Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes 8/11/08

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on August 11, 2008 in the amount of $587,701.43. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $3,074,915.86.

Attorney John Burke explained that he was before the Board on a technicality on a zoning matter. He represented the potential buyer of property at Route 9/Oak Street and the potential owner wished to construct a women’s salon. To do that dimensional variances were needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals. They went before the ZBA and the ZBA approved the variance. After the decision was filed, it was discovered there was an irregularity in the notice. This was actually two lots, but the abutters of only one lot were notified. The second lot had three abutters one of which was the Town of Natick. The other two were Scrub-a-Dub and the owners of the bank property and they have both signed a waiver.

Mr. Burke noted they could go back to the ZBA but that was an expense to the Town and the applicant. There was another way which was a waiver of notice under MGL C. 40A §11. He submitted it to Town Counsel John Flynn and Mr. Flynn agreed it was an appropriate manner and approved the waiver of notice presented to the Board.

Ms. Gloff requested a copy of the proposed layout and Mr. Burke provided a copy of the plan. He pointed out the building would be on two floors. It met the parking requirement and it met the floor area ration. The difficult thing was the lot. After taking of property for Route 9 shortened the property, the front yard setback was short and the lot was virtually unbuildable without a variance.

Noting the intersection of Oak and Route 9 was on the verge of being redesigned, Ms. Gloff stated that she was a little concerned for what happened if additional space was needed in the redesign of that intersection. Was that discussed at the ZBA?

Mr. Burke advised that it was discussed in depth and the conclusion was that any land taking was on the south side not the north side. Mr. Burke read from the Planning Board letter that indicated the Planning Board was generally in support and noted they expected improvements would likely take place on the opposite side of Oak Street as opposed to the northerly side of Oak.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if a site plan review would be required by the Planning Board and Mr. Burke responded that it would, but the application had not as yet been filed.

Mr. Ostroff stated that he had similar concerns as Ms. Gloff and inquired if state approval was required for ingress and egress. Mr. Burke advised that state approval was not required as the existing curb cuts were being used.

Ms. Gloff asked if there had been no discussion about having an entrance and exit on Wellesley Road as opposed to Route 9. Mr. Burke noted there would be no ingress or egress on Wellesley Road.

In response to Ms. Gloff’s query as to when this would go before the Planning Board, Mr. Burke said he hoped to file within the next week, but he didn’t have the schedule. He thought the Planning Board was meeting the first week of September, but didn’t know if this could get on.

Mr. Ciccariello reminded everyone that the issue at hand was whether the Board of Selectmen wished to waive the notice. Members of the Board had an opportunity to go to the Planning Board hearing as well as the public if they

want to express any comments or issues concerning the site plan design. He didn’t want to confuse the Planning Board review with whether to accept a waiver of notice.

Ms. Gloff stated that her major concern was the intersection at Oak/9. She didn’t want the Town’s options ending up being so constricted that the intersection would not be fixed. Did the Planning Board have the authority to say additional land may be needed?

Mr. Ciccariello’s response was, “no”. Neither the ZBA nor the Planning Board had the right to take property. They can advise the applicant that in the future there may be changes and the Commonwealth could try to take it by eminent domain or purchase it and that may violate those conditions.

Mr. Burke noted that approval of the ZBA was subject to approval by the Planning Board. The circumstances of the site plan hasn’t come before the Town. If an additional right-of-way was needed, Ms. White didn’t think the site plan issue could get it but the variance would have. Mr. Burke disagreed. Ms. White reiterated that a variance could have been given with the condition of an easement, but Mr. Burke said it was illegal to grant a variance on the condition of someone giving up land.

Mr. Connolly asked if any of the neighbors had issues with the proposed development. Mr. Burke’s reply was, “no”. Mr. Connolly then asked if they all had an opportunity to be heard and Mr. Burke’s response was, “yes”.

Mr. Ostroff didn’t think any of the Board members were concerned about the proposed development, but moved to table to August 25. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.

Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer informed the Board that bids had been taken on August 7, 2008 for $6,774,000 in general obligation bonds to replace the State House notes awarded in mid June. The $6,774,000 includes the following projects:

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the $250,000 approved by Town Meeting for the School building capital improvements was included in this note. Mr. Palmer advised that it was not. The $250,000 for schools would not be a permanent borrowing. That would go out on a temporary note.

Mr. Ciccariello reported that meetings were being held this Wednesday and next Wednesday to interview project managers (for the new high school) and he wanted to make sure this wouldn’t slow down or impact that process. Mr. Palmer responded that the $250,000 couldn’t be borrowed until after the votes were ratified.

Mr. Ciccariello was of the understanding that none of these bonds were impacted by the recent discovery that the Town Meeting votes had to be ratified. Mr. Palmer confirmed that none of these were but the whole issue was impacted because he had to withdraw the ’08 items.

A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff that the sale of the $6,774,000 General Obligation Municipal Purpose Loan of 2008 Bonds of the Town dated August 15, 2008 (the “Bonds”) to First Southwest Company at the price of $6,980,077.51 and accrued interest is hereby approved and confirmed. The Boards shall be

That in connection with the marketing and sale of the Bonds, the preparation and distribution of a Notice of Sale and Preliminary Official Statement dated July 24, 2008 and a Final Official Stated dated August 7, 2008 each in such form as may be approved by the Town Treasurer, be and hereby are ratified, confirmed, approved and adopted

That the Town Treasurer and the Board of Selectmen be, and hereby are, authorized to execute and deliver a continuing disclosure undertaking in compliance with SEC Rule 15c2-12 in such form as may be approved by bond counsel to the Town, which undertaking shall be incorporated by reference in the Bonds for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds from time to time.

That each member of the Board of Selectmen, the Town Clerk and the Town Treasurer be and hereby are, authorized to take any and all such actions, and execute and deliver such certificates, receipts or other documents as may be determined by them, or any of them, to be necessary or convenient to carry into effect the provisions of the foregoing votes.

Mr. Palmer noted that Section 44 Section 7(9) allows the Board of Selectmen to establish a useful life on pieces of equipment greater than five years but less than 15. He recommended the useful life for the fire engine/pumper be established at 10 years; the DPW trash packer at 7 years; and the DPW sidewalk tractor at 10 years. Those recommendations were consistent with what was presented to the Finance Committee and Town Meeting. These items were authorized at the April Town Meeting and cannot be borrowed until after the votes were ratified.

