BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
October 14, 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. Absent: Paul R. McKinley
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to collective bargaining, real property, litigation. 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 7:00 p.m.
A moment of silence was observed in memory of Board of Assessors member Steven Adams.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2003 meeting.
REQUEST TO CLOSE CRAFT ROAD: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve David Murphy’s request to close a portion of Craft Road on October 25, 2003 from 1:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. for a block party.
THE CENTER FOR ARTS IN NATICK: ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE
Mr. Stern recused himself and Mr. Ciccariello chaired this portion of the agenda.
Before the Board was a request from Special Occasion Servers for a one day all alcohol license for TCAN’s Grand Opening Gala on November 8, 2003. The license was requested for the period of 7:00 p.m.-midnight at TCAN’s 14 Summer Street location.
Representing TCAN was Joe Kelly who told the Board that Special Occasion Servers had been contracted by TCAN to provide four TIPS certified bartenders for November 8, 2003 from 8:00 p.m.-midnight for a cash bar.
Mr. Hughes inquired if all the service would be at the bar and no waiters or waitresses would be walking around with alcohol. Mr. Kelly advised that that was correct.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to when the names of the Tips certified bartenders would be submitted, and Mr. Kelly responded that he would hire the bartenders about 10 days prior to the event. He indicated that he would supply the names and certification cards to the Selectmen’s office.
A motion was made by Mr. Ball to grant Joe Kelly of Special Occasion Servers a one day all alcohol license on behalf of TCAN for November 8, 2003 from 7:00 p.m.-midnight for premises at 14 Summer Street. Approval was conditioned upon Special Occasion Servers submitting a list of the servers, Tips certification, and certification that each was over 21 years of age to the Selectmen’s office prior to November 8th. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello. The motion passed on a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Stern had recused himself and did not vote.
THE CENTER FOR ARTS IN NATICK: ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE (contd)
Mr. Stern resumed as chair.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Baby Safe Haven
Appearing before the Board were Michael and Jean Morrisey, advocates of the Baby Safe Haven legislation.
Mr. Morrisey reminded the Board that he and his wife had been before the Board a few months ago concerning the Safe Baby Haven home rule petition and the Board voted to put an article on the warrant. He reported that last Tuesday night Framingham passed an article with only four dissenting votes. There was an amendment offered by Framingham having to do with issues with Police and Fire that made a re-definition of the surrendering of a baby as a medical emergency pass through. Both he and his wife wholeheartedly approved of that amendment. They understood that Natick was now a week away from Town Meeting and wanted to be sure the Board was updated.
Mr. Morrisey presented the Board with a videotape, and noted that today’s MetroWest Daily News had a thank you letter to the Town of Framingham. He thanked the people who stood up in opposition and debated it openly. He asked that Natick continue to go forward.
Mr. Morrisey presented the Board with some additional information. He also advised that the MetroWest Medical Center very much backed it (Baby Safe Home Rule petition) up.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
a. Matthew Gardner
Matthew Gardner of Evergreen Road stated that he was a chemist by training but a bureaucrat in practice. He had been serving as an
Associate Commissioner on the Conservation Commission for the last 18 months and felt that that had given him a lot of insight.
Mr. Hughes questioned if Mr. Gardner had participated in the discussions to develop the rules and regs for the wetlands by-law, and Mr. Gardner replied that he did.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Matthew Gardner to the Conservation Commission. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION
a. Seth Levine
Mr. Stern called attention to a typo in the posting notice that referenced a vacancy on the Natick Cultural Council. He felt that it would be best to repost the opening. As Mr. Levine was present, the Board decided to conduct the interview and hold on a decision until after the notice was re-posted.
Seth Levine told the Board that he had been involved in different programs put on by the Recreation Department plus he coached and ran programs outside of Natick Recreation. He was on the board of the Natick travel basketball.
Mr. Stern thanked Mr. Levine for coming and noted that it would be reposted as quickly as possible.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO RETIREMENT BOARD
a. Brian Grassey
Mr. Stern announced that Mr. Grassey was unable to attend tonight’s meeting.
b. Brendan Michael Reardon
Brendan Michael Reardon told the Board that he was an eight year resident of Natick. He was hoping to stay for a long time and was looking for a way to get involved with the community and felt this was an excellent fit with his career and past. He had been an accountant at State Street bank, worked for an investment manager doing equity analysis, and in 1996 upon completion of his master’s degree, served as controller of a large brew pub. The last eight months he spent as a
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO RETIREMENT BOARD (contd)
senior client services officer at the Pension Reserves Investment Management Board where he was heavily involved with the Treasurer’s Office, the state legislature and PERAC. Mr. Reardon assured the Board that he had no interest in trying to drag Natick into the State’s investment program. That was not the mandate of the PRIM Board.
In conclusion Mr. Reardon stated that he felt he had a vast set of experience that would lend itself to this experience.
Mr. Ball commented on Mr. Reardon having been involved with retirement issues only in the last eight months, and Mr. Reardon responded that he had serviced public funds as far back as 1989, but he had been more heavily involved since February.
Mr. Ball then inquired as to what someone who was an actuary knew how to do that he (Mr. Reardon) did not. Mr. Reardon responded by asking if the Retirement Board had used Mr. Barlas to do the evaluations or if there was an outside firm. Mr. Lemnios advised that an outside actuary did the evaluation. Mr. Reardon then responded that he thought it was more important for the Board to understand the outcome of an actuarial study and how best to follow it. He has been involved in monitoring management oversight meetings. Mr. Ball repeated his question, and Mr. Reardon replied that an actuary would calculate the future value of the liability that exists using payroll, the number of employees, average age.
When asked by Mr. Ball if he felt the fact that he was not an actuary would not interfere with his service on the Retirement Board, Mr. Reardon’s response was, “absolutely not”, adding that there were very few boards in this state that had actuary experience.
b. David Given
Mr. Given stated that he had lived in Natick since 1991. He was not an accredited actuary but had been in the pension consulting business since 1988. He worked for Watson Wyatt who at one time was Natick’s actuary. In his job he handled clients of all sizes around New England. To him what an actuary did was to explain something to people in plain English in terms of what they can afford and what they can’t afford. There was a lot of stuff within the financial context in setting assumptions to help them manage costs.
