BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
September 26, 2005
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Jay H. Ball at 6:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly, John Ciccariello
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on September 26, 2005 in the amount of $535,136.69. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,075,225.76.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gloff, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation and approval of executive session minutes. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 5-0-0 vote. At 6:06 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES
With correction as noted, on a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2005 meeting.
REQUEST TO CLOSE DRAPER STREET: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve Kathleen Landry’s request to close Draper Street on October 15, 2005 from 2:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. for a block party.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION: NATICK ARTS COUNCIL – ERIC RUBEN
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to accept the resignation of Eric Ruben from the Natick Cultural Council with thanks.
TCAN: REQUEST FOR BANNER
The Board unanimously voted to approve TCAN’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of October 24-November 5, 2005 in advertisement of the Benefit for The Center for the Arts in Natick. The time period was conditioned upon no one else requesting one of the two weeks. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes suggested making inquiry as to which of the two weeks TCAN would prefer in case someone came forward looking for the same time. TCAN Executive Director David Lavalley was in the audience and told the
Board that his preference would be to display the banner the week just prior to November 5th.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Water & Sewer Billing
Jeffrey Phillips requested the removal of the “flawed and slanderous” report of the Finance Committee on the web site. It may have provided the Board and the FinCom with the results desired, but it was filled with errors and it falsely represented what he had written and said.
Mr. Phillips read the following prepared statement: ‘The Board of Selectmen were informed that “by law the Town was required to tier the rates which meant an increase in cost per unit as usage increases” at the Public Hearing for Water and Sewer Rates – 1998 held on June 2, 1997. No questions were asked about the requirement to tier rates nor was any statutory reference given to support the statement. Perhaps
that is because there was not then nor is there now any legal requirement that the rates be tiered. The Board did ask a number of
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
questions that the Administration promised to answer at a future meeting. Of the materials that were distributed prior to the discussion one member of the Board remarked that he “would have appreciated getting this material several weeks ago”.
At the next hearing on the rates (June 16, 1997) the Board of Selectmen were told, once again, that “tiering was required by law.” The statement was, once again, false and unchallenged.
A member of the Board noted that the rate was going up 20%. In fact, a June 2, 1998 memorandum to the Board and the Town Administrator had the following bullet points under the heading“Water”
*Overall increase in cost to provide the service is 20% or $417,185.
*Reduction in actual consumption from FY97 of 5.57%.
*Increase in costs for collective bargaining/wages and benefits of $49,782 or 12% of the rate increase.
*Debt service costs for water treatment plant of $242,800 or 58% of the rate increase. The peak cost for debt will occur in FY99 and will be approximately $429,000.
*Increase in operating costs for water services of $122,450 or 29% of the rate increase. These are primarily costs for utilities at Elm Bank and chemicals for the water treatment.
Under the “Sewer” heading of the memo it was stated that the “overall increase in cost to provide service is 11% or $551,996.
After a brief discussion the rates were adopted unanimously.
Once again the Board based their decision on numbers that were not accurate. Six months after the hearing to set rates, the budget for
debt service would include $57,800 for debt service ($185,000 less than the number presented to the Board of Selectmen) for the water treatment plant to pay for the 1997 bond. The entire appropriation for water and sewer principle and interest payments only increased by $32,211 from 1987 ($453,958) to 1998 ($486,169). In fact, the entire appropriation for ALL direct costs related to water and sewer (including debt service) increased from 1997 to 1998 by a total amount of $290,633 (5.827%).
Perhaps basing the rate increase on numbers that were not accurate would explain the “surplus” revenue that was collected in Fiscal Year 1998 from the water and sewer ratepayers. But which number should be used to designate the real “surplus” number? And was there really a surplus?
According to an accounting I received today from the Department of Revenue in response to a Public Records Request I made, the Town of Natick operated as a Special Revenue Fund for water and sewer. How the town of Natick was allowed to operate such a fund is a question that yet needs to be answered. According to Appendix I of the Uniform Massachusetts Accounting System – July 2003 document published by the Department of Revenue, sewer receipt surpluses are closed to the General Fund and water surpluses depend on the MGL statute Ch. 41 s.69B, which of course, we all know does not apply to the Town of Natick.
Let us leave aside the questions about the legal existence of the funds for a minute and take a look at the numbers that have been reported.
Special Revenue Fund- Water & Sewer – Fiscal Year 1998
Dept. of Revenue w. $273,369 s. $317,897
Total $591,266
Finance Director $478,702.18
8-4-05 memo
FinCom $479,702
Annual Town Report 1998 w. $ 55,119.41 s. $206,332.77
Total $211,844.18
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
I have concentrated my analysis on one year to keep the issue as simple as possible. While the difference in the numbers is not any where near as dramatic as it will become in the following years, the question that should be answered before any more are posed is: why is there a difference in these numbers?
The truth will prevail. The Board and the Administration should have more respect for the intelligence of the people in this Town. It was not lost on anyone that the so-called investigation of the Finance Committee did nothing to answer any of the important questions. And no one with a sense of decency will claim that the process was fair. Having a single member of the Finance Committee sit with Town Administration officials and write-up a critical analysis of what I had supposedly said without once speaking with me about any of the information that was presented during the two hearings and after, before the Board of Selectmen in August, does not come anywhere near a place called fairness.
The fact that the Chair of the Finance Committee arbitrarily decided that the hearing was closed and that there would be no public input, including any from me, speaks more to the issue than I could possibly say in a thousand words.
The fact that the sub-committee of the Finance Committee received many pages of materials that they could not possibly read and understand before the full meeting and yet, voted to recommend it all to the Full Committee as the final say on the matter only places an exclamation point after my unsaid words.
The fact that the full committee endorsed the whole business, save for the courageous Mr. Severance, adds a few more exclamation points.
I request that you conduct your own independent investigation of this matter before the taxpayers are forced to pay for these unfortunate actions. The truth will prevail..I really believe that above all else.
Mr. Connolly asked if Mr. Phillips had a copy of his statement. Because of the speed with which Mr. Phillips was reading it was difficult to keep up. Mr. Phillips responded that he had to talk fast unlike Mr. King (from the last meeting) who was afforded a long time while he (Mr. Phillips) was only given five minutes.
b. Town Government Open House
Joshua Ostroff & Moira Munns of the Volunteer Appreciation Day event asked that the Board sponsor an open house in November to encourage more people to get involved. The hope was that it would be sponsored by the Board of Selectmen and perhaps co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters. The intent was to have members of the Selectmen and any of the dozens of boards there as an opportunity to come find out what individuals do, the qualifications, how often the committee/board met and how they could get involved. The idea being that it was an open government and to encourage citizens to participate. It would involve minimal cost.
Mr. Ostroff noted that if the Board made appointments in June people may find out about it in the month of May and people should know that government relied on their support and involvement. He requested the Board’s consideration (of sponsoring the event) or if the Board felt more study and thought was needed, put it off to another time. Of the seven people on the (Appreciation Day) committee there was not wildly
enthusiastic support for it, but there was enough manpower to do it and it could be pulled off.
Mr. Connolly complimented the committee on the nice job for the Appreciation Day.
Noting that Mr. Ostroff/Ms. Munns was looking for the Board of Selectmen to endorse this unpaid government job fair, Mr. Ball was unclear as to exactly what they were looking for the Board to do and from where the proposed costs would come. Mr. Ostroff responded that the Board of
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
Selectmen was being asked to sponsor or co-sponsor and they were asking that a letter go out over the Chair’s signature to the other boards. He didn’t anticipate significant costs – maybe water, coffee, tea or maybe some postage if the Board wanted to do some outreach. Tentatively it
would be at the library. A room had been booked for November 8. He thought it would be appropriate on the heels of the thank you party.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board of Selectmen support the Town government open house and see if someone could be found to donate the funds. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly thought it was a nice idea to get more people involved.
c. Maffei Property
Michael DeGeorge of 66 Wellesley Road extension noted that during the last discussion of the Maffei dump site and the construction of several houses, he had requested that he be told of the next meeting on this property.
Mr. DeGeorge was asked if he was looking for the Board of Selectmen or the ZBA. Mr. DeGeorge responded that he was looking for the ZBA, but continued that the construction was ongoing and he wanted to share the concern of the neighborhood. There were 15 or so kids in the neighborhood and he was under the impression that there might be a traffic study done. He questioned if any of the construction would turn his street into a cul-de-sac or one way street. The neighbors weren’t being informed.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that when he was on the Planning Board Mr. Maffei received a permit to construct a subdivision. There were a lot of delays including some contaminated soils and he thought the Planning Board continued to grant extensions of the permit originally granted and they probably had a follow-up meeting of which the neighbors were advised. He recommended that Mr. DeGeorge contact the Chair of the Planning Board to discuss the matter and find out the process.
If Mr. DeGeorge left his contact information, Mr. Lemnios said he would make sure Community Development Director Patrick Reffett provided Mr. DeGeorge with an update on the status.
HOPKINTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN VICE-CHAIR: PRESENTATION OF GIFT TO NATICK
Vice-chair of the Hopkinton Board of Selectmen Len Holden extended greetings from his Board and noted that he was also representing the
Hopkinton Athletic Association which was a 501c3 to promote health and fitness in multi generations. He noted that Hopkinton had come to the conclusion that the Boston Marathon did not just start in Hopkinton and end in Boston and they would like to get a MetroWest celebration
organized. Over the past few years events were held the Saturday before the race and Hopkinton had recently become a sister city with Athens, Greece.
Mr. Holden presented the Board with a lithograph of the race course that was done by a resident of Hopkinton with high points of all the towns (along the Marathon route) starting in Hopkinton.
Mr. Holden inquired about the possibility of any non-profit committees in Natick that might want to work with them on a festival or different
projects. The only problem was that Hopkinton didn’t have any function halls and to do something big, it would have to be in Framingham or Natick.
