BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
May 5, 2008
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, PersonNameJoshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly
ALSO PRESENT: Martha White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on May 5, 2008 in the amount of $546,229.47. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,124,285.73.
PROCLAMATION: POLICE WEEK
A proclamation declaring the week of May 15 as Peace Officers’ Week was presented to Police Chief Dennis Mannix.
It was explained that although National Police Officers’ Day was May 15, Natick was celebrating on May 14.
RECOGNITION OF: NATICK POLICE OFFICER OF THE YEAR
Chief Mannix announced the selection of Officer Ronald Richardson as Officer of the Year 2008.
In a review of Officer Richardson’s accomplishments Chief Mannix cited his consistent excellence in police duty throughout the year. Over his more than 20 year tenure with the Natick Police Department, Officer Richardson has consistently been one of the top performers. His primary duties lie in patrol and he has embraced the Area Command concept employed by the department to provide effective prevention and response. He also served as a Field Training Officer for new recruits, familiarizing them with the community, the department, and the proper way to carry out their responsibilities.
Chief Mannix continued that Officer Richardson’s talents extend to motor vehicle enforcement, an area in which he has continually sought to increase his knowledge and expertise. He has been a member of the department’s commercial motor vehicle enforcement team, has participated in Governor’s Highway Safety Bureau Seat Belt Enforcement patrols, and was the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Officer of the Year in 2002.
Officer Richardson’s respect for the department and the uniform was ever-present. Officer Richardson was an original member of the department’s Honor Guard and a regular presence at department-related services. He was always among the first to volunteer for department-related functions.
In a profession where respect was earned not given, Officer Richardson was one after whom new officers model themselves and veteran officers know they are able to depend upon. Officer Richardson views his service as a police officer as a vocation and takes very seriously the responsibility he is entrusted with by the community and other department members. His investigations of crimes committed are always thorough and described in written reports that can be used as an exemplar of effective report writing.
In conclusion Chief Manix stated that it was his pleasure to formally and publicly commend Officer Ronald Richardson and name him the Natick Police Department Officer of the Year for 2008.
Officer Richardson thanked his God, his family, his wife, and his children along with the Board of Selectmen, the Chief, Sergeants and Lieutenants and his co-workers.
LETTER OF RECOGNITION: SENIOR WOMAN OF THE YEAR
Judith D’Antonio was recognized for having been named Senior Woman of the Year 2008 by the Natick Human Services and Council on Aging. Ms. D’Antonio’s accomplishments and service to the community included being the first woman to join the Natick Rotary Club, Coordinates the St. Patrick’s Day Brunch for Natick Seniors, reactivated Natick Center Associates in 1981 and served as their president for 13 years, helped to open the Food Pantry, Works at The Open Door, served on the Natick School Committee for 12 years, served on the Board of the Natick VNA for 7 years, served on the Board of Children First from 1998-2006, active in the American Cancer Society’s Natick Relay for Life team personally raising over $5,000, and a Natick resident for 45 years.
Ms. D’Antonio expressed the love she and her husband had for placeCityNatick and thanked the Board for the honor.
LETTER OF RECOGNITION: SENIOR MAN OF THE YEAR
Douglas Shepard was named 2008 Senior Man of the Year by the Council on Aging. Mr. Shepard was unable to attend the meeting, but the citation in recognition of his service to the community was read.
Mr. Shepard was a dedicated teacher at Lilja Elementary School for 35 years actively volunteering his time for the PTA auctions, fairs, and wherever else he was needed, he served on the Natick Conservation Commission for 32 years, worked with Boy Scout Troop #1776 for 18 years, was a past member of the Education Association of Natick where he worked on the PRR Committee, served on the executive board and finance committee of his church, regularly donates blood, and was a Natick resident for 39 years.
ANNOUNCEMENT
a. Pleasant Street Bridge
Ms. White informed the Board that an e-mail had been received from Mass Highway regarding their recent inspections of the Pleasant Street bridge over the Charles River. As a result of the inspection of the bridge, Mass Highway required repairs to be made immediately. The Town has a contract in place with D&R General Contracting and they have given a price of $24,500 for making the necessary pavement repairs.
Ms. White advised that she had authorized the DPW to proceed with that amendment to the contract. They hoped to do the work in one day and leave one lane open the entire time.
Mr. Connolly questioned if the Town was responsible, and Ms. White responded that it was. addressStreetMass Highway was requiring the work be done for safety reasons but the Town owned the bridge. Mr. Connolly then inquired as to when the inspection was done, and Ms. White replied that the e-mail she received from the DPW said recently. The DPW notified her last Tuesday.
Now that the bridge has been rated as a condition 3 (serious), Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if it would go back to condition 5 (fair) when these repairs were done or would it still be a condition 3. Ms. White was not sure about the rating but there will be work required to be done in a timely fashion. She had previously talked about the possibility of a grant for dam, bridge and park work and that will be resurrected to see if there were any funds.
Ms. White stressed that the bridge was in no imminent danger, but it was work that needed to be done to eliminate some of the excessive vibration.
b. Natick Community Forum on Youth Substance Abuse
Ms. White reminded the Board of the Natick Community Forum on Youth Substance Abuse to be held on Thursday. Various departments have donated items as door prizes and she wanted the Board to be aware of what she had authorized. For example, the Conservation Commission donated a rain barrel, Council on Aging a permit for free parking at any metered space in Natick, Fire Department tour of fire station, Health Department 2 commercial quality food thermometers and one mouse pad, DPW a bulky waste pick up and personalized street sign, Recreation 2 rounds of golf at Sassamon Trace, 1 season pass to Memorial Beach, and 1 one day pass to Memorial Beach.
c. Special Town Meeting #2
Ms. White advised that Special Town Meeting #2 scheduled for May 20, 2008 would be held at Kennedy Middle School not Wilson. A number of informational flyers were being put out and it would be posted on the web site.
INTERVIEW FOR ASSOCIATE MEMBER OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
a. Chike Odunukwe
Chike Odunukwe told the Board he was a professional engineer with Tetra Tech Rizzo in placeCityFramingham and had worked in the engineering field for close to 30 years. He moved into Natick last year and would like to get involved in the community.
Ms. Gloff inquired if Tetra Tech ever did projects in Natick for which he would have to recuse himself. Mr. Odunukwe responded that he did not believe there were any projects at this time, but that didn’t mean there wouldn’t be in the future. Ms. Gloff presumed he would recuse himself should that happen and Mr. Odunukwe’s reply was, “sure”.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if Mr. Odunukwe had any professional experience in residential and Mr. Odunukwe responded that he had done a lot of subdivision and 40B work.
