Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes 6/2/08

Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to litigation and executive session minutes. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello had not as yet arrived and did not vote. At 6:02 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.

Susan Salamoff, Chair of the Community Senior Center Committee and a member of the Building Committee as well as a member of the Personnel Board, told the Board she was there for the purpose of disclosure. She had requested an opinion from Town Counsel whether she could participate in fund raising activities toward raising money for the design and construction of a new community senior center and was advised that she would need to complete a form that identified the position she held.

Ms. Salamoff stated that she planned to participate in fund raising activities for a new community senior center and completed the form. This information would be distributed to her colleagues on the committee relative to the Senior Center and if they chose to go through this process they would probably just have to fill out the form. Town Counsel received a letter from the Ethics Commission that concurs with his advice to her.

Ms. Gloff noted that Ms. Salamoff was not indicating her intent to raise funds toward the passage of a debt exclusion ballot question if a question was put forward. Ms. Salamoff advised that was correct. She did not plan to do any fund raising for a ballot question.

Town Counsel’s opinion said she could not endorse in her official capacity as Chair of the Community Senior Center Study Committee or as a member of the Building Committee a position with respect to a debt exclusion ballot question and Mr. Ostroff asked if Ms. Salamoff was comfortable with that restriction? Ms. Salamoff responded that she was comfortable that she couldn’t raise funds for a ballot question. In her conversations with the Campaign and Political Finance Office, there was no such thing as a ballot question until there was one. She pointed out that several members of the committee were Town employees and Town employees were not allowed to fund raise at all.

Ms. Salamoff stated that she was always aware of the need to verify what she might legally do because of the position she held. Now that she was working on grants she felt she couldn’t go anywhere until she clarified what was legally appropriate. She could have delivered it to the office, but with the number of people involved Town Counsel felt it was important to have a public statement. This allowed her to meet with the Friends of the Senior Center to see if they were ready to go forward with fund raising or meet with some other non-profit for fund raising.

Before the Board was a petition from Vinny T’s Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Vinny T’s of Boston for a change in manager for their premises at 801 Worcester Road. The proposed new manager Jeffrey Vique told the Board he was an experienced restaurant operator who held licenses in the past in Walpole. He was ServSafe trained.

Ms. Gloff inquired as to how long Mr. Vique had served as the manager at Vinny T’s and he responded that he had been recently appointed. The previous manager was transferred to another location. Asked how recently, Mr. Vique said it was within the past month.

Ms. White advised that the longstanding neighborhood bus was going to be transitioned officially and completely turned over to the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority effective July 1. The Town effectively laid off the bus drivers and all but one would be transitioned into the MWRTA. They (bus drivers) have effectively been working under the direction of the MWRTA contractor and all received their CDL. No Board action was needed in that regard.

Ms. White noted that the recommendation was for the Town to retain the two best buses – the recreation bus and Neighborhood Bus #4 – and the rest be surplused. She thanked the forward thinking Natick leaders of the past for creating this wonderful service.

The Board’s representative to the MWRTA, Charles Hughes, explained that Natick was the contractor providing the service until July 1. Riders shouldn’t notice any difference other than adding one route. The MWRTA was negotiating with the T over how the RIDE was going to be provided after 2009 and today the MWRTA Board voted to increase the fares from $1.00 to $1.50 which was consistent throughout the system. The elderly and disabled discount still applied.

At Mr. Ostroff’s request to expand on the issue of the RIDE service, Mr. Hughes noted that Framingham and Natick had the RIDE provided by the MBTA. The plan was to have the service not change after June 30, 2009, but be provided through the MWRTA. Whether it would be MWRTA employees or a contract was still being discussed, but there was no plan for a change in service. They were looking at trying to provide the service to the other seven communities that have no service at the moment. The MBTA was under contract to provide the RIDE until June 30, 2009 and the MWRTA was in negotiation with the T for how the transition would occur and issuing an RFP.

One of the Neighborhood buses had been named in honor of past Bus Coordinator Linda Saulnier and Mr. Connolly questioned if that would remain. Mr. Hughes didn’t know the answer but would find out. Mr. Connolly wanted to see that carried on. Mr. Ciccariello suggested that if one of the buses being surplused had Ms. Saulnier’s name on it, the Board could vote to move her name to one of the buses being retained by the Town.

Mr. Ciccariello referenced an e-mail received from Senator Spilka and Ms. White explained that the Senate Ways and Means approved a portion of the Senate budget and originally it was said the Town would have to continue to pay a portion of the MBTA assessment plus the MWRTA assessment. Senator Spilka has advised that she was successful in getting the double hit removed saving Natick $267,000. Senator Spilka has recommended that her colleagues push for adoption in the Budget Conference Committee.

The Board was being presented and the community was being faced with water increases that were not unsubstantial. The departmental budget approved by Town Meeting and the capital needs addressed was 3% and she would characterize the capital needs as emergency. The increase was due to a number of factors. Water usage was down but the cost of operating was not going down. In recent years a good source of revenue was retained earnings but this year there weren’t any retained earnings to draw upon and the shortfall had to be made up with the rates.

Deputy Town Administrator Michael Young noted this was a continuation of the hearing on May 19. At that time the staff was challenged to go back, roll up the sleeves, figure out what was going on and possibly mitigate the increases and rectify some of the inequities. The staff looked at expenses, demographics, internal operations, and particularly master meters.

The recommendation of the administration was for the Board to adopt a modified average billing. It had been suggested that averaging not be implemented, but the administration changed their minds because they looked at the model and looked at the situation and realized the Town did have the staff capacity to introduce this one segment. The condo owners were already taxpayers in Natick and the administration believed it would be responsible to implement the modified average for this group. The rate proposal was set out with three goals: 1) raise sufficient revenue to meet spending plan by Town Meeting; 2) promote conservation; 3) hold the average user harmless. To begin to respond to the inequities of condos, the recommendation was to implement Option 3 (the Board was presented with 3 rate options at the hearing of May 19). Option 3 would raise the rates between 20-21% over all tiers.

With regard to averaging for condos, Ms. Gloff was of the understanding that the meter would be read and if there was a reading of 100 with 10 condos, the bill would be divided for 10 units. Would the $5 administrative fee be added for each or only once?