Mr. Ball thanked Mr. Holden for the gift and added that this being a party town, he was sure that there would be some folks who were anxious to do it. Mr. Ball offered to help and thought that everyone in Natick appreciated that the Marathon was a happening. If Hopkinton
wanted to take the lead in organizing a celebration, he was sure Natick would follow.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
a. Roxanne Fancourt
Mr. Ball advised that Ms. Fancourt had withdrawn her request for reappointment to the Historic District Commission.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION (contd)
b. Matthew P. McCue
Matthew P. McCue stated that he was an attorney in Framingham with three kids all in Kennedy Middle School and was a Town Meeting member. He was good friends with Michael Collins who approached him about serving on the Historic District Commission. He (Mr. McCue) was interested in the architectural significance of the historic districts and would be happy to serve.
Mr. Ball inquired as to the difference between the Historic District Commission and the Historical Commission, and Mr. McCue responded that it was his understanding that the Historic District Commission was limited to two areas and looking at proposed changes in those areas and recommending whether certain changes would be subject to an open meeting.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Matthew McCue as a regular member of the Historic District Commission. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
INTRODUCTION OF PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: ELIZABETH DENNIS
In his introduction of Elizabeth Dennis as the Town’s first Personnel Director, Mr. Lemnios noted that Ms. Dennis joined the Town the last week of August and brought skills on a variety of issues. She had extensive experience in the Commonwealth as the head of Civil Service
and then a special assistant to the Needham Town Administrator. Ms. Dennis had been chosen by a selection team consisting of a member of
the Board of Selectmen, Town Administrator, and Deputy Town Administrator after an extensive hiring process and he hoped the Board would be as pleased with her as he has been.
Ms. Dennis stated that she had worked for the Department of Personnel Administrator which became Human Resources Division and moved on to Needham and now here. She would be working on formalizing a lot of the policies so there would be standardized approaches so everybody knew what to expect. She would also serve as a resource for human resources issues for all managers and employees and would be helping Mr. Lemnios get ready for collective bargaining. Her door was open and she had a
direct telephone line. She was very pleased to be here and it was nice to formally meet the Board tonight.
Noting that one issue that came up when the position was discussed was that Natick needed to develop some policies regarding non-union personnel and methods of evaluating, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Ms. Dennis was working on developing those policies. Ms. Dennis advised that she was reviewing the evaluation form that the Personnel Board put together and would be working with them to implement. Mr. Ciccariello then noted that the Board of Selectmen had the responsibility of evaluating the Town Administrator and did Ms. Dennis have any information that would be of value to the Board for this coming year. Ms. Dennis responded that she did and that she could do some surveys of other communities with similar positions and how it was done.
Mr. Connolly asked if Ms. Dennis was open to talk to any employee about anything they had going on, and Ms. Dennis’ response was, “absolutely”. Asked if there was a confidentiality, Ms. Dennis stated that anybody who talked to her their conversation would be confidential. In follow-up Mr. Connolly asked if that had happened as of yet. Ms. Dennis advised that she had already dealt with two different issues.
Mr. Ball welcomed Ms. Dennis to Natick.
MELANSON HEATH: JOINT MEETING WITH FINANCE COMMITTEE INTRODUCTORY MEETING ON WATER & SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND AUDIT
Mr. Lemnios informed the Board that this morning he had communication with the Chair of the Finance Committee and Melanson Heath. Tonight’s meeting was scheduled for Melanson Heath to provide an update relative to where they were in their work product. Due to schedule conflicts that was not able to happen. Melanson Heath was close to concluding.
They would not have commented on any conclusions at tonight’s meeting, and he would have a memo from them (Melanson Heath) shortly on a date (for them to present their report).
MELANSON HEATH: JOINT MEETING WITH FINANCE COMMITTEE INTRODUCTORY MEETING ON WATER & SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND AUDIT (contd)
Mr. Ball stated that he would like to schedule Melanson Heath for October 11.
Mr. Connolly questioned why they weren’t here tonight and was told by Mr. Lemnios that there was a conflict getting the joint meeting
scheduled. Asked if Melanson Heath could have been here, Mr. Lemnios replied, “yes”.
Mr. Connolly questioned if the whole Finance Committee couldn’t be here, but Mr. Lemnios advised that it was the Chair who could not be here. Ms. Gloff added that there were other individuals on the FinCom as well who couldn’t be here.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that the contract had been going on since last June and asked Mr. Lemnios to describe the process and if Melanson Heath had completed the process and their investigation. Mr. Lemnios advised that the data acquisition phase had been completed and they were in the process of analyzing. They were close to concluding.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked if Melanson Heath had spoken to the various departments involved in the water & sewer process. Mr. Lemnios responded that the primary focus was with the Finance Director and Comptroller and the collection of data. Asked if they had spoken to anybody at the DPW, Mr. Lemnios pointed out that their charge was not an operational charge. Mr. Ciccariello inquired about the policy board and who they (Melanson Heath) spoke to, but Mr. Lemnios wasn’t aware of them speaking to anyone on the board.
Mr. Connolly stated that he hadn’t been contacted and expressed surprise in that the Board was the water & sewer commissioners that none of the Board had been contacted. Mr. Lemnios explained that the RFP was very specific and was approved by the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee regarding the type of transactions they were to look at – the financial transactions for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and the indirect cost allocations to see if they were accurate and appropriate and the rates were relevant to those transactions.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC SHADE TREE REMOVAL
Filling in for the Tree Warden was DPW Director Charles Sisitsky.
Mr. Sisitsky reported that since the last meeting Mr. Hughes and the Tree Warden John Cunniff attended the Conservation Commission meeting and Mr. Cunniff met in the field with Steven Cosmos who was the landscape architect some 20 years ago when the Town got the grant to renovate the Common.
Mr. Hughes confirmed that he attended the Conservation Commission with Mr. Cunniff on September 15 to see if the Conservation Commission would use the Open Space Fund for the plant material Mr. Cunniff wanted to use. The proposal was to take down five trees currently in the sidewalk and replace them with 9 trees on South Main Street – six on the Common 8-10 feet back from the sidewalk and the other three would be small flowering trees that would be placed in the sidewalk with sidewalk grates. The Conservation Commission agreed to spend up to $10,000 to accomplish this as long as Mr. Cunniff provided them with what was going to be planted, the cost, and where. It was a unanimous vote.
Mr. Sisitsky referred to a diagram of what he described as seeming to be the consensus of everyone involved. He showed the existing trees,
and the three to be taken down that were behind the sidewalks and the ones being proposed to be planted, and noted that those three wouldn’t come down right away. They would be taken down gradually. The plan
was to get the new ones in place before that happened. The three to be replaced in the sidewalk called for widening the back of the sidewalk and adding new street gates. This fall the DPW wanted to implement part of the plan and do additional phases on the Park Street and on the southerly sides. With the money from the Conservation Commission,
there will be six trees planted in the Common and three additional ones in the sidewalk area along South Main Street.
It was Mr. Ball’s recollection that part of the reason for removing the trees now in the sidewalk was because they were heaving, but now it was
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC SHADE TREE REMOVAL (contd)
being said that those trees were going to be removed and three trees were going to be put within the boundary of the sidewalk. How would the heaving be prevented from happening again?
Mr. Sisitsky responded that it was still being discussed with Mr. Cosmos. Consideration was being given to a locust because they had a different type of root system that wouldn’t heave as much as the ones now. Mr. Ball had asked about the grates, and Mr. Sisitsky advised that it would be the same pattern as along East Central Street with brick work around the trees.
When the Conservation Commission was approached about funding the $10,000, Ms. Gloff inquired if it was for this many trees and did everyone think this amount was enough for the trees. Mr. Hughes responded that the answer was ‘yes’ for the nine trees.
Heather Seiche inquired what would happen if the $10,000 wasn’t enough since she had heard that the tree grate alone cost $1,200. Mr. Lemnios advised that Mr. Cunniff had met with Mr. Cosmos on the site. They examined the options and came up with a budget that they felt was sufficient to achieve the goals. There was also talk about creating a Friends of the Common – a private group that would be the guardian of the common.
Prior to the Conservation Commission giving the $10,000, Mr. Ciccariello asked where the money would have come from. Mr. Lemnios advised that he would have gone to Town Meeting this fall to try to accomplish some of the task. The original proposal was just a six tree program and as a result of the hearing that proposal was expanded to include a nine tree proposal.
Mr. Connolly read a letter from the Open Space Advisory Committee recommending that any decision to remove particular trees be made as part of an overall landscaping plan for the Common and that the process involve both experts and citizens.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gloff, moved approval of the removal of the trees in the sidewalk and the implementation of the plan as presented with funding from the Conservation Commission. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Ciccariello voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
DPW DIRECTOR: STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky submitted additional information requested at the last meeting on the process for reporting and repairing street lights.
Mr. Ball noted that at the last meeting there were questions about how outages were reported, how they were communicated to the maintenance company, and how rapidly they were addressed. In the briefing book was a sheet from the Police Department which presumably goes to the DPW which said there was a problem on pole number so and so. He noted that the sheet was not dated. Mr. Sisitsky pointed out that the sheet from the Police Department was not dated, but the cover sheet for the fax submitted to Brite Lite was dated. With the issue of rapid response, Mr. Ball questioned starting with a source document with no date, but Mr. Sisitsky felt that it was probably faxed to Brite Lite within one day of receipt from the Police Department.
Mr. Ball then inquired about the outage log and was told by Mr. Sisitsky that the log was maintained by the DPW. Mr. Ball commented on all the dates on the log being the same date and Mr. Sisitsky explained that that was the report log to the Police Department submission.
