BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
October 20, 2003
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Jeffrey A. Stern at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Jeffrey A. Stern, John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on October 20, 2003 in the amount of $507,835.80. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,884,261.43.
Mr. Stern announced his intention to recess the meeting at 7:25 p.m. in order for the Board to attend the School Committee meeting for the discussion on school collective bargaining contracts.
BOARD OF ASSESSORS: ANNOUNCE VACANCY
The Board announced the vacancy on the Board of Assessors left by the death of Steven Adams. The recommendation was to schedule joint interviews with the remaining members of the Board of Assessors for the meeting of November 10, 2003, but Mr. Hughes advised that he may not be at the meeting and he would like to participate.
Mr. McKinley noted that he was going to suggest moving it for two weeks anyway because the 10th didn’t give a lot of time to advertise and he would like to maximize the time for all interested parties. Mr. McKinley moved to schedule interviews for November 24 assuming the other members of the Board of Assessors were available. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. No vote was taken as the Board decided to wait for Mr. Lemnios to return from the School Committee meeting.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ball recalled that his understanding from the last meeting was that the Board of Assessors were in reval and in heavy duty mode. He questioned if delaying an additional two weeks would be injurious. The Board agreed to table until Mr. Lemnios joined the meeting.
POLICE CHIEF: POLICE DEPARTMENT PROMOTIONS/APPOINTMENTS
Police Chief Dennis Mannix recommended the promotion of one Sergeant to Lieutenant, two patrol officers to Sergeant, and the appointment of two patrol officers.
Chief Mannix began his presentation by recommending the promotion of Sergeant Steven Pagliarulo to the rank of Lieutenant in the Natick
Police Department to fill a vacancy left by the retirement of Lieutenant Alfred Morgan. He noted that Sergeant Pagliarulo was a 21-year veteran of the Natick Police Department, promoted to Sergeant in 1995. His (Sergeant Pagliarulo) department assignments have included patrol, detectives, patrol supervision, and most recently night detective supervisor. Sergeant Pagliarulo was the department’s primary instructor in the use of defensive tactics, including handcuffing and the use of the PR-24 police baton.
Chief Mannix also noted that Sergeant Pagliarulo had been commended dozens of times both for bravery and for excellence in police investigations. He was selected as the department’s employee of the month twice and named Officer of the Year in 1990. Sergeant Pagliarulo was a graduate of Natick High School and Boston University and currently a candidate for a graduate degree in criminal justice at Boston University.
POLICE CHIEF: POLICE DEPARTMENT PROMOTIONS/APPOINTMENTS (contd)
Chief Mannix then recommended the promotion of Officer Mark St. Hilaire to the rank of Sergeant in the Natick Police Department. Chief Mannix noted that Officer St. Hilaire was appointed patrol officer in the Natick Police Department in 1991 and was listed first on the current promotional certification. Officer St. Hilaire was presently assigned to the patrol division on the evening shift. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Administration of Criminal Justice from the University of Lowell, Massachusetts. In his 12-year career with the Natick Police Department, Officer St. Hilaire had received numerous letters from grateful citizens for the manner in which he offered professional assistance during their time of need. He was well known in the community for taking an active part in organizing community
events, including taking a lead role in the Natick Police Department’s TRIAD program.
Chief Mannix recommended the promotion of Officer Leo Fitzpatrick to the rank of Sergeant in the Natick Police Department. He noted that Officer Fitzpatrick had been appointed as a patrol officer in the Natick Police Department in 1995 and graduated first in his recruit police academy of 42 students officers. Officer Fitzpatrick received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Providence College majoring in finance and an Associate degree in Criminal Justice. He (Officer Fitzpatrick) served in the patrol division of the department until assigned as the department’s crime analyst and upon the retirement of the department’s administrative officer, he assumed the responsibility for all of the department’s financial operations, including the administration of numerous important grants from federal and state agencies
and administration of the department’s private detail system. Named the department’s employee of the month twice in the same year, Officer Fitzpatrick was selected as the department’s Officer of the Year in 2000.
Chief Mannix then recommended the appointment of Michael Tremblay as a patrol officer in the Natick Police Department. Chief Mannix advised that Mr. Tremblay was appointed as a patrol officer in the Taunton
Police Department in December 2001, but due to severe budget cuts in the City of Taunton, was laid off from the department on July 19, 2003. He (Mr. Tremblay) was a certified police officer having completed the recruit police academy required by the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council and was a certified Emergency Medical Technician and fluent in American Sign Language. Officer Tremblay was commended twice during his brief career with the Taunton Police Department.