Mr. Ostroff raised the possibility of assessing them $5 per month, but Mr. Young responded that the administrative service fee was proposed to cover the cost of the production of the bill. If the Board went to averaging, the condos would be treated like every other home. Instead of one bill to the association, there would be 10 bills.

Mr. Connolly applauded the efforts to help the multi-meter users but based on the information provided by the administration if this was done, according to the study it would mean a loss to the Town’s budget of $600,000. Mr. Young corrected the figure cited in the study to $500,000 and explained that it was shifting the revenue from what was charged the condos to the rest of the ratepayers.

Mr. Connolly questioned if it ($500,000) was a true hard honest number to begin with. It wasn’t a fair number to begin with and he didn’t think that number had to be billed to achieve the number the administration wanted to achieve. It was the same amount of money.

Mr. Young reminded Mr. Connolly that staff suggested two weeks ago that it was an expense driven model. Town Meeting approved, through recommendations of the Finance Committee, Board of Selectmen, and administration, a budget appropriation and that appropriation had to be filled with a particular amount of revenue. That needs to come from rates and how the Town charged and generated that revenue was up to the Board. Taking the multi-units from a higher tier to a lower one, the money was still needed.

Mr. Connolly believed that Town Meeting’s approval was putting the cart before the horse. The decision to raise water rates was the Board of Selectmen’s and he was not going to support any water rate increase. The Board was the elected officials and they would have to answer the citizens when asked if everything they could do was done to keep the water rates down and he didn’t think that had been done. He kept hearing about conservation and questioned if any of the Mall money was available for conservation.

Mr. Ciccariello pointed out the Mall money was not for conservation of water, but for the acquisition of open space. The only thing he recollected being received from the Mall having to do with water was money for underground structures on Speen Street and Hartford Street to upgrade the water system.

Ms. White added that there was some road reconstruction that included upgrades. Some of the Mall fees went into a revolving fund to help fund additional inspectional services but the rest of the permit fees went into the general fund to help fund the total general operation. The enterprise fund was a separate accounting system.

Responding to a series of questions posed by Mr. Connolly, Ms. White advised that the Mall had tapped into the water system and was paying fees. There was no way to charge the Mall additional fees. The focus was on the rates and she didn’t remember what was done about the fire line service to each building.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had not voted on that (fire line service) as a policy. He didn’t know how much it would save but in other communities when commercial entities bring in a separate lien for sprinkler systems, a fee was charged to bring it in the building and a connection fee. Since the Mall was already constructed, they couldn’t be charged retroactively.

Mr. Connolly reiterated that the members of the Board were elected to represent the citizens. The rates were raised in December, there was an override in March, and now the Board was telling people it was going to be done to them again. He recommended that none of the Board members support this and send it back. Over the weekend he saw a woman born in the Town tell him she was moving because she couldn’t afford it. There was something wrong when people can’t afford to live in the Town in which they were born and to raise the rates would put another burden on the people. There was an effort made to help the multi-unit people and that was wonderful, but he thought more could be done.

Mr. Ciccariello highlighted the capital expenditures approved by Town Meeting - $105,000 for an air stripper, $210,000 for pressure striper and another sewer relining was anticipated to be voted at Fall Town Meeting for $150,000. He assumed the I&I did not come out of the water & sewer rate and Mr. Young confirmed that to be correct. He inquired as to how much the water & sewer rate would have to be raised to offset the $315,000 appropriated. Was the increase being driven by the $315,000 or the fact that everyone was getting a 3% raise and all expenses were going up 3%?

Mr. Young responded that at the last meeting it was shown that all the expenses were going up about 3.96%. There was a request to see what those expenses were and an attempt was made to do that, but it wasn’t completed. Approximately $7 million of the $14 million expense plan the Town was required to do – MWRA, discharge permits, statutory obligations. There was about $2 million in staff and benefit costs which accounts for about 30 positions. About $1.4 million was in capital and $880,000 in other expenses that ranged from extra washers to replacement pipes and $2.5 million in indirect charges. That only represents one part of the arrow. The expense increase was the smallest part. The biggest reason was usage dropped and there weren’t retained earnings available to augment as there was over the past few years and represents 13%.

On the breakout of salaries, Mr. Ciccariello pointed out it showed a 4% increase for certain individuals. Later he noted a 7.5% increase for certain staff members. He also pointed out that sewer pump maintenance jumped from $35,000-50,000 and questioned why that needed to jump that much this year.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if new software was being bought. Mr. Young noted that the Town tended to be at the mercy of the software vendors and this one charged three times less than most communities running a different software package. If the Town was running Munis for the actual billing, it would be costing 2-3 times as much.

Mr. Ciccariello then noted that a back hoe was being bought for water & sewer that was also used for snow removal. He didn’t have a problem using it for snow removal, but the water & sewer enterprise fund seemed to get hit hard with indirect costs. Looking at the snow removal budget it didn’t take into account the use of those vehicles. Those vehicles were charged to the water & sewer vehicles. Asked if that was a fair statement, Mr. Young deferred to Finance Director Robert Palmer.

Mr. Palmer advised that the direct expenses get charged back to snow removal; i.e. fuel, parts. Recapturing the acquisition cost of the vehicle, the answer was no just like another piece of equipment in the DPW was used for water & sewer and not charged back.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if what he was hearing was that the rate being proposed covered all the expenses including the $315,000 for capital and if the $315,000 was not spent, a rate increase would still be needed. Mr. Young responded that the only expense item that was not yet cast in stone was the planned appropriation of $150,000 at Fall Town Meeting. Otherwise by November there had to be a revenue plan that matched the expense plan to submit to the Department of Revenue so the Town could set a tax rate.

With respect to modified averaging for condos, Mr. Ciccariello noted that what the memo talked about was owner occupied, but what happened if units were not owner occupied – they were rentals. Mr. Young clarified that the sentence said mainly. The proposal was to implement averaging for condos within Natick and he believed most of them were owned and occupied by the owner. If they happened to be rented they happened to be rented. The goal was to try to achieve a fairer bill.

Assuming there were 20 condos and they were all owner occupied and presently paid a fee to the Association to cover the bills. Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what the guarantee was that the fee paid into the condo association would be returned to them. What happened if several owners of the condos did not pay their water bills? Who would the Town go after?

