BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
June 16, 2008
t6:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chair John Ciccariello at 6:40 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly.
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Young, Deputy Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on June 16, 2008 in the amount of $628,883.33. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,817,220.64.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to real property negotiations. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 5-0-0 vote. At 6:40 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.
INTERVIEWS FOR NOMINATON FOR APPOINTMENT TO LEONARD MORSE GRANTS PANEL
a. Beth Strand
Beth Strand told the Board that she worked as a nurse practioner in oncology but was trained in primary care. She saw this as an opportunity to serve and saw a lot of health care needs in the community that were needed. Ms. Strand gave a brief overview of her background.
After thanking her for her interest, Mr. Ostroff asked how she saw the role of the grants panel and what skills she had in promoting grants. Ms. Strand responded that the goal of the Foundation was to respond to the unmet health care needs and that was what she did on a daily basis – people who were struggling with health and people who were survivors. She comes face-to-face with health care givers and people with issues and she thought she had a sense of what community health care needs weren’t being met. When she looked at the grant proposals she could see if it was an area that was relevant.
Asked if she had previous experience in applying for or awarding grants, Ms. Strand said she didn’t have experience awarding grants but she had been part of applying for grants in her nursing profession.
b. Dennis Barr
Dennis Barr stated that he was the Director of Program Administration for a non-profit. He was a clinical psychologist and involved as a practioner and a researcher.
Mr. Ostroff requested Mr. Barr to describe his sense of the role of the Grants Panel and Mr. Barr responded that the Foundation was involved in supporting the health needs of the MetroWest Community. He had some skills in being able to assess the needs and to think critically about the effectiveness of programs and believed his experience in developing programs for youth and in evaluating them was essential. He had been involved in developing theory around prevention of behaviors in youth.
Noticing Mr. Barr’s involvement in a lot of different programs, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if he ever received grants. Mr. Barr noted that the program for which he worked was a non-profit primarily funded by private donations and grants. He had been involved in many grants.
Mr. Ostroff asked if there was anything in his schedule that would prevent Mr. Barr from attending the meetings of the grants panel. Other than a family emergency, Mr. Barr couldn’t think of anything.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that the Board needed to nominate two candidates and the Foundation would make the final selection. There were two other applicants that were not present – Elise Eckelkamp and Laura Senier. A third candidate, Elise Eckelkamp arrived later in the meeting and was interviewed at that time.
Mr. Ostroff disclosed that he may have a perceived conflict. The applicant not here was the Treasurer in his campaign.
The Board decided to table to June 30.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE FROM KOGO, LLC D/B/A SUBWAY TO NATICK SUBWAY, INC.
Mary Vytheswaran told the Board she was in the processing of purchasing the Subway on Route 9 and was here to apply for the license. Nothing in the restaurant would change.
Mr. Ostroff commended Ms. Vytheswaran’s commitment to recycling.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to approve the transfer of the Common Victualer’s license held by Kogo, LLC d/b/a Subway to Natick Subway, Inc. for premises at 181 Worcester Road.
PUBLIC HEARING: TAXI CAB FARE ADJUSTMENT
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Tim Kelley appeared before the Board on behalf of JFK Transportation and Natick Cable. He noted that it had been over four years since the last fare adjustment and prior to that it was 14 years. There have been unprecedented increases for the taxi companies most notably in gas. Mr. Kelley referred to his letter to the Board with the proposed new rates:
First 2/6ths of a mile $2.50
Additional 1/6ths $0.50
Waiting Time¢/Hour $27.00
Fuel Surcharge
Up to $9.99 $ 0.50
$10-$24.99 $ 1.00
Over $25.00 $ 2.00
First Mile $ 4.50
Additional Miles $ 3.00
Passenger is responsible for tolls
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the current rates represent a hardship for Mr. Kelley’s business. Mr. Kelley responded that it did with the ever moving target of gas. Four years ago he asked for a rate increase and at that time other communities were already adopting a fuel surcharge. Tonight he was requesting the Board to do both (raise the rates and adopt a fuel charge). The proposed rates would change the increments from 5th to 6th of a mile, changing the waiting time, and add the fuel charge. The first mile would go from $3.50 to $4.50 and additional miles would increase by 50¢ per mile. Mr. Kelley noted that from November 2004-June 2008 he had a 104% gas increase. The fuel surcharge seemed to be working in Framingham.
Mr. Kelley noted the proposed rates were the same as Framingham’s. Asked if the Framingham rates had gone up, Mr. Kelley advised they went up on June 1.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that the fuel charge would be on top of the increase for the rates themselves and Mr. Kelley said that was correct. He (Mr. Kelley) added that Newton had already gone for another price increase since December 2007. There were several different ways to come up with the fuel surcharge, but this was the way they (JFK and Natick Cab) wanted to do it. He further noted there still wasn’t an approved senior citizen discount.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the reason for going to 6th of a mile vs 5th and was told by Mr. Kelley there wasn’t any particular reason. Joanne Thompson from Framingham was proposing a different structure.
On the fuel surcharge, Mr. Ciccariello asked if somebody’s fare was $9.99 would 50¢ automatically be added. Mr. Kelley advised that was correct and noted the surcharge would be posted in the vehicle. Mr. Ciccariello then inquired as to when Framingham adopted the surcharge and Mr. Kelley responded that they had since November 4.
With respect to the senior discount, Mr. Ciccariello recalled seniors used to get taxi vouchers. Director of the Council on Aging Moira Munns was in the audience and confirmed that vouchers were still issued.
Mr. Connolly inquired if JFK Transportation would consider a senior discount and Mr. Kelley’s reply was, “absolutely”, noting there should be one.
Allison McFarland the owner of Natick Cab stated that if there was going to be a rate increase she would like to put in a senior discount. She had asked about a year ago, but wasn’t able to get before the Board because of illness. She thought it would be beneficial for the Board to entertain a discount and remembered at one point being give a 10% discount. When Natick Cab tried to re-implement it, it was suggested they had to come before the Board.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if other communities had a senior discount. Ms. McFarland didn’t know but was aware that Sudbury had a coupon system. Mr. Kelley added that Framingham did not do a Senior discount.
Regarding issuance of cab vouchers, Ms. Munns noted the vouchers were $3 for in town and $6 for out-of-town and riders were encouraged to use two vouchers for each way. If someone was receiving chronic therapy, the Council on Aging had a volunteer program that provides transportation or if someone was on a transit stop, they were asked to use them first. The vouchers were used judiciously and people were encouraged to use public transportation.
Asked if there was a cap on the number of vouchers given to an individual, Ms. Munns responded that it was based on need.
Mr. Connolly questioned if there was ever a case where people were declined a voucher and Ms. Munns’ response was, “yes”. Asked if there were cases where people were repeatedly declined, again Ms. Munns’ reply was, “yes”. When asked if that was an area of concern, Ms. Munns responded that it was managed as well as it could be and there were always individuals who overuse the system.
Mr. Connolly then asked Ms. Munns about a senior discount and she responded that she was not opposed to it and would love to be part of the discussion. Mr. Connolly stated that he was inclined to do it now.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Ms. Gloff thought the senior discount was a great idea, but didn’t know if 10% was the right amount and would suggest that the Board ask representatives from the two cab companies, Ms. Munns, and the Town Administrator’s office to discuss and come back to the Board with a written proposal.
The two cab companies were asked if they were available to do that for the next meeting and both Mr. Kelley and Ms. McFarland advised they were. Given that the Town Administrator was away, Ms. Gloff suggested that perhaps it be scheduled for the meeting of July 14.