Chief Mannix’s last recommendation was the appointment of John Frissore who was a patrol officer on the Lexington Police Department from March 2002 to June 2003. Officer Frissore was laid off from his department due to reduction in operating budgets. In his short time with the Lexington Police Department, Officer Frissore was known for an outstanding work ethic and excellent attendance. He successfully completed Lexington’s established field training program, meeting all department expectations. Both Officer Frissore’s immediate supervisor and the Lexington Police Chief recommended Officer Frissore for employment as a Natick Police Officer. He has completed the required basic police recruit academy and would be available for assignment following a relatively short orientation
program.
Chief Mannix requested that Officer St. Hilaire’s appointment to Sergeant be made effective October 22, 2003. Sergeant Pagliarulo’s appointment as Lieutenant and Officer Fitzpatrick’s appointment as Sergeant to be effective November 14, 2003. Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Frissore to be extended a conditional offer of employment with an effective date of appointment, provided their physicals came back positive, to be November 12, 2003.
Lieutenant Morgan was in attendance and Chief Mannix recognized his 36 years of dedicated employment with the Town. He credited Lieutenant Morgan as doing the right thing at the right time all the time. Chief Mannix stated that he had the highest respect for the job Lieutenant Morgan had done.
POLICE CHIEF: POLICE DEPARTMENT PROMOTIONS/APPOINTMENTS (contd)
Mr. Hughes commented that there was a time when he was a young attorney at the Natick District Court and met Officer Morgan. He (Mr. Hughes) found Lieutenant Morgan to be an exceptionally hard working officer and commended him for the 36 years he had given to the Town of Natick.
To Mr. Hughes’ inquiry as to any other vacancies, Chief Mannix responded that he had two in the patrolmen. He believed that he would be making a recommendation to fill one vacancy next Monday and for the last he would be doing background checks on a list to be certified November 14, 2003.
Mr. Ciccariello assumed that these appointments were being made to continue the service being provided. If there were four vacancies in the patrolmen, he questioned if it would impact the way the Chief operated the department now. Chief Mannix noted that he had had two of the vacancies for some time. One Sergeant opening was the result of
Sergeant Douglas retiring and the other from filling the opening from Sergeant Pagliarulo moving to Lieutenant.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked if these appointments would affect the operating budget, and Chief Mannix responded that it would not. All the positions were already budgeted for. He added that he lost one position last year and now had 37 positions rather than the 38 of a few years ago.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello how he decided to bring on a patrol officer, Chief Mannix explained that there was a civil service list. Because of the budget throughout the Commonwealth a number of officers have been laid off and they were being given first preference for any openings in the Commonwealth. He did a background check of those individuals as well. He was trying to get a certified candidate that was Spanish speaking from a special certification list and may look at another special certification for a woman so he thought he was looking at a good mix of candidates.
Michael Tremblay and John Frissore were introduced to the Board.
Mr. McKinley commented that it was his experience that Chief Mannix’s recommendations had been nothing short of excellent and every individual he has appointed has served the Town well.
A motion was made by Mr. McKinley to promote Sergeant Steven Pagliarulo to Lieutenant effective November 14, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to promote Officer Mark St. Hilaire to Sergeant effective October 22, 2003. Unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to promote Officer Leo Fitzpatrick to Sergeant effective November 14, 2003. Unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved to appoint Michael Tremblay and John Frissore as patrolmen in the Natick Police Department effective November 12, 2003 conditioned upon passage of the medical exam. Unanimously voted.
Former Selectwoman Erica Ball extended her congratulations to Sergeant Pagliarulo and wished him the best. She noted that she was on the Board of Selectmen that first appointed him as a patrolman and it’s been a pleasure to observe his career and to be validated so handsomely.
A recess was called at 7:25 p.m. in order for the Board to go upstairs and attend a portion of the School Committee meeting. The meeting resumed at 8:15 p.m.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ARMORY REUSE COMMITTEE
Mr. Stern reminded the Board that one citizen had been appointed at the last meeting which left one additional vacancy.
a. Susan Shea
Susan Shea stated that she was a lifelong resident of Natick with a history of service to the Town. She had served for 20+ years on Town Meeting, 12 years on the Finance Committee, and had been the Vice-Chair of the Municipal Complex Committee. She was interested in the physical plant and had considerable experience in the area and what’s happening with the use of the space around that area.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Ms. Shea had worked at the courthouse for years and there had been some issues between the court, Senior Center, and Armory. When asked to identify some of those issues, Ms. Shea replied that there were always issues between the court and the Senior Center because both wanted and thought they needed more space. She thought there had been a meeting of the minds and they were now both working together. The court stopped looking at the Senior Center to expand and the Senior Center stopped looking at the court to expand. The armory never factored into that.