Mr. Young noted that Natick had no control over the Association so long as no local laws were being broken. Although he couldn’t say that the savings would be passed on, most associations were run by the owners themselves. As far as not paying a water & sewer bill, if individual bills were being issued and if not paid, the Town could go after them in the usual process.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there had been any discussion about condos in Dover and was told by Mr. Young there had been extensive conversations in regard to all out-of-town entities, but staff was not proposing this modification for them because each agreement needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. They wanted this to be Natick residents first and evaluate out-of-town residents in the future.

Mr. Ciccariello then inquired as to what impact there would be if the Board delayed voting these rates for a period of three months. In order to have four sets of quarterly bills at rates established by the Board in FY09, the Board needed to vote this evening. It was at a point right now where his office would be issuing bills for FY09. If the vote was postponed for three months it could be artificially raising the amount that would have to be increased in rates. The amount would have to be raised in nine months instead of 12 to generate sufficient revenue in FY09.

Mr. Ostroff thought it might be more because of usage in the summer. Mr. Palmer agreed that some of the summer usage would be in the first three months, but if the billing (at the new rates) started in September, there would still be some of the summer consumption. That fluctuates dramatically depending on how dry the summer.

Mr. Young responded that the short answer was that it would be doable, but realistically to implement such a system would take a decent to long amount of time quite possibly a year’s worth of lead time to come back to the Board. The current structure of elderly discount was tied to statutory exemptions. Without those guidelines a set of criteria would have to be created.

With respect to waiting the three months, Mr. Ciccariello felt there had been a lot of information presented over the past couple of months plus some policy recommendations made. His thoughts was to have a subcommittee of two members of the Board of Selectmen, the Town Administrator, and Water & Sewer Department meet and go through everything provided. It would give an opportunity to review everything provided, review the proposed policies and proposed revenues and expenditures and that committee would come back with recommendations on all the items including what to do on the condos.

Mr. Ciccariello continued that the Board had never received the amount of information as received for this hearing and he applauded the administration. This was something that should have been done a long time ago but to digest it he thought a committee should be put together to come back after three months with specific recommendations that included a recommended policy. In the past Mr. Ostroff suggested looking at water & sewer rates in a lot more detail and that was now being done.

Looking at page 6, Ms. Gloff noted the retained earnings that were certified and the retained earnings appropriated to supplement the rates in FY08, Town Meeting appropriated $2.675 million. Having used $2.675 million in FY08 to help pay the bills for water & sewer provided for 20-25%. We don’t have another $2.675 million. If there was another $2.675 million, the proposed increase would only be 4%. Using retained earnings kept the rates down artificially. The retained earnings were used to keep the rates down, and she wasn’t saying that was a bad thing to do, but now there was only $7,000 left and that was why the rates were being proposed to go up so much. The retained earnings were used to keep the rates down and took care of 20-25% of the cost of water & sewer for this fiscal year.

Mr. Connolly inquired as to how retained earnings were accumulated and was told by Ms. White that it was when revenues exceed the expenses. Mr. Connolly noted it was the ratepayers and Ms. White agreed that it was primarily from the ratepayers. Mr. Connolly followed-up by saying the Board used the extra money ratepayers paid from prior year. Ms. Gloff agreed.

To Mr. Connolly’s query as to why so much of it (retained earnings) had been spent down, Ms. White responded that the Board made the decision to use the money. There had been a lot of discussion about the fact there were significant retained earnings and was that appropriate. The amount of money available was looked at and it was felt the retained earnings should be used. The money was paid in for water & sewer rates and used for the benefit of the ratepayers, but now that pot of gold was empty and now to maintain the service the Town had to come up with all the money from water & sewer rates.

Ms. White added that she thought Ms. Gloff had articulated an important point – the swinging of a pendulum. She (Ms. White) agreed that $6 million in retained earnings was quite a lot of money. The ratepayers have paid that money in and it was a justifiable decision the Board utilized to modify the rates, but now the pendulum has swung too far the other way and was down to $7,000. The budget was accustomed to being supplemented by retained earnings and now had to meet the challenge.

Mr. Connolly commented that tonight was the first time he realized the I&I was not part of the enterprise fund. Sometimes it bothered him in not what’s said but what’s not said. He wondered if the Expense Control group had any thoughts.

Mr. Connolly then asked if all the condos had a separate water meter for irrigation. Mr. Young did not know. If the Board agreed to the averaging, Mr. Connolly raised the possibility of the condos tying the irrigation into the main meter because the irrigation rate was higher than the other tier. Mr. Young pointed out that the proposal on page four said this was not a perfect model. The administration came to this proposal over the past two weeks to implement what they felt was a fairer method.

The floor was opened to the public and Gino D’Antonio told the Board he was in the construction business since he was 12 years old and at one time owned close to 1,000 condos. If there was a 12 unit building and 12 bills were being sent for that one meter that couldn’t happen. The condo association used to take care of everything. He talked to 4-5 elderly people and some ex-employees and they said they couldn’t afford to live in this town. He thought it should be looked into more thoroughly.

Deerfield Road resident David Duncan thanked the administration for considering very seriously the multi-units. The goal was equity among all taxpayers and he urged the Board, no matter what the outcome of the rates was, to continue with a multi-unit calculation. He was on the Board of Trustees of Deerfield and there was one master meter for 334 units. He supported the averaging but there were 334 units at Deerfield and to generate a bill and checks sent back would be a large and time consuming challenge. As an alternative recommendation he used the example of an association with 10 units using 100 hcf. Acknowledging 10 units, one bill could still be sent to each association but coming up with an average of what each owner would pay and there wouldn’t have to be a $5.00 assessment per bill.

Mr. Duncan stated that he was looking for equity and didn’t want to put a burden on the Town. He didn’t want 334 bills sent, just one bill but with the averaging to determine the rate. Doing it that way there was equity for the taxpayers and not a burden on the Town. He strongly requested the averaging model but don’t overly complicate it. Keep the same billing procedure just adjust the rate for the average. To him that was a win/win for the Town and the associations.

John Magee thanked the Board and the administration for the work put in on this. Looking through the memos made available on the web site this morning for people to read, this was probably the most open process in recent times. He asked the Board to please do the averaging method for condos. Basically his water cost twice as much as a single household and this was a solution that would address it pretty well.

