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Jeffrey A. Stern at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Jeffrey A. Stern, John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes. Absent: 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 30, 2003 in the amount of $566,338.29. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,747,757.94.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, 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 6:30 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
PROCLAMATION – RECREATION MONTH
A proclamation declaring the month of July as Recreation Month in the Town of Natick was presented to the Recreation & Parks Commission Chairman Stephen Carty and the Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the May 5, 2003 meeting.
THE PEACE ABBEY: PLACEMENT OF SIGN
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Dot Walsh, Program Coordinator of the Peace Abbey requesting permission to erect a sign at the Lincoln Square park entitled “Natick District Court Peace Garden at Lincoln Square cared for by Peace Chain 18”.
Sara Fuhro of 8 Abbott Road told the Board that the Peace Chain 18 were interested in caring for the garden and were looking for permission to do so and have a sign.
Although he encouraged public participation and community service, Mr. Stern stated that he had some questions. In the letter it was stated that the garden was maintained as part of a community service project,
and he inquired as to what project. Ms. Fuhro explained that it was done by those of the group who chose community service after an arrest the first day of the war in Iraq. They chose to work in gardens around Town and would like to continue with this particular one.
Mr. Ball commented that he appreciated the maintenance of the garden, but he questioned putting a sign there that said cared for by a group because they chose to do that as opposed to paying a fine or going to jail. To him putting up a sign that carried the name Peace Chain 18 was inappropriate and if the sign had to include that, he would vote against it.
Mr. Ciccariello concurred.
Ms. Fuhro explained that this was a way for the group to remain in contact and serve the community in peaceful purposes. Most of the group didn’t know each other before this and have since become friends.
THE PEACE ABBEY: PLACEMENT OF SIGN (contd)
Mr. Stern concurred with his colleagues, adding that he would support community service, but had a hard time recognizing and putting some sort of approval to work that would condone civil disobedience. If the group were to maintain the garden for the rest of the year on its own, he would be more inclined to consider the request, but he couldn’t see rewarding mandatory work.
Ms. Fuhro pointed out that the community service hours were over and everyone working there now was beyond the 10 hours of sentencing.
If the Board didn’t approve the sign, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the group would still take care of the garden. Ms. Fuhro responded that she would, but she couldn’t speak for anybody else.
Mr. Ball stated that he didn’t have a problem with a peace garden and wouldn’t have a problem if the sign said ‘The Natick District Court Peace Garden at Lincoln Square’ and leave who it was cared for blank. He would like to recognize the efforts of the group and see a sign there.
Mr. Hughes reminded his colleagues of the policy the Board adopted by which various places were named and if the Board were going to allow a sign, he thought they should abide by the policy. Mr. Ball agreed, and noted that the policy voted by the Board was not to name anything until a public hearing was held and at the hearing the Board was in possession of an opinion from the Historical Commission. He would like to see the hearing scheduled.
Mr. Lemnios pointed out that there were no dimensions on the schematic nor was there a color scheme.
Mr. Hughes moved to schedule a hearing for July 28 or whatever date met advertising requirements and to ask the proponents to provide an idea
of the size and how the sign would look. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Ms. Fuhro asked if the Board had approved the name recommended by Mr. Ball, but Mr. Stern advised that the Board hadn’t approved anything.
WESTERN WELL MIKVAH: REQUEST FOR BANNER
Before the Board was a request from the Western Well Mikvah to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of August 25-September 13, 2003 in advertisement of their grand opening.
It was Mr. Ball’s feeling that the period of time being requested was excessive and he would move to restrict them to one week for the period September 2-8,2003.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that this was different in nature than some of the other banners that the Board had allowed. Generally the banners were for either Town sponsored or Town events. He didn’t recall this kind of banner to celebrate this kind of event.
Mr. Ball responded that this was a subset of the community, and he thought historically there had been banners across Main Street for subsets not doing Town events. Perhaps this was a stretch, but he urged that the Board allow it.
Mr. Ball moved to permit the Western Well Mikvah to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of September 2-8, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO HISTORICAL COMMISSON – ALTERNATE
a. Nancy Lavash
Nancy Lavash expressed her interest in being appointed to the Historical Commission and highlighted her background.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Nancy Lavash as an alternate member of the Historical Commission. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Birthday Wish
A happy birthday wish was extended to Sebastian Grupposo, a Town Meeting member, Parking Clerk, and long-time attendee of Selectmen’s meetings, who was celebrating his 85th birthday.
FARM BOARD: NATICK COMMUNITY FARM UPDATE
Representing the Natick Community Farm were Rud Ham, President of the Board of Directors, and Lynda Simkins, the Farm Director.
Mr. Ham reviewed the history of the Natick Community Farm noting that the Farm started over 30 years ago with Bob Brack and George Ames under the aegis of the Recreation & Human Services group. In 1990 Lynda Simkins was the only employee of the community farm and the Town was carrying about 70% of its budget. That was now 100% reversed. The
Farm Board now carries 70% of the budget, and there were four employees – 2 full-time and 2 part-time - and 100’s of young people participating. The farm had 27 acres of land, much of which was either in a natural state wetland or organically used for educational purposes. The farm was open 9:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. every day 365 days a year and was heavily used.
Mr. Ham continued that the Farm Board was non-profit with all directors working as volunteers. They raised more than $1 million, which was put into building the greenhouse, education center, workshop, and this past year program selection was increased. The Board of Directors was trying to secure the farm’s permanence and was just finishing a new strategic plan which they will be sharing with the public within the next few months. They had built a strong Board of Directors and were still building. They had a large membership and a large successful annual appeal.
Mr. Ham stated that the farm hoped to continue for a long time and was working with the School Committee to craft an agreement to ensure from their (School Committee) standpoint that should they need some of the farm for school expansion it would be available, but the Board of Directors hoped to continue the farm with most of the 27 acres. The hope was that the land would remain as open space. Three years ago the farm property was listed on the surplus list and the Farm Board worked hard to discourage the land from being declared surplus and sold. Mr. Ham encouraged the Board’s attendance at any of the farm’s events.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that it was his understanding that the 27 acres the farm was on was not a buildable parcel for a school. He hoped in the future that the School Committee would always allow the 27 acres as a community farm. Mr. Ham said he thought the school recognized it as an important educational tool for the community.
