BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
August 20, 2007
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Carol A. Gloff at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Carol A. Gloff, Charles M. Hughes, Joshua Ostroff, John Ciccariello, Kristine Van Amsterdam
ALSO PRESENT: Martha L. White, Acting Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on August 20, 2007 in the amount of $583,572.71. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $956,083.35.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. Ostroff announced that the Recycling Committee and Natick High School Computer Team had joined forces to sponsor a computer recycling event at Natick High School this Saturday. A similar event last spring had been very successful. People were being asked to make a $5.00 donation per item.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION
a. Anna Mancini
Anna Mancini told the Board that she had been a resident for 10 years and on the Historical Commission for the last six years and also on the Design Review Board as the Historical Commission’s member.
Mr. Ostroff requested Ms. Mancini to summarize issues the Commission was working on and she responded that the Commission had a grant for historical properties and was sending out an RFQ. About 200 properties would be surveyed to get them registered for the Mass Historical Commission.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Anna Mancini to the Historical Commission.
INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE YOUTH ADVISORY BOARD
a. Noah Wadsworth
Noah Wadsworth stated that he would be a sophomore at Natick High School this year. He had volunteered at Camp Arrowhead over the summer and was in the High School band. He had received a letter wanting to know if he wanted to join the Youth Advisory Board.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Wadsworth for some of his goals and visions. Mr. Wadsworth responded that he had none at the moment but the Youth Advisory Board opened a lot of opportunities. He was friends with a lot of different groups at school so he got a lot of different input of what kids want.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to some issues that affect youth in the Town, and Mr. Wadsworth replied that a lot of kids had issues with the schools and things they want changed such as sports programs. He didn’t know if there was anything the YAB could effect, but he wanted to try.
b. Atenas Madico
Atenas Madico noted that she would be a senior at Natick High School and had sort of been a member of the Youth Advisory Board since last year. She hadn’t actually been appointed and would like to take one step forward and put in more effort.
Having attended some meetings, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what Ms. Madico felt was important and what she would like to do. Ms. Madico responded that the YAB hadn’t been very organized and tried to do some things that fell through, but they now had a new advisor and she seems very excited about the organization.
Ms. Gloff advised there was one opening on the Youth Advisory Board and the Youth Advisory Board committee was unlimited.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who appoints the committee and was told by Ms. Gloff that anyone could join.
YAB Advisory Moira Munns explained that the YAB was a 9 member board appointed by the Board of Selectmen and the committee was a general membership. Anyone was allowed to join the committee from 7th grade to adult. The committee was a good way to participate. There was at least one member appointed whose term would expire next year and someone may wish to come work on some activities and then seek appointment the next year.
If a person graduates, Mr. Ostroff asked if their office became vacant or could they continue to be a member. Ms. Munns advised that the YAB By-laws said someone should be able to make a two year commitment. One of the first things she intended to do was to review the by-laws and make a recommendation to the Board.
Ms. Gloff noted that the current composition of 8 members consisted of 2 seniors, 2 juniors, 3 sophomores, and 1 freshman with four men and four women.
Prior to voting, Ms. Gloff extended congratulations to whoever was appointed, but stressed that she hoped whoever was not appointed would become involved in the YAB committee and hopefully there would be an opportunity in the future to join.
By paper ballot, the Board unanimously voted to appoint Atenas Madico to the Youth Advisory Board.
NATICK 360: PHASE I
Ms. Gloff reminded the Board that this had been tabled two weeks ago so that Mr. Hughes could speak with Craig Ross, Co-Chair of the Strategic Planning Oversight Committee.
Mr. Hughes reported that he spoke with Mr. Ross. His (Mr. Hughes) recommendation was to approve as it currently stood, but he indicated to Mr. Ross that he wouldn’t be prepared to vote on another document unless all the other boards had voted.
With the change on page 43, Mr. Hughes moved to accept Phase I. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he was comfortable with the document, but pointed out that acceptance didn’t mean support.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR CORDIALS & LIQUEURS PERMIT: ROOM FOR DESSERT D/B/A FINALE
Representing Room for Dessert d/b/a Finale in the application for a cordials & liqueurs at 1245 Worcester Street were Attorney Steven Miller of McDermott, Quilty & Miller and the owner Paul Conforti.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Ms. Gloff noted that the restaurant already had been granted a common victualer’s license and a wine and malt license and was requesting the addition of a cordials and liqueurs license that was approved by the Annual Town Meeting.