Brite Lites did it in batches. They (Brite Lite) took the package, repaired all the lights, and sent back the report after all the lights were repaired.
Mr. Ball reiterated that there was concern with how rapidly these things happened and he didn’t believe that information had been supplied. Mr. Sisitsky noted that the return package from Brite Lite
DPW DIRECTOR: STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE CONTRACT (contd)
came within 12 days, and Mr. Lemnios added that typically there was a two week turnaround time. Mr. Sisitsky pointed out that Brite Lite didn’t fax the report back until every light was fixed and some were faxed sooner than the two weeks. Based on some of the comments at the last meeting, Mr. Sisitsky noted that the Police Chief was not aware of any officers complaining to him that street lights were reported by an officer that hadn’t been fixed.
Mr. Connolly stated that the Sergeant who told him the story was reluctant to come forward, but he (Mr. Connolly) knew for a fact that he (Sergeant) did (make reports of lights out that were not fixed). If Mr. Connolly were willing to tell him confidentially who he had been talking to, Mr. Sisitsky offered to follow-up with the Sergeant. Mr. Connolly suggested that it be forgotten since the individual wouldn’t step up.
Noting that the log was from April, Mr. Connolly questioned if this was the only work done by the company this year. Mr. Lemnios responded that the Police officers and citizens had a couple of different
mechanisms to report. If someone observed a light that was out, they were asked to report it. Brite Lite independent of the Police was required to quarterly survey the community and there were a variety of people who called the DPW or reported an outage on line. There were multiple layers of reporting. The best efforts were made to get those lights back in operation as quickly as possible.
Mr. Connolly noted that it was a public safety thing. There was a woman with street lights on both sides of her street that were out and she had a peeping Tom and maybe that wouldn’t have happened if the
lights were on. He suggested that the Board/administration ride around and look at how many lights were out.
To Mr. Hughes’ suggestion that Mr. Connolly tell Mr. Sisitsky where the lights were so he could have them fixed, Mr. Sisitsky added that if Brite Lite didn’t know where the outages were, they don’t know what needs to be fixed. Mr. Connolly commented that the other day he saw Brite Lite for the first time ever and Mr. Sisitsky responded that he would get the log for Mr. Connolly and let Brite Lite document every day that they had been in Natick repairing lights.
Mr. Lemnios thought the question was whether there was a way the reporting mechanism could be improved. A couple of suggestions had been offered in terms of dating and Mr. Connolly was the DPW liaison and he would work closely with the DPW. If there were members of the Police Department that didn’t feel Brite Lite was being responsive, he would like to know that. If someone was seeing lights that were out that weren’t getting repaired as quickly as appropriate that needed to be known. A multiple layer of reporting had been put in place and in addition a record keeping mechanism had been put in place that identified when action occurred or why it couldn’t occur.
From the log and fax Mr. Hughes noted that there was no way to tell when Brite Lite fixed the lights, but it was known that all the repairs were done between April 13 and April 25 and he inquired if that was a normal turnaround. Mr. Sisitsky advised that it was. In follow-up Mr. Hughes asked if Brite Lite got something every week. Mr. Sisitsky advised that whenever the DPW got reports, they were sent. Sometimes there was only one. This one was a big list because it was from the Police Department. Mr. Hughes then asked if there was a procedure where everything that came over in a week went. Mr. Sisitsky responded
that some times they faxed them over several times a week. They didn’t wait for a certain number of outages. When asked how often the Police sent a list, Mr. Sisitsky replied that it was not often. April may
have been the most recent. Mr. Lemnios was asked to look into it with the Chief.
If a citizen called a member of the Board and said there was a street light out, Mr. Ball inquired as to how long in general it should be that person expect to have to wait for that light to be repaired. Mr. Sisitsky replied that it should be no more than two weeks.
DPW DIRECTOR: STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE CONTRACT (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the RFP was very specific. Seven items were very specific to the contract and he inquired as to how the administration came up with those seven items and the quantities. Procurement Officer Christopher Bradley explained that when the contract went out three years ago, these seven items were in the contract and before putting the RFP out again he had a conversation with some potential vendors. Brite Lite recommended adding the eighth item because they had done some of that.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello questioned how it related to the unit pricing found on page 9 – was that part of the base bid. Mr. Bradley
responded that the unit pricing was above and beyond what they would do. When told that the Board did not receive copies of Brite Lite’s unit prices, Mr. Bradley said he would get copies to the Board. Mr. Ciccariello inquired about certain things on the unit price list such as how many photo cell bulb replacements had been done in the past. year. If Brite Lite replaced 100 photo cell bulbs, why wasn’t that included in the base bid work – if it was known that a specific amount had been replaced. Town Meeting allotted a budget for this line item and he wanted to be sure that in that budget was the work that was done. If some of this work was being done, he couldn’t see why it wasn’t in the base bid instead of unit pricing and he wasn’t getting an answer.
Elaborating on Mr. Ciccariello’s point, Mr. Ball asked why not put that average number in the base and have an incremental number over that since there was a three year history. Mr. Lemnios responded that he thought the contract was viewed similar to what was put out three years ago for a lump sum routine maintenance and unit prices for beyond the routine maintenance. It (unit prices) was a category for emergency work that went beyond the day-to-day. When the procurement officer and the DPW looked at the contract, they looked at the previous contract and looked at the value of the contract and thought it may be prudent to have a lump sum rather than per approval. The unit pricing will come into play in the area where there was an emergency situation that went beyond the terms of the contract, i.e. a bad
storm, a bad traffic accident.
Mr. Bradley added that unit pricing was for the Town’s information and didn’t have any basis of what’s to be done on a regular basis. Mr. Ciccariello noted that he was being told that unit prices were irrelevant, but he felt the Town had to have a knowledge of the cost to do some type of work and he questioned where it said that Brite Lite would replace 100 bulbs at no additional cost.
Ms. Gloff referred to Part A #6, and Mr. Ciccariello asked if he was being told that Brite Lite would replace 1,000 photo cell bulbs at no additional cost. He didn’t see that in the scope of work. If he was being told that they would replace the bulb in every light fixture in Natick, then he would agree that the unit prices weren’t needed.
Mr. Bradley read from the bid that stated ‘not to exceed the average’. Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who decided on what was average. No one
could tell him how many bulbs had been replaced in the last three years.
As Ms. Gloff read the bid, Brite Lite would do routine maintenance and replace all the light bulbs that needed to be replaced with no upper limit. If they did 10 in a year or 10,000, it was the same flat price. Mr. Bradley confirmed that as being correct.
Mr. Connolly acknowledged that to some people this discussion may sound silly, but the DPW was recommending this company and the Board wanted to do the right thing by the citizens. He (Mr. Connolly) didn’t think they (Brite Lite) were (doing the right thing) and he couldn’t look a
citizen in the face and tell them these people were doing a good job because he didn’t think they were.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired about the budget for the last three years and for this year and was told by Mr. Lemnios that the street lighting budget was $175,000 and that included all electrical work. That was down from $210,000 two years ago. In the three years he had been here, the budget hadn’t been exceeded.
DPW DIRECTOR: STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE CONTRACT (contd)
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to award the street light maintenance contract to Brite Lite. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly and Mr. Ciccariello were opposed.
If someone knew where a street light was out and felt it was not fixed in a timely manner, Ms. Gloff urged that they contact the DPW, the Police, or one of the Selectmen.
MMA CONSULTING GROUP: FIRE STUDY
Appearing on behalf of the MMA Consulting Group was the President Mark Morse.
Mr. Morse noted that the project started about a year ago and MMA worked with a committee of Town officials consisting of the Town Administrator, the Deputy Town Administrator, members of the Board of Selectmen, Fire Department, Fire union, and citizens. MMA met with the committee several times during the process and presented and discussed ideas. A number of people from MMA worked on the study, but he and Phil McLaughlin did the bulk. They had a chance to review a large amount of data on the Fire Department, written reports, standard operating procedures and guidelines, interviewed a large number of people and used computer mapping to look at stations and ability to respond. Late fall the committee was given preliminary recommendations. A draft report was submitted in February and between February and June
there was some feedback and the report was finalized in June.
Mr. Morse highlighted four main categories of recommendations: Organization of the department; management of the department; human resources management recommendations; deployment which was emergency medical services related and some long-term recommendations with
planning issues and selection process issues. From MMA’s perspective some of the management issues should be addressed early on. It was
recognized that some of the recommendations would take some time to implement. Some of the emergency medical recommendations to either train or hire paramedics would take a number of years to get to the suggested appropriate number.
As Chair of the Fire Study Committee, Mr. Hughes reported that there had been a number of meetings both preliminary and after a draft report. All members were encouraged to make comments on the draft and those were addressed and the committee unanimously voted to accept the report. He thought everyone had worked long and hard and came up with a good report.
Ms. Gloff who was a member of the Fire Study Committee stated that she had been unable to make the last two meetings, but she too felt the committee had worked hard. They didn’t always agree.
President of the Firefighters Union Daniel Hartwell and also a member of the Fire Study Committee felt that MMA had been very thorough with the interview process and did an outstanding job. There were issues on which he agreed 100% and issues that he felt needed some work in order to implement and issues that he felt no way would they be implemented. The firefighters voiced their concern and he thought those concerns were honestly taken into consideration. Overall it was a very well done report and he was pleased with how it came out and he was willing to work with whomever he had to. He felt that some of the issues needed
immediate attention and agreed should be implemented as soon as possible and other issues that could be dealt with five years down the road.
Mr. Hughes stated that one issue that the whole committee disagreed with the consultant was the proposal to go from four to three stations. He didn’t think anybody on the committee was foreseeing that happening even long term and the committee thought that was not something to focus a lot of time and attention on.
In response to Mr. Connolly’s query as to the cost, Mr. Lemnios advised that a budget of $35,000 had been allocated but the contract was $28,600.
