BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
May 19, 2008
6:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at time 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua 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 19, 2008 in the amount of $602,724.03. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,339,717.13.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to litigation. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Van Amsterdam had not as yet arrived and did not vote. At 6:30 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:10 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. MetroWest Regional Transit Authority
Mr. Ostroff announced the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority was holding two public hearings on Tuesday, May 20 at 6:00 p.m. and on Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. at Town Hall in the Selectmen’s meeting room for the purpose of allowing public comment on proposed service and fare changes for the fixed route bus service known as the Neighborhood Bus.
b. Cochituate Rail Trail Community Forum
Mr. Ostroff advised that on May 28, 2008 a community forum would be held at the Morse Institute Library to get input from the public and provide information on the Cochituate Rail Trail. The time was 7:00 p.m.
c. Transfer of Flags
Mr. Ciccariello announced that the annual Transfer of Flags ceremony would be held at Wilson Middle School on Wednesday, May 21.
LETTER OF APPRECIATION: STEPHANIE PERRIN
A Letter of Appreciation was presented to Stephanie Perrin, the retiring Head of School of the Walnut Hill School, in recognition of her service to the School and the community.
Ms. Perrin thanked the Board for the kind thoughts and noted that it was important to the people at the School that they be good neighbors. She assured the Board that her successor would continue the values of the School.
LEONARD MORSE GRANTS PANEL – ANNOUNCE VACANCIES
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Martin Cohen, President/CEO of the MetroWest Community Health Care Foundation advising that the terms of Jane Lenarsky and Marijane Norris Geary to the Leonard Morse Grants Panel was expiring as of June 30, 2008. Both had served three full terms on the Panel and were ineligible from serving another term. The Board of Selectmen was being asked to nominate at least two or more candidates from which the Board of Trustees of the Foundation could select candidates to fill the vacancies.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, and unanimously voted to post the vacancies and accept applications for the meeting of June 16.
The Board requested that letters of appreciation be sent to Ms. Lenarsky and Ms. Norris Geary.
THE MATHWORKS SCHOLARSHIP COMMITTEE: SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS
Representing The MathWorks Scholarship Committee was Howard Wilcox.
Mr. Wilcox told the Board that he was pleased to report that this year’s MathWorks Scholarship selection process was again quite a challenge. The Committee had 18 highly qualified candidates including 16 students from placePlaceNameNatick PlaceTypeHigh School and 2 from private schools.
During the evaluation process the Committee reviewed all applications and ranked them according to criteria, which included academic achievement, a student essay, and a demonstrated commitment to math and science. The Committee then interviewed the top seven candidates.
These students were remarkable not only academically but socially as well. They were a fascinating group and the common theme was a strong academic, athletic and musical background. Although it was extremely close, the Committee identified two students: Emily Anderson and Anya Price.
Emily Anderson was the capital of the Natick High Schools Girls Swimming and Diving team, was a member of the Math Team and Women in Science teams as well as the Treasurer of the National Honor Society and the President of Student Council. She will attend Tufts University next fall pursuing Biomedical Engineering as she hoped to combine her love of science with her passion for helping others.
Anya Price has also enrolled at Tufts University where she will pursue her long time dream of becoming a Veterinarian. Anya was the Captain of the NHS Cross Country and Outdoor track teams and was the Vice President of the Natick Symphonic Band for which she played the saxophone. She was a tutor, a member of the National Honors Society and attended the National Youth Leadership Forum on Medicine.
Ms. Price expressed her appreciation of having received the award. She stated that she always wanted to be a veterinarian and this would help her achieve her dream.
Ms. Anderson told the Board she was ecstatic and shocked to have received this award and delighted to go to Tufts.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to accept the recommendation of The MathWorks Scholarship and award this year’s MathWorks scholarships to Anya Price and Emily Anderson.
Besides congratulations to Ms. Anderson and Ms. Price, Mr. Ostroff acknowledged the parents as well as the other 16 seniors that applied. He was glad it was a four year scholarship that encouraged people to stay in this field.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she knew one of these individuals and heard wonderful things about Ms. Price and couldn’t think of two more deserving young women.
Being in the science field, Ms. Gloff commented that every year it did her heart a tremendous amount of good to have these scholarships given by MathWorks for people going into math and science.
Mr. Connolly stated that he was proud of the two recipients and knew they would both do well. He thanked the Committee for their efforts.
Mr. Ciccariello also thanked MathWorks. He felt the recipients should be very proud and he led the room in giving the young women a standing ovation.
MAPC: ANTI HAZARDOUS MITIGATION PLAN
Appearing before the Board to present the anti hazardous mitigation plan were Martin Pillsbury and Sam Cleaves of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.
A power point presentation began with the question ‘Why is Natick doing this plan?’. The geneses was a national program but it was administered by FEMA under a law passed in 2000. The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that a community adopt a local plan in order to apply for certain grants. The plan looks at what to do to be proactive before a disaster. The disaster mitigation act will help communities across the country make themselves more disaster resistant.
One thing FEMA does was to provide an incentive. There were three grant programs – Pre-disaster mitigation competitive, hazard mitigation grant program, and flood mitigation assistance – and a community had to have an approved plan to qualify to apply. By getting this plan together and then formally recognized and approved by FEMA, the community could apply for actual projects. Mr. Pillsbury noted that MAPC was doing these plans over the whole region.
Mr. Pillsbury noted this was a plan for preventing damages from natural hazards only – such things as flooding, high winds, hurricanes, tornadoes, winter storms, brush fires, earthquakes. It was not an emergency response plan. The Town already had plans in place for what to do after a disaster.
What is hazard mitigation? The goal was to permanently reduce or prevent losses of life, injuries and property following natural hazards by using long-term strategies. What preventive actions were being taken now to reduce future risks and damages and what actions could be taken in the future.
The presentation explained how the plan was developed. There was a regional committee with neighboring communities. There would be two plans – one a Town and one a regional. The local committee for the local plan was composed of Fire, Police, Emergency Management, Public Works, Conservation, Planning, Health. The content of the plan included critical facilities mapping, hazard risk assessment, existing mitigation, proposed mitigation, plan maintenance.
Under the category of critical facilities and sites a database was developed of maps of critical facilities, infrastructure, and natural hazard areas. 144 sites were identified in Natick. Sites that were important for disaster response such as fire and police stations, sites requiring additional assistance such as elderly housing, places of assembly (churches, schools), dams, communications facilities, and sites that might pose a risk such as a chemical plant or other facilities with hazardous materials.
To identify the risk and assessment, MAPC used statewide data sources to map floodplains, average snowfall, wind speeds, hurricanes, earthquake risk areas, etc. They reviewed statewide hazard mitigation plan, met with Town staff to get information on hazard areas, and met with Town staff to get information on potential development.
Locally identified hazard areas of concern included minor flooding areas mainly due to proximity to floodplain and drainage infrastructure. Locations in Natick were identified as Dean Road/Mercer Road/Strathmore Road and Highland Avenue and Middle Street for drainage.
The presentation went on to address the meat of the plan beginning with the example of existing mitigation measures. In flood-related concerns mitigation would be the development of controls: groundwater protection district, wetlands bylaw and regulations, site plan/subdivision controls, stormwater bylaw and erosion control; ongoing drainage system maintenance and upgrades; protected open space and wetland areas to provide buffers and flood storage; street sweeping/catch basin cleaning, and beaver mitigation on a case-by-case basis.
For wind-related hazards the mitigation would be tree-trimming and removal by town and subcontractors. Mitigation for winter-related hazards would be standard snow removal and sanding operations. Fire-related could be the requirement for open burning permits. Multi-hazard would consist of multi-department review of developments, comprehensive emergency management plan, and the state building code.
For potential future mitigation measures, Mr. Pillsbury identified as a high priority the survey and repair of drainage in Dean/Mercer/Strathmore Roads area; making necessary repairs and establish a regular maintenance program for the Charles River Dam at South Natick; upgrade the Town’s drainage system record keeping system; investigate options to make all municipal buildings earthquake proof. Medium priority was identified as a continuation of open space protection and land acquisition; design and installation of drainage improvements in the Mechanic Street Industrial Park area; acquisition of a mobile 6 inch pump for use at flooded sites; addition of earthquake event firefighting response; upgrade GIS wetlands/storm drain system mapping capacity.
The plan must be adopted by a vote of the Board of Selectmen. The vote must state that the Board has adopted the plan, not approved or accepted. Mr. Pillsbury pointed out that the Town did not have to go forward with every project. The plans would be submitted to State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) for initial review and SHMO forwards to FEMA Region 1 for final review and approval.
After the plan was adopted and approved, individual municipalities decide whether to pursue grants for projects identified in the plan.
Sam Cleaves acknowledge the members of the Local Committee: Former Fire Chief Gene Sabourin; Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois; Director of Public Health Roger Wade; Community Development Director Patrick Reffett; Sergeant Brian Grassey; Lieutenant Stephen Pagliarulo; DPW Engineer John DiGiacomo; Building Inspector David Gusimini.
