BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
November 17, 2008
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly
ALSO PRESENT: Martha White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on November 17, 2008 in the amount of $639,724.26. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $3,482,391.14
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Junior Girl Scout Troop 22825.
Following a moment of silence for the men and women serving in the Armed Services, Girl Scout Troop Leader Beth Widesky spoke about Troop 22825’s service project. This year’s project was cell phones for soldiers. Each donated cell phone was worth a one minute call oversees and the goal was to collect 800 cell phones. The members of the Troop took turns describing the program.
ANNOUNCEMENT
- Natick Heat Assistance Fund
Ms. White introduced Janice Shubert, the branch manager of the Roche Brothers Citizens Bank, who presented the Town with a $500 donation for the Natick Heat Assistance Fund.
Ms. White explained that the Director of Human Services Moira Munns and she formed a task force in response to the high energy costs. That had somewhat abated the last few weeks, but there was a population that needs help. An account was opened at the Citizens Bank to accept donations and the distribution will be made using guidelines of the Elderly & Disabled Taxation Fund. Citizens Bank promptly and generously donated $500 to the fund.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if someone would be at the Open House on Thursday to talk about the program and provide the opportunity for people to make contributions.
Ms. White advised that Ms. Munns would be here and have information about the fund.
Donations would also be accepted that evening for the Natick Food Pantry and Toys for Tots.
Mr. Ciccariello thanked Citizens Bank for their generosity.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO EXPENSE CONTROL TASK FORCE
Mr. Ciccariello stated that two candidates were here tonight, but a third, William Idzal was unable to attend.
Andres Rochwerger stated that he was a resident since 2006. When he moved to the Town he became involved with Natick 360 and learned quite a bit about the Town and got excited about the range of plans and vision of the Town. That committee has finished with what he thought was a great outcome and he was looking for a new opportunity to stay involved and participate.
Mr. Rochwerger noted that he was a professional engineer with a business degree and worked in Town at Boston Scientific as a manager. He hoped to bring his experience to the task force. The better expenses were controlled the more the Town could do.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if Mr. Rochwerger read the minutes of the task force or the interim report and Mr. Rochwerger responded that he went to the web site and got the report. He didn’t have a full grasp of the report and had a couple of questions. The actual mandate and timeline wasn’t clear to him.
Ms. Van Amsterdam explained that the task force thought they would identify some specific areas and pass it to the Board of Selectmen, School Committee and Town Administrator and a sub set will be meeting Ms. White and School Superintendent Peter Sanchionni and the two chairs to talk further about how the task force could aid the Town and the Schools as they worked on some of the recommendations put forward. The Task Force was working on some additional areas they may delve into and analyze data. In terms of a timeframe for the task force, she thought it would continue, but they served at the will of the Board of Selectmen.
Justin Harder told the Board that he lived in Natick for 1-1/2 years and saw the advertisement and was interested. He hadn’t read any of the Task Force’s material on line. He was an engineer and worked as a Vice President of Operations for a mechanical company in Newton managing about 100 people and thought he would bring a lot to the table for day-to-day operations.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if Mr. Harder had served in a volunteer capacity before. Mr. Harder responded that he hadn’t. This would be the first.
Mr. Ciccariello noted there was still one more candidate to interview so his preference would be to wait to interview the remaining candidate on December 1.
PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR – SPEEN STREET CONDUIT
The Board was in receipt of a request from Nstar for a grant of location on Speen Street – northwesterly, approximately 600 feet Northeast of England Road, a distance of about 48 feet of conduit at pole 158/11. The work was necessary to provide electric service for a new subdivision, Kylie Lane (Granite Ridge Estates).
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR – SPEEN STREET CONDUIT (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello referenced the 1995 agreement between Nstar and the Town whereby Nstar was only required to attend the hearing if requested.
The Board was in receipt of a memo from William DeRosa, DPW Engineering, stating the DPW had no objection to the petition.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the status of repaving Speen Street and the timing for the conduit work because there was a moratorium (on newly repaved streets).
Ms. Van Amsterdam advised that the granite curbing was almost completed.
Ms. White responded that in general her understanding of the street opening policy was that if it was for new construction the policy was not applicable because there was no other way to provide the service. She wasn’t sure where the road was in terms of repaving.
Given that this was a new subdivision that had probably been worked on for the past year, it sounded to Mr. Ciccariello like the Board was getting a last minute request.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how adding the 600 feet was impacted by the article passed by Town Meeting. Mr. Ostroff didn’t know if it would apply since it wouldn’t be providing service on Speen Street. Mr. Ciccariello countered that it was his understanding that anything new was to go underground. Ms. White pointed out that the petition was for underground conduit.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to table to a future meeting and get clarification as whether it can wait until the moratorium had passed. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. The motion failed on a 1-4-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff, and Mr. Connolly voted in opposition.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, to approve the grant of location as requested. 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.
