Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes 8/25/08

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on August 25, 2008 in the amount of $581,223.24. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,224,407.24.

Ms. Rosen highlighted a few interesting facts about the growth of senior centers across the country since the first opened in New York 59 years ago and then announced there would be an open house at the Natick Senior Center on September 25 from 4:30-7:00 p.m. The public was invited and there would be a host of activities such as free exercise classes, a tour of the facility, a family movie, refreshments, etc.

Kelly Bishop told the Board that she was a fairly new resident to Natick although her husband’s family had been in Natick since the early 1900’s. She thought it was the responsibility of the State and local governments to participate in promoting the arts. Last year her fourth grade niece had the opportunity to attend a play in Boston because of the Arts Council and that made her interested in getting involved.

Mr. Ostroff commented on Ms. Bishop’s experience with outreach and asked if she had some thoughts on what the Cultural Council might do. Ms. Bishop responded that she was the Regional Membership Director of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts and felt that a grass roots effort and campaigning would get the community involved as much as possible. Natick Days was a good example with the Arts Council setting up a table there and encouraging questions.

Laura Duncan stated that she was a past member of the Historic District Commission and was requested by Michael Collins to come back to the Commission. She was a residential lender with Middlesex Bank and thought she could offer a unique perspective.

Mr. Ostroff wasn’t certain of the specific sets the Historic District Commission was looking to round out the composition. As Ms. Duncan was a past member, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to her role at that time. Ms. Duncan advised that when she was on the Commission there was an attorney, an architect, a landscape architect, a retired real estate broker and her function was as a lender and a resident. In her role as a lender she could offer input as to what might enhance the value of the home and what might be a good investment.

Police Chief Dennis Mannix requested the Board’s consideration to appoint two candidates to fill two of the three vacant positions. Both candidates had successfully completed the background phase of the appointment phase and he (Chief Mannix) was prepared to recommend a conditional offer of employment.

Christopher Showstead was a 2004 graduate of Medway High School and had attended classes at Mass Bay’s undergraduate program with a concentration in Criminal Justice. Currently Mr. Showstead was employed by both Gillette Stadium and the Dana Hall Campus Police in Wellesley. The Dana Hall position was a part-time armed police officer position. His supervisor at Dana Hall confirmed that the applicant, as part of his employment agreement, was appointed as a Deputy Sheriff of Norfolk Country. Interviews conducted as part of the background investigation revealed that Mr. Showstead has performed his duty tasks very well and was well respected by his peers and supervisors.

Chief Mannix continued that Mr. Showstead was honorably discharged from active duty by the United States Marine Corps. His active duty with the Marine Corps included a tour of duty in Iraq. His platoon sergeant stated that he has known Mr. Showstead for three and a half years and believed his military bearing would complement other commendable personal traits and make him a good candidate for police service.

James F. O’Shaughnessy resides in Natick with his wife and three children. He was a Newton South High School graduate class of 1996 and currently employed by Littleton Lumber Company. Mr. O’Shaughnessy’s current and past supervisors commended him for a strong work ethic and reliability.

Chief Mannix advised that Mr. O’Shaughnessy served in the United States Marine Corps from December 1999 until his honorable discharge in December 2003. Mr. O’Shaughnessy was highly thought of by his military supervisors and recommended for employment as a police officer.

A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to extend an offer of employment as a Natick Police Officer to Christopher Showstead and James F. O’Shaughnessy conditioned upon successful completion of a complete medical examination, psychological screening, physical ability test, and successful completion of the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Municipal Police Officer Training Academy. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.

In the course of the Chief making his recommendation, Mr. Ostroff noted there was a newspaper article about closing regional training facilities and he asked the Chief to talk about what that may mean to Natick. Chief Mannix responded that the academy was in float status right now but there should be one scheduled in October. There was about $600,000 cut in the appropriation of the municipal training statewide and everyone has been wrestling with how to make those cuts. Tomorrow there was an emergency meeting of the Police Chiefs for how to deal with this. The proposal was to close a couple of the training facilities with the least participation. There was also a cut back in inservice training and elimination of a number of classes the Chiefs thought were critical. Natick did its own inservice training so the Town wasn’t so dependent on it, but in the best interest of law enforcement the Chiefs will try to do something to restore the training.

Mr. Ostroff questioned if there was anything the Board should do in terms of advocating against these cuts or to restore them in the future. Chief Mannix acknowledged the cuts would have an effect on the regional academy and recruitment training and that was an issue that would be discussed tomorrow. In the past the state has made these cuts and then re-funded them, but this year it didn’t look like that would happen.