Ms. Challis advised that a public hearing would be needed for the Board to consider a senior discount. Mr. Ciccariello requested the public hearing to be set up for July 14.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to table setting the fares until July 14 to look at it as a whole proposal. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion was later withdrawn and no vote taken.
Mr. Kelley noted that he was already running at the old rate and picking people up in Framingham and not getting the correct rate. Framingham understood that he was coming before the Board tonight. He was supposed to be changing his meters to comply with the Framingham rates.
A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello to establish the following new taxi cab rates effective July 1, 2008:
First 2/6ths of a mile $2.50
Additional 1/6ths $0.50
Waiting Time¢/Hour $27.00
Fuel Surcharge
Up to $9.99 $ 0.50
$10-$24.99 $ 1.00
Over $25.00 $ 2.00
First Mile $ 4.50
Additional Miles $ 3.00
Passenger is responsible for tolls
Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Mr. Kelley then raised an issue he had with the inspection form used by Lieutenant Lauzon. He believed Lieutenant Lauzon used a form from Boston and one of the items was the cab was to be free of all decals and stickers.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the Board would be discussing inspections in a little while and would let Mr. Kelley speak at that time.
Mr. Kelley told the Board that he never seemed to get his Cori checks returned from the Natick Police Department. Framingham was extremely strict with the Cori’s and he thought that needed to be enforced.
Ms. Gloff requested the Town Administrator look into it.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE NATICK RESTAURANTS, INC. D/B/A CURRY LEAF TO MDR GROUP FOODS, INC. D/B/A MINERVA INDIAN CUISINE
Representing Minerva Indian Cuisine was the owner Prakash Reddy and his attorney Lee Wernick.
Attorney Wernick told the Board that his client helped form a computer consulting firm and consulted for regional banks and institutions. In 2007 he founded Minerva Indian Restaurant in Norwood with the goal of providing comprehensive Indian cuisine. Both Mr. Reddy and his wife were U.S. citizens. The other two partners in the business were born in India.
Minerva was founded in 2007 and was similar to Curry Leaf but more comprehensive. Both operations were similar. The hours in Natick would be the same as those in Norwood: 11:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m. M-F and 12:00 noon-3:00 Saturday and Sunday and 5:00-10:00 p.m. Monday-Friday, 5:00-10:30 p.m. Saturday, and 5:00-9:30 p.m. Sunday.
In terms of the materials, Minerva would recycle all glass, metal, plastic and cardboard.
Mr. Wernick had with him menu samples of what was served now and what would be served.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the transfer of the common victualer’s license held by Natick Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Curry Leaf to MDR Group Foods, Inc. d/b/a Minerva Indian Cuisine for premises at 1318 Worcester Road. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE: MDR GROUP FOODS, INC. D/B/A MINERVA INDIAN CUISINE
Mr. Wernick advised that the intent of the entertainment license was to simply provide for TV and music as background music. Currently they only had the existing TV at the location which was about 42”. The music would be provided by CD and the CD wouldn’t be used when the TV was on.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to grant MDR Group Foods, Inc. d/b/a Minerva Indian Cuisine an entertainment license for premises at 1318 Worcester Road. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSFER OF ALL ALCOHOL COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE FROM NATICK RESTAURANTS, INC. D/B/A CURRY LEAF TO MDR GROUP FOODS, INC. D/A/B MINERVA INDIAN CUISINE
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Attorney Lee Wernick, representing the applicant, re-introduced Prakash Reddy and his wife Sailaja Reddy as the owners of Minerva Indian Cuisine along with their two partners Ramanaian Vajilla and Chakrapan Gosetty.
Mr. Wernick reiterated that Mr. Reddy founded Minerva in Norwood where he held an all alcohol license. Both Mr. Reddy and his wife had alcohol server training. Mr. Gosetty was a partner of Mr. Reddy in the computer business and the restaurant and Mr. Vajilla was the chef with 8 years experience in the business.
Mr. Wernick then restated the proposed hours of operation:
Monday-Friday 11:30-2:30 p.m.
Saturday 12:00-3:00 p.m.
Sunday 12:00-3:00 p.m.
Monday-Thursday 5:00-10:00 p.m.
Friday,Saturday 5:00-10:30 p.m.
Sunday 5:00-9:30 p.m.
The floor plans for both Minerva and Currey leaf were identical.
While waiting for ABCC approval, Mr. Wernick told the Board that Minerva would like to operate with the license just granted by the Board with no alcohol in the interim.
Mr. Connolly inquired if there had been any issues regarding the alcohol license in Norwood, and Mr. Reddy’s reply was, “no”.
Ms. Gloff wanted to make certain the owners were aware of the regulations with regard to the service of alcohol in Natick. The last service needs to take place no more than 30 minutes before closing. The need to have anyone who sells or serves alcohol be certified from an alcohol awareness program within 30 days of the license being issued was also mentioned.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to transfer the all alcohol license from Natick Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Curry Leaf to MDR Group Foods, Inc. d/b/a Minerva Indian Cuisine for premises at 1318 Worcester Road. Unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR NOMINATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO LEONARD MORSE GRANTS PANEL
c. Elise Eckelkamp
Elise Eckelkamp told the Board she had been a resident of Natick for about six years and enjoyed the diversity of Natick in all regards. She was introduced to the Foundation through her profession and affiliation with Boston University social work. Marty Cohen, the Foundation Director encouraged her to think about volunteering.
Mr. Ostroff observed that from her resume it appeared as though Ms. Eckelkamp had worked in foundation grants before and asked her to talk about her strengths as they related to the MetroWest Health Care Foundation.
Ms. Eckelkamp responded that she had a role as an executive director and a role in securing private and other funds. Even prior to that she was responsible for fund raising, researching grants and writing grants, and managing grants. She had taught senior level administration on grant writing.
With the vacancy on the panel, Ms. Eckelkamp inquired as to what skill sets the Board was looking to fill. Mr. Ciccariello noted that the two individuals being replaced had been there for three terms. Mr. Ostroff added that he was glad Ms. Eckelkamp had asked that question. If it was not the Board’s intent to vote tonight he would like to inquire of the Foundation Executive Director what skills he was looking to replace.
Mr. Connnolly proposed sending a letter of acknowledgement to Ms. Lenarsky and Ms. Norris Geary.
FINANCE DIRECTOR: BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES
Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer was before the Board with a borrowing of $2.5 million for 60 days until the permanent bonds were issued. He advised that he was in the process of issuing permanent bonds in February when a refunding was done and anticipated issuing these bonds as well. That was when the advertising issues were raised. As a result he was going out to the bond market in August and looking to issue these notes in the interim. The intent was to only borrow enough to pay anticipated bills. The purpose of the notes was:
Fire Pumper to replace Engine 4 $400,000
Trash Packers (3) $525,000
Equipment-items for water relining $296,000
Water Relining $450,000
Roads-Drainage Partial Funding for Glen St. $250,000
Building Repairs - Fire station #4 and the rest schools $579,000
The low bidder was TD Banknorth at 2.29%. The other two bidders were Eastern Bank at 2.30% and UniBank at 2.35%.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if interest rates were low enough to make a difference in the FY09 budget. Mr. Palmer didn’t think it would be significant enough to make a change. The principal payments would not change.
Mr. Connolly asked about the number of packers and was told by Mr. Palmer there were three. Mr. Connolly thought there was an additional one. Mr. Palmer advised there was an additional one authorized at the Annual Town Meeting that would likely be included in August but at this time he hadn’t included anything from April in these notes.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the $4.4 million project in water & sewer was presently under way and Mr. Palmer responded that Phase V was $4.4 million. It was somewhat under way in terms of engineering. It was a multi year project and the Town was slated to borrow about $3 million of the $4.4 million. When the money was actually bonded the final bids will have been received and if there were any projects with bond proceeds they could be used to reduce that authorization.