Ms. Van Amsterdam didn’t know if the road had been completed, but was concerned with all of a sudden reopening it again and wondered if there was a way to try to time some of this. The neighbors in that area of Speen Street have been calling the DPW for months on the issue of plates in the road and granite curbing.
Although she had no information about this particular application, Ms. White noted that the DPW notified every utility long before they engage in road work.
Mr. Ciccariello requested that the Town Administrator notify Nstar to promptly get in touch with the DPW before the DPW put in new pavement.
Mr. Ciccariello also asked everyone to look at the 1995 agreement and decide if they would like Nstar to be here for the hearings to answer any questions.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN LOCATION: CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN
Representing California Pizza Kitchen in their petition for a change in location was Attorney Patricia Farnsworth of Lawson & Weitzen.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Ms. Farnsworth explained that California Pizza Kitchen was currently located in the Natick Mall and was remaining in the Mall but in a new building. In addition to the change in premises, California Pizza Kitchen was adding 14 seats at a counter and wanted those 14 seats to be approved as bar seats.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to when California Pizza Kitchen planned to move into the new space. It was Ms. Farnsworth’s understanding that it would be within the next month.
Ms. Gloff pointed out that the original proposal had 16 counter seats. Ms. Farnsworth advised that was resubmitted to be 14 because of the 10% rule in the Town’s Rules & Regs.
Mr. Ostroff asked about outdoor seating and Ms. Farnsworth responded that there were 142 dining room seats, 14 counter seats, and 38 outdoor seats.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how the outdoor seating would be enclosed, but Ms. Farnsworth didn’t know. She assumed there would be plantings or vases. Mr. Ciccariello noted that outdoor areas must be permanently enclosed. Ms. Farnsworth said she would check with California Pizza Kitchen on what they intended to do.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the change of location for California Pizza Kitchen to a new structure at the Natick Collection, 1245 Worcester Street and to upgrade the alcohol license to a restaurant all alcohol license with lounge/bar stools for 14 bar stools. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE: JAVA JIM’S TO DOMINICO ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A JAVA
Representing Dominico Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Java was the owner Audrey Lavey and Claire Prokup.
Ms. Lavey advised that what was previously Java Jim’s was being reorganized into Java and incorporating the rest of the family as owners. Nothing was being changed in the store. It was a family business and was being made into an LLC. Their father was ill and he wanted to be sure all the children had an interest in the business. Java Jim’s had an entertainment license that they hadn’t used and would like to transfer that over as well.
Mr. Ciccariello advised the transfer of the entertainment license would require a separate application.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE: JAVA JIM’S TO DOMINICO ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A JAVA (contd)
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to approve the transfer of the common victualer’s license held by Java Jim’s to Dominico Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Java for premises at 22 Main Street.
ROOM FOR DESSERT, LLC D/B/A FINALE: APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN MANAGER
Appearing before the Board was the proposed new manager for Room for Dessert, LLC d/b/a Finale, Ronald Ouellette.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how long Mr. Ouellette had been the manager and Mr. Ouellette responded that it had been since March in that location. Asked what took so long to apply for the change, Mr. Ouellette responded that the license just came up for renewal and Finale was not aware it needed to be changed. He apologized.
Ms. Gloff thought Paul Conforti, owner of Finale, had been told that several times.
Mr. Connolly noticed that Mr. Ouellette had just completed TIPS training as of November 6 this year and questioned if he had a different certification from March until then. Mr. Ouellette advised that he did not.
In response to several questions from Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ouellette advised that Don Hladko (current manager of record) was also a manager at Finale and had been there since March. Mr. Hladko was TIPS certified. There was more than one manager in the location. Up until September there was another manager in the location that was definitely certified, but he wasn’t on the record. There were different managers and they work different shifts. The store opens at 11:00 a.m. and closes at 10:00 – 11:00 p.m. Currently he had two assistants and a kitchen manager and when he (Mr. Ouellette) wasn’t there, there wasn’t anyone in particular.
Ms. Gloff inquired if everyone was TIPS certified, but Mr. Ouellette wasn’t sure.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested having the owner come before the Board for not having a manager who was TIPS certified.
Mr. Ostroff stated that his main concern was having somebody serving alcohol who was not certified. The Board had not renewed Finale’s beer & wine license and he was inclined to approve the change in manager, but wanted some more information. He agreed with having Mr. Hladko and Mr. Conforti come in to make them understand the seriousness and that everyone needs to be certified.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to approve the change in manager or record for Room for Dessert d/b/a Finale from Don Hladko to Ronald Ouellette. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Connolly felt there were some things done wrong and he thought by voting to approve the change in manager the Board was condoning it.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that it wasn’t being condoned. The Board was trying to get Mr. Ouellette to the point where he was no longer in violation and then have the owner come before the Board to discuss the alleged violations. If the petition wasn’t approved, Mr. Ouellette would continue to be in violation.
Mr. Connolly attempted to make a motion to suspend the license, but Mr. Ciccariello advised that a hearing would need to be held.
