BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
October 20, 2008
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:05 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 October 20, 2008 in the amount of $651,373.65. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $3,698,833.35.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Ostroff announced that the Town and the Veterans’ Council were planning a Veterans Appreciation Day on Veterans Day November 11. Veterans and their families should contact the Veterans’ Agent John MacGilivray for information.
Mr. Ciccariello reminded the other Board members that an additional Selectmen’s meeting had been scheduled for Monday, October 27, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION – GIFT OF LAND
Conservation Chair Matthew Gardner appeared before the Board to request the Board’s formal acceptance of a gift of property at 0 Wild Meadow Lane from Eastland Partners. Back taxes were $31.77 which would be taken care of by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Gardner noted there was an easement for an abutter for an abutter to use approximately 650 square feet for a driveway. That easement was in perpetuity until if and when the Town decided to build a road through the property. Mr. Gardner advised that he spoke to the abutter and the abutter was in favor of this grant of land.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the parcel was connected to an existing or planned trail. Mr. Gardner responded that there was a potential. It was a cul de sac off Everett and would have potential to connect into any trail system in the area.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the area described for future highway purposes and Mr. Gardner explained that if there was ever a need to build a road to connect into areas to be developed that was what it would be for.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry as to who was responsible for taking care of the driveway, Mr. Gardner responded that it was the property owner at 8 Wild Meadow. Any trails built on the land would be the responsibility of the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if this was buildable land or marsh. Mr. Gardner hadn’t looked at the land but assumed it was buildable. However, it was a narrow lot and on its own probably wouldn’t meet any of the setback requirements.
Asked by Mr. Ostroff if he was aware of plans to build a road for the South Natick Hills development, Mr. Gardner replied that he was not aware of any.
Ms. White added that the intended purpose was to have a leg along the way of a future trail system. The Town didn’t have any plans to build a road. It was intended to build a trail system.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to accept the gift of 0 Wild Meadow Lane as described in the Town Engineer’s memo of September 5, 2008. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously.
Mr. Connolly requested that a letter of appreciation be sent to Eastland Partners. Mr. Gardner assured the Board that was the Conservation Commission’s practice and it would be done.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2009 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
The Board was in receipt of a comparison of liquor license fees for surrounding towns and the Town Administrator’s recommendation. The Town
PUBLIC HEARING: 2009 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES (contd)
Administrator recommended an increase in the all alcohol common victualer’s from $2,500 to $3,000 and the all alcohol common victualer’s with lounge/bar stools from $3,000 to $3,500. There would be no change in the other categories.
Mr. Ostroff noted the Board last increased fees about two years ago a modest amount to keep them in line with surrounding communities. That was the approach taken. The intent was not to make it more difficult to operate a restaurant in Natick. To him the Town Administrator’s recommendation seemed reasonable and he was glad to see the club licenses were not increasing.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello if there was any particular reason why she had selected only two categories to increase, Ms. White stated that she didn’t support a couple of the consultant’s recommendations. She didn’t support increasing any one of the fees substantially in one jump as she saw it as a burden. The wine & malt with cordials was presently at $2,000 and the consultant recommended increasing it to $3,000. That was a substantial increase all at once and didn’t reflect the revenue a business would generate from that operation. A cordials license wasn’t as productive as a full liquor license and that fee was just put into place. While the Town wants to increase its revenues, it needs to be balanced with trying to be fair to the businesses.
Ms. Gloff had the impression from the consultant that he didn’t understand the difference between an all alcohol and the cordial. There were many different liquors that someone with a cordials license couldn’t have.
Mr. Ciccariello noted the last time the Board increased fees was in 2006 and before that was 3-4 years. In his opinion an increase in the cordials license to $2,250 would not be a substantial increase. The all alcohol license was being hit with a $500 increase and the same with a restaurant and lounge. He also proposed increasing the one day license from $25 to $50 to offset the cost of administering it.
Asked if he was suggesting the increase for both the non-profit and for-profits, Mr. Ciccariello indicated that he meant both. With regard to the one day non-profit, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if any thought had been given to a non-profit entity coming before the Board seeking a waiver of the fee. Should the Board have criteria for the fee to be potentially waived?
Mr. Ciccariello responded that he didn’t want to make it (waiver policy) a condition of the fee schedule.
Mr. Ostroff pointed out that the cordials restaurant was restricted to 50-99 seats and with the volume of business he wasn’t sure it wouldn’t make it (fee increase) overly burdensome. Currently there was only one restaurant with the cordials permit.
To Mr. Ciccariello it seemed like the ratio of liquor to food has been increasing with restaurants exceeding the 20% rule. He didn’t think they were suffering too much. Ms. Gloff noted that was restaurants with all alcohol not cordials.
There being no one in the audience wishing to speak, Ms. Gloff moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff moved to establish fees in line with the Town Administrator’s recommendation and increase the common victualer’s all alcohol from $2,500 to $3,000 and common victualer’s all alcohol with lounge from $3,000 to $3,500 and the other fees stay the same. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. After a brief discussion the motion failed on a 2-3-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff and Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam, and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
Mr. Connolly moved to increase the common victualer’s all alcohol from $2,500 to $3,000 and the common victualer’s all alcohol with lounge from $3,000 to $3,500 plus increase the wine & malt with cordials from $2,000 to $2,250 and increase the one day licenses from $25 to $50. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van
Amsterdam, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff and Ms. Gloff were opposed.
The 2009 liquor license fees were set as follows:
Innholders $4,000.00
Restaurant All Alcohol $3,000.00
Restaurant with Lounge/bar stools $3,500.00
Restaurant Beer & Wine $1,750.00
PUBLIC HEARING: 2009 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES (contd)
Restaurant Beer & Wine w/Cordials $2,250.00
Package Store $2,000.00
Club $ 500.00
One Day $ 50.00
Plus a $250.00 filing fee for new applications and a $100.00 filing fee for any change of condition (change in manager, stock pledge)
Speaking to the motion, Ms. Gloff said she thought about making a slightly different change but decided she didn’t need to tweak it that much. $50.00 was a small amount of money but thinking of some of the one day licenses granted she was not certain they sold enough liquor to make the difference. She thought of having a different dollar amount for profit vs non-profit, but often a caterer came in seeking the license for a non-profit so what would be charged. In her opinion $50 for a one day license was too high.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he had the same objections as Ms. Gloff. For some non-profits it may not matter but for others it would.
QUESTION #4: SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE
Ms. Gloff told the Board that she had been contacted by John Blanchard looking to provide the Board with information on the Single Payer Health Care question. Mr. Blanchard was unable to be present tonight but had submitted the information in the packet.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the intent was to ask the Board of Selectmen to endorse the question and Ms. Gloff noted that was Mr. Blanchard’s request, but it was up to the Board. The thought was to take a few minutes to let the public know more about it.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if this question could impact anything with the Town of Natick’s health insurance. Ms. Gloff advised that it could and Mr. Ostroff pointed out that it was non-binding.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he didn’t want to get into a political discussion on whether someone should vote yes or no and questioned if the Board would be hearing both sides.
Ben Day, the Executive Director of Mass Cares, noted there was no organized NO campaign.
Mr. Day was given an opportunity to address the Board, but Mr. Ciccariello emphasized that he was to restrict his comments to just saying what the question was about and not get into the pros and cons. Mr. Day explained that single payer health care was what almost every other developed country had. Health care was provided to everyone as a right. This was a local non-binding question appearing in 10 districts. One was the 5th district covering Precincts 1-9 in Natick. The ballot question read: “Shall the representative from this district be instructed (1) to support legislation that would establish health care as a human right regardless of age, state of health or employment status, by creating a single payer health insurance system that is comprehensive, cost effective and publicly provided to
all residents of Massachusetts, and (2) to oppose any laws penalizing the uninsured for failing to obtain health insurance”.
Mr. Ostroff stated that it was not his intent to make a motion to support Question 4, but he got the same letter as Ms. Gloff and was enthusiastically supporting it. His view was that there were great health insurance companies that enrich the companies but not nearly the health care people need and deserve. Companies that enrich themselves at the expense of individuals was not what people deserved. It was his belief that health care was a basic human right.
COMPTROLLER: QUARTERLY REPORT
Town Comptroller Fred Witte distributed a copy of the exceptions report for the end of September indicating expenses by department. He noted that any department exceeding 25% of their full year budget had an issue and those items were shaded on the report. He pointed out that some departments had
timing issues and when it was said 25% should be spent in three months that was typically a department with salary expenses. Roughly 65-70% of the Town budget was salary related.
Looking at the Contributory Retirement, Mr. Witte noted that 50% of the appropriation had been spent and that was because the Town reimbursed the Retirement account twice a year. The one department with an issue was the reserve fund. Veterans Services already had to go to the Finance Committee
COMPTROLLER: QUARTERLY REPORT (contd)
for a transfer due to excessive expenses on medical and assistance for Veterans and that was probably something to be concerned about.
