BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
October 29, 2007
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chair Carol A. Gloff at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Carol A. Gloff, Charles M. Hughes, Joshua Ostroff, John Ciccariello, Kristine Van Amsterdam
ALSO PRESENT: Martha L. White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on October 29, 2007 in the amount of $1,613,155.90. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $3,136,554.41.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to litigation, and executive session minutes. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Ms. Gloff, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello had not as yet arrived and did not vote. At 6:01 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
HEART SAFE COMMUNITY AWARD
Appearing before the Board were Deputy Jamie Sheridan, Lieutenant Michael Aries, and Firefighter Daniel Hartwell.
Ms. Gloff introduced the subject by noting that she had the pleasure of attending an event Thursday evening at which the Town won an award for being a HeartSafe community and for the incredible work the Town has done to obtain and train many residents and employees on the use of defibrillators.
Lieutenant Aries noted that several years ago the Metropolitan Boston EMS Council awarded Natick the HeartSafe Community award. It was quite an honor and in the year following the designation as a HeartSafe Community, a grant application was submitted to the MetroWest Health Care Foundation to do outreach to teach individuals easy CPR and the use of external cardiac defibrillators. Lieutenant Aries acknowledged the work of the community leaders as a whole having worked with Personnel Director Betty Dennis to get the employees trained. They also did outreach to private industry of which MathWorks was a big supporter. A lot of training has been done and he thought it would pay bid dividends.
Lieutenant Aries continued that this year they applied for an additional grant to the MetroWest Health Care Foundation and was doing additional outreach work. The Fire Department was the most visible, but he equated it to the Verizon commercial that shows the network made up of a lot of people and the Fire Department had the network.
Firefighter Hartwell reported that through the grant they had trained just shy of 500 residents. It was an excellent program. It was very low key so there was no pressure on the people taking the course. He showed the Board the kit they had been able to secure through the grant that came with a mannequin and booklets. The hope was that once a class was taught, they would take it home and teach their family. He also noted that part of the grant enabled them to update the defibrillators in the Fire Department and Police Department. The goal this year was to train an additional 500 people. They were in negotiations with the Natick Collection and will conduct a class for the general public if there were 10 or more members. They didn’t certify anyone but it will give everyone the essentials
to save a life.
In conclusion Firefighter Hartwell credited the efforts of Lieutenant Aries as the reason Natick had this program.
Deputy Sheridan, who oversaw the program from a managerial standpoint, thanked the guys for the work they had done and disclaimed any credit. Lieutenant Aries conceived the program, got the funding, got it organized and constantly improved it. The community owed him a debt of gratitude. Deputy Sheridan also recognized the efforts of Firefighter Hartwell and the members of 1707. Having seen a number of Fire Departments, he didn’t know of another group that was as unique. They were involved in the community.
Ms. Gloff noted the plaque would be put in some place visible.
NATICK SERVICE COUNCIL: ONE DAY ALCOHOL LICENSE
Appearing on behalf of the Natick Service Council for a one day alcohol license was the Executive Director Wissa Wissa.
Mr. Wissa advised that he was seeking a one day alcohol license to the Service Council’s annual fund raising event to be held at the Charles River Estate, 116 Elliot Street on Saturday, November 10, 2007 from 8:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m. He advised that the bartenders would be TIPS certified and the Service Council would provide a certificate of insurance.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, and unanimously voted to approve Mr. Wissa’s request for a one day alcohol license for November 10, 2007 from 8:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m. for a fund raising event to be held at 116 Elliot Street.
PUBLIC HEARING: DEDICATION OF PLAQUE IN HONOR OF PFC PAUL A. ENO
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
The Board was in receipt of correspondence from the Community Development Department and the Chair of the Historical Commission with both in agreement that dedicating a plaque at Lincoln Square park in honor of PFC Paul A. Eno would be appropriate.
Ed Jolley, President of the Veterans’ Council, spoke on behalf of PFC Eno’s family noting that PFC Eno was born in Natick in 1933 and was killed in Korea in June 1953. They were asking to have a memorial plaque put up in PFC Eno’s memory to be dedicated on November 11.
Mr. Ostroff advised that he went to the park with Mr. Jolley and Superintendent of Parks and Recreation Richard Cugini to check out the location and there were a couple of appropriate sites for the plaque.
Mr. Jolley raised the issue of wording for the plaque and Ms. White noted there had been some discussion because the square already had a name. She believed the final recommendation was ‘The Paul E. Eno Memorial Park at Lincoln Square’.
Mr. Ostroff felt that was a lot of language for a standard sign and noted that the idea was to name the park and yet acknowledge the heritage of the park. Mr. Hughes pointed out that was what Mr. Ostroff indicated in his e-mail to Community Development or the Historical Commission. In the e-mail Mr. Ostroff had said that this was not a proposal for renaming the Lincoln Square Park. Mr. Ostroff explained that was when the understanding was that the park was named, but it isn’t. He had some follow-up discussions with the Historical Commission and Community Development and they were fine with calling it the Paul A. Eno Park.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to dedicate the park to Paul A. Eno with the location of the sign subject to clarification with the DPW. The official name to be ‘The placePlaceNamePaul PlaceNameA. PlaceNameEno PlaceTypeMemorial Park at addressStreetLincoln Square’. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
MASS RECYCLES CAMPAIGN
Representing the Natick Recycling Committee were co-chairs Terry Miller and Laurie Gols.