Mr. Connolly then moved to arrange a public hearing to suspend the license. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. Ms. Gloff offered an amendment that the Board schedule a hearing to hear from the owner his response to the Board’s questions and the explanation for what had taken place over the last 8-9 months with the possibility of suspending the license. The maker and seconder accepted the amendment. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he would like to know the organizational structure and be sure everyone that oversees service of alcohol was certified.
FRESH CITY OF NATICK, LLC D/B/A FRESH CITY: APPLICATION CHANGE IN MANAGER
Representing Fresh City was the owner Bruce Reinstein.
Mr. Rienstein told the Board the new manager Carrol Thomas Clark took over the restaurant the third week of September when the previous manager left. Mr. Clark was in the Burlington location and came to take over Natick.
Ms. Gloff inquired if there were other employees at the restaurant that needed to become certified. Mr. Reinstein responded that during the course of the year Fresh City ran sessions in their corporate office. Again Mr. Reinstein was asked if every individual was TIPS certified and he responded that would have to check.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the petition of Fresh City of Natick, LLC dba Fresh City for a change in manager from Stephen Scriber, Sr. to Carrol Thomas Clark.
FINANCE DIRECTOR: AUTHORIZATION TO DO INTERNAL BORROWING FOR TRASH PACKER
Finance Director Robert Palmer requested the Board’s authorization to “advance in anticipation of proceeds” the following debt:
Trash Packer $175,000
High School Feasibility Study $280,000
The debt was authorized in April and the votes were ratified at a Special Town Meeting.
Mr. Palmer noted that he would be going out to the bond market in the spring. For the high school feasibility study he had been informed there would be some bills coming in late this month, early next month. Under chapter 44 Section 20A of the Mass General Laws these bills could be advanced rather than borrowing.
Ms. Gloff asked if Mr. Palmer was holding off on the actual borrowing because of the activity with the financial markets or because there was money floating around. Mr. Palmer’s reply was, “both”. The financial markets were fluctuating and he hoped the rates would stay low. These two items were coming up repeatedly. To pull a bond issue together took 60-90 days.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to where the money would be transferred from and Mr. Palmer responded that it would be general revenue funds. As long as they were not restricted they could be used.
When asked what was available, Mr. Palmer advised that any point in time there could be as much as $30-40 million. A tax collection period just ended that brought in $15-18 million.
It was Mr. Connolly’s understanding that when the bonds came back the money would be paid back to the general fund. Mr. Palmer advised that was correct.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to advance in anticipation of process $175,000 for trash packer and $280,000 for high school feasibility study. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT: PRELIMINARY TAX CLASSIFICATION DISCUSSION
Jan Dangelo, Director of Assessment, told the Board that she was there to share the necessary options that will require a vote on December 1. The DOR has received all the required schedules.
On December 1 the Board will be asked to adopt a residential factor. A factor of 1 will keep one tax rate. The Board will also be asked whether to accept the residential exemption. Fourteen communities adopted a residential exemption in 2008 which shifted the burden from all occupied residential properties to non-owner occupied properties. This was a way some resort areas provide some tax relief for permanent residents.
The third thing the Board would be asked to vote on would be the small business exemption. Six of the 351 communities have adopted this for Fiscal 2008. It would benefit approximately 74 businesses in Town.
Ms. Dangelo noted that in calendar 2007 Natick experienced some decrease in residential values. Properties stayed on the market longer. Condo’s were hit the hardest. There was a 2.1% decrease in single family dwellings, but not all properties will see this drop. For Fiscal 2009 the average home was $471,000 with a projected tax bill of $5,228.10 or an average increase of $399.28. Commercial properties have increased slightly. The addition of the Natick Collection has provided a desire for other businesses to locate here to be able to access all high end retailers.
Ms. Dangelo advised there was a shift of 1.8% from residential to commercial which was a reversal from most recent trends.
Ms. Dangelo noted she had provided the Board with several pieces of information and referred back to the residential exemption granted. There was a list of communities that provide the residential exemption, the criteria for the small business exemption, a projected LA4 which was a breakdown by class, and an interim year adjustment report that gave what happens on each class. Also provided was a tax rate history. Ms. Dangelo thought the Town had done pretty well trying to maintain a low rate and if the single rate was adopted for Fiscal 2009, the goal would still be to try to maintain a rate as low as possible.
DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT: PRELIMINARY TAX CLASSIFICATION DISCUSSION (contd)
Mr. Ostroff noted that last year he got a list showing the probable tax assuming a single rate for various commercial properties and he would be interested in seeing something like that again. He was curious as to the projected commercial increase if there was one rate. He also inquired as to what kind of confidence Ms. Dangelo had that the DOR would help the Town move forward in a timely manner.