Ms. Van Amsterdam understood this was not an emergency response plan, but was curious how towns and cities have involved the local hospitals and businesses in making them aware of how they might participate in any preventive maintenance or general discussion. Why not bring them in as part of the preventive piece.
Mr. Pillsbury thought it was more likely to find the involvement of the institutions under the regional plan. When doing the local plan it was pretty much the local government. The regional looked at public and private.
Ms. Van Amsterdam believed it would be found that the local communities took pride of ownership in the local plans and that many community hospitals very much take pride in the community they serve and had a tendency to support the community. That would be found as well with some businesses whose headquarters were in the community. She encouraged MAPC not to wait until it got to the regional level, particularly in the MetroWest area, to ask if there was a particular business or hospital in this locality that might be brought in.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to when Mr. Pillsbury expected to come back to the Board. Mr. Pillsbury responded that a draft of the plan was being put together to submit to MEMA. That would probably go out in the next month or so. MEMA would review it and turn it over to FEMA and that would result in comments back to MAPC that may require a few changes. What was unpredictable was how long it would take. Their experience was 45 days to 5-6 months. There would then be a final draft and FEMA would issue a letter saying it was approved and then it would be brought back to the Board of Selectmen. His guess was late summer to late fall.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if there were other kinds of hazardous responses other than natural that would be companions to this in the works. There wasn’t anything Mr. Pillsbury could think of. SEM was much more around chemical spills and that was in place.
Mr. Ostroff was curious to know where the public would get more information and Mr. Pillsbury suggested that people contact them directly at MAPC.
In speaking about the grant programs, Ms. White interpreted Mr. Pillsbury’s tone of voice to mean they were highly competitive and she questioned if there were realistic opportunities. Mr. Pillsbury’s response was, “yes”, noting there was over $26-27 million in grants given out to several dozen communities over the state. It was not easy but it was possible.
Mr. Connolly asked about the 144 critical facilities in Natick and if the Board could get a listing. Mr. Cleaves advised the sites would be listed in the plan. The plan would document what was being done and make some recommendations for further steps. It was a combination of looking at what the Town was doing and moving forward.
INTERVIEWS TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2009 AUDIT
Ms. White introduced the interviews by noting that the Town retained the same auditing firm for several years. While the service was not required to be bid it was advisable to make sure the pricing was competitive and the Town went out for proposals. Three firms applied and all have been invited to make a presentation.
The representatives of each of the firms were asked to wait in a separate room until the time of their interview.
A. Powers & Sullivan
Representing Powers & Sullivan were principal James Powers, and audit manager Michael Nelligan.
Mr. Powers thanked the Board for the opportunity to make a presentation. Powers & Sullivan was the current auditor and he (Mr. Powers) thought they could offer the Town the consistency of a firm that was experienced in managing and auditing government entities in Massachusetts. They didn’t do a lot of other things. They didn’t have a big tax practice. All their staff did many of these types of audits each year and the people assigned to this engagement have been doing this for well over 25-30 years in this arena. The firm has been in business doing municipalities for 20 years.
Since Powers & Sullivan had been in Natick for five years, Mr. Powers noted that one concern the Board may or may not have was whether the Town was still getting a fresh look. In these types of situations Mr. Powers said existing clients were offered the ability to change managing partners and/or managers. That had been done in the past by a couple of the clients. It occurred last year in Brookline. His (Mr. Powers) had the same background as him. They audit several Triple A communities and even beyond that the audit staff was very experienced. Each one of their senior auditors and assistants do 10 different municipal audits. Trying to figure out how to audit governments was different than regular commercial entities.
One thing in the proposal Mr. Powers thought was important was independence. Auditors need to be independent in both fact and perception and an auditor couldn’t audit their own work. Powers & Sullivan gave up revenue by not taking on consulting with their clients and they would continue to do that if selected to go forward.
Mr. Powers pointed out that detailed in the proposal was the service they did for the Town over the last five years. The perception was more important than the fact and the Board needed for someone to come evaluate management and interior controls. They didn’t hide it when there were weaknesses but over the last couple of years things have gotten better.
Mr. Powers continued that the other thing that was important was the timing and when the audit got done. The quicker it was done the better off the Board was to evaluate what needs to be done. For this year it was already the middle of May and normally they would have had a team in to do preliminary work, etc. They made the assumption of continuing and did not take Natick off the schedule. If the Board made a decision in the next couple of weeks they would be coming in in June. Of course they would have to discuss with client’s staff as to when they would be ready for the audit. If they (Powers & Sullivan) came too soon, there would be a lot of incomplete information and that would delay the final audit. They (Powers & Sullivan) wanted a realistic timeline for when things would be
ready. In talking with the Comptroller Fred Witte and staff, he (Mr. Powers) figured a date of mid September for three weeks. That would leave 4-6 weeks to complete and by the end of October the audit would be before the Board for acceptance.
Mr. Powers noted that Powers & Sullivan had maintained their price without any significant raises. The price looked like it jumped but the RFP requested additional services in student funds.
Mr. Nelligan told the Board that he enjoyed a comfortable working relationship with management and hoped to continue. He felt Powers & Sullivan could get the job done on time if provided with the information and he had no problem discussing that with the Board.
Referring to the proposal, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked Mr. Powers to elaborate on what systemic risk he saw and why he thought he was poised to help Natick. Mr. Powers responded that it was experience. His company had been doing this for over 20 years and was active in a lot of different thing. One manager was Chair of the Government Auditing Committee and he spoke all the time to accounting groups. They stayed on top of the changing needs of a community. They wrote the DOR conversion to GASB34. The best way to know something was to talk about it. Having to talk about something forces you to take the time. Powers & Sullivan was one of the firms to go fully paperless in the audit process although they still need to be in the field.
Looking forward GASB 43 & 45 have been implemented in Wellesley and other communities. Powers & Sullivan was doing the implementation in Brookline and Springfield so they could see how other systems worked and may want to bring that to Natick. You couldn’t underestimate the experience in the field.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to how many years Powers & Sullivan had been auditing Natick and Mr. Powers responded that it had been since 2002. In follow-up Ms. Gloff asked how the firm avoided becoming complacent. Mr. Powers replied that he thought his firm had a good internal control system. They used Natick as a reference for another job and if they were to become complacent that would affect their future business. Even though there were recurring areas, you had to start fresh each year. There was new software and that had to be implemented. Staff that does a lot of the detail work were rotated a little more consistently than Mr. Nelligan or himself. Mr. Powers stated that he was proud to stand on their past practice. If they were not the best fit for Natick, the Board should select another
firm, but he was confident they had not become complacent.
Mr. Connolly questioned if Powers & Sullivan automatically got the gig for the last five years, but Mr. Powers said no. The Board went out to bid after three years and then an extension was issued because of things happening.
Mr. Connolly asked if the decision to seek bids was the Board’s or the administration’s and was told by Mr. Ciccariello that it was a combination of both.
Having mentioned GASB changes as an issue going forward, Mr. Ostroff inquired if there were other operational things where Natick had unique challenges. Mr. Powers thought it was experience, adding that he would be concerned about the fact that for FY07 a consultant had to be brought in for the closing process. That was a risk. Was there enough support and was there enough experience to wean work off the consultant. That would be part of his concern for FY08. He thought the team in place had the capacity to make things run smoothly but it still takes some time.
Mr. Nelligan noted that GASB 45 implementation would be an issue. There were also some issues on investments of the retirement plan. Otherwise he thought the Town had good systems in place and good people. Aside from some manual ongoing accounting issues, he didn’t see any hurdles that would impede the audit process.
Referring to Mr. Nelligan’s mention of investment issues under the retirement system, Mr. Ostroff asked if there was something that could be done from an auditing perspective. Mr. Nelligan responded that there was a responsibility for that valuation on the financial statements. Asked if they were responsible for the past year, Mr. Nelligan believed the situation in that investment just recently came to light. He didn’t believe it was an issue in prior years. The bankruptcy was just announced the last couple of months.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to what was Powers & Sullivan’s involvement in the Retirement Board, and Mr. Powers explained they audited the Retirement Board’s financial statements because they had to be part of the Town’s financial statements. They (Powers & Sullivan) looked at their financial statements. They did not act as an investment advisor. They looked to see if it was a legal investment, but didn’t make a determination as to whether it was a good or bad investment. If they acted as part of the management that would impair their independence. Powers & Sullivan saw if the valuation of the securities was right. It appeared as though the drop in value for the investment in question occurred subsequent to the last audit.
B. BRAVER
Representing Braver were Principal Robert Civetti, and Engagement Shareholder James Wilkinson.
Mr. Civetti told the Board that Braver was primarily out of Providence, Rhode Island and primarily focused on cities and towns. Currently they audited approximately 14 Rhode Island cities and towns and some school districts with a range from a $1 million budget to $600 million. In 2007 Braver merged with Prescott, Chatllier, Fontaine, Wilkinson, LLP and had offices in Newton, MA, Boston and Concord. The Providence office audits Blackstone, MA and consists of 200 professionals. They were looking to staff this engagement with direct supervision out of Providence, but with staff out of Concord or Newton.