With respect to Veterans Services, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if the number had increased or was it the severity of their illness.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that he had discussed it with the Veterans agent and there was an indication from him there had been an increase in the number of applicants applying for financial and medical expenses including several requests for rental payments. Before Mr. MacGilivrary (Veterans Agent) can release any funds he had to get approval from the State and they have taken a position of not wanting to put people out of their homes. The Town gets reimbursed 75% of the money expended but as of late it’s been taking 12 months to get it back. There has been a drastic increase in claims.
From the Reserve Fund was a $100,000 transfer to the DPW for the Charles River Dam investigation/engineering and Mr. Connolly inquired if any thought had been given to retrieving some of that back in grant money.
Ms. White recalled talking about this at a prior meeting and assured Mr. Connolly the administration was interested in looking at a grant from the Mass Historical Commission for the dam, bridge and park but typically a grant would not cover funds already spent. The $100,000 was the investigative work and the expectation was the Town would be incurring repair work and any repairs could be incorporated into a grant. At the moment no funding was available but the administration was tracking to see when the program would have adequate funding.
Another transfer was $45,793 for the courthouse boiler and Mr. Connolly asked if that was the total cost. Ms. White advised that it was and noted that the District Court had submitted a lease amendment to DCAM and that would reflect a reimbursement of somewhere between 50-100%.
Noting an item further down on the agenda concerning the Comptroller appointment process, Mr. Ostroff stated that he wanted to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Witte for his service.
Mr. Witte continued that the Board was probably aware the department was operating at 75% of staffing because the payroll clerk resigned the end of July and the backup person for the payroll has taken on that function and it has caused somewhat of a burden on the rest of the department. The position was advertised but wasn’t successful.
Ms. White informed the Board that quite a bit of time had been spent looking at different alternatives to restructure staff within the Comptroller’s and Treasurer’s office and she planned to meet with Ms. Van Amsterdam as the financial liaison. That was scheduled for tomorrow and she would then come back to the Board with a proposed restructuring.
Mr. Ciccariello asked what was being done in the meantime and Ms. White responded that one of the staff members had been doing the payroll as well as her other duties.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the submission to the DOR and when that would occur. Mr. Witte advised that the representative would be here tomorrow morning to pick up the package and he would have a better idea at that time when there would be a free cash number.
Asked if there was any idea of bringing in some temporary help, Mr. Witte noted that hadn’t been discussed because they had been able to meet the payroll requirements. There was some impact of the staffing on free cash because the other individual works on cash receipts. Last year the consultant actually spent a great deal of time doing the cash receipts. This year they were able to do it themselves as well as the accounts receivable reconciliation.
On the flip side when the free cash package was presented last year, the consultant put it together so he (Mr. Witte) didn’t have the experience of doing that. That was part of the reason the free cash number wouldn’t be available as quickly as it was usually.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked if the reconciliations were up-to-date and Mr. Witte’s reply was, “yes”. Asked if they were updated through September 30, Mr. Witte said, “no”, adding that the Town did not have a billing and collection system that interfaced. It had to be done manually.
COMPTROLLER: QUARTERLY REPORT (contd)
Commenting that it had been done manually for years, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if any steps were being taken to change that. Ms. White responded that Mr. Witte instituted a number of modernizations in the department. When he came in there were still some accounts being done in ledger books. A tremendous amount of modernization had been done, but there was still a way to go.
Mr. Connolly inquired if any thought had been given to reaching out to the payroll clerk who resigned. Ms. White advised that it hadn’t been talked about and reiterated that she planned on meeting with Ms. Van Amsterdam tomorrow to look at some interim measures.
With respect to the free cash number, Mr. Connolly assumed Town Meeting would want to know something and he wondered if it was possible for Town Meeting to do what they have to do without the number. Mr. Witte didn’t believe there were any appropriations from free cash in any of the articles. Ms. White confirmed that as correct. She further confirmed for Mr. Connolly that the free cash number would not have any direct effect on the articles.
With regard to the manual processes, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if Mr. Witte or his staff had documented the necessary steps that need to be taken to move to automizing.
Mr. Witte advised that Finance Director Robert Palmer was working on that. He (Mr. Palmer) dealt with the software that was used by the Town. It was an objective of his and Mr. Palmer’s to investigate this situation because he (Mr. Witte) felt it was broken and in the dark ages.
Ms. Van Amsterdam requested that Mr. Palmer come before the Board to explain the next steps so progress could be made. Mr. Witte was leaving and she didn’t want to wait for a new Comptroller. As Mr. Palmer would be at the meeting tomorrow, Ms. White suggested that this be a topic of discussion as well.
Mr. Ostroff conveyed his appreciation for the work Mr. Witte had done over the past couple of years. A lot of helpful changes had been made and he thanked Mr. Witte for his service and all the nights and weekends.
Mr. Witte thanked the Board for their support.
NATICK SERVICE COUNCIL: REQUEST WAIVER OF BUILDING FEE
Mr. Ostroff informed the Board that he received a call from Mr. Wissa Wissa, the Natick Service Council Executive Director, this morning saying he was ill and couldn’t be here tonight. He asked Mr. Wissa to have a member of the Service Council board come tonight in his place.
No one from the Service Council was present at the time and Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the pleasure of the Board.
Ms. Gloff thought it would be nice to have somebody here to answer questions.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the Service Council had filed for a building permit and paid the fee, but Ms. White didn’t know.
Unless there were objections Mr. Ciccariello said he would move the discussion to the meeting of November 3.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he was prepared to make a motion to waive the fee but if more time was needed he could wait.
Ms. Van Amsterdam wanted to put forward a philosophical discussion about waivers such as this for private charities, but she could wait.
Mr. Connolly didn’t understand why the Service Council wasn’t here and he told Mr. Wissa it was becoming increasingly difficult to try to do something nice.
Ms. Van Amsterdam was concerned that there were no criteria to differentiate among or between any persons or organizations that come before the Board requesting an abatement. The Natick Service Council was a worthy organization and their worth to the community was unquestionable. It was about the Board’s role. Without any criteria she was concerned that any decision the Board made would be arbitrary and capricious. She wasn’t sure if the Board wanted to move toward setting a policy for organizations looking for an abatement or waivers. Unless that was done she felt the Board would never be able to treat those that come before them in an equitable manner.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
- South Main Street Property
Jack Hayes of 218 South Main Street submitted a written complaint about the Mabardy property at 126 South Main Street along with pictures which he requested back. He explained his complaint had to do with the zoning, wetlands, and obstructing his driveway.
Mr. Hayes noted the Town had issued building permits without surveying and the tenants were pushing him off his right-of-way. They want to expand their business and he was in the way. He liked the Town and he would have to be offered a very good price to sell. He would like the Board to look into it. A long time ago he came before the Board and never heard anything.
Mr. Hayes continued that this was a commercial business and he gets woken up at 6:45 a.m. because they were putting bark mulch in trucks. They have 40 foot 18 wheelers delivering goods to the property. They didn’t grow anything on the property. Everything was shipped in.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that he would get together with the Town Administrator.
PRELIMINARY REPORT: EXPENSE CONTROL TASK FORCE
The Board was joined by the School Committee and members of the Expense Control Task Force.
Ms. Van Amsterdam, Chair of the Expense Control Task Force (ECTF), stated the Task Force was here to present an interim report to the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, members of the Finance Committee and the general public. The report had been provided to members of Board of Selectmen and School Committee last Friday and after this evening it would be posted on the Town’s web site along with the minutes of the ECTF. Listed in the report were the persons who served on the Task Force. They were here and she thanked them for their efforts.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted the formation of the Task Force was fortuitous. It was after the override had passed and capitalized on the efforts of the Town Administrator and the boards and committees. The Task Force tooled itself by reading volumes of material. Time was spent with the Town Administrator, Interim School Superintendent Dr. Keefe, and many department heads.
Key to the process was the discussion with those persons responsible for the day-to-day management of the affairs of the Town. They provided insight into the services offered and the Task Force questioned them about the delivery and essentialness of the service. The Task Force directed the department heads’ focus to their ideas for cutting costs and if they considered eliminating or cutting services they offered. They were asked about cutting costs while maintaining services at the current levels and managing cost increases over time.
Ms. Van Amsterdam continued that the Task Force was struck by the professionalism and enthusiasm of the persons interviewed and that served to re-enforce for the Task Force that these persons were excited about the services they delivered being more effective and were willing to discuss what a core service was, to take feedback from citizens, and were open to new ways of providing a services. Consolidation and privatization were talked about and the Task Force queried individuals on how they held their employees accountable. It was recognized in building the case for cost containment there had to be structural change.