Karen Patterson was introduced to talk about the Mass Recycles campaign. Ms. Patterson worked for Mass Recycles Paper which was a statewide non-profit doing a state-wide campaign to increase paper recycling and working with DEP and cities and towns to increase the amount of paper recycled every year. Ms. Patterson noted the goal was to divert up to 1 million tons.
DEP had sent a letter to all municipalities asking cities and towns to adopt a resolution to: 1) join Mass Recycle’s “Mass Recycles Paper” Campaign by endeavoring to educate its citizens about the importance of recycling paper for environmental and economic reasons; 2) encourage its residents to use the paper recycling services provided to the maximum extent possible; 3) serve as a role model by recycling waste paper from all of its municipal offices.
Ms. Patterson advised that so far 97 municipalities had signed onto the campaign. It was both an economic and environmental benefit.
Mr. Hughes moved to adopt the resolution in support of the Mass Recycles Paper Campaign. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION CHAIR: CONSERVATION FUND
Matthew Gardner, Chair of the Conservation Fund, explained that he was there to continue the conversation about the disposition of the Conservation Fund. It was a fairly sizable fund that has resulted primarily from FAR funds and it has become clear there were some differences of opinion about the appropriate use of the fund. A draft document has been reviewed by the Conservation Commission and Town Counsel has looked at it and was continuing to review. The Commission was looking for the Selectmen’s feedback on how the Board thought the Conservation Commission should be thinking about spending this resource.
Mr. Gardner pointed out that items 1,2,3 were the meat of the proposed guidelines and dealt with the expenditure of funds: 1) To pay all or part of the purchase price and other costs associated with the acquisition of the fee interest or other interests or contractual rights in property that has recreational, aesthetic or “Open Space” value to the Town and its citizens. Associated costs may include, but shall not be limited to survey, environmental, title and similar investigative or due-diligence related activities; 2) To pay all or part of the costs to modify, upgrade, enhance or maintain Town-owned property to increase the recreational, aesthetic or open space value of the property; 3) To pay all or part of the costs to modify, upgrade, enhance or maintain privately owned property to increase the recreational,
aesthetic or open space value of the property so long as the property is open and accessible, without unreasonable limitation, to the citizens of Natick for recreational or other purposes. Mr. Gardner explained that the intent for #3 was that it was conceivable there may be property in a conservation restriction that abuts Town owned property where it may be desirable to do a trail across.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the Planning Board sought input from the Conservation Commission when permitting a project and seeking a trail so the Conservation Commission had notice ahead of time. Mr. Gardner noted there was not a formal process and one of his goals was to open up the lines of communication so everyone knew what was going on.
Mr. Ostroff asked what kinds of things Mr. Gardner would like to see happen and what was different about these policies. Mr. Gardner responded that the baseline intent of the fund was to purchase open space and he thought all the relevant boards were in agreement that that was the intent. Where there starts to be some disagreement was whether to do projects like trail maintenance, signage, things that enhance but don’t purchase new property.
Mr. Gardner stated that he thought this (conservation fund) was a fabulous resource and would like to find ways to bring benefit back to the community, but at the same time move quickly if any property became available to the Town that had open space value.
Mr. Ostroff thought #2 suggested that funds might be used to restore the civil war monument and asked if that was in the domain. Mr. Gardner advised that in his interpretation of the guidelines it would be in the scope. This fund was fairly significant and in an interest bearing account. The interest generated was quite significant so he could imagine a scenario where projects could be done by using the interest and preserving the principal.
When asked how much money was in the fund, Mr. Gardner advised that it was just over $5 million. In follow-up Mr. Hughes inquired if all the FAR payments had been made that were expected from the Mall. Mr. Gardner’s reply was, “yes”.
Mr. Ostroff questioned if expenditures would typically need approval of the Board of Selectmen. Ms. White advised that the expenditure would not but the acquisition of land would.
Mr. Gardner stated that he had been in front of the Planning Board and would be in front of the Open Space Advisory Committee. The hope was that everyone could agree on a philosophy for the future. To Ms. Van Amsterdam’s query as to whether the Planning Board had any significant changes, Mr. Gardner advised that some members felt the intent of the fund was strictly for the purchase of land. That was what he was trying to shake out with conversations like this so everyone would feel comfortable with the policy.
Mr. Gardner had referenced a walking trail on private property and if talking about spending money on private property, Mr. Ostroff expected there would be a need for some protection to ensure the investment was done for perpetuity. Mr. Gardner felt that would be the rarest instance of spending the money and if that happened, he thought the Commission would be very careful with due diligence to make sure the community had free access.
Having heard Mr. Gardner’s thoughts as Chair, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to the thoughts of the other members of the Conservation Commission, particularly with the comment just made that #3 would be used sparingly. Mr. Gardner responded that the Conservation Commission voted to approve his presenting this to the Board.