Mr. Ostroff then asked if Mr. Odunukwe had any experience working on a board. Mr. Odunukwe said he did not have public board experience but private and non-profit.
When asked by Mr. Ostroff if he had a philosophy on what constitutes a hardship and how strict would he be in interpreting the Zoning By-Laws, Mr. Odunukwe replied that he did not consider someone wanting to make more profit a hardship. In follow-up Mr. Ostroff inquired to what extent he (Mr. Odunukwe) would be biased with the residential person that didn’t conform. If there was a handicapped person in the household and they want to build a non-conforming handicapped ramp, Mr. Odunukwe believed that was a hardship.
Mr. Ciccariello highlighted Mr. Odunukwe’s credentials as a professional civil engineer and commented on the tremendous amount of experience he brought to the position.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to appoint Chike Odunukwe as an Associate Member of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO COUNCIL ON AGING
a. Ann Lynch
Ann Lynch stated that she had lived in Natick for about 18 years. She has been interested in being on the Council on Aging for some time and now had a job that enabled her to do so and it seemed like the right time.
Human Services and Council on Aging Director Moira Munns was in the audience and said she would give Ms. Lynch her hearty endorsement.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what she would like to accomplish and what experience she had working on a board.
Ms. Lynch advised that she hadn’t had experience working on a board, but pretty much all of her life she had worked in geriatrics and had a breadth of knowledge of what seniors go through. There were some big plans and she would like to make sure people thought carefully and thoroughly about the needs of the seniors. By profession she was a psychologist and occupational therapist.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to appoint Ann Lynch to the Council on Aging. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Considering there were a few openings on the Council, Mr. Ostroff asked if the Council on Aging had ever considered changing its term limit requirements and if that was something to consider. Ms. Challis explained a by-law change would be necessary as the limitation on the Council on Aging was in the Town By-Laws.
DIRECTOR OF HUMAN SERVICES AND COUNCIL ON AGING: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE
Moira Munns, the Director of Human Services and the Council on Aging, told the Board she was there to provide an update on an exciting opportunity for the Town that she had been involved in for the last couple of years. Following Town Meeting’s vote to refer an article on some human services initiatives with which she had some concerns, Ms. Munns said she consulted and worked with the Town Administrator on a project called Health Communities. It was a world health initiative that has been around 20-30 years to promote health and well being in cities and towns around the world. It was more than absence of disease. It included such things as eco system, arts, history, economy and gave a broad view of the health of a community.
Ms. Munns advised that the Healthy Communities movement was an asset based movement. It took the existing structure and built on it. She had been pursuing this for quite some time and contacted the Mass forum which was the placeStateMassachusetts version of the Healthy Communities office. It included training, clinics, technical assistance and mentoring. Communities may assemble teams and apply for Mass Forum training. Each year six communities were assembled and she was trying to assemble a team for Natick and submit an application for the upcoming year. It involved one day long training for 9 months. Because there was a fee of $4,000 to participate, Ms. Munns said she applied to the MetroWest Community Health Care Foundation to get the fees for Natick Community Health.
Having mentioned that she was well on her way to organizing the community team, Ms. Gloff inquired as to what sort of expertise Ms. Munns was looking to recruit.
Ms. Munns responded that it was a process and starting with Town government she needed to collect letters of support which she had received from the Town administration, the Director of Health, the Superintendent of Schools, the Community Relations Director for the MetroWest Medical Center, the Youth Substance Abuse Coordinator, and the chief nurse at the School Department. Since then she has cast a wider net into the community and hoped to include service providers along with the faith and financial communities. She had spoken with the Police Chief and he enthusiastically supports this and offered to commit whatever Police resources were necessary.
Mr. Ostroff applauded Ms. Munns for pursuing this. It was highly consistent with the strategic goals.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to how many members made up a team and was told by Ms. Munns that 6-8 were required, but there could be 11-14. She was aiming at 14. She noted the grant proposal was a little more elaborate that what was called for by the Mass Forum.
Asked if she was soliciting applications for the team, Ms. Munns responded that she had not. She had been contacting people with whom she had worked before and the Town Administrator recommended. In follow-up Mr. Connolly inquired if it was people who worked in Town Hall or lay people. Ms. Munns advised it could be lay people. No expertise was required.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to how Ms. Munns would bring forward the information gleaned from the training sessions. Ms. Munns explained that was part of the process. Her plan was bigger than just the Mass Forum because it includes interim sessions where team members could impart information.
Beyond the training, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired what Ms. Munns hoped for, i.e. set goals to help the community build on its assets. What would be expected from that? To respond Ms. Van Amsterdam used the example of placeCityFall River who had participated much earlier in the process. The first year they participated there were 50 projects identified. Over time because of the training they have narrowed that down and identified five key target areas for the community. Every activity they (placeCityFall River) plan now was focused on one of the five areas. Once a community participated on Mass Forum they were eligible to apply for a $10,000 planning grant. Following that they were eligible to apply for a $10,000 implementation grant.
Noting the letter of interest had to be in by May 18 with an application by June 24, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to when Ms. Munns would know if she had the grant money. Ms. Munns advised that the panel (from the Foundation) met last Wednesday and she believed she had been told there would be a response some time in June.
If she didn’t get the grant, Mr. Ciccariello questioned what were the options? Had she (Ms. Munns) approached Town departments about trying to squeeze $200-400? Ms. Munns thought it was very delicate to speak to another department about how to allocate their funds, but the thought had crossed her mind. If the grant was not forthcoming, it was her hope to find a creative way to fund because it was so worthwhile.
Ms. White thanked Ms. Munns for identifying this opportunity. It would be a great benefit to placeCityNatick.
NATICK ANIMAL CLINIC: REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT
David McGrath, owner of the Natick Animal Clinic, reminded the Board that he and his office manager had been to a meeting a couple of weeks ago and the Board asked them to come back after the Board had an opportunity to talk to Town officials and various utility departments. The only question he took from the last meeting was to find out if the Clinic had separate meters for outside. They did have separate meters and that was not the source of the high bill.
Ms. White was afraid this remained a remarkable mystery. The DPW reported that in their view there was no connection with any work on Speen Street and the high water bill. There seems to be no explanation that can be simply identified that had any merit to the spike. What was clear was that the water ran through the meter, but what caused it was a mystery.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the DPW had been asked if they checked the meter and it was functioning correctly. Ms. White advised there didn’t appear to be any malfunction in the meter. It was a device that didn’t have much room for malfunctioning.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the irrigation meter controlled any outside faucet. Dr. McGrath didn’t know.
