BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
June 21, 2004
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley, John Connolly. Absent: Jay H. Ball
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on June 21, 2004 in the amount of $567,026.91. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,594,845.65.
MINUTES
As Mr. Ball took an interest in the minutes and was not present, Mr. Hughes moved to table approval of the minutes of the March 8, 2004 meeting to the next meeting. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
INTERVIEWS FOR NOMINATION TO LEONARD MORSE GRANTS PANEL
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board was in receipt of letters of interest from Jane Williams and Erica Ball. The Board had to nominate two individuals from which the MetroWest Community Health Care Foundation would chose one to replace John Merritt on the Leonard Morse Grants Panel.
a. Jane Williams
Jane Williams stated that she was a citizen of Natick for 37 years and retired two years ago as the supervisor of health services in the Natick public schools. She noted that she has had a variety of positions. She worked in a communicable disease center, as a teacher, in long-term care and rehab and was involved in the Natick schools as a staff person and a supervisor. In addition she belonged to NADAC (Natick Alcohol Drug Advisory Committee), the steering committee for the Natick Community Coalition and the Leonard Morse Hospital Advisory Board for Natick.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how she would find the time to do everything, and Ms. Williams responded that she was retired.
Mr. McKinley noted that Ms. Williams hadn’t told the Board why she wanted to do this, and Ms. Williams replied that she thought it would be an interesting experience. She was interested in the health of the community and not just physical. She believed in the holistic approach
and was a firm believer in prevention and education and hopefully grants would do some of that. There were unmet health needs of the citizens.
In her position on the MetroWest Medical Center Board, Mr. Hughes asked if Ms. Williams had had much contact with the Health Care Foundation. Ms. Williams advised that she had not. Asked if she would remain on those boards as well, Ms. Williams indicated that she would.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if any of the boards she was a member of had received grants from the Foundation. Ms. Williams advised that the Community Coalition had received a grant for a study so she was familiar with the process.
b. Erica Ball
In her letter of interest, Erica Ball had informed the Board that she would be unable attend tonight’s meeting.
INTERVIEWS FOR NOMINATION TO LEONARD MORSE GRANTS PANEL (contd)
Ms. Ball’s letter was read. The letter highlighted her experience which included having been coordinator of The Coalition for Pregnant & Parenting Teens, the founder of an after-school child care center (Natick Extended Day), helping to start a facility serving the needs of adults (Adult Day Care Center, Inc.), and having served as president of a multifaceted community action agency (SMOC). As a Natick Selectman she helped establish a public transportation system (Natick Neighborhood Bus) and she was a founder and current board member of a local arts organization (TCAN) that sought to build community through the arts.
As the nominations were due to the Foundation shortly, Mr. Ciccariello suggested proceeding rather than wait to interview Ms. Ball.
Mr. McKinley moved to submit the names of Jane Williams and Erica Ball to the MetroWest Community Health Care Foundation for their consideration in filling the vacancy left by the resignation of John Merritt. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved to send a letter of thanks to John Merritt for his service on the Grants Panel. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE FEES
Mr. Hughes moved to open the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the hearing was the result of some state laws brought to the Board’s attention concerning entertainment licenses. It created some confusion and the Board decided to hold a public hearing to listen to individuals who have or may have entertainment licenses in the future.
Paul Carew, manager of the Natick Elks and a member of other organizations in Natick, stated that his club was paying some of the fees listed now – the annual daily entertainment fee and Sunday fee. It was his understanding that any organization that has a TV will pay a fee and he questioned if there would be a different fee for Sunday use. Mr. Ciccariello responded that it was his understanding that if an establishment was going to have a TV on Sunday, then they were obligated to pay the fee. Asked if it would be a yearly fee, Mr. Ciccariello’s response was, “yes”. In follow-up Mr. Carew asked if the fee was based on one TV or all TV’s, and Mr. Hughes responded that the maximum daily entertainment fee was $100 annually. Clubs would only have to pay the Sunday fee to the state if
the entertainment (TV, etc) was provided before 1:00 p.m. on Sundays.
Mr. McKinley inquired if multiple licenses would be needed for multiple TV’s or other forms of entertainment, and Ms. Challis responded that Town Counsel had said that they could be lumped together or it could be separate.