Seeing the amount requested in the BAN was smaller than the amount authorized, Ms. Gloff asked if that was because the whole amount was not needed at this time. Mr. Palmer advised that was correct. The BAN was a bridge to get to August.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the School Department had received bids on the building repair items. It was Mr. Palmer’s understanding they were in various stages but believed the Schools had authorized some of the work.
When asked if the fire truck and packers had been delivered, Mr. Palmer responded that the fire truck would be delivered this week. One of the packers was delivered and operating. The other two were delivered and would be on the road over the next couple of weeks. Ms. Gloff added that she spoke with the DPW Director and Assistant Director and they made it clear there was training involved for the staff for the new trash packers.
Mr. Connolly questioned what would happen to the equipment being taken off the road. Mr. Young believed it would end up becoming declared surplus. It was Mr. Palmer’s understanding that with the exception of one chassis it would be auctioned. Mr. Young confirmed that the DPW would first come to the Board to get approval to surplus the old packers. Mr. Connolly thought that (DPW requesting the packers to be surplused) would occur soon and Mr. Young offered to follow up.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to award the issuance of Bond Anticipation Notes for the following projects in the following amounts:
Fire Pumper to replace Engine 4 $400,000
Trash Packers (3) $525,000
Equipment-items for water relining $296,000
Water Relining $450,000
Roads-Drainage Partial Funding for Glen St. $250,000
Building Repairs - Fire station #4 and the rest schools $579,000
Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. 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.
TCAN: REQUEST FOR FOUR (1) DAY BEER & WINE LICENSES
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to grant The Center for Arts in Natick four one day beer & wine licenses for performances to be held at 14 Summer Street on June 28, July 11, July 19 and July 26, 2008.
STRATEGIC PLANNING OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
David Parish, Co-Chair of the Strategic Planning Oversight Committee thanked the Board for its work and all the time and counsel put into what in his estimation had been a successful process. He thought it would be appropriate to acknowledge former Selectman Charles Hughes for all his work and to welcome Mr. Connolly back to the Board. He also wanted to acknowledge his Co-Chair Craig Ross and the committee itself. Mr. Parish noted that he had worked on many non-profit committees and this was one of the best he had ever been involved in. Again Mr. Parish thanked the committee members, in particular Mr. Ross, and all the boards and committees that participate.
The Board had been presented with a copy of the final plan which was on the web site and would provide a base for a process going forward. Mr. Parish then reviewed a series of short recommendations in terms of going forward:
1. Place Strategic Planning Action items on the agenda
2. Review progress toward goals quarterly.
3. Collaborate with other boards at least annually. Mr. Parish strongly recommended the Board to get together on an annual basis with other boards and committees. Communication among the boards was needed. He also suggested the Board consider the use of a professional facilitation team.
4. Continue to engage the public in the process. During the process approximately 10% of the households participated in one way or another.
In conclusion Mr. Parish told the Board that when the consultants came back to the committee with their statement they said they had never seen the level of engagement from the residents and he (Mr. Parish) thought that brought an extraordinary base to build on. He believed this had been a good process and a good plan and things were off to a good start. He felt everyone came out understanding what a unique community Natick was and was a model community for this process.
Mr. Ciccariello recognized the effort put into this and extended his appreciation to the committee for a tremendous job.
Mr. Ostroff offered his thanks to Mr. Parish for being the Board’s liaison and to the many local businesses that helped pay the cost. He acknowledged Ben Greenberg as one of several businesses that stepped up and hoped the businesses contribution would be acknowledged through the document on the web site.
Mr. Parish assured Mr. Ostroff the web site would recognize the businesses and added that the involvement of the Natick business community was outstanding not only on a dollar basis but in getting the outcome. It was a future resource for the Town going forward to build upon the relationship.
Ms. Van Amsterdam saw this (Natick 360 strategic plan) as truly a living document and when the Expense Control Task Force first met it was recommended that all members read through and plan to use the document as a reference point for looking at items they might put forward for expense control. At their disposal was always the voice of the citizens.
Ms. Gloff also expressed her thanks and inquired if at some point the Oversight Committee would need to be dissolved. Craig Ross, Co-Chair of the Oversight Committee advised that that had been done. The process was approved by all five sponsoring boards and the Board of Selectmen approved the contract, but he didn’t know that any specific action needed to be taken to dissolve and the committee took their own vote to dissolve.
Mr. Young noted that very seldom were practical and strategic plan put together in the same sentence, but this document did that and the administration was very excited to be able to use this document to help various aspects of the community to work together.
DIRECTOR OF COUNCIL ON AGING & HUMAN SERVICES: AWARD WAYSIDE CONTRACT
Moira Munns, Director of Council on Aging & Human Services, requested the Board to award the annual contract with Wayside Youth & Family Support Network, Inc. for counseling services for clients served through the Human Services Department. She noted this was a $5,000 line item in the budget reserved for services for Natick’s most needy and least able to access the service. It was intended to be a short-term arrangement allowing up to eight visits and during that time there would be an attempt to connect people to other resources that would sustain them over the long run.
Mr. Connolly inquired if there were any changes from the previous contract and Ms. Munns advised that last year it was $10,000, but reduced to $5,000 this year. It was reduced on her recommendation when the budget was prepared. She felt there were some changes in the department that should offset the reduction.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Town Counsel had reviewed the contract and Ms. Munns pointed out that the contract was drawn up by Town Counsel and approved for availability of funds by the Comptroller.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to award the Fiscal 2009 contract with Wayside Youth & Family Support Network, Inc. for counseling services in an amount not to exceed $5,000. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT CORP – WEST SUBURBAN ARENA
a. Increase in Ice Rates for Fiscal 2009
Representing Facilities Management were the President Rob McBride and Vice-President Scott McCoy. Also in attendance was Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini.
Mr. Cugini introduced the subject of increasing the ice fees for the upcoming year by referring to a document of surrounding towns and the fees charged. He noted that when FMC submitted their bid to lease the rink they said they would not increase prices no more than 5%. The requested increase was a little under 4%. Mr. Cugini advised that the Rink Oversight Committee felt strongly about recommending the increase to the Board.
Although in a letter to the Board Facilities Management Corp indicated the public skating at $4.00 and the Stick practice fees at $10.00 per person would remain unchanged, Mr. Ostroff inquired if it was anticipated that those would also change. Mr. McCoy explained that was increased for the 2007-2008 season and would remain unchanged this year, but it would be revisited.
Mr. Ostroff commented that the rates appeared to be competitive and Mr. McCoy responded that they were very competitive. A lot of rinks weren’t re-investing in the capital needs and the average increase of the rinks surveyed was 5%.
Mr. Ciccariello requested an update on the rink, particularly if there had been any changes with the slab. Mr. McBride noted the FMC looked at the slab each year. They looked for movement and perma frost and saw no indication of that.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve an increase in ice rental fees for the William Chase Arena from $193.00 per hour to $200.00 per hour effective September 1, 2008.
b. Handicapped Front Door Access and Assessable Sled
Mr. Cugini told the Board the goal was to provide a handicapped accessible doorway to make it easier for people with all abilities to come into the rink. The second item was an assessable sled. During the Rink Advisory Board meeting there was a suggestion that there was a need for the doors and the committee recommended getting prices. The committee approved with the intent of going to the Commission on Disability to see if they would support the project by using some money collected in fines. In the Spring of 2007 a building permit was applied for but it wasn’t approved until recently. Tonight he was bringing to the Board the final recommendation which was approved by the Commission on Disability and asking the Board to approve the process.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that as part of the contract FMC must receive permission from the Board of Selectmen. He was glad to see that a licensed architect reviewed and the Building Inspector issued a permit.