The Task Force asked questions such as were the services provided in an effective and efficient manner and always looking for ways to manage costs to
provide the service. They looked at general government and the School Committee sharing resources and looked at new ways to combine those services. In addition they looked at maximizing resource levels and looked at ways to reduce redundancy in departments. It was important to make certain the performance of employees was maximized by telling them they were accountable. That was done by setting goals and encouraging them to participate in the outcome and measuring those goals. As part of the need to change as a strategic imperative, the question was asked ‘were we supportive of the transfer of knowledge’. A climate needed to be created in which employees felt they could share information. That was critical for the underlying financial rigor that takes place.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that initially the Task force thought about cost cutting but after all the reading and meetings, realized having heard from professionals that work for the Town, they could not afford to indiscriminately cut costs. The idea involved more structural changes and
PRELIMINARY REPORT: EXPENSE CONTROL TASK FORCE (contd)
asking those very important questions and after they evolved as a group came up with four recommendations to achieve structural changes. The focus was on Facilities Management, Human Resources, Information Technology, and Procurement & Purchasing. They (Task Force) came to the conclusion the first place the town could start, and it might not be personnel savings in the short-term, they felt by pursuing consolidation of these areas of general government and Schools there were tremendous benefits for the Town. No budget models were run to support these recommendations, but it was anticipated there would be expense control from centralizing policy and centralizing management oversight. They looked at leveraging the limited but critical resources. It was felt the savings would be identified in performance
outcome and the report detailed what the performance outcomes would be for each of those areas.
In addition to those four areas (facilities maintenance, human resources, information technology, procurement) the Task Force brainstormed a whole host of savings for the Town. Those near-term initiatives included the elimination of red checks, bi-weekly payroll and direct deposit, elimination of the antiquated fire call boxes, ambulance fee collection, regionalization of public safety services, Memorial School kitchen upgrade, full privatization or expanded outsourcing of School food service program, full privatization of closure of Sassamon Trace Golf Course. Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that as they brainstormed this list and compared the list to material prepared by the Town Administrator, Finance Committee or School Superintendent, they noticed many initiatives they identified were already in a state of review. With
regard to these initiatives the Task Force recommended they be monitored and tracked for completion and outcome.
While the Expense Control Task force will continue to move forward in analyzing opportunities to control short and long term costs, Ms. Van Amsterdam noted there were some next steps:
- Continue the Task Force analysis and evaluation of the potential opportunities as detailed previously in this document
- Provide any support requested by the Town Administrator or the School Superintendent as they evaluate and act on the recommendations detailed in this document
- Respond to the pleasure of the Board of Selectmen and School Committee or input from Natick residents for other potential Expense Control opportunities deserving analysis and evaluation
With regard to the four areas seen for structural change, Ms. Van Amsterdam advised the Task Force would be happy to lend any assistance. She was not looking for a specific vote on the recommendations this evening, but the Task Force stood ready to support the Town Administrator, Superintendent, Board of Selectmen, and School Committee in the evaluation of those four critical recommendations and hoped after the evaluation action would be taken.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted the Task Force had very diverse backgrounds and different philosophical opinions but never came to a philosophical impasse. She concluded with a quote from Margaret Meade.
Mr. Ciccariello thanked the ECTF for all the work done. A tremendous amount of effort went into this and it was appreciated. He opened the floor up to questions and comments from members of the School Committee.
School Committee member David Murphy thanked the ECTF for their time and efforts. He felt that a lot of the consolidated efforts sounded like a good idea. Given the workload and different staffing levels he wondered if
anybody had looked at whether consolidation would result in decreased costs. Sometimes it just creates another layer of government, i.e. Homeland Security.
Mr. Murphy clarified that his question was not meant as a criticism but if talking about consolidating School and general government resources before doing that he wanted to make sure some cost savings would be seen.
School Committee Chair Steven Meyler also thanked the ECTF for all their diligent work. It was clear that a lot of work had gone into the report. It has taken a lot to get to this point and a lot of work and analysis was in front of us, and he was looking forward to bringing the ideas back to the School Committee to start the evaluation process.
Mr. Ciccariello opened the floor to comments and questions from the Finance Committee members.
PRELIMINARY REPORT: EXPENSE CONTROL TASK FORCE (contd)
Stating that she was speaking for herself, Finance Committee member Cathy Collins recognized a lot of work had gone into this but as she read this report she found herself concerned. Some of it was gratuitous such as ambulance fee collection where there will always be a gap. There was also some concern about facilities management and she would caution against rushing too quickly to address all of this even in light of the fiscal condition.
Mr. Ostroff thanked the Chair and all the members of the Task Force and noted he would be interested in getting a sense of the scale of savings in the recommendations. He would also be interested to see what items in the operating budget were likely to see the most growth in the years to come and to what extent that was a priority. In addition he was curious to know if the Task Force planned to look at the Retirement Board appropriation.
Mr. Ostroff continued that he wanted to see if he understood the basic criteria in what was used in trying to save money – wanting to maintain the quality of services and how the service was delivered may change. Beyond that it sounds like the Task Force had a broad range of approach, but not an approach that a service was not needed. The services being provided now were determined important and not looking to be eliminated, but may be delivered in a different way.
Ms. Van Amsterdam responded that it could be the service continues to be something the Town has responsibility for, it could be something done in conjunction with another Town, it could be done with a private entity and it could be that service morphed into something entirely different.
To Mr. Ostroff’s comment that an initiative was not the same as a recommendation, Ms. Van Amsterdam responded that the initiatives were something the Task Force was interested in looking into and whether there would be hard cost savings. For example, the issue of do we need the fire call boxes would be reviewed with the Public Safety Department.
Ms. White noted that Ms. Van Amsterdam and she spoke about the report a couple of times and she would concur there was a need to be very creative in our thinking and a lot of ideas need to come forward and be explored to be efficient and cost effective in our operation. She would suggest that perhaps a subset should get together to talk about these in more detail. She thought it would make sense to explore to see if any could be put forward for the FY10 budget.
Ms. Van Amsterdam responded that the Task Force was at the disposal of the Town Administrator and Superintendent to follow upon any and all of these recommendations.
Jeffrey Silverstein, a member of the ECTF, referred back to a comment from Mr. Ostroff on not cutting services and noted the orientation of the Task Force was not to cut services but would preserve the right to look at services and at least suggest some services the Town was providing may not be appropriate for the Town to be providing, i.e. the golf course. He wasn’t sure the Town could say the golf course was a core service. A lot of money was spent on the golf course and the Town was losing a lot of money and he wasn’t sure that could be seen as sacred and off the table.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that everything was on the table with what the Task Force felt they could discuss. Looking at materials presented by the professionals, the Town Administrator, and Superintendent they provided a
road map for the Task Force along with documents from the Finance Committee, annual reports from Town Meeting, and a series of votes taken by the Board of Selectmen and School Committee. Some have said do not rush to judgment and she didn’t want to leave the impression the ECTF wanted to rush to judgment. They recognized the structural changes in terms of cultural issues and they looked at any service to see if it was truly a core service and looked collectively if there was a better way to provide the service. Many of the initiatives within the report persons would either embrace or take exception to, but she would like all of us to move forward with an open heart and mind. She looked forward to having the meeting Ms. White mentioned as soon as possible.
ARTICLE 27: PLAN TO ADDRESS POSSIBLE PASSAGE OF STATE BALLOT QUESTION
Before recognizing the sponsor of the article, David Margil, Mr. Ciccariello stated that he didn’t want to get into a discussion about the pros and cons of the question. He noted the Finance Committee had no recommendation on Article 27 by a vote of 6-4.
Mr. Margil told the Board that he went to the Finance Committee to talk about this article and made it clear that he filed the article prior to being
ARTICLE 27: PLAN TO ADDRESS POSSIBLE PASSAGE OF STATE BALLOT QUESTION (contd)
appointed to the School Committee. He did it as a private citizen not as a member of the School Committee. The article was filed with the intent of providing to Town Meeting and the citizens the best estimate of impact to Natick if Question 1 on the ballot were to pass. When he went to the Finance Committee the article was reduced to a much more focused motion: “Move that Town Meeting hear a report from the Town and School Administration on the potential effects, whether direct or indirect, in the event that Massachusetts State Ballot Question 1 to reduce and/or eliminate the state income tax passes in November 2008, without Town Meeting accepting or approving the contents of said report.”
Mr. Margil noted the purpose of the article was to inform Town Meeting what the School and Town administration felt the impact of this question would be.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if Mr. Margil was hoping this would be considered earlier in Town Meeting so the information would be available before November 4. Mr. Margil responded that that would be his preference for it to be earlier on the warrant and he would explore the possibility of see if it could be taken out of order.
Mr. Connolly stated that he liked it when both sides were heard. He was concerned when Town administration and School administration in an effort to educate start campaigning and give scare tactics. A lot of times it wasn’t what was said, it was what was not said.