Mr. Miller stated that Finale operated several restaurants in the greater Boston area and looked forward to opening in Natick the beginning of September. When the cordials & liqueurs was passed by the legislature it was passed for the restaurants in the North End and was known as the Sambucca law, but had Finale been in existence it would have been known as the Finale law. About 20% of Finale’s business was alcohol but all of that was wines and cordials and this permit would be a great upgrade and complement.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the 20% reflected dollar volume. Mr. Miller advised that it was dollar volume and the percentage was actually around 18%.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Hughes moved to grant Room for Dessert d/b/a Finale a cordials & liqueurs permit for their premises at 1245 Worcester Street. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
FIRE CHIEF: AWARD CONTRACT SITE SURVEY WEST NATICK FIRE STATION
Fire Chief Gene Sabourin reported that three invitations for quotes had been solicited for a site survey on Speen Street to do a quick review on the existing station, provide thoughts on renovation, and look at the site the Town owns to look at the feasibility of constructing a new fire station. The low bidder was Maguire Group, Inc. in the amount of $6,800.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to the time line and was told by Chief Sabourin that the company had six weeks according to the contract to come back with information.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if a land survey of the property line was included and Chief Sabourin responded that it was not.
With respect to the site, Mr. Hughes asked if the site included the new property the Town just bought. Chief Sabourin advised that it did. He wasn’t sure of the size but thought the two new lots totaled 1.25 acres.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to award the contract for design services for the West Natick Fire Station to the low bidder Maguire Group, Inc. in the amount of $6,800. Unanimously voted.
APPLICATION FOR COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE: CHEESECAKE FACTORY RESTAURANTS, INC. D/B/A THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY
Representing the Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a The Cheesecake Factory in their application for a common victualer’s license for premises at 1245 Worcester Street was Attorney Andrew Upton of Holland & Knight and the manager Michael Moore.
Mr. Upton told the Board that the Cheesecake Factory was a national chain of casual family dining restaurants.
Mr. Ciccariello commented on what appeared to be outdoor dining, and Mr. Moore confirmed there were seats outside.
Asked when the restaurant expected to open, Mr. Moore replied October 18th.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to grant The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a The Cheesecake Factory a common victualer’s license for premises at 1245 Worcester St., Suite 1098. Unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR ALL ALCOHOL COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE: CHEESECAKE FACTORY RESTAURANTS, INC. D/B/A THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Mr. Upton stated that the typical alcohol sales at The Cheesecake Factory ran about 10-14% of total revenue.
Noting there were about 11 bar stools, Ms. Gloff inquired if there was a lounge and Mr. Upton advised there was not. There was 80 outdoor seats.
It was Mr. Hughes’ understanding that there was some litigation over the authority of the Mall to build a Cheesecake Factory and that litigation hadn’t as yet been settled. He was concerned with giving the Cheesecake Factory a liquor license and if there was litigation that prevents the restaurant from opening, the Cheesecake Factory would be holding the license and there were other entities looking for a license.
Neither Mr. Upton nor Mr. Moore were aware of the litigation, but Natick Mall Attorney Robert Davis of Goulston & Storrs was in the audience on an unrelated matter and confirmed there was ongoing litigation. He explained that the Mall received a special permit from the Planning Board and was entitled to proceed with the construction notwithstanding the fact Lord & Taylor filed an appeal. Several preliminary motions were brought forward and each one had been denied. In his (Mr. Davis’) opinion it was as close to zero as one could calculate the risk of not being able to open.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Natick Planning Board was being sued, and Mr. Davis responded that when one appeals a special permit it was customary and required to name the Board issuing the permit, but it was the Mall’s responsibility to defend.
Asked if he was TIPS certified, Mr. Moore advised that he was. Mr. Upton added that Mr. Moore was an experienced manager and would be happy to provide a copy of his certification. He further noted that it was the Cheesecake Factory’s policy to have all employees involved in service to be trained.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the number of hours the manager would be at the site and was told by Mr. Upton that in the beginning it would up to 100 per week. Regularly it would probably be 60+
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Hughes moved to grant The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a The Cheesecake Factory an all alcohol common victualer’s licenses for premises at 1245 Worcester St., Suite 1098 with outdoor seating and 11 bar stools conditioned upon submission of the TIPS certification for the manager and other employees. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: NATICK MALL, LLC AND GGP-NATICK WEST, LLC: LICENSE TO STORE INFLAMMABLES – PARKING GARAGES
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Attorney Robert Davis of Goulston & Storrs told the Board that he represented General Growth Properties for the development and redevelopment of the Natick Mall. Tonight he was before the Board for the issuance of a fuel storage license for the parking decks constructed over the past few months. The Mall expected to open on or about September 7.
The application for permit was for the above-ground storage of gasoline in tanks of parked vehicles on 4 additional parking decks – one above ground, two underground, and one that was partially aboveground and partially underground at the Natick Mall.
John Stevenson of DHB illustrated where the parking garages were located. Also present was Philip Ricardi, the GGP General Construction Manager who was familiar with the construction process.
Mr. Davis advised that GGP worked closely with the Fire Department on the design. The decks were approved by the Planning Board and the ZBA had a role approving the compact parking spaces. From a traffic standpoint he believed the decks should work.