Request for signs alerting motorists of autistic children in the area of Winter Street: The committee reviewed a letter from a Winter Street resident who is concerned about the safety of several autistic children living in the Winter Street area. The resident also questioned why the area is not designated a school zone since the Brandon School is located nearby. The members explained that the Brandon School is a residential school and does not meet the state warrant requirement for “School Zone: designation. The committee also discussed the fact the Brandon school will soon be erecting another building in this area. The committee VOTED to recommend the placement of two signs warning motorists of “children” in the area. A traffic study with speed education and enforcement will also be conducted by the department.

Ms. Van Amsterdam moved approval of erecting CHILDREN signs on Winter Street in the Brandon School area with the specific location to be determined. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.

The request for designated parking spaces for the exclusive use of taxi cabs on the South side of North Avenue and signage restricting parking near the intersection of Washington Street and North Avenue. Concerns were raised as to where motorists would wait for the passengers as they arrive by train. The committee VOTED to recommend two “live parking” spaces for cars picking up and dropping off passengers as well as two spaces exclusively for the use of taxis. The committee also recommended appropriately relocating the bus stop signage and adding “no parking from here to corner,” which would restrict cars from parking on the South side of North Avenue from the last “Live Parking” spot to the Washington Street Corner. Lastly, the existing “No Parking” signs located between North Main Street and the “Bus Stop” would be relocated for better viewing by approaching motorists.

A request was made to address the fact that some neighborhoods are “landlocked” and can only be accessed via Fisher and Kansas Streets. The committee reviewed this issue which also involves Second Street, Third Street, and North Main Street. Mr. Sisitsky, the DPW Director explained that his is going to be addressed during the Rte. 27 project and will be revisited at a future meeting. The committee asked the DPW to replace the missing “Stop” sign on Second Street and Kansas Street and Mr. Reffett to have someone from the Building Department to evaluate the location and size of the private fence on the southwest corner of Fisher Street and North Main Street. Lt. Lauzon also agreed to meet with representatives of the Soldiers System command regarding the use of traffic cones during peak traffic periods on Kansas Street.

Parking issues on Lagrange Street: When cars park angular to the fence in this area, emergency responders cannot get through and the vehicles block resident’s driveway access and egress. One possible solution would be to edge-line the pavement, essentially forcing motor vehicles to pull up closer to the fence. This issue will be TABLED until the next meeting to give committee members more time to review the area. Lt. Lauzon also agreed to meet with Recreation and Parks Representatives to problem review possible solutions to this problem.

Request for stop sign at the intersection of Route 27 and Cottage Street. The committee discussed this issue and determined that this would cause a three way stop which would only cause further traffic delays. The committee VOTED to take no action on this issue.

Speen Street Safety Issue (trees): A resident brought forward a concern that two very large trees are blocking the view of cars puling out of a driveway on Speen Street as well as pulling out of Crescent Street onto Speen Street safely. After reviewing pictures of the area, the committee determined that NO ACTION needed to be taken on this issue.

Parking for Loker Park on Belvidere Street: This is not the first time the committee has visited this issue. Previously the committee considered having motor vehicles park on the left and it was the committee’s opinion that more needed to be done to provide “safe parking on Belvidere. The committee VOTED to continue discussions with Mr. Cugini, the Natick Park and Recreation Director and possibly the Walnut Hill School, to find a safe solution to this issue.

Sidewalk condition of Windsor Street to Dug Pond (across from the boat ramp): The committee reviewed a request for safer sidewalks for children walking in this area. The committee VOTED to recommend that no parking signs be posted on the southeast corner of Windsor Avenue at the DPW driveway.

Safety concerns at the intersection of Lake and Washington Avenue: A resident brought forward concerns that she has witnessed a couple of “near misses” and incidents that could have resulted in a motor vehicle accident. The committee VOTED that the “railroad” warning sign should be removed. They also agreed to recommend a “Stop” sign and stop bar on Lake Street at the intersection of Washington Avenue. The yellow median lines also need to be adjusted appropriately and repainted. DPW Director, Charles Sisitsky indicated that he would direct that this be done.

Mr. Ostroff noted there was no striped crosswalk at the intersection with North Main and he wanted to make that request. Chief Mannix believed that all of that would be addressed with the reconstruction of Route 27, but Mr. Ostroff pointed out that Route 27 could take some time this area had a lot of traffic and was heavily used. Assuming there was a curb cut, Chief Mannix thought there would be very little expense to striping a crosswalk. If there wasn’t a curb cut, it would be up to the Board. He agreed a crosswalk would be beneficial.

A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to install a STOP sign and stop bar on Lake Street at the intersection Avenue as detailed in the Safety Committee minutes. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.