Mr. Ciccariello thought one would assume the Town and School administration was in a position to speak to these impacts without knowing the dollars and what the State might do.
Ms. White advised that the School Superintendent and she have agreed to make a report if Town Meeting wanted to hear it relying on information developed by the MMA and Mass Taxpayers Association. They (Ms. White and Superintendent) didn’t intent to get into specifics but there were projections available to the impact that would likely occur if Question 1 were to pass.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that it was up to Town Meeting what they wished to do with this article. He had some concerns about not having all the proper information and did not want to be throwing dollars and numbers out there without knowing them.
Ms. Van Amsterdam felt the administration knew what dollars they get from the State today and what programs were funded and that would be the extent that Ms. White would be talking about.
Ms. White noted that the information from MMA was developed by state officials, but there was no way to be sure exactly what the state would do. MMA has run a computer simulation on the likely impact on communities.
Ms. Gloff believed it was known what percentage of revenue the State took in came from the income tax and that could be given as fact.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to support favorable action on Article 27 and to encourage Town Meeting to hear a report from the Town Administrator and School Superintendent on the affects to Natick were this to pass.
Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, to make no recommendation on Article 27. No vote was taken as a previous motion for support of favorable action passed.
Speaking to his motion, Mr. Ostroff thought this was a critical issue for Natick. The Town received $14 million in State aid. The state had certain expenses it was obligated to fulfill such as debt and Medicaid. Most of the money to cities and towns was discretionary. He believed everyone at Town Meeting needed to have a good sense of the outlook should that money not be available. He thought Town Meeting deserved to have all the information and encouraged the Board to get that information.
Tony Lista divulged that he was a member of the Finance Committee but specified that he was speaking as a citizen. He noted this was the second time he heard a request for this article. As somebody who did this type of analysis professionally this was wagging the tail before the dog. There was a total dollar amount but no one had any idea of the impact. The MMA said
ARTICLE 27: PLAN TO ADDRESS POSSIBLE PASSAGE OF STATE BALLOT QUESTION (contd)
there were no facts behind their projections, it was an educated guess. There was no way to make any claims at this time and he encouraged the Board to take no action or take action at a date certain when the facts were known.
Mr. Silverstein seconded Mr. Lista’s comments, adding that he thought it was prudent for municipal agencies to plan for an income tax reduction or elimination but he hoped the likely response of the state would be factored in - the likelihood the state would fill in at least some major portion of that revenue by increasing other taxes or as they have done in the past years simply ignore the ballot question.
Mr. Margil didn’t think anyone could speculate what the State would do and noted it was a binding initiative. Nothing could be assumed. It had to be taken at face value. If the question passed, he (Mr. Margil) believed it had to be assumed the legislation would go into effect as written. When making their judgment he thought people had to look at it at face value.
Assuming Town Meeting would decide to hear reports, Ms. Gloff encouraged the Town Administrator and School Superintendent to provide the facts available and put out scenarios so Town Meeting had the breadth of the picture of what could happen. There was always going to be some opinion in any of this and she thought the goal should be to provide the facts and the options of possibility at this time.
A recess was called at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was again called to order at 9:10 p.m.
AMERICAN GIRL: APPLICATION FOR ONE DAY BEER & WINE LICENSE
Representing American Girl in the request of General Manager Scott Davidson for a one day beer & wine license on October 31, 2008, was American Girl Vice President Wade Opland.
Mr. Opland told the Board he was looking to apply for a one day beer & wine license for the opening benefit party of the American Girl store at the Natick Collection. The benefit was to be held on October 31 with 10% of the shopping and the cost of the tickets going to Children’s Hospital.
In response to a few questions from Mr. Ostroff, Mr. Opland advised that a certificate of liability insurance had been filed, the $25.00 fee would be submitted and the servers would all be licensed.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to grant Scott Davidson a one day beer & wine license for October 31, 2008 for premises at the Natick Collection. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
With respect to the Common Victualer’s application, Mr. Ciccariello said he had nothing to offer. He didn’t know if all of the clearances had been received from the Board of Health or Building Department.
Mr. Opland advised that the health inspection was done today. There was one minor thing but they were allowed to do training. They passed the Fire inspection and most likely would be getting a temporary C.O.
Mr. Ciccariello noted the Board just got the application today, and Mr. Opland responded that American Girl only found out about this license last week and got the application in this morning. The plan was to open October 31 for a short day and have the benefit party. The application was on the Selectmen’s agenda for November 3, but the challenge was the store would be open for business on November 1 and 2.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s remark that it wouldn’t happen (the store opening) without a common victualer’s license, Mr. Opland responded that birthday parties for little girls had been reserved for the last four months. He reiterated that American Girl didn’t know about the need for a common victualer’s license and worked as fast as they could.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that an executive session had been scheduled for October 27 and the Board could take 10 minutes to consider his one item. It was his preference to consider it at that time.
The executive session was scheduled for 6:00 p.m. and the Board agreed to start the meeting at 5:45 p.m.
BUDGET UPDATE
Ms. White reviewed her memo to the Board outlining the hiring freeze announced at the last meeting, a proposed voluntary reduced work week program, and information regarding the Governor’s recent budget cuts and the state budgetary situation.
In her memo to the Board, Ms. White advised that Natick’s financial outlook for this current year and into FY10 was bleak at best. The Town would be challenged to meet current year revenue projections due to lower than expected returns on investments, permit fees, motor vehicle excise tax and other revenue categories and some expense categories were up, notably fuel and energy costs.
In response to this projected imbalance between revenues and expenses, three cost cutting measures had been initiated to date. First, as announced at the last meeting, she had imposed a hiring freeze. Specifically, all department heads have been advised that if any position became vacant they were not to proceed with filling that position without her authority. If the department head and she believed the position should be filled, the case would be presented to the Board of Selectmen. While this hiring freeze was in effect, it was her intent that positions would not be filled without the support of the Board.
Second was the immediate implementation of a proposed Voluntary Reduced Work-Week program. A copy of the program description was attached to the memo for use by department heads, who were directed to make it available to their personnel. This program would allow an employee other than uniformed police and fire personnel to choose to work fewer hours per week and have their pay reduced accordingly. While she certainly did not expect to have a large number of employees participate, the hope was that some would. The incentive was that they would continue to earn vacation and other accruals based on their regular schedule. Applications for program participation would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure the temporary reduction in hours would not trigger overtime for other personnel.
Both of these measures have been reviewed with the School Superintendent so that he could evaluate if either or both have applicability within the School system.
Finally, the administration was in the process of evaluating all capital projects – town and school – that have been authorized to determine if any could be delayed.
Ms. White continued that the Town’s free cash figure was anxiously being awaited. $3 million in free cash had been earmarked in support of the Fy10 budget and the administration certainly anticipated needing free cash to supplement current year budgets at the 2009 Spring Town Meeting. Specifically, the School Department had already identified the need for additional transportation funding, higher than anticipated energy and fuel costs were expected across the board, and reduced play at the golf course has caused a deficit in that budget. At the cost of FY08 many of the negative impacts that were of such concern now had already started to take their toll. The administration was very concerned that free cash would not be adequate to address the identified needs. Once free cash has been determined, more
drastic cost cutting measures may be necessary beyond those implemented to date.
Due to concerns about free cash, none of the articles to be presented at the upcoming Fall Annual Town Meeting were funded from free cash. Importantly, this cautionary approach would impact the efforts to address the backlog of capital needs. Progress was being made in this area but action on many of the capital needs would have to be deferred until there was clear budgetary picture.
There was also deep concern and careful monitoring of local aid. While the Governor’s recent budget cuts did not include reductions to local aid, there was concern that communities may be more vulnerable to this impact after the election should another round of state budget cuts be necessary. Further, there was talk of local aid reductions for FY2010 in the range of 15%. Ms. White assured the Board this situation would be monitored very carefully.
Ms. White continued that it was important to note the many recent and ongoing efforts to control expenses and generate revenues. The Board recently heard a report from the Environmental Compliance Officer regarding reduced energy consumption although the overall cost was up due to unprecedented cost increases. The recently completed Fee Analysis will facilitate increasing fees where appropriate. The Treasurer’s recent refinancing of some of the
BUDGET UPDATE (contd)
Town’s debt produced substantial savings and, subject to Town Meeting’s approval of the necessary zoning change, opportunities will be explored for co-location of antennas on the Town’s towers to generate revenue.
Ms. White noted that several recent efforts reflect the aggressive approach to ensure the Town received all the property tax revenue due. Those steps include the recent change of tax title attorney to address a backlog of those cases, retaining special counsel to represent the Town with respect to valuations at the Natick Collection and the proposal to include the assessor among those departments that must sign off on an occupancy permit to ensure the supplemental tax was applied at the earliest opportunity. Last year’s initiatives to join the RTA and to adopt Section 18, among others, produced considerable savings.