Mr. Stern noticed that Mr. Given had taken nine exams toward becoming an actuary and was sitting for another. Mr. Given explained that it was a long grueling road. He had bailed out eight years ago, but his employer was putting a strong emphasis on a senior consultant becoming an actuary. Asked where that left him in the process, Mr. Given advised that he would have one more in the spring.
Noting that Mr. Given’s resume showed that he had been an actuarial associate, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what he (Mr. Given) did as an associate. Mr. Given replied that he did the same thing as he was doing now but on a lower level – reviewing entry-level work, putting together reports, dealing with the client or individual.
Mr. Hughes noted that the actuarial service predicts what the cost would be based on the current retired population and makes a recommendation as to how much the Town needs to invest to pay those liabilities. Mr. Given stated that he didn’t know a lot about the public arena, but he thought the active employees would have to be factored in as well. He assumed that the Town’s actuarial firm came in periodically and talked to the Retirement Board. In his opinion it would be good to have someone who could see what they were talking about and explain it to the group.
c. Robert Band
Mr. Band stated that he had lived in Natick for 15 years. He has been a CPA for 22 years and five years ago he got his insurance license. On a daily basis he dealt with clients on investment and estate planning, business plans, financial planning and that has allowed him to analyze
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO RETIREMENT BOARD (contd)
the numbers. The Retirement Board had professionals that would present the numbers, and he could help analyze and interpret those numbers.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the breakdown of work between individual vs. institution. Mr. Band advised that he didn’t do institutions. He had 1,000 tax clients and local small businesses and he helped them prepare to go to the lawyer and do financial planning.
Mr. Stern inquired if it was the pleasure of the Board to vote then or wait to interview the fourth candidate. Mr. Hughes asked why Mr. Grassey was unable to attend and was told that there were medical reasons. If the reason was medical, Mr. Hughes suggested that Mr. Grassey be given the opportunity to come before the Board next Monday (October 20). Mr. Hughes so moved. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
ELIOT SCHOOL BOILER – AWARD CONTRACT
DPW Business Manager John Craig noted that the boiler at the Eliot School was 20 years of age and an inside section had rotted out. The Town had an environmental consultant evaluate it and the recommendation was to replace it. Bids were received on September 23, 2003, but they were over budget. On October 1, 2003 bids were received from three contractors: William F. Lynch Co., Inc. - $68,720; Gaffney Corporation - $102,143; Frazer Engineering, Inc. - $99,606 with William F. Lynch the low bidder. The total cost would be $76,720 which includes $8,000 for engineering services, contract documents, etc. Mr. Craig noted that the Lynch Company previously did work for Facilities Director Corey Lovett.
Mr. Craig advised that per the terms of the lease the Town would pay $10,000 and the Eliot Montessori School would pay the remaining cost. The recommendation was to award the contract to William F. Lynch.
Mr. Ball inquired if the William F. Lynch Company submitted a bid in the first round. Mr. Craig advised that they had not. They were ten minutes late.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what if any specifications were changed between the first and second bid to account for the difference. Mr. Craig responded that there weren’t any changes made.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who was the engineer the Town retained, and Mr. Craig replied that it was Universal Environmental Consultant. When asked if they reviewed Lynch Company’s reference checks of past public projects, Mr. Craig advised that they had for performance, quality of work and the documents they (Lynch) submitted.
Mr. Stern asked if there were any additional costs associated with the installation of the boiler not covered by the bids. Mr. Craig was not aware of any. Mr. Stern pointed out that there was nothing in the memo for electrical work, but Mr. Craig understood that was all included in the bid.
Mr. Lemnios advised that he had a letter from the Eliot Montessori School acknowledging their responsibility in the lease for any capital repair over $10,000. He explained that it was a ten-year lease with a flat annual lease payment of $60,000. The Town was responsible for all utility costs and minor repairs to the building. There was one clause in the lease that stipulated that the Eliot Montessori School would pickup any capital repairs over the $10,000 mark, and the Montessori School was accepting responsibility for approximately $70,000. Mr. Lemnios noted that this became a leaseholder improvement, which meant that the Town owned the new boiler at the conclusion of the lease.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about performance bonds, and Mr. Craig advised that they were included in the bid.
Twenty years didn’t sound like a long time to Mr. Hughes for this type of expenditure. Mr. Craig advised that with this type of system it was about 15-20 years.
ELIOT SCHOOL BOILER – AWARD CONTRACT (contd)
Mr. Hughes moved to award the contract for the Eliot School boiler to the low bidder William F. Lynch Company, Inc. in the amount of $68,720.00. Mr. Ciccariello seconded with the amendment that the contract be conditioned upon the Town Administrator and Town Counsel reviewing the contract and upon compliance of the lease by the Eliot Montessori School. The maker of the motion accepted the amendment. Unanimously voted.
RATIFICATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT
Mr. Lemnios reported that a one-year agreement had been reached with the DPW Laborers union with a zero percent increase for the year. There was a 10-cent per hour increase in the Liuna pension for each employee for a net impact of $104.00 per employee for the fiscal year. The agreement covered 68 employees. The contract had been ratified by the union.
Mr. Hughes moved to ratify the Laborers’ Union contract for the period July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
The Board thanked the bargaining units for their cooperation in honoring the Town’s request to hold on pay increases for this year.
2004 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES – SCHEDULE HEARING
The Board had received an updated survey of current liquor license fees for surrounding towns. Mr. Ball was of the opinion that Natick’s fees were in line with the other towns and he saw no need to change the existing fee structure.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that last year the Board took steps to bring the fees into line with the abutting communities, and given the economic market, he saw no reason to put out an increase at this time.
Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Ball were suggesting that the Board not hold a public hearing to discuss the fees for license holders. Mr. Ball advised that that was correct and added that it was not meant to keep the public out of the discussion. If it was Mr. Hughes’ pleasure to have a hearing take place, he (Mr. Hughes) should move to hold such a hearing, but he (Mr. Ball) thought that it was clearly something the Board should leave alone.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Board was required to hold a hearing, and was told by Ms. Challis that a hearing was not required.