Ms. Gloff clarified that the permit was for the fuel in the cars that will be parked in the garage not storage of fuel in large containers.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to how the number of gallons was calculated and was told by Mr. Stevenson that the assumption was made that all the decks were at 100% capacity and used 20 gallons per vehicle and assumed each vehicle was topped off. The numbers were conservatively high. They did some research and found the average was about 17 gallons per tank.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if everything was squared away from the Fire Department. Fire Chief Gene Sabourin advised that as far as inspections and life safety they were. A temporary CO was issued for the garages. Asked if he felt confident that all life safety issues would be addressed by the time the Mall opened, Chief Sabourin’s reply was, “yes”.
Mr. Hughes questioned if the Mall had a license for the garage out front and Mr. Davis advised that they did. They were filing for a change in name on the license.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Hughes moved to grant Natick Mall, LLC and GGP-Natick West, LLC a permit to store gasoline in tanks of parked vehicles on two underground parking decks, one aboveground parking deck, and one deck that is partially underground and partially aboveground used in connection with retail sales and onsite residential units
Underground
Deck B maximum of 3,020 gallons
Deck D maximum of 25,900 gallons
Deck E (partial) maximum of 6,540 gallons
Aboveground
Deck E (partial) maximum of 9,820 gallons
Deck F maximum of 37,860 gallons
On property located at 1235 and 1245 Worcester Street and 290, 310, and 330 Speen Street.
Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
DPW DIRECTOR
a. Discussion of Trash Collection and Purchase of Rubbish Packers
Ms. White had provided the Board with a memo summarizing the bids received for the trash collection vehicles. She recommended that the current trash collection program continue and the Board vote in favor of the purchase of three new rear collection vehicles as voted by Town Meeting. The Town Administrator had the authority to purchase the compactors, but because there had been some debate and discussion she thought this meeting would give an opportunity to show the numbers.
Ms. White noted that the current program was very cost effective in reducing the amount of trash. The pay-as-you-throw was generally considered particularly beneficial to seniors and small families since households were only paying for what they put out. It had been suggested that the decision to stay with the rear loading programs prohibited new ideas, but the willingness of the DPW to implement new programs was done years ago. The savings per year of $300,000 has produced a savings to date of $1.2 million.
Ms. White continued that introducing automated sidearm system would be a step backward. The savings was almost entirely in the area of reduction of personnel cost but the consolidation of the Sanitation and Highway Division has allowed the Town to maximize the efficient use of that personnel and allowed the DPW to share that personnel across a variety of functions. That made Natick a different model than those outlined in the brochure. Another savings in personnel was in injuries, but PAYT had virtually eliminated injuries. With households having carts, it (automated) would likely result in an increase in trash and the increased trash would equal increased tipping fees and to buy the barrels would be $400-500.
Ms. White told the Board that the administration had evaluated opportunities to introduce automation but dismissed it as it did not appear to increase savings and would increase trash. She assured the Board that the administration was always open to creative opportunities to increase recycling and decrease the amount of trash.
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky highlighted the recent history of Sanitation and trash collection. In 1990 the dump closed and the Town had the opportunity to join Millbury. The Town had to get trash to Millbury and at the same time maneuver through the streets. The original idea was a transfer station but the Town was not able to put together a successful proposal for a transfer station so the Town had to get trucks small enough to go through the neighborhoods but strong enough to go to Millbury every day. Many of the trucks were still in service after all those years.
Mr. Sisitsky continued that during that time the Town began a curbside recycling program. The decisions were discussed and after many meetings approved by the Board of Selectmen. A one year trash fee was introduced and then went to pay-as-you-throw. PAYT was extremely successful and greatly reduced the trash to Millbury and increased the recycling. A year later a major reorganization of the DPW was recommended and the Sanitation and Highway Divisions were combined. Trash was only picked up Tuesday through Friday which allowed the DPW to move bulk pick up to Monday.
They continued to try to improve the system and make it as efficient and cost effective as possible and an analysis was done to see if the program should revert to a private operation or kept inhouse. The study found that it was cost effective to keep it inhouse. Sanitation only picks up trash 80% of the time they work. On Mondays they do bulk pickup and the other time they do other work – all the things the DPW would like to do but can’t normally do because of time constraint. Those people (sanitation) were also available during the winter for snow removal and if any of those people were lost the department would lose a lot of capability for fighting snow storms and whatever savings there were would be gone because the DPW would have to try to get more private contractors or pay more overtime or see a
major inconvenience to the citizens because the DPW wouldn’t be able to clean the streets in a timely manner.
The trucks they had now and the ones they want to replace them with were multi purpose vehicles. They were used to pick up trash and yard waste and could empty dumpsters at municipal buildings, the schools, and were used for bulky pickup. If the DPW was forced to buy the side loading trucks, the ability to do the other activities would be greatly restricted. Material couldn’t be put in any other way but the side containers so there would still have to be another fleet of trash trucks if the Town wanted to continue to provide those services. There were other issues raised that could create problems for the DPW, i.e. he didn’t know how they would handle one way streets because of the arm on the side. Now a lot of times if the street was narrow they pick up both sides and for small streets that
packers can’t get down, they send a pickup truck down and the pickup meets up with the rubbish packer and does a transfer. That couldn’t be done with an automated cart.