As this was an interim year adjustment Ms. Dangelo hoped it would be simpler to get a number approved, but the Town was at their (DOR) mercy. Paperwork has been submitted and the DOR will have a month to turn it around for the hearing.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Natick’s rental properties (residential) were listed at 5.89% and he wondered if that included all the new stock at Cloverleaf. Ms. Dangelo advised that it was included in the Assessors’ account. It was a multi-family building, but one tax bill.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that from the information provided Barnstable was at 4.9% and yet Natick wasn’t considered to fall into that category even though it had a larger rental percentage than Barnstable. Ms. Dangelo agreed but noted that Natick 769 had parcels and Barnstable had 1,211. Natick was not a resort Town.
Asked for the percentage of rentals in Waltham and Watertown, Ms. Dangelo replied 16.9% and 32.25% respectively.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to Chrysler Road and if approved Natick Paperboard and what that would do to the percentage. Ms. Dangelo noted that only parcels in place for FY09 were counted, but there would still only be one tax bill issued (for each).
Ms. Gloff believed what was being talked about was the pieces of property that get a tax bill, not the number of apartments. Ms. Dangelo confirmed that to be correct.
If the Board were to consider a split rate, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the percentage. Ms. Dangelo thought it would probably be up to 1.50. For the hearing she would provide a complete breakout to see how it would affect each class.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled in the past being given a breakdown of residential values that showed the tax increases for those values and asked if that would be provided again. Given the state of the economy a $400 increase was pretty significant.
Ms. Dangelo noted that it included the override and the 2-1/2% spending as well.
With the $400 based on an approximate amount for Fiscal 2009, Mr. Connolly questioned how that could be avoided. Ms. Dangelo responded that with the override and the information she was given on the 2-1/2% increase in spending that was what the bill would generate and she couldn’t do anything different.
In response to Mr. Connolly’s comment that it was fallout from the override, Ms. Dangelo noted that it was all things combined – revaluation of
properties, override, 2-1/2 increase. She added that the first time people would see what was being talked about($400) would be on the third quarter tax bill due February 1. Ms. Gloff noted there were estimated tax bills for the first two quarters.
If the Board didn’t want to raise anybody’s taxes, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how to go about it. Ms. Dangelo responded that spending would have to be cut. Mr. Ciccariello noted the revenues would come in but the Town would have to spend less. Ms. Gloff pointed out that less would be taken in revenue as well.
Mr. Ostroff noted that one way to cut the residential was to increase the businesses.
Mr. Connolly referred back to remarks from Ms. Dangelo and Ms. Gloff, and Ms. Dangelo explained that in the first two quarters of 2009 the Town has taken into account the override passed and that spending will go up 2-1/2%. That was factored into the tax bill but it will not be officially on the tax bill until after the Board votes, then people will see the first two quarters with the difference applied to third and fourth quarters. People won’t get a tax bill for February 1 that will increase $400 because they have been paying it already.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2009 LICENSE FEES
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Ms. White referred to a couple of spread sheets – one included the consultant’s recommendation from the recent fee analysis along with her (Mr. White) recommendation. The other was a comparison of fees in surrounding and comparable towns. She noted that although most of her recommendations agreed with the consultant, some differed.
Ms. White reviewed the fee recommendations:
License Current Fee Town Consultant
Administrator Recommend
Recommendation
Common Victualer $25.00 $50.00 $50.00
Automatic Amuse
(per device)
1st. Machine $40.00 $50.00 No Change
Add’tl machine $20.00 $35.00 No Change
Renewal per machine $20.00 $35.00 No Change
Juke Box $10.00 $25.00 --
Innholders $25.00 $50.00 $50.00
Lodging House $25.00 $50.00 $50.00
Entertainment $100.00 $100.00 No Change
Sunday Entertain $200.00 $250.00 $250.00
Entertain One day $10.00 $25.00 $25.00
Gasoline Storage*
Bowling (per lane) $5.00 $8.00 No Change
Class I $50.00 $100.00 $100.00
Class II $50.00 $100.00 $100.00
Class III $50.00 $50.00 No Change
Taxicab
Per cab $10.00 $10.00 No Change
Per driver $5.00 $5.00 No Change
Limos/livery N/A ---- ----
Billiards $10.00 $10.00 No Change
Theaters (per screen) $300.00 $300.00 No Change
Junk Dealers/Collector $10.00 $25.00 No Change
Hawker & Peddler $10.00 $25.00 No Change
Fortune Teller* $2.00 $10.00 No Change
*Had to be approved by Town Meeting.
Ms. White explained that where she found Natick’s fees to be well under the average rather than go to the average, she proposed a modest jump rather than a drastic increase.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Ostroff expressed his appreciation for gradual increase and inquired if there was any sense of incremental revenue should the Board vote Ms. White’s recommendations. Ms. White advised that she had not had an opportunity to run that kind of analysis.
Mr. Ciccariello requested an update of additional revenues generated.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to accept the Town Administrator’s recommendations on license fees for 2009 with the exception of gasoline storage and fortune teller as those require a by-law change. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Ms. White noted that she would prepare a warrant article for the remaining two.
NORDSTROM CAFÉ BISTRO: APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN MNAGER
Representing Nordstrom Café Bistro were Attorney Patricia Farnsworth and the proposed new manager Ronald Sanderson.