A motion was made by Ms. Gloff that the maximum useful life of the departmental equipment listed below to be financed with the proceeds of the $705,000 borrowing authorized by the vote of the Town passed April 15, 2008 (Article 9, Motion B) are hereby determined pursuant to G.L.c.44,s.7(9) to be as follows:

Prior to the vote Mr. Connolly questioned if the Board should wait for Town Meeting to ratify the votes before allowing bonding to occur. Mr. Palmer explained that this wasn’t bonding. It was accepting the useful life. The last trash packer was 7 years so there was some consistency in doing this.

Ms. Gloff clarified that it didn’t mean the Town would get rid of a piece of equipment at that time. This was just saying how long it would be borrowed for. Mr. Palmer concurred.

Mr. Palmer noted the Town was required to go through a process of collecting unpaid taxes that go into tax title and to do that counsel was needed to represent the Town in Land Court. When he (Mr. Palmer) started the Town was delinquent in doing advertising. That process has been started, but he wasn’t pleased with the work going through Land Court. It was not happening as rapidly as he would like and he would like to change counsel and get that process started. The total amount of delinquent taxes was $450,000-500,000 and when interest and charges were added it was close to $1 million. Some of that amount would never be collected but he was looking to at least get them back and auction them off.

Ms. White told the Board that she had been in discussions with Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane about this work because it was an area in which they have had a growing specialization, specifically with Attorney David DeLuca. MHTL has submitted a proposal and Mr. Palmer’s office did a survey of communities and the fee range varied significantly. Very rarely was tax title as part of Town Counsel services. MHTL’s proposal was for $175.00 per hour for the attorney and $85.00 for the paralegal. Much of the work would be done by the paralegal.

Ms. White continued that per Article 2, Section 8 of the By-Laws it was the Board of Selectmen that would appoint special counsel. There was a state law that implied the Treasurer had the authority to hire special counsel, but the thought was it was gray enough to have the Board make the appointment. Mr. Palmer and she have met with Mr. DeLuca and mapped out a plan for him to hit the ground running and clear this backlog.

Attorney David DeLuca of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane told the Board that over the past 10 years he had developed a sub-specialty with tax title work. Tax title was generally not considered within the scope of Town Counsel services. It was considered specialty work. In most of the Towns the Collectors act autonomously with respect to collections, but Natick’s by-laws were ambiguous. His experience has been with half a dozen towns including Norwood and Mendon. It (tax title) was necessary work and he did expect to see some results quickly especially for matters pending before the Court.

With respect to the billing, Mr. De Luca believed it was a matter of control that remained with the client. The workload was defined so the paralegal was able to accomplish 85% of the work, but any appearance would be within his control. He felt what was proposed was a pretty economical fee structure for this work.

Based on what he knew of the backlog, Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what Mr. DeLuca thought was an appropriate time to check in. Mr. DeLuca responded that the practice was to sit with each client quarterly. He expected to see progress within three months and within a year substantial progress.

Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the number of properties and was told by Mr. DeLuca there were 200-250. In terms of substantial properties there were a couple of handfuls. The bulk was slices of land. For FY08 taxes, 450-500 delinquency notices were sent, but Natick still had a good collection rate.

When asked for a sense of the magnitude of fees, Mr. DeLuca said it would depend on the amount of work. Every community was different. He represented Lincoln and their activity was low. For other communities similar to Natick the fees on a quarterly basis were under $5,000, but it varied to a great degree. If he were as busy as he expected to be and making a return on that investment, the Town would always be ahead of the attorney’s fees.

Ms. White pointed out that the legal fees were recoverable through either settlement or judgment. Mr. DeLuca advised that was correct, but in some cases where possession of the land was the only remedy the costs may not be easily recovered.

doing this, but he guessed it had been since 2002. Mr. Connolly asked about Rosen & McCarthy’s fee schedule and Mr. Palmer noted that they charged a specific amount for a title search and a particular amount for a filing.

Mr. Connolly inquired if an RFP had been issued, but Ms. White explained that legal services were not subject to the procurement law. Mr. Connolly countered that an RFP could have been put out. Ms. White acknowledged it could have been, but it wasn’t required.

To Mr. Connolly’s comment that there was no one else to compare except Rosen & McCarthy, Ms. White noted that was why a survey was done to see what communities were paying and to see if this (MHTL’s) proposal was out of line. The Town was familiar with this firm and Mr. DeLuca in particular having worked with him a lot as second to lead counsel John Flynn. The staff was recommending the appointment of Mr. DeLuca as special counsel and believed MHTL presented a good value to the Town and was well equipped to provide a quick turnaround on these. A lot of the fees were recoverable.

Referring to the survey, Mr. Ciccariello noted that one thing was that it appeared that normally the firms that do this work did not act as Town Counsel. It appeared one firm did a substantial amount of this work for other communities. He questioned if it was the trend not to use Town Counsel for this work.

Ms. White responded that the question that was asked was if it was under the community’s Town Counsel contract, not are you using the same firm. Mr. Palmer concurred.

Ms. Gloff asked if it was known definitely that the tax title work was not being done by Town Counsel. Mr. Palmer explained that the question was not posed that way. The firm that did tax title work may not offer Town Counsel services.

From his own experience, Mr. DeLuca noted that MHTL was Town Counsel in Danvers, Bedford, Norwood and in addition he did tax title work for those towns which was considered outside the scope of services. He also did tax title work in Lincoln and MHTL was not Town Counsel there. Here (Natick) they had the familiarity and he felt comfortable that he would be able to provide very responsive service in this area that was considered a sub-specialty of Town Counsel service.

When asked if delaying a couple of weeks would have any impact, Ms. White responded that the Town had a tax title attorney in place and she assumed the Town would just continue to retain them, but they have not successfully moved

Mr. Ciccariello noted that this (tax title) was all a couple of firms on the list did and he would like to get some clarification. Ms. Gloff wasn’t convinced that was all the firms did and Mr. Ciccariello stated that neither was he. His preference would be to see if those firms specialize in this or if they represent towns as Town Counsel and their rates for an attorney vs paralegal.