Mr. Ostroff commented that the DPW checked it out to make sure there was not a leak, and Dr. McGrath responded that the Town asked the Clinic to have their own plumber check and they did. He (Dr. McGrath) too didn’t understand how anything in the street could have affected their meter, but the issue was that it just didn’t seem fair to him to get a bill for the equivalent of two years of water when nothing happened in the building. The Clinic was a very water intensive operation and had been very consistent in their water usage for years. There was one spike and the back to being consistent.
When all the construction was taking place on the roadway, Mr. Ciccariello asked if anyone had ever connected to the outdoor hydrant. Dr. McGrath didn’t believe they would have done that and never noticed anyone connecting to his building.
It was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding that it was the Water Department that brought the usage to the Animal Clinic’s attention, but Dr. McGrath said no. His office manager received the $8,000 bill and called him. They (Animal Clinic) brought it to the Town’s attention.
Mr. Ciccariello understood the MWRA charges to be in excess of $5,000 and the Animal Clinic was paying fines. From Dr. McGrath’s recollection there was a fine of $500 but an agreement to waive if the bill was paid. On the advice of this Board the Clinic paid twice what they thought was the proper amount.
Asked about the balance, Dr. McGrath advised there was still a $6,000 outstanding balance on the Town’s books.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about leaks inside the building since this occurred, but Dr. McGrath indicated there were none.
Mr. Connolly pointed out there was no documentation from the Water Department. He saw a memo from Ms. White and Town Engineer Mark Coviello responded, but there was nothing from the Water Department. Ms. White noted that the actual billing came from the Collector’s Office. Mr. Connolly questioned if after the Animal Clinic came before the Board on April 22, if anyone looked at the area. Ms. White didn’t see any need for that. This was clearly an anomaly. There didn’t appear to be anything wrong with the meter. If a meter were to malfunction, it would record less than the water flowing through. Mr.Connolly responded that he would have thought the Town would have looked at something and questioned if the best effort had been given to get to the bottom of this.
Ms. White countered there was reference to John Moody of the Water Department going out to the site and an inquiry had been made to the Engineering Division to see if there was any way construction on the roadway had anything to do with the bill. She thought the Town looked into it to the extent it could. There just didn’t seem to be any plausible explanation.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the finding of Mr. Moody and was told by Ms. White he found no evidence of malfunctioning.
There was a letter from Ms. Harding, the Animal Clinic office manager, referencing her discussion with Mr. Moody. Mr. Connolly noted the letter was dated July 20, 2007 but the response from the Treasurer wasn’t until March 2008. That seemed like a long time to get back to someone.
Dr. McGrath recalled there being some discussion the last time about why this took so long and he explained the Clinic was in no rush. There were loads of telephone calls back and forth.
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s query as to what had been done in the last two weeks, Ms. White advised that she spoke with Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer and through Mr. Coviello spoke with Water & Sewer Supervisor John Perodeau trying to figure out what could have happened and no one knew.
Mr. Connolly asked Dr. McGrath for his thoughts and Dr. McGrath responded that it didn’t make sense to him that the only way a water meter failed was to under report. A watch could be fast or slow. He assumed that somebody would know something tonight.
Referring back to a question from Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if he was alluding to a contractor hooking up hoses. Mr. Ciccariello noted that many times a contractor would tie their hose into an exterior faucet and may be using the Clinic’s water. Dr. McGrath acknowledged that may have been happening but he didn’t see it. He reiterated that this bill represented two years worth of water the Clinic normally used and it didn’t make sense to him.
Mr. Ciccariello thought the time period covered April to July, but Dr. McGrath didn’t have the bill and he didn’t know if the bill covered both meters. DPW Business Manager William Chenard was in the audience and advised that when someone received a bill it was for irrigation and water. The two charges were separated out on the bill. What Mr. Ciccariello had was not a bill. It was an account history.
Mr. Chenard agreed to go downstairs and try to get a copy of the actual bill. While Mr. Chenard was doing that the Board moved on to other items.
PUBLIC HEARING: WHITE SQUARE
The Board had received a request from the Natick Veterans’ Council to honor the five White brothers for their service to the Country by naming the square at addressStreetPond Street at Campus Drive in their honor.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
President of the Natick Veterans Council Edward Jolley told the Board the Veterans’ Council would like to make the dedication of White Square at the Pond Street at Campus Drive on Memorial Day. Four of the White brothers were veterans of the Second World War and one a veteran of the Korean War. Two of the four who served in placeEurope were POW. The square would honor Charles White, Edward White, William White, Leonard White, and Joseph White. They did a great service to the Town and the Town should be proud.
The Board was in receipt of memos from Community Development Director Patrick Reffett, Richard Cugini Superintendent of Recreation & Parks, and the Historical Commission all in favor of the proposed dedication.
Mr.Connolly noted that of the brothers, “Wiggy” had been a member of the Board of PersonNameSelectmen.
Mr. Ostroff expressed that it was an honor for the Board to recognize the sacrifice of the White family and thanked the Veterans Council for helping to do this.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to close the public hearing. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly moved approval of naming the square on addressStreetPond Street at addressStreetCampus Drive in honor of the White brothers. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
OVATIONS: REQUEST FOR ONE DAY ALCOHOL LICENSE
Representing Ovations For The Cure in a request for a one day all alcohol license for a fund raiser fashion show to be held at the placeCityNatick Collection on May 9, 2008 was Lisa Tocci. Ms. Tocci told the Board that Ovations was a non-profit company on West Central Street that raised money for research of ovarian cancer.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if the event would be held in an enclosed area, and Ms. Tocci’s reply was, “yes”. There would also be security officers.
Mr. Ostroff advised Ms. Tocci of the need to provide an insurance certificate and certification cards from the services. Ms. Tocci didn’t see that as being a problem.
On a motion by Mr.Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to grant Melissa Pride on behalf of Ovations For the Cure a one day alcohol license for May 9, 2008 for a fund raising fashion show to be held at the Natick Collection, 1245 Worcester Street.
NATICK ANIMAL CLINIC: REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT (Continued)
Mr. Chenard returned with a copy of the bill and when Mr. Ciccariello looked it over felt it ruled out his theory that someone connected to the irrigation meter. If there was a problem, it was with the main meter.