Mr. Ciccariello moved that there be no adjustment to the liquor license fees for 2004. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
The fees remained as follows:
Innholders $3,850.00
Restaurant All alcoholic 2,000.00
Restaurant With Lounge 2,500.00
Restaurant Beer & Wine 1,500.00
Package Store 2,000.00
Club 500.00
One Day 25.00
Plus a $250.00 filing fee for new applications and a $100.00 filing fee for any change of condition (change in manager, stock pledge).
TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Article 25 – Baby Safe Haven
Mr. Ciccariello noted that at the Finance Committee meeting some questions were raised as to whether Town Counsel had reviewed it. Finance Committee member Carol Gloff was in the audience and advised that the FinCom tabled any further discussion on this article to their meeting of October 21st.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that the Framingham Town Meeting voted to approve their article with some legal changes. Mr. Ball confirmed that Framingham did vote to seek a home rule petition from the legislature for Framingham to be a Baby Safe Haven. He also noted that the House version of the state legislature bill was similar (to home rule petition), and Senator Jacques filed in essence the same legislation. Mr. Ball further noted that he spoke with Mark Clement,
TOWN MEETING ARTICLES (contd)
MetroWest Medical Center CEO, today and Mr. Clement was supportive of this legislation. He had no concern with doing this.
Continuing, Mr. Ball noted that Framingham began with the same wording (as Natick) of their article. Their town counsel, fire chief, and police chief all weighed in on the wording and made some changes. He had given each member of the Board a copy of the Framingham article that addressed some issues of the fire and police chiefs and collective bargaining issues. Mr. Ball suggested that the Board not vote to support the article as filed because there may be a substitute motion at Town Meeting for changes.
Referring to the Framingham version, Mr. Stern noted that from a potential liability point of view he was much more comfortable with the change that the infant be classified as a medical emergency pass through.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was in favor of the article and would like to see it get revised. He requested that Mr. Lemnios have Town Counsel review it and get some input from the Fire and Police chiefs by October 20.
Article 20 – Morency Street
It was Mr. Hughes’ understanding that the Framingham Town Meeting vote placed the entire piece of property under the Framingham Conservation Commission. He didn’t believe there was any need for the Natick Town Meeting to take any action, and he hoped that the Town Administrator or the Board would notify Town Meeting that no action was required under Article 20.
Ms. Gloff advised that the Finance Committee recommended no action.
Mr. Hughes commented that in the paper it appeared that Natick wasn’t going forward with the proposal to acquire the property. As far as he was aware in the negotiations, Natick was always going to go forward with a great portion of the property to be restricted and/or owned by the Town’s Conservation Commission. The Board was agreeable to have four house lots with all the proceeds going to Framingham and Natick would bear the cost of the infrastructure. By no means was the Town of Natick not willing to go forward with that plan. Natick will benefit from the entire piece of property under a conservation restriction that the Town doesn’t have to take care of, and Framingham won’t benefit from the sale of those lots, but he wanted to make it clear that it was not the Town of Natick
that didn’t want the proposal to go through.
EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE
Mr. Lemnios explained that last year the early retirement incentive allowed the Board to classify a group but nothing beyond. The Board could offer the incentive to group 1,2, or 4 employees. This year the legislature had provided the local boards with the ability to get it to the department level. The economics remain the same. If positions were eliminated and not filled, the option would make sense over time. He reminded the Board that last year an extensive analysis was done with the assistance of Retirement Board member Mitch Barlas, and it was proven to be a costly option. Some communities accepted, but many have chosen not to go forward. The Board had until November 1 to offer the program.
Mr. Lemnios told the Board that his recommendation at this time was not to go forward for the same reasons the Board chose not to go forward last year.
Mr. Hughes specified that because the Town would most likely be replacing the employees, the early retirement didn’t make economic sense. Mr. Lemnios confirmed that as being correct.
Mr. Stern asked that the record show that the Board was taking no action.
A recess was called at 8:00 a.m. The meeting resumed at 8:15 p.m.
GOLF REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
Appearing before the Board were Scott McIntyre and Joseph O’Connor of Melanson Heath & Company who had been engaged to do an analysis of the golf course/landfill capping projects.
GOLF REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
Mr. McIntyre noted that Melanson Heath had about 90 governmental entities as clients and Mr. O’Connor had many golf courses as clients. He proposed that he would walk through the highlights of the written report and speak principally about Sections 1 and 2 and the recommendations contained in Section 5.
Mr. McIntyre stated that based upon the work done by Melanson Heath, the golf course had a deficit of about $475,000, and the recommendations focused around the next steps to deal with the deficit. He thought it was important to highlight that when they looked at the accounting records and general ledger, the Town basically considered the golf course and landfill capping as one project. The proceeds from all the articles and funding sources were put into one component of the accounting system. Even some of the records show golf course/landfill. From a general ledger perspective the Town viewed it as one project, but looking at the general ledger although everything was co-mingled in general ledger fund 36, there were separate line items that were clearly labeled golf course or landfill. Although the
Town viewed this Section 36 as one project, there was some detail in the accounting records that highlight the difference between the two projects. By and large the deficit Melanson Heath indicated of $475,000 from the golf course was not significantly different than what the Town’s accounting system. The individual line items indicated there was a deficit in the golf course project funds.
Mr. McIntyre referred to Appendix D, which summarized the proceeds and expenditures of the landfill capping project. He noted that the total source of funds in Project 36 was $6,549,516. The landfill expenditures were $5,829,549 less an adjustment of $78,023 of golf course costs recorded as landfill capping costs and an addition of $114,833 of landfill costs recorded as golf course project costs. The total landfill cost was $5,866,359 which meant there was a surplus of $683,157.