Mr. Civetti noted that the proposal highlighted some of the steps in the audit process beginning with a meeting with the Town’s staff and administrator. There would be a planning session. Testing on procedures was determined for each community, but there were standards that dictate what the auditors needed to follow and those were standard whether it be Rhode Island and Texas. There were standards dictated by Massachusetts and Braver would work with the Town on those. Their proposal was to submit an audit statement in accordance with accounting standards and if new standards arose they would help the Town implement those standards.
Mr. Ostroff requested Mr. Civetti to identify some of the transitional issues and what was typically expected of the client above and beyond what would normally happen.
Mr. Civetti responded that the Town would be required to submit a letter to the previous firm requesting records. It was usually a smooth transition. He had never encountered another firm that did not provide the records. In Rhode Island there was a mandatory three year period to go out to bid so there was a good deal of rotation. Sometimes auditors get used to how things were and look past things. Braver didn’t like to lose clients but from the Town’s point of view it was good to have a fresh set of eyes. The Board may receive a management letter with the number of comments going down and he thought with a new firm the Board may see some additional ideas. The Town may be complying with Mass standards but a new firm may give ideas for increasing efficiency and improving operations.
From their experience with other municipalities in Massachusetts, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked Mr. Civetti to describe how Brave would help Natick. How would Braver help Natick with GASB standards and how would he parlay his experience and knowledge in GASB with the changes.
Mr. Civetti responded that GASB was full accrual accounting and the Town’s financials should mirror the internal reports. They had other municipalities in Massachusetts with Massachusetts reporting requirements. You want to see that accounts are reconciled on a daily basis. Speaking with the DOR it seems Massachusetts has statutory requirements and not up to full GAP. It was his understanding it was moving toward that. That was based on 20+ years of experience. He noted there were a lot of communities in Rhode Island the same size as Natick.
Mr. Wilkinson noted that the focus in Rhode Island was to develop an audit committee to increase oversight of the fiscal situation and get input from the governing body and public. The audit committee can work with the administration to do risk assessment and how to be responsive to changes in economics and fiscal changes and do some work on their own before the auditors arrive.
Mr. Civetti continued that several years with Enron major problems came out with accountability and that’s being trickled down to non-profits and government. Having an audit committee if something came up in the audit the auditor could come back and talk to them. The auditors could approach an independent body. It came down to transparency.
Mr. Connolly commented that whichever firm was chosen the auditors were accountable to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Ciccariello noted the accountability to the administration and the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Civetti agreed.
C. SULLIVAN, ROGERS & COMPANY
Representing Sullivan, Rogers & Company were Shareholder Chris Rogers and Co-Founder Daniel Sullivan.
Mr. Rogers told the Board that Sullivan, Rogers & Company’s entire practice was dedicated to providing auditing and consulting services to municipalities in Massachusetts. They did not do any corporate or tax work. Their team had over 100 years of government and consulting experience and the type of audit required by Natick was the foundation of their practice. Since they were solely committed to municipalities they needed to be in the forefront of change and it has been constantly changing over the past 10 years. The firm were active members and participants in many organizations such as AICPA peer review program. Massachusetts Association of CPA and participate in the special review committee for governmental finance office. They have provided education seminars to MGFO and the Treasurers
Association.
Mr. Rogers noted that his company took the team approach to servicing their clients and the Town would never have to rely on one person in the organization to provide support. The team assigned to Natick would have 50 years of collective experience and could provide the Town with a level of services that were unmatched. They guaranteed the client a response to all inquiries within one day. They never overbooked themselves and were very selective about the clients they brought on. There were three separate divisions – auditing, consulting, and compliance divisions. These were created to provide a higher level of service. Auditing was all the auditors in the firm do and were committed 100% of the time to the government auditing function.
With all the new auditing and accounting standards, Mr. Rogers noted the amount of work that had to be done had increased substantially so recognizing any efficiencies was critical. About six years ago Sullivan, Rogers went paperless to maintain the efficiencies. They worked closely with the clients to plan and meet deadlines. He assured the Board Sullivan, Rogers would never miss a deadline. They considered all their clients to be a year round obligation. The Town wouldn’t see them a week or two in the spring and then preliminary field work and never hear from them again. They were always accessible on cell phones. It allowed them to provide guidelines when on financial reporting, new laws, or regulations and guidelines on internal policy and procedures and it allowed them to provide a
timely audit.
Mr. Rogers continued that since the inception of the company, Sullivan Rogers focused on controlled growth. They never sacrificed an existing client for a new client.
Mr. Sullivan commented on projects over the past year. Sullivan Rogers was involved in Natick with two projects. The first was the transition from the Comptroller. That was a consulting division engagement. They knew so much about the accounting systems used in governments and were experts in Munis that they could come in and help someone with a lot of experience in accounting, but not as a government accountant and help them understand how things were done and teach them the system. The second project was working on how the Town could obtain some efficiencies and make some technical changes in the way cash was reconciled between the Treasurer’s and Comptroller’s office. That too was the consulting division and they never borrowed staff from the audit division. If the Town needed
something done, as long as it didn’t jeopardize Sullivan, Rogers’ independence they would have someone available.
If selected, Ms. Gloff inquired as to what sorts of things Mr. Sullivan felt his firm could not do for Natick in the future for the independence. Mr. Sullivan responded that would have to be evaluated on a service-by-service basis. It would depend on the type and level of work. If cash had not been reconciled, Sullivan, Rogers could not reconcile cash. They could not perform any task they would have to audit. There were certain circumstances where they could assist but he would have to look at each engagement.
Regarding the mention that Sullivan Rogers worked on the Comptroller transition and efficiencies in cash, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Town had weaned itself off the consulting program. Mr. Rogers advised that both engagements were for Fiscal 2007 and the firm had not performed any of these for close to a year. None of the services related to Fiscal 2008. If they had done any of that work in Fiscal 2008, they would not be here tonight.
Based on Sullivan Rogers’ consulting provided to the Town, Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Rogers thought the Town had gained some improvements. Mr. Rogers felt the engagements were successful and part of the measurement of that was the Fiscal 2007 audit was completed. He thought the transition went well.
Mr. Ostroff requested Mr. Rogers to talk about the Town’s issues and challenges going forward regarding the software. Mr. Rogers responded that the software used in Natick was used by quite a few municipalities. With any technology you had to stay up with it and make sure there was good education within the staff and that you were utilizing the latest version. You don’t want to get behind and ways were always being looked at to enhance it.
Asked what that meant for Natick, Mr. Rogers said they encouraged all their clients to make sure they attend the classes the software company had. It was important to understand the upgrades and have a policy internally that made education available. There were a lot of training sessions available and a local users group. The Town would want its key financial and management people there and bring that information back to the Town.
Mr. Ostroff then inquired if Mr. Rogers had any experience where he quoted a few hours and ended up spending more time. Mr. Rogers responded that as it related to audits very rarely did that happen. Sullivan Rogers did this a lot and worked with many communities the size of Natick. The players don’t always stay the same but there was an understanding of how the organization worked and they felt comfortable about the hours and how they would approach doing the audit.
The proposal talked about the eight statements on auditing standards that would have to be implemented by independent auditing firms in FY08. A lot address the issue of risk and Ms. Van Amsterdam asked Mr. Rogers to describe how he helped localities address this type of risk and the remedies that may be put forward.
Mr. Rogers explained that the eight standards were related to auditing. It was Sullivan Rogers’ risk and they had to consider the process they go about to identify those risks. You obtain an understanding of the entity and then understand the internal control, document it and test it. The auditor had to corroborate the documentation and make a decision whether to do thorough test controls. That was a new process. As part of the process they had to identify areas where controls could be weak or not functioning and those areas would be communicated with what could be done to remedy any inefficiencies in design and control or the design of the control may be OK but it wasn’t being performed and that too would be communicated. The risk assessment was adding hours to the audit, but the weaker the
control systems the greater number of hours it would take to do the audit and the more money it would cost. He told all of his clients they should always be evaluating systems of controls. In the long run it would save money on audit fees and there would be a better understanding of the internal system.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the general make up of an audit committee and why the Town should have it. Mr. Sullivan noted that it would depend on whom you talked to. The GFOA recommends members of management and the Board of Selectmen mostly. At the other end the AICPA recommends independent outside sources who have an understanding of how the entity operates. It was hard to find those people. Most audit committees were made up of Finance Committee, Board of Selectmen, and a couple key members of management such as a Finance Director or auditor.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the fee proposals had already been opened and he guessed that was the norm to include the fees as part of the review process. Ms. White pointed out that Chapter 30B didn’t require auditing services to be bid, but a comparable 30B process was being followed. Asked if the Town could negotiate fees, Ms. White’s reply was, “no”.
