BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
July 12, 2004
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley, John Connolly
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on July 12, 2004 in the amount of $400,635.49. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $3,910,592.96.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to potential litigation, real property, collective bargaining, and approval of executive session minutes. 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.
Following the Pledge of Allegiance a moment of silence was observed in honor of the troops in Iraq.
MINUTES
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, voted to approve the minutes of the March 8, 2004 and March 22, 2004 meetings. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
STEVE MACKINNON, PLEASANT STREET: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve Steve MacKinnon’s request to close Pleasant Street in North Natick on July 31, 2004 from 12 noon to 8:00 p.m. for a block party.
DAGMAR KLINGER, WABAN STREET: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to approve Dagmar Klinger’s request to close Waban Street on August 14, 2004 (rain date August 21) from 6:00-10:00 p.m. for a block party.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Moran Park
Veterans’ Council member John Crisafulli raised concerns with the upkeep of Moran Park. He noted that the veterans had put a lot of time
and money into the park and because of the lack of upkeep the veterans invested another $3,000 to replace all the plants that were there. The park looked nice now mainly because it was being watered, but required three things for it to continue to look nice: l) watering; 2) weeding; 3) emptying the trash barrels more frequently. The DPW picked up the trash once a week, but it wasn’t sufficient. Mr. Crisafulli suspected that people were bringing their trash and putting it in the barrels rather than purchasing the bags. He didn’t know if that was the case but thought someone should look into it. He also commented on the number of cigarette butts around the benches and the need for the area to be swept on a frequent basis.
b. July 4th Celebration
Mr. Ciccariello thanked the July 4th Committee, the residents and the Town departments for the success of the July 4th celebration. He also thanked the Natick Mall for their donation for the fireworks.
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
a. Acceptance of Resignation
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to accept the resignation of Joshua Lombard from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Unanimously voted.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to send a letter of thanks to Mr. Lombard and Martin Kessel for their service to the Town. Mr. Kessel had sent a letter indicating that he did not wish to seek reappointment.
b. Interview for Appointment to Bicycle Committee
The Board unanimously voted to reappoint Mel Albert and A. Richard Miller to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
Cynthia DeRosa of 12 Walnut Street told the Board that she had been a resident of Natick since 2001 and had been attending the Bicycle Committee’s meetings and enjoyed what they were doing for the community.
Mr. Ball moved to appoint Cynthia DeRosa to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Cory Lovett of Travis Road stated that he had been a resident of Natick for over 30 years, was the father of two, grandfather of four, and enjoyed bicycling. Currently he was an associate member of the committee and was asking for consideration as a full member. He belonged to numerous bicycle groups and participated in the Tour de Natick and other bicycle events.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Cory Lovett to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
a. Tim Collins
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to send a letter of thanks to Irene Del Bono for her service on the Open Space Advisory Committee. Ms. Del Bono had sent a letter
advising that other commitments prevented her from seeking reappointment to the Open Space Advisory Committee.
Mr. Hughes moved to confirm David Ordway as the Recreation & Parks Commission’s representative to the Open Space Advisory Committee. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Tim Collins stated that he lived on North Main Street and had been attending the Open Space Advisory Committee’s meetings for the past year as chairman of the Trails Committee which was a subcommittee of the Open Space Committee. He expected that he would continue to participate with the committee whether he was appointed or not.
Noting that one of the committee’s charges was to start educating the public on the CPA (Community Preservation Act), Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to Mr. Collin’s opinion. Mr. Collins responded that he thought the education of what the CPA was and could do for the community was important and the community needed to be aware of the ramifications of passing or not passing the CPA.
Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Collins had a vision for what he would like the Open Space Committee to accomplish, and Mr. Collins responded that he thought the committee had been active in terms of research and looking at available parcels. He thought the committee had been quiet and behind the scenes and he would like the committee and open space issues to become clear and more in the public eye and part of the community discussion. In follow-up Mr. McKinley inquired if there were any specific goals that Mr. Collins would like to accomplish. Mr. Collins responded that beyond what he had just stated, he had nothing specific. He added that he would like people to use the open space the Town had and get out there and experience it.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Tim Collins to the Open Space Advisory Committee. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO BACON FREE LIBRARY MAINTENANCE COMMITTEE:
a. Jeanne K. Cosmos
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the terms of three individuals serving on the Bacon Free Library Maintenance Committee expired as of June 30,
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO BACON FREE LIBRARY MAINTENANCE COMMITTEE: (contd)
2004. The Board was in receipt of letters from Erin Cummings and D. Michael Collins requesting reappointment. There had been no correspondence received from David Ferrari. Mr. Ball advised that he had been in communication with Mr. Ferrari and Mr. Ferrari did not wish to be reappointed.
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Erin Cummings and D. Michael Collins to the Bacon Free Library Maintenance Committee.
Jeanne Cosmos told the Board that she was a resident of Aqueduct Road and she and her children had used the Bacon Free Library facility for many years. When she saw a few volunteer possibilities she thought that this committee would fit her experience.
Mr. McKinley moved to appoint Jeanne K. Cosmos to the Bacon Free Library Maintenance Committee. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
NATICK CULTURAL COUNCIL
a. Acceptance of Resignation
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to accept the resignation of Anna Mora Mieszkowski.
b. Interview for Appointment
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, moved to reappoint Grace Napier to the Natick Cultural Council. Unanimously voted.
Eric Ruben of Pitts Street told the Board that he lived in Natick for 10 years. He had been a practicing attorney in Natick and was currently the Vice-President of Productions for a small production company in Waltham. In addition he has been a professional actor and writer. The arts have been very important to him his entire life and he thought this was a good opportunity to do something.
Mr. Ball noted that the Council worked on a puny budget and the challenge for the Council was figuring out how best to grant the money, which was a daunting one. Did Mr. Ruben have any knowledge or hope for improvement in funding for the various councils?
Mr. Ruben responded that he was familiar with the process of applying for grants and aware of ways of petitioning various government entities. He had been active with the Congregational Church raising money and they have gotten grants. Being creative sometimes meant making a lot out of a little. He has worked with charities before although they didn’t bring in millions of dollars.
It was Mr. Ball’s understanding that all the funds distributed by the Council came from the Mass Council and it’s been cut back dramatically. He believed the Mass Council was the sole source of funding for the local council.