Ms. Farnsworth told the Board that Mr. Sanderson had been in the restaurant business for 25 years. He was Serve Safe certified and a TIPS trainer himself.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to how long Mr. Sanderson had been the Nordstrom manager and Mr. Sanderson’s response was since May.
Ms. Farnsworth explained that when renewals went out and the Police Department did their compliance check, it came to their attention (that Mr. Sanderson was not an approved manager). She stressed that was not an excuse, but Mr. Sanderson was certified and was certified in May. She assured the Board that this wouldn’t happen again.
Ms. Van Amsterdam wondered if there was something the Board should be doing mid-year or every quarter to prevent this.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the change in manager for Nordstrom Café Bistro from John Chesnut to Ronald Sanderson. 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. Ostroff was opposed.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked if the Board should have someone from Nordstrom’s come in. Mr. Connolly was in favor as he thought Nordstrom’s was thumbing their nose at the Town.
Ms. Farnsworth was respectful of how the Board felt and noted that she had a conversation with Nordstrom’s on Thursday and the application was filed Friday. Nordstrom took the matter very seriously.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to have someone from Nordstrom’s come before the Board for a hearing for a potential license suspension.
BARBER BROTHERS FLORISTS: APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN MANAGER
Representing Barber Brothers Florists were the owner Kenneth Barber and the proposed new manager Sara Ward.
Mr. Barber stated that Sara Ward worked for the Café for five years and had been TIPS certified for five years.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to when Ms. Ward became the manager and Mr. Barber responded that the previous manager was Kayla Welch. Ms. Challis advised that the manager of record was Judith Petrone.
Mr. Barber explained that the manager before was with him for 9 years and moved to Colorado. He thought it was an annual renewal and was not aware he had to come before the Board. Ms. Welch was TIPS certified and Ms. Ward was TIPS certified. There was never anyone in the café serving alcohol that was not certified.
Mr. Barber reiterated that he was not aware that if there was a change in manager it had to come before the board. It may be negligence but he didn’t think people were aware of it.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to when Ms. Petrone left, but Mr. Barber didn’t have the exact date.
Mr. Connolly questioned why this (change in management approval)was so overlooked. Mr. Barber responded that in his situation he thought it was done at renewal time. His previous manager had been there for 9 years.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the change in manager from Judith Petrone to Sara Ward.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to schedule a hearing for December 1, 2009 on the issue of having no approved manager of record.
Regarding the license renewal, Ms. Gloff inquired if the café would remain open after the first of the year. Mr. Barber’s response was, “yes”, adding that they (Mr. Barber and his wife) were retiring from Barber’s but it would take a period of time and it wouldn’t happen in 45 days. Right now he
thought they would be operating into the new year which was why he was requesting the renewal.
SASSAMON TRACE ANNUAL REPORT
The Chair of the Golf Course Advisory Committee reported that Sassamon Trace had its most successful year in 2007, but it was very sensitive to the weather and economy. In 2008 the weather was horrible. There were 19 days of rain in August and that obviously had an effect on the amount of play plus there was the downturn in the economy. He noted that this was the only multi generational recreation in Natick. It was the one activity the Town had that a grandfather could play with a grandson and daughter at the same time.
Peter Meagher, golf course Pro, noted that the Town operated in the fiscal year and the golf course on a calendar year and for the golf course the period ending June 2008 was the best fiscal year. They took in almost $599,000. All the instruction programs were at capacity, the league play was up substantially, and the junior program was exploding.
For the calendar year Mr. Meagher noted that it was a strange year. It started very well and through June did well. From July 1 to mid August there was a strange weather pattern and it was tough for the course. In July they started to see the numbers decline. He called other courses and to a golf course they were all down in revenue. He attributed the decline more to the weather than the economy. Come September he believed the economy took a toll. For the first quarter of FY09 the course was down about 18% compared to last year. After Labor Day he saw a more significant downturn. For September the course ended up down about 37% from last year. October stabilized a bit and was only down about 15%. November was actually up a bit.
In conclusion Mr. Meagher noted it was now coming to the end of the season, but the course would stay open provided there was no snow on the ground.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the number of full time employees and was told by Mr. Meagher there were three full time during the season but he (Mr. Meagher) was the only full time year round. The other two were two days a week now through Thanksgiving and then not until March. From April 1-October 31, the two were pretty much full time.
When asked about part-time employees, Mr. Meagher responded that there were about 10 temporary employees working 19 hours a week. During the summer the course was open from 5:30 a.m.-9:00 p.m.
As a new member of the Commission on Disability, Mr. Connolly expressed his appreciation for the installation of the handicapped access ramp.
Mr. Connolly then asked about the Supporters and Mr. Meagher advised that the Supporters of Sassamon Trace was a 501.3c that helped pay for things not normally paid by the Town like benches, flowers, score card sponsors.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that the report provided detailed information on the revenue but not on the expenses. The Board had to look at all the costs and she requested a chart showing the comparables on the expenses. She further requested a follow-up where the Board was given that additional material.