Mr. Stern inquired if Ms. Shea had any preconceived notions of what she would like to see there (at the Armory), and Ms. Shea’s response was, “no”. She added that she would like to see some kind of use, but she didn’t know what. She would have to listen to what people suggest.
When asked by Mr. McKinley if she had any sentiment about preserving the building vs demolishing it and using the site, Ms. Shea responded that she would want to look into the history of the building, the condition, and the cost of refurbishing it and demolition. All those factors would have to be looked at before making a decision.
b. Craig Leiner
Craig Leiner told the Board that he had lived in Natick since March 1993 in the proximity of the Armory. He worked as a transportation planner. Because of a variety of demands on his time, he hadn’t had an opportunity to participate in Town activities and this seemed like a good opportunity.
Asked by Mr. McKinley if he had any preconceived notions about what he would like to see the building used for vs demolished, Mr. Leiner replied that he hadn’t given it a lot of thought between the ultimate use and demise.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Leiner for his background with land use studies, and Mr. Leiner responded that he had been in the field for about 22 years and prepared land use plans for counties in North Virginia and had worked on suburban design plans in Maryland. He had done a fair amount of work looking at the relationship between transportation and land use.
Having interviewed two candidates, Mr. Stern noted that the Board had the option of expanding the committee by one staying with the makeup proposed and appointing one of the two.
Mr. McKinley was of the opinion that Ms. Shea’s background in government would be valuable, but Mr. Leiner’s experience in land use planning would also be valuable and he would like to capitalize on the capabilities of both.
Mr. Ciccariello moved to expand the number of citizen-at-large appointments from 2 to 3. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes then moved to appoint Susan Shea and Craig Leiner to the Armory Reuse Committee. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE RETIREMENT BOARD
a. Brian Grassey
At the previous meeting, the Board interviewed candidates for appointment to the Retirement Board. Brian Grassey was unable to attend due to medical reasons and the Board tabled further consideration until October 20, 2003 to give Mr. Grassey an opportunity to come before the Board. Mr. Stern informed the Board that Mr. Grassey had withdrawn his name from consideration.
As he had not interviewed the candidates, Mr. McKinley abstained from voting.
By paper ballot, the Board voted 4-0-1 to appoint David Given to the Natick Retirement Board. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes all voted for Mr. Given. Mr. McKinley abstained.
RCN: UPDATE ON LICENSE COMPLIANCE
In a letter to the Town Administrator, Thomas Steel, RCN Vice-President and Regulatory Counsel advised that he and Bob Sheehan had been working diligently since the September 29, 2003 meeting to prepare a response to the Board’s request for more information from RCN about the expansion of their service availability in the Town. A great deal of data had been compiled, but before Mr. Sheehan and he again stood before the Board, they would like to have their house in order to ensure that their plan going forward in Natick was fully approved and workable. With that in mind, Mr. Steel requested the Board’s indulgence for a brief extension before appearing before the Board again on this matter. That would give RCN a chance to meet with Mr. Lemnios and the Cable Advisory Board.
Mr. Ball inquired if Mr. Lemnios had any kind of inkling as to how long Mr. Steel might like. Mr. Lemnios advised that a meeting with Mr. Steel was scheduled for next week.
The Board agreed to table the matter to the November 10th meeting, and asked that that date be conveyed to Mr. Steel.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Article 25 – Baby Safe Haven
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board was in receipt of an opinion from Town Counsel answering the questions previously raised. Town Counsel seemed to be suggesting that the article as modified didn’t appear to create any problems.
Mr. Ball told the Board that he had been working with Mr. Flynn (Town Counsel) to address some of the issues raised with the last draft. The language now before the Board addressed the issue of whether or not the Town was trying to tell the Department of Social Services what to do. Those references have been removed. With respect to concern of additional liability of Police and Fire because of handling a newborn, while that was true, Mr. Ball pointed out that any actions the Town takes almost always had some liability associated with it and the risk reward would be a high ratio. Forty-five of the fifty states now had this legislation that a newborn could be turned over by a panicky mother without incurring legal liabilities for abandonment. There have been 10 such babies abandoned and six of those have died
in the Commonwealth in the last 2-l/2 years. Four municipalities have sought a home rule petition.
Mr. Ball urged the Board’s support of the article. Nothing was perfect, but he thought the issues raised by Mr. Hughes and Town Counsel had been addressed.