In response to a question from Mr. Ostroff, Mr. DeLuca responded that he would expect to get preference at the level the Board expected and if not, he would be subject to review. He, however, was confident the Board could see some positive results pretty quickly.

While he appreciated that Mr. Ciccariello wanted to investigate other firms, to Mr. Ostroff leaving $100,000 uncollected was urgent. The Board could get some feedback in a couple of months and if the Town was not getting the results it wished, action could be taken. He would rather get going and he wasn’t sure what further investigation would get. Other firms may charge less per hour, but their performance wouldn’t be known unless they were hired.

Ms. Gloff agreed with Mr. Ostroff. MHTL had a track record with the Town and she moved to appoint MHTL as special counsel for tax title services. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. 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.

Speaking to the motion, Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that even if there was better data per the hourly rate, the Board did not have a comparable figure on productivity. With Mr. DeLuca there was experience with hourly rates and associated productivity.

Mr. Connolly felt the Town paid an extraordinary amount in attorney’s fees and quite a bit was lost. He reiterated that the perception of hand picked didn’t feel right.

In a memo to the Board, Mr. Palmer requested the Board’s consideration of a no cost PAYT bag program for qualified elderly taxpayers/ratepayers. The program would provide a no-cost roll of small PAYT bags to each elderly household qualifying for the Water-Sewer discount program. The qualifications were currently administered by the Assessor’s and Collector’s offices. A redeemable coupon would be mailed to each qualified household either with their water bill or at the same time the quarterly water bill was issued. The coupon would be redeemed for PAYT bags at Town Hall.

Mr. Palmer told the Board that he was trying to take advantage of something that was already in place. People eligible for the water-sewer discount program would be eligible to receive a roll of PAYT bags on a quarterly basis. The people were already being pre-qualified and they would be notified by either including a coupon with the water & sewer bill or sending them a coupon.

Ms. White thanked Mr. Palmer for coming up with the idea. The Town heard a lot from folks who were struggling with the economy and she thought it was very creative to come up with the idea and the willingness to administer it in his office.

Ms. Gloff asked if this would be a coupon and they would need to bring it to Town Hall, not Stop & Shop. Mr. Palmer indicated that was correct. The coupon would have the person’s name on it and would be sent with the water & sewer bill. It (coupon) would be for them specifically and the office would track to see who had and who had not taken advantage of it.

Mr. Palmer pointed out that people had to be qualified. He agreed there were a lot of people who were not 65 who could use the help. He didn’t have a solution at this time, but maybe in dealing with affordable housing, maybe it could dovetail. Ms. White raised the possibility of families whose children qualify for free and reduced price lunches. Mr. Ciccariello thought there were some veterans programs that should be considered as part of this as well.

Mr. Ostroff inquired as to how this information would be communicated. Ms. White noted that the program would go through Mr. Palmer’s office. As quarterly bills were sent to the eligible participants, a coupon would be enclosed. Mr. Palmer added that that was the plan to notify them individually.

As Chair of the Revenue Enhancement Task Force, Mr. Ostroff did a power point presentation. Two task forces were created in February 2008 – Revenue and Expense. Task force members were appointed in March and began work in April 2008. The minutes, information and work product were posted at www.NatickMA.gov.

The Revenue Enhancement Task Force membership consisted of at large members: Todd Fleisher, Michael Foilb, Scott Laughlin, Paul Joseph, Gary Shilman plus Board representatives – Steve Meyler of the School Committee, Anne Blanchard an alternative rep of the School Committee, Richard Sidney of the Finance Committee, and Josh Ostroff of the Board of Selectmen.

The presentation continued with the Task Force approach: Solicit citizen and Town Meeting member input; Segment into opportunity areas; brainstorm ideas by category; get feedback and refinement; provide preliminary recommendations to Selectmen; School Committee, FinCom; develop priority areas; work with Town Departments.

The criteria for opportunities was defined as: Legality; potential net revenue; staffing and logistics; time to implement; impact on town services; public acceptance; approval by appropriate authority.

Mr. Ostroff continued that priority revenue opportunities were in sponsorship, marketing and advertising with the following possibilities: affinity credit card, naming rights for town property and roads, advertising on town fleet and other visible assets such as fields, licensing official gear/apparel.

Other priority areas were economic development and fees. Under economic development the recommendation was to explore a Sister City program, formalize economic development, and leverage Town assets with things such as tourism, retail, arts and culture, history, sports, Natick Center. In regard to fees the Task Force would be looking to review the pending fee study to ensure fairness and cost recovery.

Continuing, the presentation defined examples of secondary recommendations: Identify town services that can be profitably expanded to new customers; advocate for local option taxes; formalize grant cross-department training; review split/single tax rate data; maintain building rental policies that serve the community; design buildings to maximize future revenue; review current fines.

The next steps were: acceptance of preliminary report, approval of priority opportunities; task force will work with administration and Schools to refine recommendations; Town Administrator will forward suggestions to appropriate managers; Task force will incorporate pending Fee Study findings into next report.

Mr. Ostroff noted that in February there was some concern expressed that the Task Force would be micro managing and he wanted to give assurance that was not the case and the Task Force was looking for the Selectmen’s approval before moving forward.

He recognized members of the Task Force – Michael Foilb and Paul Joseph – who were in the audience and announced the next meeting of the Task Force was the first week in September. He thanked the people who submitted ideas and noted he would like to get feedback from the Board.

When the Task Force discussed economic development and any other ideas, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if those ideas would be a hand off to the Town Administrator and the Town. Has the Task Force talked about any implementation?

Mr. Ostroff responded that the Task Force had talked about it in general terms, but they hadn’t gotten to a point of how to best proceed. They wanted the Board of Selectmen’s nod that this was the way to proceed.

Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that she wasn’t looking for specifics, but if the Task Force came up with an idea was it the Task Force’s understanding they would assume the role of pushing it forward or did it get handed off. Mr. Ostroff responded that he would say it would get handed off. There was expertise on the Task Force for advertising/sponsorhip and that may be something they would like to pursue.

If by the end of the next meeting the Task Force could get a green light on the things the Board wanted to go forward, they (task force) could then come back in a few months.