Mr. Connolly then inquired as to when was the last time one of these studies had been done and was told that a study was done in 1985 or 1986.
MMA CONSULTING GROUP: FIRE STUDY (contd)
Mr. Connolly noted that the report suggested that the Chief should be removed from Civil Service but didn’t give a lot of reasons why. Mr. Morse responded that in hiring an executive the Town needed to be aggressive in its search. Civil Service was never intended to include the Police and Fire chiefs and the trend had been to remove the position from Civil Service. When asked by Mr. Connolly why the positions should be removed, Mr. Morse replied that anytime the Town was looking for a department head it needed to reach out broadly. 60-
70% of it (filling the Chief’s position) would be internal but anytime someone was hired, you needed to look to the universe.
Mr. Connolly pointed out that the Town Meeting warrant had articles to remove the positions and there were a lot of reasons why, and he would like to get a representative from Civil Service to tell the Board why it should be kept in Civil Service. There was all kinds of information for why it should be removed and for healthy debate there should be reasons for keeping it in Civil Service. Mr. Ball requested that discussion of this issue be held until the Board got to warrant articles 17, 18, and 19.
Mr. Connolly asked about the surveys noting that there were 85 firefighters but there was no where near 85 surveys completed. Mr. Morse explained that typically there was a 50% response, but added that
he probably did it in too short a time frame. He was doing a study now in New York with an employee population of 92 and he got back 44. Asked if the surveys were by invitation only, Mr. Morse responded that everyone got one and mailed it back to MMA. That was the norm for the last 20 years. The most he ever received was 76% and 50% was a good response. Part of the problem here was that a lot of turnaround time wasn’t given.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he read through the report. There were a lot of recommendations and it pointed out a lot of faults, weaknesses and items for improvement. With no reflection or disrespect to the Fire Chief or firefighters, there were a lot of things in the report that if he was an outsider reading it he would question why they weren’t being done right now. There were 70 plus recommendations and some of them seemed so easy to implement that he didn’t understand why they weren’t already being done and why they hadn’t been done in the past. A lot were improvements that benefit the department, the community and would assist the firefighters if they want to move up through the ranks. The report had some good things, but the question was what to do with it. Would it be taken
and thrown on the shelf or would the Board move forward. What steps would the Board take and how would the Board implement a plan.
Mr. Hughes felt at this point the Board should accept the report, provide the Chief with it, and hopefully have a plan instituted for how it would be addressed over time and ask for a plan to be presented to the Board.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who would oversee it – the Town Administrator or the Board of Selectmen and how would it be implemented. Mr. Lemnios saw it as a collaborative effort. The Board
of Selectmen had some policy decisions and there would be funding requirements, but the primary individual responsible for implementing it would be the Chief. Chief Brien was retiring in January and part of the hiring decision may be predicated on whether the Board thought that individual would implement the plan. There had been extensive
involvement with members of the Department in developing the document, but the driving force on executing would be the person responsible for
the day-to-day operation of the department. The Town had a clear road map and now it had to be implemented.
Since the report came out in June, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if any steps had been made relative to the relationship between the Fire Chief and the firefighters. Mr. Lemnios noted that the report was being presented tonight for adoption and until accepted by the Board of Selectmen, things couldn’t be acted on. He added that there were ongoing meetings with the Deputy Fire Chiefs on a monthly basis.
MMA CONSULTING GROUP: FIRE STUDY (contd)
Several weeks before members of the Fire Department had volunteered to help with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and Ms. Gloff thought it was appropriate to mention the names tonight – Michael Aries who volunteered at Otis airbase, John Herring at Otis airbase, Dan Matthews who volunteered in New Orleans and Jeffrey Legendre in New Orleans. On
behalf of the Board, she expressed the Selectmen’s thanks. Mr. Hartwell advised that Lieutenant Eugene Rothman was activated with the D-Mat unit in New Orleans.
Mr. Connolly felt it was great to have these firefighters volunteering. Both he and Mr. Ciccariello asked if the firefighters in New Orleans needed anything, but Mr. Hartwell assured the Board that there was a mechanism through their association for keeping an eye on them and they were in good shape.
Mr. Hughes moved to accept the Fire Study Report. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Following a 10 minute recess, the meeting was again called to order at 9:10 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET ACCEPTANCE
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
The streets being considered for acceptance were Cordial Way, Neil Circle, Joshua Path, Pheasant Hollow Road, Marie Path, Samuel Path, Whitridge Road, Prescott Avenue. Town Engineer Mark Coviello had prepared a handout of where the streets were located.
a. Cordial Way
Mr. Coviello advised that Cordial Way was a subdivision that was part of the Glen Ridge Estates approved in 1992. The work was completed approximately 10 years ago and for some reason the street had not been put forward for acceptance. On September 14, 2005 the Planning Board voted favorable action on the acceptance of Cordial Way as a public street.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there were any outstanding bonds on this property. Mr. Coviello’s response was, “no”. Mr. Ciccariello then inquired if the Planning Board put any conditions on the subdivision that would relieve Natick from the responsibility of maintaining the roadway. Mr. Coviello didn’t believe there were any conditions.
Planning Board member Kenneth Soderholm was in the audience and noted that this was before his time on the Planning Board, but he didn’t know
why they would put on any conditions. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that there were places where the Planning Board put conditions on and occasions when the Planning Board required a developer to maintain drainage. If drainage was in the roadway and the Town accepted the roadway, the Town was accepting responsibility for the drainage. As far as Mr. Coviello knew, there were no conditions.
With nothing having been done for ten years, Mr. Hughes inquired if there were any maintenance problems now that should be fixed and why did it take so long. Mr. Coviello didn’t know why it took 10 years, but the street acceptance process was cumbersome. Once the bond was released if a street was not put forward right away, it tended to fall through the cracks. As to the condition, the road looked like it was
10 years old and needs normal maintenance of a 10 year old road. There was no bond money left. The developer was long gone and hadn’t done any work in Natick since the subdivision was completed.
The Board unanimously voted to accept Cordial Way. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Connolly.
b. Neil Circle
Mr. Coviello advised that Neil Circle was a two lot subdivision off Main Street approved in 1995. All work on the road was completed approximately 10 years ago and the recommendation from the Planning Board on September 14, 2005 was favorable action to accept.
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET ACCEPTANCE (contd)
Asked by Mr. Ciccariello if there were any bonds or conditions, Mr. Coviello replied that there were no bonds and no conditions that would preclude the Town from taking the road.
Mr. Coviello was asked if the road looked like a 10 year road, but he responded that it actually looked in very good condition.
The Board unanimously voted to accept Neil Circle. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Ms. Gloff.
c. Joshua Path
Mr. Coviello stated that Joshua Path was part of the Farwell Heights eight lot subdivision approved by the Planning Board in 1994. All work had been completed for eight years and the Planning Board voted favorable action on September 14, 2005.
Asked if there were any bonds or conditions, Mr. Coviello responded that all bonds had been released and there were no conditions.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the condition of the road and was told by Mr. Coviello that it looked like an eight year old road. It didn’t need any major maintenance, but he would probably crack seal the road.
Mr. Ball asked about the incremental burden the acceptance of these streets created for the DPW, and Mr. Coviello replied that the DPW took
on the burden of maintaining the roadways and utilities, but the streets got added to the Town’s road miles that went for Chapter 90
funds. The more road miles, the more funds. The DPW already plowed to keep the road open for emergency vehicles.
By utilities Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Coviello was referring to water & sewer mains and connections. Mr. Coviello confirmed that that was correct. In follow-up Mr. Hughes inquired as to whose problem it would be if there was a sewer collapse before acceptance. Mr. Coviello responded that more than likely the DPW would fix it, but if the road needed extensive work, the DPW would probably just patch it. He didn’t know if the Town would bill the abutters for the work on an unaccepted road. It hadn’t happened since he had been here. There hadn’t been a
major situation on an unaccepted road built through the subdivision process.
The Board unanimously voted to accept Joshua Path. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes.
d. Pheasant Hollow Road
Mr. Coviello advised that Pheasant Hollow was part of Meadows II which was part of an ongoing subdivision and included Katie Path and Karen Lane that were not up for acceptance. There was still outstanding bond money. He further advised that on September 14, 2005 the Planning Board voted favorable action.
After Mr. Coviello confirmed that Katie Path and Karen Lane were still undergoing construction, Mr. Ciccariello questioned who would pay if construction vehicles beat up Pheasant Hollow Road. Mr. Coviello pointed out that construction vehicles travel all over public ways in the Town and weren’t assessed money for damaging the streets. Mr. Ciccariello countered that this was part of an overall subdivision plan for which the Planning Board had them post a bond. Pheasant Hollow and
Samuel Path were finished but the other two were still under construction and he questioned if there was any way to get the bond money if damage was done. Mr. Coviello advised that there was no construction work that needed to be done along Pheasant Hollow Road. All the homes were built and occupied for some time.
Mr. Hughes asked if the acceptance of Samuel and Marie was going to result in a reduction of the bond, but Mr. Coviello advised that those were different subdivisions. He also advised that the reduction in the bond for Pheasant Hollow had already been done. There was still performance bond money left in place for the remaining work on Katie Path and Karen Lane.
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET ACCEPTANCE (contd)
Noting that only a portion of Pheasant Hollow was being accepted, Mr. Ball asked if the other portion had been accepted or not accepted. Mr. Coviello advised that the portion to the north had been accepted approximately 7 years ago, and if this was approved by Town Meeting it would complete acceptance of Pheasant Hollow.