ELDERLY & DISABLED TAXATION COMMITTEE: UPDATE
Ralph Letner, Chairman of the Elderly & Disabled Taxation Committee, noted that the Elderly & Disabled Taxation Committee was formed in 1999 behind the driving force of then Selectmen Edward Carr. The purpose was to provide real estate tax relief to elderly and disabled persons and to do it through donations. Income levels were for people with $20,000-25,000 and less of income.
Mr. Letner advised that the committee consisted of Assistant Treasurer/Collector Melanie Phillips, Assessor Jan D’Angelo, and himself. It was recognized that there were quite a few state programs that provide for tax relief, but this was a bit of a catch all for some people who may fall through the cracks. About $33,000 has been collected from taxpayers both residential and commercial and from 2000-2003, $28,000 has been distributed. He was proud of that accomplishment and of the people who have contributed. Approximately 30 individual households have been helped and some of those were repeaters. Generally the committee gave around $500 give or take depending on the level of need and what there was to give. The
balance right now was about $5,000, which they would use for seed money for next year.
ELDERLY & DISABLED TAXATION COMMITTEE: UPDATE (contd)
Mr. Letner told the Board that he was here tonight to ask for their assistance going forward. He was the only citizen remaining on the committee. Volunteers were needed and donations were needed to continue. The economy has resulted in a slow down of new money. Numerous people need the assistance and were receiving the assistance.
Mr. Ball asked Mr. Letner to define how the committee decided which person to give to and how much to give. In response Mr. Letner explained that when they began in 1999 they took application templates from programs that had already started and looked at some of the other state programs and their criteria and tried to create a basic benchmark. They had guidelines, but nothing hard and fast. They look at the number applicants and the money. For the most part they have been able to help everyone. If they saw that someone had fixed assets and savings with a low income, they would make a decision or there were times when the property wasn’t actually owned by the person.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to when the committee gets the applications and when the awards were made. Mr. Letner responded that it was always later than they set out to do. The criteria was to receive applications by December 31 and make the award by the time of the last quarter tax payment. They haven’t always been able to do that, but they were getting better. The applications went out earlier this year. If an applicant made a payment to the Town, the applicant would be reimbursed.
Noting that Mr. Letner was up for reappointment, Mr. Ciccariello moved that the Board reappoint Mr. Letner to the Elderly & Disabled Taxation Committee. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to when the committee vacancy was last advertised and was told by Ms. Challis that it had been advertised all along and included on the reappointment list issued the beginning of June.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSFER OF ALL ALCOHOLIC COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE FROM HIRO SUSHI TO 24 ASSOCIATES, LLC D/B/A ONE FORTY-EIGHT ON CENTRAL
Representing 24 Associates, LLC d/b/a One Forty-Eight on Central was the owner Mitchell Maxwell.
Mr. Ball pointed out that the application indicated that Mr. Maxwell was applying for a beer & wine license, but Mr. Maxwell clarified that the application was for a full liquor license.
Mr. Stern recalled that the issue raised at the last meeting was the layout of the restaurant, the number of seats, and the approval of the plans by the Building Inspector. He noted that the Board was now in receipt of a memo from the Building Inspector, Michael Melchiorri,
approving the layout. Mr. Ball added that he went over the plan very carefully and counted 100 seats.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of transferring the all-alcoholic common victualer’s license held by Hiro Sushi for premises at 148 East Central Street to 24 Associates, LLC d/b/a One Forty-Eight on Central. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
LEONARD MORSE GRANTS PANEL
Representing the Leonard Morse Grants Panel was Mary Jane Norris Geary, a member of the panel since 1999.
Ms. Norris Geary stated that she was here tonight in response to the Board of Selectmen’s participation in a joint meeting with the Framingham Board of Selectmen. At one point it was suggested that the Natick Board of Selectmen join the Framingham Board of Selectmen in a long legal process to re-examine the Foundation’s tax status and delay the dollars being transferred to the Foundation. She noted that the
LEONARD MORSE GRANTS PANEL (contd)
Foundation held its first public board meeting and people were able to hear first-hand about the grants. Some of the grants were for training of adjustment counselors in the schools and the establishment of a community-wide medical and health resource center at the Morse Institute Library.
Ms. Norris Geary expressed her appreciation for the Board’s support and offered to provide any assistance she could as the Board contemplated the actions of the Framingham Board of Selectmen and the actions of MetroWest Health, Inc. She noted that there were many other outstanding and noteworthy grants all with the objective of addressing unmet health needs. She believed the Town would see additional grants under the current structure of the Foundation and urged the Board not to join with the Framingham Board of Selectmen or MetroWest Health, Inc. in any possible action to revisit the prior SJC decision relative to the establishment and tax status of the Foundation.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how much in grants had been awarded in Natick, and Ms. Norris Geary responded that there were approximately 10 or maybe a few more and the dollars were in excess of $2 million. That was over three years. She noted that when the grants panel was first established the grants took off at a slow pace, but outreach was done and as a result more agencies and departments within the municipal departments were submitting applications.
Ms. Norris Geary advised that Mr. Hughes was correct that the Leonard Morse Grants Panel was capitalized at $11 million and must give 5% each year. To Mr. Hughes’ inquiry as to whether that counted toward the Foundation, Martin Cohen, the Foundation Director, explained that the
Panel was autonomous so it could go either way and didn’t have to do 5%.
Mr. Stern inquired as to what was considered and how awards were made. Ms. Norris Geary noted that when the application was received there was an evaluation form. The focus was on viability of a particular grant and the ability to achieve the objective set forth. They looked at the future sustainability. Most grants were funded for 1-2 years with a maximum of 3. There were a series of meetings where they met as a panel and discussed viability of the grants and vote.
In her three years of service on the panel, Mr. Ball inquired if there had been any applications to the panel which had been denied because the applicant was not a 501(c)3 or government agency. Ms. Norris Geary advised that there were very few grants, maybe one or two, that were not funded, and they were not funded because the panel had doubts about their sustainability going forward and doubt if an unmet need was being addressed. In follow-up Mr. Ball inquired if any applications had been denied because the applicant did not qualify or did the panel restrict making grants only to 501(c)3 or government agencies. Ms. Norris Geary didn’t recall that being the reason for any denials.