Mr. Ciccariello thanked Mr. Ostroff and the task force for all the work done. There were some interesting ideas and thoughts and hopefully in the end some can be addressed and some revenue generated. He asked the members to get back to Mr. Ostroff by the next meeting.

As the newly appointed Chief of The Natick Fire Department it is my vision and my goal to provide our citizens, the business community, and the visitors to our community with the highest attainable level of public safety and emergency response. This can only be done through continuous training, adequate staffing, quality equipment purchasing and the deployment of the appropriate apparatus to serve this community.

The Natick Fire Department has always prided itself in striving to be on the forefront of all aspects of Fire Department responsibilities to include; Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Response Hazardous Materials Response, Ice and Water Rescue & Recovery, Technical Rescue, Emergency Management and Public Education.

Over the last several years, in an effort to control costs and balance municipal budgets, the Natick Fire Department has been forced to remain relatively stagnant. During this time period Natick has been experiencing what I would define as a rather sudden growth spurt. This growth spurt has unfortunately occurred at a point in our Nations history when greater demands have been placed on our Fire Departments in the areas of Homeland Security,

The daily call volume of the Natick Fire Department is on the rise. The Department no longer has the resources necessary to adequately meet the demands of our growing community. Frequently, we are stripping our neighboring communities of their ambulance coverage and our Citizens are experiencing a delayed response to their medical emergencies.

The recent additions of New England’s largest shopping mall, several high rise residential occupancies, numerous above and below ground parking decks and the anticipation of additional nursing homes and potentially thousands of new living units are all individually cause for great concern. These factors combined, without a plan to address the increased need for services, are inevitably setting the stage for a catastrophic event to occur, a call will go unanswered or Firefighters will over extend themselves and sustain serious injuries; or worse, while responding to a call for help.

As Fire Chief it is my duty and responsibility to make the community aware of the deficiencies and unsafe conditions that exist. Today we no longer have the resources necessary to adequately protect the Town of Natick or to provide a reasonably safe response capability for its Firefighters.

The following is an outline of initiatives which includes Training, Equipment Purchases, Apparatus Deployment, Manpower & Staffing, Facilities, and other Miscellaneous Items that should be undertaken to ensure a safe, efficient and effective Fire Department Response.

The men and women of the NFD must be provided with the training and equipment necessary to ensure a safe and efficient response to all hazards, current and anticipated. Training must be ongoing and continuous. The Skills Firefighters acquire through the Massachusetts Fire Academy or any other agencies are perishable and will be lost if not continually practiced and reviewed.

The following is an estimate of the time and expense associated with the professional instruction that should occur so that the Natick Fire Department is prepared for the construction and existence of the Natick Mall expansion, as well as other future developments.

The following list consists of routine trainings that participants must be compensated for on an overtime budget. These programs are under funded and cut short each year.

specific revolving account or line item for Fire Department Training and then initially deposit $177,200.00 of Mitigation Moneys. This account could then be continuously supplemented by depositing a certain percentage of Ambulance Billing Revenue.

It would cost approximately $30,700.00 dollars to recertify every member of the NFD as an EMT, EMT-1 or EMT-P every other year of $15,350.00 annually. I believe we could and should fund this through a revolving Fire Department Training Account.

6.The backup/alternate digitizer in the dispatch center is out of service and the 2 primary digitizers are old and obsolete and should be replaced. I would classify this situation as an emergency and one that needs to be addressed immediately. We are at risk of losing our communications capabilities. The cost of replacing these 3 digitizers would be Approx. $35,000.00

7.The newest piece of fire apparatus, new Engine 4 came completely unequipped and should be stocked with new equipment, to fully stock this apparatus would cost approximately $35,000.00

Due to the construction of several high rise residential structures and numerous parking decks, The Natick Fire Department should seek to deploy two aerial ladder trucks. These trucks should be platform type trucks with full Quint capabilities. These trucks would be used to replace our current Ladder 1 at Station 1 and one of our Engine companies in an outstation. This type of apparatus is very versatile and could be used in a variety of firefighting applications such as, a rescue platform, an elevated master firefighting stream,, a portable standpipe, a portable decontamination shower, a tool or personnel hoist and of course a fire pump.

The Natick Fire Department should seek to acquire a third ambulance. Having a third ambulance would mean that when one ambulance is in for service there would still be a minimum of two.

3.I would also like to see our Training/Safety Officer provided with a van type vehicle this van with the appropriate lighting and radios would cost approximately $35,000.00

The NFD should increase shift staffing levels from a 17 man minimum to a 20 man minimum. This would adequately staff our two ambulances and provide a much needed third person on our Ladder Truck.

The NFD should add at least one additional person to our administrative staff. This position should be of the rank of Assistant Chief. This position was recommended by the MMA study. An assistant Chief could assume the roll of chief in my absence, write and administer grants, help develop preplans and policies, oversee daily activities, work on special projects and assist a very over taxed fire prevention division.

a.Using the figure of $70,000.00 per position the cost of increasing the NFD by 3 persons per shift or a total of 12 persons would be approximately $840,000.00 annually. My suggested revenue sources for this increase would be a combination of Federal Grants, increased Ambulance Revenues and Tax Levy.

Natick should consider hiring an outside vendor to preplan our critical facilities such as the Natick Mall, just as we did our schools. This would cost approximately $60,000.00

In conclusion, an increase in staffing from a 17 man minimum to 209 man minimum is a very costly proposal, but a very necessary one. One staffed ambulance is not adequate for a community of over 30,000 people with a Mall that anticipates over 17 million visitors annually. In the future this deficiency will not just affect Natick, we will be subjecting the residents in our surrounding communities to unreasonable risk as they continue to supplement our needs with mutual aid.

Chief Sheridan went on to address the frequency of the Fire Department’s responses at the Mall. Since the new Mall opened the Fire Department has responded 306 times. During the same time period before the new Mall the responses were 189. The Mall wasn’t fully developed as of yet and the responses will rise. He read excerpts from the studies done and pointed out that all of the studies pointed to one thing – the need to increase resources. The Ambulance Study Committee concluded it was in the best interest to implement and operate a second ambulance and it was a unanimous recommendation that it was in the best interest of the residents to update to I-paramedic level. The manpower required could be fulfilled through reorganization of the existing staff.