It was Mr. Hughes’ recollection that there was a drainage issue and a vociferous argument about who would maintain a retention pond. Mr. Coviello noted that there was a basin that sat on the corner of Katie
Path and Karen Lane. It was not complete, but when it was it would be the responsibility of the Town to maintain. Mr. Ciccariello questioned if it was always the responsibility of the Town to maintain the retention ponds and Mr. Coviello explained that for the majority of the subdivisions approved in the past it was the responsibility of the Town. The more recent ones they were trying to put under a homeowners covenant to have it maintained by the homeowners association.
The Board unanimously voted to accept Pheasant Hollow Road. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gloff.
e. Marie Path
Samuel Path
Mr. Coviello advised that both Marie and Samuel Path were part of the Meadows III subdivision approved in 1998. All work had recently been completed and on September 14, 2005 the Planning Board voted to release the bond and put the street forward for acceptance.
Mr. Hughes asked if the DPW had inspected all of the streets being put forth and were all the streets completed to the Town’s specifications. Mr. Coviello responded that that was correct. Asked when these two (Marie and Samuel) were completed, Mr. Coviello advised that the last bit of work was done within the last two weeks.
The Board unanimously voted to accept Marie Path. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gloff.
The Board unanimously voted to accept Samuel Path. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gloff.
f. Whitridge Road
Whitridge Road was skipped in order to await the arrival of Attorney Peter Barbieri who represented the property owner who wished to develop the subdivision at the end of Whitridge.
g. Prescott Avenue
Mr. Coviello stated that this was a citizen’s petition. The road extended from Pinehurst to Roy Street which was a paper road. Prescott was an unaccepted street that was improved recently by two developers. The first section by Pheasant Hollow from Pinehurst to the start of Pheasant Hollow the Planning Board put conditions on making improvements to Prescott such as paving, adding drainage, sidewalks.
That was done approximately 10 years ago. Another section of Prescott that exists on paper the Planning Board put conditions on approval of a plan for the developer to build the road to Town standards which included installation of Town sewer and water main and a Cape Cod berm. This section has been built to minimal Town standards which was
consistent with other streets in that area. On September 14, 2005 the Planning Board voted favorable action on the street acceptance.
In response to Mr. Hughes’ inquiry as to why he didn’t go forward with this, why it was a citizen’s petition, Mr. Coviello was unable to answer why he didn’t move it forward. He added that it was constructed
through a subdivision process. It was done by three different mechanisms and there was no mechanism in place by the Planning Board to allow this street to be put forward. The citizen who petitioned prepared the necessary street acceptance plans and utilities as built plans according to DPW specifications.
Noting that Mr. Coviello had said that the section from Pinehurst to Pheasant Hollow had been done 10 years ago, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how long ago the section from Pheasant Hollow to Roy had been done.
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET ACCEPTANCE (contd)
Mr. Coviello responded that it was done approximately 8 years ago to minimum Town standards.
Mr. Ball inquired as to the distinction (between standard and minimum standards) and Mr. Coviello explained that for a lot of unaccepted streets the road couldn’t be built to subdivision standards with a 50 foot lay out, granite curbing, sidewalks. A lot of times if citizens petition for street acceptance, it was impossible to build to normal Town standards, i.e. School Street Extension the Board asked him to come up with minimum Town standards.
It was Mr. Hughes’ understanding that there would be another subdivision, and Mr. Coviello noted that that was another reason this came to light. A lot of people didn’t realize they lived on an unaccepted street. They learned at the subdivision public hearing. Ultimately there was a subdivision approval that will connect Prescott to Speen Street and there will be another proposal that will connect Marshall Avenue through to Karen Lane.
With the new subdivision, Mr. Ciccariello asked if there were any improvements being considered for Prescott Avenue. Mr. Coviello’s reply was, ‘no’. Responding to additional questions, Mr. Coviello advised that the only updates would be a looping of the water main all the way through to Speen Street to the end of Prescott. The sewer from the new subdivision would flow toward Speen Street. As for disruption to the existing roadwork, the plans made a “T” intersection. There would be some work and it would be fully restored as part of the subdivision. There would be no work on the sewer and no need for a sewer pumping station.
Andrew Meyer told the Board that he discovered that the street was not accepted. He was a member of the Planning Board and lived on Prescott Avenue. It was explained to him that the largest section of Prescott was built without approval required. Since that time there were three construction processes and Prescott was now connected. The street was in excellent condition. Seventeen property owners got together and decided to get the documents prepared. They felt they would like to have the protection of knowing if the time came when renovations were needed that it was a Town street. The street was in good condition and there were no recommendations for any repairs. They paid the price to have the street acceptance done and Mr. Coviello thanked them for
providing some information the Town didn’t have regarding some utilities. The Finance Committee voted unanimously for positive action as did the Planning Board.
The Board unanimously voted to accept Prescott Avenue. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello.
f. Whitridge Road
Mr. Coviello told the Board that Whitridge Road was part of the Eliot Hill Subdivision approved in 1966. All the work was completed
approximately 10 years ago and completed with the approval of the DPW. There was no outstanding bond money and the Planning Board voted to sponsor the article and recommend favorable action putting it forward.
Mr. Hughes questioned why it took so long, but Mr. Coviello couldn’t speak to what happened. It was coming forward now because of a proposed development at the end of Whitridge Road. He (Mr. Coviello) reiterated that the road was approved as part of the subdivision process and was later to be put forward for approval by the Town, but for some reason it wasn’t.
Recollecting that this was involved in some litigation about a subdivision and ownership rights, Mr. Ciccariello requested a clarification from Town Counsel and how that impacted the Town.
Town Counsel John Flynn advised that there was pending litigation. The Planning Board approved a definitive plan for a three lot subdivision at the end and there was an appeal pending in Superior Court. The basis of the appeal was that the developer did not have enough interest in Whitridge Road to convey to the buyers of the lots in the subdivision the rights to pass. There was no trial date.
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET ACCEPTANCE (contd)
With respect to the impact was the Town to accept, Mr. Flynn was not sure that the vote to accept would resolve the case but it would eliminate the issue of the status of Whitridge Road. If accepted it would be the type of way that would provide sufficient frontage to the proposed subdivision of lots and it would answer the question of right to pass and repass.
Mr. Ball commented that were the Town to accept Whitridge Road, it would not affect the litigation going on. Mr. Flynn, however, noted that it would have an effect as he described. The issue before the court was based in terms of ownership of Whitridge and the allegation that the developer did not have sufficient interest to convey to the purchasers of the lots the right to drive through.
Mr. Hughes clarified that the developer was the developer at the end of the wetlands not the developer who developed Whitridge Road.
Mr. Flynn continued that in his opinion if the Town accepted the street, the status of Whitridge would be a public way and to the extent that was an issue in the court, the public would have the right to pass
and Whitridge Road would provide sufficient frontage for the developer. Any issues of private rights wouldn’t be resolved.
Mr. Ball again asked if it (accepting the street) would have any effect, noting that he was reluctant to see the road accepted if by the
Board’s voting it, the Board inserted themselves in an argument between private parties. Mr. Flynn responded that he was aware that an argument had been presented that if the Town accepted the street it would create some damages whereby the Town would be liable to some neighbors. Mr. Flynn wasn’t sure damages would be created. The damages would somehow have to be that their land value was diminished. In theory Whitridge Road could be accepted and some portion taken out of private ownership and made public, but that didn’t per se, in his opinion, create a right of damages. In determining whether there were damages, it was what was the highest best use of the land and what
changed. Since the subdivision was approved, the highest best use of the land was a road. The change was that the roadway would be maintained by the Town and rather than diminishing the value, it could be argued that it enhanced the property or at a minimum did not diminish the value. It would be built to Town specifications and maintained primarily to allow for the access of emergency vehicles and would have the benefit of Chapter 90 money.
Mr. Flynn continued that there was an issue raised about providing water & sewer and the impact on the owners if it was a Town way as opposed to an unaccepted street and in his opinion that would not create a right of damages. Water and sewer were being provided through those pipes at present. If the Town didn’t accept the road and the sewer pipe broke, to the extent it created a public safety issue, the
Town would probably fix it. In his opinion that didn’t change anything but if it was a public way it would be the Town’s responsibility to maintain and repair in all situations, not just in the public safety emergency. He didn’t see where it (acceptance of the street) would
create any exposure to damages in the Town but it wasn’t clear to him that it would totally resolve the litigation.
Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding was that the claim was from some abutters that they had deeded rights or part ownership of Whitridge Road and he asked if a determination had been made that the Town didn’t own any. Mr. Flynn responded that there hadn’t been a determination that the Town didn’t own any but from the records available to him at least 5-6 of the property owners had ownership to the middle of the way.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the litigation pending had to do with the Planning Board approving the construction of two house lots at the end of the road which would have required the developer to cross Whitridge Road that he did not have the right to cross. The litigation said that the Planning Board should not have approved the subdivision because the developer did not have any rights to the road. Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. Ciccariello was correct in part. Those issues were obviously related but also separate. Acceptance of the road wasn’t entirely
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET ACCEPTANCE (contd)
linked to the court case. It was also the policy of the board whether it was appropriate to have the road a public way.
Noting that there were seven owners identified in the litigation against the Planning Board with all seven claiming deeded ownership of Whitridge, Mr. Ciccariello asked how many other lots there were and
were those seven the only homeowners. Mr. Coviello responded that there were approximately 18 parcels affected by the acceptance that abut Whitridge not including the two approved by the Planning Board.
If seven of the 18 own part of the road, Ms. Gloff questioned if all of the existing residences had the right-of-way to travel across the property owned by those seven. Mr. Coviello stated that it was his understanding in situations like this that if you lived on the street
as an abutter you had the right to pass along that street. Nobody could block access. He added that under the process when the Planning
Board put forward a street acceptance, it ultimately went to Town Meeting and authorized the taking of a fee interest in the street and the Board of Selectmen takes from each abutter that interest in the street.