Ms. White assured the Board that the administration would continue to work closely with the Revenue Enhancement Task force and the Expense Control Task Force towards implementation of their innovative ideas.
One key area that demands attention was health care costs. Ms. White noted the adoption of Section 18 which required Medicare eligible retirees to enroll in Medicare and one of the many tow-sponsored Medicare supplement programs, produced considerable savings for the Town. When the administration proposed adoption of Section 18, Ms. White said she was clear that the Town’s efforts to rein in the burgeoning costs of health care would not be made solely on the back of the retirees. Subsequent to the adoption of Section 18, she noted that she has stated numerous times that the status quo with respect to employee health care simply cannot continue. It was reported nationwide that no employee, public or private, had more favorable health care than the Massachusetts municipal employee. The Town simply cannot
afford to continue to offer these current types of health care plans while paying 85-90% of the cost.
Ms. White continued that the Town’s health insurance budget grew 188% between FY00-08 as compared to the total operating budget which grew 58% over the same period. Health care now represents over 10% of the total operation budget. Negotiating changes with respect to the Town’s health care program was a high priority of the administration.
Ms. White stated that the administration would continue to monitor the budgetary situation closely. Staff discussed these matters virtually daily. They would be monitoring revenues on a quarterly basis although given the varying cycles for receipt of revenues this will not be as solid a predictor as they might hope. She further noted the reformation of the Financial Planning Committee to facilitate needed communication between the Selectmen, School Committee and Finance Committee. A meeting has been scheduled for next Wednesday, October 29.
In conclusion Ms. White stated the Town’s budgetary situation warrants close attention and careful monitoring. The administration will need to continuously evaluate all operations for opportunities for savings, necessitating enhanced cooperation and creativity throughout the organization. The administration will continue to keep the Board and
community informed as they evaluated and responded to the budgetary challenges.
In a separate memo, Ms. White further clarified the hiring freeze, and informed the Board that some vacancies were, however, well on their way to being filled at the time of her announcement. For example, the Board was faxed notice of the intent to fill a part-time Dispatcher position. Filling this position was a cost effective choice since the alternative was to pay full-time dispatchers at the overtime rate to fill all necessary shifts. The new hire would not be benefits eligible and would fill in during full-time employees’ absences.
Other vacancies that existed prior to her announcement and were in the process of being filled include: the Payroll clerk, Morse Library Assistant, Comptroller, COA Volunteer Coordinator, Board of Health Director, Morse Library Director, Morse Library Reference Librarian. The position of Young Adult Librarian was open and she would report back after consulting the Library Trustees.
Ms. White referred to a handout from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council summarizing the Governor’s recent 9C budget cuts which by and large did not directly affect municipalities.
BUDGET UPDATE (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the balance in the stabilization fund and was told by Ms. White that it was about $2 million. Ms. White added that that was the only source for emergency funds at this time.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to Ms. White’s understanding of the next round of cuts if necessary. Ms. White said she didn’t have a sense of that and hadn’t received any heads up on it.
Mr. Ciccariello asked when Ms. White would be in a position to make a presentation of the finances with specific numbers. How much was lost in investments. Ms. White hoped to have that within a couple of weeks. She had promised to produce quarterly revenue reports and she hoped to provide the reports of quarter to quarter comparisons within the next couple of weeks. Asked if it would be ready for the November 3 meeting, Ms. White said that would be her goal. The Comptroller had to post the revenues and produce the report.
Ms. Van Amsterdam requested that a discussion of what the Financial Planning Committee was talking about be included in Ms. White’s next update. Ms. White suggested that the Board may want to post a meeting of the Board of Selectmen for each Financial Planning meeting in case another member wishes to show up.
Ms. Connolly questioned if the Schools did a hiring freeze, but Ms. White didn’t know.
Mr. Ostroff requested a snap shot from the Council on Aging of what kind of changes they have seen. Many of the Governor’s cuts affect services programs people rely on and he was looking for an estimate of the impact on Natick residents.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked about notification of the retirement fund contribution and Mr. Ostroff responded that typically the Town would receive a memo from PERAC around the middle of November that told us the appropriation. At the Retirement Board meeting the end of last month, there seemed to be a suggestion that the Retirement Board had lost relatively little, but he didn’t see anything in writing. The Board could ask the Comptroller for more information. The Retirement Board was meeting October 29.
If the Retirement Board’s investments dropped below a threshold, Mr. Ciccariello asked if they would automatically go into the State program. Mr. Ostroff explained that it had to do with the previous year. If as of December 31 the Retirement Board was below 65%, they could be eligible to be put into PRIT but PRIT had also lost a few billion.
FINDING OF HEARING OFFICER: KIMLER DOG
The Board was in receipt of a report written by the hearing officer Ms. White and Attorney David DeLuca who essentially conducted the hearing with her. At the hearing the owner of the dog was present along with a number of witnesses. The report discussed the evidence and findings of fact, namely that the subject animal was a 1.5 year old male Pit-bull/Labrador mix named
Marley. The animal was domiciled in Natick with Mr. & Mrs. Kimler and their 3 children.
The witnesses testified that on September 11, 2008 they were horseback riding at Elm Bank Park. The park was posted for owners to lease and clean up after their dogs.
Each witness testified that they were on horseback in a wooded area riding their horses at a walk single file along a marked path. Each witness reported that they saw the mix breed dog Marley aggressively approach the first horse and rider, June Downey and her horse Dee. The witnesses testified that Marley immediately began barking and snapping at the foot of the rider and behind and under the horse. Ms. Downey testified that she was bitten on the heel of her boot without penetration before she was able to kick the dog away. Consistent testimony was given by all witnesses and the horse’s owner Linda Cucinotta that the horse Dee suffered dog bite wounds to her right flack and inside upper right hind leg. It was reported that the veterinarian had administered to the horse on three occasions to date,
including an initial visit on the day of the event and two subsequent follow up visits. Ms. Cuccinotta reported that the attack caused tissue damage to Dee and the area was inflamed, requiring the horse to undergo antibiotic treatments, rabies booster shot and ongoing flushing of the wounds.
FINDING OF HEARING OFFICER: KIMLER DOG (contd)
The witnesses testified that the dog owner was not seen initially but appeared momentarily and despite her attempts, she was unable to control the dog. The horse Dee also attempted to repel the attacks by kicking and stumping at the dog with such force causing the rider June Downey to be thrown to the ground. Ms. Downey testified that her helmet was broken but that to date she had not sought medical care for any injuries resulting from the fall.
The riderless horse Dee bolted from the area and was aggressively pursued by the dog; three of the witnesses testified that the dog had clamped its bite onto the horse and was hanging on in this manner as the horse ran. In the vicinity of Route 16 and Hunnewell Farm the horse and the dog were eventually brought under control by a combination of local police, DCR Park Rangers and unknown witnesses.
The witness Lorraine Williamson also testified about a similar confrontation perpetrated by the same dog earlier in the summer. While there was some dispute about the date, the dog Marley was identified as the same three legged dog involved in the September attack. Ms. Williamson testified that the unleashed dog attempted to bite her horse and her companion’s horse before it could be brought under control by the owner. Ms. Williamson testified that she did not report this incident to authorities until the happening of the September incident.
The dog owner Lisa Kimler testified she was with Marley on each occasion at Elm Bank and did not dispute the facts or details of aggressive confrontation caused by Marley. Ms. Kimler testified that although she was aware of the requirement for dogs to be leashed while at Elm Bank she believed it to be the custom of many dog owners to unleash their dogs in this area. Ms. Kimler testified that she had attempted to use an electronic training collar for Marley which proved to be unsuccessful on these visits to Elm Bank. Significantly, Ms. Kimler testified that while she has not returned to Elm Bank, she has on occasion permitted Marley to be unleashed in a wooded area behind her home in knowing violations of Natick’s leash law.
Ms. Kimler testified that Marley has not shown any other aggressive tendencies and that she has hired a trainer to work with her and Marley.
The Natick Animal Control Officer Keith Tosi testified that he was initially notified of the September 11 incident by the Wellesley and Dover Police and he subsequently met with the witnesses at the Natick Police Department and the Kimlers at their home. The witnesses and Ms. Kimler confirmed the facts as they have been reported and the Kimler residence was inspected. Officer Tosi testified that the dog Marley appeared to be compliant with its owners and the confinement to the property by a crate and an electric fence; however, Ms. Kimler testified that Marley did on one occasion escape through the electric fence. Officer Tosi also interviewed the dog trainer Bill Gilgrist and he stated that in his opinion Marley did not pose an immediate threat to the Kimler family or the public. Officer Tosi also confirmed that
Marley was properly vaccinated and currently licensed in Natick and successfully quarantined as a result of this incident.