Asked if the Commission on Disability had given funding, Mr. Cugini told the Board they approved funding on both items.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if there were maintenance issues with the new doors that needed to be budgeted or were anticipated. Since FMC was handling all the maintenance and operations of the rink, Mr. Cugini noted it was FMC’s cost responsibility and he was comfortable they would do a wonderful job. Mr. McBride added that there was recommended service required for the new door and FMC would contract with the installer with no cost to the Town.
The Board approved the installation of the handicapped doors and purchase of an assessable sled for the William Chase Arena on a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Following a ten minute recess called at 9:00 p.m. the meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
FISCAL 2009 WATER & SEWER USER RATES
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Young prefaced the discussion by noting that tonight represented the 5th meeting on this topic and he was there to answer any questions. The only different material was a memo dated June 16 on the effect of delaying setting the rates for three months, clarifying some information, and showing the performance of the fund over the past five years. Should the Board choose to vote tonight, the Board would be approving one of the three rates outlined in the memo dated dateMonth6Day2Year2008June 2, 2008.
Mr. Young was asked to review the memo of June 16 and began with a question raised at the June 2 meeting on a salary increase of 7.55% in utility billing. Mr. Young advised that the information provided at the last meeting for utility billing was incorrect. Actual salary increases rose by 3% with all utility billing related expenses declining by a slight .02%. It was a formulaic error.
With regard to the impact of delaying the decision to set rates for 3 months, Mr. Young referred to a memorandum from Finance Director Robert Palmer. There were a series of impacts raised in terms of delay. It hampered cash flow and could affect operations plus there was less ability to invest money. Whatever rates were set to raise whatever had been calculated as being needed, if the timeframe were decreased, then the first quarter rates would be the same but the second quarter would be even higher. If the annual increase was 21% over four quarters, the condensed increase would be approximately 28%.
The third question was why the staff changed its recommendation on master meters. Mr. Young noted that whenever possible individual meters were best. They provide the most accurate reading, but in reality the cost and time to retrofit was difficult to do. The staff was challenged by the Board and the public to find a way to come up with a fairer system of billing and the main method proposed by other communities was averaging. This was not full averaging. There were concerns about the staff’s capability of implementing full averaging and he could say the Town didn’t have the staff availability. They (staff) were proposing taking on placeCityNatick condo’s to see if it could be done and if successful then a recommendation could be made on extending it.
As to how the fund performed over the past five years, Mr. Young referred to a chart. The chart showed a trend. The expenses have increased but the revenue peaked in 2005 and since that time the use of retained earnings to offset the difference has increased.
When speaking about retained earnings two weeks ago, Ms. Gloff thought the projected use was $2.675 million in FY08. Mr. Young advised that was not correct. The amount shown on the chart ($1.675 million) reflected only operations and did not reflect capital. More retained earnings were used and appropriated (for capital).
Mr. Ostroff noticed that it seemed as though the trend was that expenses went up while revenues were generally flat. Was that the reason the Board was dealing with the projection of this large increase or was there something else at work? Mr. Young responded that he had nothing to add.
Ms. Gloff commented that if there was $1.675 million in retained earnings to apply to the FY09 budget, the large increase wouldn’t be needed because the revenue needed to be collected could be lowered. We don’t have that now. There was $7,000 in retained earnings at this time.
Mr. PersonNameConnolly quoted from the dateMonth6Day2Year2008June 2, 2008 memo “The Board of PersonNameSelectmen, in your role as Water/Sewer Commissioners” and reminded everyone that was what the Board was – the Water & Sewer Commissioners. He pointed out that page 4 says that all of these expenses with the exception of $150,000 has already been approved by Town Meeting. To reduce those expenses Town Meeting would need to vote. The Board of PersonNameSelectmen may be the Water & Sewer Commissioners but based on what the administration put before Town Meeting, they (administration) were the commissioners.
Mr. PersonNameConnolly continued that he thought it was within the Board’s responsibility to stand strong. Gas prices were out of control and housing. There wasn’t much that could be done about groceries but the Board could do something about this. The rates were raised in December and the citizens were hit with an override in March and now it was being done again. He wanted to send the administration back to the board.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to how much there was right now in retained earnings certified by the Department of Revenue. Mr. Young advised that on 7/1/07 $2,682,304 had been certified and through actions of Town Meeting $2.675 million had been appropriated for use. The balance of $7,304 was what was left of the 7/1/07 certification.
Mr. Connolly questioned if guidance had been given to Town Meeting telling them only $7,000 would be left. Having not as yet been employed by the Town Meeting, Mr. Young noted that he was not at that Town Meeting. Mr. Palmer was at the meeting and it was his (Mr. Young’s) understanding the information provided was the same provided at each Town Meeting in the spring that sets forward recommendations and recommended funding sources.
Mr. Connolly directed his question of whether it had been made clear to Town Meeting there would only be $7,000 left. Mr. Palmer replied that the quick answer would be, “yes”, adding that there was a discussion at Town Meeting that covered two meetings on the intent to use retained earnings to offset water & sewer. There were a series of questions the first night and a report back the next night on what the retained earnings balance would be.
Asked for a yes or no answer as to whether Town Meeting knew the balance would be $7,000, Mr. Palmer’s reply was, ‘yes they were told’.
Based on the proposed increase Mr. Connolly inquired as to what kind of retained earnings would be expected for next year at this time.
Ms. Van Amsterdam called for a point of order noting that everyone on the Board was welcome to ask questions but this was not a court and she would ask that the speaker be allowed to finish and not be told that all that was wanted was a yes or no answer.
Mr. Connolly repeated his question as to what was anticipated a year from now in retained earnings. Mr. Palmer explained that was calculated at the close of the fiscal year. The fund balance would be adjusted for any outstanding encumbrances and at present he didn’t know the close. He wouldn’t have an estimate until August and would be looking to have it certified in September the same time as free cash.
Mr. Connolly then inquired if there was an effort to build up retained earnings through this rate increase. Mr. Young’s response was, “no”. The rates were designed to make sure there were sufficient revenues to balance the expense plan as voted by Town Meeting. In follow-up Mr. Connolly asked if there was no excess built into it and Mr. Young replied there was nothing designed. Asked if it would be at zero, Mr. Young thought most likely there would be a small degree of retained earnings likely generated through not spending the full appropriation.
Mr. PersonNameConnolly questioned if the $5 service fee was in all three options and Mr. Young advised that it was.
Mr. PersonNameConnolly commented on the indirect cost for the office and the $5 for service being the same, but Mr. Young said no. The fee was a direct cost. There was no design to be a double charge.
Mr. PersonNameConnolly asked about police details. Mr. Young believed there was a small budget built into water & sewer operation to pay for a detail. The charge built in for indirect costs for public safety was designed to offset part of the budget. If there was an emergency call related to water & sewer the indirect cost was designed to cover it, but if there was a particular relining project planned there was a small amount built into it for details.
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry as to the specific number trying to be raised, Mr. Young responded that in terms of water the amount required to meet the expense plan as approved by Town Meeting with the plan of using $150,000 in capital for the fall was $14,153,950 - $12,285,000 needed from rates.