Obstructed view due to overgrown bushes at the northeast corner of Pleasant Street (at Park Ave.): The committee reviewed pictures of this area and agreed that the shrubbery on the northeast corner of Pleasant Street, where it intersects with Park Avenue is obstructing motorist’s view and may be in violation of the town’s by-laws. The Building Inspector will discuss this issue with the owner of the property. NO VOTE needed to be taken on this issue.

Speed enforcement on Sylvester Road for vehicles traveling to and from Natick High School: Lt. Lauzon, the Traffic Safety Officer suggested a traffic count with speed enforcement should remedy this situation. No vote needed to be taken.

Murphy Field Parking Situation: The unimproved parking lot on the north side of the property has been underutilized, with motorists instead illegally parking along North Main Street on the sidewalk between telephones poles. A number of calls have come into Lt. Lauzon describing this unsafe situation. This area is also under the care of the Route 27 redesign efforts. Mr. Sisitsky, the DPW Director, said that asphalt pavement, parking lots lines, and appropriate signage would help to encourage motorists to utilize the lot instead of the side of North Main Street. Lt. Lauzon also agreed to meet with Mr. Cugini regarding this issue.

Mr. Ciccairello requested a cost estimate and raised the possibility of considering this in the capital improvement plan. Ms. White requested that she be given the opportunity to try to find a funding source to move it forward.

Director of Assessment Jan Dangelo told the Board that for the first time in 13 years she was requesting the use of outside counsel for the purpose of protecting the overlay account. The Town had received petitions to the Appellate Tax Board on all of the anchor stores at the Natick Mall and in a memo to the Board she had attached a spread sheet of the potential liability. With the multiple reviews the Town’s account could be severely impacted.

Ms. Dangelo introduced Attorney Kenneth Gurge who was an experienced Appellate litigator. Mr. Gurge noted that he had previously worked for Choate Hall and Stewart and had been the head of the New England office of Deloitte Touche and at one time had been the head of the Appellate Tax Board. All he did was Appellate Tax Board work.

Mr. Gurge stated that he hadn’t had a chance to do an evaluation assessment of the Mall himself but there was about $730,000 in tax revenue at stake and should the taxpayer prevail and another 8% interest. That additional $85,000 would have to be general fund money. Sometimes a specialist was called for.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the source of funds to retain counsel and Ms. Dangelo advised it was in the legal budget of the Town. Asked if there were sufficient funds, Ms. White responded that it was hard to predict in August, but this was an area where the Town had to protect itself. Quite a lot was at stake.

Mr. Ciccariello then inquired about the rates and Mr. Gurge replied that because he was a sole practioner and in his experience, his rate for a non-municipal client was $250 per hour and for municipal $200 per hour. It was difficult to guess the total fee in a litigation matter. Often these things can be negotiated in which case the fees would probably be $5,000-10,000 tops, but he would completely back off that if it became a dog eat dog. He assured the Board that he constantly looked at the cost benefit analysis.

Looking at Ms. Dangelo’s spreadsheet, Mr. Ciccariello saw that abatements for these stores had been filed in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Ms. Dangelo advised that was correct adding that it was the same attorney that filed for all these stores. When the abatements were filed the Assessors approached Attorney Selibman about coming to a negotiated amount, but he went across the state and filed on all these stores. She believed the Attorney Selibman wanted to bring it to the Appellate Court. He has been taking each city and town individually to the Appellate Court which creates a back up and he files each year. She assumed the abatements would be filed for 2009.

Referring to the column listed as ‘opinion of value’, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to whose opinion. Ms. Dangelo responded that it was hers. The estimate was a way to maintain the appropriate amount in the overlay. Attorney Selibman has given her no opinion of value. The closest to an opinion of value from Attorney Selibman was his filing on J.C. Penny in 2008.

Mr. Ciccariello interpreted this to mean that the assessment was what it was assessed at and the estimate was an estimate of what the other side’s opinions of value would be and in the case of Sears there was a potential liability of $84,000. Ms. Dangelo noted that it was her opinion but her opinion was based on the information supplied. Attorney Selibman has not stated a value but she needed to have enough in the Overlay account to cover it.

Using Sears as an example, Ms. Gloff believed that Ms. Dangelo stood by the $16.9 million assessment but was guessing that Attorney Selibman would come in with a number of $9 million and if the Town lost, the $84,000 was what the Town would owe Sears. Ms. Dangelo advised that was correct, noting that very seldom was there an opinion of value until it got to the Appellate Tax Board.

To Mr. Ostroff’s inquiry as to the earliest date she expected to have some feedback for the Board, Ms. Dangelo responded that currently these cases were scheduled for December 15, but there have been multiple postponements.