Mr. Ciccariello added that every year the Board of Selectmen had to decide whether to keep the course open or close it and before making that decision the Board needed to see a complete breakdown of revenues and expenses.
Superintendent of Recreation and Parks Richard Cugini thought it was easy enough to provide the expenses and they could go back to 2001 when the course started. He commented on how appreciative he was of Mr. Meagher staying on top of the costs when the course ran into the situation in July, August, and September. The golf course was one of the few operations that if the weather wasn’t good, people could be called and told not to come to work and they weren’t paid.
Ms. Van Amsterdam thought the Finance Committee was requesting details and to make it easy she asked that the Board be given the exact same information as presented to the Finance Committee. Mr. Cugini indicated that would be done.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the Board would be asked to set fees. Mr. Cugini advised that it would be taken up with the Advisory Committee, but he thought the Board would probably be asked to hold the fees. Going up on fees when money was tight worked against you.
Mr. Ostroff then asked about an estimate of what Sassamon Trace spent on water during a typical calendar year. Mr. Cugini noted that over the last five years the average was $68,468 per year.
In follow-up Mr. Ostroff inquired as to status of investigating well water. Mr. Cugini responded that water was one of the three big challenges. Fall Town Meeting approved testing and once the amount was known, we could see if it made sense to place a well on the golf course. It would still have to go back through DEP to show them the benefits of getting off Town water to well water. It was at least 1-1/2 years out.
Mr. Ostroff asked if Mr. Cugini would consider standardizing some signage for recreation facilities. Mr. Cugini noted that in 2004 there were some signs for the golf course, but they were changed around and golfers were put on the sign. At first the reaction was great, but it may be at a point now where people were used to the signs and they may need to be refreshed to get people’s attention. It was something to look at. Mr. Ostroff noted that may be, but he was thinking of the other recreation facilities signs.
Mr. Ostroff’s recollection was that the Board voted in principal to keep the course open for three years. Mr. Cugini thought that was done around 2006. The Supporters needed to know the course was going to stay open if they were going to fund raise. A lot of businesses needed to know that it wasn’t a one year thing. The Supporters have generated over $25,000-$30,000.
Mr. Ciccariello referred back to the water usage and Mr. Cugini explained that the $68,400 was a five year average. There were a couple of wet years and the water usage was low, but there0020 were a couple of years where it was high. Last year it was $36,000 over budget.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that 2007 reflected about 28,700 rounds. That dropped in 2008 to 26,831 and 27,000 was being projected for Fiscal 2010. Mr. Cugini noted they tried to stay conservative off the year just completed. He felt they would get to 27,000 this year by the close of the course. Next
year was again budgeted for 27,000 rounds as they were not trying to pretend there will be a lot more golf played.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if a trend downward was being seen in golf play overall and Mr. Meagher responded that when the course feasibility study was done that was the peak. After that golf did not grow any more. Sassamon Trace has been growing because it was the new guy in Town, but he thought that 10% jump each year was over. There was a year with almost 29,000 rounds but the weather was so good plus golf was starting to level off.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s query about the current deficit, Ms. White responded that the projected deficit for the current fiscal year was an additional deficit of$41,865 on top of the $355,000 supplemented by the Town.
Ms. White noted that combined with this report Mr. Cugini and Mr. Meagher were here to talk about the golf cart fleet for spring. Steps were also being taken toward the well. The expenditure for the well was very modest but if it turned out favorable a larger investment would be sought. Looking at the continued commitment to the golf course, there will be a need to supplement the budget in the spring and look to purchase or lease a new fleet of golf carts.
Mr. Cugini advised the lease for the golf carts for 3 years was about $18,000-$20,000 a year. $18,000+ was remaining from the revolving fund from Boston Scientific and he would recommend using $6,000 a year for each year to offset the cost. The course made $57,000-59,000 on the golf cart rentals. It was a big revenue stream and he would like to have the Board’s authorization to go out to bid and then bring it back for the Board’s consideration.
Mr. Ciccariello commented on the $97,000 shown as retained earnings and Finance Director Robert Palmer explained that number was slightly lower than the retained earnings certified last year. The retained earnings were used to reduce the amount raised on the deficit. He reminded the Board that it wasn’t that long ago the deficit was $435,000 and it was now down to $355,000.
Ms. White noted there was some question with the retained earnings certified by the DOR for the water & sewer enterprise fund, but she was unfamiliar with the golf course.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled when the course first opened there was a management firm and asked if the maintenance costs had been tracked over the last 2-3 years in terms of equipment, fuel consumption. Was it at the point where it was costing more to do all the maintenance and should consideration be given to going back to a management firm?
Mr. Cugini advised that presently Sterling Management (the former management firm) was doing the physical golf maintenance. 2009 was their final year and at this point he felt it will be close when it goes back out to bid. There has been a 3% increase each year. In the spring or early summer the maintenance would be put out to bid and brought back to the Board to weigh that against the appropriation. That would give everyone an idea of whether the Town could do it on their own or award it to one of the companies.