Planning Board member Kenneth Soderholm told the Board that the Planning Board had a vested interest in seeing roads built to standards and this was one of the longest, widest unaccepted in Natick. It was clear that the intent was that it would be accepted and he didn’t know why it fell through the cracks. Mr. Coviello was making an effort to find roads that qualify and get them through the process. At the end of the road (Whitridge) it came up to the Sudbury Aqueduct owned by the MWRA who was in the process of considering granting public access. It was a beautiful arbor way. A number of years ago he was part of a group that did a feasibility study of access to the aqueduct and the Sudbury had been identified as the #1 to open up. The MWRA controls this area except for the last two parcels coming
out toward Cottage Street. Those two parcels were privately owned that the MWRA had an easement across and those two parcels were identified in the report as being important to acquire at some point. The Town acquired parcels to the north on Cottage Street – the Sullivan property for $40,000 something. The intent was if the Town couldn’t get access across these two parcels, there would at least be access to Cottage Street. That would be expensive.
Mr. Soderholm continued that a proposal came forth to develop parcels at the end of Whitridge and it was suggested that the Town would acquire a big enough parcel to control one of those areas that cross the aqueduct. Some waivers were required and some of the neighbors thought that some of the waivers were more than the Town should grant, but the Planning Board was unanimous in approval and thought the waivers were minimal in comparison to what the Town would receive in
acquiring that other parcel. The last parcel which abuts Cottage Street was under negotiation with the Conservation Commission to
acquire an easement. At one point there was consideration of looping Whitridge to Cottage. The intent was to try to have interconnectivity, but there were some areas it didn’t make sense and this (Whitridge) was
probably one of them. It would never work. It was proposed and he thought it stirred up some of the neighbors and created a lot of opposition and the Planning Board realized it (interconnecting Whitridge to Cottage) wasn’t a good idea. The subdivision process went forward and was approved. Comments were received from the neighbors and the Planning Board didn’t feel it was appropriate for them to get
into the legal issues of land use. It was the Planning Board’s belief that Whitridge should have been a Town road and if it was it was legal to have a subdivision.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that it had been said that Whitridge had been built in the 1960’s, but Mr. Soderholm clarified that it was approved in the 1960’s. He wasn’t sure when it was built, but he believed the actual construction wasn’t completed until approximately 10 years ago.
James Harrington of 16 Whitridge Road told the Board that in addition to being a resident, he was an attorney and represented nine of the residents who filed an appeal. Because the discussion could be confusing, he drew a diagram and explained that it was a long cul-de-sac. People bought houses on Whitridge in the 1980’s and were told that it was
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET ACCEPTANCE (contd)
a cul-de-sac that would not be built on. There was conservation land in the back. One and half years ago they were surprised to learn that there was a proposal to build two houses between the property on Whitridge and the aqueduct. It had been viewed as a landlocked lot that had been part of Cottage Street and there was a right of access from Cottage. The developer realized that tying into the utilities from Cottage Street would be very expensive and it would be better to tie into Whitridge. That would change Whitridge. There was about 60 feet of open land between the two houses and they would have one common driveway. The subdivision law required a developer to demonstrate that they could tie into utilities and the developer was going to try to tie into utilities off Whitridge. To make it
work the developer had to turn in a letter that said how he was going to legally tie in and a legal document showing whoever owned the water & sewer rights.
Mr. Ball reminded Mr. Harrington that the issue under discussion was whether to accept the street.
Mr. Harrington continued that the developer claimed to have a right from the development 20 years ago, but the neighbors found that that was accurate and there were seven houses that owned out to the street. The original developer had deeded to the original purchaser out to the middle of the street. Maybe ¾ of the street was publicly owned by the Town or the original development and maybe l/4 owned by folks with deeded rights. The Planning Board approved the two houses despite this and the issue was how could the developer tie into water & sewer without approval of these lots. In the middle of the pending appeal, the Town issued the notice regarding the street layout acceptance. That would be making it a private way and seizing private property without due process in violation of the 5th
and 14th amendment and would enable somebody to develop a private development. Because of that they (neighbors) would be opposed to street acceptance.
Mr. Hughes asked if the seven people wanted to maintain the land as private, and Mr. Harrington responded that three of the seven were part of the appeal and they were opposed to the street acceptance but interested in seeing if they could help the Town get the Chapter 90 funds. Feeling that Mr. Harrington had not answered his question, Mr.
Hughes noted that if the Town didn’t accept the street, it was owned by the neighbors, and the developer went away, nobody was going to come back in and try to get the street accepted. Mr. Harrington responded that the neighbors’ objective was not to stop it from becoming a public way, but to work with the Town. Mr. Hughes inquired as to the value to the individuals of it not being a public way - was it because it stopped the development. Mr. Harrington’s response was, “yes”.
Ms. Gloff requested that Mr. Harrington explain his comment that if the developer were allowed to build the two houses it would change the character of Whitridge. Mr. Harrington replied that Whitridge had one
acre minimum lots with over 100 feet frontage and in a space of a 60 foot gap a common driveway would be put to access housing that was really on
Cottage. No longer would it be a street with colonial homes and he and his neighbors would have to look at what was squeezed in here.
To Mr. Hughes’ query as to the size of the two lots, Mr. Soderholm responded that the Planning Board approved a secondary cul-de-sac which creates the frontage of the lots. They had legal frontage. The Planning Board waived the construction of the cul-de-sac so the roadway would come in and effectively be a joint driveway.
Brent Baker of 19 Whitridge Road told the Board that there weren’t a few waivers. There were 25 and one was waiving the area for a driveway. The Planning Board was so enthralled with getting that one piece of property. He wanted to know if the Board felt it had an override of judicial authority and noted that he didn’t have an objection to two additional homes. He objected to the way it got there and the cahoots between the Planning Board and the developer. Mr. Baker questioned why the Selectmen would approve this tonight and why not let them have their due process. Let the neighbors go to court. He noted that he had been told by one of the developer’s lawyers that they would crush them (neighbors). Mr. Baker reiterated his plea to have the issue resolved in court.
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET ACCEPTANCE (contd)
Attorney Peter Barbieri stated that he represented the property owner at the end of Whitridge, but did not represent him in the litigation which was an entirely separate issue. The matter before the Board this evening was whether it was in the Town’s best interest to accept the road. The Board heard that it was the intent (of the Planning Board) that the road become public, but through oversight the developer was allowed to create as part of his deed portions of the roadway. The Planning Board now required that issuance of deeds be approved by them and if the road was to be maintained as private, the Planning Board now required a homeowner’s association. That was not the situation here. Each of those deeds had language in it that it was subject to the rights of others. Through oversight the
deeds were improperly
identified. The road absent acceptance would not be maintained by the residents. The residents said they want to work with the Town. The interest for the Town was how to keep it safe for police and fire and that was done by accepting the road. The secondary consideration was for damages to these seven people who by mistake were deeded (a portion
of the road) and they had rights to appeal and let it take its course. There were no changes in the road construction and the roadway would be in the exact same condition. It was not unusual for the Town to accept a road later and there was an extension of the roadway. That was not a situation for damages. It was an extension of the subdivision. Had this come five years down the road, Mr. Coviello would say it should have been accepted and there wouldn’t be this discussion.
Mr. Barbieri added that he looked at the records of the parcels that do and don’t own a piece of the road and the land valuations were no different. The Town wasn’t treating the parcels as a different valuation because they owned a piece. There were no damages and it was in the Town’s best interest to accept. Now was the time to do that and let the subdivision appeal take its course.
Ellis Morris of 15 Whitridge Road said he was one of the seven and commented that he found that some of the methods used to get to this point hadn’t been completely above board. He believed Mr. Soderholm had the best intentions of trying to connect the property, but it was done in a manner that didn’t seem to give the residents the appropriate due process. It seemed to him that if any of the Board’s residences were on the street, they might be as vehemently opposed as he was to the process. He didn’t get a sense from Town Counsel that there was a compelling reason for the Town to take the street. To him it was astounding that the Planning Board would make the recommendation they did in light of the pending issue of the lawsuit.
While he understood that the residents didn’t like the process, Mr. Hughes questioned what that had to do with acceptance of the street other than it gave an opportunity to bang the Planning Board’s
decision. Mr. Morris felt that if Mr. Hughes lived on the street, he would probably feel the same as he (Mr. Morris) did. Again Mr. Hughes questioned what that had to do with the acceptance of the street, and Mr. Morris responded that there was a pending action with regard to the street and it seemed as though that action should be heard. Delaying a decision on the acceptance of the street didn’t damage anybody.
Mr. Hughes noted that the neighbor’s due process was because they didn’t want the two subdivision lots and didn’t like the Planning Board’s approval with 12 waivers, but that didn’t have much to do with should Whitridge be a public way or not. Mr. Morris countered that he had a deeded right and although he wasn’t sure what it would mean, he didn’t want somebody to take his property for nothing without having it heard in court.
Mr. Connolly didn’t see what the rush was to make that street a public way. It waited years so why do it now and by doing it tonight was the
Board throwing a monkey wrench into the court decision. He saw no need to do it tonight.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the conveyance of the third lot was to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Soderholm believed that it was. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the developer had built the two
houses and the 3.5 acres had been conveyed, but Mr. Soderholm noted that nothing had been done because approval was under appeal. Mr.
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET ACCEPTANCE (contd)
Ciccariello then asked if in granting the subdivision the developer was required to post a bond for any damages to Whitridge Road. Mr. Soderholm advised that as part of the decision the developer was required to post a bond, but he didn’t believe he (developer) had. Asked if the bond was just to finish the project or if it included any and all necessary repairs, Mr. Soderholm responded that it had to do
with off street drainage and didn’t specifically mention Whitridge Road. He also noted that vehicles travel all public roads.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello if there was a specific reason why the Planning Board made the decision to recommend acceptance of this road at this time and not six months from now after the development was built, Mr. Soderholm responded that the main reason was that the Planning Board wasn’t aware that it was not an accepted street until it came before them as part of the subdivision. They realized that that should be corrected. Mr. Soderholm added that 12 waivers seem like a lot but at least eight were routine that were often waived.