Town Meeting member Susan Salamoff was impressed with how the Board brought this issue forward. Conservation will become a far more significant issue as people see what it actually costs for water & sewer. As to how long the Board waits to make a decision, she could see this taking more time because several issues have been raised regarding how to do the averaging. She would be concerned if the Board waited three months. She wouldn’t want to have to pay $300-400 in November because she hadn’t been billed properly. Ms. Salamoff also believed strongly in fairness in billing and was concerned the people without the benefit of averaging may be some of the residents with more limited income.

Trustee and Treasurer of the Meadowbrook Water Trust Robert Coates noted that the Meadowbrook Trust was 26 homes receiving water through a single master meter. The Trust was requesting a policy that would permit the master meter to convert to individual meters at their own expense. In a memo to the Board, Ms. White indicated that conversion to single meters was one of the biggest problems.

If the Board adopted the proposal to allow condos to average, it would impact the Trust. The Trust would still be paying twice as much as individual households in Natick. He thought the averaging was a dead issue. He had been lobbying for it for over 10 years and it appeared to be dead, but now that it was back on the table he would submit that averaging be applied to all people with master meters. As to why the Board should be doing anything for out-of-towners, Mr. Coates thought fairness should apply not only for Natick residents but all recipients of Natick water.

Mr. Coates continued that many of the Board may not know that quite a bit of water Natick receives was not coming directly from Natick. It was coming from Dover. The 2007 annual quality report says Springvale, Evergreen and Elm Bank represent the primary source. Elm Bank was in Dover. 168 million gallons were pumped out of Elm Bank and not only Natick residents were receiving Dover water but Dover residents were receiving Dover water, but Dover residents were paying twice as much.

In 1987 the Board of Selectmen voted to allow the Trust to attach to the water system and it was stated that the Trust would be charged the same user charges as others in the system. That has not happened. They have been charged twice as much for the past 20 years. For years they have been told the issue would be addressed next year and were just told that again tonight and to him it was time to resolve in an equitable fashion.

Mr. Ciccariello responded that it was definitely part of the discussion because the rates would impact Dover. He asked Ms. White about revisiting a decision six months from now and she responded that if adjustments were made mid-year to the out-of-town rates, it would reduce revenue and some adjustment to the other rates might need to be made simultaneously.

Mr. Ciccariello asked about just doing one bill for 334 people at a $5 charge four times a year. That was an additional $6,600 vs $20. Mr. Young advised that the $5 per bill charge was the estimate from the Finance Director of the cost to produce individual bills. Mr. Palmer has told him that one bill could be produced at the lower rate. The read would be taken and divided by 334 to get the rate and send it to the condo association thus saving the Town from producing 333 additional bills.

With respect to charging everybody $5 per bill for administrative fees, Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that presently they pay the bill through indirect costs. If everybody was being charged $5 for water billing, he would assume all those costs would no longer be indirect costs relative to his billing process.

Ms. Gloff noted that the billing people worked in a different department and the enterprise fund still had to pay for their time spent, but Mr. Ciccariello countered that the ratepayers were being charged for that service and he wanted to know if what was paid for indirect costs would go down.

Mr. Young responded that the utility billing component was all direct – the staff time was all appropriated as a direct expense. That wasn’t Mr. Ciccariello’s recollection from the past. It had been said there were people generating bills and a tally wasn’t kept. Mr. Young explained there were indirect costs for a variety of reasons. There were some communities where billing was indirect. Indirect costs were paid for the Finance Director, Treasurer, administration, but utility billing was paid for as a direct cost – probably not all the cost but the majority.

John Mannix from the Glen Ridge Trust noted that both the Town and the Trust were public water systems. Glen Ridge had 41 connections. In most situations where public systems obtain water from other systems there was a wholesale water agreement.

Ms. Gloff opened the discussion by expressing concern with waiting three months to set the rates because that would require rates to be increased even more than currently proposed. She couldn’t figure out a way to cut $2.675 million plus the 3.9% increase. She couldn’t figure out how to cut a substantial portion of that and assumed if there was a way found to make some cuts, it would not be enough to make up for the delay and the Board would be forced to raise rates even more.

Ms. Gloff stated that she would be making a motion to set rates in accordance with an option provided with looking at ways to save money and look at other groups to whom Natick supplied water. She liked setting up a subcommittee to look at some of those things over the next couple of months and there was no reason the rates couldn’t be adjusted up or down through the fiscal year.

A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to set the rates for FY09 as described in Option 3. An amendment was offered by Mr. Ciccariello to include the averaging for the condos in Natick were it to be worked out by the administration as to whether to do individual or one bill. The amendment was accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion. Following a lengthy discussion a motion to table was passed and no vote was taken on Ms. Gloff’s motion.

In speaking to her motion, Ms. Gloff recognized this was a significant increase in the water rates and she was not happy about it. The primary reason for the increase was that retained earnings had been used to subsidize the rates and that wasn’t available. Services could be cut or services could continue and raise the rates. She noted that she would be making a motion to look at ways to increase revenues or control expenditures.

Mr. Ostroff thanked Ms. Gloff for her many wise words and pointed out that in addition to setting rates the Board was responsible for maintaining a sound system for water & sewer. There was a very sound staff and they have maintained the system in good order and appropriate investments were made for high quality water. People were getting a high quality water. Part of the reason for the increase was that millions had been used to keep the rates low when a more sound forward looking policy may have suggested not to decrease the rates two years ago. About a year ago the Board did not take action because a rate study was being done and that resulted in a 10% increase in December.

Mr. Ostroff continued that there was no perfect system for billing. Some people may feel disadvantaged with legitimate cause but it was something that would be a work in process and he supported setting up a committee to look at the different tiers to promote conservation. He was also interested in how a subsidy for water & sewer could be done for all needy residents. The Board was responsible for having a balanced budget and to do things to ensure a good enterprise going forward. Frequently the Board heard that the Town built things and didn’t maintain them and here it was being maintained.

Mr. Connolly stated that he was in favor of income averaging, but was against Option 3. The average user would see an increase of 20% and there was no way he would support that. He was still having a difficult time swallowing the increase in December and the override in March. He was in favor of squeezing a little harder to see if there was a way to save money. The Board had to look real hard at how all the ratepayers were charged. Dover hasn’t been charged fairly.