Mr. Gurge added that there was a dance that develops between both sides and until someone gets pushed to an appeal date not much happens. One of the first things was to get hold of the other side and see what they were really looking for. Sometimes it was better to shove a little than rather than taking the risk. Establishing fair market value was not an exact science.

Mr. Ostroff asked about the possibility of the other side recouping their legal fees should they prevail, but Mr. Gurge advised there was no way to recoup legal fees. More than likely Attorney Selibman had this on a contingency.

Mr. Ostroff then inquired as to the status of the Overlay account. He remembered tapping into the account to forestall an operating override a year ago. Ms. Dangelo responded that she had to estimate that things may go badly for the Town. She believed at the last report there was about $275,000 that was not spoken for.

Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if Attorney Selibman had been successful with other municipalities. Mr. Gurge answered yes and no. He (Attorney Selibman) and his father before him had been in this business for 30 years so they have won their share. He (Mr. Gurge) knew that Attorney Selibman has been focusing more on New Hampshire and hadn’t been successful in court recently, but he didn’t know about settlements. Usually attorney Selibman was pretty reasonable and you can make him go away for short money and not incur legal fees or appraisal fees.

In follow-up Mr. Van Amsterdam asked if there was an anticipation that this action would continue into the future and should the client not be successful Attorney Selibman would be moving it to the Appellate Board. Was this a normal course of business?

Ms. Dangelo believed what was being experienced now would be brought to a head. Hopefully these will be addressed and Attorney Selibman put on notice that the Town digs its heels in as well. Sometimes attorneys would file an abatement each year and sometimes did the extra expense of filing an appeal and then the Town gets them to withdraw.

Director of Council on Aging and Human Services Moira Munns advised the backpacks were for distribution to Natick residents of school age who were clients or whose families have requested assistance. The estimated value of the backpacks was approximately $2,600-$3,120.

Ms. Munns informed the Board that as a result of an application the Town of Natick had been accepted as only one of eight communities to participate in this year’s Mass Forum for Healthy Communities. The objective of Healthy Communities was to form teams to work together in their community to identify issues to make them safer and healthier for residents. In the past some of those included public health concerns such as heart disease, substance abuse, and air quality; housing and education; youth development; access to health and/or medical care; child care and elder care; recreation; a clean and healthy environment; a safe environment; arts and cultural pursuits; transportation.

Ms. Munns noted that the key was the formation of a community team and she had been working with the Town Administrator for the past year to pull together a team. Her hope was to have 14 members when the team was completely together: Sergeant Brett Conaway, Natick Police Department; Betty Dennis, Natick Personnel Director; Erica Dinerman, Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Coordinator; David Lavalley, Executive Director of The Center for Arts in Natick; a representative from the MetroWest Medical Center; Moira Munns, Director of Human Services and Council on Aging; Brian Peoples, President and CEO of Natick Federal Savings Bank; Karen Rufo, Nurse Leader, Natick Public Schools; Rev. Jon Strand, Pastor of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church; James White, Natick Health Department; Martha White or Michael Young, Town Administration; and three others from whom a firm commitment had not as yet been received.

Ms. Munns continued that the Mass Forum centered on a series of nine full-day monthly trainings designed to advance the goal of building safer and healthier communities. The training sessions were conducted by national and local experts and this year’s topics include: Overview and introduction to the Healthy Communities Approach and Other Community Change Models, Community Assessment, Diversity, Building Local Capacity, Youth Development, Comprehensive Strategic Planning, Leadership, and Evaluation.

Ms. Munns noted there was a $4,000 fee to participate in the Mass Forum and she had applied to the MetroWest Health Care Foundation and had received a $4,000 award to cover the participation fee. She requested the Board’s acceptance of the grant.

Mr. Ostroff applauded Ms. Munns and the other people working on this and commented that the $4,000 didn’t cover the amount of time and the volunteer hours. Every generation was at risk and he was hopeful this would give the Town a leg up on dealing with this.

Mr. Ciccariello recalled there being several studies done in the past regarding community health with a lot of focus on students and he wondered if any consideration had been given to having a student on the committee or a representative of the Youth Advisory Board. Ms. Munns advised that consideration had been given and noted this was not a one year event. It was a process and this was the first step. It was envisioned that there would be a core ring of 14 members and then a second ring for whom the commitment would not be as great and she had approached members of the YAB for that group.

Noting that this wasn’t something the public would be engaged in in its early stage, Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what point this would become more of a public outreach. Ms. Munns responded that it was sort of like dropping a pebble into the water and the rings grow and grow and hopefully all areas of the community would be impacted over time.