Ms. Gloff inquired if any references had been called for any of the three firms. Ms. White wasn’t sure if that had been done. Mr. Ciccariello asked if the members of the Board wanted to contact the references or if the preference would be to have the Procurement Officer do it. He (Mr. Ciccariello) would like it to be independent of the Finance Director and Comptroller. Ms. Gloff thought it would be best to have one person do it. Mr. Ciccariello proposed having the Deputy Town Administrator make the calls and the members agreed.
Mr. Ciccariello requested this item to be on the agenda for the next meeting.
A recess was called at 9:10 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:15 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2009 WATER & SEWER USE RATE FEES
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Ms. White reiterated some points made at the last meeting, namely that the goal was to: avoid unanticipated large fluctuations through this planning, encourage conservation, develop and maintain adequate reserves, adequately fund capital needs and properly manage the debt. The Board will be debating several critical issues. First and foremost was the need to increase the fees to meet the ongoing capital and operation. This was driven by a modest increase of 3% in expenses and a decrease in water usage and the unavailability of retained earnings for FY09. Another issue was discussion for multi unit dwellings.
In looking forward Ms. White said she would aim to continue the excellent management to constantly evaluate opportunities for efficiencies and ensure compliance with the vast and often changing regulations and the establishment of adequate reserves. She thanked Deputy Town Administrator Michael Young who took the lead in preparing the presentation and thanked the Finance Director Robert Palmer, DPW Business Manager William Chenard, Water & Sewer Supervisor John Perodeau, and DPW Director Charles Sisitsky.
Mr. Young distributed a copy of his power point presentation, noting it would be available on the web site as well. The presentation reviewed the rate setting process, the rate setting model & methodology, and outlined three rate options for the Board’s consideration.
Before presenting the specific options, Mr. Young gave an overview of the rate options. Rates were increasing in FY09, retained earnings were not available to provide rate relief, usage of water & sewer services declined between 2006 and 2007, and additional enterprise revenue including investment income, betterments, liens, and new growth have been accounted for and added to each rate option. As to why rates must increase 22.3%, there were many reasons but it came down to simple math. Rate revenue was 12.3%, usage dropped an average of 6% and expenses increased 4%. 12.3+6+4=22.3%.
Option 1 – Inclining rate increase
The goals were to:
1) Hold the average water/sewer user to average rate of increase – 12.3%. An average user was defined as using 26.5 hcf per quarter
2) Provide rate relief to lower tiers
3) Promote Water Conservation
Results:
1) 0-10 & 11-20 HCF users see rate reductions
2) 21-40 HCF users see modest/average increases
3) 40+ users see large rate increases
Option 1 - Pros
· Raises sufficient revenue to meet spending
· Provides rate relief to the lowest tiers; arguably fostering further conservation and reducing the burden on those least able to pay more
· Holds average user to average rate of increase
· Continues discounting of elderly rates for water & sewer users for those who qualify
Option 1 - Cons
· Raises rates considerably on upper most tiers (in some cases over 45%)
· Encourages high users to use less which may very likely result in insufficient revenues due to lack of consumption
Option 2 – Leveling of Tiers
The goals were to
1) Hold average water/sewer user to average rate of increase 12.3%
2) Promote water conservation
3) Results: 0-10 & 11-20 HCF users see large rate increases
21-40 HCF users see modest/average rate increases
40+ users see large rate increases
Option 2 – Pros
· Raises sufficient revenue to meet spending
· Holds average user to average rate of increase
· Continues discounting of elderly rates for water & sewer users for those who qualify
Option 2 – Cons
· Raises rates considerably on upper and lower tiers (in some cases over 30%
· Encourages high users to use less which may very likely result in insufficient revenues due to lack of consumption
· Affects lower users disproportionately at the benefit of average users possibly encouraging the opposite of water conservation
Option 3 – Level Increase on all Tiers
The goals were to:
1) Evenly distribute necessary rate increase
2) Promote water conservation
3) Results: All rate users see rate increases between 20-30%
Option 3 – Pros
· Raises sufficient revenue to meet spending
· Provides relatively equal rates of increase across all tiers
· Eases effects of eliminating the minimum bill by creating a partial tiering of Sewer rates
· Continues discounting of elderly rates for water & sewer users for those who qualify.
Option 3 – Cons
· Raises rates considerably on lower tiers thus on those who use less/may not be able to easily afford an increase.
Mr. Young noted that a lot of information was given to the Board for review over the weekend, but there were two additional handouts – a debt analysis, year-to-date expenses and a status report on three projects.
Noting the books were prepared Friday for pick up, Mr. Connolly questioned the Board accepting the additional documents. Mr. Ciccariello noted that when he went through his book he asked for some information that he didn’t see in the book. Mr. Connolly questioned if it was acceptable to get this now for a decision the Board had to make now. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the Board may not make a decision tonight and he would not be prepared to make a decision until he had this information.
To Mr. Connolly’s comment that to have it by Friday was not a big request, Ms. White responded that two of the three items were only requested as the material was distributed. Mr. Connolly countered that the power point was not in the books, but Ms. White noted the information was there, but the form of the presentation was not. The intent of the presentation was to provide a clear presentation of the information that was in the Selectmen’s books. In the books was far more detail of the information.
Mr. Young continued that the debt analysis was a request to show what was the existing debt and already issued and then the new debt of what would be issued based upon the proposed capital plan. Items were only requested as the material was distributed.
Mr. Young continued that the debt analysis was a request to show the existing debt that was already issued and then the new debt of what would be issued based upon the proposed capital plan.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that when he looked at what was in the books, there was a lot of information about debt but he had to look at 5-6 different pages and he asked for it to be on one sheet where he could see what the existing debt was and what it would be if some projects moved ahead and how that affects rates.
Mr. Young pointed out that what was shown was a forecast. It assumed that those less than $500,000 would be bonded for five years and those over $500,000 for 10 years. That could change.
Mr. Ciccariello added that it showed that looking at 2013 and 2018 there was a significant amount of dollars being proposed for scheduled capital improvements each in excess of $1 million which impacts the water & sewer fees.
Continuing, Mr. Young noted the second handout was the year-to-date budget report. As of today the Town received approximately 90.7% of revenues forecast and spent approximately 76% of the expenses. There were effectively six weeks left in the year and it was known there would be some expense turnbacks. There would be roughly $550,000 from the MWRA. Where revenues would end up was a good question. The combination of revenues and turnbacks and changes in receivables and liens go into retained earnings.
Ms. White noted the third handout was a summary of the Clubhouse Lane-Saddlebrook Road, Speen Street/North Main Street/Park Avenue sewer relining, and Phase 3 & 4 water relining.
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s query as to where the projects were in terms of anticipated completion dates, Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau reported the water relining was completely done and just waiting for any outstanding bills. Clubhouse was done and Speen/Park was 95% done. He was waiting for the contractor to complete a punch list.
Ms. Gloff inquired if there was a possibility that some additional funds would need to be expended out of the water relining balance and Mr. Perodeau responded there may be some minor stuff like Police details but he wasn’t certain.
Ms. Gloff then inquired if any money would need to be spent for the punch list on the sewer construction. Mr. Perodeau advised that about $80,000 was still owed.
With respect to Clubhouse Lane, Mr. Ciccariello noted there was an original award and a change order for road repair that was not part of the original bid and he questioned why the road repair was not in the bid package. Mr. Perodeau explained that the road was distressed and the Town Administrator decided at that time to use a contingency to regrind the road and redo it.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled the Board of Selectmen establishing a policy that the Town Administrator could approve a certain amount of change order dollars, but was to report back to the Board what the change orders were and the dollar amount and he would like to see that practice continue in the future. The same thing applied to the relining project. $168,817 was expended above and beyond the construction contract.
Mr. Perodeau confirmed that to be correct and reminded Mr. Ciccariello that the Board of Selectmen voted to give $250,000 out of the water relining for Speen Street and the same with the sewer construction. That was way after the fact.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if it was the same situation with water relining road repair, but Mr. Perodeau noted that was mostly small change orders under $10,000. The biggest was on Union Street where the telephone was directly on top of the water line.
Mr. Ostroff questioned if the projects and their status had any bearing on the decision the Board had to make on the rates for FY09. Mr. Ciccariello explained that if these monies were saved they could go toward funding another project. If $700,000 was left, those funds could be used in lieu of borrowing or raising rates for small DPW projects being proposed.
Mr. Ostroff commented that that wouldn’t be known for sometime, but Mr. Ciccariello noted that if all this money was saved these funds could be used for projects proposed for FY09 in lieu of borrowing. Ms. White noted the debt budget that was part of FY09 was based on already approved projects and funding plans. The close out of these projects and the savings would affect future years and that would be an ongoing thing.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted it would just stabilize rates.
With respect to the rate option promoting conservation, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked Mr. Young to talk about how to balance that over time if the Town was going to continue to promote conservation by tiering or inclining of rates and on the con side where the community was so much in favor of moving to water conservation there was a lack of revenues. Was that projected out 10 years? You had a scenario whereby everybody was doing exactly what the Town wanted and reduced consumption to such a degree they were mostly in the lowest two tiers but yet there was a debt going out through 2025.