Mr. Ball moved to support Article 25. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. McKinley felt that Mr. Ball should be commended for taking it on himself to address the issues raised and getting Town Counsel’s concurrence that perhaps the most significant obstacles had been overcome. He didn’t care to predict the chances of a Natick home rule petition being approved, but the more that get
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES (contd)
submitted to the state, the more the people at the state level would realize that people were serious and wanted some action. It was his hope that the rest of the Board would support this article with the amended language.
Mr. Ball noted that Senator Jacques was the sponsor of the Senate version of this legislation and her office felt that this should be state legislation and not done town-by-town, but given the difficulty in trying to get this through, she (Senator Jacques) very much supported the idea of a local home rule petition to put the pressure on the state legislature.
Article 6 – Town Forest & Broads Hill Water Reservoir Upgrades
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky explained that the purpose of this article was to install chlorine analyzers and injection equipment at the two reservoirs. This was proposed as a public safety issue. If
water became contaminated for any reason, the DPW didn’t currently have an efficient way to inject chlorine and would probably have to drain the reservoir. It was a security issue and a worker safety issue. Right now the only way to inject in the tanks was by an extension ladder, open the hatch at the top carrying buckets and dump the chlorine in. A $300,000 appropriation was being requested to do this work and get it done.
Mr. Ball questioned what had changed to move the Town to spend this $300,000. Mr. Sisitsky noted that from a physical point nothing much had changed. Part of what was pushing this forward was the federal government – the EPA in conjunction with 9/11. The EPA requires water agencies throughout the country to do a vulnerability assessment. The DPW knew there was this weakness for a while and documented the need in doing this vulnerability assessment.
There was a letter from the Board of Health in support of the article.
If the federal government was suggesting that a water system was vulnerable to terrorist attack, it struck Mr. Ball that the expenditure of $300,000 would not address a radioactive contamination. DPW Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau confirmed that as being correct. Mr. Ball noted that it would not address anything other than what could be corrected with chlorine. Mr. Perodeau agreed that it would only resolve the bacteria.
Other than chlorine, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if there was any other way to treat the bacteria. Mr. Perodeau advised that there were a bunch of different ways, but they were very expensive. There was ozone, but that would need a different style water treatment plant. Mr. Ciccariello commented that ozone was more effective than chlorine, and Mr. Perodeau replied that it was very expensive. Mr. Ciccariello suggested that all the alternatives and costs should be looked at and then determine what’s best.
Acknowledging himself as having been the rabble-rouser at the previous meeting, Mr. McKinley stated that although he still maintained some reservation, he recognized that the current world made the Town more sensitive to certain risks and technology allowed things to be addressed that previously wouldn’t have been considered. He now believed this was a reasonable thing to do to have a reasonably secure water supply and there wasn’t the risk of discovering one or both reservoirs were contaminated and may have gotten downstream to customers. The combination of automatically monitoring and being able to treat it immediately made it a worthwhile project and he was prepared to support it.
Mr. Hughes moved to support Article 6. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ball and Mr. Ciccariello were opposed.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES (contd)
Article 22 – Housing Overlay District
Mr. Hughes requested that Mr. Lemnios ask the Moderator to allow the Community Development Director to make a presentation to Town Meeting on Article 22.
Sarki Sarkisian, Community Development Director, told the Board that there was a written recommendation from the Planning Board recommending referral back to the Planning Board. That recommendation was unanimous. Copies would be available for Town Meeting members tomorrow night, and he would be happy to make a presentation.
Mr. Hughes moved to support referral of Article 22 to the Planning Board. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Article 21 – Design Review Board
Mr. Sarkisian noted that some revisions had been made. An issue was raised about requiring applicants to come before the Design Review Board for applications that require a building permit. It was decided to strike the language from the article and only those applications requiring a special permit or variance would have to go before the Design Review Board. Mr. Stern was present at one of the hearings and raised the issue of the article not being strong enough or going far enough, but the idea was to get something started before going into the details of the article. Mr. Sarkisian stressed that it was all about having the right people. He also stressed that he didn’t want the process to be cumbersome.
To justify the need of a Design Review Board, Mr. Sarkisian used the example of 26 Summer Street. It was a four-story apartment building with a metal roof and vinyl siding and the only application needed was a building permit. There was no leverage other than maybe putting some pressure on certain design aspects. There was an article in the paper about the Design Review Board and the developer came back with a different design that was a much better building. Unless it was an historic building, there was no design review. In addition the sign code should be updated and that was something the Design Review Board could work on as well.