Mr. McKinley explained that it had recently been brought to the Board’s attention that the Board had been remiss in assuring that all necessary licenses had been applied for and granted for the various licensees in Town. The purpose of tonight was to review the fee structure. It was not the intent to significantly alter how licenses were applied for or the fees. It was not his intent to go in and count the number of TV sets. Automatic amusement devices were an entirely different matter. Based on the survey (of surrounding towns), it would appear that Natick was at best reasonable with all the other communities and in some cases maybe a little higher. He would have to hear an argument for raising a fee.
Mr. Carew asked if this was state law and something over which the Board had no control except for the fees. Mr. Carew reminded the Board of what the Elks and the other clubs did for the Town.
PUBLIC HEARING: ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE FEES (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello responded that the establishments had to have the license. The state fee was a definite but he thought the rest (of the fees) were discretionary.
Mr. Carew again reminded the Board that the clubs gave a lot of money back to the community and the clubs were still feeling the ramifications with the loss of the rental income from a year ago. He understood the home rule petition bill was going very well and a final draft was put into the State House and that would help build up the rental business. He appreciated whatever support the Board could give to getting that passed.
Jeffrey Phillips wanted to discuss what the Town’s responsibility was in this area and what the fees correlate to as far as services. Do people go out to inspect? Was there a process? There should be some correlation between the fees charged and what the Town was doing. The
Town shouldn’t be charging a fee if a service wasn’t being rendered. He questioned what the Town did that would require some sort of fee.
Asked to explain the process, Ms. Challis advised that the applications were issued to potential license holders along with filing instructions. The applications were reviewed for completeness and if necessary, particularly in the case of automatic amusement devices, an opinion was sought from the Building Department and/or Fire Department. Upon approval by the Board of Selectmen the licenses were typed and tracked for renewal.
Mr. Connolly suggested that the fee be left alone and he would like to see the fees made as inclusive as possible. A lot of businesses already paid property taxes on their equipment.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly moved that the fees for entertainment licenses not be changed. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. McKinley stated that he saw no reason to raise the fees. There was some amount of administrative costs, but it was minimal and there was no reason to raise the fees.
TOWN COMPTROLLER: FISCAL 2003 AUDIT UPDATE
Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer referred to a memo to the Board that responded to the comment in the management letter at the close of Fiscal 2003. The comment referred to the re-classification of water & sewer lien payments for FY 2002 and FY 2003 and reflected that there were postings to the account that were misclassified. When the management letter was presented to the Board in January, it was indicated that there would be a cut off date of March 31, 2004 for making those corrections. Those corrections were completed within the receivable software in late January and notice was sent to the Comptroller’s Office.
Mr. Hughes commented that this was a bookkeeping thing – misclassifying water & sewer liens as real estate. Mr. Palmer confirmed that as being correct and explained that if $110 was due on the quarterly tax bill and $100 was for real estate and $10 for the W&S lien, it showed up as a $10 overpayment on taxes and $10 due on the lien.
Mr. McKinley inquired if there was an adjustment of any accrued interest, but Mr. Palmer advised that there had been no disadvantages to the property owner and no interest.
Mr. Connolly asked the Comptroller, Ruthann Cashman, if she understood Mr. Palmer’s memo and if it made sense. Ms. Cashman responded that the problem accounts were reported as real estate and once the problem was resolved everything was shifted over to the water & sewer lien. It made sense.
TOWN COMPTROLLER: FISCAL 2003 AUDIT UPDATE (contd)
Mr. Hughes questioned if this (misclassification) impacted the accounting of the water & sewer surplus and how it was being used to fund the bonds. Mr. Palmer advised that there was no long-term impact. It showed an outstanding water & sewer receivable that was greater than it was, but it has been resolved.
Jeffrey Phillips recalled from discussions at the Finance Committee that some entities would possibly allow water & sewer charges to become past due and be declared real estate and write them off. Was that what was being talked about now? Ms. Cashman replied that it could be that and when they paid it just carried the total amount as real estate. In follow up, Mr. Phillips about how it would show up in a recapitulation of payments, and Ms. Cashman advised that it would be classified in the proper location and real estate would be real estate.