If MetroWest Health, Inc. refused to turn over the money, Mr. Hughes inquired as to what alternative Ms. Norris Geary saw other than going back to the SJC and dispute resolution. Ms. Norris Geary replied that from her knowledge and in public forums, MetroWest Health, Inc. has conveyed that the funds would be transferred over. It was her belief that as time passed and December 31 arrived without further endorsement from the Framingham Board of Selectmen or the Natick Board of Selectmen, MetroWest Health, Inc. would turn over the funds. Mr. Hughes commented that he believed MetroWest Health had agreed not to file for 30 days, but he didn’t get the sense that whether the Natick Selectmen or the Framingham Selectmen joined them would have any bearing on their (MW Health) action. Ms. Norris Geary responded that
it was her sense that MetroWest Health, Inc. was looking for a part to join their efforts.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: BUILDING FEES, CONSERVATION FEES
Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian reported that a public hearing on building fee increases was held on June 23, 2003. No public
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: BUILDING FEES, CONSERVATION FEES (contd)
comments were offered at that time, and he recommended the Board’s approval of the following:
Residential Alterations: $12/thousand (rounded up to nearest thousand)
Residential New: $12/thousand (rounded up to nearest thousand)
Commercial Alterations: $12/thousand (rounded up to nearest thousand)
Commercial New: $12/thousand (rounded up to nearest thousand)
Residential and Commercial jobs over $25,000 must submit copy of signed contract.
Commercial jobs must submit signed and notarized cost affidavit before issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Minimum Fee $ 50.00
Pools: $100.00
Signs $ 50.00
Temporary Structures: $ 50.00
Demolition, Residential: $100.00
Demolition, Interior Commercial: $200.00
Demolition, Exterior Commercial: $250.00
Re-Inspection Fee $100.00
Certificates of Occupancy Included in permit fee
CO, Temporary: $150.00
CO, New Multi-Tenant Building (over 6) $50.00 per unit
Research Fees: $20.00/request (bldg/plan/zon/cons)
Mr. Sarkisian also requested the Board’s approval of the new Conservation Commission fees. He advised that Town Counsel John Flynn had gone through the Conservation regulations and there were some changes that had to be made, but the ConCom would like to implement the fees beginning July 1, 2003. The fees were as follows:
Notice of Intent – Category 1 $100.00 per activity
Notice of Intent – Category 2 $150.00 per activity
Notice of Intent – Category 3 $500.00 per activity
Notice of Intent – Category 4 $700.00 per activity
ANRAD (Abbreviated Notice of Resources Delineation)
Category 5 $250.00 per notice
Administration – Category 6
a. Extension of Order of Conditions $ 50.00
b. Amendment of Order of Conditions $ 50.00
c. Certificate of Compliance; partial certificate $ 50.00
d. Review of change of plans $ 25.00
Request for Determination – Category 7 $100.00 per request
Regarding the requirement for proof for residential work over $25,000, Mr. Hughes questioned why it wouldn’t be easier to say it was so much per square foot and let them argue about it. Mr. Sarkisian used the example of an application for 260 square feet. Based on $150 per square foot that came out to $39,000, but based on the cost of construction in the application, it was a $90,000 application. Mr. Hughes felt that that meant the $150 was wrong and it was a matter of picking the right number, but Mr. Ciccariello noted that it was not that simple. Construction costs can go from $85.00-$200.00 depending on what the owner was putting in the project. In his (Mr. Ciccariello’s) opinion this (requiring proof of cost) was the way to go.
Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved approval of the proposed rate increases and requiring proof of cost for projects over $25,000. After further discussion, Mr. Ball and Mr. Ciccariello agreed to amend the motion to implement the fees and table discussion on how the applicant was going to prove the cost so Mr. Sarkisian could take a
survey of other towns on how they obtain proof of cost. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the kind of proof the applicant would be expected to provide to show the cost was not more than $25,000. Mr. Sarkisian advised that the applicant would have to submit the contract
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: BUILDING FEES, CONSERVATION FEES (contd)
and for commercial projects, the contract and the architect’s affidavit. Mr. Hughes thought that was too cumbersome and wasn’t sure he would want the Town to require people to provide a copy of private documents between them and their contractor. While he thought the fees needed to be raised, he didn’t think this was the way to do it.
Mr. Ball recalled Mr. Sarkisian telling of some horror stories about jobs that came in saying this was what it would cost and then actually costing very much in excess of that. He asked Mr. Sarkisian for an idea of the loss to the Town by not having this in place. Mr. Sarkisian responded that there wasn’t a high percentage and out of all of the permits maybe 3-4% that do not get the proper collection. There were those like Imax who admitted that they made a mistake and it was corrected and there were several opportunities in the inspection process to make the changes. Mr. Sarkisian acknowledged that this policy would be more cumbersome for the staff and the inspectors, but it was a policy that other cities and towns have put in place and it was one way to make sure the estimate on the permit was correct.
Mr. Ciccariello added that this would give the Assessors’ Office a starting point of the true value.
Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Hughes would be more comfortable if the wording was changed to the ‘Building Department may’ instead of making it a requirement. Mr. Hughes responded that to him it seemed like Mr. Sarkisian was asking for proof of cost with the application of the building permit. If an application were made for a $90,000 renovation, the applicant would have to provide proof of that cost. It was not being required at the end of the job when the final inspection was made. Mr. Sarkisian confirmed that as being corrected, but noted that the applicant could correct it at any time.
Mr. Stern inquired if, in surveying other towns, Mr. Sarkisian found that they required evidence of the initial cost. Mr. Sarkisian advised that the only one that he had proof of was the City of Boston. Mr. Sarkisian was asked to do a survey of other cities and towns and to check with the City of Boston to find out how it worked for them.
With regard to the proposed Conservation Commission fees, Mr. Hughes asked if the required changes to the rules and regs needed to be made before the adoption of the fees. Conservation Commission Chairman George Bain advised that the Commission had gone over the changes suggested by Town Counsel and had implemented as many of them as possible. The changes had no relevance to the fees themselves.