Chief Sheridan continued that the MMA Study done in 2005 recommended the development of a 5-7 year plan to have 35-40 paramedics with ultimately 2 on the ambulance and one on each fire company.

Based on an analysis of the population, it was anticipated that calls would increase by 10%. That was from the Mall Impact Study. The study also predicted that the occupants of the condos at the Mall would be older which would result in mall calls.

The June 2005 study of fire resources and deployment talked of the Fire Department organization. The Mall expansion inspection process will require 205 additional hours, but there wasn’t the personnel to do that.

Having just received the Chief’s vision statement on Friday, Mr. Ciccariello said he would open the floor to some questions but his preference would be for each member, if he/she wished, to talk to the Chief. Ms. White could provide the Board with an update. A lot of things in the Chief’s statement suggested the use of Mall mitigation money, but a lot of the mitigation money was set aside for specific use as agreed to by the developer and the Planning Board and the expenditure of those monies had to be released by Town Meeting. If there was a reallocation there would have to be discussion with the Mall and the Planning Board and any use of those funds would have to be authorized by Town Meeting.

Mr. Ciccariello noted there were some issues relative to the Chief’s statement that would have to be resolved. There was some suggestion of other funds such as ambulance billing. Those funds were used for the operation and anything taken out of that would be a reduction for the entire Town.

Mr. Connolly found Chief Sheridan’s vision statement to be pretty intense and thanked the Chief for providing the information. He recognized that the Chief’s first months had been tough and he (Mr. Connolly) was proud of the Chief and his department.

Mr. Connolly inquired if it was possible to reallocate mitigation money and the amount of money in mitigation funds. Ms. White responded that it depends on the extent of the reallocation. There was a proposal for additional equipment for a new Engine 4 and there was a line item for an aerial ladder truck. It would require a review by the Planning Board or at least a heads up and it was specifically authorized by Town Meeting for an aerial so it

Mr. Connolly inquired if there was more than one mitigation account and Ms. White replied that there was more than one line item. Under public safety there were 8 different purposes identified. Mr. Connolly thought he had heard there was $13 million in mitigation, but Ms. White pointed out that such assertions included FAR payments that were specifically dedicated for open space and under the control of the Conservation Commission in accordance with the Zoning By-Law. That was not mitigation money and that category of money could not be reallocated. She had spent a fair amount of time with

Referring to page 3 of Chief Sheridan’s vision statement, Ms. Gloff seemed to remember there was some overtime allocated to cover some of these overtime expenditures. Ms. White noted there were four different lines in the budget for training:

Mr. Connolly noted the Chief’s recommendation for the purchase of a third ambulance and Chief Sheridan explained that in the infrequent occurrence where one of the Town’s ambulances had to go in for service, there would still be two ambulances to cover. Mr. Connolly found the prospect of being down to one ambulance cause for alarm and asked what should be done. Chief Sheridan responded that money should be allocated to purchase the third ambulance.

Asked by Mr. Connolly if that appropriation should be made tonight, Chief Sheridan responded that if the ambulance was on a call a mutual community would be called. It was a delayed response and not the best. He added that the Fire District had an ambulance they could loan out if the ambulance was going to be a number of days.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the ambulance presently out of service was the new one. Chief Sheridan advised that it was. Asked if it was covered under warranty, Chief Sheridan responded that it would depend on the problem. Mr. Connolly thought the dealer should have given the Town a replacement, but Chief Sheridan noted that it wasn’t in the contract.

In response to the suggestion that the ambulance goes down and people were at risk, Mr. Ciccariello stressed that in any community with ambulance service when it went down it could be supplemented by another community or a private ambulance service. He agreed something may come up but there were other options available to get another ambulance.

Mr. Ciccariello emphasized that he didn’t want residents to think their lives were at risk or they were living in an unsafe community. He (Mr. Ciccariello) didn’t think that was a fact. The Fire Department no matter what the situation has always been able to respond accordingly. Mr. Ciccariello repeated that he didn’t want the community to think all of a sudden everyone was at risk.

Chief Sheridan responded that he thought it was his responsibility to make everyone aware that it was not as safe as it could be. The Selectmen were the policy setting board for the Town but if there was a deficiency in his department in public safety it was his responsibility to bring it forth.

Ms. Van Amsterdam suggested that in addition the Chief comes back to discuss all of this publicly with questions her fellow Board members may come up with. She would like it to be a full blown discussion. She believed it was around this time last year Chief Sabourin went through many of the recommendations contained in the 2005 study which was the most comprehensive study this Town has paid to have conducted. The other studies did not look at the department in the same level of detail. At a minimum as part of Chief Sheridan’s vision statement and collective action plan she would like an updated review of the 2005 study comparable to the chart where Chief Sabourin went recommendation by recommendation on what action has been taken. That exercise would lay the groundwork for further discussion about apparatus training and manpower.

Ms. Van Amsterdam continued that Chief Sheridan had alluded to adding an assistant chief and backed it up with the MMA Study, but on page three of the study it said the assistant chief should come from a reallocation of the staff and no new personnel were required. It was an example of an opportunity to take a study and discuss the merits of the recommendation in the MMA study in conjunction with the document Chief Sheridan provided. The Fire Station Study Committee provided quite a bit of data and some of the statements made in the opening remarks were not entirely consistent.

Mr. Ciccariello thought Ms. Van Amsterdam was pointing out there was a West Natick Fire Study and there were some inconsistencies in the information provided to that committee to what Chief Sheridan was providing. She was asking to go back and see what was correct and incorrect.

Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she was pleased Chief Sheridan presented the Board with a Vision Statement and Corrective Action Plan and she thought the Board had to spend a bit more time. She too would like to see more data and a renewed look at the MMA Study and talk about those recommendations and the recommendations Chief Sheridan put before the Board. She would like to know where the ambulance billing revenue was being directed right now. Although she would be happy to meet with the Chief but would request everyone to come back together with time set aside to go through all of this. She didn’t want the public to think the stage was being set for a catastrophic event to occur and the Department would not be able to respond.