Mr. Ruben noted that money wasn’t the only resource available. It would be nice if the government made more money available, but a lot of people’s time and effort on their own can do certain things of a cultural nature.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Eric Ruben to the Natick Cultural Council. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Teresa Pagliuca stated that she had lived in Natick for 20 years and had been a professional photographer for 30 years. She was the multi-media coordinator for Framingham State College and was involved in a number of different aspects of the arts. Three times she had applied for a grant from the Arts Council and received two. With her talents and background she thought she could add to the Council.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Teresa Pagliuca to the Natick Cultural Council. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT AS REPRESENTATIVE TO MBTA ADVISORY BOARD
a. Karen Schlosberg
In a letter to the Board, Elizabeth Bransfield who had served as Natick’s representative to the MBTA Advisory Board informed the Board that she did
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT AS REPRESENTATIVE TO MBTA ADVISORY BOARD (contd)
not wish to seek reappointment. Mr. Hughes moved that a special letter of thanks be sent to Ms. Bransfield for her admirable service to the Town. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Karen Schlosberg told the Board that she had been a resident of Natick for four years and had been a rider on the commuter rail for quite awhile. She didn’t know a lot about the job as representative to the Advisory Board but she had talked to a number of commuters and would very much like to be able to take the comments she heard and make sure they were getting heard. It was important for the MBTA to be constantly reminded that the people using the service would like to get some value.
As suggested by Mr. Hughes, Ms. Schlosberg said she would speak with Ms. Bransfield about the position.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Karen Schlosberg as Natick’s representative to the MBTA Advisory Board. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE DESIGNATION
a. Town Moderator
Town Moderator Paul Connolly referred to his letter to the Board in which he outlined his reasons for requesting the position of Town Moderator to be designated as a special municipal employee. The Board had the ability to do that because the position was not salaried and the reason the Board should do it was because it was recommended several years ago at the Moderator’s Association meeting that Town Moderators should seek the special municipal employee status. Without the designation the Moderator could not appear before a board of this Town and speak on behalf of a neighbor or friend. Many years ago in 1981 and 1992 the Moderator was designated as special municipal employee although at that time the Board thought they were designating a particular individual even though it was the position itself.
If the Board did not make that designation, the Moderator would have to think seriously about representing others before any board in town.
Mr. Ball inquired if there were any current instances where this would affect Mr. Connolly directly or if he (Mr. Connolly) were dealing with generalities or was interested in representing some groups before some boards. Mr. Connolly responded that he had spoken to other boards in the past, sometimes as Moderator and he had spoken on behalf of others before the Planning Board. At this particular time he did not know when he would be doing it over the next few months. This was a protection of a class.
Mr. Hughes asked if there was any distinction of representation of these individuals between compensated or non-compensated and Mr. Connolly’s response was, “no”.
Although the concept of Special Municipal Employee continued to confuse him, Mr. McKinley noted that his first reaction would be that if by
granting special municipal employee status to an elected official was allowing that individual to appear on behalf of someone else before
some other Town board, he wasn’t sure he wanted that. He would prefer that the Town’s elected officials be just that. As a member of the Board of Selectmen, if his (Mr. McKinley’s) neighbor had to go before the Planning Board, he didn’t think it would be appropriate for him to go with them and philosophically he would extend that to other officials. There were occasions where an official went before another board through private employment, but as a general practice he would rather the Moderator and every other elected and appointed official not appear on behalf of someone before a Town board unless there was a specific reason.
Mr. McKinley then asked if there was a rational reason for the Board to consider granting the SME designation other than not granting it put the Moderator at risk if he appeared on behalf of someone else. Mr. Connolly advised that there was and explained that the other aspect was doing business with the Town under a contract. As a special municipal employee it was more open for him to do business with the Town. For example, if he wanted to sell something to the DPW that didn’t have to go through a big formal bid process, people could go to his store and get it. If he were not a special municipal employee, they could not. It (SME status) was an admission by the Town that these positions were
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE DESIGNATION (contd)
volunteers and uncompensated and if they obeyed the laws, they would be protected from mean spirited individuals.
Mr. Connolly questioned why action needed to be taken now, and Mr. Connolly responded that he made a request last year because of the implication of the Finance Committee and that got him to thinking.
Mr. Connolly asked if any members of the Board of Selectmen were special municipal employees and was told that the Board of Selectmen could not be appointed as special municipal employees.
It struck Mr. Ball that those who volunteered or were elected and served at no compensation did so with the understanding that unless appointed as special municipal employees, they could not make representations to other boards. The exception was on the basis of an individual whose business forced him to appear before various Town boards and if not granted the status would have to give up one or the other, but there was always a specific reason for granting the status. Mr. Connolly (Paul) was speaking about the generality and he (Mr. Ball) was disturbed by that. If the Board felt that the Moderator’s position should have it, then all other appointed or elected positions should have it as well and that didn’t sit well with him. Unless there was a specific reason for the Moderator to seek the
status, he (Mr. Ball) was inclined to vote no. If there were something specific, he would be happy to reconsider it.
The Board agreed to take no action.
b. Finance Committee
The Board was in receipt of the special municipal employee questionnaire from a number of Finance Committee members. Mr. Ciccariello noted that the request stemmed from Finance Committee Chair Frank Foss who was an employee of Comcast.
Mr. Hughes moved to grant the special municipal employee designation to members of the Finance Committee for a term to expire June 30, 2005. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Connolly questioned why the Board would grant the status to this group and not the other gentleman. Mr. Ciccariello explained that in this case the chairman of the Finance Committee was employed by a company that has dealings with the Town.
Mr. Paul Connolly noted that he had written a letter to the Board regarding the Finance Committee being designated as special municipal employees and offered to respond to any questions concerning the letter. No one had any questions.
c. Constable
One constable, David Webb, had returned the questionnaire for appointment as a special municipal employee.
Mr. Hughes recalled that last year the constables had been given special municipal employee status because Mark St. Hilaire was a Town employee and without the designation he would have to choose one or the other. Mr. St. Hilaire was no longer a constable. Mr. Webb was no longer a Town employee but an auxiliary officer, and Mr. Hughes wasn’t sure it was the same thing.