In conclusion Mr. Sisitsky stated that he would recommend purchasing the trucks. Town Meeting appropriated $525,000 for the purchase of the trucks and the bids were within the budget. There was a 150 day delivery and it was critical to order the trucks as soon as possible.
In a memo to the Board Christopher Bradley, the Procurement Officer and Mr. Sisitsky advised that six contractors submitted eight bids including one “No-bid” and that the three low bidders did not meet the minimum specifications and were considered non-responsive.
Ms. Gloff requested information about the three low bidders not getting the contract and Mr. Sisitsky responded that the three low bidders all bid the same truck – Boston Freight. The truck didn’t meet the minimum specifications and the lowest bidder noted that it didn’t meet the spec, but thought it might be adequate. Tri-State was the same truck as Boston Freight and didn’t meet the specifications. The first bid that met the specifications was McDevitt Trucks in the amount of $522,645.
Ms. Gloff questioned why they didn’t meet the specifications and was told by Mr. Sisitsky that a heavy duty truck was spec’d which gives a bigger axle wheel bearing. Because a heavy duty truck was spec’d before the Town got a long life span. That was the reason the price was a little more, but the Town would get it back on the back end.
In response to a series of questions from Mr. Ciccariello, Equipment Maintenance Division Supervisor Thomas Collins responded that an extended warranty had been asked for especially for the transmission and the warrant was five years for the transmission and engine. The trucks were a Peter Built model 365 and the present fleet was made up of Auto Care, Volvo and Lodal.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the spec was written in such a way that would allow for an open competitive bid or was it written in such a way that other bidders couldn’t have met the specs. Mr. Collins responded that he thought some of the others could have met the spec if they bid a heavy duty truck. The DPW went with a heavy duty truck because it was a better bang for the buck. Longevity was what the Town was looking for and they were recycled into a different operation.
Asked for an example, Mr. Collins noted that the rubbish body was taken off and the chassis was used. With regard to the three vehicles being replaced, Mr. Collins advised that two were being traded in and one was being recycled back into a hook lift. Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the trade in was part of the bid, but Mr. Collins advised that it was not. They would either be auctioned or a sealed bid.
If the three vehicles were purchased, Mr. Ciccariello asked about the anticipated savings on maintenance. Mr. Collins noted that the next two years should be quite low – just the regular maintenance. Going into years 3,4,5 the engine and transmission was covered, but there was the maintenance of wear and tear.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how much had been spent on maintenance on the vehicles and Mr. Collins replied that major investments had been made on the transmissions the last couple of years.
In the plan presented at the FinCom hearing, Mr. Ostroff recalled there being talk about three trucks now and a couple later to have a stable fleet. What did the DPW anticipate requesting from Town Meeting? Mr. Sisitsky noted that two additional trucks were planned – one in 2009 and one in 2010. Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the life expectancy of the trucks and was told by Mr. Collins that the general rule of thumb was 5-7 years on a rubbish packer body, but they had been able to extend that.
To Mr. Ostroff’s query about worker’s compensation claims, Mr. Sisitsky responded that they were minimal especially picking up pay-as-you-throw.
Chair of the Recycling Committee Terry Miller stated that the automated side cart raised a lot of concern from a recycling perspective. She talked to someone from DEP and there were no towns with an automated system and pay-as-you-throw. The biggest question she gets was why not pick up recycling every week, but if there were large trash barrels recycling would plummet.
Ms. Miller also pointed out that there were waste bans in Massachusetts and if the Town went to an automated system there wasn’t a way for anybody to monitor what’s being put in the barrels. From a recycling standpoint the automated system wasn’t the best thing for Natick. When pay-as-you-throw was instituted 14 months was spent analyzing the best solution for Natick and PAYT seemed to be the most equitable thing for Natick.
In doing some research Mr. Ostroff said he found that DEP set a much higher recycling target than most communities achieve and asked if Ms. Miller could confirm that. Ms. Miller replied that it was the Town’s mandate and DEP tried to up it every year. Natick was doing about 53% and that was something to be proud of. DEP set things high. She noted there was an attempt to get a group of towns around the Mall to try to get the Mall to be more responsive to recycling. While she didn’t know how much that would help Natick rates, it would help Natick.
John Culkin explained that the underlining point raised by the folks on the FinCom interested in alternative technology was that they weren’t saying that alternative technology was the answer, but that not enough time had been spent considering the pros and cons of the alternative technology. There were ways to make it work. He heard that with PAYT injuries had been reduced and basically eliminated, but there has only been a conversation saying it’s been eliminated. He hadn’t seen any facts and hadn’t seen any numbers.