If the rates were not raised, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the amount of money that would be short. Mr. Palmer advised that a 20% increase would represent a $2.4 million deficit.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he had a concern. The Board was presented some information in December about a rate increase and he didn’t understand what had changed since December to now have to do a rate increase that should have been discussed in December. A capital plan was in place and the budget should have been known. Why in December wasn’t it projected moving forward and why now was a second rate increase being talked about. The Board relies on the administration and when a rate increase was asked for he would expect that rate increase would have carried us through to cover the expenses moving forward.
Mr. Young pointed out that if the same level of subsidy from retained earnings was available in FY09 and the expenses were the same and the usage was the same, then the 10% increase in December would be sufficient now. There was $7,000 in retained earnings. That won’t be the amount certified on July 1, but he didn’t believe it would be dramatically different. Usage dropped and we were spending more.
With respect to the change in philosophy for condos, Mr. Ciccariello recalled that whenever condos were discussed it was flat out told to the Board, and a study was done, that changing the rates for condos would cost the Town substantial dollars and there would be a substantial increase in operational costs to implement. Within two weeks the administration comes back with a total change in philosophy. It wasn’t that he didn’t want to be fair, but Mr. Ciccariello couldn’t see how for seven years the Board was hearing one thing and in two weeks it all gets changed.
Mr. Young responded that he couldn’t speak for his predecessor but for himself, he felt the administration has come in with what was a prudent policy to implement averaging. It will cost money in terms of staff time and it will affect what other ratepayers have to pay, but government had to be responsive and although there were studies done, the administration believed that given what the responses had been and the demands of a vocal group of ratepayers and taxpayers the most prudent move was to implement a degree of averaging. This was not as complex of a proposal as the administration would like. In an ideal world there would be individual meters. What was being proposed, and Mr. Young stressed this was completely the Board’s decision, was the belief that modified averaging for Natick owned condos
could be implemented to see how it worked and see how the staff could handle it. The administration may be back to the Board a year from now saying it couldn’t sustain doing averaging but he (Mr. Young) believed it was prudent to try.
Regarding the $5 charge which had never been done before, Mr. Ciccariello noted that it was his understanding that part of the indirect cost covered the cost of the Collector and Treasurer for billing. Now there was a $5 charge per bill and the indirect cost didn’t drop. That would mean individuals would get a bill and in addition there would be a $5 surcharge.
Mr. Young confirmed that to be correct.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what the administration was proposing for the condos. Was it $5 per bill or $5 per individual? Mr. Young responded that originally the proposal was to do individual bills, but now the proposal was to do the averaging and do one bill multiplying it back by the number of units and splitting the bills remains in the realm of the Association.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled receiving some correspondence regarding developers being given a tremendous amount of conditions from the Planning Board and he questioned if anyone had looked to verify that none of those conditions would be impacted by this.
Mr. Young advised that the staff had not (reviewed Planning Board conditions) but was planning on doing so pending the Water & Sewer Commissioner’s vote tonight.
Mr.Connolly thought the water & sewer rates were done in November. Ms. Gloff explained that typically the Board set the rates shortly before the end of the fiscal year with a couple of exceptions. One was when the MWRA charged the Town less. Last year the rates weren’t set until November or December and that was to get the rate study done.
Mr. Connolly inquired if the Town was up-to-date with all the Mall money regarding water. To Mr. Young’s knowledge the answer was yes. The Town has started to witness some of the revenues coming in and he believed that number was in the $200,000-250,000 range.
Mr. Palmer added that the existing Mall developed in the mid 1990’s has always been on Natick water so there was no new revenue on that piece of the Mall. There was a sewer extension the Mall was paying for by betterment. That connection was made this year and on the new part there would be water & sewer new revenue.
When asked if the proposal was not to do anything with the folks in placeCityDover, Mr. Young advised that was correct.
Ms. Gloff commented that the proposal was to use the condos in placeCityNatick as the test case for averaging. The Board heard from two groups in placeCityDover, but there were other groups of homes and apartments that get water and none of those were included at this time. Mr. Young confirmed that too was correct.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to which of the three options the administration was recommending and Mr. Young responded that the administration recommended the modified averaging and Option 3. Option 3 attempted to spread the rate increase out as evenly as possible over all users. Most users would witness increases between approximately 19% and 32%. The average user would see an increase of approximately 20.3%.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that most users under Option 3 would see an increase of 19-32% with the average at approximately 20.3%. Under Option 1 the average user saw a 12.3% increase but the higher users would see a 24-47% increase. If somebody made an effort to conserve under Option 3 they get penalized where the high end user benefited.
Mr. Young explained that the three options attempted to do three different things:
Option 1 – Was designed to hold harmless the bottom two tiers for the 0-20 hcf users. The average user would go up 12.3% and the high user would be in excess of 47%.
Option 2 – Attempted to level all tiers by increasing rates for the lowest and highest tiers the most. The average user would witness rate increases of approximately 14.3%.
Option 3 – Was as level as the staff could make it for classes across the board. The high end was more likely to go up 32%. It could be said that one side was being penalized but it was designed more for who was going to pay.
Ms. Van placeCityAmsterdam stated that she was not focusing on Option 2 at all, but was intrigued by Option 1 because of the focus on the highest users. There was an attempt to achieve equity because of the averaging. In looking at the goals put forward: a) raise sufficient revenues – Option 1 did that; b) promote water conservation – Option 1 did that to a greater extent; c) Option 3 held the average user of Water/Sewer services to the average rate of increase necessary to cover costs. She asked Mr. Young about the direction of Option 3 and why it was being recommended by the administration.
Mr. Young responded that primarily it was being recommended because of the fourth goal of ‘fairness’ although admittedly that was difficult to implement. With usage dropping, without retained earnings, and expenses increasing, the choice could be made to go with an option where lower water users pay considerably less and higher users pay more. The rate structure was already tiered and Option 3 made everyone feel that increase and didn’t discount a particular portion of someone’s use. Costs were going up and rates had to go up. The Board as policy makers had to make a decision which option to do. The staff believed if goals 1-3 and fairness were being proposed it was not fair to the higher user to pick up the higher bill. For better or worse that decision rests in the
Board’s capable hands.
Ms. Van Amsterdam commented that the Town was moving toward Option 3 as all persons move toward water conservation. She was struggling with whether to go with #1 knowing the fairness discussion, but she believed even with Option 1 fairness was being addressed because the multi unit situation was being addressed. Her concern was the public, instead of understanding the goal of holding the average user to the average rate of increase, would argue that their rates were raised as a result of the condos. That was somewhat true but she would rather be able to say the Board tried to address an issue of equity. She would argue to move to Option 1 this year and in the process talk to people that the Town would be moving to Option 3 as more and more people conserve.
Mr. PersonNameConnolly applauded the administration’s efforts with the condos although he didn’t know why placeCityDover wasn’t included. The revenue generated from the condos was never a true number because they were being overcharged. His thought was if the administration banged at it for another couple of weeks, they could come back with a lower rate. He wouldn’t support a higher rate. It had nothing to do with the condos but fiscal responsibility to the people who elected the Board to office. People were having a difficult time and some people that had lived here all their lives were moving out of town.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the modified averaging billing for revenue received in FY09. Ms. Gloff seconded and offered an amendment that the modified averaging be for multi condo properties located in the Town of placeCityNatick. The amendment was accepted by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a dateMonth3Day2Year20003-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. PersonNameConnolly were opposed.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Ciccariello asked if the intent was to include water usage prior to dateMonth7Day1Year2008July 1, 2008 to be billed at the new rate. Mr. Ostroff clarified that it was for revenue that would be accounted for in FY09 which may include water usage that took place prior to July 1. Mr. Ciccariello commented that the April, May, June billing would be affected and Mr. Ostroff responded that was correct.