SENIOR CENTER DIRECTOR: SENIOR TAX WORK-OFF PROGRAM – MODIFICATION
Senior Center Director Diana Ryder noted that the senior tax work-off program started in 1996. Three years ago the state legislature passed enabling legislation, which was adopted by the Board of Selectmen, targeting the funding for this program from the Town’s overlay account. Since the inception of the program in 1996 there has been funding for 30 positions and she would like to request the addition of five more positions. Last year was the first fiscal year where there were 37 applicants and 7 were unable to participate in the program because the Board had approved funding for 30.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if there was a waiting list, and Ms. Ryder responded that there was last year. The new year started in July.
Mr. Lemnios noted that there had been a great demand for this program. It had been successfully implemented and the Town had the latitude and wherewithal to support the additional position and his recommendation was that the additional positions be approved.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the funds were available and was told by Mr. Lemnios that it would be part of the overlay account and it could be accommodated.
Mr. Hughes asked if the Town had the positions available, and Mr. Lemnios replied that there were positions available at the senior center and the library and other locales. Ms. Ryder had done a good job of getting the word out to department heads to submit requests for volunteers and those positions were being filled.
Mr. Connolly asked about the possibility of making it 40 positions rather than the 35 requested by Ms. Ryder. To him it seemed like a win/win and the seniors probably worked more than that (what they were paid for). Jumping it up to 35 still left at least two people with potentially more waiting in the wings. Mr. Lemnios suggested that the Board might want to take a phased approach – do these five, allow them to get absorbed into the stream, and then re-evaluate. Mr. Connolly
asked if it (adjustment to the number) could be done mid-stream, and Mr. Lemnios’ reply was, “yes”.
Mr. McKinley agreed with phasing it and moved to adopt Ms. Ryder’s recommendation to increase the number of eligible positions to 35. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly asked about revisiting the matter in three months, but Mr. Ciccariello noted that if Ms. Ryder had an increase in requests she could bring it back to the Board.
NATICK CENTER ASSOCIATES DIRECTOR:
a. Display Flags
Representing Natick Center Associates was the Director Steven Greenberg.
In a letter to the Board, Mr. Greenberg had requested permission to display 40-50 display flags welcoming visitors to Natick Center on light poles around town. The display flags would be hung from the
NATICK CENTER ASSOCIATES DIRECTOR: (contd)
existing hardware currently on the poles and would be 24” x 60”. The plan was to hang them in early July after the July 4th festivities and keep them up as long as they continued to look good in both quality and color.
Mr. Greenberg explained that a contest was held and the winning design was done by Paradise Video. The banners would be two-sided and contain the Natick Center Associates logo and graphic representation of Town Hall along with the business name. He felt that the banners added to the streetscape of the Town and he would like permission to sell them and display them.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to who was responsible for the installation, and Mr. Greenberg advised that the firefighters union assisted with the installation. He also noted that the poles had been purchased by and were maintained by the Natick Center Associates.
When asked about the life expectancy of the banners, Mr. Greenberg noted that they recently had some up for almost seven months and they looked great.
To Mr. McKinley’s comment that this was an annual event, Mr. Greenberg responded that it was and added that many communities do this. It was part of the streetscape program and the banners (display flags) tend to tie in the architecture. Last year they sold enough to also put them in South Natick.
Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted
b. Charrette
Mr. Greenberg read a letter addressed to the Board of Selectmen in which he invited the members of the Board to attend a charrette on
September 9, 2004 and September 23, 2004. The goal of the charrette was to develop a vision of Natick Center in the year 2030 that took into consideration the needs of all downtown stakeholders. The stakeholders could then use the vision to inform development decisions and move the Town toward that vision. The vision should incorporate housing, commerce, community and government functions; address challenges of transportation, traffic, parking, pedestrian access, and preservation of recreational space and other open public space; accommodate people of different ages, abilities, and income levels; respect the historical character of Natick, and; result in a vibrant, attractive, functional downtown. In light of the goals of the present state administration and their policy towards Smart Growth and Planning, the event
has been entitled: Is “Smart Growth” in Natick smart?
