BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
September 8, 2008
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly
ALSO PRESENT: Martha White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on September 8, 2008 in the amount of $630,758.44. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,587,132.54.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Ostroff made the following announcements:
Natick Days would be held on September 13, 2008 from 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. This was a family event and everyone was invited to attend. Shuttle bus service was available
On October 4, 2008 there would be a computer recycling event at the Natick High School parking lot sponsored by the Recycling Advisory Committee and the High School Computer Team. This was an opportunity for people to get rid of old computer and electronic equipment for a donation of $5.00 per item. The truck was scheduled to be there from 9:00 a.m.-12:00 noon, but if the truck filled before noon, it would leave.
JOINT INTERVIEWES WITH THE PLANNING BOARD TO FILL A VACANCY
Joining the Board were members of the Planning Board – Andrew Meyer, Robert Foster, Kenneth Soderholm, Terri Evans, and Julian Munnich. At 7:05 p.m. Mr. Meyer as Chair of the Planning Board called their meeting to order.
a. Glen Glater
Glen Glater told the Boards that he had been a Natick resident for 17 years with two children in the school system. Currently he was a Town Meeting member and on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Safety Committee. He was interested in the Planning Board position because there was a lot of development of projects going on that he would like to have the ability to be involved in from the safety aspect and as a member of the Mass Audubon Broadmoor Center Advisory Board.
Mr. Glater noted he had a strong background in the life sciences and ecology. Former Planning Board member Robert Eisenmenger had a strong interest in those areas and he (Mr. Glater) would like to see those areas represented.
Mr. Soderholm commented on his perspective of the associate member position noting that there were two major projects from which a member had to recuse himself and in both cases the associate member had to step up. There was a fair amount of commitment and he wanted to gauge Mr. Glater’s understanding of the commitment involved and willingness to make the commitment.
Mr. Glater responded that he spoke with Ms. Evans and was prepared to be available. He understood the responsibility and would stand behind the responsibility.
Mr. Soderholm then inquired if Mr. Glater practiced a profession that might be relevant. Mr. Glater replied that he was a technical support engineer.
Referring to Mr. Glater’s mention of a background in biology, Mr. Foster inquired as to how Mr. Glater felt that background would be useful to the Board. Mr. Glater explained that the biology he did was largely on the ecology side – the animals and the trees and how the bio interacts. It was that experience that was suiting him well on the Broadmoor Board – understanding the need for proper landscaping, maintaining open space, and on the types of environments.
Asked by Mr. Foster to talk about his experience on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Safety Committee, Mr. Glater responded that he was a new member on the Safety Committee so he didn’t have a lot of experience. However, the planning of many of these projects involved a lot of areas that were cross covered. He knew in the Natick Mall project there was a lot of discussion of proper signage and crosswalks for people navigating through the area not in a vehicle and that was an area that would draw upon his Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee experience. For the discussion of navigating through the area in a vehicle that was an involvement of the Safety Committee. It was his belief those things should be discussed early in the stages of a project.
Mr. Foster then inquired as to Mr. Glater’s understanding of what the Planning Board did. Mr. Glater stated that it was his understanding the Planning Board vets plans from developers for projects to be put into Town to ensure that all of the Town’s concerns were handled and to work with other groups to make sure input from other groups was folded into the process.
Seeing that Mr. Glater was a Town Meeting member, on the Safety Committee, and on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Mr. Meyer thought those were good time commitments and the Planning Board was probably equal if not more. It would seem the plate was pretty full in terms of volunteering. Mr. Glater noted that the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee met once a month and the Safety Committee met once a month at the most. He didn’t think this was a concern and thought he could manage his time wisely.
Mr. Meyer then asked if Mr. Glater had a philosophy or an approach he would bring with him. Mr. Glater didn’t know how to answer the question, but noted that today he drove through Brookline medical area and there were many new projects and it disturbed him to see room was being made for those projects by tearing down a number of older buildings. He tended to like the nature and the history of the neighborhoods. He was also interested in what would go into the buildings that recently burned down (on Pond St).
To Mr. Ostroff it sounded like Mr. Glater was in favor of preserving if possible, but Natick will continue to face development challenges and sitting on a board where often unpopular decisions were made, how would he (Mr. Glater) approach that. Mr. Glater replied that he didn’t have a vision of where he saw Natick 40 years from now. He didn’t think the decisions of any board needs to be unanimous. He felt there was a lot to learn. At Town Meeting he was often fascinated by the amount you could learn and often his decision changed based on information provided.
Mr. Ostroff asked if Mr. Glater could describe a situation in his professional life where someone may have tried to sell him something and it turned out differently and how he dealt with it. Mr. Glater had no examples.
If appointed, Ms. Gloff noted that he would hold the position until the next Town election and asked if it was Mr. Glater’s intent to run for that position. Mr. Glater responded that he didn’t consider this a short-term appointment and considered that he would run at the next Town election. If it turned out his expectations were different from reality, he thought he would be mature enough to say this was not a good fit. If the time commitment turned out to be something that was far greater than anticipated or another life event arose that he may not be able to serve to the best of his ability, perhaps that would change, but now his intention was to run for the position.
Based on what he did for a living and other commitments, Ms. Gloff asked if Mr. Glater anticipated any projects that might come before the Planning Board from which he would have to recuse himself. At this point Mr. Glater didn’t believe there would be. He was on the Broadmoor Advisory Committee, but didn’t know of anything coming up.