Mr. Hughes moved to adopt the Conservation Commission fees as recommended. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes then requested an update on the Route 135 project, and was told by Mr. Lemnios that a presentation would be made to the Board on July 14.
CHAIRMAN GOLF COURSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: SASSAMON TRACE UPDATE
Chairman of the Golf Course Oversight Committee David Baier reported that play at Sassamon Trace Golf Course was up this year. A goal of a 20% increase had been set and has been met despite horrible weather over the last six weeks. Weather has affected golf courses throughout New England and it was an achievement being able to increase the rounds by the 20%. The committee was happy with the Sassamon pass program, and will help reduce the projected deficit. Cart revenue was up substantially but you have to be careful about that from the golf course perspective. He felt that a great deal of progress had been made in terms of how the golf course was operated. There was positive feedback from the people who play it, and the Committee thinks the improvement of the course can continue.
Mr. Hughes noted that he heard Mr. Baier say increased revenue of 20% and then say increased rounds. Mr. Baier clarified that he was referring to increased rounds. The goal was to get as much revenue as possible. He
CHAIRMAN GOLF COURSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: SASSAMON TRACE UPDATE (contd)
noted that part of the increase came from discount rounds with the issuance of two for one coupons.
Mr. Hughes then inquired as to the percent of revenue increase compared to last year, and Mr. Lemnios responded that for calendar 2002 through June 30, 2002 the revenue was $135,574.80 and for calendar 2003 through June 20, 2003 the revenue was $147,975.43. Mr. Baier added as of the weekend the revenue was $157,000 combined revenue for rounds and carts. Mr. Hughes pointed out that that was about 15%.
Mr. Ball felt that the Advisory Committee’s calculations must have shown that selling season passes would be more lucrative. He asked if the Committee expected to come out richer than by charging on a per round basis. Mr. Baier’s response was, “yes I do”. The person with a season pass played with someone. He brought a friend. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the pass was just for greens fees, and Mr. Baier confirmed that as being correct. The pass did not include the carts.
Mr. Stern inquired if there was any feedback that the signage had helped, and was told by Mr. Baier that the place was easier to find and the new signage had to have had a positive impact.
Mr. Lemnios stated that the Committee had worked very hard through the winter and this spring trying to put in place a fee structure and promotional structure. Another person who had devoted a considerable amount of time was Dick Cugini, Recreation & Parks Superintendent. Mr. Cugini has been working on an operational level giving some direct eyes and ears and providing input. Mr. Cugini runs a healthy and active
recreation program, and he (Mr. Lemnios) would be remiss in not recognizing the efforts of Mr. Cugini in this and for his work on the rink.
Mr. Baier noted that a lot of outings were being done. Dr. Edward Salamoff, a member of the Golf Course Advisory Committee, added that the Committee discussed getting out and getting the businesses and hotels involved. The hotels were excited because they attract a lot of people here on business and the hotels have been sending them over. Sterling has the courses in Newton and Brookline and when those courses were overbooked, they were sending them over to Sassamon Trace. Dr. Salamoff also noted that Sassamon Trace was one of the first courses open this spring – almost l-l/2 months before Brookline, but the weather has had a big impact. He noted that he had had a lot of feedback on the signs with people saying they now knew where the course was.
LOKER PARK DESIGN
Appearing before the Board to present the design for Loker Park renovations were the co-chairs Carol Gerwin and Lisa Tabenkin.
Ms. Gerwin told the Board that the mission of the Walnut Hill Association was to strengthen the sense of community and enhance the quality of life. There were 140 families in the Association, and there was a great deal of interest in renovating the park. This has been worked on since October 2001 and last year they hired a landscape architect who has been working with the committee and Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini. Several public meetings have been held and two alternative concept plans were presented. A lot of positive feedback and constructive criticism was received to come up with the plan now before the Board. Everyone felt good about this plan and would love to see it built.
Referring to the diagram, Ms. Tabenkin explained that the plan was doing nothing to the lower part of the park along Bacon Street. The only thing at the bottom at Bacon & Belvedere would be to clean up the big thick shrubs. The basketball court was being moved a little tucking it into the shrubs. The court needed to be renovated. It couldn’t really be patched and the best thing to do was to move it and pave. There were some walkways being added around the area that would look like brick. There was a picnic shelter with a dirt floor and that was being moved a little with new tables and a floor put in. The size of the children’s play area was being increased and swings put in. More open space was being created. At the tip of Belvedere and Walnut would be a small
LOKER PARK DESIGN (contd)
gazebo. There wasn’t a lot of shade and more shade will be created and trees added. The chain link fence would be removed. One handicapped parking space would be added on the Belvedere side with a more accessible entrance.
Mr. Cugini applauded the efforts of Ms. Gerwin and Ms. Tabenkin and the neighborhood. He didn’t think the group could have been more thorough. He reported that on June 9th the Recreation Commission voted in favor of the renovations and recommends to the Board of Selectmen that the group will need the help of the DPW for work around the perimeter, parking
areas, and transitions going into the park. The Recreation Commission and DPW should be made available to help them.
Mr. Cugini advised that the Association would be campaigning for funds.
To Mr. Stern’s inquiry as to the estimated cost, Ms. Gerwin responded that the architect estimated it to be $150,000-$200,000 but there were some details to be worked out that would affect the bottom line. They were hoping to whittle it down to make it a feasible project. She assured the Board that the Association would give fund raising their all and reassess it after 6 months to 1 year.
Mr. Hughes questioned if the $150,000-$200,000 included materials and labor or materials and the Town would do the work. Mr. Cugini advised that it was for everything and a contractor would be brought in, but if the Town forces were used, it could reduce some of the cost. Mr. Hughes then questioned how it would work. Normally the Board of Selectmen would award a contract for work on Town land pursuant to a bid or RFP from multiple contractors. Mr. Lemnios felt that the Association had put forward a clear vision of what they would like to accomplish and he would recommend that now was the time to get into the details of how it would get accomplished and what role the Town would play. The group would raise funds and a donation account could be established for the renovations of the park.