Did the administration talk about the difficulty in 10 years, Mr. Young said the answer was, “no”. Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that it did tie into the stabilization of rates, and Mr. Young responded that the administration did theorize where this would be. It was pretty easy to see where this would go within 10 years. If conservation was truly achieved and the upper tiers were lost, ½ to 2/3 of the revenue would be lost. That would force the rate setting body to bear that cost on the remaining tiers. That was balanced by the expenses shown to do relining maintenance or the cost of maintaining the system at the quality it has to be did not paint a rosy picture.
Ms. Van Amsterdam felt it was incumbent upon the Board and administration to look at as many efficiencies as possible – personnel, investment in technology. She saw a scenario where there will be a contradiction with the citizens moving in the direction of conservation. The only message the Town could deliver was clean water because the expenses only continue to grow to maintain the high level of services. In essence it was no longer a commodity. It was a high priced product.
Ms. White felt Ms. Van Amsterdam had grasped the dilemma and the administration has talked about these conflicting observations. These operations were the most heavily regulated within the municipal government and that was what was driving this dilemma. DEP was mandating conservation and that would have a significant impact on the ability to generate revenue, but those regulations also drive what was needed to be maintained. It was still water running through the same lines of pipes, etc. Mr. Perodeau was very respected for his forward thinking but under a highly regulated system the Town has been and would continue to always look for savings, but there were a lot of constraints.
Looking at the long-term capital plan, Mr. Ciccariello noted there was more capital being proposed for infrastructure improvements vs equipment. The queston was in his 7-8 years on the Board a lot of infrastructure work has been undertaken, but looking at 2015 he saw another major water relining – Phase VI. Did that close out the water relining projects or did it start over again.
As far as Mr. Perodeau was concerned it should last forever. All the big lines have been done. Mr. Ciccariello again asked if Phase VI closed it out and then have some sewer relining to do. Mr. Perodeau responded that the sewer relining had paid off. The MWRA charge has come down and that was one of the reasons. As far as the water relining there weren’t a lot of large lines left (after Phase VI) and the Town was probably better off replacing them if there was a problem.
Mr. Ostroff commented that the Board of Selectmen had a couple of responsibilities. One was to set the rates and the other through the Town Administrator was to oversee the people who operate the water system and maintain this asset. He commended Mr. Perodeau for the work he and his team do.
Mr. Ostroff wanted to be sure that any I&I revenues being collected were not being used to subsidize rates. Ms. White advised that was correct.
Mr. Ostroff also wanted to verify the Town was required to maintain an increasing block tier system. Mr. Young responded that as a MWRA community the Town was bound to maintain at least a two tier structure. Mr. Ostroff inquired if it could be a 5% difference or if it had to be as steep as it was. Mr. Young wasn’t sure but the MWRA encouraged Towns to be reasonable and fair.
If future rates were high enough, there was an incentive to economize even at the largest tier so Mr. Ostroff suggested the Board may want to close the difference between the tiers.
Mr. Ostroff then asked about the timing of the projected increase. In December it was perceived to be retroactive. These rates were predicated based on usage right now and if they were delayed the Board would be looking at higher rates. Ms. White confirmed that to be correct.
Mr. Ostroff commented that if the Board considered deferring the increase the rates would be even higher.
With respect to the administrative services charge, Mr. Ostroff asked if that was tied to a specific cost and would it be applied to all users even the ones with the elderly discount. Mr. Young indicated that was correct.
Ms. Gloff said she would like to see a history as to what the rates had been and what has contributed to funding the revenue as well as when retained earnings were used and in what amounts. It would help her and the public to understand why they were looking at a significant rate increase.
Mr. Ciccariello didn’t know if that was possible since he didn’t know what kind of records were kept pre-enterprise. Mr. Palmer noted that the enterprise was established in 2003. Prior to that there was a water & sewer surplus account and we didn’t have retained earnings. Information from FY03-FY09 was available.
Ms. Gloff was concerned to hear water usage went down 12% between FY06 and FY07 and asked if someone could provide the Board with information on where it was at as of today. Did it look like water usage had gone down further.
It was Mr. Connolly’s understanding that the Board of Selectmen were the water & sewer commissioners, not Town Meeting and not the Town administration. He would love to send everyone back and have them tell the Board why the rates didn’t have to be raised. In December 2007 there was a water increase and in March the Town did an override. The citizens were the Board’s boss and he thought they would appreciate seeing that every single option had been explored to save money and he (Mr. Connolly) didn’t think that had been done. When the citizens ask if every effort had been made to lower the rates he would have to say that didn’t happen. He wanted to send the administration back to see where money could be saved. Here it was in May asking for more money and a lot of people
were out of work. With all these bright people, he thought a way could be figured out how to save money not spend money.
Ms. White acknowledged that the taxpayers had been faced with some increases but as the Board was well aware she would remind them of the budgetary process everything went through. She spent hours with the Finance Director and DPW personnel going over the budget and the Finance Committee probably spent 2-4 hours going through every line item. The budget was carefully scrutinized for savings. It was a very technical and high priced operation. She assured everyone the capital and operating budgets were very carefully scrutinized and there was no opportunity for savings beyond what was being produced.
Mr. Connolly called attention to some of the expenses to replace a Ford Explorer and a dump truck. Talking about useful life, people at home will squeeze as much life out of their vehicles as possible. He wasn’t questioning anyone’s work ethic but felt everyone should go into the mindset of being careful of what was spent.
Ms. White pointed out that none of the items named were in the fiscal year and they would be carefully scrutinized before funding was recommended.
Ms. Van Amsterdam was aware that indirect costs could be put into the enterprise fund and understood there was no savings by moving those, but she wondered if there had been any discussion about what might help people to understand.
Ms. White advised that beginning the next fiscal year in response to the audit the indirect costs would begin to be detailed and make up part of the motion that in her mind was the highest level of transparency. That would be the norm going forward.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that the auditor had said that although legitimate the indirect costs were aggressive. The question was it being too aggressive. Ms. White suggested the administration could continue to look at the indirect costs and Ms. Van Amsterdam agreed that should be done. She (Ms. Van Amsterdam) understood the costs had to be covered somewhere, but she was trying to think of the person on the street trying to understand why he was using less water and it was costing more. Ms. Van Amsterdam clarified that she did not mean to imply that indirect costs were not transparent. She just wasn’t sure everyone understood why those indirect costs were part of their water bill.
It was Mr. Ostroff’s view that part of what the Board was dealing with tonight was consequences of decisions the Board made over the past several years. Most costs were steady. The indirect costs were aggressive but they have been for a couple of years. What changed the most was not having retained earnings to apply. The last time the rates were reduced was May 2006 and he clearly recalled it was against the then Town Administrator’s recommendation. The then Town Administrator warned that a reduction of 4-5% would jeopardize rate stability, but the Board unanimously voted to reduce rates. At that time the retained earnings were extremely high, but as a consequence there weren’t any available now. What was being talked about now was in effect asking for a lot of that money back. There could be a healthy discussion about the curb-to-curb policy, but the only way he saw the roads being repaired was doing it against the water & sewer rates.
Looking at one sheet given out this evening showing revenues and expenses, Ms. Gloff noticed the original budget had use of $2.675 million in retained earnings used to balance the water & sewer budget for FY09. If the Board had that in FY09, everyone would be talking about a very small increase. Retained earnings have been used up and the chart she requested would help everyone to see when and how.
Mr. Ciccariello thought retained earnings had been used to fund projects in lieu of borrowing, but Ms. Gloff didn’t believe that had always been done. Mr. Ciccariello agreed that it was a combination. He also pointed out that one rate reduction was the result of a reduction in the MWRA assessment.
Town Meeting member John Magee referenced his letter dated April 25 and encouraged the Board to read it. It laid out reasons why master meter billing methods need to be changed. In the presentation he did not hear any options for change so he was only left to assume there would be no changes in the master meter billing and he asked the Board to please continue to consider it and the next time come back with a specific proposal.
Mr. Ciccariello noted there was a study done in 2005 by two members of the Board and that could be made available to Mr. Magee.
Mr. Magee responded that the Abrahams Study indicated 90% of the water to master meter properties was billed at the higher rates. He heard tonight that rates would increase in two of the options to the higher levels and both would dramatically increase the cost for master meter properties. The method he would suggest would take the usage of the meter and divide it by the number of dwellings served and multiply that resulting bill back by the number of tiers. Newton and North Andover had similar billing methods.
Mr. Connolly felt the way the billing was set up didn’t encourage conservation because the billing was at such a high rate. He heard other ratepayers would have to make up the difference but he didn’t think the cost was justified. The condos were technically using that much water but it should be at a lower number. The pricing tier proposed would push the condo owners over the edge.
John Mannix of the Glen Ridge Associates told the Board they had 42 connections in their system and were billed by a master meter. Four-five years ago they installed individual meters to encourage conservation. Overall master meter billing didn’t drive conservation – billing individually held people accountable. He was concerned with options 1 & 2 as they (master meter billing) were paying 75-80% more than if metered individually.