Noting that LFNR put a lot of mowing work out to bid, Mr. Ciccariello wondered if there was any way to see what was being spent and consider lumping it all together to see if some savings could be achieved.
Mr. Cugini responded that could be done, adding that right now the turf maintenance in the DPW was by acres. It was a little different type of cutting than the golf course, but he could see about getting prices. For some of the rough cut the golf course could use the Town’s bid but the greens and fairways were a different operation.
With respect to the maintenance building, Mr. Ciccariello noted the Board had voted to put a maximum amount of dollars that could be spent. What was approved and what had been spent?
Mr. Ciccariello responded that the Board had asked him to stay at $120,000 and he stayed at $120,000. Asked how much was left in that account, Mr. Cugini wasn’t sure but thought about $46,000 hadn’t been spent. Mr. Ciccariello requested an exact number so that it could be brought back to Town Meeting to have it re-appropriated.
Mr. Palmer noted that part of the money was bond money which had to be used for specified purposes. He believed a portion was unrestricted and he would try to identify it.
With the $97,000 in retained earnings being used as an offset, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to where it would be applied and how it related to the deficit figure shown on Item #14 of the budget. Ms. White explained that Item 14 was just the operating budget exclusive of available funds and retained earnings didn’t show up.
Mr. Ostroff wasn’t sure what action the Board was being asked to take tonight other than to thank these folks. Ms. White noted there was a need to get to a point where the Board authorized or not going out to bid on the golf carts. Then subsequently a decision whether to lease or purchase the carts or do nothing.
Given the amount of information and the questions generated, the question was how fast could Mr. Cugini and the administration come back to the Board with all this information including the expense breakdown. He was not prepared to vote to approve any expenditure until he saw the additional information.
Ms. White noted the meeting of December 1 was very crowded so unless it jeopardized any timeframe she would suggest the meeting of December 15.
Mr. Cugini stated that he would like to have consideration to go out to bid in order to look at them. An appropriation didn’t have to be made.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that if it went out to bid there were 30 days to award and if the award didn’t fall within the 30 days it had to go out again. Putting it out to bid would be asking someone to put a bid together which could be costly to them with no guarantee the money was being appropriated.
Mr. Cugini suggested that the bidders could be asked to extend their price for 60-90 days, but Mr. Ciccariello said he wasn’t prepared to move on that.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to authorize Mr. Cugini to go out to bid with the prices being held for 30,60, or 90 days. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. After further discussion the motion was withdrawn and no vote was taken.
In discussion of the motion Mr. Ostroff felt it would give everyone a more complete picture to make a decision.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if it could be done (holding the prices for 60,90 days). Ms. White advised that it could be done, but questioned if Mr. Connolly meant each of the three options. Mr. Connolly responded that he would like 90 days if at all possible. Mr. Ciccariello still didn’t like the idea of putting it out to bid asking people to put in a bid if the money wasn’t available.
Ms. Gloff pointed out that it wasn’t the Board of Selectmen that appropriated the money.
Mr. Cugini noted there had been the same situation with the clubhouse and the carts the last time. The contract said it was subject to annual appropriation. If a good price came in, there may be enough to do it within the FY09 budget using the Boston Scientific money.
If new carts were leased, Mr. Ciccariello thought Town Meeting would have to vote on that in the spring. The funds needed to be available to award a contract and those funds wouldn’t be available until Spring Town Meeting.
Although she wasn’t sure, Ms. White said she tended to agree with Mr. Ciccariello. Until there was a vote of Town Meeting the Board wouldn’t be able to effectuate the lease.
If it went out to bid and the price held for 90 days, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the assumption was being made that these people already had carts so the Town could get them within a certain time.
Mr. Cugini responded that the goal was to get them by April 1, but Ms. Gloff pointed out that Town Meeting wasn’t until April.
Ms. White suggested putting off further discussion until December 15 to allow the administration to get answers to the questions.
The Board agreed to table until December 15.
Following a 10 minute recess called at 9:50 p.m., the meeting was reconvened at 10:00 p.m.
BUDGET UPDATE
Ms. White reported that a free cash number had been received. Free cash was certified at $2,415,060.
In a memo to the Board Ms. White provided the latest revenue/expenditure forecast reflecting current projections for FY09 and FY10. She noted that the forecast was an item being reviewed on a regular basis with the Financial Planning Committee and the Board of Selectmen as it gets updated. The current fiscal year looks like it will run with a deficit of $1.4 million. This was still a work in progress and not a disaster at this point.
For Fiscal 2010 it was looking very ominous with a deficit of $6 million and a significant decrease in new growth. Previous projections for FY10 anticipated increases in local aid for both general government and the Schools, but now decreases of 15% were being projected in both categories although that may be overly pessimistic. The projections for local receipts, investment income, excise tax were dropped.