Mr. Ball said he would raise the same point as he had with the Moderator – unless he could be provided an example of why an individual in this class had a need to make a choice between being a constable and doing another job, he was reluctant to approve.
Mr. Hughes noted that Mr. Webb was an auxiliary police officer so he had some connection to the Town. His (Mr. Hughes) suggestion would be for the Board to ask Town Counsel if being an auxiliary officer would cause Mr. Webb the same conflict as Mr. St. Hilaire.
Mr. McKinley asked that Town Counsel’s advice also be sought on the status of Robert Raisch who was a constable and a bus driver and Sebastian Grupposo who was a constable and the parking clerk.
JAMES PILLSBURY: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
Ms. Challis informed the Board that James Pillsbury had called the office and wouldn’t be able to get to the meeting until around 8:30 p.m. The Board agreed to table the matter until Mr. Pillsbury’s arrival.
REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ADJUSTMENT: MARGARET FORTE
Mr. Palmer reminded the Board that at the last meeting the Board had asked for a verification of a couple of items on Margaret Forte’s account. He noted that he talked to the DPW and found that the most recent bill dropped back to a reading of 8 hcf. That was in line with the typical billing although there had been some when the bills have been higher. There had also been some question about the billing and he found that the applicant received the elderly discount. In addition there had been some discussion that there may have been a leak in the toilet, but the owner said there wasn’t. He (Mr. Palmer) didn’t have
an explanation for the increase and it has dropped back to normal. There was a new meter.
Referring to the print out sheet, Mr. Ball noted that the elderly discount seemed to come and go and asked if Mr. Palmer could explain why. Mr. Palmer explained how the discount worked. In general anybody eligible for one of the property tax exemptions was automatically qualified for the elderly discount and received it. Someone who didn’t automatically receive the discount could still apply and in this case the person qualified at one time and didn’t at another.
Mr. Hughes asked about the situation with the new meter, and Mr. Palmer noted that the old and new consumption got added by the DPW and a supplemental bill was sent out and he has had that voided. The actual bill now was $42.85 and that was the only bill Ms. Forte owed.
Ms. Forte stated that she didn’t ever recall getting an elderly discount on the water bill.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the bottom line figure to qualify for the elderly discount. Mr. Palmer reiterated that someone who receives an Assessors’ exemption would automatically receive the elderly discount. Anybody with a minimum bill wouldn’t receive a bill at all. As to the bottom line figure, he (Mr. Palmer) would have to check into it and get back to the Board.
Mr. Connolly noted that there was no explanation for why the bill was that high and he would like to amend that bill to a more realistic one.
Mr. Ciccariello was under the impression that Mr. Palmer had recommended a reduction of the bill from $99.25 to $53.95, but Mr. Palmer clarified that his recommendation was that Ms. Forte didn’t qualify for an abatement.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about Mr. Palmer’s reference to the bill being $42.85, and Mr. Palmer advised that that was a subsequent bill. Mr. Lemnios added that Ms. Forte paid the $99.25 bill and that was the bill she was seeking relief from. Since that another bill came out for $42.85. The question before the Board was relief on the bill that was $99.25. Ms. Forte felt that 14 hcf was abnormal. The Town has not been able to identify a clear reason for that other than to note that there may have been a leak in a second floor toilet. Ms. Forte indicated that she had a plumber and he was unable to find a leak.
Mr. Connolly stated that he would like to know why she had 14 units and before that 7 or 8. It was double the usual and he felt it deserved an answer.
Mr. McKinley noted that no one knew why other than the possibility of a running toilet.
Mr. Connolly asked Ms. Forte what she had in mind for how the board could help her. Ms. Forte responded that she spoke to some people and their bill was $40. She was by herself and didn’t understand why the bill was so high. She would like a lower bill.
Mr. Connolly asked about the possibility of it being the meter, but Mr. Ciccariello noted that the meter had been checked twice.
REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ADJUSTMENT: MARGARET FORTE (contd)
Noting that he didn’t understand why the bill was so high, Mr. Connolly requested that discussion be tabled until the next meeting to get some more information. He would like to go to Ms. Forte’s house to see for himself.
Mr. Hughes moved to table. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Following the vote Mr. Hughes stressed that he wanted to make it clear that the Board had not voted any abatement nor had the Board taken any other action.
TREASURER/COLLECTOR: MASS WATER ABATEMENT POLLUTION TRUST LOAN: TITLE V PROGRAM
Mr. Palmer explained that in 2002 the Board of Selectmen authorized the Board of Health to petition and receive funds for work on Title V improvements. The Board authorized up to $200,000, but only $92,122 was used. At the present time this was issued as permanent debt and the permanent notes had to be signed by the Board. It was an 18-year note and it allowed people to pay back over 18 years.
Mr. Hughes inquired if this was a no interest loan for the person borrowing. Mr. Palmer explained that it was no interest to the Town. The borrower paid a small fee to cover the billing, the filing at the Registry, and administration.
Asked how many people had used these loans, Mr. Palmer advised that there were probably 5-6 individuals.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to sign the permanent note.
DPW DIRECTOR
a. Update on Pay-As-You-Throw: One-Year Anniversary
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky recognized the hard work of many people in making the Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) program successful including the PAYT Committee and the Sanitation employees.
He reported that the trash tonnage was down 23% resulting in a savings of over $283,000 and there had been a 21% increase in recycling. In terms of the sale of bags, almost 900,000 bags had been sold generating about $1.3 million in revenue and he thanked the stores in Town that had been participating in the program without gaining any financial benefit. It’s been a straight pass through and the stores haven’t gotten a fee.
Between the $280,000 reduction in tipping fees and $1.3 million in revenue, Mr. Hughes noted that it was almost a wash and was not what the trash fee raised. Mr. Sisitsky responded that he hadn’t analyzed it that way and he would leave it up to the Town Administrator. He added that by the second week of last July, there was 100% compliance.
Mr. Hughes noted that the recycling contract that just ended was a fixed rate contract so the increase in recycling didn’t cost any more. Mr. Sisitsky confirmed that as correct.