Mr. Connolly asked about the MWRA payment, but Mr. Mannix advised they were all on private septic and only received water.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to who owned the pipes between the master meter and the individual meters. Mr. Mannix responded that everything in Dover was their responsibility and they had an overcharge of maintenance. Any incidental leaks were paid out of their own reserve fund.
In follow-up Mr. Ostroff inquired as to how Glen Ridge Associates contemplated that would be addressed if they were billed individually. What happened if pipes owned by the Association broke? Who was accountable for the repair? In Natick it would be the Water Department.
Mr. Mannix believed an additional bill could be rendered and the Town could still bill by master meter.
Michael Linehan suggested keeping the elderly on a normal rate and just abate a certain portion. It didn’t seem fair that even at a high water usage they (elderly) get a discount.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to continue the public hearing to June 2. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
If the Board had any different scenarios or approaches or questions, Ms. White requested they contact the administration. Mr. Young asked that those requests be delivered at the end of this week to give time to get it prepared and in the books. The administration would do anything the Board wished.
Mr. Ostroff commended Mr. Young and noted that he thought it would be constructive for a summary recommendation and the rationale for not changing the master meter billing policy. He also commended Mr. Magee for his thorough recommendations.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there were any regulatory agencies or mandatory statutes that would impact water & sewer rates. He further requested that if there was anything the Board didn’t know about, to please make sure the Board gets told about it.
If there was anything that might not be hitting for three years, Ms. Van Amsterdam thought it was important to get it out there. As the elderly population continues to grow over the next 10 years, it would be interesting to look at what would happen to (water & sewer) revenue as well as looking at additional persons eligible for discounts. She thought it was important to have the administration discuss the recommendation on the master meter so it was out there before the next meeting.
Ms. White noted there were a number of concerns with the master meters. They cover two types of properties: 1) multi-unit structures within Natick and 2) multi-single family homes outside of Natick. A number of communities face these issues and she only knew of two communities that have come up with remedies. The majority with master meters did it the same as Natick. She agreed there was an inherent inequity, but the question was how to get out from under that approach. What if the master meter was serving not just homes but irrigation? If they were rental units the savings would not necessarily be passed onto the tenant so was the Town effectively helping the resident.
Ms. White continued that there was a significant problem with how to bill properties where there were vacant units within the properties. For out-of-town customers the Town didn’t have the right to lien that property. There was no mechanism to guarantee payment. There was also a question of how to avoid creating other types of inequities. The staff has sat around and brainstormed this and has yet to come up with a solution within the billing structure and to date have not identified an easy and equitable solution.
TREASURER: DECLARATION OF USEFUL LIFE FOR BONDED EQUIPMENT
Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer explained that typically equipment was bonded for five years, but in the past the Town could petition the Emergency Finance Board to allow for bonding more than five years. With the dissolution of the Emergency Finance Board that authority was given to the Board of Selectmen to bond in excess of five years. He was recommending a term of 10 years for the fire engine/pumper; 7 years for the three trash packers; 10 years for the catch basin cleaner; and 10 years for the back hoe.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to how Mr. Palmer came up with the number for the maximum life and Mr. Palmer responded that it was based on the experience with the equipment the Town owned.
In his memo to the Board, Mr. Palmer advised that increasing the maximum life would reduce the principal payments, but Mr. Connolly questioned if this was just pushing the payments out further. Mr. Palmer advised that was correct.
Based on the interest rates today, Mr. Ciccariello thought it may be advantageous to pay it off faster. Mr. Palmer responded that it was most advantageous to never issue the debt. If the Board didn’t wish to make this declaration, they would all be bonded for five years.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the budgets that have been approved assumed it would be five years or 7-10 years. Mr. Palmer advised that the assumption was that the maximum useful life would be changed to what was being requested. If the Town bonded the fire pumper for 5 years, it would add $40,000 to the annual payment; $30,000 for the trash packers; $19,000 for the catch basin; and $9,000 for the back hoe which would come from the enterprise fund.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff that the maximum useful life of the departmental equipment listed below to be financed with the proceeds of the $400,000 borrowing authorized by the vote of the Town passed May 4, 2006 (Article 10), $525,000 borrowing authorized by the vote of the Town passed June 5, 2007 (Article 8 & Motion C) and the $90,000 borrowing authorized by a vote of the Town passed November 1, 2007 (Article 5, Motion B-Backhoe) are hereby determined pursuant to G.L. c.44, s7(9) to be as follows:
Purpose Borrowing Amount Maximum Useful Life
Fire Engine Pumper $400,000 10 years
Trash Packers (3) $525,000 7 years
Catch Basin Cleaner $190,000 10 years
Back Hoe $ 90,000 10 years
Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Mr. Ostroff thanked the administration for bringing this forward. With the work of the DPW Equipment Maintenance he was sure the Town would get a lot longer life out of these pieces of equipment than just voted.
LOCAL 1116: DONATION OF TREE FOR COMMON
Secretary/Treasurer and Business Manager for Local 1116 Richard Allen noted that every year a Christmas tree was put up on the Common and he could see the hazards. It had to be cabled and it looked like heck so Local 1116 decided to donate the tree. The union would absorb the cost of planting.
Asked about the size, Mr. Allen responded that it could be whatever Dick Cugini (Superintendent of Recreation & Parks) would like. Mr. Cugini told the Board that he would like to keep it to a tree in the 8-10 foot range and when it gets over 12 feet he would ask the union to replant it in another park and replace it. He estimated getting three years out of a tree.
Mr. Connolly moved to accept with thanks Local 1116’s donation of the tree for the Common. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION & PARKS: EXPENDITURE OF BAA FUNDS
The Board was in receipt of a memo from Mr. Cugini with the recommendation for the expenditure of the 2008 Boston Athletic Association $26,000 donation for the running of the Boston Marathon through Natick. Mr. Cugini told the Board that he had gone to the Police, Fire, and DPW for their costs plus the standard $5,000 for various Natick Recreation Department program/park supplies.
For the capital equipment recommendation, Mr. Cugini noted that usually the BAA funds were used for a park project but this particular year they would like to do two of the Dug Pond floats.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the following expenditure of the $26,000 received from the Boston Athletic Association for the 2008 Boston Marathon:
1. DPW reimbursement of expenses $ 4,300
2. Fire Department reimbursement of expenses $ 3,600
3. Police Department reimbursement of expenses $ 8,100
4. Various Natick Recreation Department Program/
Park Supplies $ 5,000
5. Capital Equipment Replacement & Pier Renovations $5,000
Consisting of: Renovate 2 pond floats
Rescue board for Dug Pond
Kayak for Dug Pond
Renovation to Dug Pond turn boards
Back board for Camp Arrowhead
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that the intent of the Boston Marathon funds was for recreation, but half of the money was being used for DPW, Police and Fire and moving forward to next year he would like to recoup all that money above and beyond.
Ms. White called attention to a letter in the packet to the BAA from area managers asking that the amount be increased.
SPECIAL TOWN MEETING #2 WARRANT ARTICLES
The sponsor of Articles 3 & 4, Paul Greismer, distributed handouts pertaining to the articles.
He explained that the objective of Article 3 was to protect the interest of the Town and the taxpayer and to protect the interest of the neighborhood and avoid a repeat of the current lease and have a discussion about the merit of what to do with the Eliot School. Currently there was a lease that was a negative rent and the Town was in a position to have to fund costly repairs. He wanted to avoid the risk associated with an abandoned building.
Mr. Greismer said he was thinking about the interest of the Historic District to maintain the character of the district and was thinking about preserving the open space and not increasing traffic. He did not think the conclusion of a lease only was at all well developed. Most of the reasons articulated in the report for lease only were things he could rebut. Last fall it was rescheduled before the Finance Committee 2-3 times and when it came before the FinCom it was suggested that the report not be endorsed but only accepted into the record and the discussion of the pros and cons was by-passed.
Mr. Greismer continued that this past spring there was some information presented to the FinCom that it was not possible to do a disposition of lease and sale in the same RFP. As it turns out that permission wasn’t needed because the Inspector General says a lease and a sale can be done within the same RFP. He noted there were some problems not considered in the Eliot School report – the inherent problems of long-term leases and what it meant if somebody renovates a property. The effect of lease hold mortgages was mostly lenders. Lenders will lend lease money at higher interest rates and it sets up an incentive to do less renovations. There was a divergence of interest in long-term interests. You got into things like HVAC, roofs. Things have to be replaced and the tenant has 15 years
left, what’s the incentive for the tenant to do it. The private sector could renegotiate a lease but that presents challenges for a 30B.
Mr. Greismer noted that the Town had a problem maintaining its own buildings and he wasn’t necessarily sure lease was the right way to go. Currently the lease was a poor lease. It lacked some standard lease clauses, i.e. landlord’s right to inspect. The bad lease was the result of the bid process followed. If there was only one bidder, the Town was in a situation where there was a choice between a bad deal or a dark building. The special legislation could take up to one year followed by a minimum RFP process of 30 days and another 60-90 days to iron out. Anytime you go down the path where there was only one person interested you had to worry about the party doing something else. He understood the Montessori School was interested in purchasing the property and he thought it was a
possibility to explore and if the bids came back and the best one was for sale or lease it should be opened up to the broadest type of process. He thought there was a lot of misconception about the inability to protect things like open space and river access. There were rights of first refusal. The right of first refusal was used in the sale of the central fire station.