Mr. Connolly asked for Mr. Glater’s thoughts on 40B and Mr. Glater responded that he knew of 40B mostly from sitting at Town Meeting listening to the debate. He thought 40B was a wonderful idea, but from the Town’s point of view was a horrible idea. The state was trying to solve the problem but it’s been a burden on the towns and allowed development projects that shouldn’t be done. He thought the Natick Planning Board had done a spectacular job in managing the developers in getting what the Town wanted out of the developers.
Mr. Glater added that he was disturbed to see large stretches of woods and close to wetlands being knocked down to put in a high density housing project.
b. Kelly McGovern
Kelly McGovern thanked the two boards for considering her application and advised that she was a 12 year resident and a mother of a child in the school system. She was a self-employed commercial real estate broker and a former CPA. Some of her past projects included 80,000 square feet on Moody Street in Waltham including the movie theater, 200,000 square feet in downtown Lawrence, and $20 million redevelopment in Franklin, MA. She had worked with Mayors and Community Development Directors throughout the State. In Waltham she worked to bring customers and consensus back to the downtown area and in Lawrence she worked with the Economic Development Office.
Ms. McGovern noted that in her capacity as a broker and a former CPA, she looked at ways to develop property smartly. It was important to balance benefits of the project to the demands on the infrastructure.
In conclusion Ms. McGovern stated that she was an effective persuasive communicator and problem solver. She was creative, dependable, and ethical. She wished to become involved not for personal gain but to do her part.
Mr. Soderholm talked about the commitment of an associate member especially if another member had to recuse themselves and since Ms. McGovern was involved in real estate, he asked if she foresaw having to recuse herself.
Ms. McGovern responded there was one project already in the process from which she would have to recuse herself and that was for assisted living in South Natick. That was the first project in Natick in 14 years. The majority of the work she did was in tenant representation. She was OK with the time commitment.
Mr. Foster inquired if she had done any other volunteer work in Natick, and Ms. McGovern responded that other than block parties, no.
Mr. Foster asked Ms. McGovern to provide a sense of how her experience in the real estate business would assist with what she would do on the Planning Board. Ms. McGovern responded that when looking at a piece of property and looking to increase the Town’s goals and objectives you use information such as traffic counts and the pressure that would be put on the Town’s infrastructure and the school system should be taken into consideration when doing a development. If something was being done on Speen Street, you may look to have something that would not generate traffic.
When asked by Mr. Foster for her understanding of what the Planning Board did, Ms. McGovern stated that it was her understanding the Planning Board looked at projects and put them in perspective for the Board of Selectmen. They looked at changes in zoning and appearances of what a potential new project would look like. It was like a screening board.
Having been an associate member, Mr. Meyer thought it was a good position. He asked if there was a philosophy Ms. McGovern would carry with her in working with a board of this type or a development philosophy and she replied that she was looking towards smart development. Because of Natick’s location she thought development was inevitable and the Town needed to plan on smartly placing buildings where it didn’t generate traffic problems and safety issues and she thought she could bring that experience to the table.
Ms. Evans was interested in Ms. McGovern’s sense, from her experience in commercial real estate, of the opportunities or mistakes towns make in development. Ms. McGovern responded that the buildings become obsolete. When you look at the downtown and want to bring it back it was obsolete because there was no parking.
Mr. Ostroff got the sense Ms. McGovern thought the Planning Board initiated projects and asked if she thought tax revenue was a reason to approve or deny a project. Ms. McGovern responded that she thought it was the other way around (as far as initiating projects). As to tax revenue there would have to be a net benefit to the community based on the tax revenue. If there was a greater demand on the schools and water system, it may not be a benefit.
In follow-up Mr. Ostroff asked if she felt that was legal grounds (to approve or deny an application). Ms McGovern’s response was, “no”. She thought it was an informational bit.
Mr. Ostroff then asked if Ms. McGovern had been in a situation where someone came forward with a proposal and it evolved into something different than anticipated and how she dealt with it. Ms. McGovern said she had been in that situation as a broker and had seen in other communities developers come in with the sword of 40B to get other projects through. In her opinion it was unethical.
If appointed, Ms. Gloff asked if Ms. McGovern expected to run for the position at the next election. Ms. McGovern stated that she planned to volunteer and would continue volunteering if the Town would have her. She would run for office.
Asked by Mr. Connolly for her thoughts on 40B, Ms. McGovern said she thought it was necessary, but didn’t think 40B projects should be built any where. She thought there were locations where they should be built. It was a mandate and the towns didn’t have control over it, but typically she didn’t work in residential.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to Ms. McGovern’s decision making approach and she responded that she would start with whether it was going to benefit the community and go down the list of quantifiers, i.e. was it something that was missing and greatly needed, would it benefit the majority of people as opposed to the additional traffic or congestion. She would weigh all the pieces of information to make a decision.
By paper ballot, Glen Glater was appointed as the Associate Member of the Planning Board. Mr. Glater received six votes and Ms. McGovern received four.
Mr. Ciccariello voted for Mr. Glater
Mr. Ostroff voted for Mr. Glater
Ms. Van Amsterdam voted for Mr. Glater
Ms. Gloff voted for Mr. Glater
Mr. Connolly voted for Ms. McGovern
Mr. Meyer voted for Ms. McGovern
Mr. Munnich voted for Mr. Glater
Ms. Evans voted for Mr. Glater
Mr. Soderholm voted for Ms. McGovern
Mr. Foster voted for Ms. McGovern
At 7:40 p.m. the Planning Board adjourned their meeting and left the table.
LOOKOUT FARM: ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE
As Chair of the Lookout Farm Advisory Committee, Ken Soderholm provided the Board with the annual update of the farm’s activities. He noted that it had been a pretty uneventful year. A little over a year ago there was a question about the ability of the farm to host groups. It was presented to Town Counsel and a determination was made that as long as there was some agricultural relation to the farm they would be allowed to host events. There were no complaints regarding these events.