Mr. Greenberg added it was a very active committee (planning the event) and Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian and Mr. Lemnios were very active in helping them. Two state agencies had contacted him and said they wanted to participate. He thought it was an exciting idea and a way of approaching and integrating these ideas.
FOX 25 MORNING NEWS: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Dot Joyce, Producer of the Fox 25 Morning News requesting permission to film live from the Natick Common on June 23, 2004 from 6:00-9:00 a.m. for the weekly zip trip program.
Mr. Hughes moved approval subject to receiving insurance certificates. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Prior to the vote, Mr. McKinley asked about a recommendation from Park & Recreation. Mr. Lemnios explained that the request just came in today and the Recreation Commission wasn’t meeting. Given the limited nature of the event and the organization involved and the positive publicity that would come about on behalf of the Town, he would recommend going forward and approving it. Mr. Ciccariello asked that Mr. Lemnios call the Superintendent of Recreation & Parks and advise him of this permit.
REQUEST FOR WATER/SEWER BILL ADJUSTMENT
a. Mary A. Juliani – Curtis Road
Mary A. Juliani of 2 Curtis Road requested an adjustment of her April 27, 2004 water/sewer bill.
Finance Director Robert Palmer informed the Board that Ms. Juliani’s request was reviewed by John Moody of the DPW and it was found to be a leak in the outside faucet. Mr. Palmer noted that he had done an average of the past two years and would recommend an adjustment of $445.45 for the prorated sewer and MWRA charges.
Ms. Juliani was not present. Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Palmer had spoken to her about this, and he responded that he had not, but he knew
that Ms. Challis had sent out his recommendations for all of the ones on tonight’s agenda.
Mr. McKinley moved that the Board abate Ms. Juliani’s April 27, 2004 water/sewer bill by $445.45 consistent with Mr. Palmer’s recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Noting that this was a substantial abatement, Mr. Hughes asked if there had ever been any discussion of a payment plan for this type of bill or was full payment expected. Mr. Palmer advised that if the ratepayer had already paid the bill, it could be refunded. There was a commercial account where they entered into a payment agreement and that type of arrangement was afforded to businesses and individuals as well. Asked if the payment plan was without interest or penalty, Mr. Palmer advised that if it was a short period, it was without interest. If it was a long-term (plan), the Collector was charged under the by-law to collect the same as real estate, which was 14%. He tried to give 60 days interest free.
b. Robert Thomas – Digren Road
Robert Thomas of 4 Digren Road requested an adjustment of his unusually high November 17, 2003 and February 17, 2004 water/sewer bill.
Mr. Palmer advised that the DPW had reviewed the problem, which occurred over a couple of billing periods including the one coming up. There was a leak in the irrigation system. Based on past practice he recommended a reduction of $460.55, which included the bill coming out.
Robert Thomas told the Board that he bought this house a year ago. It came with a sprinkler system that he has never been able to use. He had one large water bill, which he paid because he didn’t know it was excessive. When he got the last bill, he thought it was ridiculous as it was only him and his four-year-old son. He called the Town and found out that the water was running into the irrigation system and the system was leaky. He turned off the valve inside so no water was going to the system. The man from the DPW explained that it was not water going into the sewer system – just his front yard and suggested that he (Mr. Thomas) contact the DPW.
Mr. Hughes moved to grant an abatement in the amount of $460.55 covering the billing periods of 11/17/03, 2/17/04, 5/17/04. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
c. Margaret Forte – Oakridge Road
Margaret Forte of 42 Oakridge Road requested an adjustment of an unusually high water/sewer bill.
Mr. Palmer told the Board that this was a difficult one. The DPW went out and the meter seemed to be working correctly. There was some discussion about a leak on the second floor toilet, but in the letter
from the property owner there didn’t seem to be anything there that would indicate leak. Ms. Forte’s typical use was 14 hcf units and with this bill she had an unexplained usage that was going through the meter. The history of use bounced around, but in most cases it was by 7 or 8 units. He (Mr. Palmer) didn’t have a recommendation to abate and didn’t know where the water went.
REQUEST FOR WATER/SEWER BILL ADJUSTMENT (contd)
Referring to this history, Mr. Hughes asked if a new meter was put in around the May 2002 billing period. Mr. Palmer advised that the meter was put in May 2002.