Abe Gorelick of 4 Whitridge Road expressed his concern that acceptance of the road would trump the neighbors’ legal case and their rights in court would be moot. He had lived on the street for 10 years during which there had been a need for the police and emergency vehicles and there had been no issues. With regards to an oversight by the developer in deeding the property to the middle of the street, Mr. Gorelick felt that the developer never missed a beat so there was no oversight on his part. Montopoli built a foundation 100 feet within the wetlands and the Conservation Commission made him pull it up and plant 100 trees. He (Mr. Montopoli) knew exactly what he was doing every step of the way.
Mr. Gorelick continued that when he first moved to Natick he rented and looked at 40 houses until he found this house. There were 14 children on the street under the age of 15 and as they (Gorelick’s) did, he assumed that most people bought the house because it was a cul-de-sac and wouldn’t be a through street. If this acceptance occurred, it would be the first step of a 2-3 step process to a pass through to Cottage Street. He didn’t feel that Whitridge being a cul-de-sac hurt the traffic flow in Natick. Mr. Gorelick also noted that at this time there were no sidewalks and no street lights.
Mr. Morris commented on the taxes paid despite not having Town services, but Mr. Hughes quickly pointed out that the Town plowed the
street, responded to Police and Fire calls, and provided water. This was not about not having Town services.
Mr. Connolly remarked on the need to be respectful of the citizens of the Town. Mr. Ball assured Mr. Connolly that he would run the meeting and everybody would treat everybody with respect.
Mr. Baker noted that Mr. Morris didn’t mean that they were not getting Town services, but the street was not completed to Town specifications. There were no curbs and no sidewalks.
Since they did what they thought they were supposed to do with the action brought in court, Mr. Morris felt the residents should have the right to have it heard in court. The taking of this road wasn’t so important that it had to be done tonight that it couldn’t wait for the court action to be done.
Ms. Gloff moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ball believed that it was in the Town’s best interest for this street to be accepted and in the best interest of the Town’s citizens for the Board to do so, but to quote Mr. Gorelick acceptance of this road would trump the court case. He didn’t want to do that and didn’t think there was any reason not to wait. He would vote against acceptance.
Mr. Ciccariello thought the Board was in a dilemma. They heard good reasons for accepting – safety access and it being the right thing to do - and he was sure that in the future if the Board decided not to accept it tonight, that this road would come before the Board to be
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET ACCEPTANCE (contd)
accepted at a later date. He thought all the homeowners would want the Town to come in and maintain the road, but he didn’t think he got a clear response from Town Counsel as to why this needed to be done tonight. The key issue was that he didn’t want to put himself in a position where he might be interfering with a legal case and he hadn’t heard any reasons why this needed to be accepted immediately. The Board never received a complaint from anybody living on the road that the road was in disrepair or in need of any maintenance.
No motion was offered.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF CLASS II LICENSE FROM NISSAN OF NATICK TO AUTOQUEST, INC.
Appearing before the Board on the application for a transfer of the Class II license held by Nissan of Natick for premises at 119 Worcester Road to AutoQuest II, Inc. were Jeffrey Batta of Nissan of Natick and Simon Laham of AutoQuest II, Inc.
Mr. Batta noted that he had two locations – one at 119 Worcester Road and a new car dealership where he also sold used cars at 671 Worcester Road. He was consolidating both locations and was surrendering his Class II license for 119 Worcester Road.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the transfer of the Class II license held by Nissan of Natick to AutoQuest II, Inc. for premises at 119 Worcester
Road. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Connolly had left the room and did not vote. All other members of the Board voted in favor of the motion.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board agreed and Mr. Ball announced that only Articles 20 and 27 would be discussed that evening.
ATTORNEY PETER EPSTEIN: CABLE ISSUES
a. Verizon Issuing Authority Report
The Town’s attorney for cable issues, Peter Epstein of Epstein and August, advised that Verizon had submitted an application for a cable TV license and pursuant to State regulations the Board of Selectmen was required to issue an Issuing Authority Report (IAR) within 90 days of
the submittal. The 90 days expired September 15, but the Town got a 21 day extension from the State Cable Division which expires October 6th.
Mr. Epstein advised that once the Board approved of the IAR, which was an RFP, Verizon would give the Town an amended proposal back. At that
point the Board of Selectmen of its designee would sit down with Verizon to discuss proposals and the needs of the community and the next step would be a public hearing convened by the Board of Selectmen. There was no time line but once the hearing was scheduled within 60 days the Town would have to decide if it was going to accept or deny and if accept the Town had 90 days to draft a contract. If that were done Natick would have 3 cable options.
Mr. Epstein noted that he had received some comments from Mr. Ball and he could make those changes to the IAR. The IAR was somewhat boilerplate and he had looked at the other two licenses in developing it. Hopefully the Board would go forward and issue the IAR to Verizon as soon as possible so the Town could get Verizon’s response.
Mr. Ciccariello called attention to the demand for a $250,000 performance bond and noted that in the past it was a $500,000 bond. He inquired as to the purpose of the bond and what protection it afforded the Town. Mr. Epstein advised that a performance bond was required by Chapter 166A that included the removal of the system. With Verizon there was somewhat of a twist. They were not saying that they were building the system on the Town’s right-of-way and they may have already built the system. The bond was to guarantee performance in construction, installing and removing the system. There was a bit of disagreement between Verizon and municipalities and this was a gray area. RCN was higher because it was a new build.
To Mr. Hughes’ comment that this agreement was drafted so Verizon could not say they were being treated differently than Comcast or RCN, Mr.
ATTORNEY PETER EPSTEIN: CABLE ISSUES (contd)
Epstein responded that simultaneously with submitting this proposal Verizon was lobbying Congress saying they weren’t a cable company. They were a telecommunication company. The challenge was to say that the Town had a franchise with Comcast and RCN and if Verizon wanted a franchise it should be similar to the other two. This was a new twist
on franchising and there would be some challenges. Verizon would be willing to fund the access corp as long as it was understood that they would be coming at this from a different regulation stance than either of the incumbents. He thought the Town could deal with Verizon but it would be a challenge.
With respect to PEG access funding and recognizing that it was a pass through, Mr. Ball noted that Comcast was 4%, RCN was 5% and Verizon was looking at 4-l/2%. Mr. Epstein noted that he had received Mr. Ball’s comments and made note that there be no loss of funding for Pegasus. He didn’t believe there would be a net loss, maybe a net gain. He didn’t think huge new numbers would be seen (in subscribers), but Verizon was saying that they were going to have four services to offer and were saying that there product was going to be very attractive.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the draft Issuing Authority Report. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
b. Natick Pegasus
Mr. Epstein advised that he had received the renewal agreement between the Town of Natick and Natick Pegasus, Inc. He marked it up and returned it, but hadn’t gotten anything back from Pegasus as of yet. He didn’t see anything in the agreement that jumped out at him between the new agreement and the first one. There were things that needed to be cleaned up, i.e. it was probably not necessary to have the provision about finding space given that they had space, but given the fact that Pegasus was a separate legal entity, he would assume that somebody from the organization would contact him to go through it again.
Mr. Ball called attention to one major change – that the Board was acting as the Board of Selectmen rather than the issuing authority. Mr. Epstein agreed although didn’t think it was a huge deal and added
that he could easily clean up the agreement if somebody from the Pegasus organization contacted him.
Ms. Gloff pointed out that the last page under Definition of Licensee only included the Comcast and RCN and she suggested that Verizon be added.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what action the Board needed to take, and Mr. Ball responded that a clean copy was needed. The question tonight was if there were any issues. Mr. Lemnios added that the other question was if the Board wished to extend the contract for an additional five years and if so inclined, the document could be prepared and brought back to the Board.
Mr. Ciccariello moved to extend the contract between the Town and Natick Pegasus for five years and authorize Mr. Epstein to enter into final contract negotiations along with the Town Administrator and Pegasus and bring the final agreement back to the Board. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Prior to the vote, Stuart Pologe, Vice-President and Treasurer for Natick Pegasus, noted that he had served on the Pegasus board since July 2000 and he hoped the Town and subscribers appreciated what they were doing. They tried to go from nothing to what they felt was an outstanding organization. They ran into some kinks and problems, but he would ask the Board to consider extending the license for five years.
Mr. Ball noted that there was an avenue for accepting comments on technical difficulties, but what if people had problems with programming to whom should they address their comments. Mr. Pologe suggested that they contact Randy Brewer the station manager in charge of the day-to-day operation. He noted that Pegasus welcomed the community to participate and give them guidance of what they may or may not want to see. If there was a complaint someone felt couldn’t be
ATTORNEY PETER EPSTEIN: CABLE ISSUES (contd)
addressed by the station manager, they should contact the Board of Directors.
c. RCN License Compliance
Mr. Epstein noted that there had been some back and forth on the issue of RCN completing the underground portion of the Natick subscription network. Some letters had gone from the Board of Selectmen to RCN. In November 2002 the Board amended RCN’s license granting them an additional 18 months to complete the network which took RCN to 10/10/03. RCN did not finish the network by that date. The parent company filed for bankruptcy and RCN asked for relief and proposed an amendment to partially make the Town whole. In the current round RCN proposed some further amendments. If the Board of Selectmen amended 3.1 of the license, RCN would not be relieved of its obligation. What would be different would be that RCN would be required to service all homes but only up to $1,000. Beyond that amount
they would only service if the homeowner paid the difference.