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE: REVISION OF COMMITTEE CHARGE
Ms. Gloff recalled that when the Board was appointing members to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee there was some discussion about the charge and an agreement to come back with something.
Mr. Ostroff added that at the time of the appointments there was some discussion of what the mission of the committee was, and they were looking for some guidance and clarity. He looked at what the committee was originally tasked to do and updated the charge for the Board’s consideration.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that in Mr. Ostroff’s draft charge the committee serving as a facilitator of State and Federal funded improvements for alternate transportation, for recreational trails, etc. was being taken away. Mr. Ostroff advised that it was not being taken away, the charge just wasn’t making it explicit. If there was an opportunity for a grant, the committee could do that, but typically committees don’t apply for grants without collaborating with the Community Development Director or whoever. Mr. Hughes wanted the charge to make it clear that they shouldn’t do that without some sort of backing from a Town department.
Mr. Ostroff noted that the draft said in consultation, but Mr. Hughes stressed that he would rather committees didn’t apply for grants without the Board knowing. The way the draft charge was written he didn’t see where the committee had the wiggle room to apply for grants, and he just wanted to be sure everyone understood that. Ms. Gloff commented that she would interpret it that way.
Mr. Ostroff noted that it hadn’t happened in the past where the committee applied for federal or state grants, but he was in complete agreement that the Board wouldn’t want to doing that.
One question that arose when making the last appointments was that some of the departments had expended money based on their discussion with the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee without the knowledge of the Board of Selectmen or Town Administrator. Since they didn’t have the authority to do that, Mr. Ciccariello thought it needed to be clarified that the committee could consult with Town departments, but funds should not be expended unless approved by the Town Administrator or Board of Selectmen.
Ms. Gloff questioned if that needed to be in the charge or just understood. To Ms. White it didn’t seem appropriate for the expenditure of funding without making sure where everything being put forward was coming out of. Mr. Ciccariello thought the DPW constructed a bunch of signs and when asked who authorized them to do that, everyone just looked around. Ms. White believed that examples like that could be handled administratively.
Mr. Hughes stressed that the committee should never be applying for a grant. Any grant that was going to be expended should come from some department in the Town and the Town should be making the decision of whether to apply or not apply. Mr. Ostroff believed everyone was in complete agreement.
Ms. Van Amsterdam proposed adding “the Town Administrator” to the section concerning consultation and coordination, but Ms. Gloff questioned if that would mean that every time the committee wanted to talk to the Safety Committee they would have to talk to the Town Administrator. If so that could become burdensome. She wondered if there was another way to edit without putting it specifically on the Town Administrator.
Mr. Ostroff offered to take the input and come back with a revised charge.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to table to November 13.
FINANCE DIRECTOR: DISCUSSION OF USE OF WATER & SEWER RETAINED EARNINGS
Finance Director Robert Palmer directed the Board’s attention to a memo to the Town Administrator suggesting an additional $675,000 in retained earnings in substitution of water & sewer user fees in Article 1. He was suggesting the additional $675,000 be used to support the water & sewer enterprise fund because when you go through the tax rate recapitulation it was certifying to the DOR these were the appropriation and resources to meet the appropriation. The Board signs those when the tax recapitulation was done saying here is the appropriation and here is the revenues and those had to be in balance.
Mr. Palmer continued that the memo showed the appropriations in FY05-FY08 and highlighted the decreases and increases and showed the increase between FY07-FY08 was about 4.3%. The interesting item dealt with the revenues. Revenues have dropped from $12.1 million to $10.2 million or a 13% decrease. The FY08 appropriation was $12.5 million and the Town had to show there was $12.5 million from various sources. Fiscal 2007 revenues were $10.2 million and assuming the FY08 revenues were roughly the same as FY07, there would be a deficit. $900,000 was voted at the April Town Meeting to support the enterprise fund which meant there would be a deficit of about $1.3 million ($12.5 million appropriation, less $10.2 million in estimated earnings, less $900,000 appropriated at the Annual Town Meeting). Using the
additional $657,000 in retained earnings would reduce the deficit to $569,500.
As to other impacts, Mr. Palmer noted that when the original treatment plant was built at Springvale, the Town secured a reimbursement from the State for 10 years. FY07 was the last year for that grant. On the other side the Town will see about $100,000 from the Mall betterment. Plus when he wrote this memo he had billing through October 2007, but the November numbers show another $150,000 which would drop the deficit to $419,500. That $419,500 deficit will have to be raised by the rates when the Board sets them. It was about a 4% increase.
Retained earnings available were $821,323 and if $675,000 were used there would still be a balance of $146,323.
Ms. Gloff commented that the water rates run from July 1-June 30 and Mr. Palmer responded that originally water rates were on a fiscal basis, but were changed to a calendar basis and then went back to fiscal. Normally the rates were set for billing on June 1. This year was tracking a little late because of the water rate study. The consultant has completed the analysis and the bulk of the work was done and it was a matter of getting his report and suggestions.