Ms. Forte stated that her water bill fluctuated. One time it would be $34 and the next time $90. She lived by herself and didn’t use a lot of water and it didn’t make sense that it fluctuated like this. The DPW recommended that she get a plumber to check the toilets and everything. The plumber found no leaks and said she should have the meter. Ms. Forte advised that one time she had a bill of $175 but that was quite a while ago.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the $175 bill was before May 2002, and Ms. Forte responded that it was.
Mr. Connolly asked if Ms. Forte had received the recommendation for the abatement amount and if so what was her opinion. Ms. Forte said she had received the recommendation and it was very nice but if it (problem that made her bill go up) wasn’t corrected, she would still have the problem of paying a $99 bill.
To Mr. Connolly’s comment that the plumber found no leaks and the DPW found no leaks, Ms. Forte replied that the DPW thought there was a small leak in the upstairs bathroom.
Mr. Connolly asked about the possibility of putting this abatement in place and keeping an eye on it. Ms. Forte noted that the DPW said there was a reading for the next bill, and it looked like it would be high. Mr. Palmer confirmed that the reading was probably already done and would be billed next week.
Mr. Hughes moved to table discussion until the next meeting in order to see the next bill. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Lemnios noted that it looked like a new meter was installed in May 2002 and in May 2003 it looked like there was another new meter. Mr. Palmer noted that it may have been replaced again and he would check with the DPW as to why they would have changed that meter out again.
In response to a series of questions, Ms. Forte replied that she didn’t have any new appliances like a dishwasher, she didn’t water her lawn, and there were no additional people in the house.
d. Malinda & Wilfred Johns – Wethersfield Road
Malinda & Wilfred Johns of 53 Wethersfield Road requested an adjustment of their January 29, 2004 water/sewer bill.
Mr. Palmer stated that Mr. Moody remembered that this was a property with a heating pipe problem that leaked down and out the back door which was why it didn’t get caught. There were 149 units of water used. None of the water went into the sewer system, and he (Mr. Palmer) was recommending an abatement of $1,064.55.
Mr. Johns noted that there was new copper piping put in. The house was basically being rebuilt and they still weren’t in the house.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of granting Malinda & Wilfred Johns an abatement in the amount of $1,064.55 for their 1/29/04 water/sewer bill. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
e. Water/Sewer Bill Abatement Policy
Mr. McKinley proposed a modification of the water/sewer bill abatement policy. The Board has been developing a program for the last few years and it seemed to be working successfully and he proposed that in a situation where in Mr. Palmer’s judgment clearly an abatement was called for because water didn’t go into the sewer system, that Mr. Palmer be granted the authority, with Mr. Lemnios’ signature, to issue the abatement without coming before the Board. Where in Mr. Palmer’s judgment an abatement was not appropriate that the homeowner be so notified and advised that the decision could be appealed to the Board.
REQUEST FOR WATER/SEWER BILL ADJUSTMENT (contd)
The goal was to streamline the process and have a homeowner get an abatement that was deserved but not prevent someone from coming before the Board when their request was not granted.
Mr. Ciccariello was in favor of the modification and recalled one time talking about a subcommittee to handle and make the decision and report back to the Board. If a homeowner was in disagreement with a decision, it didn’t prevent someone from coming before the Board.
Mr. Hughes clarified that disagreement meant that even if Mr. Palmer granted an abatement, the ratepayer would still be informed that they could come before the Board.
Mr. McKinley agreed that if for any reason the homeowner felt they were aggrieved they could come before the Board. Mr. Hughes seconded Mr. McKinley’s proposal for a modification of the water/sewer bill abatement policy. Unanimously voted.
ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS – BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to accept Boston Scientific’s donation of two HP Laser Jet 4600dn color printers to the Natick Police Department.
Mr. Hughes requested that Mr. Lemnios send a note of thanks to Boston Scientific.
DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT
Before the Board was a list of equipment to be surplused. Mr. Lemnios explained that the list primarily consisted of computer equipment from 1994-1998. In most cases the equipment was inoperative and all the data on the hard drives had been cleared. Total value was $1,762.