Mr. Ostroff noted there was a spike in November 2005 and wondered if this was a situation where a faucet was left on. Dr. McGrath didn’t have a thorough answer; however all but one time the Clinic’s use was between 100-200 hcf. To him this was not the magnitude of a faucet left on. Mr. Ostroff pointed out that a faucet left on overnight could use a lot of water.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the Clinic had been assessed any penalty or not. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t see a penalty on the bill he was just handed. Mr. Chenard advised that typically there wasn’t a penalty. Interest will be calculated but it wasn’t really a penalty.
Mr. Ciccariello noted there was a letter that suggests a late fee assessment of $500, but didn’t know if it was still on the bill.
There hadn’t been any information as to why this occurred and Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what the Board would like to do.
A recess was called at 8:20 p.m. and the meeting again called to order at 8:30 p.m.
Since it couldn’t be figured out what happened, Ms. Gloff noted that in the past the Board waived the sewer portion. She took an average of the report starting with 4/28/02 leaving out the big one. The average was $770.
Ms. Gloff moved to abate $4,804.60 from the sewer portion of the bill leaving a balance of $3,637.35. The $3,637.35 represented $2,867.30 for the water use and $770 for the sewer. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. After a lengthy discussion the motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff was opposed.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ostroff stated that he had been coming to Board meetings for a number of years and never recalled the Board of Selectmen abate a bill where there was no evidence of the water not going into the sewer system. He was concerned about precedent. Absent evidence of the water not going into the sewer, he couldn’t personally support an abatement.
Ms. Gloff agreed that she didn’t like abating bills if there wasn’t some evidence the water didn’t go into the sewer system but she couldn’t imagine how this much water could have been used and went into the sewer system and she didn’t think anyone would ever find out. As to whether the Board should tell this small business owner he needs to pay the full bill, she was torn because she was not crazy about setting precedent, but she believed something went array and she didn’t believe it would be figured out.
Ms. Van Amsterdam requested DPW Director Charles Sisitsky to speak to his recollection, but Mr. Sisitsky responded that he didn’t get involved in abatements or billing.
Dr. McGrath noted that during the recess there was talk in the audience trying to figure out what 800 units represent and it represents 21,000 gallons of water a day that was supposed to have come through his clinic. Mr. Sisitsky clarified that one unit equals 100 hcf and 100 hcf was 748 gallons.
Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned if it was true that the Board would be setting a precedent given the fact there was no leak that was found. The meter was working perfectly well.
In terms of precedent, Ms. White advised that it wouldn’t be a legal precedent but it could be raised by a subsequent person who thought their water usage was high.
Mr. Ciccariello added that several years ago there were so many requests for water bill abatements the Board decided to put it in the hands of the Treasurer/Collector to review the issue and if a resolution could not be found, it would come to the Board of Selectmen. The Board was doing it on a case-by-case basis.
To Mr. Connolly there was no logical explanation for the amount of water that came through the meter and he agreed with Mr. Ostroff about setting a precedent.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE FROM RANZ, INC. D/B/A BAKERY ON THE COMMON TO CHRISMA, INC. D/B/A BAKERY ON THE COMMON
Representing Bakery on the Common was the new owner Marina Jorge.
Ms. Jorge told the Board her family owned a bakery for 20 years and she worked in it for several years. Her dream was to open a bakery and she was glad to come upon this opportunity.
Ms. Gloff inquired if there were any plans to change the operation, and Ms. Jorge responded there were no immediate changes planned. The menu would stay the same for at least six months.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the transfer of the Common Victualer’s license from Ranz, Inc. d/b/a Bakery On The Common to Chrisma, Inc. d/b/a Bakery On The Common for premises at 9 South Main Street. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
THE WINE NETWORK, INC. D/B/A NINE EAST WINE EMPORIUM: PLEDGE OF LICENSE
Attorney William Garrahan appeared before the Board on behalf of The Wine Network, Inc. d/b/a Nine East Wine Emporium’s petition for a pledge of license. Mr. Garrahan told the Board that he was representing Clinton Management Group who was attempting to make a loan to Mr. Moran of Nine East Wine Emporium and was looking for a pledge of license. Clinton Management Group couldn’t make a loan unless they received a pledge.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to approve Nine East Wine Emporium’s petition for a pledge of license. Unanimously voted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
a. Award Contract – Tree Services
DPW Business Manager William Chenard reported that bids had been solicited for tree services. Three responses were received:
Northern Tree Service $28,250.00
Mayer Tree Service $26,750.00
Stumpy’s Tree Service $54,000.00
The recommendation was to award the bid to the lowest qualified bidder – Mayer Tree Service. Mr. Chenard noted the Finance Committee took the stump grinder out of the DPW’s requested authorization so that was added in as a contract bid. It was for 24 stumps.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there were any local firms, and Tree Warden/LFNR Supervisor John Cunniff responded that Stumpy’s was in placeCityAshland; Mayer was on the North Shore; and Northern Tree was from Palmer. He noted that Mayer Tree Service had previously worked for the Town.
In response to a series of questions from Mr. PersonNameConnolly, Mr. Chenard responded that these types of contracts typically weren’t listed in the Central Register. Chapter 30B services contracts don’t require Central Register publication.
Mr. Connolly presented a document and Ms. White pointed out that the document presented was out of context. As a certified procurement officer in the Commonwealth she knew this work was governed by Chapter 30B.
Mr. Connolly then noted that he had submitted the addresses for three trees (to be removed) two weeks ago. Mr. Ciccariello suggested waiting until the Board decided on the contract before pursuing the trees in question, but Mr. PersonNameConnolly responded that the trees he was discussing were on unaccepted roads. There were some trees on unaccepted roads in the RFP and he wanted to know why some make it and some don’t. It was his understanding Cottage Street was an unaccepted road. Mr. Ciccariello advised that it was unaccepted, but had been accepted last fall.
Asked if the Town normally cut trees on unaccepted roads, Mr. Cunniff replied, “we do not”.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled there being a pretty good discussion last year about trying to get local people involved in bidding these projects. There seemed to be a lot of requirements in the RFP that local contractors couldn’t meet but under the procurement laws when projects were less than $50,000 the Town can put in other conditions to allow for competitive bidding. It seemed like that didn’t occur again and he didn’t know why and his question was why not. Were the bid documents being written in such a way that weren’t allowing local companies to bid?
Last year when one of the contracts was talked about, Mr. Ciccariello remembered it being said that a company had to be used because they did work before, they did work for the Town before, and had municipal experience, but that company walked away. Was a stipulation put in the bid request on this job requiring the company to have done municipal work?