Mr. McIntyre then referred to Appendix F, which was a similar analysis as D but only of golf course related line items. The total funds approved by Town Meeting for the golf course was $3,194,120. Golf course expenditures were $3,663,635. He noted that even before Melanson Heath proposed any reclassification of expenditures, there was the problem that the golf course expenditures exceeded the total budget. Subtracting $115,000 for expenses that should have been booked to the landfill and adding $78,023 in expenses that were booked to the landfill and should have been against the golf course plus the unpaid water bill of $43,748, the total expenditure of the golf course was $3,670,573. That left an over-expenditure of $476,453. The deficit that exists in the golf course of approximately $475,000
was combined into the same set of accounts with the $683,000 surplus of the landfill leaving a net of approximately $200,000 between the two projects. It was possible that when the accounting records were reviewed, they were
viewed as still available funds, but MGL required the projects to be segregated. The Town didn’t have a surplus for the projects but a net deficit for the golf course of $475,000 and a surplus for the landfill of $683,000.
Mr. McIntyre highlighted the three recommended actions:
1. Fund deficits were required to be reported to the Department of Revenue at year-end and as this deficit had not been communicated, he felt that it was imperative that the Town report the $476,453 deficit to the Department of Revenue. He also noted the DOR’s practice of reducing a community’s certified free cash by deficits.
2. The second recommendation was to inform bond counsel to identify actions, if any, needed to remedy the use of landfill proceeds for golf course construction.
3. The third recommendation was to improve monitoring of appropriation (budget vs actual) reports and consider establishing separate funds for each Town Meeting authorization. He recommended using separate general ledger funds.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled a comment about the flaring station – that $400,000 was transferred from the golf course to the landfill to pay for the flaring station. Later there was a second request of Town Meeting to fund $388,000 and he believed Mr. McIntyre’s comment had been that the administration didn’t have to ask for that because it had been previously funded. Mr. McIntyre confirmed that as being correct
GOLF REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
and added that Appendix D showed there was a $683,157 surplus left after completion of the capping. Working back to the bond proceeds, if there was a $683,157 surplus then the Town didn’t need an additional borrowing authorization and proceeds of $388,000. Mr. McIntyre felt that that was one more reason to contact bond counsel.
Referencing Mr. McIntyre’s remark that it was incumbent upon the Town to report a deficit at year’s end, Mr. Ball presumed that that was at the end of the fiscal year and the year in which it occurred. Mr. McIntyre’s response was, “yes”.
Mr. Ball questioned if this was likely to affect the Town’s bond rating, but Mr. McIntyre felt that that was a question for the financial advisor.
At Mr. Stern’s request for a review of Melanson Heath’s findings and conclusions relating to the enterprise fund, Joseph O’Connor noted that the enterprise fund question had to do with several expenditures and whether they belonged in the enterprise fund or capital projects. Most of those expenditures were for the grow-in period. Part of that was the $125,000 management fee to Sterling, the water bill, and several small costs. In their (Melanson Heath) opinion those costs belonged in the capital projects and not the enterprise fund since the golf course was not up and running and producing revenue at that time.
Regarding the feasibility study, Mr. O’Connor advised that Melanson Heath looked to determine if the estimates were realistic. It seemed as though there was an over-estimation of the number of rounds that could be sold. From their experience with golf courses, particularly nine hole courses, the numbers mentioned in the report seemed a little
inflated and unrealistic. All revenue projections were based on selling those rounds, but most of the courses mentioned in the report have seen a reduced number of plays. He (Mr. O’Connor) didn’t think there had been the golf explosion people expected and more courses were built for more competition. In their (Melanson Health) opinion these estimates were a little over aggressive. He believed this would be the best year of selling rounds at the golf course, which would be about 25,000 rounds or about 11,000 short of the original projection.
Mr. Ball noted that all of this was 20/20 hindsight. He inquired if there was any way Mr. O’Connor could suggest that the then Board of Selectmen and the then Town Meeting could have realized that the projected rounds of play were overly optimistic and inflated. Frequently decisions were based on the recommendations of experts in a field and if those were faulty, should the Board always be seeking a second opinion.
Mr. O’Connor responded that a lot had to do with projected changes in demographics. Was there a growth in the golf industry, ‘absolutely’. He also pointed out that the report was careful to say that it (course) had the capacity and never actually said it would do these (number of rounds). The report looked at capacity vs. realistic rounds of play.
Mr. Lemnios inquired as to how recently Melanson Health had members of its staff in Town reviewing the numbers. Mr. McIntyre responded that it was either last Thursday or Friday. He noted that the primary objective was to reconcile the final number to put forward tonight – making absolutely certain it tied back to the accounting.
Mr. Lemnios referred to page 5, Section A which stated ‘The original estimated cost (in 1996) to construct a golf course on the landfill site was $2.2 million. In 1999, this estimate was increased to $2.975 million and included a small pro shop and a maintenance building to house equipment such as mowers and aerators. The capital costs were broken down into three segments: Construction ($2.5 million), Engineering and Contingency ($375,000) and Golf Carts ($100,000). These estimates appear reasonable when compared to actual golf course projects completed within the past 10-12 years. Bids accepted by the Town fell within the appropriate costs. To Mr. Lemnios the way he read it was that the Town should have received a turn key operation – a complete golf course with a maintenance
building and a small pro shop and that was a reasonable expectation, but here we sit with a $3.6 million course without a maintenance building or pro shop. Was it fair to expect that the Town should have received a turnkey operation?
GOLF REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
Mr. O’Connor responded that he thought it was possible that it could have been done based on the construction of a golf course in 1992 for $4.5 million for acquisition of land, construction, and snack shop. Construction costs have increased, but that course was an 18-hole course.
Given that $3 million at the time would have been reasonable, Mr. Lemnios asked if Mr. O’Connor had any sense as to why it was $3.6 million without it being a turnkey operation. How did it get so far beyond the estimates?
Mr. O’Connor replied that it was very important to have project management from day one overseeing everything from engineering costs to change orders from start to finish. He could only speculate that that was not what happened here.
Noting that on page 4, Melanson Heath indicated that $30,000 of costs was inconclusive as to whether it was golf course or landfill, Mr. Hughes questioned if there were other documents that were missing. He also asked if Melanson Heath was satisfied that there was sufficient documentation to book the others to the two bonds. Mr. McIntyre noted that on page 4 there was about $10,200 that when they looked at the invoices they couldn’t make a decision that was contrary to the one made by the Town. Because there was no evidence that it was incorrect, it was left. That was reflected in the numbers in the appendix.