Mr. Soderholm noted that the farm manager Frank Burns was here to answer any question and added that in his (Mr. Soderholm’s) opinion, the farm was a real treasure for the Town and he wanted to encourage people to use the farm. They were going into the u-pick season and to the extent people could use it as a day time outing he wanted to remind them it was there.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if there were any farm related commercial activities not listed in the letter. Exhibit A hadn’t been received. Mr. Soderholm advised the events consisted of birthday parties, field trips for school groups, u-pick and non u-pick outings.
Mr. Ostroff asked about the return of the Winter Wonderland, but to the best of Mr. Soderholm’s knowledge that wasn’t happening.
Mr. Ostroff commented that when there was a lot of controversy, there was a proposal to sell some of the farm’s land for development and he was glad to see the farm operating as a farm. He thought the Town’s interest was being preserved.
Mr. Soderholm noted that Lookout Farm and Steve and Joan Beklin were very philanthropic and contribute to a number of groups. Recently they sponsored the performance of Anne of Green Cables at TCAN.
Mr. Connolly thanked Mr. Burns for all his efforts and remembered there had been a lot of traffic congestion when the Soccer Club had a tournament. Mr. Burns explained that in 2006 it was a perfect storm. It was the perfect picking time and the soccer tournament created some additional traffic congestion. In 2007 there was a better u-pick season in terms of sales and customers and there weren’t any traffic issues.
GREG MONTOPOLI: REQUEST WAIVER FROM STREET OPENING RULES & SPECIFICATIONS
With respect to Greg Montopli’s request for a waiver from the street opening rules & specifications to install a gas line to his house at 16 Appleton Road, Ms. White reported that subsequent to Mr. Montopoli’s last visit the Town Engineer came up with one possible solution. Since the gas line was under a sidewalk, maybe the gas company could do a pit under the sidewalk and tunnel under the road. This evening the (Town Engineer) sent an e-mail saying Nstar was at the site and concluded that alternative was not practical because of all the other underground utilities under the roadway.
At the last meeting a Board member questioned if there was a better patching method and Ms. White noted the Town Engineer has advised there was a method utilizing flowable fill with a permanent trench patch. It was a better grade but it was still a patch. There were a couple of philosophies at work. The Town did not want to cut into the road within the five year period if it could be avoided. It had been mentioned that there were two other cuts in the street, but one was new construction and the other was a water main break.
On the other hand this road was more than four years into place and the moratorium was lifted at five. Natick was in the process of identifying its greenhouse gas emissions to become a green community. The next step in that process was to look at the emissions the rest of the community was producing and were there ways to help communities be a greener town. Converting to natural gas was one of those ways and she believed it may be worth the Board’s consideration of a favorable action (to grant Mr. Montopoli’s request). It was approaching the five year mark and Mr. Montopoli’s system was failing and at one point last week had no hot water.
Mr. Montopoli thanked Ms. White for doing the research and noted that the problem with the hot water did get fixed but he was told that he better get ready as it would not last much longer. He and his wife bought the house in the spring of 2004 just before the street was done. He knew the Board said the Town went out the year before to the residents. When be bought the house the inspector said he should plan to address it within five years and he probably would have made that change back then if he knew it was going to be an issue. They were trying to make sure they were energy efficient and trying to take care of the environment as best they could. If the system crashed, he would have to replace it with another oil burner and would be locked into another 30 years. That was another consideration in
switching to gas. The gas would be cleaner and although the price was better now, it could change. He wasn’t present when Nstar came out, but he believed Mr. DeRosa (DPW Rights & Permits Engineer) met with Nstar and both believed tunneling could be very dangerous.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to who would bear the cost of the better patching. Ms. White assumed the difference between the traditional and the most costly would be the homeowner’s responsibility, but that was only an assumption.
Ms. Van Amsterdam raised the possibility of the Board developing new criteria for the policy with regard to opening the roads and if an emergency situation arose, there be a move toward the better patching method. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out there was a provision stating flowable fill may be required at the discretion of the DPW, but Ms. Van Amsterdam said she would advocate for stronger language that flowable fill be the alternative. Mr. Ciccariello suggested bringing up an amendment to the rules & specifications at a later meeting.
Mr. Ostroff asked Mark Coviello, Town Engineer, if there was a substantial cost difference between the two patches. Mr. Coviello didn’t have an exact price. The excavation would be the same cost. It was the fill that went back in that cost more. On a trench for Mr. Montopoli, it would probably add about $1,000 to the project.
Based on the current policy, Mr. Ostroff asked if Mr. Coviello would likely require the flowable fill for Mr. Montopoli’s project. Mr. Coviello responded that he would support whatever the Board decided. He could support the flowable fill.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what Mr. Coviello required on the previous two cuts. Mr. Coviello advised that the flowable fill was not required for either. One was done by the Water Department to repair a leak and the other was new construction where about three feet was cut into the road.
Ms. Gloff stated that she drove down the road today and the two cuts made before were relatively small and off to the side where she thought this (Mr. Montopoli’s) would require a trench across the road.
Ms. White cautioned that while she recommended viewing this request favorably it was potentially a slippery slope. She felt the policy as it stood was a sound one, but she thought Mr. Montopoli’s situation was compelling.
Mr. Ciccariello didn’t recall the water leak requiring a waiver and Mr. Coviello confirmed that it didn’t. When asked who granted it, Mr. Coviello responded that it was done as a street opening permit through his office and he didn’t deny someone a connection on new construction. As part of the new construction, there was a policy requiring the replacement of the water service to the main.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if Mr. Coviello’s office could require that new new construction on roads with the moratorium that the fill must be the flowable fill. Mr. Coviello agreed that it could be changed.