Mr. Greismer continued that Article 3 requests authorization for up to 99 years although the Board of Selectmen wouldn’t be obligated to do that and could issue a lease for 50,75 or 99 and simultaneously offers it for sale. He recommended both a lease and sale RFP to have the same restrictions and provide that any sale or lease automatically had to come back to Town Meeting and to provide some money for due diligence. The bidders will do due diligence and the Town should be as informed as the bidders. He noted that he was trying to see if the conservation fund could buy the open space restriction. That may be the most secure way to preserve the open space.
Ms. White told the Board that she did not necessarily favor a long-term lease vs sale. Each had its pros and cons. What she most favored, whether long-term lease or sale, was that adequate safeguards were put in place to protect the neighborhood and open space. It appears either a long-term lease or sale can adequately protect the Town in the continued use of the property in perpetuity. As mentioned the existing tenant lease expires June 30, 2010 and among perspective bidders this timeframe was creating problems for them. She would ask the Board to consider a short-term lease. If something wasn’t done at this time, they (current tenant) would be forced to relocate.
Ms. Van Amsterdam requested a description of the timeline were Town Meeting to vote Article 3. Ms. White responded that if Town Meeting voted Article 3 as the motion was drafted or the existing article stands and a home rule petition was filed, the Board would have to wait for legislative action. A similar petition for the Middlesex garage took about nine months. During that time the Board could be refining the RFP but essentially would have to wait for 9 months to put out the RFP. She recommended requiring bidders to submit detailed information for financial capability and architectural plans. The RFP would be out at least two months and the selection process still wouldn’t have begun. The current tenant, unless precluded from consideration, would need to be making alternative plans now to move. They (Montessori School) were two years from the end of their lease with no certainty of being able to stay.
Ms. Van Amsterdam pointed out that in her memo to the Board Ms. White indicated that with the Board’s concurrence she would prepare an RFP for a short term lease through June 2012. If issuing a short-term lease and the date was July 2012, someone responding to an RFP with responses due back June 2009 wouldn’t be able to occupy the building until 2012.
Ms. White explained that it was geared around the current tenant needing a two year notice. Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned if that was an acceptable term that someone would submit a bid in 2009 but couldn’t occupy the building until 2012. She would like that question answered before she would consider moving forward.
Ms. White agreed it was a challenging perspective being put forward and maybe a one year lease with a one year option. The other scenario was they (Montessori School) would need to move out and perhaps we were up against that wall.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to how long it took to do due diligence. Ms. White thought a couple of months and then it had to go to Town Meeting. This (short-term lease) was introduced as a side issue but didn’t necessarily have to be addressed before Town Meeting. The discussion could be continued to June 2.
If at all possible Ms. Van Amsterdam said she would like Ms. White to consult with a real estate person to try to get a sense if an RFP would be unfavorably biased if within the RFP it had to state the property would not be available until 2011 or 2012.
Mr. Ostroff commented on the amount of work that had gone into this and thought timing was critical. He was grateful for the 1-2 additional year lease. The home rule petition would require a roll call vote and that didn’t typically happen in a short session. He thought 9-12 months for approval was not unlikely and it needs to be done so carefully. Would it help if the Board voted to put the issue of interim lease on the June 2 agenda to show Town Meeting this was taken very seriously. If Town Meeting rejects, there was Article 15 from the Annual Town Meeting.
No matter what happened, Mr. Ciccariello noted the clock was ticking.
Mr. Connolly asked if the Montessori School wanted to stay there. Mr. Ciccariello thought they (Montessori School) probably did but in response to Mr. Connolly’s follow-up question he didn’t know if they would be willing to pay more.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that in the draft motion of Article 3 there was no mention of a committee. Ms. White responded that that was her intention. The petitioner of the article would advocate for it but it wouldn’t be up to Town Meeting.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved approval of the draft motion for Article 3. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted. The draft motion was as follows:
1.To authorize the Board of Selectmen to petition the General Court to enact legislation which, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 40, Section 3 of the Massachusetts General Laws, or any general law or special law to the contrary, would authorize the Board of Selectmen to issue a Request for Proposals to lease for a term not to exceed ninety-nine (99) years (including any extension or renewal terms) the property at 5 Auburn Street in Natick, MA which is now or formerly the site of the Eliot Elementary School, and which would authorize the Board of Selectmen to enter into a lease for said property for a term not to exceed ninety-nine (99) years (including any extension or renewal terms), provided that the General Court may reasonably vary the form and substance of the requested legislation within the scope of the general public
objectives of the petition; and further,
2. to appropriate the sum of $25,000 from Free Cash, said funds to be spent under the jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen for the preparation of reports and analysis, which may include but would not be limited to appraisal services, environmental assessment, asbestos and lead paint testing and analysis, and analysis of building systems and development of associated capital improvement program; and further,
3. to authorize the Board of Selectmen to issue a Request for Proposals offering the property at 5 Auburn Street for both sale and lease with said RFP providing an adequate mechanism for comparing the sale and lease options, provided that the terms of any lease (for a term not to exceed ninety-nine (99) years, including any extension or renewal terms) or sale must be approved by a subsequent Town Meeting.
Mr. Ostroff commented that for him it was not conclusive what’s best – lease or sale - and he wanted to give the Town the maximum flexibility. He would support this motion knowing it would give the flexibility.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Connolly stated that his concerns would be for the protection in Article 3 for the neighborhood. Ms. White assured him those protections would be put in the RFP and subsequently in a draft lease or deed and contracts between the Town and the bidder.
Mr. Ciccariello noted there was already an article passed by Town Meeting to request a lease up to 50 years and he thought the petition in this one wants the opportunity to explore sale vs lease. He would support it and hear what Town Meeting had to say. He felt the previous committee had been asked to do something by Town Meeting and did their work. They weren’t asked to do exhaustive studies of rental incomes. The fact Town Meeting accepted the report was Town Meeting’s prerogative. They didn’t give any further direction to the Board of Selectmen on what they (Town Meeting) preferred to do and as a result another article was submitted for lease. He was willing to explore what direction to go while still protecting the assets we have and ensuring the neighborhood they were protected
as well.
On Article 4, Ms. White stated her recommendation would be referral to the Board of Selectmen. In her assessment there will be a lot of conflicting issues associated with the disposition of this property. The historic preservation, open space and zoning were among those considerations and she thought it was all part of what a committee, if formed by the Board of Selectmen, would look at.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support referral of Article 4 to the Board of Selectmen.
Article 6 – Citizen Petition: Disclosure of Perquisites to Town employees, Elected or Appointed Officials
Petitioner and Town Meeting member Bruce Snow noted that currently salaries made by federal, state and municipal employees were a public record but when it came to perquisites that information wasn’t so easy accessible by the public. A perquisite could be thought of as a supplemental income or an award in lieu of compensation and that includes people who were employees or elected to a position. It was considered to be a form of a fringe benefit and defined as a form of pay for a service and when looking at the form of pay it could take a number of different forms. The Town could provide an automobile for commuting purposes, pay rounds of golf, or allow employees the use of a credit card when they travel. The list of potential perquisites was endless.
Mr. Snow wasn’t sure what the Town was providing in the form of perquisites because it was hidden in the budget. There was no law that required the disclosure of a perquisite and the only way someone would know would be to look closely at the budget. Because there were no disclosure requirements this information could be hidden within the budget and no one would know unless they looked carefully at the budget. The article would accomplish having the reporting open and someone wouldn’t have to go through the process of looking so carefully at the budget.
Mr. Snow continued that he would like to see the Town as part of the budget provide to Town Meeting and be made available in each precinct and the library a list of the perquisites, who was receiving it, and the value of the perk. It should be readily available to the Town. Most perquisites were taxable so the information would have to be provided to the recipient and he would like to see a list and the guidelines be public.
Mr. Snow noted that when he made his initial inquiry to a State Senator the legislative director informed him the State Senator was very interested in the Town’s reaction because it could potentially be presented as a state law.
Ms. White pointed out that the Town did not give some of the examples cited by the petition, i.e. the Town did not give away free rounds of golf and there were no employees with credit cards. Taxable non-salary benefits were tracked and she thought it was important to make the point so the community wasn’t left with the impression those things weren’t being done.
To the best of Mr. Ciccariello’s knowledge when the Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee and Town Meeting reviewed the contracts all the cost benefits were outlined in the contracts. Nothing was being hidden in the contracts and he wasn’t aware of any perks.
For union personnel, Ms. White advised that all benefits were in the contracts and for non-union the benefits were in the personnel by-law. There were a couple of contract employees. While there wasn’t a chart in one place, the information was certainly readily available.
If the petition had questions and had the 10 signatures, Mr. Connolly thought it should be heard. He moved to support Article 6. There was no second and thus no vote taken.