In follow up to Mr. Young’s comment that the staff intended to see it implement for the first quarter bills (of the new fiscal year), Mr. Ciccariello questioned when that would happen. If the rates were voted tonight when would the bills go out and what would it cover. Mr. Palmer responded that it would be for bills issued June 1, 2008 for consumption in March, April, May. It would be on previous consumption.
Mr. Ostroff noted that was his intent in making the motion.
Mr. Ostroff then commended the Board for agreeing to fund a rate study. He thought it was overdue and helpful for the Board and staff to promote conservation and create fairness. It didn’t address another inequity in placeCityDover and he would like to see the administration address some of the specific issues the placeCityDover people have raised. He didn’t believe it could be done now but would like to see it happen in the coming months. He thanked the staff for their hard work and members of the public who participated.
Mr. Connolly expressed the opinion that this was a disservice to the ratepayers. The Dover people should fall into the category.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved to approve the water & sewer rates as laid out in Option 1 of the June 2, 2008 memo. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. After some discussion the motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
The approved FY09 rates were as follows:
Combined Water & Sewer Rates
0-10 Water $ 1.38
Sewer $ 3.85
11-20 Water $ 2.20
Sewer $ 6.90
21-40 Water $ 3.25
Sewer $11.40
40+ Water $ 5.00
Sewer $11.40
Water Only Rates
0-10 Water $ 1.38
11-20 Water $ 2.20
21-40 Water $ 3.25
40+ Water $ 8.15
Irrigation Rates
0-10 Water $ 2.50
11-20 Water $ 5.00
21-40 Water $ 6.65
40+ Water $ 8.15
Water Only Multi-Unit (Pit)
0-10 Water $ 1.38
11-20 Water $ 2.20
21-40 Water $ 3.25
40+ Water $ 5.00
Combined Elderly Rates
0-10 Water $ --
Sewer $ --
11-20 Water $ --
Sewer $ --
21-40 Water $ 2.44
Sewer $ 8.55
40+ Water $ 3.75
Sewer $ 8.55
Elderly Water Only
0-10 Water $ --
11-20 Water $ --
21-40 Water $ 2.44
41-100 Water $ 3.75
40+ Water $ 3.75
Sewer Only Rates
0-10 Sewer $ 3.85
11-20 Sewer $ 6.90
20+ Sewer $11.40
Mr. Ostroff moved to approve water & sewer rates as laid out in Option 3 of the June 2, 2008 memo. There was no second and no vote taken.
Speaking to her motion, Ms. Van Amsterdam believed Option 1 achieved the goals set forth by the administration – raise sufficient revenues to cover appropriated expenses, promote water conservation, hold the average user of Water/Sewer services to the average rate of increase necessary to cover costs. She also believed Option 1 would move the Town in the direction or at least where creating a tiered structure that was more equitable could be defended.
Ms. Gloff reminded the Board that two weeks ago she made a motion to approve Option 3 and tonight she seconded the motion for Option 1. Two weeks ago the possibility of modified averaging was brought up and in thinking about that it takes care of some of the inequity at the high rates and she thought Option 1 did a better job of promoting conservation.
Mr. Ciccariello referenced a statement in the June 16, 2008 memo concerning owner occupied condos and pointed out that not all condo units were owner occupied. There were a lot of rentals, but the proposal for modified averaging was taking condos and treating them as owner occupied in all cases while there were 2,4,8 family apartment buildings that haven’t been taken into consideration because they have one meter. The people renting and owning those were being penalized and there was no fairness there. If the Board wanted to talk about being fair to everybody, the administration better start looking at how to take care of the apartment buildings.
Discussion of Ms. Van Amsterdam’s motion continued and Mr. Ostroff stated that he did not favor Option 1 because it seemed to be contradictory. The rates seem to be 23% higher than they would be under Option 3 and it seemed that Option 3 ensured the most equity. He agreed that it (Option 3) didn’t solve all the problems and he would like an explanation on how to square that.
Ms. Gloff noted that using the modified averaging, if there were 10 units and they use 100 units of water, the average per unit would be 10 and each will be charged at the 0-10 rate.
Mr. Young agreed with Mr. Ostroff’s observation that most of the high use tiers were higher under Option 1 than Option 3 and added that it was designed for the rates to go up if you were a high water user even more than a lower user.
Mr. Ostroff felt there were no easy choices. Saying no to higher rates which would not maintain the quality of the infrastructure was not a strategy. Ensuring the quality of the water supply was an important duty of the Board. If money could be saved without compromising quality, he was willing to look at it. He (Mr. Ostroff) would love to see a strategy for people with limited means to deal with this increase. If that issue could be addressed within the current fiscal year he would love to follow up on that. Option 1 was not his preferred option, but there was a need to maintain the enterprise fund and he would vote to support it.
Ms. Van Amsterdam recalled that at an earlier meeting mention was made that it was imperative to continue to educate the residents on how the water was kept safe and clean and the administration was encouraged to get some information out to the public. It was important to get more information out to the citizens about what’s going on with the water.
Mr. Connolly noted that Natick 360 encouraged and supported Natick’s economic diversity.
Mr. Ciccariello remarked that this was the most material he had ever seen for the water & sewer rate review and he commended the administration. He recognized it was difficult for the administration to put all this time and effort into this and now the question was what to do with it. At the last meeting he recommended looking at all the information over a three month period and look at recommendations for policies. In his opinion the Board should put together a small group to review all the information and come back to the full Board to establish policies and procedures before rates were increased again.
For the subcommittee Mr. Ciccariello proposed himself, another member of the Board, the Town Administrator, and the DPW meeting over the next 3-4 months to review the documents and come back with some recommendations. The review to include looking at revenue, expenses, staffing, capital projects. He thanked all the Board members for their patience over the last five meetings.
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to form the study group.
Both Ms. Van Amsterdam and Ms. Gloff volunteered to serve on the subcommittee and agreed to work it out between themselves which one would serve.
A recess was called at 10:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:45 p.m.
NATICK CENTER PARKING STRATEGY
Mr. Ostroff recalled that in March when the non-performing bid for a garage was rejected the Board was asked to endorse the concept of a small group to address parking issues. That group included the Natick Center Associates, himself, Mr. Ciccariello, Community Development Director Patrick Reffett and subsequently they met with a member of the Planning Board and ZBA.
Mr. Ostroff had provided the Board with an update on the discussions concerning parking improvements in Natick Center in a memo dated May 29, 2008 and asked for the Board’s consideration on:
1) Garage design: The subcommittee looked at economical ways to design a garage with the idea of establishing a public/private partnership. $28,000 was identified that would provide a design study to provide costs to see if it might be practical. The concept was to have an economical design that would eliminate the ramping. The cost wasn’t known.
2) Investigate Doing a Downtown DIF (District Improvement Finance). The choice may be to earmark increased tax revenue from Natick Center toward parking construction and maintenance.
3) Residential Parking Requirements: The Planning Board would be taking on the task to amend the Zoning By-Laws concerning residential parking requirements for Natick Center. It would give a developer the option of going from 2 to 1 space per unit but the developer would have to buy down the number of spaces. They could have 1-1/2 spaces and pay a fee that would go toward parking. That would help stimulate residential development downtown.
4) Overnight Municipal Residential Parking: Explore an overnight parking program utilizing existing municipal parking lots and dedicated spaces. This would require input from the Safety Committee among other boards and officials.