Mr. Stern thanked Mr. McIntyre and Mr. O’Connor.
The Board was joined by members of the Golf Course Review Committee – Gail Kaprielian and Barbara Chinetti.
As chairman of the Golf Course Review Committee, John Ciccariello distributed copies of the report and advised that the committee, at a meeting held at 5:00 p.m. this evening, voted to approve the report and submit it to the Board of Selectmen. Along with the full report was an executive summary.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the numbers presented by Melanson Heath were consistent and close to the Review Committee’s numbers. The committee’s numbers were based on financial information given by the Comptroller, Ruth Ann Cashman. The committee’s deficit was $478,865 and Melanson Heath was at $476,453. The audit showed the total cost for the golf course as $3,670,573 while the committee was at $3,626,201 and with the water bill factored in at $3,669,949. There was not a significant dollar difference between the Melanson Heath audit and the audit performed by the Review Committee based on invoices given. He thought that there was now a grasp of the financial numbers.
Mr. Ciccariello reviewed the executive summary. The summary began with the composition of the committee and the tasks conducted by the committee. Those tasks were as follows:
1. Review of Town of Natick Golf Course Facility Study prepared by Golf Resource Associates – March 1996
2. Review of Golf Facility Study Sassamon Trace Golf Course Natick,MA prepared by John LaPoint – Golf Facilities Consultant – August 31, 2001 – draft copy
3. Review of Natick Board of Selectmen Meetings from February 28, 1991 through April 7, 2003.
4. Review of Town Meeting Actions relative to the Golf Course Project and Landfill Closure.
5. Review of Chapter 164 of the Acts of 1998 by Mass. Senate and House of Representatives approved July 3, 1998.
6. Review of available architectural, engineering and consultant’s service contracts.
7. Review of available construction contracts.
8. Review of Sterling Management contract and the RFP process for management services.
9. Review of the lease agreement with Dowse Orchards.
10. Review of a Citizen’s Report Sassamon Trace Golf Course April 7, 2003.
11. Conducted interviews with Town of Natick staff.
1)Robert Palmer – Finance Director
2)Ruth Cashman – Comptroller
3)Charles Sisitsky – Director, Dept. of Public Works
4)John Craig – Dept. of Public Works
GOLF REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
12. Conducted an interview with Paul Cohen former Deputy Administrator and Acting Town Administrator.
13. Met and discussed the Golf Course Project with the Golf Course Advisory Committee. The Act stipulates it is an Oversight Committee.
14. Coordinated Committee’s efforts with Melanson, Heath & Company P.C. Audit Form retained by the Board of Selectman.
Due to the Golf Course Project being developed over the top of the Natick Landfill Closure Capping, the Committee included in the report their findings on both the Landfill Closure and Jennings Pond Projects, as each impacted the Final Golf Course Project.
It was noted that the Board of Selectman, in reviewing the report, should be aware that during the course of this review, the Golf Course Review Committee was unable to obtain numerous documents relative to construction contracts, consulting service agreements, construction change orders, purchase orders and similar type documents.
Mr. Ciccariello continued to review the summary:
Section I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & HISTORY
The Sassamon Trace Golf Course was a nine (9) hole golf course located on the Town of Natick West St. Landfill Closure Cap and the adjacent Dowse Orchards located in the Town of Sherborn.
In order to develop the course, the Town of Natick entered into a fifty (50) year lease with an option to extend the lease an additional forty-nine years with Dowse Orchards. Five holes were developed on leased property.
The project was first presented by the then Town Administrator, Fred Conley, to the Natick Board of Selectmen on March 11, 1996.
On September 9, 1996 Mr. Conley presented to the Board of Selectmen Article 13 Golf Course and Other Recreational Facilities. The project as presented was to be a Nine Hole Golf Course, Three Cross Country Trails on the Landfill and property leased from the Dowse family in Sherborn.
On October 1, 1996 at the Town of Natick Spring Town Meeting, Town Meeting voted 93 Yes to 29 No to appropriate $2,200,000.00 for planning and constructing a municipal golf course and other recreational facilities. The vote included that the Board of Selectmen are authorized to petition the General Court for an act to permit the construction of the project and the financing thereof, that included temporary borrowing, for a period of five years without any principal payments.
On October 21, 1996 the Board of Selectmen voted to have Palmer & Dodge prepare a Home Rule Petition.
On February 9, 1998 Mr. Conley provided an update, which included:
1. The Dowse Lease had been settled.
2. Finance Director Robert Palmer provided updated financial status, which included the town losing money, but by year three, the course was projected to have generated $74,000.00. Mr. Palmer noted that Golf Research Associates based their projections in terms of 1994 for running the course and 1994 green fees. That was updated slightly in preparing for approval of the course, but it was conservative. Even with conservative revenue estimates, it appears the golf course will generate sufficient money to pay for the course and $450,000.00 worth of debt related to the construction of the gas collection system.
On July 6, 1998 Mr. Conley advised the Board of Selectmen the Home Rule Petition was signed by the Governor.
On April 12, 1999 Mr. Conley updated the Board of Selectmen that at the Town Meeting on December 15, 1998, no additional funds were recommended for the golf course. Mr. Conley also noted that John LaPoint, a golf facility consultant who did the original study, has now completed an update of that study. The update shows a dramatic increase in the projected revenue from greens fees. Mr. Conley laid out a new
GOLF REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
financial plan for the golf course. He stressed that all numbers were conservative.
On April 15, 1999 Town Meeting voted by 2/3 Majority to appropriate $775,000.00 in additional funds.
On February 28, 2000 Mr. Conley updated the Board of Selectmen concerning the Dowse Lease and Construction Bids received for the Golf Course.
The Board authorized Mr. Conley to enter in a lease agreement.
The Board voted to award the Construction Contract to Supreme Industries in the amount of $2,383,509.20.
On July 10, 2000 the Golf Course Oversight Committee appointments were presented to the Board of Selectmen by Paul Cohen, Deputy Town Administrator.