In conclusion Mr. Sarkisian stated that he had heard that the Design Review Board should apply all across the Town, but he felt that was too much to take on now and he would prefer to work toward refining the downtown.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that it wasn’t that the Town didn’t have leverage. If a variance was needed to get more units, then the Town had leverage in terms o getting a proper project. Mr. Sarkisian noted that it only applied to the variance and not the special permit.
Mr. Hughes was of the opinion that Article was just another layer of government. It was called an advisory board, but if the Planning Board or ZBA got an opinion from the Design Review Board saying that something was not a good design, he couldn’t see them (Planning or ZBA)
going against the Design Review Board opinion. Plus the composition as much as tells the Board who to appoint and he was not sure who the Board had to appoint were the best people to appoint. The Board had to appoint someone on the Historical Commission or the downtown business organization and limiting it to those groups concerned him.
For the most part Mr. Stern said he would echo Mr. Hughes’ comments. He too was concerned about being told who to appoint and he was not sure that at least one category was the appropriate appointee. He also continued to be concerned that the article didn’t go far enough. It didn’t regulate residential use in that district. Mr. Stern agreed that it added another layer of government, but in this case he thought it was a good thing. The Town had made a significant investment in the downtown. The downtown had come a long way, and the Town needed to work to ensure that it continued. In his opinion it should be expanded to cover the rest of the Town. He wasn’t sure this article was ready as yet.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES (contd)
Having sat on the Planning Board, Mr. Ciccariello said he could understand Mr. Sarkisian’s concerns because there was no effort to improve the façade of Wonder Bread and the attitude was that you can’t force me. On the other hand he didn’t want to see a downtown that was repetitive in design and style. A mix was needed. He too had some concerns about the composition of the Review Board as well. Could someone in the landscape business be on the committee vs a registered landscape architect vs a registered architect. Many times it would be in the eye of the beholder and there could be a situation where an architect on the Design Review Board had his own style and wouldn’t budge.
If talking about the downtown district with some historic significance, Mr. Ciccariello wondered if we should be looking at some design criteria as opposed to a review board. He was leery of a five-person board trying to dictate to an architect what’s good design, what’s good style, and what’s bad style.
Mr. McKinley inquired if there were any other communities in MetroWest that had a parallel organization, and Mr. Sarkisian responded that Wellesley had one. When asked how Wellesley’s function, Mr. Sarkisian advised that this article was modeled on Wellesley, but they (Wellesley) had expanded it across the Town. Mr. Sarkisian reiterated that it was about having the right people on the board. The feeling in Wellesley was that the Review Board had a lot more time to spend on the details (than the Planning or Zoning Boards) and it gave another chance to review the details. It has worked extremely well although when they first started, it was tough.
Mr. Sarkisian noted that in 1975 Natick tried to put together a design review board, and it was referred back. He understood the Board’s concerns and asked for the Board’s assistance in getting some language presented to the Planning board. Regarding the appointees, Mr. Sarkisian told the Board that it was important to have someone from the
downtown business organization and it would probably be the Natick Center Associates. Natick Center Associates President Arthur Fair had sent a letter saying that they had put in over $1 million in the downtown and it was important for them to be on this board.
Mr. Sarkisian stressed that it was important to have a Design Review Board. Natick had been fortunate to have good developers in the Town, but more and more developers were looking to come to Natick that he didn’t know and the Planning Board didn’t know. He pointed out that this was just an advisory board and it would be made so that they don’t hold up permits. This was just a start.
If a property owner who was a member of the Natick Center Associates went before the Design Review Board and there was a member of the Natick Center Associates on the Board, Mr. Stern questioned if that would be a conflict of interest. Mr. Sarkisian agreed that it would. Mr. Stern questioned if that wouldn’t happen again and again, but Mr. Sarkisian noted that there were five other people looking at it.
In view of the history of writing rules and regulations, i.e. the Wetlands By-Law regs, Mr. Hughes inquired as to what kind of timeframe was being talked about for the Design Review Board regulations to occur so people knew what criteria to present. It took 18 months for the Conservation wetlands by-law. Mr. Sarkisian acknowledged that there was no excuse for the Wetlands taking so long, but the Design Review Board would have to have regulations within the first six months.
Mr. Ball stated that he did not support Article 21. The Town had a Historic District Commission that was concerned with and had some significant power over the structures that already exist. It struck him that if someone was seeking a variance that the ZBA had the power to say no – that a variance was not a right. Mr. Ball noted that he designed things and dealt with a group of people who help build. He and the group kicked designs back and forth and everybody wants to be the art director. He feared that to have a board in this town, even if it was just advisory, that would depend on their artistic senses would
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES (contd)
invite no change and would invite putting the brakes on projects. While he appreciated the concerns, if someone wanted to put up a building made out something ticky tacky, if they had to go before the ZBA, the mechanism was already there.