5) MBTA Station Improvements: Mr. Ostroff referenced a memo he drafted to the MBTA that would advocate improvements to the downtown.
6) Bicycle Parking: Explore new bicycle parking at the Natick Center T station
7) MWRTA Station: Explore an off-street MWRTA bus station to improve service and reduce traffic/parking conflicts.
8) MBTA Commuter Garage: Mr. Ostroff noted that it had come to his attention that the MBTA had been in touch with the Community Development Director and wanted to come in with an update. Some concerns were put together and there was a meeting in December where the consensus was that if the MBTA wanted to build a garage it was better at West Natick. He had put together some thoughts and if the Board was in agreement he would offer it to the Community Development Director to tweak and give to the MBTA. Mr. Ostroff suggested: a) No Town funds; b) There be a proposal including timeline design and traffic impacts; c) data on the percentage of current and future garage commuters that were Natick residents; d) mitigation included traffic and improvements to the Natick Center
stations – both Natick stations to be made fully accessible; e) the “T” would schedule opportunities for public input.
Mr. Connolly inquired if Mr. Ostroff was the MBTA liaison to which Mr. Ostroff responded that Natick had a member of the MBTA Advisory Board.
Mr. Connolly recalled there being a woman who wanted to see if there was any way to do a Boden Lane path and on Lakeshore Road there was a glass structure that was a bus stop and was there any way to remove it. It was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding the MWRTA was considering a shuttle down Route 9, but he would talk to Mr. Hughes (the Board’s representative to the MWRTA).
Mr. Ciccariello added that the $28,000 was left from the original appropriation for LeMessurier to do some cost designs for a new garage and the Board was being asked to support an RFP to do a quick study on accessing three tiers of parking via three locations which might drop the cost and the Town might be able to have some better discussions with Natick Center Associates to see if they would have an interest in looking at some kind of a partnership.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if anything would be added into the letter that made mention of the parking garage and what might happen in West Natick. Ms. Gloff thought she had heard that MBTA representatives were coming in in the next few weeks and that almost pre-empted their visit.
Ben Greenberg, a member of the downtown businessman’s group noted that when former Town Administrator Philip Lemnios came on board he did a survey and asked businessmen if they would pay $600 a year if 480 spaces were sold. If Natick didn’t have the money to do a parking garage, then a partnership with the Natick Center Associates should be considered. The businesses would love to see a small parking garage. The idea of an entrance on Summer Street and an entrance on Middlesex Avenue was something the businesses went to Mr. Lemnios about four years ago.
Mr. Greenberg continued that values in the center were going down. There was no interest in renting because there was no parking. Natick Center Associates was an active group and wanted to be the Town’s partner, but wanted the Town to seriously consider building a parking garage. The businesses were willing to put up some of the money, but wanted the Town to have a conversation with them. There needed to be more discussion. He added that the businesses were not looking for more commuter parking in the downtown.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that members of the Natick Center Associates had been attending the subcommittee meetings and they were invited all the time. An effort was being made to keep them in the loop.
Tim Kelley of JFK Transportation said he saw an e-mail about the taxi stand parking and was referred to the committee being talked about. He requested that consideration be given to looking at a taxi cab station on North Avenue.
Referring back to the proposal to send a letter to the MBTA, Ms. Gloff questioned if there was an urgency to sending such a letter now if the MBTA was coming in within the next couple of weeks. Mr. Ostroff agreed that it would be helpful to wait.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if there was any problem with the Deputy Town Administrator and him drafting an RFP. No objections were raised.
ELIOT SCHOOL: DISCUSSION OF SHORT-TERM LEASE
Mr. Ciccariello prefaced the discussion by noting that Special Town Meeting #2 voted to look at the sale or lease of the Eliot School. He explained there were two years left on the present lease and the Town couldn’t negotiate an extension of the existing lease. The Board had to make a decision on whether to consider an RFP for another short-term lease while trying to discuss the issues of a long-term lease vs sale. The Town Meeting article suggested the Board put together a committee of experts to do a comprehensive study for a lease that would be appropriate or a sale. Or the Board could let the present lease expire and do another 10 year lease without anybody’s approval.
Mr. Young pointed out that the initial legislation that was part of the 99 year lease still needs to make it to the Legislature. That would be submitted, but Representative Linsky was uncertain whether any action would be taken before January 2009. Having the discussion of a short-term lease made sense given the delay likely to be seen in the home rule petition going through the Legislature.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the implications of letting the current lease expire and Mr. Ciccariello responded that one of the reasons the Town Administrator was considering a short-term lease was the concern that the present tenants had to have some discussion where the Town was going. The Board could let the lease expire but if the Town wanted a tenant when the lease was getting close to expiring, thought had to be given about where to go. It was a real concern that needs to be addressed. The Town couldn’t negotiate with the present folks and given them an extension. It had to go through the RFP process. This probably should go on the agenda for the next meeting.
Ms. Van Amsterdam requested a sense for how the terms would change so they would be more advantageous to the Town and noted that she would like to discuss the Eliot School from the perspective of the interests of the Town as opposed to the interests of the tenant.
RELEASE OF EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to release the following executive session minutes with redactions: April 24, 2006, July 10, 2006, and August 7, 2006.
NATICK CAB: LICENSE RENEWAL
Mr. Ciccariello distributed a memo from Attorney David DeLuca of Town Counsel’s office on the options. Natick Cab had been sent a couple of letters regarding non-renewal and the need to file an application and have their vehicles inspected. Natick Cab made an attempt to get the vehicles inspected but not all of them passed. The Board was in receipt of a report from Lieutenant Lauzon advising that 3 out of the 4 inspected failed and there was a 5th cab never seen. The options as defined by Attorney DeLuca were: 1) schedule a hearing with notice of violations to the license holder; 2) if the license holder is present and waives his right to notice of a further hearing, hold a quick hearing to determine the facts. In either event the Board should resolve whether or not the current licenses should be
revoked before taking any further action with respect to any new licenses.
Allison McFarland, owner of Natick Cab, told the Board she had been in touch with Lieutenant Lauzon on several occasions in April looking to replace several vehicles. One vehicle was willed to Natick Cab and Lieutenant Lauzon knew it was coming from probate, but he (Lieutenant Lauzon) told them he wanted to see all the vehicles together. Having a car in probate took awhile. The vehicle failed the inspection but it failed because a dome light needed to be screwed in, not due to safety issues. Everything has been repaired. As soon as she got the car that had been willed on the road, one of the other cars was side swiped and totaled. A third car just gave out and had to be replaced.
Ms. McFarland continued that Lieutenant Lauzon was to have come two Fridays ago, but cancelled. She also had problems getting in touch with the Sealer of Weights and Measures plus she understood a letter was sent from the Board on June 16 which she did not receive. Today was the first day she found out there was a letter. She lived in Connecticut which was why she was looking to transfer the business. Lieutenant Lauzon was kept informed and knew they intended to do what they were supposed to do. All the vehicles were prepared and Lieutenant Lauzon told her manager he would be back tomorrow and do everything tomorrow.
Mr. Ostroff applauded Ms. McFarland for trying to make the best of it, but it was important to follow the regulations. Ms. McFarland agreed and assured the Board she wasn’t demeaning anything. There were simple things with the vehicles and they have been taken care of.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked about the proposed transfer of the license and Mr. Ciccariello explained that Natick Cab had entered into a P&S and would like to transfer the business by the end of the month which affords both parties the opportunity to get the inspection squared away and then come up for a new license on June 30.