This was a nice smooth road and as the cut would be across the street, Ms. Gloff inquired if the street would get a bump in it if flowable fill were used.
With flowable fill Mr. Coviello thought the likelihood of any settlement occurring was less likely to occur. It shouldn’t settle.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to who was responsible for following up with the trench work to make certain whoever was doing the patch was doing the flowable fill. Mr. Coviello responded that if the permit was granted, Nstar would come in for a street opening permit and Engineering will make sure that flowable fill was a condition of the permit.
Mr. Ciccariello noted there was a new state statute regarding trenches and excavation work. The Town hasn’t designated anybody to date, but if granted this would be in compliance with the state mandate. Ms. White advised that the trench law wouldn’t be effective until January.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to approve Mr. Montopoli’s request for a waiver from the street opening rules and specifications to install a gas line to serve his home at 16 Appleton Road. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam with an amendment to require the use of flowable fill for the patch. Mr. Connolly accepted the amendment. Unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Ostroff said he was voting to support this knowing that potentially it was setting a precedent. He was voting for this because although it was not an emergency today, there was a foreseeable emergency. Normally he wouldn’t grant it for any other reason.
Mr. Montopoli inquired if Nstar had ever been required to do this in the patch and if they were OK with it. Mr. Coviello explained that normally Nstar fought the request to put the flowable fill back in. He didn’t know how this would be worked out between Nstar and Mr. Montopoli.
BARTENDING SERVICE OF NEW ENGLAND: REQUEST FOR ONE DAY BEER & WINE LICENSE
Representing Bartending Service of New England was William Fuller. Mr. Fuller requested a one day beer & wine license on September 28, 2008 for an event at Jordan’s Furniture from 6:00 p.m.-10:30 p.m. He advised that Bartending Service of New England had been hired by Jordan’s Furniture for an employee appreciation night. 100-120 guests were expected.
Ms. Gloff inquired if employees would be buying the alcohol and Mr. Fuller responded that it would be a cash bar.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve William Fuller on behalf of The Bartending Services of New England, LLC’s application for a one day beer & wine license for a function at Jordan’s Furniture, 1 Underprice Way on September 28, 2008 from 6:00 p.m.-10:30 p.m.
KING’S SHUTTLE & LIMOUSINE: LIVERY PERMIT
Discussion of this item was tabled.
PUBLIC HEARING: CHRYSLER ROAD: CONDUIT
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
The Board was in receipt of a memo from DPW Rights & Permits Engineer William DeRosa stating the work was necessary to provide electric service for the Chrysler Road Apartments and the DPW had no objection.
There being no one present from Nstar, Mr. Connolly recommended that the Board table this request. Ms. Challis explained there was an agreement between the Town and Nstar that in return for some GIS mapping Nstar did not have to appear at grant of location hearings unless there were questions and they were specifically asked to attend.
Mr. Connolly wanted to revisit the agreement.
If there wasn’t a particular question about this application, Ms. Gloff stated that she would be comfortable voting, but agreed that the agreement should be looked at to see if it needs to be re-evaluated. Ms. Van Amsterdam suggested at the same time talking about the new flowable fill policy.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the grant of location for about 20 feet of conduit on Chrysler Road from Pole 581/4 southerly approximately 583 feet east of Speen Street and southerly at pole 581/5 approximately 769 feet east of Speen Street a distance of about 50 feet of conduit. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
NEEM: FLUTIE ROAD RACE PERMIT
Representing New England Event Management was Heather Hagerty.
The Board was in receipt of a memo from Safety Officer Lieutenant Brian Lauzon recommending approval of the request for a permit to hold the Flutie Road Race on September 14, 2008 with the assurance that the foliage along the service road would be cut back to make it safe for the runners.
Ms. Hagerty advised that she would provide the Board with the liability insurance and she had a letter from the Hamlet Association Trust stating they had no objection to using the service road connecting Moccasin Path and Sundance Way. She noted that the Flutie Foundation had hired New England Event Management to direct the 5K road race. The MetroWest Hospital had agreed to host the race so the course has changed since the 2007 location at the Natick High School. They worked with the hospital, the Natick Police Department and consulted with the Fire Department.
Ms. Hagerty advised that NEEM also notified all the residents along the course and with respect to the foliage a landscape company has been retained to assess what needs to be done and return to do all the clearing necessary.
Ms. Van Amsterdam believed it was a private road and would not involve anyone from the DPW. Ms. Hagerty told the Board that she looked into it and the road was not served by the DPW so it had to be handled privately. The Trustees were notified and were amenable to the work being done.
As the main entrance to the hospital would be closed, Ms. Gloff asked about individuals going to the hospital to visit. Ms. Hagerty explained there would be a Police officer at the entrance with a large sign directing patients, staff, guests to use the emergency entrance. There would be a volunteer to direct people to parking lots A&B and the hospital made arrangements for valet parking for anyone who needs it.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she was on the Board of Directors of MetroWest Medical Center and would abstain.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to approve the request for the Flutie Road Race to be held on September 14, 2008 subject to compliance with the Police Department conditions. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Van Amsterdam abstained.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: AWARD ENGINEERING CONTRACTS
Ms. White reminded the Board of the discussion last spring that the on-call engineering service contracts for drainage and stormwater management, water & sewer management, and Traffic Engineering were expiring. They had three year contracts and that approach worked very well for the departments. The Board of Selectmen supported doing it again and the Engineering Division and Procurement Officer drafted an RFP for those services along with the Planning Board peer review services. The RFP was reviewed by a number of people including the Chair of the Board of Selectmen. The Deputy Town Administrator, Community Development Director, Town Engineer, Procurement Officer and Water & Sewer Supervisor were all involved and some solid recommendations for some good cost effective service were being put forth.