Mr. Lemnios echoed Mr. Sisitsky’s comments and recognized the work of the PAYT committee in putting the program together as well as the DPW staff for doing an outstanding job in working with the committee. Not every committee had as smooth a transition. The Town had received very few calls of complaint and most people took to the program easily. It’s easy to understand and the benefits were very clear and measurable. You see where the savings were occurring and it allowed the department to go to four day a week collection and free up a crew for other projects. It’s been a success for the committee and he thanked the Board of Selectmen, the PAYT committee and the employees who work on the trucks and DPW administration.
In addition to echoing the previous comments, Mr. Hughes extended thanks to the citizens. The citizens understood the program and it worked the way everybody thought it would. There was some confusion this week with trash pickup and recycling and he asked Mr. Sisitsky to comment.
DPW DIRECTOR (contd)
Mr. Sisitsky advised that there had been a confluence of several issues – the Monday holiday, new routes and a new contractor. It may have been late, but everybody’s trash got picked up. Today, which was not a trash day, only a few people put out their trash. People pay attention to the policy and he was sure they would catch on quickly. Because the volume was way down, the Town went from a five to four day pickup schedule. Monday pickup was eliminated so whenever there was a Monday holiday nobody was pushed up and no overtime. Combining Sanitation and Highway provided enough manpower to provide bulk pickup every Monday. He felt that with all of the changes this would be a very successful program. He also noted that all of the information was on the web site.
Mr. Connolly stated that he was unhappy with the last recycling company and how they ended their contract and he wanted the Town to let them know that. Mr. Lemnios advised that he had been speaking to Town Counsel on that issue and would be addressing it through liquidated damages of the contract.
Mr. Ball asked if there had been any problems with trash being disposed of in places other than blue bags such as along the roadside or other people’s dumpsters. Mr. Sisitsky responded that as far as he knew it hadn’t been a major problem. The Town had over 125 barrels that had to be emptied but they hadn’t seen a lot of illegal dumping. Occasionally they (DPW) would go through them to see. There was occasional dumping on the roadside but not much more than it used to be. By and large the citizens were abiding by the regulations.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about trash pickup at Moran Park, and Mr. Sisitsky advised that as of July 1 the DPW implemented changes in the way it emptied the barrels in public parks.
b. Award Contract: SCADA System
Mr. Sisitsky explained that the main purpose of the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system was to provide alarms for 36 odd pumping stations. Until recently the alarms were handled over the fire alarm cables and on occasion they experienced less than optimal reliability and the DPW felt it was very important to have a reliable
alarm system. A new wireless system was developed to transmit alarms from the main system to wherever they wanted to send them. There was money available in the Sewer Division budget. Bids were opened on April 8, 2004 and three bids were received. The low bid was U.S. Automation, Inc. in the amount of $37,875. The second lowest bidder was $67,000. U.S. Automation’s references have been investigated and the DPW personnel had spoken to them (U.S. Automation) on a number of occasions and were satisfied that they could do the work and the DPW was recommending the bid be awarded to them (U.S. Automation).
Mr. Hughes pointed out that there was quite a difference between $38,000 and the next low bidder at $67,000 and asked if Mr. Sisitsky was sure about the bid. Mr. Sisitsky noted that the engineer’s estimate had been much higher and he (Mr. Sisitsky) acknowledged that there had been concerns and that was one of the reasons the bids were opened on April 8, but it was the middle of July before bringing it before the Board for approval. They had spent a lot of time talking to them (U.S. Automation) to make sure they understood the specs. One big concern was the need to use a licensed electrician and U.S. Automation assured them verbally and in writing that they understood the specifications and that they needed to use a licensed electrician and it could be done at that price.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was a warranty on the equipment and installation. DPW Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau was sure that there was, but he didn’t know the time period. Mr. Sisitsky noted that the DPW was familiar with the equipment because they had been using some of it to test the system and it’s been very reliable. It would be in all the pump stations and by radio they could monitor them from anywhere. The system goes through an emergency dialing system where it first calls the person on call and if that person doesn’t respond in a certain time it keeps dialing until it gets to him. It keeps dialing until it gets someone to acknowledge it.
Mr. Ball questioned if there was some reason the Board was not supplied with the names and bids in the memo and was told by Mr. Sisitsky that
DPW DIRECTOR (contd)
it was just an oversight. Mr. Ball asked that in the future that that be done.
Mr. Ball understood that the DPW was going to the wireless because the reliability of the quality of the one that used the Natick fire alarm was less than optimal, but what assurance was there that the wireless was equal to or had greater reliability. Mr. Sisitsky advised that there had been some testing done on a few pump stations and this type of technology was inherently more reliable than hard wire cables. Over the years they had experienced some problems with hard wires getting wet or shorting out and coming down. That wasn’t to say that the fire alarm system wasn’t reliable, but it (sewer pump stations) was a secondary priority to the fire alarm system.
Mr. Ball inquired if this system functioned in a way where it was constantly interrogating and getting an answer back that yes everything was OK or was the system just waiting to call if there was a problem. Mr. Perodeau advised that every pump station had a wet well and if the station was not working properly an alarm was sent over the airways and it calls. If the power went out, there was a battery in there that
sends an alarm that the power was out. Mr. Ball didn’t think that that addressed the question. He noted that a system that only talked to you when there was a problem and if you didn’t hear anything that meant there wasn’t a problem or it could mean that there was a problem and the system was not working and you didn’t know it wasn’t working. A system that periodically tells you everything was working was a very different system than the one just described and he was wondering whether the low bidder was supplying that had an inherently lower reliability than the other guys. You would know with a system that said everything was working. Mr. Perodeau responded that it was constantly putting out a signal.
Mr. Lemnios asked if the DPW could query what the level in the wet well was whenever they want. Mr. Perodeau’s reply was, “no”, but added that they could if they wanted to go a little further. They had set the wet well a little higher (so the alarm went off sooner). Knowing that the DPW visited every system every day, Mr. Lemnios inquired as to how often the SCADA system was tested. Mr. Perodeau advised that it was tested once a week and if the power was out, there was a battery.