Continuing, Mr. Culkin noted that the previous speaker said that PAYT was a 14 month project, but to him it sounded as though there had been 4-5 conversations of 20 minutes to half hour to talk about alternative technology for trash collection. Mention was made of the narrow streets, but there were many examples of towns with automated recycling that have the same issues. Has the Town talked to these people? He hadn’t heard that we had. He was saying that not enough looking at the subject had been done. There was some discussion about the privatization study, but if the Town wanted companies to utilize the new technology what was the impact. Maybe the privatization issue would be different with the new technology.
Mr. Culkin continued that he heard that the DPW had cut costs and made efficiencies but there was no report to show how that was accomplished. Mention was made of information suggesting that no PAYT community had an automated program, but he was told that Brockton had a PAYT automated program. Statements were being made but there hasn’t been a committee that looked at these numbers or documented these numbers and $1/2 million was being spent for 10 years without having investigated side loading vehicles.
After thanking Mr. Culkin for the investment of his time, Mr. Ostroff commented that it was important to challenge the Town to do the best it could when making these large capital investments. He talked to the DPW Director in Mansfield and that community voted against PAYT and had a private contractor with an automated system. If there was a system that worked well for a community, then bravo for that community. It may be that automation may be the best way to do it 10-15 years from now, but had to work for Natick and he didn’t think it was fair to say the research and study hadn’t been done. He thought the privatization study done was pretty conclusive in keeping it inhouse.
Mr. Ostroff further noted that recycling was out sourced. At some point in time maybe it was something the Town wouldn’t be able to do and if that happened maybe the Town would go to an approach like this, but he couldn’t see the Town making a substantial investment in capital for it now. An abundant amount of time had been spent on this when there were so many other things on management’s plate.
Mr. Culkin questioned if Mr. Ostroff had asked the Mansfield Director how long it took them to come up their program and what effort was put into the decision to do it. Ms. White responded that she contacted a couple of communities but most of her research about the innovative approach and being able to maximize recycling and an automated system was through the DEP contact and she (DEP contact) didn’t know of anybody succeeding in both. It would reduce the Town’s recycling and increase the trash.
Mr. Ostroff added that he didn’t know how long Mansfield took. They just started it April 2 and having spoken to a couple of people there it was working well for them.
Mr. Culkin commented that if the Town bought the trash trucks it would be 15 years before it was looked at again. He wasn’t sure the privatization study was based on a technology. It could change the equation. He didn’t think enough time had been spent looking at the subject.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that Town Meeting had voted to move forward and based on discussions the Acting Town Administrator had, the idea of a transfer station was being raised. While she was all for looking at moving towards maximizing efficiencies, reducing collection costs, and maximizing recycling the least most prudent move for Natick might be to revisit a transfer station. She was comfortable with the additional information presented this evening. The Town hires and retains professionals in the departments and to her it was important for the Board to remember that.
Finance Committee member John Moran told the Board that automation was the way of the future which would allow a reduction of staff and reduction of hours. He noted that all that was needed was one injury to increase the Town’s disability costs. The automated system would eliminate the need of the person jumping on and off. He sat on the PAYT Committee for 14 months and looked into every single corner and if another task force was created it could come up with a way to continue to recycle what we do now (if the Town went to automated). For Newton to come up with the automated system, it didn’t make any sense for Natick not to go in that direction. It was the way of the future and he thought the automated arm was the way of the future.
Ms. Gloff commented that Newton did not have PAYT and Mr. Hughes added that Newton had just started to study the automated arm. Mr. Moran responded that it was his understanding that the Newton Mayor had signed the program to go forward with the automated arm.
Having read up on the automated system, Mr. Ciccariello recalled that the Board of Selectmen decided to go with a trash fee. It was difficult and in response the Board started looking at PAYT as an option and decided that was the best way to go. He thought a lot of people were recycling more and there was an advantage for people only throwing out a small amount, but it was studied and he wasn’t saying the Town shouldn’t look at other options. The DPW was going to buy three new trucks and anticipated getting another two trucks in the next couple of years with an anticipated life span of 8-10 years.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that there was nothing to prevent the Town from studying and looking at alternatives whether the trucks were purchased now or move forward in three years. There were a lot of alternatives and the Town should be looking at ways to save dollars. He didn’t see any reason for not looking at alternatives. He wasn’t saying it was the solution, but whether or not the Town bought the trucks tonight wasn’t going to impact whether the Board considered going to a different alternative in the future. In three years the Town will be looking for two more trucks and who knows the technology may change. He didn’t think the Board should ever push aside an idea and not look outside the box. In his opinion consideration should be given to studying and looking at
alternatives particularly with the budget crisis.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to ratify the Acting Town Administrator’s recommendation to award the contract for the purchase of three trash packer trucks to McDevitt Trucks in the amount of $522,645. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
In making the motion Mr. Ostroff stated that he thought the discussion of automation was more a discussion of outsourcing. If the Town couldn’t maintain the service inhouse that may be a solution and he would applaud any study whether tonight or six months from now, but he didn’t think it should be taken for granted the people working miracles keeping 17 year old trucks running or paying additional transmission expenses when it should have been done months ago.