Mr. Kelley told the Board that the meter in the vehicle had been sealed by the Sealer of Weights and Measures on August 2 and inspected by Lieutenant Lauzon on August 10. Both gentlemen were very responsive to his request.

A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to grant JFK Transportation one additional taxi license for a 2005 Chevrolet Impala, Registration TA1687. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.

Mr. Ciccariello recalled that at the last meeting Ms. White was asked to look into whether or not the ZBA or Planning Board could set conditions relative to requiring someone to give up a portion of their land for a state project.

Ms. White advised that she met with the Community Development Director twice and looked at the site plan provided and it appeared no additional right-of-way would be needed. She would recommend providing the waiver of notice but in speaking to Mr. Reffett (Community Development Director), neither of them were comfortable with the in and out in the front. At the ZBA Mr. Burke represented that his client wasn’t looking at access from Wellesley Road where she and Mr. Reffett thought it should be.

Mr. Burke advised that there was some additional engineering work needed before his client could file for site plan review. Where the issue of access from Wellesley Road hadn’t been decided, the developer would be open to that idea. The original thought was that the existing curb cuts would be more appealing to the residents on Wellesley Road, but Mr. Reffett brought it to his attention that the Town may like to see a curb cut over there and that was doable. It was certainly appropriate for the Board to send a letter to the Planning Board.

Mr. Ciccariello stated that his preference would be to act on the waiver of notice and then send a letter addressing the concerns. He didn’t want to make it a condition of the waiver of notice – just send a letter saying there were some concerns.

A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to accept the waiver of notice in relation to an application before the Natick Zoning Board of Appeals for property at 119 Worcester St. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.

Greg Montopoli of 16 Appleton Road told the Board that his boiler was about 30 years old. It was giving him a lot of problems and he was told he should think of doing something very quickly. Nstar did an efficiency reading and they concurred that something needed to be done. They gave him the opportunity to do a loan program to convert to a gas boiler and install a gas line to the house. When Nstar came out he noticed the street was fairly new and suggested that he (Mr. Montopoli) check into it so he called the Engineering Department.

Mr. Montopoli continued that he was informed the last time the road was done was in the summer of 2004. It was over the four year mark with only 10 months from the fifth year. This wasn’t an extreme emergency but it could turn into one this winter if he had to replace the boiler and then not have the opportunity to take advantage off the Nstar program.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the last time the road was repaved if it was repaved entirely or if it was chip sealed. Ms. White didn’t know. Mr. Montopoli didn’t remember it being down to gravel, but wasn’t sure. He added that the street cut would only be about 1-1/2 feet wide.

Mr. Ciccariello believed the DPW had a set of standards they required that were pretty stringent. With respect to the life of the road it depends if it was completely repaved or if it was an overlay and if a chip seal was done.

Asked if he needed an answer tonight, Mr. Montopoli responded that Nstar said once they got the go ahead it could be a 4-6 week wait and he had to get a heating contractor. Winter was coming and he didn’t want to have to fill the tank again. An answer wasn’t needed tonight but within the next week.

Ms. Van Amsterdam thought the permit freeze was at the heart of the question and asked if Mr. Ciccariello was suggesting there should be a different time depending on whether a chip seal. Mr. Ciccariello replied that he wasn’t. He was just trying to determine what was done because it impacted the life expectancy. One possibility would be for the Board to approve subject to a final review by the Town Engineer.

While Mr. Montopoli’s argument was compelling, Ms. Van Amsterdam guessed there could be many persons who could come before the Board depending on the cost of oil or gas and want to make a conversion. She didn’t have all the history regarding the rules and regulations and questioned if this would be setting a precedent. This was a non-emergency and what would the Board base its favorable action on.

The next meeting was September 8 and Mr. Ciccariello thought that would give the Board an opportunity to do their own investigation. The Town Administrator has been away on vacation and there wasn’t any input from the DPW.

Jimmy Brown, a representative of the newly formed Political Action Committee Natick Forever, advised that when 6-8 members of his participated in the State’s conflict of interest and ethics course they inquired and were told the State would be more than happy to put it on for a larger crowd. He was here to extend an invitation for the Board to attend a non-partisan information session on conflict of interest and ethics laws on September 24, 2008 at the library conducted by the Mass State Ethics Commission.

Mr. Ciccariello thought this would be a great opportunity for the Board of Selectmen and Town Administrator to notify all the various committees that this opportunity exists if anyone would like to attend. In particular he would encourage new members to consider attending as well as any Town employee. He thanked Mr. Brown for putting this together.