Mr. McKinley moved to award the bid to U.S. Automation, Inc. in the amount of $37,875. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
c. Award Contract: Monitoring of the Flaring Station
Mr. Sisitsky reported that on June 16, 2004 three responses were received from the RFP to provide monitoring services at the landfill
gas collection and flaring station system. There was a two-part review – technical and cost. The cost proposals were separate and not opened until after there was a determination of which of the three technical proposals were sufficient. Lynnfield Engineering was determined to be non-responsive. Dufresne-Henry, Inc. and Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc. were determined to be sufficient and the price proposals were opened. Dufresne-Henry was the low bidder and the recommendation was to award the contract to Dufresne-Henry. They (Dufresne-Henry) were the initial contractor when the Town took over the flaring station.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if they had to submit records to the state, and Mr. Sisitsky advised that they did, but because the amount of gas being generated was so much less than originally anticipated, Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois convinced the state to reduce the amount of testing and reporting. That was one of the reasons the price came in as low as it did.
Mr. Hughes moved to award a three-year contract for monitoring services of the landfill gas collection and flaring station system to the low bidder Dufresne-Henry, Inc. in the amount of $28,354. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Following a five-minute recess, the meeting was resumed at 8:45 p.m.
JAMES PILLSBURY: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
The Board was in receipt of a request from James Pillsbury to broadcast live from the Natick Common on Thursday evenings during the summer.
JAMES PILLSBURY: REQUEST TO USE COMMON (contd)
Mr. Hughes recused himself from discussion of this matter and left the table.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had previously discussed the request and it had been continued awaiting additional information. Information had been received from Natick Pegasus that included Mr. Pillsbury’s membership form, a reaffirmation of responsibility, and producer’s agreement. In addition there was a memo from the Recreation & Parks Commission and an e-mail from Grave Easton in support of the broadcast.
Mr. McKinley stated that he was confused with all the paper as he thought the Board was simply looking for insurance certification with the Town of Natick named as an additional insured. Was that received? Mr. Lemnios advised that it had not as yet been received.
Pillsbury assumed that he would receive that requirement in writing, but Mr. Ciccariello thought that the Board had officially requested it at the last meeting. Mr. Pillsbury responded that it wasn’t clear to him. Mr. McKinley felt that this was a simple matter and thought that at the last meeting it was clear that the Town needed an insurance certificate. Mr. Pillsbury responded that he had some conversations
with the Director of Recreation & Parks, but he never saw any paperwork from the Town.
Mr. Pillsbury was given a copy of the Recreation Commission’s memo, and Mr. McKinley added that he believed it was the Board’s presumption that other than the insurance certificate no further documents were required
and the Board would be anxious to approve it. Mr. Ball agreed, noting that the only thing he knew the Board was waiting for was a copy of the insurance certificate. A couple of things appeared in this documentation that disturbed him. He wasn’t interested in the format of the programs and didn’t think that was in the purview of the Board. When Pegasus was set up it was made very clear that the Board would have no editorial input. His sole concern was simply that the Town be covered and with the insurance, he would vote for it.
Mr. Pillsbury suggested a re-draft of the memo from the Recreation Commission excluding #3 (the format of programs to be used during the weekly series along with any signage to be displayed) and then he didn’t have a problem. Mr. McKinley pointed out that the Recreation Commission memo was a recommendation, but the Board had the final authority. He felt that Mr. Pillsbury could safely conclude from Mr. Ball and his own statements that the only thing needed was an insurance certificate.
Mr. Lemnios noted that the Recreation Commission wasn’t interested in the content, it was more if there was going to be an audience. They were more interested in the logistics. Everybody understood that it would be inappropriate to get into the content issues.
If the Board were to vote approval conditioned upon providing insurance, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how fast Mr. Pillsbury could get the certificate into the office. Mr. Pillsbury noted that last year when Boston required $1 million of liability insurance, he called his insurance company and they don’t sell the liability coverage he was looking for. At this moment he had no idea how he would get insurance and he thought it would be discussed with better legal minds than his. He didn’t have an answer.
Mr. McKinley noted that in his business he carried a blanket insurance policy, but if a client required them to be named as an additional insured, he just had to call the insurance agency. Mr. Pillsbury reminded Mr. McKinley that he was just a public access television show. It was volunteer TV and just free speech on camera. He didn’t have a business. Mr. McKinley asked if there were no production company per se and Mr. Pillsbury responded that he produced live TV. Asked if there was a legal entity, Mr. Pillsbury replied that it was Home Grown Production.
Mr. Ball recalled discussing the possibility of Pegasus providing the umbrella for this broadcast. Pegasus Executive Director Geralyn Lemieux responded that Mr. Pillsbury was an independent producer of a public access show. He (Mr. Pillsbury) was a member and used Natick Pegasus’ equipment and facility, but the show was not a production of
JAMES PILLSBURY: REQUEST TO USE COMMON (contd)
Natick Pegasus and it was not Pegasus’ practice to insure independent producers. If it were a Natick Pegasus production, it would be insured. She referred to what members had to sign as an independent
producer, which indemnified the Town of Natick, Pegasus, Comcast, and RCN. It was not a certificate of insurance, but it did indemnify the Town. If the Board so wished she could present the question to the Board of Directors.
Mr. Ball urged Ms. Lemieux to do that, adding that Mr. Pillsbury was an example of many others who will raise this same issue and either Natick Pegasus would cover them under their umbrella or not. He hoped that Pegasus would do it in this case because Mr. Pillsbury was a one-man band.
Ms. Lemieux responded that that was not a common practice and she didn’t know of any other situation where a public access corp. assumed responsibility for their independent producers. Pegasus would extend themselves to help Mr. Pillsbury and she would make some telephone calls to see if a one-day rider could be attained. She noted that when people report the news they don’t have to get insurance because it was not an event. This was an event because it involved more than just reporting the news from the sidewalk. The Board of Directors had an executive session scheduled for Wednesday evening and she would bring it up and in the meantime she would contact her colleagues to see about the possibility of a one-day rider.
Mr. Pillsbury noted that he had been doing this show for two years. Last year he did a show from Barnstable and had done shows in Framingham, the Flag Day Parade, and the Boston Common and to date he hadn’t had this request of insurance. He would love to say that he had insurance since he wanted to go live this Thursday, but it didn’t appear that he would be able to overcome the insurance hurdle. He would get back to the Board as soon as he knew something.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Pillsbury wanted to be notified in writing of the insurance requirement, but Mr. Pillsbury indicated that he had the Recreation Commission memo.
Mr. McKinley clarified that this was not an onerous burden being placed specifically on Mr. Pillsbury. This (insurance requirement) was
something in place since as long as he (Mr. McKinley) had been on the Board and it was not something Mr. Pillsbury should take personally.