In the recommended disposition section of the report, Ms. White stated that the evidence was undisputed that on September 11, 2008 the aggressive and uncontrolled action of the dog Marley created a grave threat to public safety. Injury to June Downey and the horse Dee from this incident was apparent and potential injury to other members of the public at Elm Bank on the vicinity of Route 16 and Hunnewell Farm was also readily apparent. Mr. & Mrs. Kimler were responsible to control the behavior of their dog Marley at all times for the protection of their family and members of the public, however, it was recommended that:
- A solid perimeter fence, either chain link or stockage fence with locking gates or an enclosed pen of sufficient size and quality be installed to contain the dog Marley at all times while on the Kimler property
- Behavior training to continue as needed and in accordance with the directives of the Natick Animal Control Officer.
- Banishment from Elm Bank and all Natick parks or public property in perpetuity
- Leash and muzzle to be utilized at all times while Marley is off the Kimler property
- $500.00 to be paid by Mr. & Mrs. Kimler to the Town of Natick as costs incurred by the Natick Animal Control Officer’s investigation and continuing supervision of this matter.
FINDING OF HEARING OFFICER: KIMLER DOG (contd)
- Payment of restitution for injury, loss or damage to the horse owner, and/or witneses as determined by the Kimler’s insurance carrier or a court of competent jurisdiction
- Notification to Mr. & Mrs. Kimler that failure to comply in all respects to the determination of the Board of Selectmen may result in further and more serious consequences.
In conclusion Ms. White said she found this whole incident disturbing and tried a number of times for Counsel to include restitution to the horse’s owner but Counsel advised that it was beyond the authority of the Board of Selectmen to require the restitution. Regretfully the horse owner if they seek reimbursement would have to go through a court to get it.
Mr. Ostroff requested a clarification of banishment from Elm Bank, etc. Did it mean the Kimler’s couldn’t walk the dog on the sidewalks. Ms. White’s reply was, “no” and Mr. Ostroff wondered if that needed to be clarified or was it generally understood. Noting there was the Town Forest, and rail trails, Mr. Ciccariello thought maybe a little more clarity was needed.
Mr. Connolly asked if the Board could talk to the Kimler’s but Mr. Ciccariello reminded him that the Board had requested the Town Administrator with Town Counsel to conduct the hearing.
Mr. Connolly then asked if the Kimler’s had seen all seven recommendations and Ms. White said “no”.
Continuing, Mr. Connolly asked about the $500 for costs incurred with the Animal Control Officer – if he (Animal Control Officer) had been paid overtime. Ms. White advised that he had not and Mr. Connolly questioned the reason for the $500. Ms. White noted that perhaps she shouldn’t just have listed Animal Control as she also had spent a fair amount of time as did Counsel. It seemed a likely amount.
Asked by Mr. Connolly if this $500 was the status quo, Ms. White advised that this was the first time there was a payment of funds but it went to not incurring costs unnecessarily.
If this was not satisfactory or there was a different set of facts that lead to a stronger recommendation, Mr. Ostroff asked if that recommendation would be banishment from the Town. Ms. White responded that if a determination was made that the animal was dangerous to not want it in our Town she wouldn’t want to send it to another town. This one was not at this point at this time. There may come a point where the corrective action was to have the animal destroyed, but we weren’t there.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that this occurred in Dover on state property. Did Dover take any action? Ms. White explained that according to the law it was where the dog was domiciled.
In his years on the Board, Mr. Ciccariello recalled there being two dog incidents and it was his recollection the Board never assessed a fine for costs incurred by Animal Control or Town Counsel to do a hearing. Was this something the Board wanted to make a policy that if the Town incurred expenses, it would seek to recoup those costs?
Ms. White didn’t know if there necessarily had to be an official policy but costs were put upon the Town because of this incident.
Mr. Ciccariello clarified that it was costs incurred by the Town of Natick as opposed to Animal Control.
Ms. Gloff said she could imagine a complaint being filed and after investigation the complaint was substantially unfounded and she didn’t think the Board would want to charge a fee.
If in the future the Board was thinking of assigning a fee that needs to be paid to the Town, Ms. Van Amsterdam said she would move to set up a policy and use this case as a precedent. Given that Elm Bank was state property, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to how that had been handled by Counsel. Ms. White advised that it hadn’t because they were waiting to see if the Board would adopt that recommendation and if so the Board would notify the Elm Bank personnel. Asked if the Board could banish the dog from Elm Bank, Ms. White’s reply was, “yes”.
FINDING OF HEARING OFFICER: KIMLER DOG (contd)
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the recommendations of the Town Administrator with two amendments. To #3 add, “other than sidewalks and public ways”. To #5 specify $500 as costs incurred by the Town of Natick. The motion failed on a 2-3-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff and Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam, and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
Mr. Ostroff acknowledged the suffering, fear and trauma associated with this event and commended the Town Administrator for her handling of this situation.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to adopt the Town Administrator’s recommendation with the elimination of #5 ($500 fee). Ms. Van Amsterdam seconded for discussion. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam, and Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff and Ms. Gloff were opposed.
Speaking to his motion, Mr. Connolly noted that fencing could be expensive and hopefully the Kimler’s would do what it takes. He understood the concept of the $500 to cover costs incurred by the Town, but he felt the Kimler’s would have to pay the vet bills for the horse. They (Kimler’s) already had a mess on their hands and $500 seemed a little over the edge.
Mr. Ciccariello couldn’t recall the Board ever assessing a fee when there was an issue with a dog case and in one case a human being was physically assaulted. He was a little weary about assessing a fine particularly when the Dog Officer didn’t work overtime. Without a policy he was concerned with doing it and thought this situation could be used as a tool to create a policy.
Ms. Van Amsterdam supported Mr. Connolly’s recommendation, but wanted to make an additional motion that the Board ask the Town Administrator to come up with a policy for instances such as this where the Town would be compensated in instances of valid dog complaints. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff was opposed.
Speaking to Ms. Van Amsterdam’s motion, Mr. Ostroff pointed out this would be setting a policy for a unique situation and given the demands on the Town Administrator’s time, maybe this was something that could be looked at in the Spring. He didn’t want this to be something on the front burner.
Ms. Van Amsterdam had no objections to waiting on the development of a plan.
ST. PATRICK’S PARKING LOT: 2009 PERMIT FEE
Mr. Connolly disclosed that he was an employee of the Archdiocese.
Ms. White referenced her memo of October 16, 2008 outlining the proposed parking permit fees for Fiscal 2009 along with a memo from November 2007 proposing a three year rate structure that increased the prices based on the lease with St. Patrick’s.
Ms. White noted that currently the fee was $600 and the recommendation was for that to be increased to $640. The current fee for non-residents was $700 and that was proposed to be increased to $740. The increase was necessary
because the cost had gone up for the rate being paid to St. Patrick’s and took into consideration the Town’s costs to maintain. Those were very speculative because there was no way of knowing how often it had to be plowed but there was a rough estimate of those costs which would suggest just about a break even. Ms. White added that she had not approached setting the fees as a profit making venture but thought the Town should try to break even.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if there was a waiting list for commuters, and Ms. White replied that there had been. It may be short at this time because a street had been opened up for commuters at the commuter rate. There were 84 residents and 9 non-residents using the St. Patrick’s lot.
In follow-up Mr. Ostroff questioned if that was at capacity and Ms. White responded that it was more than capacity because of the daily fluctuation (the number of permits had been oversold).
Mr. Ostroff believed there was some resistance to increasing permit fees and if the fees went up, the Town may end up with a shortfall seeing there wasn’t a wait list. However, he appreciated the need to increase the fees to cover the cost.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that in lieu of renewing the St. Patrick’s lease there had been some talk about using the Mechanic Street lot and asked if that had
ST. PATRICK’S PARKING LOT: 2009 PERMIT FEE (contd)
been considered. Ms. White advised that the Conservation Commission owned that property so it would be up to them. She noted that when the property was purchased there had been a lot of discussion that if it was purchased and owned by the Conservation Commission it should be open space long-range. The property was to be parking for the Cochituate Rail Trail and establishing it as a commuter lot would be contrary to having the property designated as an open space parking lot.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how much had been spent on maintenance at the St. Patrick’s lot in the last two years. Ms. White didn’t have that figure, but noted that she had increased the DPW’s estimate of their costs by 5% as an inflationary factor. Mr. Ciccariello thought 5% was too low and saw the Town losing money on this leave for three years.
Ms. White pointed out that it was important to balance out the issue raised by Mr. Ostroff that if the fee went up too much, people purchasing the permits would be lost. It was important to balance the Town’s costs with the objective of selling all the permits.