In a memo to the Board the evaluation committee, outlined the process. The solicitation for Water & Sewer Management Engineering Services was advertised in the MetroWest Daily News and Central Register. Forty-seven companies took out the RFP and seven submitted bids. Three of the firms were identified as warranting further consideration. The evaluation committee ranked the top three as: Haley & Ward, Earth Tech/AECOM, and Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. prior to opening the price proposals. When the price proposals were opened, the recommendation was to go with Haley & Ward.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to Haley & Ward’s price proposal and Ms. White explained that it was broken down by the different personnel. In follow-up Mr. Connolly asked if Haley & Ward was the best suited and least expensive. Ms. White responded that in this case the answer was “yes”. They were both the favorite firm and the least expensive.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that if a project came about the Town Administrator and DPW could ask for an RFP for a total fee for a specific project and if it was unacceptable , the Town could go out and get competitive bids. Ms. White advised that was correct. The contract stipulates that these were not exclusive.
Mr. Ostroff commented that this was not talking about a contract for a specific amount of money for a specific project. It provided the opportunity to engage someone in a timely fashion when it was needed.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved to award a three year contract for water & sewer management services to Haley & Ward, Inc. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Prior to the vote Mr. Connolly questioned if the Town Engineer could do this work, but Ms. White advised that the volume and the level of expertise were beyond the capacity of the department.
The process was outlined in a memo to the Board. The solicitation of bids was advertised in the MetroWest Daily News and Central Register. Forty-seven companies requested an RFP and 9 firms submitted a proposal. Three were identified as the most favorable before opening the price proposal. The three were: Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc., BETA Group, Inc., Earth Tech. The price proposals were opened and the committee recommended awarding the contract to Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc.
It was noted that Baystate Environmental was not less than the other firms in every category but in the majority of categories they were less.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to award a three year contract for drainage and stormwater management engineering services to Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Ms. White explained this section would be divided into two components – on call for DPW and the Planning Board peer review.
The solicitation of bids was advertised in the MetroWest Daily News. Thirty-five companies requested the RFP and three submitted bids: BETA Group, Inc., Greenman-Pederson, Inc., Maguire Group. The three were ranked in order of favorability prior to opening the price proposals. With respect to the DPW on call, the recommendation was to award the contract to BETA Group and with respect to the Planning Board peer review, the recommendation was to award the contract to Greenman-Pederson.
The contract would provide that BETA could be the peer review. They were currently doing it and Ms. White imagined they would continue on any ongoing projects and there may be other projects where they have the expertise.
Noting that the Planning Board and Community Development Director had indicated a preference for Greenman-Pederson, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if a vote had been taken.
Community Development Director Patrick Reffett responded that the Planning Board had not taken a vote but a number of months ago the Planning Board took a vote to request services other than BETA. This process was a matter of weeks away and they opted to pursue this multiple approach. There could be times of conflict of interest with one firm and then the other could be used.
In ranking BETA No. 1 based on their qualifications and professional expertise, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Greenman-Pederson didn’t have as much experience in traffic. Mr. Reffett noted that BETA had a wealth of local information and knowledge relative to the transportation system. Greenman-Pederson was a good project design and review firm. A while ago the Planning Board was looking for other eyes.
Mr. Ciccariello commented on the significant difference between the hourly rates of the two firms, but Mr. Reffett thought one of the important considerations was that the services of these two firms would be paid for by the developers. Ms. White clarified that that was just for the Planning Board peer review component. The administration was seeking two separate votes so the Planning Board would have two firms to choose from.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if it was anticipated that the Town would be doing a lot of traffic engineering studies or if it would be the result of some Planning Board approvals. Ms. White advised that it was more to complete the five year roadway work. Mr. Reffett added that another was to design the turning lane in front of CVS.
Asked if there was mitigation money for the CVS turn, Mr. Reffett responded there was $50,000 from the Mall for the design work. Mr. Ciccariello asked if in that context the feeling was that BETA had more experience. Mr. Reffett replied that both were good firms and the real approach he wanted to provide was that from time to time the Planning Board would have an engineering firm that had the ability to do complex traffic engineering.
Mr. Connolly pointed out that the more expensive was being picked over the less expensive one, but Ms. White didn’t think it was accurate to categorize Beta as more expensive. Mr. Connolly countered that the project manager was $146 for Beta and the other was $157 but the civil engineer was $128 and the other was $91. Mr. Connolly thought that was a lot less spread out over three years, but Ms. White noted that it would depend on the extent those were being used.
Ms. Gloff wanted to hear from the DPW as to why they thought Beta was better than Greenman-Pederson.
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky explained that the hourly rates were used for the future when there was a specific project. Because the rates were on record, a contract could be negotiated for a specific job. Just because a firm charged more than another didn’t mean anything. It was hard to compare the firms by the list of hourly rates unless they were calculated for a specific project and none of these were. In his opinion Beta had a much stronger proposal than Greenman-Pederson. Greenman-Pederson was very good, but the committee was unanimous in selecting Beta as the top group because it was thought they had a better grasp of the Town. The Planning Board chose to have a second firm.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to award a three year contract to Beta Group, Inc. for traffic engineering services for the DPW and appropriate peer review services for the Planning Board. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, and Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to award a three year contract to Greenman-Pederson, Inc. for peer review services for the Planning Board. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Ms. White noted that the contract for Route 27 design could have been included under the prior contract but it was felt this was such a significant project that it warranted a separate bid process. The recommendation was to award the contract to Beta. Thirty-five companies took out the RFP, a pre-bid conference was held, and five firms submitted proposals. Two were identified as competitive and were interviewed by the evaluation committee. At the conclusion Beta was ranked first and Earth Tech second.