David Stone of Stone’s Auto and proposed new owner of Natick Cab told the Board that he had been in the taxi and auto service business for the last 30 years and was excited about the opportunity to be doing a taxi business in Natick. Recently he had been working trying to update the vehicles and get the fleet in order. He noted that Lieutenant Lauzon was only there for a short time on Friday. Four cabs were brought over and the problems were paint issues, dome covers, etc. One had a mechanical problem and couldn’t be brought over to the Police station, but all problems have been fixed.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Ms. McFarland felt confident that he could get the vehicles inspected and get the Sealer of Weights & Measures to come in as well before the meeting of June 30. Ms. McFarland said she hoped to be able to get in touch with the Sealer of Weights & Measures. She had left several messages. Mr. Stone added his comments on the difficulty of reaching Mr. Mulvey and Mr. Young gave assurance that the administration would do its best to contact the Sealer and make sure he expedites the process.
Mr. Connolly raised the possibility of renewing Natick Cab’s license contingent on Lieutenant Lauzon’s favorable report, but Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the Sealer of Weights & Measures still had to seal the meters.
Reading through Mr. DeLuca’s opinion, Ms. Gloff didn’t feel Option 2 was helpful and to her it seemed the Board would want to schedule a hearing on June 30 with the expectation of things being resolved and then the next agenda after that deal with the transfer.
Mr. Ciccariello requested that a hearing be scheduled for June 30.
Tim Kelley of JFK Transportation noted that the inspection form used by Lieutenant Lauzon said no stickers or decals, but the rules and regs didn’t say no advertising.
METROWEST GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: SELECTMEN’S REPRESENTATIVE
The Board was in receipt of a letter from the MetroWest Growth Management Committee requesting the Board to appoint or reappoint a representative to the committee.
Mr. Ostroff had been the Board’s representative to the committee and he advised that he would be glad to continue doing it.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Joshua Ostroff as the Board’s representative to the MetroWest Growth Management Committee.
MINUTES:
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the minutes of the January 7, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to approve the minutes of the February 19, 2008 meeting. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
NATICK ART WALK: REQUEST FOR BANNER
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Natick Center Associates request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period July 7-July 20, 2008 in advertisement of the Art Walk.
ALPHA CONTRACTING ASSOCIATES: REQUEST TO OCCUPY PUBLIC WAY
The Board was in receipt of a request from Alpha Contracting Associates, Inc. to park a lift that would take up six parking sports on Washington Street while painting the Morse Institute Library exterior.
Mr. Ciccariello noted there were a few restaurants in the area and questioned if six spaces should be lost at night. The lift could be moved at night and brought back early in the morning.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to approve Alpha Contracting Associates’ request and leave the decision as to whether there was adequate parking or if the lift should be moved each night. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
TOUR DE SHULS: REQUEST ROAD RACE PERMIT
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the request for the Tour de Shuls fund raising road race to go through Natick on June 29, 2008 subject to coordination with Lieutenant Lauzon.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
a. Housing Consultant Services
Mr. Young apologized for just handing out a proposal from the Community Development Director for housing consultant services concerning the Analysis of Impediments. This was in response to a component of the HOME program.
Ms. Gloff explained that this was a requirement for the Town in order to be given an allocation. Mr. Reffett (Community Development Director) wrote an Analysis of Impediments, but it was not accepted. He did not have the time to do this and it needed to be finished in the month and a half for the funds to be available. He (Mr. Reffett) discussed this with several consultants and received only one response. Mr. Reffett contacted her this afternoon and asked if the Board could approve hiring Dan Cahill to complete the Analysis of Impediments. This would be paid out of the HOME funds.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to award the contract for consulting services to complete an Analysis of Impediments to Dan Cahill in the amount of $12,000. 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.
Mr. Connolly questioned Mr. Reffett being too busy and Ms. Gloff responded that Mr. Reffett wrote an analysis but the requirements have been stepped up and it needs to be in much more detail and Mr. Reffett was not in a position to complete this in the time required.
Mr. Connolly asked about the hiring of the new staff member, but Mr. Young advised the position was not effective until the next fiscal year. Ms. Gloff added that the job description had been approved by the Personnel Board so the process had begun.
b. House – 4806: Speen St. National Guard Lease
Mr. Young informed the Board that the proposed lease of a portion of the National Guard property on Speen Street had been restructured and the legislators were looking for a quick turnaround in terms of response. If there were comments and concerns the legislators would like to hear them in the next couple of days.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested that it may be something for Town Counsel to look at and Mr. Young advised that it was being forwarded to him.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested waiting until the June 30 meeting, but Mr. Young noted that the Legislators were trying to get it released from the third reading and the intent was to try to push it sooner than that. Mr. Ciccariello preferred to get Town Counsel’s input first and Ms. Gloff suggested delegating the Chair to speak with Town Counsel to see if anything of substance was being changed and if not to go forward.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to authorize the Chair, subject to hearing from Town Counsel, to notify the legislators to go forward.
c. Additional Pension Funding
Mr. Young advised that two weeks ago a legislative alert was received in regards to a bill for additional fund for pensions. The MMA again sent out an alert asking municipalities to contact their Legislators to not approve this. The thought of giving additional sums to municipal and state pensions was wonderful, but there would be a considerable cost. Without having further study and research, this bill appeared to be looming as an unfunded mandate.
d. Town Hall Compressor
Mr. Young advised that three bids had been received for a Crane compressor for Town Hall. The cost to replace the compressor would be $7,500-$8,000 and there would be sufficient money in the budget.
e. Town Administrator Illness
Mr. Young told the Board that the Town Administrator was recuperating and thanked everyone for their thoughts and prayers. She was hoping to get back to work on Wednesday.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Cross Walk Violations
Mr. Connolly had witnessed a cross walk violation in front of Town Hall and stressed the need to step up enforcement.
b. Trimming of Shrubs
Mr. Connolly noted that he had been reminded that residents were responsible for keeping shrubs and trees neat and trimmed and not growing over the sidewalk.
c. Beth Kelley
Mr. Connolly commented on his nice visit with Beth Kelley in the Collector’s Office and gave an At-A-Girl to Beth.
d. MORE Grant
Ms. Gloff called attention to a letter received on the MORE saying there was a balance of $650,000 which would be lost if not spent soon. Was the money going to be spent?
Mr. Young advised that as of Friday the Community Development Director submitted an amended request to the Mass Office of Business Development extending the use of the funds to 2010.
e. Complaint – Podiatrist No Longer Coming to Senior Center
Ms. Gloff referenced an e-mail concerning the discontinuance of the podiatrist from coming to the Senior Center and asked Mr. Young to track down the reason why the program had been discontinued.
Mr. Young responded that he spoke with the Senior Center Director Moira Munns briefly and there was a degree of service issues and liability.
f. Expense Control Task Force Minutes
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked that the members read the Expense Control Task Force minutes and provide comments.
g. Retirement Board Election
Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned if the upcoming Retirement Board election had been posted. Mr. Young advised that it had been posted in every office.
h. Home Rule Petition – Additional Alcohol Licenses for Downtown
Mr. Ostroff reported that Article 40 from the Spring Town Meeting to increase the number of alcohol licenses in the center was scheduled for a hearing in committee on or before June 30. It was expected to pass without opposition and go to the Legislature for a vote.
i. Office Hours – Senior Center
Mr. Ostroff announced there would be office hours at the Senior Center on June 26.
j. Route 135
If and when the acceptance of Route 135 were to come before the Board, Mr. Ostroff said he would love to see better visibility for the cross walks.
k. Deputy Town Administrator
Mr. Ostroff thanked the Deputy Town Administrator for his hard work during the Town Administrator’s absence.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
______________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