Noting the suggestion that the Board receive a report in November and then set the rates, Ms. Gloff pointed out that the rates couldn’t go back in time so it had to be made up in the period of 5-6 months. Assuming the use of $675,000 in retained earnings, a 4% increased would be needed on an annualized basis and if the Board needed to annualize the rates (to make up for the 5-6 months delay in setting the rates) that raised the increase to 9%. Mr. Palmer noted that the budgets won’t be fully expended. There was always some turn back so there was some balance. If the $675,000 in retained earnings was not used to reduce the deficit, Ms. Gloff pointed out the Board could be talking about a rate increase of 15-20%.
Mr. Hughes asked if there had been a deficit in FY07. Mr. Palmer advised there may have been a small deficit but very small because of turn backs in the operation. Retained earnings dropped from $3 million to $800,000.
When the firm was hired to do the water & sewer rate study, Mr. Ciccariello recalled there being a specific date for performance. He questioned why the company had not performed. Ms. White wasn’t sure of the date by which they were to have completed the study but acknowledged they were behind schedule by perhaps 2 months.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello questioned what steps were being taken to ensure the Board would get a draft by mid November. Ms. White advised that conversations were happening with the consultant. Asked if there was any correspondence in writing advising them they were in violation of the contract, Ms. White said she was not aware of any. Mr. Palmer added that the consultant was aware they were taking longer than desired, but there was nothing written. Mr. Ciccariello felt it was appropriate to notify the consultant in writing that they were in violation of the terms of their contract.
Mr. Ciccariello then noted that there seemed to be a decrease in the budget appropriation in FY06 and now an increase. Was that increase related to salaries or the result of capital improvements? Mr. Palmer responded that it only reflected operational expenses. Capital was separate. Looking at that and the decrease of revenues, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if that was solely the result of the usage or if it was because the Board of Selectmen reduced or maintained rates for the last 2-1/2-3 years. Mr. Palmer replied that the revenue dropped because the rates were cut twice.
Continuing, Mr. Ciccariello asked if there were any projects completed that were not closed out that might impact retained earnings. Mr. Palmer didn’t think Phase III and IV had been finished to the point they could be closed. He anticipated some money would be left from those projects.
With respect to the water & sewer $200,000 reserve fund, it seemed to Mr. Ciccariello as though that $200,000 was never used. Mr. Palmer advised that the $200,000 was part of the $12.5 million appropriation and reminded Mr. Ciccariello that $70,000 was used last year for legal services and a settlement.
Mr. Ostroff asked about the sewer rate relief from the State, and Mr. Palmer advised there had been correspondence with the Town’s delegation. The rate relief was about $20,000 plus the Town received some indirect benefit because the MWRA got some relief.
Mr. Ostroff noted that when the rates were reduced the Board was told this was a short-term benefit for the ratepayers but jeopardized stability and rates may have to be increased. Mr. Hughes responded that the Board hadn’t been reducing the rates. Retained earnings were being used to subsidize the rates so they don’t go up. Mr. Palmer confirmed that was correct, but added that last year the rates were cut between 5-6% when the MWRA announced they were not having as large an increase as scheduled. The MWRA was reduced by 5-6%.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to authorize the use of $675,000 in retained earnings to support the FY08 budget. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Ms. Gloff, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello was opposed.
Ms. White advised this would be put on Town Meeting floor as an amendment for Article 1.
COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL TASK FORCE UPDATE; EXTENSION OF TERM
Appearing on behalf of the Cochituate Rail Trail Task Force was the Chair Karla Sangrey.
The Board was in receipt of a listing of a number of action items and information/discussion items for the Cochituate Rail Trail.
The first was railbanking. Mr. Ostroff explained that the agreement between CSX and Natick entered into a little over a year ago provided for six months where there would be exclusive negotiations. The Town may want to renew it as most communities find they renew these things for years and years.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to request an extension of the railbanking agreement.
Mr. Ostroff recalled that in June or July 2007 the Board received an abutter report and directed the task force to reach out to abutters to find out what they thought of the use of the CSX right-of-way. The task force made changes in the revised survey. The changes took out some language and did a secondary analysis of some employees of organizations such as Boston Scientific who lived in Natick.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to accept the abutter’s report. Unanimously voted.
Ms. Sangrey requested the Board to consider extending the term of the task force. Together with Ms. White, the task force vice-chair, and herself they made some suggestions to update the charge for the task force and maybe rename it an advisory committee. The suggestion was to ask the Board to consider giving them a two year term as the CSX process looked very lengthy.
With respect to the proposed charge, Ms. Sangrey pointed out that the first item was taken away which was whether to recommend acquisition of the right-of-way. In November 2006 the task force recommended acquisition. Added to the charge was No. 3: “to continue outreach efforts to inform the community about the project and gain input from abutters and residents”. Also added was a paragraph of explanation. She emphasized that the task force wouldn’t be filing any applications on their own.