Ms. White continued that the price proposals were then opened and Beta was recommended. These were lump sum prices with Beta at $709,544.00 and Earth Tech at $696,100.00 or about a $13,000 difference. She noted that Beta had been awarded the design for the Route 9/27 intersection through the MORE grant.
Mr. Ciccariello noticed that one of the things in Beta’s proposal was $83,000 for field survey and in Earth Tech there were no costs associated for field survey. Was field survey work needed?
Mr. Sisitsky’s reply was, “absolutely” and added that the main difference between Beta and Earth Tech was that Beta was a lump sum fixed fee while Earth Tech was an hourly rate fee based on an estimate of the hours it would take. The $83,000 stood out in the Beta proposal because they were proposing to do it by an outside subcontractor. Earth Tech was proposing to do it over different job classifications so it didn’t stand out as a specific work item.
Mr. Ostroff recalled a by-law passing for utility wires to be buried during projects like this and asked if that would be provided for during the scope of these services.
Mr. Sisitsky responded that it’s been considered on two levels. Before this proposal was started the Town Administrator convened a meeting with the utility companies and a member of the Planning Board and had a long conversation about implementing the underground wires and it was extremely complicated. He understood the utility companies would be responsible for the design of putting the wires underground. Beta had experience working in that environment in a few other towns and agreed it couldn’t possibly be part of this assignment because the utilities had to do their own design work. To the extent possible the selected firm could work with the utilities, but he (Mr. Sisitsky) didn’t think the utilities were that far along in working on that project to coordinate.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Ms. White and he had several discussions and there were a lot of issues that needed to be worked out.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he asked the question to make sure this was on the table. If this were to come to pass, would they (utility company) be burying it after the road was designed and built. Mr. Sisitsky didn’t know and couldn’t answer.
Mr. Connolly asked about the status of the Town Meeting article and Mr. Ciccariello responded that a meeting was being set up with the utilities to find out the impacts and who would pay for the additional costs. Other than subdivisions there haven’t been any projects as of yet.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to award the contract for the Route 27 design to Beta, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $709,544. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
- Water Rates for Irrigation Meters
Burning Tree resident Philip Levine expressed his displeasure with the insert in the water bills regarding an increase in the irrigation rate. There was quite a difference in the cost of the water bill for people with irrigation systems. He was on a fixed income and felt he was being penalized for having an irrigation meter. He had no idea of the formula and couldn’t understand why the expense was so great particularly when Natick had two wells.
Mr. Levine also raised a concern about being on underground utilities and the fact that neither RCN nor Verizon has provided service so there was no ability for him to seek competitive prices.
With respect to cable service for those with underground utilities, Mr. Ciccariello explained that RCN didn’t fulfill their obligation and a settlement was reached so he suspected those with underground service wouldn’t receive anything from RCN. About a year ago Verizon was granted a license and they had three years to fulfill their obligation to offer service to people with underground utilities.
Mr. Levine asked several other questions dealing with the water rates and it was suggested that he take the Deputy Town Administrator’s card and set up an appointment.
Penny Moore, owner of the Laundry Loft, questioned the tiering of the water bills. She had been told she would be paying 50-60% more and for a laundry that meant taxing people who were the least able to pay. It would trickle down to people who cannot afford to buy washing machines. Her laundry went out of its way to have machines that were energy efficient and it was a no win situation when they were taxed at such a high rate. She wondered if there was any recourse.
Mr. Ciccariello advised there wouldn’t be until the Board considered water rates in the future, but thought Ms. Moore was bringing up a good point.
Mr. Connolly commented that he couldn’t say how many telephone calls he received over the last couple of weeks about the water bills. He asked if there was any suggestion for what he should say to them.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the day he was at the Senior Center most of the discussion was around the water & sewer increase and the extra $5 administrative fee. He thought that was something the Board would have to take a look at. He suggested that Mr. Connolly tell everybody that when this issue comes up to attend the meeting and to speak.
Following a 10 minute recess, the meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
DPW SURPLUS EQUIPMENT
In a memo to the Board, the Director of Public Works requested the Selectmen declare the following vehicles/equipment as surplus to enable the process of replacement to be completed:
2003 Crown Victoria Police Cruiser Vin#2FAHP71W23X173394
1997 F-350 dump truck Vin#3FEKF38FXVMA55522
1986 Emergency-one fire pumper Vin#1F9ABAA85G1037660
1999 F-350 dump truck Vin#1FDXF46F7XEE45599
1986 GMC catch basin truck Vin#1GDM7D1B1GV522813
1990 Autocar chasis Vin#4V2RCBCBCF6LU505223
1999 Leach 31-yard packer body (no vin number)
Noting that often police cruisers were passed to other individuals, Ms. Gloff asked if there wasn’t any use for this one. DPW Director Charles Sisitsky responded that when the conditions of the cars warrant it, they were passed through the line, but this vehicle was in such bad condition it didn’t warrant saving.
When it came to the process of replacement, Ms. Van Amsterdam said she would love to look at creative alternatives that were more fuel efficient particularly for police cruisers.
Mr. Ostroff noted that many communities dispose of things through an online auction like E-Bay and he would love to get a follow up at a future meeting.