Mr. Sarkisian noted that that was correct for a variance, but not a special permit.
Mr. McKinley stated that he was empathetic to Mr. Stern and the Planning Board and shared the goal of making sure the Town’s investment in the downtown didn’t get compromised by bad taste or bad design, but he had an implementation concern. The Design Review Board was advisory only but practically speaking the Review Board would develop a set of standards and review a submission in the context of those standards and make a recommendation to either the ZBA or Planning Board and presumably if the Review Board were going to function, the ZBA and
Planning Board would follow that advisory opinion. He couldn’t help but wonder if a denial would have action for appeal because the Design Board didn’t like the style. If Mr. Sarkisian were serious about achieving the objective of designing what’s acceptable, perhaps it would be better to take this same concept and attempt to develop a design guidebook. Rather than form a board have it codified in the Zoning By-Laws so the Planning Board or ZBA had direct authority to respond to design guidelines. He would like to support this, but as currently structured he shared some concerns for weaknesses.
Mr. McKinley moved that the Board recommend referral back to the Planning board with the hope that between now and April a consensus could be reached on how best to achieve the objective and come back with something that would work. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ball and Mr. Hughes were opposed.
Article 20 – Morency Street
Mr. McKinley moved reconsideration of the Board’s support of Article 20. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Speaking to his motion for reconsideration, Mr. McKinley advised that the Framingham Town Meeting voted to transfer the care and custody of the property to the Framingham Conservation Commission, which made this article moot.
Mr. McKinley moved to recommend no action on Article 20. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
GOLF COURSE REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. Stern explained that the matter was on tonight’s agenda for the purpose of scheduling a meeting dedicated to discussion of the Golf Course Review Committee report and the golf course itself. The Board agreed to schedule the meeting for November 17, 2003 and limit the agenda to the golf course.
Mr. Hughes requested that by November 17th there be some indication from bond counsel how to deal with the co-mingling of the two bonds and how it would be remedied.
Mr. Ball inquired if the Town had informed the DOR of the deficit and was told by Mr. Lemnios that that was done this past week.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the responses to the RFP were expected by the November 17th meeting and if so it might make sense to discuss that also.
In response to Mr. Stern’s request for a quick overview of the RFP that went out and why, Mr. Lemnios advised that the RFP for the lease of the golf course was issued approximately two weeks ago and was due back on November 10, 2003. It was the result of research done by Richard
GOLF COURSE REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
Cugini, Superintendent of Recreation & Parks and himself. There was a set of terms and conditions that were consistent with contracts of other courses owned by municipalities and leased. The RFP had a $50,000 minimum bid price or 10% gross whichever was higher. One difference between Natick and several other communities that lease their courses was equipment the town owned and the lessee could use. If a maintenance building or clubhouse were added, additional payments would be required. Four potential bidders had taken out a package.
Mr. Lemnios explained that part of the rationale to get an RFP out quickly was that the current contract expired December 31, 2003 and he would like to get a handle on the viability of a lease. He noted that there were three possible scenarios: l) Continue as is with a management company and the Town had all the business risk or gain; 2) Put it to lease and transfer the business risk to a lessee and the Town collects a lease payment; 3) Make a determination whether the Town was going to continue operating the course.
With a comparison between the cost of closing and the lease, Mr. Hughes thought it sounded like the Board was most likely going with another management contract. Mr. Lemnios noted that the RFP didn’t contemplate another management contract. The Town’s experience was that a management contract was not a scenario we wanted to repeat.
Mr. McKinley asked Mr. Lemnios to explore some options of what a business model might look like if a maintenance building or clubhouse were constructed and if the Town provided some equipment and if the term was extended to 5 or 7 years. He felt that the Board understood the difference of a lease as opposed to a management contract, but perhaps some other leasing models should be explored that could end up being more attractive.
Mr. Hughes suggested that each member of the Board get to Mr. Lemnios any questions or information he would like to have addressed for the meeting of the 17th.
Mr. Hughes then asked if it was the Board’s intention to invite the members of the Review Committee and the Oversight Committee and any professional staff that provided information in the compilation of this report to attend the November 17th meeting. Mr. Lemnios felt that those details could be worked out later, but he would recommend having the Advisory Committee and Review Committee and extend an invitation to the Finance Committee as well as the professional staff.
Mr. Ball noted that the Sterling contract expired as of December 31, 2003 and presumably the greens would be covered and protected. If the course were to remain unleased for a month or two, what would be the impact?