Mr. Ostroff moved to refer Article 6 to the Board of Selectmen and the Board would provide a follow-up to a subsequent Town Meeting. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Given what Ms. White said and the handout on municipal vehicles that union employees were all contained in the contract, non-union employees in the by-law, and contract employees, Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned what was being missed in terms of perks. Every perk provided to an employee in the Town was either in a contract or in the by-law. Was there a transparency that wasn’t there?
Mr. Snow responded that he didn’t believe the Town was being as transparent as it could be. At Town Meeting whenever a contract was up for discussion the only information given was the length of the contract, there was a 3% COLA, and the union supports it. He didn’t think the Town was providing sufficient information.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the contract was available for public record and asked if Mr. Snow was saying that the contract wasn’t handed out to Town Meeting.
Mr. Snow felt that most people didn’t know what they were voting for and usually he (Mr.Snow) voted against or abstained because of lack of information provided to Town Meeting and the general public.
Ms. Van Amsterdam suggested the possibility of putting the contracts on the web site and Ms. White agreed to look into it although she wasn’t sure what format the School contracts were in.
Ms. Gloff explained that one reason she seconded the referral was that the information was publically available, but she was hearing Mr. Snow say it was not as easily accessible as he would feel comfortable with. She was a bit concerned because the proponent made a comment that the list could be endless. Something one person thought of as a perk others might not think of as a perk. She supported referral and let the Board sort out how to make the information more publically available.
Mr. Snow noted that the IRS could help with defining a perk.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about employees having cell phones paid by the Town and Ms. White advised there were some. A number of DPW employees and a number of personnel with the Town were issued cell phones. Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was a policy regarding cell phone use and Ms. White advised that she did a thorough analysis of who had them historically, but hadn’t seen a written policy. She had already made a commitment to the Finance Committee to look into that.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he had moved to support referral as he thought it was worth it for the Board of Selectmen to look into and provide consolidated information for the public. Mr. Snow was within his rights but this was a special town meeting on short notice and there hadn’t been ample time for exhaustive debate. Let’s take a little time to develop the information and come back to Town Meeting in the fall.
Mr. Connolly left the room.
MINUTES
Ms. Gloff moved approval of the minutes of the December 10, 2007 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. 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 was not in the room at the time and did not vote.
Ms. Gloff moved approval of the minutes of the April 29, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was not in the room at the time and did not vote.
GOLDEN TONES, INC: REQUEST TO addressStreetUSE PUBLIC WAY, COMMON
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to approve the Golden Tones’ request to hold a walk for music fund raiser on sidewalks around placePlaceNameNatick PlaceTypeCenter and the Common on May 31, 2008 (rain date June 1) conditioned upon the walk not interfering with the Farmer’s Market on the Common. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was not in the room at the time and did not vote.
BACON FREE LIBRARY: REQUEST TO CLOSE MILL
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to approve the Bacon Free Library’s request to close addressStreetMill Lane on June 15, 2008 from 5:30-8:00 p.m. for a concert. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was not in the room at the time and did not vote.
REQUEST BLOCK PARTY: SPRING VALLEY ROAD
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to approve Kelly McPherson’s request to close addressStreetSpring Valley Road on June 7, 2008 from 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. for a block party. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was not in the room at the time and did not vote.
MASS HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY: REQUEST BANNER
Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, moved to approve the Mass Horticultural Society’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period July 28-August 9, 2008 in advertisement of the Massachusetts Marketplace Festival. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was not in the room at the time and did not vote.
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY RELAY FOR LIFE: BANNER
Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, moved to approve the American Cancer Society Relay for Life’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period June 2-June 8, 2008 in advertisement of the Relay for Life at the Natick High School. Deb Sayre, Director of the Farmer’s Market had been granted that time period but agreed to give up the time in favor of the Relay for Life. Ms. Sayre requested approval to hang the Farmer’s Market banner the third week in June (dateMonth6Day16Year2008June 16-23, 2008). As part of his motion Mr. Ostroff thanked Ms. Sayre and moved approval of her request. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was not in the room at the time and did not vote.
NATICK ARTIST OPEN STUDIO GROUP: REQUEST BANNER
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Natick Artist Open Studio’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of September 29-October 4, 2008.
Mr. Connolly returned to the meeting.
NATICK CULTURAL COUNCIL – ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to accept the resignation of Debbie Rittner from the Natick Cultural Council and asked that a letter of thanks be sent.
FRIENDS OF THE 4TH: PARADE PERMIT, REQUEST TO USE COMMON
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to approve The Friends of the Fourth’s request to use the Natick Common on July 1, 2008 for the annual Family Night and to use the Natick Common on July 4, 2008 for the flea market. In addition approval was given to hold the annual July 4 parade on July 4, 2008 following the route from Stop & Shop down Route 27 and 135 to Saint Patrick’s. Unanimously voted.
MIDDLESEX SAVINGS BANK: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
Ms. Gloff moved approval of the Middlesex Savings Bank’s request to use the Town Common on June 27, 2008 from 11:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. as part of the Bank’s barbeque. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
ANNUAL TOWN MEETING ACTION
a. Article 15 – Eliot Montessori School
Pending the outcome of Articles 3 & 4 of the Special Town Meeting the Board decided to take no action on filing the home rule petition authorized under Article 15 of the Spring Town Meeting.
b. Article 40
Ms. Gloff moved to request the Legislators to file a home rule petition to increase the number of liquor licenses in the downtown area as voted in Article 40 of the Annual Town Meeting.
FIRE CHIEF COMPENSATION
Ms. Gloff moved to set newly appointed Fire Chief James Sheridan’s compensation at a starting salary of $89,894.49 plus an annual pay of $8,000 for EMT I certification provided he maintain his emergency medical technician certification at this level and $4,500 for his Associate’s Degree. In addition an annual clothing allowance of $1,500 would be provided for an annualized pay for the balance of Fiscal 2008 of $103,894.49. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
It was noted that Chief Sheridan would be eligible for a 3% COLA increase on July 1, 2008. It was further noted that in addition to compensation provided by the Town, Chief Sheridan may continue to participate in the state’s Hazardous Materials Response Team provided the pay associated with this participation continued to be reimbursed by the State and provided that his absences associated with this assignment did not negatively impact his responsibilities as Natick’s Fire Chief.
JENNISON CIRCLE: ORDER OF TAKING
Ms. White advised that this was a follow-up to the street acceptance process.
Town Meeting member Michael Linehan recalled asking a question at Town Meeting that was not very well answered. He had asked what kind of protections were being taken to keep the habitat from being poisoned. He hoped there was some kind of structure in place.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to table. Unanimously voted.
MAPC: MPO ELECTION
Ms. Gloff told the Board that the Town’s representative to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Terri Evans, planned to attend the meeting and if desired the Board could designate here to vote on behalf of the Town.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to empower Ms. Evans to vote on behalf of the Board. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Ms. Gloff moved that Natick’s vote be cast for Hopkinton and Newton. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
a. Swearing in of Fire Chief
Ms. White informed the Board there would be a swearing in ceremony for the new Fire Chief James Sheridan on June 2, 4:30 p.m., at the Lebowitz Room of the Morse Institute Library.
b. Chrysler Road
Ms. White provided the Board with a proposed use of the mitigation money from the Chrysler Road apartments. If approved, $1 million would go to Station #4 and $750,000 would be used for a number of improvements, i.e. turning lane at Route 135 and Speen Street; bike route design/development; Cole Center field improvements; emergency communication services/equipment. Any remaining funds from the $750,000 would go to Station #4.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Sign Postings
Mr. Ostroff said he had been approached by a citizen about posting of signs. If putting up yard sale signs, please take it down and don’t leave poles cluttered with signs.
b. Memorial Day Parade
Mr. Ostroff reminded the Board about the upcoming Memorial Day parade and ceremonies
c. Natick High School Graduates
Mr. Ostroff offered his congratulations to graduating Natick High School seniors and their families.
d. Town Hall Crossing
Mr. Ostroff called attention to the hazards of crossing the street in front of Town Hall and said he would love the Safety Committee to come back with a perspective.
Ms. White advised that it had already been referred to the Safety Committee.
e. Playing Field Signage
Mr. Ostroff requested a review of the signage at The Math Works field. People have been going in a driveway that’s intended to be an exit.
f. Regionalism Conference
Ms. Van Amsterdam reported that Ms. White and she attended a regionalism conference this past Friday and copies of the handouts could be made for the other members of the Board. Regionalism will be on the lips of many for many years to come and she believed additional groups will be bringing forth some regional topics.
g. Cloverleaf Lottery
Mr. Connolly had received a call from a resident looking for an application for the lottery at Cloverleaf. Ms. White advised that applications were available in the Board of Selectmen’s office.
h. Trees
Mr. Connolly thanked Ms. White for the tree follow-up.
i. White Brothers Dedication
Mr. Connolly advised that some how John White’s name was not mentioned in the recognition of the service of the White brothers.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 a.m.
_________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