Ms. White believed that one provision in particular that made it challenging for small businesses was the mandated insurance requirements. It was something Town Counsel felt strongly about and it was her list of goals to see if a little flexibility could be found. The DPW and other departments have mentioned the insurance requirements to her and if there was a bar local companies was having trouble hurdling that was one.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if a performance bond was required, and was told by Mr. Chenard that a bid bond was required but not a performance bond.
Noting that the DPW said the low bidder worked for the Town before and performed to the Town’s satisfaction, Mr. Ostroff inquired if there were any problems that would give Mr. Cunniff any hesitation. Mr. Cunniff advised there were none. He was very pleased with the work.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to award the contract for tree removal to the low bidder Mayer Tree Service in the amount of $26,750.
Prior to the vote, Mr. PersonNameConnolly asked if all of the trees listed were on accepted roads. Mr. Cunniff responded that to his knowledge all were on accepted public ways.
b. Award Contract - Mowing
Mr. Chenard informed the Board that the Invitation for Bids for field mowing was advertised in the MetroWest Daily News. Three landscapers submitted bids: Year 1 Year 2
Shady Tree Landscaping $28.50 per acre $29.50 per acre
Anthony Vanaria & Sons, Inc. $32.50 per acre $32.50 per acre
Level 10 Land Works $60.00 per acre $62.50 per acre
The recommendation was to award the contract to the low bidder Shady Tree Landscaping.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to how this bid compared to last year and Mr. Chenard advised that last year it was $26.00 per acre. In follow-up Mr. Ostroff questioned if fuel costs were driving up the cost and Mr. Chenard responded that that was what they were being told.
Mr. Ostroff then questioned if previous municipal experience was a required part of the bid. Ms. Chenard advised that what was required in the contract was successful performance of a large amount of acres.
Asked if the Town had previously used Shady, Mr. Chenard said the Town had not but he spoke to a reference and some other things were built into the contract.
As to whether they were placeCityNatick companies, Mr. Chenard responded that Shady was from Medfield, Vanaria was from Walthan, and Level 10 Land Works was from placeCityLowell.
Mr. PersonNameConnolly asked about a performance bond, but Mr. Chenard advised there was none, adding that typically performance bonds weren’t done for service contracts of this type. Performance bonds were done for construction and building projects.
In response to a series of questions from Mr. Connolly, Mr. Chenard noted that last year the company was hired for three years, but they didn’t renew because of poor performance. It was a mutual agreement. They wanted out of the contract and the Town was happy to let them out. Mr. Chenard didn’t know the price for the second year in that contract.
Mr. PersonNameConnolly raised the possibility of the Town doing this work themselves, but Mr. Chenard noted that would require one additional staff person and one additional mower.
Noting that the contract starts April 15, Mr. Connolly inquired if the Town had mowed these fields. Mr. Cunniff confirmed that the fields had been mowed. Mr. Connolly pointed out that the Town had the equipment, but Mr. Chenard explained that it was used for other fields and the Town would not be able to do it on an extended basis throughout the summer and fall. There was a way around subbing it out and that was to hire another staff person and additional equipment. The painter’s position was clearly cost effective but it wouldn’t be cheaper to do mowing work.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the funding and was told by Mr. Chenard that it was spread out between FY08 and FY09. There were sufficient funds available in ’08 as the Town had no obligation to pay the other company. He also advised there were sufficient funds for FY09. Mr. Chenard further confirmed that the expenditure for the entire year was expected to be less than $50,000.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that this was the same situation with getting local bidders involved. He has spoken to the Town Administrator and to Town Counsel and Town Counsel had concerns about liability and has set insurance requirements extremely high. That probably eliminated some people, but he (Town Counsel) had to sign the contract and if he didn’t sign it, it couldn’t go forward. He (Mr. Ciccariello) was sympathetic to the interest of local businesses obtaining Town work, particularly if other communities were giving home town advantage, but he wouldn’t want to set up a situation where Natick businesses were precluded from working elsewhere.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to award the contract for field mowing in Fiscal 2008 and Fiscal 2009 to the low bidder, Shady Tree Landscaping at a rate of $28.50 per acre the first year and $29.50 per acre the second year. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Natick Contractors
Former Selectman Paul McKinley noted that he was here last year when the Board went through the same thing with the contracts just discussed. He would think just the fuel costs alone would make a company from Palmer higher.
Mr. McKinley encouraged the Board to follow up on investigating the insurance requirements and talk to local contractors to see what was discouraging them from bidding. He was of the opinion that it was beneficial to keep the Town’s funds poured back into the community and with people physically nearby a good relationship could be developed. Some of the concerns he had with last year’s contracts he discussed with Mr. Chenard and was told that most of the things that concerned him last year changed.
Mr. McKinley extended his congratulations with Mr. Chenard’s return to the Town, noting he was very re-assured that Mr. Chenard was not only back but in a position where he could contribute a lot.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF WATER & SEWER RATE STRUCTURE
Ms. White recommended the Board open the rate setting hearing for Water & Sewer rates at the next meeting.
She then referred to a memo dated May 5 as the second installment to be used by the Board in the FY09 rate setting process. The memo attempted to describe the expenses of the fund necessary to maintain operations for the next fiscal year and introduce a series of policies for the Board’s future consideration. Ms. White pointed out that a budgetary increase of 3.96% for FY09 would be required, but the revenues were substantially less than previous years because there were no retained earnings.
Ms. White reminded the Board that in advance of the override discussion, she spoke about the importance of not using one time money in support of operating expenses. This approach was used in the past in the enterprise and it came to a point where there were no retained earnings. Ms. White noted that the administration tried to focus on the importance of having a policy and in doing so it would help avoid dramatic increases in rates. Clearly there were ongoing operating and capital expenses but having a policy would help in stabilizing the rates. At the end of the memo was a set of draft policies that speak to the need to adequately fund reserves. There were three policies: Reserves, capital financing, rate structures.
Ms. White explained there were three different reserves. One would be to maintain 30-60 days of operating reserves in retained earnings or a specialized stabilization fund at all times. The equivalent to this in FY09 would be approximately $1,000,000-$2,000,000. This reserve could be used to stabilize rates in the event of unforeseen, significant budgetary impacts. The second would be a capital reserve to maintain an appropriate capital reserve for two purposes (a) to mitigate those pieces of the Town’s infrastructure which pose a moderate to immediate risk and require immediate resolution, (b) to fund items which regularly need to be replaced, i.e. vehicles, equipment, small infrastructure. The third reserve would be an asset renewal & replacement reserve. To augment debt issuance and
repayment costs, the Town should establish and regularly fund an Asset Renewal & Replacement Fund for the purpose of partially or completely funding capital improvements.