Mr. Ostroff echoed Mr. Ciccariello’s comments and added that the Board of Selectmen has discussed this issue and there have been conversations with Town Counsel who was going to put together something similar, but concentrate on the Open Meeting Law and the Public Records Law. He saw this (Natick Forever session) complementary to what the Board of Selectmen was discussing. This was good timing to have this come forward and he too thanked Mr. Brown for doing it.

Mr. Ciccariello advised that the vacancy had been posted and letters were to be received by September 18. On September 22 the candidates would be interviewed jointly by the Board of Selectmen and School Committee. It’s been the practice that anybody with an interest sends a letter of interest to the Board of Selectmen and sends a copy to the Chair of the School Committee.

Mr. Silverstein stated that he was of the understanding that at least two people have been interviewed individually for this position by one or more members of the School Committee and he found that disturbing. In his opinion the interview process should be very visible with all candidates on an equal footing and everyone following the same process. What was going on wasn’t following the process Mr. Ciccariello described.

Mr. Ostroff thanked Mr. Silverstein for coming forward, but noted that he was available to meet individually with anyone interested in volunteering to serve on Town government and wasn’t sure he understood Mr. Silverstein’s concerns. Was Mr. Silverstein alleging a violation?

Mr. Silverstein responded that he wasn’t alleging any violation but it could be interpreted as getting around the Open Meeting Laws having individuals ask the same questions. If people were being interviewed or filtered ahead of time, the public should know what the people were being asked. He didn’t think any of this should be behind doors.

Mr. Ciccariello emphasized that the final interview process would be with the Board of Selectmen and School Committee in a public meeting at a specific time. There have been rumors that perhaps 1,2 or 3 members meeting with applicants. If any members of the Board of Selectmen or School Committee look at the letters of interest, they can contact the individual and talk to them, but he would caution members about interviewing candidates and then start sending e-mails back and forth among the members.

Ms. White added that one caution with having members of a Board meet with potential candidates would be that members of said Board would want to resist talking amongst themselves about any potential candidates and moving toward any consensus of decision making. That may be a violation of the Open Meeting Law. There was no impropriety with any individual member meeting with an applicant.

Mr. Silverstein stated that he remained of the opinion that the process should be the same for everybody. Going through a preliminary process may give certain candidates an advantage. It would be better to have everybody starting from the same place.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that a decision had not been made on what questions would be asked. He had asked the Chair of the School Committee to get back to him on the questions and when an agreement was reached, he (Mr. Ciccariello) hoped those questions would not be released until the night of the meeting.

Mr. Ostroff asked about the process of people coming forward. In a newspaper article, the Chair of the School Committee mentioned people could come forward that night. If there was someone who came forward who wanted to be considered, he wasn’t sure the Board of Selectmen could prevent that. There were good reasons for asking people to put their name in ahead of time and although he (Mr. Ostroff) wouldn’t have any questions for people who just showed up on September 22, he wasn’t certain the Board could stop someone from raising their hand.

Mr. Ciccariello responded that it has been the practice of the Board of Selectmen including past experience with the School Committee to ask for letters of interest. If someone were to just come on the 22nd and there was a dispute, the two boards could vote on how to proceed, but as far as he was concerned anyone interested in the School Committee appointment should send a letter of interest to the Board of Selectmen with a copy to the School Committee.

Ms. Van Amsterdam pointed out that any person sending material could contact any member of the Board of Selectmen or School Committee. Mr. Silverstein agreed, adding that a process was just described to him and people had a right to follow that process and other people may want to get a leg up in requesting separate interviews. His concern was that individual board members may be coaching an applicant.

Mr. Ostroff noted that Mr. Silverstein was listed on the Natick Forever web site as the Treasurer. Natick Forever planned to announce its endorsement of a candidate and he (Mr. Ostroff) was trying to square that with concern of giving a candidate a leg up.

Mr. Silverstein responded that he was speaking as a private citizen and thought the integrity of the process would be better served if everybody was being asked the same questions at the same time.

Ms. White had provided the Board with a copy of the FY09 goals for municipal departments. She noted that to the best of her knowledge this represented the first time department heads have made a plan a year in advance for what they hoped to accomplish. In considering their goals, the department heads were required to review the Natick 360 plan and take that into consideration in developing their goals. If there was anything in the plan they could implement, they were asked to include it and at least make sure what they were doing was not counter to the plan.

Ms. White continued that this document gave the department heads a set of milestones they were expected to achieve and a work plan. It was a way to measure the department heads’ performance. There would be a second step to this. There were other non-union personnel whose salaries were tied to performance and they too will have goals developed for them. Those were more interoffice and wouldn’t be presented to the Board.