Mr. McKinley moved to declare the following items surplus in order to discard the property. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Vendor Model Number Description Purchased Value
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP025 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP382 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP063 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP155 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP562 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP209 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP304 PC 1998 $25.00
CompaQ DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP583 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP522 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP002 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP838 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP389 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6PC020 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/240 6813BK6CP991 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/240 6813BK6CP021 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP491 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/2400 6813BK6CP151 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000 M620 6734HVZ6P357 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000 6808BMM8P560 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro P500 6852DCZ2L703 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/M6200 6735HVZ6F565 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/M6200 67335HVZ6F324 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 2000/6200 6734HVZ69 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq Prosignia 200 D8118XP20043 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro M6400 6830BVF2J186 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 6000 9815BSD4D101 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DeskPro 6000 6808BWL3P315 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DPM/SB-P300 6840BZGZJ592 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DPM/SB-P300 6840BZG25985 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq PENM-P450 6839BZM2J076 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DPENM-P450 6839BZM2J001 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DPENM-P450 6839BZM2J674 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DPENM-P450 6839BZM2J01X PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DEPENM-P450 6840BZM2J080 PC 1998 $25.00
DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT (contd)
Compaq DPENS-P450 6907CBQ4A529 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DPENM-P500 6928CKT0774 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DPEP-P460 6915CCk4E492 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DPENS-P866 6031FHGZB958 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq DEPM/SB-P300 6841BZG2J149 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq Deskpro 590 6540HKW2D051 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra VL200 US723311883 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra VL5/200 US72311710 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra VL US72311886 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra VL US72311655 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra VL US72311921 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra VA US63550925 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra VL US61759998 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra VL US63550953 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra VL US72311748 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra VL US61759960 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra 500 US70257452 PC 1998 $25.00
Hewlett/
Packard HPVectra 500 US70355665 PC 1998 $25.00
ThinkMate GN8DMM9330 PC 1998 $25.00
Compaq CompaqV900 918GC02AA456 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq V55 814BF23AJ038 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq V55 813BF26AQ547 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq V55 748BF23AG197 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq V55 913BF26RG798 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq V55 813BF26AQ581 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq V50 705BC050E224 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq V700 934CF03TC632 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Presario V410 743AG19WC607 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Optiquest Q51 5D74930432 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq Triniton 9500C45MA382 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq Presario 743AG19WF872 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq V700 915CF03TA406 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq 919CA45TA980 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq 925CA45TB559 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq 939CD61SP336 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq 748BF23AG151 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Compaq Compaq 939CDSP336 Monitor 1998 $10.00