The paragraph of explanation contained ‘seek out available funding sources’ and Mr. Hughes inquired as to what that meant. Ms. Sangrey responded that it had been quite an education process. There was a whole web out there of places where funding might be found. Just working through Mass Highway and TIP to get the project in line took a lot of research and background. In an advisory capacity they would seek to educate themselves about that and bring it to the Board and appropriate Town folks like Ms. White and Community Development Director Patrick Reffett.
Without putting a huge burden on the Town Administrator, Ms. Van Amsterdam felt a phrase needed to be developed that could be included in the charge of these advisory committees if these groups need to identify potential funding sources. In her opinion this phrase ‘seek out available funding’ left it open to more questions.
Ms. White advised that most grant programs would require the signature of at least the Chair of the Board of Selectmen or Town Administrator. She developed a list of potential funding sources for this project and they would all require a vote of the Board. That was not to say in the larger context there were private foundations that may not think in municipal terms. She thought the larger goal was one worth pursuing and maybe that would be a memo to all boards saying they did not have the authority to file for identified funding sources without permission of the Town Administrator or Board of Selectmen. The administration of a grant could be far more complicated than folks may realize and may commit the Town to something.
It was pointed out that only the Board of Selectmen could accept a gift to the Town. The Conservation Commission and Planning Board had limited ability to accept money. The Conservation fund had a limited use and the Planning Board could only accept things from their own decisions.
Mr. Ostroff noted that one of the opportunities wasn’t necessarily for the Town to receive money but maybe grants for a private or non-profit for maintenance or other services that could be identified through the Rail Trail group and brought to the Board for consideration. He proposed replacing ‘seek out’ with ‘identify’.
Ms. Gloff still wanted to supplement this change with a memo to all advisory boards stating that they couldn’t apply for funding of any sort without approval of the Board of Selectmen or Town Administrator as appropriate.
With respect to the composition of the Rail Trail Task Force, Mr. Hughes inquired if the intent was for the Board to appoint all new people. Ms. Sangrey responded that the thought was for the task force to continue as is. Mr. Ostroff added that it was discussed that if the task force were given a two year sunset there wasn’t a need to have appointments. That prompted Mr. Hughes to question why this task force should be any different than any other advisory committee for which a portion of the terms expire every May. Terms gave new members of the Board a chance to meet them or make changes. That was why he was in favor of continuing the task force every year.
Ms. Sangrey replied that the task force was fine with having terms. They had been looking at themselves to see what their usefulness could be and thought they could be in an advisory role for the foreseeable future. Mr. Hughes stated that he didn’t disagree. In his mind this was a long-term committee, but he would like to have an annual report.
Looking at the original group which was called a task force, Mr. Ciccariello wasn’t sure why there was a need to change the name to advisory committee. Ms. Sangrey didn’t think the change in name would change what the group did.
Mr. Ciccariello requested an explanation of what outreach efforts Ms. Sangrey anticipated and what other input the group intended to gain from abutters. Was it just from residents in favor or with those not in favor? Ms. Sangrey advised that the intent was to discuss with both. They thought it would be helpful for people who expressed interest to have some maps on the web site. The abutter report was very focused to direct abutters, but the task force hasn’t done as much outreach to other people in town. There was discussion about the best way to do that, but the task force strongly felt that should be done.
In response to a follow-up question, Ms. White noted that abutter outreach had been a lot of the work of the task force. The CSX community met together as one group with the Trustees of Reservations and collaboratively the idea emerged to ask the state to help. She noted that she had help to rewrite this proposed committee charge and the importance of collaboration.
Mr. Ciccariello referred to the proposed task force and inquired as to what was meant by the task force having support from the Open Space Advisory Committee, the Safety Committee, Town Administration, Community Development, Public Work, State agencies and other departments as needed. Ms. White noted this was a continuation of the existing situation. The Town Administrator, Community Development Director and the DPW have been supportive of the committee and their different objectives. A commitment couldn’t be made for the State agencies, but it has been there.
In the existing task force there were four alternate members, but Mr. Ciccariello pointed out the composition in the proposed charge went to 11 members with no alternates. If the Board decided to take the present task force and move it to an advisory committee, he would need to have a sense of how many of these individuals have been attending meetings. He favored having a revolving committee with terms.
Mr. Ostroff advised there were three resignations from members who couldn’t attend, but he thought the attendance had been good. It was healthy to encourage people to re-apply and the Board may want to consider up to four members at large and four alternates whose terms shall be arranged to expire on a staggered basis.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to keep the name the same (Cochituate Rail Trail Task Force), add #3 to the charge (Continue outreach efforts to inform the community about the project and gain input from abutters and residents, and say all of the terms will expire June 30, 2008 and then deal with any rolling terms at that point.) Unanimously voted.
The next item on the list for discussion was an RFP for a planning/study process that would take about 6 months and include public participation. The study would provide a follow-up to the state Project Notification Form which helps get the Town in line for funding, integrate utility issues, and research abutter concerns such as security, privacy, design, lighting, access, etc. It was noted that Town Meeting had appropriated funding for this work from Mall Mitigation funds reserved for this project and unless there was an objection, a draft RFP could be ready in a couple of months for the Board’s review and revision. Depending on the progress with title work, it could be issued and begin next Spring.