The second proposed policy was capital financing policy. To preserve the Town’s fixed asset base and ensure that Water & Sewer facilities and equipment efficiently and effectively support the Town’s programs and operations, the Town should provide consistent and stable funding sources for the timely and periodic renewal and/or replacement of water/sewer infrastructure, vehicles and equipment. To that end:
a) Methods of Financing: Generally, the Town shall finance all vehicles, equipment and infrastructure with a useful life under 10 years out of its Capital Reserve. For those vehicles, equipment and infrastructure with a useful life greater than 10 years, the Town shall borrow
b) Debt Management: When borrowing was necessary to finance capital improvement, the Town Finance Director shall seek to issue bonds in such a way as to minimize issuance and interest costs while achieving the best terms for the financial betterment of the placeCityEnterprise Fund.
c) Capital Planning: All capital projects funded through the placeCityEnterprise Fund must be part of the agreed to and adopted 5-year Capital Improvement Plan.
The third policy pertains to rate structures:
a) The Town should continue its established practice of ascending or inclined block rates for water usage in order to promote conservation
b) Rates should be proposed and adopted sufficient to cover all costs incurred during the fiscal year with the exception of catastrophic events. Mid-year rate modification should be avoided whenever possible.
Ms. White continued that the Board would be faced with a challenge for the coming year because of the unavailability of retained earnings. As the Town just passed an override, Ms. White said she wouldn’t recommend that this was the year to start to build those reserves. She had no specific recommendations in terms of rates tonight, but would have recommendations on May 19.
Ms. White thanked the Deputy Town Administrator Michael Young for his significant work on the memo and supporting information.
Ms. Gloff referred to Page 3 Appendix A and noted that it looked like an increase was required in the water & sewer fee collection of almost 21%, but that didn’t mean rates have to go up 21%. Ms. White confirmed that to be correct, adding that that was in support of just a 3.9% increase in the department and the difference was that retained earnings were not available.
Mr. Ostroff called attention to Appendix G – Water & Sewer placeCityEnterprise Capital. It looked like over $2 million over the next 5 years was required and a lot could be bonded. He found it helpful to know what level of capital expenditure could be forecast so the Board knew what would be needed to use rates to support. He extended kudos to those who helped put this together. It was very comprehensive and helpful.
Ms. Van Amsterdam thought the document (May 5, 2008) memo was very transparent. In terms of capital and the listing on Appendix G of all the different projects that will be worked on between now and 2013, she wanted to learn more about maintenance issues and the frequency with which the Town needs to look at all the different aspects of water & sewer.
Ms. White interpreted Ms. Van Amsterdam’s question to be that she was looking for policies or practices or sources of information on maintenance schedules and the like. Ms. Van Amsterdam indicated that was correct and offered to go speak with the people in the Water Department.
With respect to the policies, Mr. Ostroff commented that he didn’t see an approach the Board might consider to deal with multi-dwelling units.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that on some of the capital improvement projects he would like a little more definition of what that encompassed, i.e. list of streets anticipated for sewer relining and how many feet. Other questions he had were:
1) Replace and increase capacity of the Springvale Well, what DEP was requiring and why.
2) replacement of the portable generators, how big
3) What were the MWRA charges assessed to the Town over the past 4-5 years and what was budgeted? One year a certain amount was budgeted, the bill was reduced and the Board reduced the rate to accommodate that.
4) In the previous years did the Town receive more revenue than actually billed by the MWRA
5) He would like an update on where the current projects were. It was agreed that would be done quarterly, but the Board hadn’t seen it in some time.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that one problem he had with the retained earnings deficit was that Town Meeting votes to do these projects and in voting to do these projects they were forcing the Board to raise the water & sewer rates. The Board had no say because Town Meeting votes to fund these projects. He felt moving ahead to the future the five year program would be an asset.
A comment had been made about indirect costs escalating and forcing the Board to charge more for water & sewer rates. Mr. Ciccariello noted that he was on the Indirect Study Committee and he needs to know what was driving the indirect costs upward. He could never understand why certain indirect costs were being applied against Water & sewer particularly the Police Department or the Fire Department. They (Police & Fire) got paid if they provide details.
With respect to Mr. Ostroff’s comment on a policy for multi-dwelling units, it was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding there was a group that reached agreement with the Town many years ago. Apparently the Town reneged on that agreement and he would like to revisit it. He thought the Board should go back and make a decision on that development and how to treat them.
On the recommendation for a capital reserve of $750,000, Mr. Ciccariello noted that for many years it had been $200,000 and he could never recall spending more than $200,000. He wasn’t sure about the asset renewal and replacement and would need a lot more explanation.
One thing that was not been assessed were charges to individuals that want to bring new fire lines to their building and Mr. Ciccariello did not understand why the Town wouldn’t want to make that assessment. In a community next to placeCityNatick the DPW charged substantial funds to bring in fire lines.
As Mr. Connolly understood it the Board of Selectmen was the Water Commissioners and could tell the DPW to charge a fee. Mr. Ciccariello agreed it was something on which the Board could vote.
Mr. Connolly told his fellow Board members there was no way he was asking the citizens to raise water rates – not after the override. The decision to raise their water rates was made by Town Meeting not the Board and he was not going to ask the citizens for more money.
Referring to Mr. Ciccariello’s remark on the capital reserve, Ms. White explained that the reserve currently voted annually was part of the operating budget and she did not characterize that as a capital reserve. She pointed out that these were goals and it was recognized it would be awhile before they could be achieved.
Mr. Ostroff took exception to it being said that Town Meeting forced the Board to raise rates. Town Meeting voted a couple of capital items that a majority of the Board voted to support. He noted that he looked at Springvale Well as a necessity not a luxury. The Board had a duty to keep the municipal water system in excellent condition and the providers should know the Board had their back when it comes to getting them what was needed. Whatever the rates turned out to be he thought there should be an alternative so everyone could understand the consequences.
Mr. Connolly countered that it was the Board who had the citizens back.
Mr. Ciccariello requested an overview of all the debt plus more detail on how the revenues were projected. Did the projection include developments that had gotten recent CO’s. In the presentation for the hearing he also wanted to see the projections for the Mall and if any revenue was being collected.