Ms. Gloff noted that the bids were just solicited recently and there was no delay putting it on the agenda.
b. Water & Sewer Policy: Repair of Streets Subsequent to Water or Sewer Work
In a memo to the Board Ms. White requested the Board’s consideration of a policy with respect to funding curb-to-curb roadway pavement improvements through the Water & Sewer Enterprise subsequent to completion of water or sewer utility work. The curb-to-curb phrase was used to describe the full width of the traveled way or paved surface.
She explained that currently there was no policy or consistency as to how the road improvements would be funded after the underground sewer and water utility work was completed. Sometimes the work was fully funded by the Water & Sewer Division and sometimes Chapter 90 or other funding source was utilized. To stretch the Town’s scarce Chapter 90 funds further, and to facilitate better capital planning and budgeting, a policy in this regard would be helpful.
Ms. White noted that upon completion of water or sewer projects, full roadway resurfacing or reconstruction was not always needed. There were times when a good quality patch was an appropriate treatment. But, when possible, the Water and Sewer Division and the Highway Division coordinate the timing of their projects such that, for example, a water main relining project or an upgrade of new residential water service connections takes place in conjunction with a planned roadway improvement project. In this case, it would be a good utilization of resources to fund the resurfacing of a portion of these projects through the Water & Sewer Enterprise Fund.
She further noted that such a policy would not allow for other roadway work, such as drainage improvements or sidewalk installation, to be funded through the Water & Sewer Enterprise Fund. The intent would simply be to repair the roadway surface curb-to-curb for the full length of the water or sewer project. The scope of work may include, however, full roadway pavement replacement if such is necessary on the subject roadway. An example of this type of project which was intended to be proposed for capital funding at the October Town Meeting was Glen Street. The roadway was badly in need of full reconstruction, including underground work on the water main, installation of drainage, installation of a sidewalk on one side, and full reconstruction of the roadway. The cost estimate for the roadwork, exclusive
of the water main work, was $1.98 million, of which $488,300 was directly related to resurfacing the roadway. It was that amount of roadwork on Glen Street that would be proposed for funding through the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund.
In conclusion Ms. White advised that it was not anticipated that adoption of a policy to this effect would have a measurable impact on water and sewer rates and with this policy, projects could be planned to maintain stability in the Enterprise debt budget. If the Board was amenable to this approach, the DPW management and she would draft a policy for the Board’s review.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to who would decide if the whole road would have to be repaved. He pointed out that on Union Street only a 4x4 square got torn up. DPW Director Charles Sisitsky responded that Union Street was worse than that. When the job was initially started people were happy because it increased water pressure and they relined a number of services on Union Street that were very old and that was what tore up the road. On Pond Street they didn’t have to do the cross trenches. He noted there had been a similar conversation about the policy on Speen Street and the Board voted to authorize the DPW to supplement the Mall money with the Water & Sewer Enterprise. The Board was now being asked to establish a policy that when major work needed to be done on a road, that could be included as
part of the budget for the project and a certain amount would be budgeted for repaving. Glen Street would be combined with other work and get the most efficient bang out of the buck.
Mr. Hughes inquired if decisions would be made in the beginning to use water & sewer for repaving as opposed to setting the rates and then have a project come in. Mr. Sisitsky felt that was the key to have the knowledge up front to have consistency in the water & sewer rates. If the Board developed a specific policy it would put those things in place and the DPW would know if they needed to recommend money for road repaving.
Mr. Hughes recalled there being talk about using water & sewer to do part of Cottage Street. Mr. Sisitsky explained that the work on Cottage Street and a portion of Union Street would be sewer betterment work. The DPW was asking for some design work and would then go to the abutters. That was different than what was being talked about on Glen Street.
In crafting the proposal, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if there would be criteria included that said if this amount of work was being done, the repaving would go curb-to-curb. Criteria could be built in that affords latitude but the citizen would be able to look at it and understand.
Ms. White responded that that was the objective to establish parameters that would provide adequate guidance for when the Town would and wouldn’t fund full paving.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that his biggest concern was the impact on the water & sewer rates. It had been suggested that the policy was not anticipated to have a measurable impact on the rates, but he hadn’t seen any numbers and until he saw numbers he had some concerns. We keep using retained earnings for water & sewer projects and the retained earnings keep shrinking. He didn’t disagree that the roads should be replaced properly but he would like to see some numbers. Where Glen Street was used as an example, he suggested that Ms. White and the DPW come back and tell the Board the impact
Ms. White advised that that was her intent. She and the DPW had decided to see if there was any interest and then come back with specific policy language and at that time a debt budget could be included with the impact plugged in.