Mr. Lemnios thought it would be OK. If the Town were going forward with a lease, he would want to have someone signed up and on board no later than the end of January. Beginning February and March there was
some work for preparing to open and you would want the lessee to have some time with the current management company to understand the lay of the land. He thought there was enough time and it was not something where on November 17 the Board needed to make a decision. A process needed to be put in place and the interesting thing that would occur on November 10 was that there would be a feel of its (lease) viability. The process needed to keep rolling because the outcome was not known as of yet. He hoped that it (lease) would be a viable option and there would be a choice.
Mr. Lemnios continued that if he held up putting the RFP out until October, the process would be behind. He also pointed out that the RFP didn’t bind the Town to any action. The Board did not have to take any bidder. It allowed the Board to explore the viability (of a lease).
In anticipation of the November 17 meeting, Mr. Ciccariello noted that there had been some question relative to whether Sterling had met their contractual obligations for financial statements. Sterling had
GOLF COURSE REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
submitted financial statements for 2001 and 2002. There was also a question about the number of rounds of golf being played and who was monitoring, and Mr. Ciccariello noted that Sterling was required to submit a weekly revenue report. They submit a day-to-day report for one week, which told the number of rounds, greens fees, cart rentals and they issue a check to the Town. As far as he could see, Sterling had provided that information to the Town. Since the Oversight Committee was responsible for the operation of the golf course and overseeing the management company, he (Mr. Ciccariello) would like to have a report provided by them for November 17 on their opinion with respect to Sterling Management and their sense of what’s happening with the number of rounds. It seemed as though there was an increase
in the number of rounds, and he would like the Oversight Committee to report on what had transpired through the end of October.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Mr. Stern noted that Mr. Lemnios had suggested holding discussion on this until the next meeting as his (Mr. Lemnios) plate was full at the moment and the goals may change significantly due to the revelations about the golf course.
Mr. Hughes suggested dividing it up and talking about issues that didn’t involve the golf course at the next meeting. Mr. Lemnios felt that the Board could begin talking about planning issues, but should hold on the fiscal. Mr. McKinley proposed that he update the current goals and submit it as a draft for 2004.
Mr. Hughes then asked about the Town Administrator’s performance appraisal, and Mr. Ciccariello responded that he had received some information and spoke to David Baier at the MMA and he was going to get him some additional information.
TAXI CAB RATES
The Board was in receipt of a letter from the two taxi companies in Natick – JFK and Natick Cab requesting an increase in the taxicab rates.
Mr. Stern noted that he was a little uncomfortable with a joint letter from the two sole companies involved, but Mr. McKinley questioned who else would request an increase. The way the letter was written, to Mr. Stern it seemed to have an appearance of both companies acting in concert. Again Mr. McKinley pointed out that one company wouldn’t want to come in and ask for a higher rate, as it would put that company at a competitive disadvantage. This was a small community with two companies and he (Mr. McKinley) thought the rationale for looking into this was reasonable.
Mr. McKinley moved to schedule a public hearing on taxicab rates for November 10, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ball requested that the applicants have documentation available for the hearing that clearly stated what the rates were and what rates were being proposed.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Financial Operations Committee
Mr. Stern noted that the Board needed to begin to address the issues raised surrounding the golf course and the issues raised surrounding Town government and how it functions. In front of the Board were two proposals – one from Mr. Ball and an additional one that he (Mr. Stern) would like to put forth. Mr. Stern proposed that the Board establish a Financial Operations Committee comprised of 2 Finance Committee members, 1 member of the Board of Selectmen, and 2 Town Meeting Members with the following charge:
· To define and develop regular financial reporting mechanisms for the public, policy makers and town staff
· To define long term budgetary ground rules and options for operational and capital expenditures
· To define budget presentation models for the public, policy makers and town staff
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
· To identify methods to ensure the accuracy of financial data presented.
· To identify the provisions and areas of bylaws that need to be reinforced with town staff in order to be put into practice with greater effectiveness.
The purpose for doing this was to begin to restore confidence in the process being used to make financial reports and to develop standards for financial reporting.
Mr. McKinley was of the opinion that what Mr. Stern was proposing was timely and worthy but given that some of these areas might be things that would be within the job scope of the Town Administrator, the Town Administrator should be a member of the committee as opposed to adjunct
staff. Mr. Lemnios indicated that he would agree to serve on the committee.
Mr. Hughes too felt that this was certainly a good idea, but suggested that the Board not adopt it this evening, but take time to discuss it and fine tune the membership. He thought that Mr. McKinley made a good point in terms of membership of the Town Administrator, and there may be other financial departments as well.