Ms. White felt that went to the point made by Ms. Gloff that an increase of over 20% in the fees would be needed but it didn’t necessarily go to a rate increase of over 20% because there were other revenue sources. Hopefully rate increases wouldn’t be seen in that range.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that he wasn’t sure he would be ready for a water & sewer hearing next meeting and wondered how significant it was to make a decision by the end of May.
Ms. White explained that she envisioned opening the hearing at the next meeting and providing an opportunity to continue it to June 2, but the hearing would need to be closed at that time and the rates voted.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the rates would become effective July 1 or if they would be retroactive. Ms. Gloff noted that traditionally it was for bills that go out at the beginning of July.
Mr. Ostroff requested the Water & Sewer Supervisor to attend the hearing.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to schedule a public hearing on FY09 water & sewer rates for May 19, 2008.
CSX RAILBANKING
Ms. White reviewed a draft letter to the Secretary of the Surface Transportation Board requesting a 180 day extension of the deadline for negotiations with CSX Transportation, Inc.
The one bid for the appraisal of the right-of-way had been rejected and Ms. White said she spoke to one other bidder and they indicated the timeframe provided to produce the report (30 days) was insufficient. Based on that input the RFP was reissued with a timeframe for turnaround of 90 days.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to request a 180 day extension to negotiate with CSX. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff announced that the CRT Task Force was rescheduling their public forum from May 8 to May 28, 2008.
MAPC ROUTE 9 STUDY
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council had requested the Board’s input on the scope of work for the Route 9 Corridor Study. Responses had been requested by May 1, but Ms. White pointed out that deadline could not be met. The Community Development Director provided his input in a memo dated April 30, 2008 and if the Board was in concurrence with Mr. Reffett’s thoughts, Ms. White said she would respond to MAPC tomorrow.
In his memo, Mr. Reffett indicated the proposed work scope follows customary planning procedures to tabulate existing and future development within the Route 9 corridor with the help of the participant communities. He believed the intended work was valuable to the Town of placeCityNatick as it quantified the amount of anticipated growth and began to offer suggestions as to how to address future Route 9 improvements. His main criticism of the scope was that he would prefer to see a greater level of effort and resources directed toward problem resolution, proposed solutions based on known problem areas, and funding strategies for necessary future improvements.
Ms. White found Mr. Reffett’s input to be right on target and with the Board’s permission would craft a letter.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved approval of Ms. White sending a letter as proposed. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
SPECIAL TOWN MEETING #2 WARRANT ARTICLES
Article 1 – Acceptance of MGL Statute: Exemption of Low-Income Seniors from Proposition 2-1/2 Overrides
Ms. White reported there was nothing new on this proposed legislation. The best information available was that the legislature was completely stalled and it appeared extremely unlikely the legislation would pass for this Town Meeting.
Article 2 – Ratification of Prior Town Meeting Votes
Ms. White informed the Board there was no news as of yet. Nothing had changed since the last update. The home rule petition was in a committee at the House and the House was now involved in budget debate. There were two parallel parths – one was for the home rule petition and the other was Town Meeting and either would provide a cure.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted support Favorable Action on Article 2.
Article 4 – Citizen Petition Amend Zoning By-Laws – Eliot School District
Mr. Ciccariello was of the opinion that it was the Planning Board that creates the Zoning By-Laws and should be the ones making decisions relative to zoning. Town Meeting looks to the Planning Board to create zoning by-laws and changes and he wasn’t sure the article sought to ask Town Meeting to ask the Planning Board to do so.
When she read the article, Ms. Gloff said she thought it sounded interesting but she had no idea what the proponent was proposing to do. Often zoning by-laws were generated from the Planning Board because they have thought through the particular change.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to refer Article 4 to the Planning Board. There was no second and after further discussion Ms. Van Amsterdam withdrew her motion.
It was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding the Planning Board was thinking of this being referred to a Town Meeting committee. Ms. White believed that had been discussed and she thought the Planning Board held some preliminary discussions with the petitioner. The hearing was scheduled for Wednesday and she was meeting with the petitioner of Articles 3 and 4 tomorrow in an effort to identify Town Meeting could vote on.
She cautioned against Article 4 going to a Town Meeting committee because there would be multiple processes. If the Board of Selectmen issued an RFP whether lease or sale, a committee would probably be formed to review those proposals but if a second committee was looking at the zoning, she saw a conflict. In her opinion it should be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Ciccariello didn’t believe the zoning could be changed for this specific piece of property. If zoning changes were going to occur it would have to be wholesale for the entire district and that district included historic. He thought it needed a long review by the Planning Board.
Because she was meeting with the petitioner tomorrow, Ms. White suggested that perhaps the Board defer any action to see if a strategy could be worked out to satisfy everyone’s concerns.
Logically it seemed to Ms. Van Amsterdam that Article 4 would precede anything in Article 3 or did Ms. White see them running in tandem. Ms. White responded that speaking personally and not necessarily reflective of the petitioner she would prefer to see what proposals came in and determine how to best accommodate those whether it be by special permit, etc. Her personal opinion was that no action be taken on Article 4.
Mr. Ostroff agreed with Ms. White, adding that the Board of Selectmen sponsored articles in the past to do a long-term lease based on what the Board thought was the best long-term disposition of this asset. He was interested in how the Board wanted to act on the last Town Meeting vote which authorized the Selectmen to petition the State. Did the Board want to wait to see what Town Meeting said on May 20 or take action ahead of time, but the Board should offer a clear recommendation. He would hope if not tonight then on May 19 the Board would make a clear recommendation to Town Meeting. Without a clear recommendation from the Board, he was afraid Town Meeting might end up somewhat adrift.
Article 3 – Citizen Petition: Home Rule Petition Eliot School – Lease and/or Sale
Mr. Ciccariello called attention to Part B of the article “To see what sums of money the Town will raise ….” And asked if there were any funds available.
If the article were favorably put forward, Ms. White said she would propose the use of free cash. She noted that she spoke with the petitioner at length on what was trying to be achieved and prospective bidders would benefit from a study of the building to identify a capital plan for improvements. Mr. Ciccariello urged caution in how the Town moved in that direction and Ms. White said she would be happy to talk to Mr. Ciccariello about it.
Article 5 – Abandonment of Easement, Acceptance of Easement – Rockland Street
Ms. White advised that this article related to a property owner’s request for the Town to relocate an existing drainage easement that runs across their property. Their deck is on top of the easement. There would be no cost - just the cost of recording the plan.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there were any utilities or underground piping and if so who was going to do the work and pay.