Referring to the expenditure summary on page 3 of the handout, Mr. Ciccariello noted $20,000 for obsolete meters and inquired as to how many maters still needed to be replaced. The Board set a policy to fine individuals that did not comply so why was $20,000 needed.

DPW Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau reported there were only four meters left, but it had been 5-6 years since they started replacing the meters and the transmitters were only good for five years so they were starting to be replaced. The replacements were good for 15-20 years. The transmitters were $100 a piece.

If you had $1 million to spend, Mr. Ciccariello believed you could spend $1 million, not $1.5 million. Moving forward it would be necessary to make repairs and capital improvements and it would cost ratepayers money, but from his standpoint he hadn’t seen an effort made to save some money. He found it hard to support a rate increase where some people were going to get increases which he believed were more than they should be. The increase in salaries also affected the fringe benefits related to it. Everybody would like to get a pay raise but the point raised was that not everybody was going to get a pay raise because times were tough and everybody was biting the bullet. As in private industry when raises could be afforded, he expected that would be done but when times were difficult the ratepayers were feeling the squeeze and the Town employees had to feel the squeeze as well. He wasn’t suggesting there was a lot of money here, but every effort had to be made to reduce expenses and he felt it was the responsibility of the administration to come back to the Board with ways to make those reductions. He found it hard to vote an increase.

Ms. Gloff pointed out that Mr. Ciccariello was wondering why the salary increases were more than 3%. One was shown at 7.5%. Ms. White couldn’t speak to the exact number, but all of the numbers were derived from the personnel sheet taken out of the budget book and voted by the Finance Committee and Town Meeting. That was directly from the established collective bargaining unit. Everything driving the number was the result of two collective bargaining agreements voted by the Board of Selectmen. Between steps and within the Supervisors’ agreement, certain stipends were added in for Fiscal 2008.

Mr. Young noted that it was likely the information came from one version of the blue book submitted to the Finance Committee and it may be less than 4.5-7.5%. Ms. White added that when the budget was presented to Town Meeting at times the contract was presented under a separate article and it could be that these numbers did not represent the collective bargaining agreements.

Should the Board decide to table to the 16th, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there would be a problem. Mr. Young pointed out that the sooner the rates were set the better for the system and the ratepayers. If the rates were set June 16, Mr. Ciccariello asked if that would given ample time to get the bills out. Mr. Palmer advised that it would. It would have a minor impact in the FY08 revenue, but it would be minor.

Ms. White explained there was a process under MGL c. 61 covering forestry. The land was taxed at a lower rate and in exchange of that the Town gets the right of first refusal if the land came up for sale and once the property was sold the difference in back taxes was paid. What was being proposed here was for a small portion of land on Leach Lane, it was only 3,600 square feet, to be leased to put in a cell tower.

If the Town had an interest in the parcel as a whole consideration should be given to objecting to removing this small portion of the land from the protective status. Ms. White suggested that she send a memo to the various departments to see if there was any interest in not just the 3,600 square foot parcel, but the total tract of land. She believed the submission before the Board was missing a key piece of information. When a parcel was sold the community was to receive a P&S. This was a lease but a cost factor was needed to determine if the Town wanted to exercise a right of first refusal. Since the Town didn’t have that, she considered the proposal incomplete.

Representing the Hunnewell’s, the owner of the property, Attorney Thomas Hunnewell of Simonds, Winslow, Willis & Abott, told the Board he put together a notice of intent to convert in accordance with what the statute provides – a statement of the intent to convert, the name and address and telephone number of the land owner. This was not an intent to sell the property. This was to lease a portion as a cell tower. No P&S exists. His client complied with the requirements of the Mass General Laws. There appeared not to be authority in the statutes that would entitle the Board of Selectmen to exercise right of first refusal for the entire parcel. The statutes didn’t contain authority that would permit the Town to do that. The Town’s right was to engage a certified appraiser of land and give the land owner notice of appraisal and if the land owner objected, they could get their own appraisal.

Ms. White clarified that she didn’t mean the Town would seek to exercise the right of first refusal on the whole parcel but in the Town’s assessment of its response to convert the parcel, long range look should be taken to see if at some point should the parcel become available if the Town may want to exercise its right and may not want a cell tower on it.

Mr. Ciccariello asked about a copy of the land drawn to scale. Mr. Hunnewell acknowledged that the drawing submit may not be drawn to precise scale of the assessors map and he would be happy to deliver one to the Board and other agencies.

Robert Eisenmenger, a member of the Open Space Advisory Committee and Associate Member of the Planning Board, noted there had been discussions with the Hunnewell family of how to complete a walking trail from the hospital through the Algonquin Development to Eliot Street through the Sherman Nature Preserve. To do that the trail had to cross two pieces of Hunnewell land and they have orally said they would give the Town those two pieces. The Open Space Committee was enthusiastic not for the cell tower but it would give the Town a complete trail from the hospital to Eliot and he thought it would be an important addition to the Town.

Another member of the Open Space Advisory Committee David Dimmick responded to the question raised about what the tower would do to the whole parcel. The whole process includes a professional management plan and any question on the impact on the Town should be referred to the forester. The trail was the keystone. The Open Space Committee wasn’t looking for the Town to own the parcel, just looking for an easement.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if ZBA or Planning Board approval was required for a cell tower and was told by Community Development Director Patrick Reffett that both board had approved this project. It wasn’t really known if the permit from Planning and ZBA or the right of first refusal should come first.

Asked if there were any permit conditions, Mr. Reffett responded that they were largely landscape related but because the area was so isolated and its visibility was not what it would be if it was more to the edge, there were few. One of the conditions that took place as part of the Planning Board was a mitigation payment to be used for access.

Mr. Reffett was then asked for a recommendation and he replied that it was clear the tower would be useful for cell service in Natick. This was a part of Natick that didn’t have good cell service. He recommended this process to take place and the Hunnewell’s to consummate the lease.

Mr. Ostroff was uncertain how a forester appraisal would tie into this and Ms. White explained that if the Board, based on the information before it, chose not to exercise the right of first refusal the Town wouldn’t need to proceed with the appraisal, but if the Board thought there was an opportunity in the future and may want to exercise the right, the Board may want to proceed with the appraisal and poll other departments.