As the lease ran through 2010, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if Ms. White planned to continue discussions with the Conservation Commission to see if there was a way to have parking. Ms. White advised that the lease (with St. Patrick’s) could be cancelled with 60 days notice and it (use of Mechanic Street) could continue to be studied and perhaps evaluated as the lease was about to expire.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to establish the parking fees for St. Patrick’s commuter lot for 2009 at $640 for residents and $740 for non-residents. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
With respect to the fees for downtown businesses, Ms. White noted that last year the Selectmen increased the permits from $300 to $325 and she wouldn’t recommend an increase this year. A fee of $2 had been proposed last year for senior citizen parking, but this year Ms. White recommended that it be left at zero.
Ms. Gloff moved to establish a parking fee for downtown business parking permits at $325 and $0 for senior citizens. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff abstained.
AWARD CONTRACT: MIDDLESEX GARAGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young reminded everyone that at the last meeting the Board directed the Town Administrator to proceed with negotiating a contract with Desman Associates for floor plans, elevations, preliminary schematic designs and cost estimates of a three-tiered parking structure to rest on the site of the former Middlesex Garage facility.
The Procurement Officer and he met with three representatives of Desman Associates this morning to review the contract, the requirements of the Town and provided a large amount of background to the project, the history of the garage, and the relative place of the garage in terms of the overall parking picture in Natick Center and beyond. Both staff and Desman felt comfortable
with the terms and deliverables required. Once the contract was signed, Desman anticipated approximately a 6 week turnaround for final deliverables including a final report with cost estimates, plans, elevations and designs. Deliverables were likely to be in the Town’s hands by the middle of December.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to award the contract for the Middlesex Garage preliminary design to Desman Associates in an amount not to exceed $10,000. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
TCAN: REQUEST FOR FOUR (4) ONE DAY BEER & WINE LICENSES
Mr. Ostroff disclosed that he was a member of The Center for Arts in Natick, but he had no financial interest and had a statement on file in the Town Clerk’s office.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to grant The Center for Arts in Natick four one day beer & wine licenses for performance to be held at 14 Summer Street on October 31, November 21, November 22, and December 12, 2008.
COMPTROLLER APPOINTMENT PROCESS
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Town Comptroller Fred Witte offering to remain in his position as Comptroller until a replacement was found, with
COMPTROLLER APPOINTMENT PROCESS (contd)
the expectation the process would begin immediately and would be conducted in a diligent fashion.
Human Resources Director Elizabeth Dennis had provided the Board with a copy of the position description and a copy of the advertisement to be placed in the web based and print media of the Massachusetts Municipal Associates, Massachusetts Auditors’ and Accountants’ Association, Massachusetts Collectors’ and Treasurer’s Association, and the Massachusetts Government Finance Officials’ Association.
Ms. Dennis noted a correction in the ad. The ad indicated a $98 million budget which was the budget in 2006 and that would be updated so applicants would know the magnitude of the budget. She noted the MMA deadline for the print media was tomorrow and if authorized by the Board she would get it out their tomorrow.
Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned if it was common practice to have a minimum Bachelor’s degree as opposed to an advanced degree. When Ms. Dennis advised that it was, Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned if it had to be advertised at the minimum. How many other towns asked for an advanced degree? Ms. Dennis couldn’t answer that, but noted that when an analysis was done the minimum requirement was the Bachelor’s. There may be someone very well qualified with all the years experience but without the advanced degree.
Ms. White added that she would be more interested in certification than a degree beyond a Bachelor’s.
Mr. Ostroff recalled that the last time the Board ran into a situation where there weren’t candidates with the level of experience felt to be suitable and the Board went for someone without municipal experience. He questioned if the salary being offered would attract qualified applicants and if any research had been done that would give us confidence in that salary.
Ms. Dennis responded that she hadn’t done that research but this was the salary range ($69,897-$30,380) for the position’s classification and to go beyond that would require a Town Meeting vote. She added that the last time Natick went out for a Comptroller there were 6 or 8 other communities looking for a Comptroller so the competition was stiff. With the economy turning she didn’t think there would be many positions out there so there would be more people than the last time.
Mr. Ciccariello raised the possibility of looking outside the state and Ms. Dennis agreed that a nationwide search could be done, but if the Board was looking at someone from Connecticut or elsewhere the $95,000 may not attract anyone without moving expenses. The Board could spend the $1,200-1,500 on the ad for the Boston Globe as well.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if there was a web site on which the ad could be placed. Ms. Dennis noted that she saw a national accountant’s and auditing web site and she could put it on there. However, the thing that may keep people from applying was that the Town was looking for someone with knowledge of Massachusetts laws.
Ms. Gloff stated that she would support putting the ad on a national web site as long as a lot of money wasn’t spent because she thought it was a long shot.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to approve the advertisement of the Comptroller position. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
SPECIAL TOWN MEETING #3 WARRANT ARTICLES
Article 2- School Committee: Additional Funds for High School Feasibility Study
Ms. White informed the Board that she had asked the School Committee if they would agree to defer action until the Spring Town Meeting so all the supplemental budget actions could be evaluated together. She believed the School Committee Chair had agreed to consent to the Finance Committee’s recommendation for referral.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support referral of Article 2 to the School Committee.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES:
Article 5 – Capital Improvement
Ms. White advised that the only article proposed for repairs was to the Town Hall and Police Fire boiler. A spreadsheet was just received today prepared
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES: (contd)
by the DPW with input from the HVAC consultant Bruce MacRitchie. The list was as follows:
Boiler Repairs
Town Hall Boiler refurbish $ 44,189
Police/Fire boiler refurbish $ 46,137
Engineering $ 1,800
Three Way Mixing Valves(2 @ $8,500) $ 17,000
Valve Controls and system Upgrade $ 27,140
Subtotal Town Hall and Police/Fire Boilers $136,266
VAV Box Upgrade
Modulating controls $151,900
Engineering $ 11,000
CO2 Sensors (17 @ $1500) $ 25,500
$188,400
Server Rooms A/C
Leibert systems (Town Hall Server & Police Server) $ 37,000
Leibert Controls (2 @ $880) $ 1,760
Engineering – Design $ 5,200
Engineering – Site Work $ 1,120
$ 45,080
Roof Top Units
Engineering $ 20,000
RTU Coils (Estimate will be verified by engineering
Work) $250,000
Total Project Estimate $660,000
Ms. White explained that $20,000 was being requested for engineering for the roof top units, but a disclosure was being made that there was a rough estimate of $250,000 for the cost of the coils. The $250,000 was not being asked for at this time – just the engineering with the recognition that a subsequent request would be sought. There was an inconsistency in the systems and the maintenance department has been putting on band aids. The total cost being requested now was $410,000 with $250,000 to come at a later date. It would be borrowed money probably over 10 years.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that she had heard this talked about, but never received a presentation and asked if this went all the way back to when the buildings were built.
Ms. White advised there was a meeting with the HVAC engineers with Mr. Ciccariello, and a member of the Finance Committee in attendance. The problems within the two buildings (Town Hall and Police/Fire) went back to when the buildings were first completed. MacRitchie was of the opinion there were some design elements. Some were actually overdesigned which was making the rooms too cool and there were also some elements of the design that were not installed. The administration was working with Town Counsel on this.
Article 5 – Capital Improvement
Mr. Ciccariello added that MacRitchie determined that no three way mixing valves were installed and the boilers experienced thermal shock which caused some sections to fail. When the manufacturer of the boiler was contacted about the repairs it was discovered that the way it was piped and engineered was inappropriate and that caused some problems. From what can be determined on the modulating controls of the VAV boxes, there was something specified and for some reason they were not finished and installed. Nobody knew if the job engineers deleted or if it was just overlooked. More research was being done.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that the C02 sensors were not the result of any engineering or past design work. It was a state requirement adopted about a year and a half ago. With respect to the server rooms, he noted there was one in Town Hall and one in the Police Department with all the computer equipment. When it was designed the Town didn’t have this type of equipment. The equipment was generating tremendous heat load and causing a temporary shutdown. These were independent units that go into these rooms. He had asked the Town Administrator if these two rooms could be combined into one, but it didn’t seem to be reasonable at this time. This was a decision of whether to air condition the rooms so there wasn’t a problem.
Continuing Mr. Ciccariello noted that the roof top units were now about 10-11 years with a life expectancy of 15 years. This needs a lot more study as to
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES: (contd)
the appropriate way to replace. If the boilers were refurbished and the mixing valve not put in, you might as well not do the refurbishment.
Noting the recommendation of the Expense Control Task Force for the consolidation of the IT Department with the Schools, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if there was anything that would lock us in by purchasing these systems. Was it portable or was it locking it in to keeping the departments separate?
Ms. White advised that other approaches to this department had been looked at. DPW Facilities Manager Cory Lovett reviewed with the consultant energy efficient condensing boilers, but that would add another $1/2 million. The extent of the investment was so large there would be many years before that return would be seen.