Mr. Ball pointed out that the Murphy Park was done by a volunteer group with some assistance from the Town and how did Mr. Cugini envision this (Loker Park) differing. Mr. Cugini responded that it (Loker) would be very similar to Murphy. Murphy was a $100,000 project with money coming through Crossroads. Loker may take on a few other things like the gazebo, but the fencing and grading issues were all similar to Murphy. To Mr. Ball’s comment that this would be heavily volunteer based, Mr. Cugini responded that volunteers could do the playground equipment and certain other things.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about a crosswalk at Bacon Street. He didn’t see one on the plan and questioned if it had gone before the Safety Committee. He thought a crosswalk would be wanted. Mr. Cugini advised that the parking plan originally went to the Safety Committee and they went to two hour parking on the south side of Bacon. If the group needed to go back to the Safety Committee to discuss it with them, they could do that.
If the gazebo was going to be done, Mr. Ciccariello recommended contacting Keefe Tech to possibly help build it. He also suggested approaching the Conservation Commission for a donation from the open space account and urged the group to do whatever it could to avoid going through a public bid process.
Mr. Hughes asked that the Town Administrator see how much work the DPW could do in terms of saving against the cost.
In conclusion Mr. Stern congratulated both Ms. Gerwin and Ms. Tabenkin and the entire Walnut Hill Association for being a terrific example. He saw this as another fabulous example of community spirit.
Following a ten minute recess the meeting resumed at 8:55 p.m.
FIRE CHIEF: DISCUSSION OF SALARIES ACCOUNT
Mr. Lemnios explained that the issue arose June 17 when the Chief informed him there was a potential shortfall in the Fire Department salaries account. The Comptroller, who was at a conference, was contacted because there was some disagreement between the Fire Department and the Comptroller as to whether there was a shortfall and the magnitude. Ms. Cashman (Comptroller) returned and her first task was to look at the number and reconcile if there was a difference. He met with the Comptroller, the Fire Chief, and the Fire Department Executive Assistant and there was still a disagreement over the amount. The Comptroller and the Executive Assistant were directed to resolve the amount. He received an e-mail from the Comptroller indicating the difference was resolved at $18,900 with the possibility of another
$2,500-3,000 relative to a vacation policy. On June 23 he again met with the Fire Chief and the Comptroller and was presented with a transfer request that exceeded the $18,900 by approximately $9,000. $2,800 was the vacation policy item and the balance was over expenditure that had not been accounted for.
Mr. Lemnios continued that he alerted the Finance Committee Chair that there may be a problem that would need Finance Committee action on June 26. On June 24 he met with the Finance Committee Chair, Public Safety Subcommittee, the Chief, Executive Assistant, and Comptroller to discuss the circumstances that brought about the shortfall in the accounts. At the Finance Committee meeting this past Thursday, the FinCom expressed concern and in his (Mr. Lemnios) estimation reluctantly voted for the transfer. The Finance Committee expressed concern for the lateness and concern relative to procedures and policy put in place going forward so it would not happen again. Mr. Lemnios noted that the Finance Committee Chair was present tonight and Chief Brien was here to explain the circumstances that brought about the need
for the transfer.
Fire Chief James Brien apologized for having allowed the budget deficit to occur and gave assurance that it would not happen again. The cause was a Captain’s position that went unfilled for seven months. He (Chief Brien) and his staff should have monitored it more carefully and he planned to monitor it monthly from July 1 to May 1 and weekly thereafter. When the budget was formulated, he was directed to reduce the budget by $228,000. Overtime was reduced by $114,000 and two positions were left unfilled. One person retired in June and he (Chief Brien) filed an involuntary retirement for a Captain in March 2002. He was under the assumption that the Captain’s retirement would be effective on or about July, but it didn’t come about until late January, early February. That position
was unfilled for about seven months.
Mr. Hughes questioned if it was the practice of the Fire Department and others that if one of the personnel line items gets over expended, but there were additional funds in other line items, that there would be a transfer from one to the other as long as the transfer was made within personnel. Chief Brien confirmed that as correct. In follow-up Mr. Hughes asked if it were done internally, and Chief Brien advised that it was done in the Comptroller’s office as long as the personnel line item was in order. Asked if there were not sufficient funds to do that this time, Chief Brien’s response was, ‘no’.
Mr. Lemnios stated that from his observation the departments were looking at the bottom line of those categories. It was difficult to discern 3-5 months into the year if it was $3,000 or even $30,000 off which was why he was putting in place a true line item transfer. If a line item was going to deficit and the department head wanted to move funds from one line to another, he/she would need to make the transfer right then and have to provide documentation that he/she believed the line from which funds were being taken had sufficient funds to do that.
Mr. Hughes inquired if having fixed the recent reconciliation problem was going to let the accounts be balanced on a more timely basis. Mr. Lemnois advised that the reconciliation focused on the revenue side and did not focus on the expenditure side. He was putting in something on the expenditure side. If there was a supply account and a department
FIRE CHIEF: DISCUSSION OF SALARIES ACCOUNT (contd)
head wanted to buy $3,000 worth of supplies but only had $2,000, the department head could go to another line to make up the difference, but he would now need to fill out a transfer form to identify what account the money was coming from, where it was going to, and an analysis to indicate that the line item (from which the money was being taken) would have sufficient funds for the balance of the year and provide the items for which the account was intended.
Mr. Stern requested an explanation from Chief Brien as to how the shortfall was discovered and what procedures he had inside his department to in theory prevent this from happening again. Chief Brien explained that it was discovered by his administrative assistant on June 14. Before that she (assistant), along with the Comptroller, had the misunderstanding that there was a $30,000 surplus in the salaries account. She discovered there was a deficit.
Mr. Stern inquired as to the source of the error, but Chief Brien responded that he didn’t know whether the weeks of the year had been miscalculated or what. He noted that the Comptroller was under the same impression and added that he should have looked into it himself.
From Chief Brien’s June 23 memo and his opening remarks putting forth a plan, Mr. Stern asked if it was fair to imply that the budget was not being reconciled up to that point. Chief Brien advised that the salaries had not been. When asked how often, Chief Brien responded that the salaries were done the last two months of the year. In April or May his assistant starts going over (the account). Mr. Stern asked
if it was looked at in November or February, but Chief Brien did not believe so.