On September 25, 2000 the Board of Selectmen voted to authorize Mr. Cohen to negotiate with Sterling Golf Management for a three-year contract to manage the Golf Course.
On January 22, 2001 Golf Course Oversight Committee Chairman Edward Salamoff updates the Board of Selectmen.
1. The course has started it’s initial grow in season.
2. The course is to be named “Sassamon Trace”.
3. The proposed green fees are highlighted.
Mr. Cohen, Acting Town Administrator, reported everything has gone smoothly on the construction, minimal change orders.
On May 7, 2001 Mr. Cohen appears before the Board of Selectmen and advised the Board the need for design services for the maintenance building and clubhouse.
The Board votes to establish a five-person review committee.
On June 11, 2001 Golf Course Oversight Committee Chairman Edward Salamoff and Mr. Cohen recommended the Town of Natick retain Weaver & Associates for Design Services.
The Board voted to approve the rankings and authorize the administration to negotiate a contract.
September 1, 2001 the Sassamon Trace Golf Course opens.
On February 11, 2002 the Board of Selectmen reject all bids for the Maintenance Building. Project is over budget and insufficient funds.
On March 18, 2002 Finance Director Robert Palmer updates the Board on funds available for the Maintenance Building. Approximately $230,000.00 - $240,000.00. Recommends Article 21.
On April 8, 2002 Treasurer/Collector Mr. Palmer reviews bid results of April 2, 2002 for general obligation bonds, which included $2,975,000.00 for the Golf Course. Mr. Palmer reviews Article 21, approximate cost of maintenance building $350,000.00 raised by using existing money remaining in golf course bond and $119,000.00 from artery funds for construction of the cap and $100,000.00 yet to be borrowed.
Board voted to support Article 21.
On July 22, 2002 the Golf Course Oversight Committee updates the Board of Selectmen as follows:
1. Overall course condition is good.
2. Maintenance Building has been downsized.
3. Spring Play is slow.
4. Advertising has been escalated.
Finance director Mr. Palmer advises Board – Golf Course Enterprise Fund’s early projection show a possible revenue deficit of $250,000.00.
GOLF REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
On September 23, 2002 the Golf Course Oversight Committee updates the Board of Selectmen as follows:
1. GCOC has embarked on advertising and promotional campaign, play has elevated.
2. Golf Pro Peter Meagher with Sterling Management advises the Board he reviewed original golf course consultant’s feasibility study. The projection for year one was almost 29,000 rounds and he (Mr. Meagher) was projecting 19,000. Marketing has helped, game of golf was not growing and new courses were opening all the time. He thought the
saturation point would be about 30,000 rounds, but the original estimate was 35,000.
On October 7, 2002 Mr. Ciccariello, a member of the Board of Selectmen, advised the Board he had been meeting with the GCOC, Mr. Lemnios Town Administrator and Finance Director Mr. Palmer to reduce the size of the maintenance building and cost down to $100,000.00.
On March 26, 2003 Mr. Jeffrey Phillips presented a Citizens Report: Sassamon Trace Golf Course.
Mr. Lemnios, Town Administrator, advised the Board when he met with the Finance Committee in early March, a commitment was made to do an audit.
Based upon the discussions, which took place, the Board voted to form a subcommittee to review the golf course project and request an independent audit.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that only one vendor was requested to submit a proposal for services. Advertising never occurred.
II GOLF COURSE REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS
The report stated that the following comments were intended to provide a brief summary of the Committee’s observations. Detailed observations and comments were included within the main report.
The process by which the Town of Natick decided to develop a Golf Course was flawed.
Although a large number of individuals raised concerns of need, environmental issues, financial feasibility, as well as alternative uses, there was never any serious consideration of such uses and these concerns were somewhat dismissed.
On March 11, 1996 the Town Administrator had already commissioned a national organization who were experts in golf feasibility. They had already conducted a study of the revenue and expenses.
The Town Administrator had already retained the design services of Cornish, Silva and Mungeam to do preliminary design studies, as well as Tata & Howard Engineering.
The project was driven by the timing of the Landfill Capping, as the Golf Course impacted the final grading plan and method of gas venting the Landfill.
1. The Town Administrator and the then Board of Selectmen failed to conduct Public Hearings or obtain maximum citizen input as discussed at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting of May 11, 1996.
There is no record of any Public Hearings concerning the Golf Course from May 11, 1996 through September 9, 1996 at which time Article 13 Golf Course and Other Recreational Facilities is brought before the Board of Selectmen by the Town Administrator, and shortly thereafter to Town Meeting. Although the Engineering Firm warned the Town of Natick that a Methane Gas Flaring Station would be required in lieu of a
passive vent system for the landfill cap to be used for any type of recreational use, other information provided never materialized nor became part of the Project.
a. March 11, 1996 the Board of selectmen are advised the plan called for the collection of methane gas which will be piped to a location near DPW and after a period of time, it could be used to provide energy for the DPW for about 10 years.
II GOLF COURSE REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS (contd)
The issue was reiterated during the September 9, 1996 Selectmen’s meeting.
2. On December 15, 1997 the then Town Administrator Mr. Conley advises the Board of Selectmen he originally thought that the methane would have to be stored for a year. Now it was thought that methane can be used immediately for either heating or providing electricity for DPW.
On February 9, 1998 the Engineering Firm again responds to a Board member’s questions concerning methane gas collection. The response. It is a big landfill and a lot of gas will be generated. Potential has been estimated at 170 kilowatts. The Engineering Firm no longer feels it should go to DPW. They now discuss pursuing energy reuse with a possible situation where it was generating power and the Town would be selling power from the grid.
3. The Golf Resource Associates Golf Facility Study submitted March 1996 was based upon what is known as a Golf Market Evaluation ie:an evaluation of the probable public golf market potential within the golf facility’s site-specific market area. In the case of the Natick facility, GRA defined the market area to be within five miles of the proposed development.
As stated by Mr. Conley at the March 11, 1996 meeting, he (Mr. Conley) wanted proof more than once that not only operating expenses, but development can be paid by revenue.
No studies other than the GRA was done.
The second Golf Study conducted by John LaPoint of Golf Facilities Consultant was not submitted to the Town of Natick until August 31, 2001 (Draft Copy).