Mr. Sisistsky advised that his department was looking at E-Bay. They had a unique piece of equipment – a 1953 road grader that probably had no book value, but it may be worth something. He understood the School Committee had an account on E-Bay and he wanted to tag on that.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to declare the above-mentioned items as surplus.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Article 14 – Relocation of Water Easement – Route 9 at Apple Hill Drive
Ms. White recalled that at the last meeting the Chair questioned if the length of the line would raise maintenance costs. Town Engineer Mark Coviello indicated the extra length was 440 of new main, but whereby the Town maintains 190 miles that would be characterized as incremental plus it would be a new main where the one now was 25 years old.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the main being proposed was consistent with the Town requirements for areas not in a public way. Mr. Coviello advised that it would be constructed to Town standards. He further noted that even though it was about 450 in length it went around the building and was in a better location for it to be maintained.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to who would pay for that work and was told by Mr. Coviello that it would be MathWorks.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support Article 14.
The Board reminded Mr. Coviello that perambulation of the bounds was
scheduled for September 22 at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Connolly noted that he wasn’t going to do it because of comments about the Ethics Law.
Article 3 – Stabilization Fund
Article 6 – Lease and/or Repair
Article 9 – Collective Bargaining – Superior Officers
Article 12 – Unpaid Bills
Ms. White reported there was a recommendation for no action on these four articles.
Article 7 – Rescind Authorization to Borrow $100,000 for Charles River Dam Engineering
Ms. White noted that 2008 Annual Town Meeting approved $187,000 for an evaluation of the South Natick dam and some of that money was for construction or improvements. Because that Town Meeting still has to be ratified, the funds can’t be borrowed, but the work has to get underway as soon as possible. To try to move forward with this work she went to the Finance Committee and got a transfer for $100,000 which ordinarily would have been done by borrowing. This was a housekeeping item to rescind authorization to borrow the $100,000.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to support favorable action on Article 7. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Article 10 – Personnel Board Pay Plan
Ms. White advised that the Personnel Board Pay Plan had been updated. There was no money involved, but some positions approved and funded by Spring Town Meeting had been filled or was in the process of being filled. The Personnel Board was recommending the creation of a building monitor position so the Senior Center would have someone on site when the building was rented in the evening. The pay for that position would be minimum wage. There was also a title adjustment for a position at the golf course to better reflect the duties.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 10.
Article 15 – Designation of Board of Selectmen to Appoint Trench Officer
Ms. White explained that every community was going to be required to appoint trench officers effective January 1, 2009 to issue permits on public or private property. She didn’t expect to hire any additional personnel. At present what she had in mind was that any trenches in a public way the Town Engineer would be the trench officer and on private property it would be the Building Inspector although that decision didn’t have to be made now. This article would give the Board of Selectmen authority to designate the trench officer(s).
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to support favorable action on Article 15. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Article 16 – Natick 360: Hear Report on Progress
Ms. White told the Board that her intent was to update Town Meeting on the department goals & objectives. She thought it would be a good idea to include this article annually in the Fall Town Meeting warrant.
Mr. Ostroff noted that the Finance Committee had a lengthy debate of what to do about this article and the point was just to provide an update. He (Mr. Ostroff) was going to put together a report for the Board to see before Town Meeting and go through it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Ciccariello didn’t believe any action was needed. Ms. Gloff agreed and suggested the Board not do anything until they heard what Ms. White intended to present and what Mr. Ostroff intended to present. Further discussion was put off until the next meeting.
Article 17 – Amend Zoning By-Laws: Add Assessors to Occupancy Permit Sign Off
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to support favorable action on Article 17. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Article 18 – Amend Zoning By-Laws: To Permit Commercial Antennas on Town’s Public Safety Towers
Ms. White noted this was a potential revenue enhancer. The amendment would allow the possibility of commercial antennas being placed on the Town’s public safety towers.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who would be the special permit granting authority. Ms. White believed it would be the Planning Board adding that she thought a permitting process was appropriate but thought a site plan review was superfluous since the antenna was there.
Mr. Connolly found the idea to be real clever and loved the idea of thinking outside the box.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 18.
Article 13 – Insurance Subsidy for Retirees
When the Board was going to discuss Article 13, Ms. Van Amsterdam requested that information be provided on what the consortium members were doing and she wanted to know how this might affect moving forward as the Town entered negotiations on health care issues.
SPECIAL TOWN MEETING NO. 3
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to call Special Town Meeting #3 for October 21, 2008 with the warrant to close September 16, 2008. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL APPOINTMENTS
In a memo to the Board Mr. Ostroff covered a number of issues with the Cochituate Rail Trail Task Force including the reappoints, confirmation of appointments, committee composition, terms, appraisal, railbanking, committee name, and design RFP. He noted that the Board previously did not take any action other than to have the Cochituate Rail Trail members serve until they were reappointed or replaced. Three at-large members were seeking reappointment: Dave Camacho, Peter Henry and Matt Daniels. Jan Henderson was appointed earlier this summer as an at-large member. Should the three at-large members be reappointed, there would be 4 at-large members and no alternate members. There would be no needed for any alternates.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to appoint Dave Camacho, Peter Henry, and Matt Daniels to the Cochituate Rail Trail Task Force.
- Confirmation of Appointments
Mr. Ostroff recalled that on June 30 the Board confirmed him (Mr. Ostroff) as the Selectmen’s representative and Evan Paglialuca as the Conservation Commission’s representative.
A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to confirm:
Karla Sangrey as the Planning Board representative
Richard Miller as the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee rep
John Griffiths as the Recreation & Parks Commission representative
Peter Robbins as the Finance Committee representative.
Unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff noted that in conversations with the Town Administrator her preference was to have one administration representative – the Community Development Director. The proposed composition would be as follows and if this were adopted the committee would include 11 members or 5 fewer than previously:
Community Development Director
Selectmen’s representative
Finance Committee representative
Planning Board representative
Conservation Commission representative
Natick Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee representative
Recreation & Parks Commission representative
4 at-large members
Mr. Ciccariello moved to establish the composition as presented. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
In his memo Mr. Ostroff had proposed giving the administration and committee representatives three year terms to expire 6/30/11 with the appointments of the at-large members staggered.
Mr. Ciccariello was concerned with having eight out of 11 members running for three years and thought they should be staggered. Ms. Gloff agreed that having eight people with three year terms was unbalanced.
Ms. Gloff moved to establish the following terms
Patrick Reffett 6/30/11
Joshua Ostroff 6/30/10
Peter Robbins 6/30/09
Karla Sangrey 6/30/11
Evan Paglialuca 6/30/10
John Griffiths 6/30/11
David Camacho 6/30/09
Peter Henry 6/30/10
Matt Daniels 6/30/10
Jan Henderson 6/30/11
Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff noted that an appraiser, Peterson/LaChance, had been chosen in August with an anticipated 90 day turnaround so no action was required.
Mr. Ostroff advised that the current railbanking agreement with CSX runs until November 13, 2008. This was a renewable 180 day window for both the Town and CSX and the Board can authorize the Town Administrator to request an extension of the railbanking agreement anytime between now and the November 3 meeting.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to authorize the Town Administrator to request an extension of the railbanking agreement for an additional 180 days. Unanimously voted.
As it seemed as though the task force may be around for awhile, Mr. Ostroff proposed renaming the group to the Rail Trail Advisory Committee in recognition of its role.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to rename the Cochituate Rail Trail Task Force to the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Ostroff recalled that when the Karla Sangrey, Chair of the Task Force, came before the Board a few months ago she talked about how the Task Force would like to draft an RFP for a conceptual design process for which Town Meeting had appropriated dedicated mitigation funds. It would be helpful to know if the Board had any objection to developing such an RFP, which would require the Board’s approval to issue. The RFP was a valuable follow-up to the research done to date and was a productive way to engage neighbors and the larger community on what the project could be. Of further benefit was that it was a necessary step to apply for state and federal funding if and when the Town was ready to do so.
Mr. Ostroff also advised that Framingham recently awarded a design contract and has asked for two representatives from Natick to participate on their Design Subcommittee.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the RFP would be done inhouse or with a consultant and was told by Ms. White that crafting the RFP could be done inhouse and then engage a design firm.
When asked if the Task Force had appointed two representatives from the Framingham subcommittee, Ms. Sangrey advised there would be a joint meeting with Framingham next Monday. As of yet the Task Force hadn’t had the opportunity to make an appointment.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about a vote on the RFP, but Mr. Ostroff said he wasn’t asking for a vote. If the Task Force designed an RFP and the Board wasn’t happy with it, it wasn’t going to go anywhere.
MINUTES
Ms. Gloff moved approval of the minutes of the March 12, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
ARTHRITIS FOUNDATION: ROAD RACE PERMIT, USE OF COMMON
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Arthritis Foundation’s request to use the Natick Common and to conduct the Arthritis Foundation MetroWest Walk along the public ways of Natick on May 3, 2009.
GROVE ROAD: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the request of Martha Paynter and Gerard McGonagle to close Grove Road from Pine Ridge Road to Jennings Pond Road on September 13, 2008.
No time had been requested, but it was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding that the block party would be from 3:30 p.m. to dusk.
WABAN STREET: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve Sharon Lesher’s request to block off a section of Waban Street between Floral Ave and Nelson Court on September 14, 2008 from 1:00-4:00 p.m.
REVENUE ENHANCEMENT TASK FORCE: AMEND COMPOSITION
Mr. Ostroff advised that the School Committee would like to appoint a liaison to the Revenue Enhancement Task Force rather than a member. It was important to have coordination with the School Department and he (Mr. Ostroff) was asking to amend the composition to allow for a designee.
Mr. Ciccariello couldn’t believe the School Committee couldn’t get a member to stay on this Task Force. The Task Force was put together specifically for a member of the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, and Finance Committee to participate.
At Ms. Gloff’s suggestion, it was agreed that Mr. Ciccariello would speak to the School Committee Chair.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
- Natick Service Council Food Pantry
Ms. White advised that she had received an e-mail that the Natick Service Council’s food pantry was running short and they were looking for community help. They were in need of personal care items, gift cards to the supermarkets, and cash donations. Collection bins were located at Stop & Shop, Roche Brothers, and the library.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
Mr. Connolly noted that a month ago there was a gentleman who came to citizens concerns about housing for a couple of individuals. Things were better but it wasn’t quite there yet. He also noted that the night of the meeting somebody paid for the individuals to stay two nights at the Hampton Inn.
Ms. Van Amsterdam was pleased the Board would be receiving a GASB 45 analysis. She looked forward to February 2009, but if it could be any sooner, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Ciccariello called attention to a letter in correspondence from someone pleased with the service given by Tina Pilla in the Collector’s Office.
Mr. Ostroff noted the correspondence about the coiled Verizon wires and asked that Verizon be contacted.
Mr. Ostroff informed the Board that two weeks from now there would be a hearing concerning the toll increases and he wondered if the Board would consider submitting a letter on fair toll increases.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to send a letter opposing further toll increases on the Mass Pike. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he would love to see the Selectmen’s list of policies on the web site, but Ms. Gloff noted there were some left off the list because they were set to expire, i.e. the one year trash fee, and there may be others that were either partially or completely out-of-date. It was something she was interested in and she planned to take a look at the policies and come back to the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
___________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 