Mr. Stern commented that one hallmark of this Board, and Mr. Lemnios had been instructed to follow (that hallmark), was the institution of sound management and fiscal policies relating to all reportable conditions. The Board has committed to erasing reportable conditions and instituting sound management policy with regard to financial reporting and procedures so this type of thing doesn’t happen. Mr. Stern asked Mr. Lemnios to summarize what had been accomplished so far so everyone was given a sense of the priority and how seriously the Board viewed that priority.
Mr. Lemnios responded that there was a high priority to eliminate material weaknesses and the process of having a meaningful monthly reconciliation on a timely and constant manner has been a high priority. The financial team has gotten themselves caught up and going forward they want to maintain that momentum. During the last budget cycle the administration tried to provide greater detail to the Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee and the citizens by publication of the budget on the web site and the opportunity for the employees to gain a greater understanding of the budget process. A forum was held on the budget and the implication of state aid reduction was presented to Town employees. Last and foremost as the Town gets into tighter times relative to the budget, some of the practices that were not
adhered to in the recent past because fiscal times were better, will need to tighten up or policies introduced to re-emphasize the importance that there needs to be tight oversight on a monthly basis.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that when the Fire Department budget was presented to the Board of Selectmen it was $4.891 million which was a cut of $228,000. Looking at the numbers to date, it looked like the Finance Committee had transferred $172,944 back to the Fire Department which meant that the budget presented to the Board was only a savings of $55,000 which was disturbing. That says that any department can be given a budget and if it was below what they wanted, it was no big deal because they could just go to the Finance Committee and get them to approve the use of the reserve fund. Considering the Town’s cash flow, Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was concerned. Knowing that the individual who was put in for involuntary retirement could appeal, he questioned why the Chief didn’t consider those monies
and take it out of the budget.
FIRE CHIEF: DISCUSSION OF SALARIES ACCOUNT (contd)
Chief Brien responded that at that point it was either allow for the two vacancies or reduce the overtime. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that reducing the overtime didn’t work, and Chief Brien responded that there was an extraordinary amount of people injured, military leave.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Chief Brien to explain the duties of his Administrative Assistant. Chief Brien advised that she handled accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, budget in the fall, longevity payments, step raises, maintains the books for vacation.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked if Chief Brien would agree that if an individual was doing the following year’s budget, they would go back and research the year before and check it over to see how that budget did compared to what would be asked for the following year. Chief Brien concurred. Mr. Ciccariello noted that that person was paid $6,000-8,000 in overtime to perform that duty, and Chief Brien confirmed that as correct.
Continuing, Mr. Ciccariello questioned why that person wouldn’t have picked that up prior to June 14 if she was going through the budget. Chief Brien advised that they try to project overtime based on the past year but this year was extraordinary in terms of people being out. Mr. Ciccariello asked why it took so long to discover, noting that the assistant was responsible for the books and the payroll and the Chief was responsible for overseeing that individual’s work. He (Mr. Ciccariello) didn’t see how the error could occur if that person was doing their job on a week-to-week basis.
Chief Brien responded that two people left on military leave and one retired and at that point there was a possibility that it would have been a wash on the Captain’s retirement. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the individual who left on military leave was still receiving pay from Natick, but Chief Brien noted that the Town saved $500 per week out of his salary.
Mr. Ball found this to be mind boggling. This was a $5 million operation and yet neither the Chief nor his assistant bothered to keep track of where the expenses were relative to this budget except close to year’s end. Chief Brien replied that it was hard to keep track of the salaries, but they did keep track of the expenses. Mr. Ball continued that with respect to salaries, it was not the Chief’s practice nor the assistant’s to see on a periodic basis during the year if more was being spent on salaries than in the budget. Chief Brien acknowledged that that wasn’t done early in the year, but that would change.
Mr. Ball then noted that the primary source of funds for the unfunded Captain’s position for seven months was the transfer, but for seven months prior to that that was detectable at any time and yet neither the Chief nor his assistant were aware of it. Chief Brien advised that he was aware that it was unfunded. Asked if he were aware of the consequences that he could be over budget, Chief Brien responded that when people left in November, December he was advised that the account would be close to evening out. Mr. Ball questioned if Chief Brien had been advised by individuals in the financial department, and Chief Brien’s response was, ‘yes’.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Ball, Chief Brien advised that there was a job description for his assistant. Mr. Ball requested a copy.
Going through some of the spreadsheets and looking at the Fire Department line item budget, Mr. Ciccariello noted that some line items
showed negatives which were overruns on the budget. When there was a negative, it never showed where those negatives were going to be captured. Mr. Ciccariello requested an explanation of how the Chief could have a negative and where he (Chief Brien) intended to pick it up. This was both salaries and expenses.
FIRE CHIEF: DISCUSSION OF SALARIES ACCOUNT (contd)
Chief Brien explained that there could be a negative on one line item as long as there was enough money to cover it (in the bottom line salaries or expense category).
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello questioned how that was tracked. If an adjustment wasn’t made in one of the other line items, where’s the guarantee that that line won’t go over. Chief Brien responded that his assistant tracks that and noted that the copy center and telephone lines were always negative. In response to another series of questions from Mr. Ciccariello, Chief Brien advised that he had a sense that other budget items would come in under budget. Clothing allowance should be under by $6,000 and a couple of others for $2,000-3,000. Mr. Ciccariello asked about transferring, but Mr. Lemnios explained that a department could not move a supply surplus into a salary deficit. That could only be done through Town Meeting action.
Mr. Stern inquired as to the number of times and on what dates Chief Brien appeared before the Finance Committee relative to reserve fund transfers. Chief Brien replied that he had gone before the FinCom on three occasions. When asked if he had made any representation on those occasions that the amounts he was asking for would be sufficient to carry him through to year’s end, Chief Brien’s response was, “yes”. If the accounts weren’t being reconciled, Mr. Stern didn’t see how Chief Brien would know that. Chief Brien advised that they were tracking the overtime weekly, daily and when he made his request he thought the amount would be sufficient. That prompted Mr. Stern to ask if he was tracking the overtime daily but not doing a reconciliation at the end of the period,
how would he (Chief Brien) have any meaningful information. Chief Brien reiterated that they tracked the overtime daily, weekly, monthly which told them what they had left. If he (Chief Brien) knew how much was left and how much was used, Mr. Stern didn’t see how it could come to this situation where there wasn’t enough money. Chief Brien explained that there was a misunderstanding. He thought there was a $30,000 surplus in the salaries, but there wasn’t. Once he found out there was a deficit, he stopped overtime and went to compensatory time.