Mr. Ostroff didn’t think there would be an expenditure until FY10 and Ms. White agreed it would be at least then. With the situation right now, she wouldn’t want to go out to borrow now and thought it might be February or so for the market to turn around. The engineering for the internal failures would proceed first.
Mr. Ostroff questioned if there was a risk for failure and was told by Ms. White that one boiler was down in each building. If another were to fail, Mr. Ciccariello suggested there could be a rental.
Referring to a mention that Town Counsel was involved in recovering costs, Mr. Ostroff inquired if there was any sense of the probability of recovery. Ms. White wasn’t sure there would be a good sense of that before Town Meeting. It was pretty complicated because of the number of engineers and contractors involved and the duration.
Mr. Connolly stated that he was going to vote against. He felt the Town got taken and it would be nice to see them (contractor, engineer) held accountable.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to support favorable action on Article 5. 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.
Article 16 – Natick 360 – Hear Report on Progress
The Board had been provided with a copy of the report Ms. White planned to present to Town Meeting on the Natick 360 progress.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support the presentation to Town Meeting.
Mr. Ostroff referenced a memo he had provided on the Natick 360 action items for presentation to Town Meeting. As part of the overview Mr. Ostroff suggested including the statement: The Selectmen hope to convene sponsoring boards and other interested committees and citizens to review our long term strategy within the next 1-2 years. Ms. Gloff thought this was a good thing
Article 16 – Natick 360 – Hear Report on Progress
to do but wanted to make sure the other members saw it and didn’t have a problem.
Article 21 – Amend By-Laws: Prohibit Sale of Cigarette Lighters to Persons Under 18
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support Article 21.
Article 24 – Amend Zoning By-Laws: Assisted Living Residence Overlay District
Article 25 – Amend Zoning By-Laws: Location of Assisted Living Residences Overlay District – Pleasant Street
Article 26 – Amend Zoning By-Laws: Location of Assisted Living Residence Overlay District – North Main Street
Ms. White explained that Article 24 would create a new zoning district and Articles 25 & 26 would rezone land. Article 25 was a parcel on Pleasant Street and Article 26 on North Main Street. The Planning Board asked for referral to the Planning Board and that was the recommendation of the Finance Committee.
Mr. Ciccariello added that the Planning Board wanted an opportunity to do some more study and bring it back at Spring Town Meeting.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES: (contd)
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to support referral of Articles 24, 25, 26 to the Planning Board.
Mr. Connolly noted that he had heard a lot of debate on both sides, but believed it should go back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Ostroff noted that the Board had received something from someone with a financial interest in the articles, but had not disclosed his interest.
Richie Robbins of 315 North Main Street thought the articles deserved to continue the process, noting that North Main Street was a natural site for assisted living. He urged the Board not to make a decision on demonization of the article.
Mr. Robbins referred to a map to point out the uniqueness of the site. There was 5+ acres fronting Route 27. The road was 32 feet wide with a 6 foot sidewalk and a 30 mph speed limit in a no passing zone. The property depth was up to 435 feet deep. It was approximately 300-400 yards from the Mass Turnpike, l/4 mile from Wayland, and ¾ mile to the nearest school.
Mr. Robbins noted that the opposition raised the issue of children walking to the Dairy Queen and he pointed out there were 6 feet wide sidewalks on both sides. Between the school and the Dairy Queen there were three professional offices, one church, 3 businesses, and a mix of multifamily and single family homes. Most of the homes were 75+ years old and on the downward side. The developers want to do the Town and the elderly proud, but were up against an e-mail army and needed their day in court. The Planning Board needs more time and he hoped Town Meeting gave them such.
Article 14 – Relocation of Water Easement – Route 9 at Apple Hill Drive
Mr. Connolly moved reconsideration of Article 14. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
In explaining his motion Mr. Connolly stated that some citizens in that neighborhood were concerned about The MathWorks development. He hadn’t realized that site was still going or he wouldn’t have voted for it in the first place. He was against Article 14.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Planning Board had approved the development, but Mr. Connolly countered that the neighbors were really uptight and he wanted to advocate for the neighbors.
Mr. Connolly moved that the Board not support Article 14. There was no second and therefore no vote taken.
A motion was made by Mr. Gloff to support favorable action on Article 14. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. 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.
Article 1 – Omnibus Budget
With respect to the use of Mall mitigation money to fund some training and equipment for the Fire Department, Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that the Town Administrator and the Fire Chief went to the Planning Board and she inquired as to the concerns of the Planning Board.
Ms. White advised that the Planning Board had two concerns. One was with the process. She should have gone to the Planning Board sooner with the proposed use of mitigation funds. The second concern was the use of Station 4 money. She along with Ms. Van Amsterdam would be meeting with the Planning Board Wednesday and would explain the Finance Committee and Board of Selectmen had the same concerns but the training and equipment warrant the one time use of this money.
To prevent any ill will going forward, Ms. Van Amsterdam said she would advocate for the Town Administrator and Community Development Director to be more involved in future mitigation funds. She then asked Ms. White if she saw any harm being done moving forward (by diverting some of the mitigation funds).
Ms. White responded that she hoped not, adding that her intention was to have a nice dialog with the Planning Board and apologize for not engaging them earlier. She also planned to reiterate the commitment to Station 4 but explain these needs had been identified by the Fire Chief and the Town
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES: (contd)
Administrator, Finance Committee, and Board of Selectmen supports and hope they (Planning Board) will not object to this use of mitigation funds.
Ms. White advised that she had asked the Moderator to delay action on this item until Thursday. She believed the Planning Board vote would be 1-5.
SPECIAL TOWN MEETING NO. 3: WARRANT ARTICLES
Ms. White noted the Board had already voted on these articles. This item was only included on the agenda in case anything new came up.
CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT BY TOWN ADMINISTRATOR TO COMMISSION ON DISABILITY
Ms. White informed the Board of her intent to appoint John Connolly as a member of the Commission on Disability. Both she and John MacGilivray, Veterans Director and liaison to the Commission, interviewed Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly stated that he had a nice meeting with Ms. White and Mr. MacGilivray and they clearly outlined the duties and responsibilities and he was looking forward to working with the group.
While he applauded Mr. Connolly’s volunteering, Mr. Ostroff had one concern. The Selectmen appoint the Veterans Agent who was the staff liaison and while he (Mr. Ostroff) acknowledged this was not an issue today, he thought Mr. Connolly should be cognizant of it.
Mr. Connolly believed Town Counsel had reviewed and OK’d it.
Mr. Ostroff expressed his support of Mr. Connolly being a member of the Commission on Disability – he just wanted to acknowledged that Mr. Connolly would find himself in this situation.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to confirm the Town Administrator’s appointment of John Connolly to the Commission on Disability.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATIONS (2): EXPENSE CONTROL TASK FORCE
Without formal vote the Board accepted the resignation of Lori Andrews and Lori Rosen from the Expense Control Task Force.
Mr. Ciccariello requested the vacancies to be posted and a letter of thanks to both individuals.
MINUTES
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to approve the minutes of the April 7, 2008 meeting. 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.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
Ms. White reported that she had formed an Energy Task Force to brainstorm with social services agencies on the high cost of fuel. One thing that emerged was to set up an account for residents in need and the Natick Energy Assistance
Fund was in the process of being set up. The Fund will be through the Citizens Bank and people can make donations at any local branch.
Ms. White noted that the Board had appointed special counsel to conduct an audit of the Natick collection permit fees, but it turned out he had a conflict of interest. The legal firm the Natick Collection uses was a firm with which he had done some work and hoped to do work for in the future.
In view of this Town Counsel has retained a consultant expert and between Town Counsel and Mark Tibbett they expect to complete this task.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
Mr. Connolly recalled the Board talking about allowing seniors to do the tax work off program by proxy. The DOR said it couldn’t be done, but he thought it was approved by the Board.
Ms. White advised that it was never implemented. She was trying to get a written opinion from the DOR, but it (using a proxy) didn’t look favorable.
- Conference on Regional Solutions
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
Mr. Ostroff noted that a conference on regional solutions would be held on October 31 at the Library.
Mr. Ostroff thanked the Town Administrator for being in touch with Verizon concerning the double coiling of wires around poles.
It had been indicated that the sidewalk on Speen Street had been completed, but Mr. Ostroff advised that was not correct.
Ms. White noted that it had been her understanding that it was finished.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if the work from Speen Street to Sherborn had stopped. Ms. White didn’t know.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s query on whether the banners on the street lights had been resolved, Ms. White responded that she was trying to work it out with the manufacturer. A couple of the decorative light poles were somewhat lose and the manufacture asserts that they may have become lose because of hanging the banners. The DPW disputes that, but she has alerted the Natick Center Associates in case the banners had to come down.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
______________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