The Golf Course opened on September 1, 2001
The August 31, 2001 (Draft Copy) was never provided to present Board of Selectmen for review or discussion.
During the September 9, 1996 Board of Selectmen meeting, Finance Director Robert Palmer provided a financial analysis of the GRA study.
The Town Administrator Mr. Conley and Mr. Palmer continually noted the study was conservative, estimated expenses high, because they wanted nothing left out.
The GRA Study of March 1996 paints a different picture than the John LaPoint study of August 21, 2001 as follows:
GRA STUDY LAPOINT STUDY
Year Rounds Revenue Rounds Revenue
Year One 30,600 $498,329.00 29,750 $725,397.00
Year Two 34,200 $573,670.00 31,500 $783,446.00
Year Three 35,100 $606,404.00 33,250 $846,505.00
Year Four 36,000 $640,621.00 35,000 $908,890.00
A. It should be noted the GRA Study included revenues generated from Golf Shop sales of approximately 11% percent.
B. John LaPoint commissioned to do the second study, also did the March 1996 study as he was a Senior Consultant with GRA.
2. The Town Administrator appears to have violated The Home Rule Petition. Chapter 164 of the Acts of 1998.
An Act Relative to the Financing and Operation of a Golf Course by the Town of Natick.
Under Section 4 it specifically states “Contracts for the construction, maintenance and operation of the golf
II GOLF COURSE REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS (contd)
facility shall be awarded by the Town Administrator with the approval of the Board of Selectmen”.
Based upon our review over $700,000.00 in Engineering and Professional Services were expended without Board vote of approval.
The same can be said for the Landfill Project, in excess of $850,000.00, as well as large sums of money expended for the landfill construction without any record of contracts or purchase orders, or Board approval.
3. Engineering Services in the amount of $663,944.00 were retained without a Request for Proposal to provide engineering services for the design and construction of the golf course.
Only one firm was requested to submit a proposal for each type of service.
The same can be said of the landfill capping, which covered in excess of $850,000.00.
4. Numerous Contracts and Proposals for Construction, Engineering and other services were only signed by the Town Administrator.
The Town Comptroller nor Town Counsel signed such for a review of available funds (Comptroller) or as to Form (Counsel).
5. There is clear evidence that funds for the Landfill Project were co-mingled with funds from the Golf Course Project.
The Town Administrator Mr. Fred Conley, Deputy Town Administrator Paul Cohen, Finance Director Robert Palmer and Comptroller Ruthann Cashman viewed the Landfill Capping Project and Golf Course Project as one project.
Town Meeting voted specifically to authorize funds independently.
6. The Golf Course Project Cost has exceeded funds approved by Town Meeting, which totaled $3,194,120.00.
The Cost expended and paid to date is $3,626,201.00, based upon a review of invoices.
Cost Overrun - $432,081.00.
7. The Town Administrator and staff failed to properly monitor and audit the finances of the Golf Course Project.
8. The Town Administrator and staff failed to properly develop a Single Record File of the Golf Course Project, as evidenced by numerous documents missing or unavailable to the Review Committee, as well as Melanson and Heath, the audit firm.
9. The Town Administrator and staff failed to properly advise the Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee and Town Meeting of all the facts relative to the permitting, planning, construction and finances related to the Golf Course Project.
10.During the interviewing process of Town of Natick personnel and the former Deputy Administrator by the Golf Course Review Committee, there were numerous responses to questions, which we considered conflicting statements.
11. The outstanding water bill of $43,784.00 was a result of a “wait and see approach”. According to Finance Director Robert Palmer, then Town Administrator Fred Conley advised Mr. Palmer to withhold payment until Golf Course Construction was completed to see if any remaining construction funds were available. Otherwise the bill would be paid by the Golf Course Enterprise Fund.
The bill accumulated during the “Grow In Period” of the course and still remains unpaid.
II GOLF COURSE REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS (contd)
The result is these funds are not available to the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that in the Committee’s initial review, there were numerous documents missing, but through the efforts of Ms. Cashman and other individuals many documents were obtained by going to some of the engineering firms.
III CONCLUSION
In summing up the opinion of the Golf Course Review Committee, the following is offered:
1. The Town Administrator failed to provide proper oversight and management of the Project.
2. During the Town Administrator’s leave of absence, other key Town Staff Personnel involved in the Project failed to take charge.
3. There was an expectation that for the $3,194,120.00, the Town of Natick, upon completion of the project, would have a Nine (9) Hole Golf Course, a Maintenance Building, a Clubhouse and other recreational amenities.
To date, $3,626,201.00 has been spent, there is No Maintenance Building, No Clubhouse and other recreational amenities were never included.
4. The Town of Natick By-Laws Article 41 Contracts, Town Property and Regulations of Town Boards and Officials was violated by the then Town Administrator Fred Conley and Town Comptroller Ruthann Cashman.
Specifically, Section 1 Procedures for Award of Contracts, Section 3 Contract Files and Section 9, Authorization for Expenditure of Funds.
Mr. Stern expressed his thanks to the Review Committee for their work. He knew that it was far more work than ever envisioned and the Town owed the committee a debt of gratitude.
Mr. Stern stated that what struck him right off in the beginning of the report on page 3 in the timeline of events was that the first presentation to the Board of Selectmen was on March 11, 1996. What struck him by that finding was that by March 11, 1996, the Town Administrator had already committed substantial funds to retain a design firm for design study and Tata & Howard for engineering. That was prior to the Board of Selectmen being informed about the project.
Mr. Hughes noted that the construction contract was $2.4 million and $3.6 million was spent. Mr. Ciccariello advised that the final contract with Supreme Industries was $2.524. There were numerous change orders and in addition small purchase orders were issued that brought the cost up. About $375,000 was projected for engineering services, but the Town spent $663,944 for engineering and architectural services and another $110,000 for other types of professional services. Supplies were purchased and there were appraisal and legal fees for the Dowse lease, and fees to Sterling Associates for the grow in period.
Mr. Hughes then asked about who made the recommendations with regard to the flaring station, and Mr. Ciccariello responded that it was Tata & Howard. They were the engineering firm of record from the beginning to the end and also for the landfill closure.