Mr. Pillsbury responded that he didn’t take it personally, but years ago the insurance thing wasn’t part of free speech. Mr. McKinley countered that the issue wasn’t free speech. It was that Mr. Pillsbury wanted to produce a live show on public property.
Mr. Pillsbury thanked the Board for their time.
Mr. Hughes returned to the table.
RCN: AMENDMENT OF LICENSE
Representing RCN was Thomas Steel, Vice-President and Regulatory Counsel.
Mr. Steel noted that he had been before the Board in the past and had sent Mr. Lemnios two letters. He wasn’t necessarily looking for a vote up or down on the amendment to the license, but wanted to open a
dialog. He was aware that there was an open breech proceeding. RCN’s parent corporation had filed Chapter 11 the end of May and would be filing a plan by the end of this month, with agreement from the bondholders and banks, and hopefully in the fourth quarter they would come out of Chapter 11 a much more vibrant company.
As to why he was here tonight, Mr. Steel explained that he was going around to the communities RCN served to see if some outstanding compliance issues could be resolved particularly regarding completing the build out. If that could be done not only would they come out of debt but could say to new investors that they were free from any significant liability. He had put on the table some $50,000 for the relief (from the build out). RCN had one outstanding I-Net location at the gazebo and they were anxious to follow-through. Chairman of the Natick Cable Advisory Board Hank Szretter had some wireless proposals and the cost was about $15,000.
RCN: AMENDMENT OF LICENSE (contd)
Mr. Steel continued that there were a number of multiple dwelling units that were difficult to reach because of underground costs, but they would continue to try to reach those. They tried to respond to MDU (multiple dwelling units), but there was a hardcore of 657 that they didn’t think they would be in a position to reach because of cost prohibitions. He reiterated that he was looking to open a dialog.
Mr. Steel had distributed a list of underground areas, and Mr. Hughes inquired if they were the 657 hardcore. Mr. Steel responded that it was the best he could get in terms of pinning down addresses that were not service ready and not likely to be. Mr. Hughes noted that there were 94 underground units where he used to live that weren’t on this list, and Mr. Steel responded that that was why he was not asking the Board to vote. He was not sure of the specifics. Asked if the 94 should be on the list, Mr. Steel noted that if they were underground and not served now, it was likely that they should be included. Mr. Hughes noted that he was trying to get a handle on who would not get served and Mr. Steel offered that it was at least that many (on the list) and then some MDU’s.
To Mr. Hughes’ inquiry as to what was meant by landlord access, Mr. Steel advised that it was when RCN approached an apartment building and the landlord didn’t allow them in. Natick Village was 1,500 units plus Kendall Green and he (Mr. Steel) was confident that once they got to the building, they could use the inside wire.
Having gone through the minutes of a prior meeting at which Mr. Steel appeared, Mr. Ball read off some numbers and asked Mr. Steel if they were correct. In September 2003 Mr. Steel had said there was a total of 14,000+ addresses in Natick and he (Mr. Ball) assumed that was both residential and business. Mr. Steel agreed that there were some commercial addresses mixed in. At that time (September 2003) Mr. Steel had said that the RCN network passed 11,803 addresses and there were 2,434 cold node addresses not passed by RCN. Mr. Steel agreed. Mr. Ball continued that of the 11,800, 2,500 could not be offered service and it wasn’t clear why. Mr. Steel noted that there were some 2,000 inactive nodes. Mr. Ball commented that there were just under 5,000 addresses that could not be offered
service by RCN, but Mr. Steel thought it was closer to 4,000. With 4,000 plus addresses, some of
which were business but mostly residential, Mr. Ball noted that there was roughly 30% of the total addresses that could not be serviced by RCN.
Mr. Ball continued that RCN’s penetration of market was about 25% and of those 4,500 cold nodes, RCN could see another 1,100 customers.
There were 1,100 potential customers who were not going to be covered at this juncture because RCN couldn’t make service available. Mr. Steel replied that the number may not be that high, but would agree to saying that there were 1,000 in the end that might want RCN’s service that couldn’t be reached.
Mr. Ball pointed out that if those 1,000 customers were all on board at an average billing of $125 per month that would mean $1.4 million per year. There was a potential $1.4 million that RCN could sign up if RCN could offer the service. He inquired as to what the cost would be to provide underground service to everywhere in Town and Mr. Steel gave the number as $2.4 million. Mr. Ball noted that in less than two years RCN would recover its investment, but Mr. Steel advised that it didn’t work that way. Mr. McKinley pointed out that in order to provide the service RCN incurred the expense of providing the service.
Mr. Steel added that it would be great to build it out and if they were the exclusive provider of service and had 15-20 years, there would be plenty of time to recoup the cost. He noted that he had talked before about the difference in the market and there was an aggressive company in Comcast. Mr. Lemnios, however, reminded Mr. Steel that when RCN applied for the license they knew about all of the underground. A lot of the arguments being put forward was shock about changes in the business climate, but when RCN started in Natick they knew DirecTV was around and they knew they were coming in with established competition and knew it was a community that had put in a lot of underground service. While he (Mr. Lemnios) understood that business conditions changed, Mr. Steel was portraying it as being shocked and
most of these conditions were known conditions when RCN applied for the license.
RCN: AMENDMENT OF LICENSE (contd)
Mr. Steel replied that he would respectfully disagree. RCN knew there was a competitor, knew there was a certain amount of underground, and knew there was a big push going from the fiber, but the fundamental point that changed that caused RCN to lose control of its destiny was the way Wall Street viewed their business. They couldn’t get any new investors and had to show profitability in order to do so.
Mr. Lemnios inquired as to what RCN anticipated for market penetration when they entered into the contract. Mr. Steel advised that they could succeed at 30%. Mr. Lemnios noted that at 30% RCN thought they could fulfill all of the terms of the contract, but Mr. Steel countered that there were prohibitive costs that skew that. To Mr. Lemnios it was a simple question and Mr. Steel answered 30% and RCN was now at 27%.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to what problem was trying to be resolved tonight.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he didn’t want to take any action until he had a real sense of the number. RCN was asking for relief from a portion of the contract, but the Board didn’t know how many homes
weren’t serviced. Mr. Steel acknowledged that he needed to get the specifics, but he just wanted to know that he could work with the Board. Mr. Hughes stated that he had difficulty entering into negotiations unless he knew what was being talked about.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested that Mr. Steel come back with a real specific solid list of all the residential that RCN couldn’t get to. Mr. Hughes noted that RCN wasn’t in any of the underground parts of the Town. There were substantial parts of the Town that were underground that weren’t on the list and he (Mr. Hughes) wanted to see the whole list.