NEC NEC MultiSync E500 8308761ZA Monitor 1998 $10.00
NEC NEC MultiSync E500 8308355ZA Monitor 1998 $10.00
NEC NEC MultiSync P1250+ 8Y27767NE Monitor 1998 $10.00
NEC NEC MultiSync P1250+ 8Y28264NE Monitor 1998 $10.00
NEC NEC JC1571VMA-2 Monitor 1998 $10.00
NEC NEC JC1741UMA-3 Monitor 1998 $10.00
NEC NEC JC1538VMA Monitor 1998 $10.00
NEC NEC JC-1578VMA Monitor 1998 $10.00
NEC NEC JC-1571VMA Monitor 1998 $10.00
NEC NEC JC15718VMA-2 Monitor 1998 $10.00
ADC ADC Spectrum BCSK81842480 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP KR02713243 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP CN95144744 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP KR71506953 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP KR71506960 Monitor 1998 $10.00
DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT (contd)
Hewlett/
Packard HP KR53070114 Monitor 1998 $10.00
SUN 9715GN0841 Monitor 1998 $10.00
SONY 7134589 Monitor 1998 $10.00
Optiquest 51 5D74931574 Monitor 1998 $10.00
MACINTOSH S13410XNE04 Monitor 1994 $ 1.00
MACINTOSH M155GC004398 Monitor 1994 $ 1.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP Deskjet 500 322698039 Printer $ 5.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP P700 KR7156955 Printer $ 5.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP P700 KR02713241 Printer $ 5.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP LaserJet 4 USBCD45856 Printer $ 5.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP LaserJet IIIP 31314JJ19M4 Printer $ 5.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP 2500CM SG96A12075 Printer $ 5.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP ScanJet 3P 3416J31790 Printer $ 5.00
Epson Epson FX980 BL9Y001185 Printer $ 5.00
Epson LQ2170 2NJY024176 Printer $ 5.00
Hewlett/
Packard HP LasetJet 5 JPKH054994 Printer $ 5.00
Xerox 1K4034901 Printer $ 5.00
UPS Tripp Lite SM1951 UPS $ 5.00
UPS Tripp Lite SM1951 UPS $ 5.00
Natick Police Surplus Inventory
13”NEC JC-1571VMA 6765153MF Monitor 1997 $10.00
13”NEC JC-1575VMA 8308369ZA Monitor 1997 $10.00
13”NEC JC-1575VMA 8308365ZA Monitor 1997 $10.00
15”NEC P750 8713240LA Monitor 1997 $10.00
13”NEC Multisync 6904747EA Monitor 1997 $10.00
13” UniSys LT300-3 493388607 Monitor 1997 $10.00
13” Wyse OMR10C00675 Monitor 1997 $10.00
OkiData Microline 321 712B2013871 Printer 1997 $ 5.00
Epson Stylus P870A 2GRE234104 Printer 1997 $ 5.00
HP Deskjet 500C MY3C21D04M Printer 1997 $ 5.00
UniSys AP1337 011A9350008 Printer 1997 $ 5.00
HP C3961A JPHF164181 Printer 1997 $ 5.00
Epson FX-1180 AUGY011348 Printer 1997 $ 5.00
UniSys AP1329 348244393 Printer 1997 $ 5.00
Epson FX-1170 6211688515 Printer 1997 $ 5.00
DigiBook 1100 JE0281401188 Laptop
Computer 1997 $ 5.00
Macintosh PowerBook 170 UNKNOWN Laptop
Computer 1997 $ 5.00
Digital HiNote VP TS30H 2U82488916 Laptop
Computer 1997 $ 5.00
Digital HiNote VP TS30H Laptop
Computer 1997 $ 5.00
LapNote 6620 X71211098 Laptop
Computer 1997 $ 5.00
ARC 486DX TT020028U Computer 1997 $ 5.00
MicroTek ScanMaker
600ZS S1A4606462 Scanner 1997 $ 5.00
Sharp FO-1700 3010243X Fax Machine 1997 $ 5.00
Sierra VMP200 BC9609100561 Modem 1997 $ 5.00
5 MicroSoft Keyboards Keyboards 1997 $ 5.00
Recreation Surplus Inventory
Macintosh Apple Scan 15 Display Monitor CJ5231J639X
Macintosh Power Mac 7200/90, Hard Drive FC53802G55F
Macintosh Keyboard NN522FZQ33G
Macintosh Apple Scan 15 Display Monitor CJ5231FE39X
Macintosh Power Mac 7200/90 Hard Drive FC53356CC55F
Macintosh Keyboard NN522FZV33G
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR: UPDATE ON DOUBLE POLES
Mr. Lemnios updated the Board on the issue of double poles. He noted that at the last meeting there was a commitment from Nstar of 25 poles and Verizon was similar. He had a meeting with Nstar and Verizon, and Verizon committed to 125 poles and this morning Nstar made a similar commitment via e-mail.
Mr. McKinley inquired if it included the 25 poles a day they (Nstar) had been planting, and Mr. Lemnios responded that at this point according to Nstar records the number of poles available to be removed was 100. If Verizon was committed to getting off 125 by the end of September, Nstar could commit to that as well.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Sherman Street Sidewalks
Mr. Connolly called attention to a letter from George Burke of 21 Sherman Street concerning his wife’s fall on the sidewalk on Sherman, which Mr. Burke attributed to all the work that had been done on the street and the temporary condition of the sidewalk and street for two years.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that Mr. Lemnios and he had been following up on this claim and Mr. Lemnios had spoken with Mr. Burke.
b. Elder Tax Relief
Mr. Connolly noted that he had been assigned to elder tax relief on the list of goals and he would like to update the Board at the next meeting. His idea was to hold a citizen’s Town Meeting. He had talked to the Council on Aging, Catholic Charities, and the Assessors’ Office.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
____________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