Mr. Ball noted that on April 12, 1999 the update from John Appoint showed a dramatic increase in revenues from greens fees and stressed that those numbers were conservative. Mr. Ciccariello explained that GRA did the first course study and John Appoint was a senior consultant for GRA. Some time between the first report and the 1999 meeting, there was an update done by Mr. Appoint. There was no record or document that shows what the update was. The Committee was relying on information from the Board of Selectmen meeting. The second study was done August 31, 2001 as a draft, but at some point Mr. Appoints must have given the Town updates.
III CONCLUSION (contd)
Noting that in February 2000 the Board awarded the contract to Supreme Industries, Mr. Ball asked if the meeting minutes showed if there was any discussion or questions regarding whether this had been bid as an RFP. Mr. Ciccariello advised that the construction contract had been put out to bid under the proper form. Five bids were received with Supreme Industries being the second lowest. The first bid was rejected because of problems with the bid documentation, and the Board voted to award the contract to the second lowest bidder. Mr. Ciccariello noted that in the final report there was a description for each, the contracts that the committee were able to find which show when it was bid and when awarded, and the change orders they were able to find.
After again thanking the committee, Mr. Stern suggested that the Board take time to read all of this, digest it, and begin to lay out a plan of action and discuss what was learned from the document.
It was Mr. Hughes’ recollection that the Board promised Town Meeting to undertake the study, and he suggested that an executive summary be mailed to all Town Meeting members. Perhaps the mailing could be coordinated with the Finance Committee mailing rather than doing two.
Mr. Stern noted that the Board could begin consideration and discussion at the next meeting or schedule a separate meeting.
Mr. Ciccariello recommended that the Board vote to have the water bill paid immediately. He wasn’t sure where the funds would come from because there were no more funds available for the golf course, but the water & sewer enterprise fund was short by that amount. Mr. Hughes questioned if Town Meeting action would be required to make the payment, and Mr. Lemnios responded that there was no source of funds in the golf course construction funds. The only other alternative would be to abate the bill. It could be paid out of the current operating budget, but that would violate the intent of the enterprise fund.
Mr. Stern proposed holding off on the water bill until there was a discussion with bond counsel on how to clear the discrepancy.
Since the Board was going to be discussing this again, Jeffrey Phillips noted that he didn’t see any of the operational issues (that he raised in his citizen report) addressed, and he didn’t know if that would happen in the future. One of the reasons he first came before the Board was on the issue of point-of-sale books and a review of those point-of-sale books. The contract required the management company to keep an actual point-of-sale record of users. What led to all of this was whether the contract with the management company was being followed
and what the Town was doing to monitor it. He also raised other issues like granite tee markers and whether they should have been paid for out of the operating costs. His (Mr. Phillips) interest at the time was if the Town paid for things that the management company should have, this was one way to recoup some of the losses. In conclusion Mr. Phillips stated that he hoped in a future meeting, the Board would be able to address some of those things.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that the Review Committee went through Sterling’s contract and were able to answer some questions. The first question was if the hiring of Sterling was consistent with Massachusetts bid laws and the committee found that through the Acting Town Administrator the Town had actually put out a fairly extensive RFP. The RFP was a two-part proposal – one based on qualifications and experience, and criteria and the second was a fee proposal. The two parts were required to be submitted in separate sealed bids. They (Review Committee) looked at the selection process and interviews were properly conducted by the Oversight Committee and Acting Town Administrator Paul Cohen. The firms were ranked based on qualification, experience and criteria and based on that Sterling was
selected and Mr. Cohen, authorized by the Board of Selectmen, negotiated the contract with Sterling.
Mr. Cohen testified to the Review Committee that he accepted the fee proposals Sterling submitted because in his opinion they were within the budget established for the enterprise fund. Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Sterling contract was reviewed by the Inspector General’s Office and found to be a valid contract.
III CONCLUSION (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the second thing the Review Committee looked at was the Griffin Engineering contract. Griffin Engineering provided services during the construction period and the finding of the Inspector General’s Office was that their contract to do the monitoring after construction was in violation of state statute and they invalidated the contract.
The third question was the water bill, which had been answered. Another question was who was responsible for environmental monitoring when the course was completed. In the interview with Mr. Cohen, who developed the RFP and management contract, it was clear that Natick was responsible for securing and paying for environmental monitoring after construction and it was the responsibility of Sterling to ensure that any pesticides or materials used were in compliance with the order of conditions by the Conservation Commission. The Review Committee did not do a financial audit of Sterling nor management audit of their practices. They relied on the Oversight Committee’s opinion and there was nothing to lead them to believe that Sterling was not performing their contract. It was not the
Committee’s charge to go in and ask Sterling to look at their books.
Mr. Hughes moved to accept both the report prepared by Melanson Heath & Company dated August 12, 2003 and the report prepared by the Golf Course Review Committee dated October 14, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes raised the issue of the water bill. Presuming that the way to pay it was to go to Town Meeting and that would not be until spring, he questioned if the payment could wait until then. Mr. Lemnios felt that the ramifications of the audit report and the legal mechanism to resolve the issues had to be explored with bond counsel. There needed to be a discussion with bond counsel about going to Town Meeting and asking to transfer the unused portion of the landfill to the golf course. He added that typically permission was asked for before as opposed to doing it.
Mr. Stern requested that the matter be on the agenda for the next meeting to discuss a plan for dealing with this in a logical manner. Mr. Ball suggested that rather than an agenda item there be a meeting dedicated to discussion of the reports. Mr. Stern agreed, but pointed out that Mr. McKinley was not here and he (Mr. Stern) would like Mr. McKinley to have a chance to weigh in and raise any questions.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Fiske Street Sewer Problem
In view of the Town’s history with sewer backups, Mr. Hughes asked that the letter from the Fiske Street resident be referred to DPW Director Charles Sisitsky so this same problem didn’t happen again.
b. Sidewalk Repair/Replacement
If such a list existed as had been purported, Mr. Ball requested a copy of the DPW’s priority list of sidewalks to be done when and if funds were available.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
_________________________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