Ms. White told the Board that she couldn’t have been more pleased with the enthusiasm the department heads brought to this process. She asked each to come in with their idea of goals for the coming year and with rare exception all came in with challenging goals for themselves. They were all enthusiastic and appreciated having a set of expectations for the coming year. This will benefit herself as the administrator, the Board of Selectmen and the community as a whole. What she found of interest were there were some common themes that emerged among them efficiency enhancement, energy savings and a green approach to the way things were done. Another was document archiving and management. There was also a theme, mostly among the financial departments about improving the budget process and communicating to the public.

Mid year reviews will be done to monitor progress and changes could be made if it was determined that a goal was unattainable through no fault of the department head. Ms. White noted that she didn’t expect any action from the Board of Selectmen although the Board may consider endorsing them.

Mr. Ciccariello commented that this has been a long time coming. Goals and objectives were needed as a way to evaluate the staff. The burden was on the Town Administrator to do it and she had done it. He would have no problem endorsing this.

Mr. Ostroff felt this was a wonderful milestone. He noted that the Town Administrator would be setting goals and performance standards of people the Board appoints, i.e. Comptroller. While the Board was empowered to appoint people, managing them was out of the Board’s purview. However, the Board would want to know how well the person did and he was glad to see this work product.

For individuals appointed by other boards, i.e. Health Director, the goals were agreed to by that board. In the case of the Recreation Director who was not appointed by the Commission, they (Recreation Commission) did work with him on the goals.

Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that what she enjoyed in looking through each individual’s goals was the discussion that had taken place about initiative. You could see that Ms. White encouraged these individuals. It was fantastic.

Since receiving a preliminary report from the Revenue Enhancement Task Force two weeks ago, Mr. Ostroff said he spoke to a number of members and got some comments. Mr. Connolly was supportive of the report and had some ideas which the committee will look at. He (Mr. Ostroff) was looking for the Board to accept the preliminary report and they would then go back to the sponsoring board with more specific recommendations and analysis. They (Task Force) would not be taking any action on behalf of the Town or Schools, but would be coming back with suggestions.

Mr. Ciccariello asked Ms. Van Amsterdam, Chair of the Expense Control Task Force, for a sense of when the Task Force may have a report. Ms. Van Amsterdam advised that the Task Force hoped to have something the end of September.

The warrant for Fall Town Meeting closed on Friday and Ms. White informed the Board there were 28 articles filed. The warrant was being proof read and she expected copies to be available tomorrow. The Board would begin to discuss the articles at the next meeting.

In accordance with Article 41, Section 5 of the Town By-Laws, the Morse Institute Library requested permission to dispose of obsolete computer equipment. Ms. White noted that it was possible there was nothing on the list with a value of more than $50 but they thought it was worth seeking the Board’s approval.

Ms. White noted that this was similar to the last quarter payment. The Verizon cable contract was silent on how much would go to Natick Pegasus. The administration was recommending a 90/10 split with 10% being retained by the Town. If the Board agreed with that approach, she asked if consideration would be given to doing that on an ongoing basis without coming back to the Board.

Mr. Ciccariello recalled that after the last vote there were some complaints that Pegasus was to get all the money. Ms. White reiterated that the contract was silent in that regard. The RCN contract was specific, but Verizon was not.

On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted that going forward 90% of each of Verizon’s quarterly PEG access payments would be released to Natick Pegasus.

Ms. White noted that before the Board was a draft RFP and lease for a short-term lease – one year with an option of 2 one year extensions. The idea was to bridge the current tenant. The home rule petition has not been filed with the Legislature since they were about to go out of session. It would probably be a year from now before the Town had authorization for a long-term lease and this was to create a bridge for the current tenant.

Ms. White continued that she learned the current tenant would consider establishing a permanent home at a different location. They were grappling with what to do. Even under a long-term lease there was no guarantee the current tenant would be the successful bidder.

Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if any action would be coming out of the Conservation Commission meeting on Thursday. The Eliot Montessori was going to host a meeting for residents last Thursday and that was delayed because the School was attending a Conservation Commission meeting. Did the Town have a complete picture? She didn’t know what happened at the ConCom and didn’t know the timeframe. The e-mail from Clark Rowell acknowledges the Eliot Montessori Board of Trustees voted to pursue the Eliot Street site.

Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that at this juncture she was not prepared to vote on a short-term RFP until there was more information on how the potential bidder was dealing with other departments. The reason for this was to help the tenant through an RFP process that was open to all responsible bidders who want to come forward, but she would like to have a discussion of the longer term strategy. Given the fact Montessori was moving across the street was very different than in the Spring and she would like to have a sense of what was more prudent for the Town.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the intent was to file the home rule petition as voted at Town Meeting. Ms. White advised that it would be when the legislature came back into session. Mr. Ostroff added that the idea was to file it in January and hope it was acted on by June 31, 2009.

Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the second Town Meeting article to consider the sale of the property, and Ms. White responded that her intent and understanding was the two would run parallel.

Mr. Ciccariello noted there was a point made about the Board of Selectmen putting together a group of experts who would assist in putting together a draft RFP for a lease or a sale. Was it at a point where the Board may want to consider putting together a committee to craft out a long-term solution?

Ms. White asked if the Board wished her to recommend the make up of a committee at a near future meeting. Mr. Ciccariello indicated that he did and his thoughts were that there not be more than seven on the committee. The second meeting of September was suggested as a date for Ms. White to return with a recommended make up for a committee.

Mr. Ostroff divulged that he was a member of TCAN, but he had no conflict of interest. He had filed a statement with the Town Clerk and intended to vote. Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she was a member of TCAN with no financial interest. Ms. Gloff stated that she too was a member of TCAN and had no financial interest.

On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve TCAN’s request to erect a tent over the sidewalk in front of TCAN at 14 Summer Street the morning of October 29, 2008 to be removed on October 31, 2008. Appropriately fitted propane tanks with space heaters would be installed. In addition, they would block three parking spaces immediately in front of TCAN while the tent was up. Lastly TCAN requested permission to hang a banner across Main Street from October 15 to October 31, 2008. The Board’s approval was conditioned upon Lieutenant Lauzon’s recommendation to cone off a walking area for pedestrians due to the loss of the sidewalk. The Board’s approval was further conditioned upon TCAN applying for the necessary propane permit and having a site inspection prior to the performance.

A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the Walnut Hill School’s request to make Highland Street a one way street on September 26, 2008 from 11:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. to accommodate their installation ceremony. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.

In a memo to the Board, Safety Officer Lieutenant Brian Lauzon recommended approval noting Walnut Hill would be hiring at least one detail officer and he informed them they would need to notify the residents in writing well in advance of the ceremony.

Members of the Board had been invited to the event and in an exchange with a person at Walnut Hill, Mr. Ostroff thought the School would be happy to have someone from the Town making a few comments.

On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve Charlotte Smith Bourhis’ request to close the section of Morningside from the intersection of Morningside/Woodleigh to 11 Morningside Avenue on September 6, 2008 (rain date September 7) from 11:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m. for a block party.

On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve Jill Nadeau’s request to close Eisenhower Avenue from 15 Eisenhower through 21 Eisenhower on September 6, 2008 (rain date September 13) from 4:00-8:00 p.m. for a block party.

A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to approve Temple Israel’s request to hold their annual Adopt A Family Walkathon on September 14, 2008 from 9:00-10:30 a.m. Unanimously voted.

Ms. White informed the Board that she had seen a draft report of the fee analysis. It was moving along albeit slower than hoped. She was very pleased and expected to see a final report within two weeks from today.

Ms. Gloff distributed an e-mail from the citizen who had the letter to the editor about the trash. The citizen thinks citizens should have some pride in the Town. Maybe the Board could think of some ways to have the Little League, etc. think of ways to encourage members and people attending their games to pick up.

Ms. White advised that she had been e-mailing back and forth with the resident and there were two ideas emerging: 1) Being in touch with the various user groups asking them to try to do better; 2) working on some signage something like “you are enjoying this facility, please don’t litter”. It seems to be more the individual user than the groups.

Mr. Ostroff commented that he took strong exception to the writer’s words “as far as I can see nothing is being done by the administration”. Mr. Ostroff believed that was unfair. It takes time and he thought government would do a lot to help fix it and he knew Ms. White had been working with the individual.

Mr. Ostroff inquired if members of the Board were interested in asking the Town Administrator to get more information on a split tax rate to see how the Board may want to attack that issue before having to deal with it.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that the practice had been for the Assessors’ Office to do a review of all the surrounding communities and provide the Board with a summary of what the split tax rate would do.

Mr. Ostroff pointed out that if there were compelling reasons that benefit or disadvantage the Town, the Board may want to be able to say we won’t split the rate for these five reasons. There had been studies in the past and just thought it was something for the Board to think about.

Ms. Gloff proposed setting a date for perambulation of the bounds sooner rather than later. Mr. Ciccariello asked all the members to check their schedules and report available days and times.

Ms. Gloff noted that she had a question from a member of the Charter & By-Law Review Committee as to whether there was a policy book and if so was there a list of policies. Ms. Challis advised there was a book and she was working on the list.

The Board was in receipt of a letter of complaint regarding conditions at 4 Laconia Road. Ms. White reported there was some follow up correspondence and some items on which they were working to remedy with the building owner.