Mr. Lemnios requested that Mr. Steel provide a system map to see where the RCN lines ran.
UPDATE GOLF COURSE REVENUE/EXPENDITURE
Mr. Lemnios advised that for Fiscal 2004 the revenue projections were surpassed and the expenditures were below projections and that in part was due to the work of Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini, Comptroller Ruthann Cashman, Finance Director Robert Palmer, Golf Manager Peter Meagher, and Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois doing quite a bit of work on the environmental portion. The course was performing the way in January-February it was projected to be performing.
Finance Director Robert Palmer presented a snapshot of the course’s performance. Referring to a spread sheet, he indicated that the rounds of play was up 17.93% and noted that that information came from Peter Meagher the course manager. Mr. Palmer then noted that the operating expenses from 2003 to 2004 were reduced by $86,726 down to $833,923 or 9.42%. Operating revenue was increased in 2004 by $62,236 or 14.58%.
In doing a budget to actual for FY04, the operating expenses came in under by 6.73% and the operating revenue was $459,056, which was a little over $30,000 more than projected or 6.5%. Position wise the course was about $90,000 better (than FY03). Expenses were well under control and revenue was exceeding the budget projections. It put the
course in a favorable position as the FY04 books were closed. He would have more details as the numbers were finalized.
Mr. McKinley asked about May and June, and was told by Mr. Palmer that it was ahead of last year. He would provide the Board with the month-to-month.
Mr. Hughes inquired if there was a sense of what the proposed changes in monitoring might save in terms of cost. Mr. Lemnios advised that the budget number was $40,000, but if the proposed monitoring plan were approved it would drop about $10-13,000. The Town was scheduled to speak to Sherborn in September. Natick’s Conservation Commission has approved it.
Mr. Hughes asked if the operating expenses included the debt service and Mr. Palmer advised that everything was included. He added that there was an anticipated shortfall of $435,000.
UPDATE GOLF COURSE REVENUE/EXPENDITURE (contd)
Mr. Hughes then inquired if the course was only $64,000 away from breaking even excluding debt service. Mr. Palmer agreed that it was
getting close. Mr. Lemnios recalled that when the presentations were made in January and February because the course was built and the Town was committed whether the course was kept opened or close, the goal was to make the operating costs wash. He was happy with the performance of the course. It was hitting and surpassing the revenue number and
operating expenses have tightened up. He was hearing from people working there that there was a lot more play during the week and there were more repeat customers and more league play. A couple of Saturday’s ago if you called after 10:00 a.m., it was sold out for the day.
To Mr. Hughes it looked like the deficit was made up of the debt service and the lease payment and those were two things that would have to be paid whether the course was operating or not.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR COMPENSATION
The Board was in receipt of a memo from Mr. Lemnios advising that he had four vacation days that he was carrying over from FY04 to FY05 that he intended to use before the end of July. He (Mr. Lemnios) requested a 2.5% increase in his base salary which was the same percentage granted to other non-union and union employees. Mr. Ciccariello noted that Mr. Lemnios had participated in the wage freeze along with other employees.
Noting that the Town Report had listed Mr. Lemnios’ salary as $123,500, Mr. Connolly questioned if there was a reason why it was different than the $118,500 mentioned. Mr. Lemnios explained that he got a $5,000 stipend for a vehicle and meetings.
Mr. McKinley moved to grant Mr. Lemnios a 2.5% increase on his base salary of $118,500 effective July 1, 2004 consistent with other Town employees’ contractual agreements. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes noted that Mr. Lemnios was not asking for any increase in the stipend for an automobile and meetings. Mr. Lemnios confirmed that as being correct.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Mr. Hughes reported that the Fire Study Committee had approved an RFP that was let out, and had received responses from two consultants. One has withdrawn because they could not meet the minimum requirements. The intent had been to interview the responders, but he didn’t know what the committee would want to do now that there was only one responder. He planned to call a meeting of the committee for next week or the week after to discuss how to proceed.
As to the major projects, Mr. Lemnios noted that the Cloverleaf 40B proposal was still ongoing, there would be a discussion with Pulte Homes on the 40B South Main Street project, and the Planning Board was very close to approving the commercial aspect of the Natick Mall. Mr. Hughes thought that the Planning Board had approved that the other night, but Mr. Lemnios explained that they had approved the draft and circulated the cleaned up copy.
Mr. Hughes requested information on the expectation for how the Town would receive the various payments – not just the proposed mitigation but the FAR and the building permits. There had been talk about the building permits being $800,000 or $1 million and was that paid at once or when the permits were drawn. Mr. Lemnios advised that that was
predicated on the whole project going forward rather than a phased approach.
With respect to affordable housing, Mr. Lemnios advised that an application had been submitted for planning assistance with DHCD. There were two requests and that would allow the Town to bring on a consultant to study sites. He hoped to hear from the state shortly.
Mr. Hughes noted that the Fall Town Meeting would be closing on August 20 and he thought in discussions with Sarkis Sarkisian, Community Development Director, that Phase II of the HOOP was going to be put on the warrant. He wondered about the status.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES (contd)
On downtown parking, Mr. Lemnios reported that there had been a meeting two weeks ago with the group and he would be getting back to the Board with a sense of where we were at in terms of needs and options.
Natick Center Associates Executive Director Steven Greenberg had invited the Board to attend a two-part planning charette beginning on September 9. Mr. Hughes asked about designating a member of the Board to attend, but Mr. Ciccariello thought that any member of the Board who wished to attend should attend.
Mr. Ball recalled that the Board was going to get a monthly report on actual vs budget. Some had been received, but it had been a while ago and he inquired as to what happened. Mr. Lemnios noted that there had been one given to the Board in May. Right now the Finance Departments were in the process of closing the books.