Mr. Ciccariello thought that focus would have occurred during the Planning Board and ZBA process, but Mr. Reffett noted they did not review that as part of the application. The Chapter 61 items did not come to the Planning Board or ZBA.

A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff not to exercise the right of first refusal on a portion of property owned by Francis O. Hunnewell at 42 Leach Lane (Natick Assessors Reference Map: 54-00000080 Blk: 0 Lot 0). Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.

Ms. White reported that the Community Development Director, Town Counsel and she had been working extensively with the developer and DHCD to address specific challenges presented by this project in negotiating some pretty hairy details. The standard deed rider provided by DHCD provides that low/moderate income units can be sold to a non-eligible buyer if an income-eligible buyer cannot be found. She told the Board that everyone’s jaws dropped when informed of this provision and the State will not budge off that position. Even if a unit was sold to an ineligible buyer, the purchaser still has to sell it at the affordable level but the key element was the unit remained in the Town’s inventory.

Mr. Reffett continued that there were some other items with which the State had contention. The Board of Selectmen approved a local preference policy and there were a couple of items the state was now taking exception to. As part of the preference pool, the Town was including grandparents of existing residents. Another preference pool was if somebody had a condo agreement taken place in a property where they lived and that would have displaced them and the third was displacement by rental. The state would like to see that eliminated.

Mr. Reffett commented that he felt the State had been cute saying the Town could hold any policy it wanted but the units wouldn’t be allowed to count in any inventory. The state was saying the Town had to remove those from the policy.

Mr. Ostroff pointed out that one characteristic of Natick was multi generational which he thought was what the Board was thinking when grandparents were added to the preference pool. If the Board were to remove grandparents could it be added back in later if DHCD changed their minds.

In follow-up Mr. Connolly inquired as to what would happen if the Town didn’t do what DHCD wanted. Mr. Reffett advised that the Board could do that but DHCD won’t count the units toward the affordable list of 40B units. For this project at South Avenue there were four units, but it affects 48 units from the Mall and affects 67 from South Natick Hills, Cloverleaf and Chrysler Road.

Ms. White informed the Board that Mr. Reffett, Town Counsel John Flynn, and she went to a meeting in Boston on this and there were countless e-mails trying to get at their logic. It wasn’t for lack of trying to get past these stumbling blocks.

When asked why the State had taken this position, Mr. Reffett was of the opinion that to be this minute about a preference policy flies in the face of fair opportunities for housing. He would have liked to have learned of their objections a year ago when the policy was passed.

To Ms. Gloff’s query as to how DHCD focused on this, Mr. Reffett advised that when Cloverleaf began marketing he met with them (DHCD) to make them aware of Natick’s local preference and to make sure it was going to be used in the selection process. South Avenue was beginning on top of the 48 units for the Mall.

Mr. Ostroff inquired if there was a sense for how important these two preferences were. Mr. Reffett noted that the state had asked him to tabulate data, but he didn’t know how many properties had been condo converted and he had no way of knowing how many grandparents would want to move here.

A motion was made by Mr. Gloff to delete 2a2 from the local preference policy and 2a3 be renumbered to 2a2 and the words grandfather and grandmother be deleted and put the word ‘or’ in front of sisters. 2a4 would become 2a3. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.

Speaking to the motion Mr. Ciccariello said it pained him and really disturbed him that they waited so long. They (DHCD) push to get a plan and then wait until it was to be used to say they had a problem with it and when the next Governor came along this might all be changed again.

Mr. Reffett noted that he took a stab at the initial draft and it was then re-crafted by Town Counsel. They (Mr. Reffett and Town Counsel) looked at number of communities including Newton and Falmouth, but he hadn’t checked with those communities to see if they still had their policy in place.

Although it was tempting to continue to try to fight this, Ms. Gloff thought a huge amount of time was put into this already. A number of units were coming on line and personally she wouldn’t want to delay, but it was worth continuing to monitor.

Mr. Reffett noted that DHCD had pointed out to him that of the many units out there, the Mall only had 19 eligible buyers. He had a lot of confidence that of the 275 affordable units coming to the Town as part of the different projects, there would be some to go around.

With respect to approving the Local Initiative Plan application for 20 South Avenue, Ms. Gloff noted that some portions of the organization and contact groups were missed. There was also talk about newspapers and it seemed like the MetroWest Daily News would be very appropriate. The Natick Town library was listed, but not the Bacon Fee Library. She knew she brought those things up to the consultant when the LIP application was discussed for the Mall and she would like to see them incorporated.

Mr. Ostroff questioned if it was limited to what was in the plan or if more could be done. Ms. Gloff advised that more could be done but the problem was getting the consultants to do more than was listed in the plan. She heard the lottery for General Growth was never posted on the CHAPA web site and she was concerned if these weren’t added, it wouldn’t happen.

Ms. Gloff then advised there was an opportunity to obtain funds from the West Metro Home Consortium. These were federal funds. Over the past three years Natick has been granted funds, but the funds have not been spent and the funds for the first three years need to be committed to a specific project by July. Mr. Reffett had a plan for what to do with those funds, but a public hearing would need to be held.

Mr. Ciccariello reminded the Board that at the last meeting three firms had been interviewed – Powers & Sullivan, Sullivan & Rogers, and Braver. Deputy Town Administrator Michael Young had been asked to do reference checks and the results were in the briefing books.

Mr. Young reported that 26 references had been received and he culled that down to four for each. Two more called him back today that were not in the packets. Each reference check had the same 9 questions that were developed by himself, the Town Administrator, Comptroller, and Finance Director. He noted that he had been unable to get hold of Braver’s only Massachusetts community.

Mr. Ostroff was impressed with all three and didn’t think a bad choice could be made. For Powers & Sullivan and Sullivan, Rogers there was a relationship with the Town and familiarity of the software was a benefit. Based on their price proposal he would not favor Braver. Change could be a virtue but he didn’t think it had been so long to necessitate a change in auditors, but he could support either (Powers & Sullivan and Sullivan, Rogers).