Mr. Ciccariello responded that he wasn’t suggesting it be mandatory for any of the members to meet with the Chief. He was only suggesting it as a way to look at what the Chief had done. He viewed this as the Chief’s goals and objectives as the new Chief. This was the beginning of a process and it won’t resolve itself in 1-2 meetings. The Chief may hear critical comments

but a lot of the things being said here he would hear at the Finance Committee and some of the things the Board was asking for would prepare the Chief to respond to the Finance Committee and Town Meeting. The more questions asked, the more answers, and the more information the more beneficial it would be to everyone. The Chief may not get everything he wants, but this was a good starting point and something that had not been done in years.

Mr. Ostroff thanked the Chief for coming forward. As part of the genesis of this he, as public safety liaison, talked about the long-term vision for the department. This was consistent with what he had been hearing over the years – there was a need for training and appropriate staffing and making sure the right apparatus was deployed. He thought it was the job of the Chief and the people under his command to do awareness and present concerns and he was glad to see it put on paper. Town Meeting was approaching and Mr. Ostroff wondered if the Chief intended to put anything on the warrant.

Chief Sheridan advised that he intended to submit something for the warrant and Mr. Ostroff noted that it was important to work together and identify what was going to be tackled. Some of the Chief’s recommendations would be developed in operating budgets in years to come and some would require Town Meeting appropriation and that had to be figured out. If hypothetically there was $280,000 that could reallocated, what were the Chief’s priorities. A request was made to use mitigation for overtime, but he (Mr. Ostroff) didn’t think that would fly. Mr. Ostroff offered to channel requests from the Board and work with the Chief.

said Mall mitigation but there were other mitigation coming forward. The West Natick fire station was a long-range plan and he appreciated the work that has gone into it, but he talked to the firefighters on the West Natick Fire Station Study Committee and they fully support him. He felt his people were at risk in not having received that training prior to the Mall opening. It should have been done a long time ago.

Jim Brown informed the Board that his group was going to present an article for Fall Town Meeting relative to the Natick Redmen issue. He wanted to be on the agenda to discuss the article, but articles were due August 22 and the Board’s next meeting wasn’t until August 25.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the intent was to file an article. Mr. Brown indicated that it was and Mr. Ciccariello explained that the Board got a list of articles after they were filed and would then go through them and review them and if there articles for which they wanted more information, the sponsors would be invited to come before the Board and make a presentation.

Mr. Brown asked if there was any way the Board would make a ruling on the intent of the article, but Mr. Ciccariello advised that the Board did not make any rulings on any articles.

Mr. Ostroff thought what was being talked about was a citizens petition article and asked if a citizen had access to Town Counsel in assessing the appropriateness or legality of an article. Ms. White advised that historically that did not happen. If something came in as a citizens petition a single word couldn’t be changed within it. It had to be reprinted in the warrant exactly as submitted.

Mr. Brown responded that the intent was to bring up the issue to see if the Board would act on it. If the Board didn’t act on it, there would be the warrant article to fall back on.

Mr. Ciccariello again asked if Mr. Brown wished to submit a warrant article and his answer was that he (Mr. Brown) would like to have the Board of Selectmen deal with the issue.

Mr. Ciccariello explained that the Board of Selectmen could not change the vote of the School Committee. If Mr. Brown filed an article, the Board would take up each article and the sponsors would be asking the Board to vote to support, not support, or take no action.

If there was a way the Committee could declare the use of the name Redmen outside the school system, Mr. Brown asked if that would not be appropriate. There were 6,085 voters who voted for it. Looking at the past 26 years, in any one of those years the total folks voting did not equal that number. That was why the issue was still here.

Mr. Brown proposed the possibility of it being the Home of the Redmen with nothing to do with the high school mascot. He believed the Board could proclaim something like that. At the same time his group would be going through the warrant process so they still had a safety valve of going through Town Meeting and if Town Meeting voted, the Town would have an option of a special Town election. This would be a Town issue not a School issue.

Mr. Ciccariello believed that if Mr. Brown was going to pursue this the first thing would be to file an article ad come back to the Board if there was something else he would like the Board to consider.

Jim Brown told the Board that as the result of the individuals upset with the Redmen, a lot more people would be getting involved which he thought was great for the Town. The Natick Forever PAC had been put together and he thought it was important that folks not consider this as a radical effort. The purpose was to try to make sure everybody in Natick was represented. Sometimes it appeared as though not all factions were heard. Their (Natick Forever) effort was to support candidates and ideas being presented to them. The e-mail address was Natickforever.org.

Tom Sullivan appeared before the Board regarding two elderly ladies living in a car for the last week or so. The two women, one aged 74 and her 63 year old friend, were evicted August 1. The 74 year old was his sister who had a major aneurism in her aorta. She had a problem managing her budget which he attributed to her serious medical problems. He had moved the two women to a hotel for a couple of days.

Mr. Sullivan recognized that his sister was hard to deal with and he realized that it was the Housing Authority who handled these things, but he had dealt with Housing Boards in the past and never knew of one that wouldn’t take in two people. They went to the Housing Authority on July 29 and were told to write a letter on why they wanted to get in. On Thursday the two had an appointment with the Director and he said the letters were missing and they would have to make another application. It was said that their landlord had given them a bad report, but he (Mr. Sullivan) went back to the landlord and the landlord said he hadn’t given them a bad report.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if the women were in the street and Mr. Sullivan advised that they were. He told them to go to St. Patrick’s. Mr. Sullivan noted that he only got involved five days ago and was really disgusted with how this could happen.

Mr. Connolly asked if there was anything the Board could do to help and Mr. Sullivan responded that he would have to go back to the Housing Administration in Boston. If the Selectmen couldn’t do anything with the Housing Authority, there was nothing it could do for him.

Deputy Town Administrator Michael Young reminded the Board that two weeks ago the decision was made to hold the issuance of an RFP off for two weeks for additional comments. The RFP had gone through Town Counsel and the Procurement Officer.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that he had discussed with the Town Administrator doing some research on this and she found out that if the cost of these services was going to be less than $25,000 under state statutes and the Town Bylaws, the Town could look to the original individuals that submitted responses and ask those firms with experience in parking garages to submit a proposal to the RFP. That way it wouldn’t have to go through a 3,4,5 week process.

Ms. White added that the Town Bylaw mirrored the state statute and she expected this to be well under that amount. Three proposals would have to be solicited and the administration had discussed three firms they knew would be well qualified and would expect would be interested. That way you would know you were only going to get proposals from firms you would want.