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Young explained that the applicant had a family situation and needs to expand their house, but can’t because it would be encroaching on the easement. He believed there was piping and the applicant was willing to bear that cost. Town Meeting needs to approve the vacation of the easement. This came to light in the last month or so and the feeling was that the request could be taken care of in a satisfactory way by putting it on the special. Otherwise the homeowners would have to defer their project to the fall.
Mr. Ciccariello noted a Boston Edison easement to the north side of the house and questioned why not take the Town easement and extend to the southern edge of the property. The owner could build on either the back or side of the house. Moving the easement was still restricting the property owner as they could only build to the east.
Mr. Young couldn’t speak on behalf of the homeowners, but knew they were in favor of the current plan. The homeowner’s engineer proposed this.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support Favorable Action on Article 5. Unanimously voted.
Article 6 – Citizen Petition
Ms. White explained that Article 6 was a citizen petition proposing that as part of the budget the Town make a full disclosure of any perk given to any Town employee and identify the kinds of information that would be disclosed.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the Finance Committee got to see all the contracts and the stipends in the contracts and the contracts were public records. He questioned what wasn’t being done that the article wanted done. Was there something the Town was missing?
Ms. White said she had the same reaction. All collective bargaining contracts were public record and the Personnel By-Law identified benefits to non-union personnel and for contract employees such as herself, the contract was public.
Mr. Ostroff proposed having the petitioner attend the May 19 meeting. He had some concern about the form of the article.
MINUTES
Mr. Ostroff moved approval of the minutes of the November 26, 2007 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
Ms. Gloff moved approval of the minutes of the April 17, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 3-0-2 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Van Amsterdam and Mr. Connolly abstained.
VETERANS’ DIRECTOR: REQUEST TO HOLD MEMORIAL DAY PARADE
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Veterans’ Director’s request to hold the Memorial Day parade.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he would be away that weekend, but Mr. Ostroff had asked if he could represent the Board and speak on behalf of the Board.
If Mr. Connolly wished to speak at the White Square dedication, Mr. Ostroff said he would defer to Mr. Connolly. Mr. Connolly accepted noting that it would be an honor.
NATICK ROTARY CLUB: REQUEST BANNER
Mr. Ostroff stated that he was a member of the Natick Rotary and intended to vote.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to approve the Natick Rotary’s request to hang a banner across Main street for the period of August 25-September 2, 2008 in advertisement of the fund raising golf tournament. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
BLACKTHORN ESTATE BUYERS, INC.: TRANSIENT VENDOR LICENSE
The Board was in receipt of an application from Blackthorn Estate Buyers, Inc. for a permit to purchase estate items (watches, jewelry, silver, coins, diamonds, paintings,) from the public at a location in the Courtyard by Marriott at 342 Speen Street for the period July 16-19, 2008.
Ms. Challis advised that the Police Department had no objection conditioned upon Blackthorn Estate buyers keeping a log of all purchases and making that log available to the Natick Police Department.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to grant Blackthorn Estate Buyers, Inc. a transient vendor license to purchase estate items at the Courtyard by Marriott for the period July 16-19, 2008 conditioned upon a log being kept and the log being made available to the Natick Police Department.
RECREATION & PARKS: REQUEST TO HOLD CONCERTS ON COMMON
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Recreation & Parks Department’s to hold Monday evening concerts on the Natick Common during the summer months.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
A. Annaballi Park at Pegan Cove
Mr. Connolly stated that Annaballi family were hoping there would be a clean up of the Annaballi Park at Pegan Cove before Memorial Day.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Ms. White to look into it and get back to Mr. Connolly.
B. Town Vehicles
Mr. Connolly requested a review of everyone taking home Town vehicles.
Mr. Ciccariello thought Mr. Connolly was talking about a review of the vehicle policy and asked Ms. White how much time would be needed to do it. Ms. White responded that the policy would be a fairly significant undertaking and didn’t think it would be ready until the June 2 agenda.
c. Natick Mall Permit Fee Audit
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the status of all permit fees and what was owed by the Natick Mall.
Ms. White advised that the Mall had made a commitment to provide an affidavit of cost by May 15 and that would be the basis of the audit. A firm had not as yet been engaged to conduct the audit. She had been waiting to receive the affidavit.
d. Neighborhood Shuttle Bus
Ms. Gloff called attention to an e-mail received from a citizen having difficulty with the Neighborhood shuttle bus. There had been a couple of e-mails concerning bus service and she would like to make certain they were passed onto the Town’s representative (to the MetroWest RTA) and that Ms. White follow-up to see if changes were happening.
Ms. White advised that input was solicited for ideas on the service and those responses were being compiled and forwarded to the RTA. She would check with Mr. Hughes (Natick’s representative to the RTA) to see if they were going to him as well.
e.Retirement Board
Mr. Ostroff reported that he attended the Retirement Board meeting last Wednesday and the chair brought up an issue of an investment made a couple of years ago in First Asia for about $2.8 million. It points to a concern as to the (Retirement) Board’s investment policy and practice.
f. Gazebo
Mr. Ostroff noted he had a concern from a citizen as to why there was a No Trespassing sign on the gazebo.
g. Cochituate Rail Trail Forum
Mr. Ostroff informed the Board the Cochituate Rail Trail forum had been rescheduled from May 8 to May 28.
h. Telecommunication Loop Hole
Mr. Ostroff advised that the State Senate was debating that tomorrow if the Board wanted to encourage support to the legislators.
i.Expense Control Task Force
Ms. Van Amsterdam reported that the Expense Control Task Force had come up with a preliminary list of items they were contemplating looking into. What was missing was the institutional knowledge. If acceptable to the Board she would send individual e-mails to the Board to see if persons were aware of studies that have been done. She would include the current Superintendent of Schools, Ms. White, the Finance Committee Chair.
Mr. Ciccariello reminded Ms. Van Amsterdam that when sending an e-mail it was a public record.
j. Office Hours
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he would be unable to do office hours tomorrow night. Mr. Ostroff offered to fill in.
Ms. Van Amsterdam advised that Ms. Gloff and she were switching the July 1 and August 5 dates.
k. P.F. Change – Alcohol Awareness Training
Mr. Ciccariello noted that P.F. Chang’s Bistro had been issued a license as of January 30 and to date had not submitted the training information required under the rules and regs. He suggested that a letter be sent to P.F. Chang’s telling them they had five business days to provide the information and if they failed to do so, the Board would conduct a hearing for non-compliance.
Mr. Ostroff proposed making it an agenda item for the next meeting and if the information was submitted by then, the Board wouldn’t have to hold the hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
_______________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