Based on the interviews, Mr. Ciccariello thought Sullivan, Rogers brought up some points and issues the other two did not. He liked the fact Sullivan, Rogers brought some stability to the Comptroller’s Office and were able to square away some issues that perhaps the Town would still be dealing with (without their help). Overall he thought Sullivan, Rogers presented themselves in a better perspective. As much as he was concerned about spending the money, the Board was looking for the best auditing firm and the cost difference was not that significant. His support would go to Sullivan, Rogers.

In follow-up Mr. Connolly asked about the timeframe and was told by Ms. White that responders should probably be given three weeks to submit a proposal and another three weeks to get a recommendation to the Board. Within 4-6 weeks she expected to have a recommendation for the Board.

Mr. Connolly inquired as to who would pay for the auditing services. Ms. White didn’t recall, but an account had been identified that had adequate funds and was an appropriate use. The Natick Collection submitted their affidavit of cost and that was the basis on which the audit would be done.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Board wanted to appoint a committee to evaluate the lease/sale as suggested by some of the proponents. Ms. White thought that discussion would be at the next meeting. Tonight the Board was only being asked to authorize the submission of a home rule petition.

Mr. Ostroff proposed having Town Counsel take a first crack at drafting the petition. He also proposed getting clarification on the process by which the Legislature would deal with this. He had been told that if it wasn’t dealt with by July, Town Meeting may have to revote.

In a memo to the Board Ms. White urged the Board to reappoint the firm of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane for the coming fiscal year and advised that along with Town Counsel she had initiated a number changes she believed would benefit the community going forward, most notably:

3. Changes in review of contracts. Admittedly, there have been times when responsiveness by Town Counsel could be better. One area in particular where things have bogged down was in the area of contract review. Over the next few weeks, Town Counsel will identify a different staff person to handle contract review. The intent and expectation was that this would allow faster turnaround for approved contracts while having the added benefit of freeing up Town Counsel’s time for larger issues. Boiler plate language would also be developed to further expedite contract review and to create desired consistency within contracts.

Mr. Ostroff stated that he concurred with the Town Administrator’s recommendations. There were a few hiccups, but he had been fairly satisfied with Town Counsel’s performance and when looking at some of the extraordinary challenges the past few years he felt Town Counsel had provided good advice. He felt there needed to be good reason to change counsel. Ms. White identified ways for service to be improved and he would like to take a few months to evaluate it.

Mr. Connolly commented that he thought the idea of change was healthy and good. When he was on the Board previously this came up several times and to explore something in the winter would be a good idea. He would go along with this but would like to explore other avenues.

Mr. Ciccariello responded that getting an RFP out had been one of his issues two years in a row. He discussed some of his concerns about service and thought Ms. White had addressed some of them. One of his concerns was with contracts. It seemed to take forever and then some requirements were so outrageous it prevented people from bidding. He also thought the changes with labor counsel had improved tremendously. He was willing to go along with the reappointment, but 3-4 months from now the Board needed to do an evaluation and discuss what to do in the coming year.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that this item was on the agenda as a result of individuals approaching Mr. Connolly regarding DPW traffic cutting through the neighborhood around the DPW. In the packets was a copy of the policy and minutes of 2/7/05. It appeared as though this complaint has risen again and he believed the Board needed to re-implement the policy and make the DPW aware of it.

As the DPW liaison, Mr. Connolly said he was bothered by the lack of information in the books. He submitted information to the Town Administrator several weeks ago along with photographs. The Town Administrator said she spoke with the DPW Director and the Director spoke to the crew but he (Mr. Connolly) wanted to send a strong letter to the DPW and wanted to see if there were any thoughts of what to do if it just kept happening. The neighbors feel it is falling on deaf ears and so did he. These were promises to the Town made many years ago.

Mr. Ostroff noted that West Natick had seen the most development and perhaps the DPW had a concern that to do their job in that part of Town going through the center would lose time. The Board may want to know the implication, but he thought the commitments made had to be honored and if they were going to be changed, people should know.

Asked if there had been any feedback from the DPW Director, Ms. White said she followed up with the DPW Director and he acknowledged that a reminder to staff was needed and that occurred. She pointed out the policy talked about Oakland Street but Mr. Filledes (one of the neighbors who had complained) lived in a different neighborhood so there was a lack of clarity.

Ms. Gloff called attention to Mr. Filledes mention of a 1999 memo in his letter of complaint. Mr. Connolly presented a memo from former Town Administrator Frederick Conley to the DPW that mentioned the Windsor Avenue issue. With respect to the argument about gas, Mr. Connolly said he would not compromise safety even if gas cost $10 per gallon. This was probably one of the most concentrated recreational areas of Town and if there was going to be a change in plans it could be discussed, but people shouldn’t be doing it on their own.

Ms. White reminded the Board that last July a reimbursement rate of $0.36 was approved for employees that use their vehicles for Town business. Most area communities were using $0.505 and Natick Schools reimburse at the federal rate, but the municipal side was still at $0.36. There were not a lot of employees that use the reimbursement system. In FY07 about $7,000 was spent reimbursing employees and for FY08 based on the rate of mileage employees traveled to date, she expected the expenditure would be about $7,700. If the Board were to consider a reimbursement rate to match the Schools that would be about $11,000 based on the average mileage over the past two years.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if employees need prior approval from the Town Administrator or department head to use their vehicle. Ms. White advised they did not but it was subject to review. Mr. Ciccariello then asked if there was a Town vehicle available that employees could use during the day if they need to go to a meeting in Framingham, etc. Ms. White noted there was not but thought it was not a bad idea to explore. At present the Environmental Compliance Officer uses a vehicle for inspection of wetlands.

Mr. Ciccariello noticed the Assessors seemed to have high mileage and the Veterans dropped to zero. Ms. White projected the Veterans to be about $4,000, but he only submitted the expenses in one lump sum at the end of the year. Mr. Ciccariello remarked on the need to have a policy for bills to be submitted once a month. Ms. White concurred.

Ms. White continued that the other piece of the agenda item was to review the existing vehicle use policy approved by the Board in 1997. She found the policy to be very thorough and did not recommend any changes. She reviewed the DPW Supervisors union contract because it addressed the use of a Town vehicle for individuals covered under that contract. A memo was issued to all employees authorized to take vehicles home with the policy attached to remind them. Similarly the Comptroller issued an e-mail to those personnel to remind them of the method to differentiate between personal and business use and how to submit information for IRS purposes. Between the Comptroller and herself the policy has been followed up on to be sure it was being followed by all personnel.