A motion was then made by Mr. Ostroff to authorize the Town Administrator to solicit three proposals based on the RFP. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.

Ms. White noted this was an RFP that had been on the agenda before. An update has not been given since the last time because there were no changes made in this interim period. It was her understanding that information was distributed by the current tenant that might indicate an intent towards vacating the property and it has been suggested that the Town may want to ascertain their plans before going down this path.

Ms. Van Amsterdam thought there appeared to be time for the Board to gather as much information as possible and look at the short-term lease in a different light. The Town Administrator was trying to get in touch with the Attorney General to see if there could be discussion between the Town and the Eliot Church because of the meeting house to find out what the Town could do for future RFPs for lease or sale. She had received information from citizens that the land across from the School had been cleared and she had also received information that the Montessori Board was voting on this. She requested a delay of the RFP.

Mr. Ciccariello said he heard the School was sending something out to the neighbors. Ms. Van Amsterdam advised a meeting was being held August 21 and she wondered if it would be possible for someone from the Town to attend. Mr. Ciccariello requested Ms. White to find out the particulars and try to get someone to attend.

A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to approve The Center for Arts request for four (4) one day beer & wine licenses for premises at 14 Summer Street on August 16, September 5, September 12, and September 13.

Ms. White referred to an article for the relocation of a water easement for MathWorks. She explained there was a Town easement for a water main and some of the proposed construction would be on top of the water main. This was identified by the Town Engineer early in the project review. The MathWorks project has been approved and she had agreed to sponsor the article to accomplish the relocation of the easement because of the project. There were representatives of MathWorks here tonight and if the Board was in favor she would ask the Board to vote support tonight so they wouldn’t have to come back.

Project Engineer, David Albrecht, with Rizzo Associates showed a diagram of the site and the existing easement. It allowed for a 12” water main to connect from Bacon to Route 9. The new building was being constructed adjacent to the loading dock area and the easement was under the loading dock which meant it would be even less accessible. He worked with Town Engineer Mark Coviello and the new easement would all be within either the landscape area or the open area. It will be much more accessible. It was also a little longer than now.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who would pay to relocate the water line, and was told by Ms. White that it was part of the MathWorks project with no cost to the Town. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that if the water line failed the Town was responsible for digging up the easement and putting in a piece of pipe. In this scenario it was almost easily double the amount of piping being installed and if the pipe failed the Town might have to replace twice as much piping. Was any consideration given to someone else picking up part of the tab?

Ms. White advised that no consideration had been given in that regard (someone else picking up some of the tab should the water line fail), but typically nothing would happen for a long time.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that instead of 1,000 feet the Town would have to take care of over 2,000 feet to which Ms. White responded that it had to be relocated to accommodate the project that had been approved and this was the recommendation of the Town Engineer. Mr. Ciccariello emphasized that it was

being relocated because of MathWorks not the Town of Natick. He questioned if anybody had thought of the potential effect of the Town of Natick having to maintain it and replace it. Had any mitigation money been put aside by the Planning Board or any thought given to the issue?

In response to several questions from Mr. Ostroff, Mr. Albrecht advised that the developer was paying for the water line. He (Mr. Albrecht) didn’t know how old the existing line was, but thought it was safe to assume it was done around the same as the construction. He also noted that the new line would be considerably more accessible and easier to maintain.

Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was not willing to buy into doubling the size of an easement when the Town had to accept full responsibility. In his opinion it was not good practice.

Ms. White suggested having the Town Engineer come in and see how he responds to the concerns. It was her intent to include the warrant article and she would be the sponsor. Mr. Ciccariello agreed and requested that when Mr. Coviello (Town Engineer) came in that he identify how many bends and elbows, linear feet, etc.

Ms. White reviewed the list of other articles being contemplated for inclusion by the Town Administrator. One was to amend the Zoning By-Law so that the Assessors would be required to sign off on a certificate of occupancy to insure there was no delay in the Assessors being notified an occupancy permit had been issued.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Assessors could begin taxing upon the issuance of a temporary C.O. Ms. White didn’t think that was allowed, but she would look into it.

The third was to accept provisions of MGL Chapter 40 section 22F to allow departments to establish reasonable fees for services. Ms. White explained this was a preamble to the fee analysis. She believed the Town’s fees were low in comparison to other towns.

The fourth was to designate the Board of Selectmen as the entity that will designate a Trench Safety Officer. Ms. White noted this was an unfunded State mandate that requires the Town to monitor the safety of trenches on both private and public property. Town Meeting could take two avenues: 1)

Town Meeting could designate the Trench Safety Officer or 2) could authorize the Board of Selectmen to designate. That way (if the Board of Selectmen made the appointment) it could be changed more easily. She would likely recommend the designation of two individuals – the Town Engineer on public property and the Building Commissioner on private property. The designation had to be made by January. She commented that this (the mandate for trench officers) was an outrage and a real burden.

Fifth on the list was a report on the progress of Natick 360. Ms. White noted the concept was for this to be an annual article. While there may not be much progress this time, she would notify all the sponsoring boards of the opportunity to present any updates.

Sixth was an article to consider a higher reimbursement rate for retirees’ health care and/or Medicare Part B. Ms. White reminded the Board that when the requirement for retirees to go into the Medicare system was adopted there were three articles, but no action was taken on the third. The Town pays 50% and it would take a Town Meeting vote to pay anything different. When the provision was adopted it appeared the vast majority of retirees wouldn’t be impacted, but now that they were moving into Medicare and Part B that may be proving not to be the case. It was never the intent to burden the retirees with the adoption of Section 18.

Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if there could be one rate for Medicare and a separate contribution percentage for the supplement. Ms. White advised there could be and noted this covered either the Medicare B, the supplement one or both. Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that retirees were not obligated to take a supplemental plan. It was magnanimous for a municipality to offer a supplement. Ms. White thought by state law the Town had to pay 50% of the supplemental plan.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was a potential the Town would have to pay more than 50% it. Ms. White clarified that the Town would not have to but may want to consider. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t see why the Town would want to consider something that would cost the Town more money. Ms. White reiterated that it was never her intention to burden the retirees when Section 18 was adopted and at that time it appeared to be the case. By shifting the retirees into Section 18, the Town saved a significant amount of money - $600,000 and growing.

Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if the warrant article being talked about was for the 50% if required by state statute, but Ms. White noted the article being considered would provide an additional rate. Ms. Van Amsterdam requested some long-range data of what it would cost the Town. Ms. White advised that the data of the savings realized was almost done. The impact on the retirees projecting forward would be an estimate.

Ms. Gloff pointed out that all the article did was to make it possible for the Board to pay more than 50%, it didn’t say the Board had to. Ms. Van Amsterdam countered that she was hearing there was a leaning toward. In her (Ms. Van Amsterdam) opinion this was a very slippery slope and the Town shouldn’t be obligated to take those savings and pay more than required. She was concerned with starting to pay whatever savings were received to make certain no harm was done to anyone given the fiscal reality people were facing, not just the retirees.

Given that the DPW wasn’t using the funds, Mr. Ciccariello questioned who was doing the bulky waste. Ms. White responded that the DPW had used some, but they were no longer incurring overtime.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that one thing that showed up in going through the budgets and reports was that it looked like only about $300,000-400,000 was being collected in rent and all that money was being used for maintenance. Ms. White indicated that was because the Town paid for the utilities. The expenses were about equal to the rent but with the rising fuel costs the costs exceed the rent received. This was changing the money so it was more consistent with proper accounting procedures. It was brought to the administration’s attention by Town Meeting.

Ms. Gloff inquired if some of this money should go into the energy budget, but Ms. White noted there was an obligation to do some of the maintenance. Mr. Ciccariello clarified that it was to be done if determined necessary by the Town of Natick and he didn’t think all of the $60,000 should be spent on maintenance.

With two years left, Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned if it was possible to keep it in place. If the money was all going into building maintenance, how would the administration be able to discern the costs. Ms. White responded that the account as it presently exists shouldn’t be maintenance.

Mr. Ostroff believed the Planning Board would be doing a couple of things – an article for assisted living, and consideration of a Zoning Bylaw change that would affect Natick Center and the parking garage.

Having gone out to bid three times for the Cochituate Rail Trail appraisal, Ms. White informed the Board that the third time was the charm. The first time the bids were considerably over budget and the second time there were no

On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to award the contract for the appraisal of the Cochituate Rail Trail to the low bidder, Petersen/LaChance Realty Advisors in the amount of $10,450.00.

Mr. Ciccariello announced that a member of the School Committee, Rick Wynn, had submitted his resignation. As this was an elected position, the vacancy would be filled jointly by the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee. The proposal was to conduct joint interviews at the meeting of September 22 with letters of interest due by September 18.

Mr. Ciccariello continued that there was an article in the newspaper that was somewhat incorrect. Anybody interested in filling the vacancy must submit a letter of interest to the Board of Selectmen with a copy to the Chair of the School Committee. The two boards will only interview individuals who have submitted letters of interest.

Ms. Gloff noted that for her preference the letters of interest should include information about the individual’s background, why they were interested, and their qualification.

Ms. White noted this was a housekeeping item. While Attorney Peter Epstein had been serving as special counsel for a number of years he was never appointed to do so. He has served the Cable Advisory Committee very well as they formulate their recommendations to the Board of Selectmen.

On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to appoint Attorney Peter Epstein of Eptstein & August as special counsel for cable related matters.

Ms. White noted that the existing banner policy was outdated and not really reflective of the procedure used by the Board. The proposed policy had been reviewed by herself, Ms. Challis, and Gordon Van Tassel of the Fire Department who did the actually hanging of the banners and it appeared to be responsive to today’s practice and all of the concerns.

In 2004 and 2006 the Selectmen co-sponsored a Veteran’s Day event and Mr. Ostroff asked for the Board’s support to do so again this year. The Veteran’s Council would provide funding and the Board would work with the Council, the Veterans Agent and Firefighter’s Local 1707 to host and thank recently returned Natick veterans and active duty service members and their families including Town employees.

It had been the past practice for the Selectmen, School Committee members, the Town Administrator and School Superintendent to serve at this event and Mr. Ostroff hoped that could be done again this year.

Ms. Gloff moved approval of the minutes of the February 25, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Van Amsterdam abstained.

On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Natick Soccer Club’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of October 7-October 14, 2008.

The Natick Historical Society had submitted a request to hang a banner across Main Street for the four weeks prior to September 27, 2008 in advertisement of the Mass Memories Road Show. As the time period available was somewhat limited, the Natick Historical Society withdrew their request.

Ms. Gloff moved approval of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s request to hold the 2008 Cycle for Haylee through Natick on October 4, 2008. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.

Mr. Ostroff moved approval of Elana Varon’s request to close Bacon Street from #280 to #289 on September 1, 2008 from 1:00-4:00 p.m. for a block party. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.

Mr. Ostroff had provided the Board with a form he developed using the Town Administrator’s goals & objectives established in March that the members could use when they met with the Town Administrator. There would probably be something similar to this when the final review was done in December. It had

Mr. Ciccariello asked if this was something the Board was going to make public, but Mr. Ostroff noted it had been the custom that individual interviews were not a public record, only the summary.

Mr. Ciccariello didn’t want to do an interim public review. He preferred to wait for the one year. Ms. Gloff agreed, adding that this would give the Board an opportunity to meet with Ms. White and go over areas where she was doing a good job and areas to improve.

Noting the inconsistent signs around the MathWorks and Sergeant Field, Mr. Ostroff said he would like to see more standardized signage and maybe some more safety signs for crossing.

Ms. Gloff advised that the Charter and By-Law Review Committee had begun its meetings. They were not looking to substantially modify the function or structure of Town government, but if people had any thoughts they should let her know.

Ms. Van Amsterdam asked about the item in correspondence for a Fire Study RFP and Ms. White explained there was an informal group of MetroWest managers that met periodically. At one time they met with each community’s Fire Chief and DPW Director and determined it would worth pursuing and looking at opportunities for collaboration. An RFP was issued on Fire.

Referring to a letter in correspondence from the Planning Board concerning a possible encroachment onto Town property by the Church parking, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how far the church parking area encroached onto Sunshine. Ms. White advised that the Town didn’t have the survey capacity inhouse, but Mr. Ciccariello believed there were some real issues regarding