Mr. Ciccariello thought it was a great idea and something that needed to be done. It was his understanding that the Town Administrator was considering bringing on the Deputy Town Administrator and was looking for someone with a strong financial background. Maybe the Deputy could assist in developing some of these procedures. Like Mr. Hughes, Mr. Ciccariello thought he needed some time to digest both proposals, get some feedback, and then move forward.
Given the revelations with the golf course, Mr. Ball thought that Mr. Stern’s proposal was a wonderful idea, but the financial operations committee would take some finite time to get going and he (Mr. Ball) would still like to make his (Mr. Ball’s) two proposals. The revelations of the golf course made it clear that there were at least two shortcomings. They were as follows:
Mr. Ball explained that item 1 resulted from contracts being entered into without the advice and consent of the Board of Selectmen and signature of the Town Comptroller and Town Counsel. Perhaps it was a lack of awareness of the department heads.
1) That the Town Administrator be required to instruct, at least annually, all department heads on the requirements of Ch. 30B and other applicable sections of the Mass General Laws, the Town By-Laws and the Town Charter relating to the issuance of contracts. The Town Administrator’s instructions should include, but not be limited to, discussion of RFPs, requirements for multiple bids, separate handling of technical and price proposals and, perhaps most importantly, which contracts require review, approval and signature by the Town Administrator, Town Counsel and the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Ball noted that Item 2 related to the fact that the Board of Selectmen was in the dark and not aware of what was going on an ongoing basis regarding what contracts the Town had entered into.
2) That the Town Administrator require from each department head, on a quarterly basis, a written report on the status of all contracts currently being executed under his/her department’s direction. The Town Administrator shall provide to the Board of Selectmen copies of all such quarterly reports. Further the Comptroller shall, on a concurrent quarterly basis, report in person to the Board regarding the financial status of each outstanding contract which the Town has let.
He urged the Board to adopt both of these.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that one thing the Golf Course Review Committee found substantially lacking was the maintenance of documents and records. It was imperative when doing construction projects to set some policy to maintain a record file of everything going on in that project so it was available at any time for access. That file should
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
include contracts, purchase orders, copies of the contract documents, copies of the as built plans so at any point in time anybody with an interest in that project could go to the file. Mr. Ciccariello stressed the need to establish a record keeping policy.
Regarding Mr. Ball’s proposals, Mr. Ciccariello felt that #1 had to include the signature of the Comptroller as to the availability of funds. Mr. Hughes suggested that Mr. Ball make the changes so the Board could see that in front of them and deal with Mr. Ball’s proposals and discussion of the proposed Financial Operations Committee at the same time.
Mr. McKinley noted that he thought some of what the Board was attempting to address was a lack of recordkeeping and rather than attempt to put into place a policy that should be happening, perhaps the gap should be closed between what was already in place and not being followed. In principal the appropriate policy may already be in place, and for procedures not being followed – that was a different response. With regard to the Town Meeting appointees, Mr. McKinley inquired as to who would make the appointment. Was it the Board of Selectmen or the Moderator. He pointed out that it was the Selectmen’s committee.
Mr. Stern concurred with the sentiment that it was the Selectmen’s committee and he would like the Board to be the appointing authority and any interested Town Meeting members should send their letter of interest to the Board.
Mr. Ball noted that at this point there was nothing in place that required the Comptroller to provide regular reports to the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. McKinley clarified that he was not trying to say that there wasn’t a lack of some policies and procedures. He was only trying to define the policies and procedures that were in place and not followed. Mr. Stern felt that that was what gave rise to these two proposals – to identify what was there and what was not there and develop policies and procedures that the Board expects to be followed so that ultimately the Board and the public could have confidence in this process. One of the cornerstones of the Board was to work on the financial reporting of the Town to bring it up to a standard that was acceptable. There was a large gap that needed to be closed, but it needed to be done in a careful and thoughtful manner. To that extent he had no problem taking a week, a month, whatever, to develop
what should be done. The intent was to put it forward to begin the discussion because it was something that needs to happen.
b. Vacancy – Board of Assessors
When discussed earlier in the evening, the Board had decided to wait for Mr. Lemnios to arrive before scheduling a date to interview candidates for appointment to the Board of Assessors to fill a vacancy left by the death of Steven Adams. Mr. Lemnios was asked what delaying the appointment for a few weeks would do to the Board of Assessors, and he responded that it was his understanding in talking to the Director of Assessment William Chenard that the Assessors were seeking to fill the position as quickly as possible. It was integral to setting the tax rate.
The Board agreed to schedule interviews for November 10, 2003.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
______________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