Mr. Epstein continued that the current draft had four different amendments:
1. Would change 3.1 adding the $1,000 per home condition
2. Section 4.1 would be amended accordingly
3. RCN agreed to make $175,000 in payments to the Town in consideration of amendments 1 and 2. The $175,000 would be to assist the Town in monitoring underground construction work and to enable the use of the gazebo as an origination site. Payments of $160,000 and $15,000 would be made within 14 days of the effective date.
4. An agreement to reduce the performance bond from $500,000 to $250,000.
If the Board accepted this proposal, the first requirement would be to post a notice.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to Mr. Epstein’s recommendation and Mr. Epstein responded that he would recommend that the Board accept the amendment.
When asked why, Mr. Epstein stated that it gave the Board the ability to require RCN to provide that service in underground areas. In his
experience RCN would not do this as a total build out and he felt the Town would be better off getting some consideration and monitoring what they were doing. For $1,000 he thought RCN could reach a lot of homes, but somebody would have to be looking at them and saying tell us why
you can’t get to that home and if not why not. The breach letters had been out there for some time and he (Mr. Epstein) thought it would be appropriate to act on it. This gave the Board a remedy for the breach and the focus could then go on Verizon.
Mr. Ball noted that the breach allowed the Town to charge RCN $500 per day. Mr. Epstein acknowledged that there was a per diem, but the Board would have to look at what was done and it was possible that the Board would have to restart that process. He (Mr. Epstein) thought it was a reasonable amendment. This was considerably higher than what he had seen offered in other communities.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that RCN never responded to the Board’s letters and the Board never got that information. He felt it was crucial to know the answers to the questions and asked if the Board could get RCN to provide the seven items listed. It bothered him that there was a half million bond and it was useless. The bond was being reduced to $250,000 and the Town was getting $175,000 but he would rather have the cash than the bond.
Mr. Epstein agreed that it was frustrating dealing with RCN, but there was a process that had to be followed.
Mr. Hughes moved to accept Mr. Epstein’s recommendation with the provision that Mr. Epstein advise RCN that the information requested in the July 26, 2005 letter to Tom Steel must be provided. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
ATTORNEY PETER EPSTEIN: CABLE ISSUES (contd)
Speaking to the motion Ms. Gloff stated that although she found $175,000 appealing, she wondered if the public should be given the opportunity to comment on this plan.
Mr. Epstein advised that the public notice would be published and it said that the Board of Selectmen would amend the license and that members of the public were welcome to write in. Ms. Gloff responded that the notice for the public sounded like there would be public input before it was amended, but the motion sounded like the decision was already being made. Mr. Epstein explained that under state law RCN and the Board come to agreement of the terms of the amendment. A public notice was then issued and you wait for a statutory period of time and give members of the public the opportunity to comment. If people raise concerns, the Board wouldn’t sign the amendment.
Ms. Gloff proposed that there be one additional requirement that in addition to the statute that the Board have it on the agenda and allow people to come and make comments in that statutory period. Mr. Lemnios pointed out that if the Board voted to publish the proposed amendment, there would be at least one Selectmen’s meeting between publication and the end of the comment period.
Mr. Epstein told the Board that he would be happy to call Mr. Steel and advise him that he must provide the information requested before the amendment was signed.
FALL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board agreed to limit discussion to Article 20 and Article 27.
Article 20 – Amend Purchase & Sales Agreement TCAN
Representing The Center for Arts in Natick was the Executive Director David Lavalley.
Mr. Lavalley reviewed the background of the sale of the former fire station to TCAN, noting that a purchase & sales agreement was signed in March 1999 and approved by Town Meeting in April 1999 stipulating that
TCAN make a payment-in-lieu of taxes at 25% of the assessed value to begin upon completion of construction of the building. Subsequent to Town Meeting’s passage, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts negated the sale and required the Town to seek competitive bids under MGL 30B. The Center for Arts was the successful bidder in the second round and signed a second Purchase & Sale Agreement with the Town completing the
sale. This second agreement changed the payment in lieu of taxes from 25% to 80%. The second agreement was approved by Town Meeting as Article 27, Annual Fall Town Meeting on October 10, 2000.
Article 20 asks Town Meeting to consider restoring the payment in lieu of taxes to 25% of the assessed value as it was structured in the original agreement approved by Town Meeting.
At the last meeting there was some discussion that a motion would be made at Town Meeting to reduce the payment-in-lieu of taxes to 0%, and Mr. Hughes inquired if that was still a possibility. Mr. Lavalley advised that TCAN wasn’t making that request. TCAN was seeking to return the payment to the amount originally agreed upon.
Mr. Hughes noted that one of the reasons this was continued was that there was a request based on Joseph Hurwitz’s proposal that TCAN present some agreement in writing to provide services to the Town in lieu of the $5,000. Mention had been made of housing the Drama Workshop, but for some reason that was not in writing.
Mr. Lavalley responded that TCAN’s mission was to benefit the community through the arts and he did everything possible to reach out to people to use their facility. In his opinion it was inappropriate for them to put a price tag on this service which was TCAN’s commitment to the community and the Board had his commitment that TCAN would continue to provide any level of service to the Town and where resources allowed to spend those.
FALL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES (contd)
Mr. Connolly noted that the last update of Form 990 was for 2003. 2004 was not done. Mr. Lavalley explained that there had been some bookkeeping turn over and they were in the process of completing 2004. He expected it would be completed promptly.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s recollection that when the state told the Town it had to go through the RFP, the RFP was scoped out to eliminate certain uses of the fire station. A lot of uses weren’t allowed and the Town was interested in receiving specific responses. Mr. Ball had the same recollection and Mr. Ciccariello continued that he took issue with the suggestion that TCAN was the only responder. The RFP was structured in such a way that it precluded a lot of other development
and it restricted the number of individuals. Although TCAN was the only bidder, they weren’t really. It was clear that it was going to be an 80% payment. He (Mr. Ciccariello) also felt that the Town had responded to TCAN, i.e. reduction of building fees.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that the Board supported TCAN in many ways through votes granting extensions and many of the Board members
supported TCAN in their own personal ways. He understood that TCAN was a not-for-profit and he supported TCAN 100% and would continue to do so, but he felt he had an obligation to the taxpayers who perhaps were not as supportive as some of the Board. He had an obligation to see that the Town received payments to which it was entitled to under agreements and he thought TCAN could afford to pay the $5,000. Although $5,000 was minute when looking at an $80 million budget, $5,000 was important and he didn’t see himself supporting this reduction. If that was the desire of Town Meeting it was up to each member to decide if that was legitimate thing to do. He knew that TCAN was committed to the Town, but he couldn’t support this at this time.
Referring to the Form 990, Mr. Ball noted that there was a $1.5 million balance in 2003, but George Fiske, TCAN President, assumed that that was prior to paying the bills for the rehab of the building and the architect. That didn’t mean they had cash in that amount.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to table discussion to the meeting of October 6, 2005.
Article 27 – Amend Zoning By-Laws Highway Corridor District
Representing one of the property owners was Attorney Milton Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert presented a montage of all the properties that would be affected by the article and noted that the basis of the article was the
issue of a small residential building on Route 9 which had been the subject of the Planning Board for over 30 years. At times the Planning Board addressed the issue and proposed different zoning. A few years ago there was an overlay zoning that allowed a doubling of the density. There was an ophthalmologist who wanted to purchase the structure at 728 Worcester for her office, but the Planning Board informed her that it wasn’t zoned for that. Half of the residences on the montage weren’t owner occupied. The property of his client was on a residential lot but it had been vacant since the early 1990’s and that was what prompted the writing of the article.
Mr. Gilbert explained that the proposal was to permit some minimal commercial use such as professional offices and restrict to traffic on Route 9. He reported that the new Community Development Director agreed that these properties would continue to deteriorate and become a
blight on the Town and he was trying to prevent that by using the structures for limited commercial use.
Mr. Hughes asked about a Planning Board hearing and was told that it was scheduled for Wednesday.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the lot size, and Mr. Gilbert said he would get that information to Mr. Ciccariello.
Mr. Ciccariello then noted that there was a lot of controversy with one of the lots and added that under the article the use was pretty broad. Mr. Gilbert responded that 2,000 square feet was the number suggested by the Planning Board. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that six of these properties provided housing that the Town would risk losing and these
FALL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES (contd)
may be affordable units. Mr. Gilbert offered to get the assessment of the properties and the amount for which they were being rented.
Dick Grady of 722 Worcester Road told the Board that he was adjacent to 728 Worcester and he didn’t want commercial properties and the neighbors didn’t want it either. The house (at 728 Worcester) was sold a year ago and the new owner rented it, but the grass was only cut once this year and that was when she put the house up for sale again. She couldn’t sell it and now she wants to make it commercial which he didn’t think was right.
Mr. Grady also noted that there was a $500,000 property next to her driveway (728 Worcester) and once that property was turned into commercial, his land would drop and everyone’s land would drop. Why destroy a lovely area. Mr. Grady reiterated that the Zimmerman’s did not own the property and he couldn’t understand why the tax board kept sending them taxes.
Tom Blackadar of 5 Lupine Road stated that he thought changing the overlay district at this time was inappropriate. The neighborhood went through several zoning changes recently with the four condo’s at the end. He also pointed out that for 728 Worcester there was no safe way to pull off Route 9 and the neighborhood couldn’t sustain the increased traffic. It was a neighborhood that had been there for quite awhile.
Mr. Gilbert responded that this article was not proposing to change the zoning but to provide an additional use should the owner of the properties wish to do so and this would help prevent property from falling in disrepair.
Mr. Blackadar noted that the Town permitted a certain right of use within the property structure and if someone wanted to change the use of the house, they could go to the ZBA, but he didn’t want to go through the area and make that change.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
____________________________
Carol A. Gloff, Clerk
| 