Mr. Ostroff remarked that he found it a potentially helpful solution for a difficult problem, but he wanted to echo Mr. Ciccriello’s request for some sense of scale. He also questioned if this policy would impact the water & sewer rate study and if the people doing the study should have it. Ms. White thought that made great sense and the timing couldn’t be better.
Mr. Hughes felt there was nothing to lose by seeing a draft and moved to have a policy drafted for the Board’s review. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
VERIZON CABLE: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
In a memo to the Board Ms. White advised that in accordance with the terms of the contract between the Town and Verizon for cable service, the Town had received the first $90,000 installment of the $406,000 to be provided over a seven year period for capital funding. She noted that Ms. Gloff, Hank Szretter Chair of the Information Systems Advisory Board and she had met with Attorney Epstein special counsel on cable-related issues to evaluate options as to the possible use of the funds. The language of the contracts limits their use to the support of the production of local PEG Access Programming and/or other cable related purposes.
Ms. White continued that it appeared there were limited needs within the municipality to support the INET system and she suggested the Selectmen utilize a portion of the capital funds ($22,000) to purchase back-up equipment for the INET system and that the balance of $68,000 be transferred to Pegasus. Pegasus had a list of capital needs such as the installation of cameras in the School Committee meeting room, purchase of a DVD duplicator, purchase of additional camera equipment to be loaned to community groups, and more worthwhile expenditures that far exceed the available funding.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to why it made sense to purchase backup equipment for the INET, and Ms. White responded that it would ensure if the equipment went down the entire system didn’t go down.
Hank Szretter added that the INET was a fiber optic network that connects all the Town buildings and if any of the four modules went down it would take a large piece down. It was also how the telephone system worked and even though all four modules were in good shape and there were maintenance contracts, it was felt that it would be a good idea to gradually replace those four units and have a module as a spare.
If the Board were to transfer the funds, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who at Pegasus would determine what should be purchased and how. Mr. Szretter explained that the Town had a contract with Pegasus. Pegasus was a private entity with a Board of Directors, station manager, and a budget. Their primary concern was to provide equipment and the best service for education, government, and service. Ms. White noted that once the money was transferred to them it was up to Pegasus to prioritize how to spend it, but there has been a verbal commitment from Pegasus to install cameras in the School Committee room.
Referring to the comment that the capital needs exceed the funding, Mr. Ostroff inquired if the $406,000 would help with Pegasus’ capital planning. Mr. Szretter’s reply was, “yes”.
Mr. Ostroff then inquired if it was possible that Pegasus would be able to televise more public meetings, i.e. Conservation, Planning. Mr. Szretter noted that he would love to televise them all and having the cameras in the School Committee room would mean being able to televise any meeting in either of the two rooms (Selectmen’s and School Committee’s).
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to transfer $68,000 of the $90,000 in Verizon capital funding to Natick Pegasus. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes noted that the $22,000 for the backup module would be appropriated when IS returned with a price.
CONFIRMATION OF THE RECREATION COMMISSION’S APPOINTMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to confirm the Recreation Commission’s appointment of David Ordway to the Open Space Advisory Committee.
DRAFT LETER TO MPO: ROUTE 27 INTERSECTION
Ms. White recalled that the Board had asked that a letter be prepared to be sent to the MPO to consider the Route 27 intersection. In speaking with the Community Development Director Patrick Reffett he already wrote to the STIP Coordinator and sent a copy to the Secretary of Transportation who serves as the Executive Director of the MPO and to the managing Director of the MPO. She wondered if that would suffice or did the Board want to write a letter on its own.
The Board had been given a copy of Mr. Reffett’s letter and Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that from her perspective it would suffice.
No. 3 made reference to the Town designing Route 27 from locally derived development mitigation funds and Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was an assumption that the mitigation funds were coming from a particular project. Ms. White advised that it referred to funds already in hand from an earlier MathWorks project.
FALL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
Ms. White informed the Board there were 25 articles for Fall Town Meeting. She noted that she had talked about an article to accept Section 18 that stipulates that Medicare eligible retirees would be shifted to Medicare. As that has evolved a number of things have happened. In conjunction with that article two other articles were being put forward by the Town Administrator. Article 16 would ratify an existing practice that non-Medicare eligible employees would be allowed to stay and pay the same rate as active employees and Article 17 would give some flexibility should the Board feel it necessary with respect to the percentage of contribution rates to the supplement. Article 16 and 17 would only be considered if Article 15 were adopted.
Ms. White advised that she had met with the Insurance Advisory Committee last Thursday and there was another meeting this Thursday. She would be discussing the articles further with the Board on September 4 and would begin a series of meetings with all employees and retirees beginning September 11.
Mr. Hughes asked about the hearing for the acceptance of the streets and Ms. Challis explained that the Town Engineer wanted to set up two separate hearings because he was uncertain if one of the streets would be ready in time to go before this Town Meeting.