It was Mr. Ciccariello’s recollection this was discussed at length his first or second year on the Board. The individuals with use of the vehicles were required to maintain records of their use and that wasn’t being done. He gathered from the Comptroller’s memo that those individuals weren’t doing that. From his (Mr. Ciccariello’s) perspective those individuals need to be notified immediately that if they don’t follow the practice they will lose the vehicle. He felt the policy needed to be re-evaluated.

At almost $4 a gallon to have some of these individuals going back and forth to Walpole at taxpayers expense, Mr. Ciccariello didn’t see the point. He understood the Fire and Police Chief but after that the list got real short. If it was built into the union contract he would recommend when the contract came up for negotiation it be re-evaluated. He also thought the contract was void if they were not living up to their usage report. He believed a real hard look should be taken.

With respect to the policy, Ms. White told the Board she may have done a couple of things different, but the policy was pretty good and she would rather give time to other areas without as much stability. She thought this issue was under control and she would like to look at cell phones as an area that was not under control.

Mr. Ostroff agreed with the assessment of the policy as a good one particularly if observed. He wanted to make sure the provisions were enforced and wondered if it was possible for GPS to be included in some of these vehicles to eliminate the need for reports.

Ms. Gloff thought people could follow the policy and Mr. Ciccariello reiterated that if they couldn’t they don’t get the vehicle. He added that given the fact fuel prices have sky rocketed the Board may want to consider who gets a vehicle and who takes it home and who doesn’t.

Mr. Ostroff recalled that a few months ago when the Board rejected the bid for Middlesex garage there was a discussion of having a committee look at parking strategy in a more comprehensive way. The committee had a couple of meetings and Mr. Ciccariello had a suggestion of whether an economical garage design could be costed out and that was a scenario the Natick Center Associates would love the Board to consider.

In a memo to the Board Mr. Ostroff listed eight different recommendations for discussion at a future meeting. The recommendations include a possible DIF and he didn’t know if that would solve the problem, but there had been some construction discussion. He thanked the Chair and Community Development Director Patrick Reffett.

Mr. Ciccariello thought the Board had given the MBTA an answer. If they (MBTA) had something else they were going to come back and he would suggest the Town Administrator, Mr. Reffett and Mr. Young sit down with them if they were offering anything different.

To Mr. Ostroff’s comment that the MBTA was willing to build commuter parking at West Natick, Mr. Ciccariello responded that the MBTA had a right to do that. They (MBTA) came about the downtown and that was rejected. Then the MBTA came back when the State Representative said the Town was missing the boat. The MBTA met with the administration and didn’t offer anything. If they now wanted to offer anything, let them meet with Ms. White. The last time it was his understanding they wanted to build a parking garage and Natick got nothing and if the Town wasn’t getting anything how could the Board go forward.

Mr. Ostroff was of the understanding that the MBTA was willing to build parking along existing commuter rail lines where communities wanted it. If Natick wanted it in West Natick, we could have it, but if other communities get there first, we won’t have the opportunity.

Mr. Ciccariello commented that he didn’t clearly understand the MBTA was considering going to West Natick and asked Ms. White. Ms. White responded that that was her impression, but what wasn’t clear was whether they were going to contribute to the project. The Town said it had nothing to offer, but if the MBTA was willing to build a garage at West Natick without the Town contributing, it would be a nice asset.

Ms. Gloff added that she was present at the meeting and the MBTA was looking for communities who were offering to contribute to the project. The MBTA was proposing to build over the railroad tracks and they didn’t think that was practical and thought West Natick.

Ms. White noted that the lease with the Natick District Court expired October 2007 and she had been going back and forth with the court on renewal. The proposal being put forward was for a two year period through September 30, 2009. This timeframe, by best estimates, would not interfere with a new Community Center even on the fast track. This fourth amendment to the lease would bring the Town to the end of the 10 year period and leases could still be done, but a new initial term would have to be negotiated.

Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what was anticipated in terms of investment over this period. Ms. White noted the boiler was known to be a problem, but other than that it was not known. Corey Lovett, DPW Facilities Supervisor, was trying to come up with a way to get the boiler to limp through. In follow-up Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the worst case scenario should the boiler to go. Would the lease be upside down? Ms. White was reluctant to give an estimate but $30,000 stood out.

Mr. Connolly asked about the possibility of entering into the contract the cost of a new boiler should it arise. Ms. White noted that the contract could but she was taking the approach of discussing that with the Commonwealth if it arose. They had talked about a shared cost. If the Board approved the lease tonight hopefully the lease payments would be received before the end of the fiscal year and that would have an impact on free cash. Since the contract has expired the Town has not been receiving the rent.

When talking about the five year capital plan, Mr. Ciccariello recalled that Mr. Lovett had plugged in some numbers and he thought it was $30,000 but it was recommended to have an engineer look at the boiler and he wondered if that had been done.

Ms. White advised that it had not. There were HVAC issues and she had a lengthy discussion with the Finance Committee recently trying to get a comprehensive look at the heating systems in the Town Hall and police station and that could include the court.

Mr. Connolly questioned if the heating system should be an issue for these new buildings and Ms. White’s response was, “no”. It was disappointing. The systems have been a source of problems since the buildings were built. It appears they may have been poorly designed but there was no warranty or rebate. As to recourse she would wait for an executive session to discuss.

Ms. White reminded the Board this was on the last agenda but was tabled when a resident inquired about the sensitive environmental area in the vicinity of this road. The resident met with Environmental Compliance Officer Bob Bois and Mr. Bois submitted a memo indicating the design of the roadway had taken into consideration the environmental sensitive nature of the area.

The Board agreed to adopt the following meeting schedule for the second half of 2008: July 14, July 28, August 11, August 25, September 8, September 22, October 6, October 20, October 27, November 3, November 17, December 1, December 15.

Ms. White informed the Board that House 46243, an act validating the 2007 Acts and Proceedings of the 2007 Spring Annual Town Meeting and 2007 Fall Annual Town Meeting was engrossed by the House of Representatives yesterday. It would now move to the Senate.