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry, Mr. Lemnios advised that it was his intent to provide the Board with a year-end report for Fiscal 2004. Mr. Ciccariello understood that the Board would have the year end some time in August.
Mr. Hughes asked if there would be a ballpark figure for free cash once Fiscal 2004 was closed out. Mr. Lemnios responded that there should be a ballpark figure, but the Comptroller was loath to put that number out until it was certified by the State. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the budget as proposed for this fiscal year and next assumed a certain amount of free cash.
FALL TOWN MEETING
The Board announced that Fall Town Meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, October 19, 2004. The warrant would close Friday, August 20, 2004, 5:00 p.m.
MEETING SCHEDULE
At Mr. Lemnios’ request, the Board agreed to schedule a meeting for August 16 that would be limited to a review of Fall Town Meeting articles.
REAPPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES:
a. Lock-Up Keeper
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Police Chief Dennis Mannix as Lock-up Keeper.
b. Comptroller
c. Director of Veterans’ Services/Burial Officer
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved to reappoint John MacGilivray as Director of Veterans’ Services/Burial Officer. After further discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Lemnios advised that he had indicated to department heads that he would be holding their appointments until the Personnel Board developed a performance evaluation tool and that was implemented as part of the reappointment process. The Board may want to consider that same mechanism for the two employees appointed by the Board.
Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Lemnios were asking the Board not to make the appointment, and Mr. Lemnios responded that he was simply informing the Board of the process he was following for his appointments and the Board may want to follow the same process. The individuals would continue to serve until someone else was appointed.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to timeframe and was told by Mr. Lemnios that it would probably be four months or so.
d. Town Counsel
Mr. McKinley stated that he was quite pleased with the service of this particular Town Counsel and was prepared to move their reappointment.
Mr. Ball noted that the question had arisen about the getting the bang for the buck and could the Town get Town Counsel services at a lower cost. Mr. Hughes advised that he looked at this 3-4 years ago and
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane was more than reasonable in terms of hourly rates. You could find some law firms that would offer an attractive hourly rate for three years and then after those three years
REAPPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES: (contd)
it was no longer that attractive. He also noted that MHTL had lawyers who were specialized and could handle any municipal law.
Mr. McKinley moved to reappoint Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane as Town Counsel. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
e. Representative to Regional Transportation Advisory Council
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Sarkis Sarkisian as the Town’s representative to the Regional Transportation Advisory Council.
f. Representative to MAPC (Metropolitan Area Planning Council)
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Robert Eisenmenger as Natick’s representative to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.
g. Youth Advisory Board
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Igor Minevich to the Youth Advisory Board.
h. Conservation Commission
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Douglas Shepard, Bernard Raftery, and Matthew Gardner to the Conservation Commission.
Mr. McKinley noted that Mr. Shepard had served on the Conservation Commission for 25 years and he thought the Board should find a way to recognize someone who serves for a long-time. Mr. Ball advised that he and the Town Administrator had been having a discussion along those lines.
i. Council on Aging
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Gisele Woodward and Jerry Pierce to the Council on Aging.
j. Historical Commission
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Virginia Lyster to the Historical Commission.
k. Historic District Commission
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Jeannine Furrer, Patricia Marr, and Paul Felopulos to the Historic District Commission.
l. Recreation & Parks Advisory Commission
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, moved to reappoint Seth Levine and Timothy Kelley to the Recreation & Parks Advisory Commission. Unanimously voted.
m. Cable Advisory Board
In an e-mail, Cable Advisory Board Chair Hank Szretter informed the Board that Vincent Evangelista, whose term had expired as of June 30,
had not attended a meeting in two years. He recommended that Mr. Evangelista not be reappointed. Mr. Szretter further informed the Board that Paul Ladd, whose term had also expired as of June 30, was out of the country and not expected back until the later part of July.
Mr. Hughes moved to table consideration of Mr. Ladd’s reappointment until his return and to post one vacancy. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
n. Elderly & Disabled Taxation Fund Committee
The term of Joseph Imparato had expired which left two vacancies on the committee. Ms. Challis advised that two letters had been sent to Mr. Imparato inquiring if he would like to be reappointed, but there had been no response.
Mr. Connolly asked if he would be allowed to sit on the committee. The Board asked that Town Counsel provide an opinion on the appointment of a Selectman to the committee.
REAPPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES: (contd)
o. Recycling Advisory Committee
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Jeanne Stanton and Nancy Higgins to the Recycling Advisory Committee.
p. Town Forest Committee
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Peter Frykman to the Town Forest Committee.
Regarding the various boards and committees, Mr. Ball felt that Mr. Szretter’s e-mail (regarding Cable Advisory Board) raised an interesting question. He (Mr. Ball) was sure that there were members who show up infrequently and he wondered if it would be reasonable for the Board to have a policy of sending a letter to the Chair on an annual basis asking for an attendance record of the various members. In his opinion this was something that the Board should know and the committees could be alerted that this was something that would be requested a year from now. The Board agreed.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Border Road Handicapped Lift
In a memo to the Board Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian thanked the people who worked on the Boarder Road handicapped lift. Mr. Ball felt that the Board should once again express its appreciation for the contributions of the following:
Aaron Socrat Architectural Services, Stephen Maliniak, Richard D’Ortenzio Excavating, Leo Cardarelli Pro Cut, Brian F. Lally International Electrical Union, Scott Russell S&R Construction, Mark Shaw Construction, D&R Paving Corporation, Franciose Brothers Paving Corp, Michael Carr Bunker Lane Development
b. Sewer Billing Policy
In response to Mr. McKinley’s request for an update on the sewer billing policy, Mr. Hughes reported that of the nine that were known about one had come in and asked for a payment plan. He didn’t believe there had been any other responses, but there were responses from 5-6 additional people on sewer who were not paying and were about to enter into payment plans.
c. Hunter’s Lane Drainage
Mr. Connolly noted that he had received a request from some abutters of the brook that ran off Route 27 by Hunter’s Lane to look into the issue. They went before the Conservation Commission and felt that they weren’t being heard that well.
d. Chlorine Smell
Mr. Connolly stated that he had received a call from a citizen asking about a heavy chlorine smell coming out of the water. Mr. Lemnios advised that it was infrequent but there were times when it had to be added.
_____________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