Mr. Hughes then asked about Article 8 & 9 and Ms. White advised that Article 8 proposed an appropriation of the Natick Mall mitigation money for design work for a fire station. Article 9 was an alternative to Article 8 that would use mitigation money for renovations to the West Natick station to address some badly needed life safety concerns and make the station more habitable. It was intended to be a band aid approach.
In response to Mr. Hughes’ query about the report from the Community/Senior Center Committee, Mr. Ciccariello responded that the building committee met two weeks ago and talked about moving forward. They accepted a schematic design layout and decided the best thing to do would be to have the architect come up with all the cost estimates, how much it would cost if day care were added and a gym were added and to ask the Council on Aging Director for a sense of what programs will occur (if the new center moves forward) and the cost.
The report to Town Meeting will be where it was in the design process. He hoped to have construction cost estimates and some indication from the Council on Aging staff of what the budget would be if the project proceeds so the Finance Committee, Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting could be given an update and based on questions that arise in that process, the committee could do a little more homework and perhaps the following spring come in and talk about dollars and what might be done moving forward. No money was being requested in this round.
Mr. Ostroff asked that the report be posted on the web site.
VOTE TO MAKE LAYOUT AND HOLD PUBLIC HEARING: COTTAGE STREET
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted the intent to make a layout for Cottage Street.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to hold a public hearing on September 4, 2007 on the acceptance of Cottage Street.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Selectmen’s Office Hours
Mr. Ostroff had hoped to have a schedule of the Selectmen’s office hours for tonight’s meeting and apologized for not having it prepared. He suggested that the Board not do Tuesday for September, but resume Tuesday in October and Thursday morning at the Senior Center.
As Tuesday night and Thursday morning may be difficult for a member, Ms. Gloff suggested that Mr. Ostroff speak with Ms. Van Amsterdam when developing a schedule.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the April 4, 2007 meeting.
REQUEST FOR ROAD RACE/BLOCK PARTY PERMIT: SHERWOOD AREA
A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve Frank Lombardo’s request to hold a fund raising run/walk on September 9, 2007 on the following roads in the Sherwood neighborhood: Doncaster, Surrey, Sherwood, Nottingham, Barnesdale and Greenwood. In the same motion the Board further voted to permit the closure of Concaster along with Surrey between 7 and 13 in the afternoon and early evening of September 9, 2007 for a cookout.
REQUEST FOR BLOCK PARTY: SUNDANCE WAY
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve Jane Anderson’s request to block off Sundance Way on September 8, 2007 from 3:00-8:00 p.m. for a block party.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
a. CSX
Ms. White advised that CSX’s project to remove the rails and ties had already resulted in some inappropriate access. She had left a message with CSX regarding the safety issues but hadn’t received a return telephone call and would ask the Board to consider a vote not to exceed $5,000 to put up some barriers. She believed the cost would be $2,000-3,000 and believed the public safety issues were sufficient that the Town needed to take action and notify CSX what was done and why. The source of funds would be the mitigation money.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about sending CSX a written notice and Ms. White responded that she was having Town Counsel draft that. She added that she thought it was an urgent situation and wanted the barriers up as quickly as possibly. Ms. White clarified that she was not inclined to send a notice asking CSX to take action, but rather was notifying them of what the Town did.
Mr. Ciccariello was of the opinion there should be something in writing.
Mr. Ostroff noted that the Town had a number of barriers but using them would deplete the supply and since there was money from the mitigation fund, it made sense to do it. This was a solution that had to work for several years so it had to be done right.
Mr. Hughes questioned what had happened that required the Town taking action so quickly. Ms. White noted the pickup trucks and 4 wheel drive vehicles using the property.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to authorize an expenditure of up to $5,000 from the Mall mitigation money to secure the CSX right-of-way.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Town Common Flag Pole
Ms. White informed the Board that she was working to expedite the painting of the flag pole on the Town Common, but didn’t have a date. There were volunteers involved and sometimes it was hard to invoke a firm deadline but she was trying to push that forward.
b. Town Employees
Mr. Hughes called attention to a letter in correspondence commending the Fire Department, Police Department, and DPW for their quick response to some down trees. To him it re-enforced that the Town had good Town employees and department heads. Ms. Van Amsterdam echoed Mr. Hughes’ remarks.
c. Loker Park
Mr. Ostroff requested an update on the Loker Park court. Ms. White believed it would be done this week.
d. Telephone/Electric Cables
Mr. Ostroff commented on the number of cables seen wrapped around poles all over Town. He found it to be an unnecessary eyesore and hazard something with which he was concerned. He suggested the administration check with Verizon or Nstar.
e. Clean Up
Ms. Gloff referenced an e-mail from a resident concerning people not cleaning up after their dogs. She reminded people of the need to clean up after their dog.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
____________________________
Joshua Ostroff, Clerk
| 