Ms. Sangrey told the Board that the task force may come back and suggest the issuance of the RFP, but they were not ready to suggest that at this point. They were researching how to position the Town for potential funding sources. The Project Need Form was signed and the Town Administrator got a response that additional information was needed. Some outside services may be needed and the task force might come back and say this might be a logical way to spend money identified at Town Meeting.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to how sure it was that that the title examiner would come up with a title search in November. Ms. White advised that the title exam was supposed to be completed and in hand two weeks from today. Asked if an appraisal of the rail trail could start at that point, Ms. White reminded Mr. Hughes that the Board had already approved an RFP for the appraisal.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how many funds had been appropriated and how much had been expended or encumbered. Ms. White wasn’t sure. Mr. Ciccariello requested an update and wanted to know if there were enough funds in the appropriation to do the proposed RFP. Ms. White indicated that she would be able to answer that once the scope of the RFP was seen, but she felt more funds had been appropriated than expended.
Continuing with the list, the next item for discussion was transit use. Ms. Sangrey explained that in July the question of dual use of motorized and non-motorized use was brought forward. The Community Development Director researched the feasibility and his research showed the best thing would be to focus on non-motorized use for the CRT. The dimensions of the right-of-way do not provide for a combined transit/rail trail project without extensive engineering and construction. A couple of sections of the trail were reviewed and it ended up with buffers on the adjacent property that were 5-10 feet. The task force voted unanimously that the Town focus on non-motorized use.
Mr. Ostroff reported that he had worked with the Town Administrator to coordinate with the rail road to come in to fix some of the infrastructure that poses a danger to the Town. This ties into some drain design improvements. He commended the DPW and Police for helping to put the security plan in place. Gates and some stone barriers will be in place so there wouldn’t be ATV’s or dumping in the right-of-way.
FIRE CHIEF SELECTION PROCESS
a. Acceptance of Delegation Agreement
b. Draft RFP for Assessment Center Services
Personnel Director Elizabeth Dennis referred to the sample delegation agreement in the packet. The agreement would be incorporated into the RFP once it was signed.
Mr. Ostroff pointed out that the sample delegation agreement allowed for the charge of a reasonable fee. Ms. Dennis advised that was correct but the Board was not obligated to do that. If the decision was made to charge the fee, it would come back to the Town.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to how many organizations provide assessment center services and was told by Ms. Dennis there were 11-12 but only three had to be solicited. Mr. Ciccariello questioned why the Town wouldn’t go out to as many as possible and Ms. Dennis acknowledged that could be done. Quotations could be solicited from as many vendors as you want, but you had to have a minimum of three.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Town was looking for the best qualified or the cheapest. When the qualifications were done, was the Board going to seek to qualify them based on their ability and then open a fee proposal or look at both the qualifications and the fee at the same time. Ms. Dennis advised that both had to be looked at simultaneously. The purchasing statutes required the lowest qualified bidder.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that someone had to make a determination of who was the lowest qualified bidder. Ms. Dennis noted that the selection process would be applied against the criteria. When asked who would do that, Ms. Dennis responded that that was up to the Board. The Town Administrator and she could make a recommendation but the Board of Selectmen would sign the contract and if the Board wanted to make that determination it was within their purview.
Mr. Ciccariello then pointed out that Page 1, part 2 of the Draft RFP states that the Fire Chief was appointed by and reports to the Town Administrator, but that should be the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Dennis advised that could be changed.
Under the scope of services it talked about conducting a preliminary interview with the Board of Selectmen and Town Administrator about the needs of the Natick Fire Department. Mr. Ciccariello wasn’t sure he knew what all the needs were and asked if the Board would get any input from the present Fire Chief. Ms. Dennis advised that the Board could solicit that input. The most important piece was to establish the specific competencies/attributes to be measured in the Assessment Center process.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the timing, and Ms. Dennis replied that she was hoping HRD would have gotten back to her today on the delegation agreement. She didn’t want to hazard a guess but she would stay on them 2-3 times a week until she received the agreement.
Because quotations were being requested as opposed to an RFP, Mr. Hughes commented that the turnaround would be quicker, but he was loath to put out the RFP without the delegation agreement in hand. Ms. Dennis assured him there was no intention to do that.
Ms. White added that her hope was for the Board to consider authorizing the Personnel Director to issue the RFP upon receipt of the delegation agreement. Mr. Hughes so moved. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
PLAN 125 REVISION
Personnel Director Elizabeth Dennis referenced a memo to the Board about another Section 125 Cafeteria Plan the Town was obligated to offer. She explained that Section 125 was an IRS code and the plan the Board will approve effective 7/1/07 would bring the Town into compliance with the Health Care Reform legislation so anybody who was not eligible for town-sponsored health insurance could purchase health insurance at pre-tax dollars.