Mr. Stern requested an explanation of compensatory time, and Chief Brien responded that the firefighters were working for time off instead of getting paid. They still get the time and a half rate, but it was time off. When asked if the compensatory time carried forward to the next fiscal year, Chief Brien stated that it did. In follow-up Mr. Stern inquired as to how the compensatory time was instituted, if it was an administrative right. Chief Brien stated that it was in the contract and could be invoked during a fiscal crisis.
Responding to Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry about the next fiscal year, Chief Brien noted that people working for the past two weeks were working for compensatory time and could not use it until after July 1st. Mr. Ciccariello expressed concern that that would already create a shortfall for next year’s budget, but Chief Brien didn’t think that that was necessarily so. It would depend on when they took the time off. Mr. Stern inquired as to the value to date of the compensatory time. Chief Brien didn’t know the dollar value, but there were approximately 60 shifts. Taking 60 shifts in compensatory time, Mr. Stern asked if he were wrong to assume that the reserve fund transfer of $28,000+ would not have been enough if Chief Brien had not invoked compensatory time. Chief Brien advised that that was correct.
Continuing, Mr. Stern inquired as to when the last time compensatory time was required and was told by Chief Brien that Chief Fredette used it on two occasions. Once in mid-June and another in July or August.
Mr. Lemnios commented that one thing that concerned him was that on June 19 he had a number of $18,900 which was salaries and on Monday that number grew by $6,800-6,900 in overtime. $6,800 had been spent in overtime beyond the last Finance Committee transfer. Mr. Lemnios noted that under the contract the Chief had the authority in fiscal emergencies to say that he can’t pay overtime, but can pay time and a half in hours. If the requisite number of individuals were on duty and
FIRE CHIEF: DISCUSSION OF SALARIES ACCOUNT (contd)
someone took compensatory time, it would not generate overtime, but if there were less, there would be overtime.
Mr. Stern inquired as to the capability of specifying when compensatory time could be taken, but Mr. Lemnios advised that under the current contract those terms were not in existence. Chief Brien added that there was a side letter saying they could take compensatory time whenever they wanted excluding holidays. Mr. Stern noted that the firefighters could take it at a point where there were not enough people on the shift and could result in additional overtime. To him that was getting into a deeper problem. To Mr. Hughes it sounded as though it created a $24,000-27,000 hole. Mr. Lemnios agreed that that was the worst-case scenario.
Mr. Hughes didn’t understand why all departments weren’t balancing the salary accounts weekly. Mr. Lemnios explained that for the majority of departments without overtime or that did not have an extraordinarily complex contractual agreement weekly reconciliation of the salary account was not necessary. For example, in the Board of Selectmen budget the salaries were static. There was no overtime, no stipends, no differentials. The departments that require an extraordinary amount of oversight were Police, Fire, DPW. Those departments generate a variety of salary events in any given week and a much higher opportunity for individuals in those departments to miss a day of work because of injury. The Fire Department has the 24-hour shift. Those were the departments where there was
the biggest risk relative to budget management.
Mr. Lemnios further noted that there was a reliance of not looking at these things frequently in the beginning of the fiscal year. The mindset was that they had this big block of money and that was one thing the internal transfer system would change.
Mr. Ball inquired as to when compensatory time was started, and Chief Brien gave the date of June 17. Asked if he was authorized to do compensatory time under the terms of the contract, Chief Brien responded that that was correct. When asked if he had apprised the Town Administrator, Chief Brien replied that he had previously mentioned that if there was any problem that would be the plan. In follow-up Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Lemnios knew that he (Chief Brien) would be doing compensatory time. Chief Brien’s response was, “yes”.
Mr. Stern inquired as to how many other administrative assistants in the Town have had overtime. Mr. Lemnios believed that the only other department with some degree of overtime had been Community Development. That department had been tasked early in the year with Conservation Commission duties. He also thought the Town Clerk’s office may have had a small amount relative to the elections.
Chief Brien was asked to describe the circumstances under which the assistant acquired overtime. What occurred that required $8,000 of overtime? In response Chief Brien stated that in the fall she (executive assistant) figures out each individual’s stipends, step raises, etc. The overtime started 5,6,7 years ago – not just this year. Mr. Stern inquired as to what plans Chief Brien had to reign that in, and Chief Brien replied that he could tell her (assistant) to do it when on duty. When asked if he had given any thought to reorganizing the assistant’s duties, Chief Brien advised that he had, but he had not implemented anything to date. Mr. Stern questioned the Chief’s plans and Chief Brien stated that he planned to make sure she was more involved in the budget process – in preparing the budget and to do it during regular work hours.
Mr. Stern noted that the Chief’s response didn’t tell him what changes would be made. If overtime was occurring on a continual basis there had to be a change in the function or the way she performs it to allow her to perform the job during the normal work week. Chief Brien advised that he could shift some of her responsibilities to the other girl in the office. Mr. Stern questioned if the other girl had the
FIRE CHIEF: DISCUSSION OF SALARIES ACCOUNT (contd)
time to accept additional responsibilities without incurring over time. Chief Brien’s response was, “yes”.
In response to a series of questions from Mr. Ciccariello, Chief Brien advised that the assistant was salaried, in the union, and entitled to overtime. He (Chief Brien) had to authorize the overtime. Knowing that he (Chief Brien) was authorizing $6,000-8,000 in overtime with a budget crunch, Mr. Ciccariello didn’t see why Chief Brien didn’t have the individual take care of the work during the regular workday. There was already a budget problem with the firefighters’ overtime and the Chief allowed someone to take work home. Chief Brien acknowledged
that in retrospect he should have done that. Mr. Ciccariello reminded Chief Brien that that was his job as the Fire Chief.
Mr. Stern emphasized that the last minute discovery of this magnitude went against everything the Board had strived for – every management practice and reform the Board put into place. This was not OK and could not happen again. It was not the way business was done in this Town. It may be the way business was transacted in the past, but this was a new day. He (Mr. Stern) intended to hold each and every department, through Mr. Lemnios, to the new practice.