Ms. Dennis noted that the Town now allowed people to put aside $2,500 for medical expenses that weren’t reimbursed through insurance. As Town Counsel was reviewing the Health Care Reform plan, he looked at the current 125 Plan (adopted 7/1/03) and suggested making one change as specified in the prepared motion. Adding this would make the Town’s plan totally compliant with everything. It doesn’t affect the eligibility.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to amend the Cafeteria Plan Premium Reduction Option Plus Flexible Spending Accounts Plan Document adopted by the Board of Selectmen effected dateYear2003Day1Month7July 1, 2003:
1. by inserting the words “of 1986” after the words “Internal Revenue Code” in the first sentence of Section 1.1:
2. by deleting the words “from time to time”, which appear at the end of the first sentence of Section 1.1:
3. by adding the following language at the end of Section 1.1:
“, and is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 125.”; and
4. by adding a new second sentence to Section 1.1, which reads:
“To the extent required, this Plan is also intended to be maintained as required by, and in accordance with M.G.L., c. 151F,956 CMR 4.00, and such other rules and regulations of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, as amended from time to time.”
So that Section 1.1 reads:
The Plan is intended to qualify as a “cafeteria plan” under Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 125. To the extent required, this Plan is also intended to be maintained as required by, and in accordance with, M.G.L. c.151F,956 CMR 4.00 and such other rules and regulations of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, as amended from time to time.
Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES FOR 2008
The Board was in receipt of a compliance check report from the Natick Police Department on all liquor licenseholders in the Town. Ms. Challis pointed out that according to the report the VFW, Minado Restaurant, Fresh City, and Nine East Wine Emporium did not have an approved manager of record. Plus the Tax Collector’s office had advised that Nicholas’ Restaurant and Curry Leaf had outstanding taxes/fees in excess of a year. All establishments had been sent letters advising them of the status. She noted that the VFW had submitted the forms for a change in manager and were scheduled to come before the Board at the next meeting.
Mr. Hughes noted that when voting to renew the licenses, if any establishment was not in compliance with the renewal requirements by the end of November, the Board was not renewing their license.
Package Stores
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following package store licenses for 2008. Specifically excluded was The Wine Network, Inc. d/b/a Nine East Wine Emporium.
Powers Package Store, Inc. 4 South Avenue Mary Ann Powers, Mgr.
Town Line Liquors, Inc. addressStreet160 East Central St. Anthony R. Franciose,Mg
Petur Enterprises, Inc. addressStreet7 Watson Street Peter Turlo, Mgr.
D/b/a Natick Wine & Spirits
Middlesex Liquors 17 Washington St. Ercole Ubaldino, Mgr.
D/b/a Kentucky Spirits
Fannon’s Liquor Store 212 North Main St. Robert C. Allen, Mgr.
Vin’s Liquors, Inc.
d/b/a Vin’s Liquors addressStreet257-259 Worcester St. Kevin P. Moran, Mgr.
Restaurant All Alcohol
Mr. Hughes moved to renew the following restaurant all alcohol licenses for 2008. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted. Excluded were Namee Enterprises d/b/a Minado Restaurant and Natick Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Curry Leaf.
Minoga, Inc.
d/b/a Oga’s Japanese Cuisine 915 placeCityWorcester Rd. Benny Li, Mgr.
LCC Group, Inc.
d/b/a placeCityBeijing Kitchen 195 West Central placeSt. Wai Man Chiu, Mgr.
The Deli, Inc.
d/b/a Joan & Ed’s Deli 1298F. addressStreetWorcester Rd. Joan Sanderson,Mgr.
placeStateCalifornia Pizza Kitchen 1245 placeCityWorcester Rd. Jon Lombardo, Mgr.
Dah- Mee, Inc. 25 placeStateWashington St. Young H. Lee, Mgr.
Restaurant All Alcohol with Lounge/Bar Seating
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following restaurant all alcohol with lounge/bar seating licenses for 2008. Excluded was Nicholas’s.
Contained in the report from the Police Department was an e-mail concerning an incident at the Cheesecake Factory. Mr. Ciccariello asked if there was any additional information regarding the incident, but Ms. Challis advised nothing else had been received. Mr. Hughes requested that Chief Mannix provide whatever information he had about the incident at the Cheesecake Factory – whatever facts he might have. Mr. Ostroff suggested proactively sending a letter to the Cheesecake Factory corporate office, but Mr. Hughes preferred to wait until the Board found out what happened.
Dimas, Inc. d/b/a Dolphin Seafood 12 placeStateWashington St. Peter Giannocopoulos, Mgr
Vinny T’s Restaurant Corp.
d/b/a Vinny T’s of placeCityBoston 801 placeCityWorcester Rd. Rene Mauricio Aleman, Mgr.
Lampara, Inc. d/b/a Skipjack’s 1400 Worcester Rd. Peter G. Dowd, Mgr
Angelo & Garif, Inc. 23 Washington St. Eftihia Souliopoulis, Mg.
d//b/a Agostino’s Restaurant
24 Associates d/b/a 148 On Central addressStreet148 East Central St. Mitchell Maxwell, Mgr.
Nordstrom, Inc.
d/b/a Nordstrom Café Bistro addressStreet290 Speen Street John Chesnut, Mgr.
The Metropolitan Club
dba Metropolitan addressStreet1245 Worcester St. Kathy Trustman, Mgr
Bar & Grill Suite 3009
New France Natick, LLC
dba Sel De La Terre 3032 Natick West Frank McClelland, Mgr.