UPDATE BUDGET PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Lemnios reported that the Budget Planning Subcommittee had not met in months. It has been a tumultuous time at the State House. The Governor issued his vetoes today and the Legislature was going through them to see what would be overridden. Once the Town had a final set of numbers for Fiscal 2004, he would reconvene those meetings. Mr. Lemnios added that he had been meeting regularly with the School Superintendent relative to what was known for State aid.
Mr. Hughes noted that there would be a meeting of the committee before July 28th.
REAPPOINTMENTS
a. Lock Up Keeper
Mr. Hughes moved to reappoint Police Chief Dennis Mannix as Lock Up Keeper. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
b. Director of Veterans’ Services/Burial Officer
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint John MacGillivray as the Director of Veterans’ Services and Burial Officer.
c. Town Counsel
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint the firm of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane as Town Counsel with John Flynn as the principal representative.
d. Representative to MWRA
The Board unanimously voted to reappoint John Craig as the Town’s representative to the MWRA Advisory Board. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes.
e. Representative to Keefe Tech
The Board unanimously voted to reappoint Tassos Filledes as Natick’s representative to Keefe Technical School. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes.
f. Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Stephen Broadley and Susan Geiser to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
g. Youth Advisory Board
The Board was informed that Stephen Holt had called the office to advise that he was not seeking a reappointment to the Youth Advisory Board. On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to post the vacancy.
REAPPOINTMENTS (contd)
h. Conservation Commission
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint George Bain and Randy Johnson to the Conservation Commission.
i. Council on Aging
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to reappoint Susan Sullivan to the Council on Aging. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello moved to advertise the three remaining vacancies on the Council on Aging. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
j. Historical Commission
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Edna Sargent, Kathleen Broomer and Stephen Evers to the Historical Commission.
k. Historic District Commission
Mr. Hughes moved reappointment of Mark Balk and Laura Duncan to the Historic District Commission. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
l. Information Systems Advisory Board
Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved to reappoint Hank Szretter and Gwendolyn Sams-Lynch to the Information Systems Advisory Board. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes noted that long-term IS Advisory Board member and chairman David Dimmick was not seeking reappointment. He requested and the other members agreed to send Mr. Dimmick a letter thanking him for his service.
Mr. Ciccariello referenced a letter received from Roger Beer expressing an interest in serving on the IS Board and moved to appoint Mr. Beer. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. Speaking to the motion, Mr. Ball noted that he had a familiarity with the Information Systems Advisory Board and there was a certain level of expertise required. He didn’t know Mr. Beer’s background. If Mr. Beer were qualified, he (Mr. Ball) would love to have him on the board, but he would prefer to see Mr. Beer’s resume first. The motion was withdrawn and Mr. Hughes moved to invite Mr. Beer to the July 14 meeting for an interview. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
m. Recreation & Parks Commission
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Wayne Szretter to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
n. Natick Arts Council
Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved to reappoint Cathi Ianno Fournier to the Natick Arts Council. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes then moved to advertise the two remaining vacancies. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
o. Cable Advisory Board
The Board unanimously voted to reappoint Hanks Szretter, Arnold Pinsley, and Martha Jones to the Cable Advisory Board. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes raised the issue of RCN fulfilling their contract requirements and suggested that the Board invite them in.
p. Elderly & Disabled Taxation Fund Committee
Earlier in the meeting the Board had voted to reappoint Ralph Letner to the Elderly & Disabled Taxation Fund Committee
q. Recycling Advisory Committee
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Terry Miller and Pat Severance to the Recycling Advisory Committee.
REAPPOINTMENTS (contd)
Mr. Hughes moved to advertise the remaining vacancies. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
r. Town Forest Committee
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to reappoint Paul Spurling and Dan Spurling to the Town Forest Committee. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello moved the appointment of Wayne Chouinard to the Town Forest Committee. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
s. Special Municipal Employee Status
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to reappoint Lauren Stiller Rikleen as a special municipal employee. Unanimously voted.
t. Lookout Farm Advisory Board
The Chairman of the Lookout Farm Advisory Board was expected to attend the July 14, 2003 to talk about the future of the Advisory Board. On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to extend the appointment of the Lookout Farm Advisory Board to July 28, 2003.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Club Liquor Licenses
A letter had been sent to all holders of Club liquor licenses explaining what a club license entitled them to do. When asked by Mr. Hughes if there had been any response to the letter, Mr. Lemnios advised that he had chatted with all license holders with the exception
of one. The response ranged from thinking it was an excellent letter to seeking clarification, but all understood its ramifications.
b. Pay-As-You-Throw
Mr. Ball reminded everyone that Pay-As-You-Throw began tomorrow (July 1st), and only the blue Natick trash bags would be picked up.
c. Dwight Avenue Water Bill
Mr. Lemnios was asked to look into the request from a resident of Dwight Avenue for an abatement of a high water bill due to a leaky toilet.
d. 2002 Retirement Board Report
Having received a copy of the annual Retirement Board report for 2002, Mr. Hughes noted that he was looking to see where Natick ranked in investment income and what percentage was funded.
Mr. Lemnios explained that PERAC has gone away from a ranking system, but from what he could see, Natick was about in the middle of the pack. Part of that was linked to when you start your funding schedule, how aggressive, and investment performance.
Golf Course Well
Mr. Stern referenced a letter to Haley & Ward requesting a change in the water used at the golf course. He noted that it would result in a significant savings, but inquired as to what had changed to allow this to be considered.
Mr. Lemnios advised that it was determined that a water source close to the high school fields could be used. Originally it was talked about doing a well system that was adjacent to the golf course, but this well would be at the high school field outside the boundaries of the wetlands and the aquifer.
Mr. Stern inquired if there was new information, and Mr. Lemnios responded that a test well was done l-l/2 months ago that identified a well source. The original plan was to use well water, but as a result of the environmental permitting process, well water couldn’t be used. Using Town water was a very expensive way to fill a retention pond and water the course.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
When asked about the cost, Mr. Lemnios replied that the installation would come from the golf course budget. It was estimated to be $40,000-$50,000, but that would be paid back in one year.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
__________________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