Shopping Ctr.
The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.
d/b/a The Cheesecake Factory 1245 placeCityWorcester placeSt. Michael Moore, Mgr.
addressStreetSuite 1098
Beer & Wine
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following beer & wine licenses for 2008. Excluded from renewal was Fresh City.
A.T. Pan Corp.
d/b/a placeCityShanghai placeCityTokyo addressStreet54 East Central St. Kai Lan Dan, Mgr.
Barber Brothers Florists, Inc. 215 West Central St. Judith Petrone, Mgr
Tano’s, Inc.
d/b/a Franco’s Ristorante Pizzeria addressStreet218 Speen Street Franco Bruno, Mgr.
Natick Gourmet Decisions, Inc. d/b/a
Gourmet Decisions 12A Washington St. Stephanie Spinosa
Beer & Wine With Cordials & Liqueurs
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to renew the beer & wine with cordials & liqueurs license for:
Room for Dessert, LLC 1245 placeCityWorcester St. Don Hladko, Mgr.
Dba Finale
Club
The Board unanimously voted to renew the following Club licenses for 2008. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. Excluded for renewal was the VFW.
placeCityNatick Lodge #1425 of the Benevolent & addressStreet95 Speen St. Arthur Hurst, Mgr.
Protetective Order of Elks
The Francesco DeSanctis Lodge #addressStreet1411 37 Washington Ave. Marguerite Sacchetti,
E.P.Clark Post #107, American Legion addressStreet13 West Central St. Walter Flynn, Mgr.
Amvets Post 79 Off addressStreetSuperior Drive Walter Connery, Mgr.
Innholder
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following Innholder licenses for 2008:
Natick Hotel Associates
d/b/a placeHoliday 1360 placeCityWorcester Rd. David V. Shomoian, Mgr.
Inn Crowne Plaza
N.H.Hotel Associates, Inc. & Owen 319 Speen placeSt. Kevin Gill, Mgr.
O’Leary’s, Inc. d/b/a Owen O’Leary’s
Restaurant and Brew Pub
GSH CY Natick, LLC d/b/a Courtyard by addressStreet342 Speen St. Frank E. Dorsey III, Mgr.
Marriott-Natick
NATICK 360
Ms. Gloff noted that the Board had been requested to provide input to the draft goals. Mr. Ostroff developed the table in the Board’s packet and she spoke with each member of the Board. This was still a draft and she asked each member to see if everything was correct.
Mr. Hughes moved to table to the next meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Ms. Gloff asked that members provide her with any comments.
MINUTES
With correction as noted, Mr. Hughes moved to approve the minutes of the May 29, 2007 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted
REQUEST TO HOLD VETERANS’ DAY SERVICES
Mr. Ciccariello moved approval of Veterans’ Services Director John MacGillivray’s request to hold the annual Veterans Day parade and ceremony on Sunday, November 11, 2007. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
CHABAD CENTER: REQUEST TO DISPLAY MENORAH
A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello to approve the Chabad Center of Natick’s request to display the Menorah on the Natick Common for the period of November 29-December 14, 2007. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
a. Graduate Student Research Project
Ms. White informed the Board that she had been approached by a graduate student at Northeastern who was a Natick resident and was looking to do an independent policy issue. She has the student researching opportunities for regionalization.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Sandwich Boards
Mr. Hughes noted that last week there was again a sandwich board on the corner in the downtown. It wasn’t safe and nobody was regulating it.
b. Town Government Open House
Mr. Ostroff noted that he spoke with the Town Administrator about an open house for members of the public to come in and meet with the Town Administrator and if it was appropriate for any other department heads to be here to answer any questions. He offered to work with the Town Administrator on the open house.
c. Job Postings
Having been asked to affirm appointments for jobs, Mr. Ciccariello stated it was brought to his attention that some of those job opportunities were not being posted and he thought it was inappropriate to be hiring individuals without posting it in the appropriate location so everybody had an opportunity to apply for the job. If that hadn’t been done he would hope that the Town would not hire the employee and give everybody an opportunity. In his opinion it was inappropriate for departments to post the job opportunities at the department only.
d. Financial Ops Committee Update
Ms. Gloff apologized for not remembering to put an update of the Fin Ops Committee on the agenda. She noted that it has been in the newspaper and she thought all the Board members were aware that the Fin Ops Committee has been meeting regularly and took a vote last Monday based on the free cash number.
Ms. White informed the Board that the Fin Ops Committee voted to advise the Board of Selectmen that a Proposition 2-1/2 operational override would be needed for the Fiscal 2009 budget and beyond to avoid service cuts. Ms. Gloff noted that there would be more about that shortly and added that the committee was continuing to meet.
Mr. Hughes asked if there was a number or an idea of what that number would support. Ms. Gloff responded there was not as of yet. She further noted that the committee felt it was not the purview of that committee to make recommendations of what things on the Town side should be cut or what things should be cut on the Schools.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
______________________________
Joshua Ostroff, Clerk
| 