Ms. White continued that the projected use of $3 million in free cash dropped to $2 million based on the DOR certification. Most of the expenditure categories have been unchanged; specifically for FY10 the School budget was proposed to have a 5% increase and the general government a 3% over the current year. The debt budget was a predictable number. Energy has shown just a modest increase. State and County assessments have shown a decrease. All of these projections will be looked at in more detail at the Financial Planning meeting on Wednesday.
Mr. Ostroff noted there was a chance the Town would be able to make use of the telecommunications tax currently being held in overlay and that may be something the Board may want to ask Natick’s delegation.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that he spoke with one of the delegates about when it would be appropriate to have the legislators in and he didn’t think they would have anything until January. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t anticipate the meeting with the legislators to be before January.
Mr. Ostroff pointed out that at the same time the deadline to file legislation for the new year was mid January. If there was anything the Board needed them to file, he wouldn’t want to wait.
Budget wise Mr. Ostroff thought this was pretty serious and in January the Town may find additional cuts in the current fiscal year in local aid.
To the issue of the current budget, Ms. White noted that a few steps had been taken – the hiring freeze, the use of overtime, a meeting with the DPW to reduce expenses for this fiscal year and she would be having the same meeting with Police and Fire.
Understanding that not a lot would be known until January, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired at what point Ms. White would start running scenarios. Ms. White responded that it would probably be January. The Department Heads were just putting together their budgets now and that would be finalized by the first of January. Those budgets would reflect level service budgets. That would drive us towards a number and subsequent to that the administration would begin to look at cuts and would have better information from the state and how deep those cuts would be.
Ms. Van Amsterdam recalled there were some recommendations from the Expense Control Task Force as the Town was going to be in difficult financial times for some years to come and she wondered if the department heads would be looking at more creative ways to provide service. Have the department heads been given those instructions or just told to level service?
Ms. White’s reply was, “both”, commenting that business as usual was no longer the norm and we will have to rethink everything we do. For budget preparation the department heads were sticking with the norm while simultaneously looking at alternatives.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that Ms. White was scheduling a meeting with the Chairs, Superintendent and two task force members to talk about some of the recommendations and whether they would be helpful in any way.
Looking at Fiscal 2009, Mr. Ciccariello noted the projection of a $257,000 shortfall. He questioned what assurance there was that there would be a balanced budget come the end of the year and should steps be taken now to ensure there would be a balanced budget. There was an override and a commitment was made this would be a two year override. He understood a lot of issues have arisen but the Town should be able to get through Fiscal 2009 without being in a deficit and the administration had to do everything possible to ensure there won’t be a deficit. There had been talk about a hiring freeze, but people were still being hired. The Town was in a situation where tough decisions had to be made. There was no way to offset the Fiscal 2010 budget and there was no way to provide level
service looking at this budget deficit. A hard look had to be given to everything and there had to be a realization that a wall has been hit.
Mr. Ciccariello thought it behooved the administration to ensure there wasn’t a deficit for this year’s budget and to figure out a way to live within our means. That will be extremely difficult. Everything was down and it didn’t look like it would increase. There were some suggestions made and a lot of people don’t like the suggestions and say they can’t do that, but it was no longer a question of can’t do it but need to do it. It won’t get better and he couldn’t see how talking about a 3% increase on the municipal side and a 5% increase for the Schools would work.
Mr. Ostroff didn’t think that was what Ms. White was suggesting going forward, but the administration had to start some place so they could see the magnitude of the problem. There will have to be some changes. $4 or 6 million won’t magically appear.
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s comments on the Fiscal 2009 budget, Ms. White emphasized the idea of not balancing the budget was not a choice. It was against the law. Closing the $257,000 gap was manageable and wouldn’t require extreme drastic measures. She felt the steps taken to date were appropriate given the current year’s magnitude but she didn’t dispute for a moment the need to look at creative ways of doing things. For the FY10 budget she left the general government and schools along just for the sake of running a scenario and she didn’t want to reduce the schools without talking to them through the Financial Planning Committee. This was the first phase and hopefully it was the worst. Hopefully the State aid wouldn’t be cut that much and the Town can
tackle some expenditure items. It was a very preliminary work in progress.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he would like to develop some contingencies before January in the event State aid was cut in January.
b.Hiring Freeze
With respect to the hiring freeze, Ms. White noted the only positions the Board was seeing were the ones she was looking to hire. The Board didn’t hear about the other positions not looking to be filled.
Ms. White continued that she proposed to hire personnel in the Comptroller’s and Treasurer’s Office. An evaluation of various options to fill the vacant
payroll position in the Comptroller’s had been undertaken and in her memo to the Board dated 11/6/08 Ms. White outlined a proposed realignment of duties with the Collector/Treasurer’s and Comptroller’s Office.
Currently the position responsible for payroll functions was vacant. The Cash Accountant within the Comptroller’s Office was currently performing those duties with guidance and assistance from the Assistant Collector/Treasurer. While there was no conflict with having payroll performed within the Comptroller’s Office, the desired system of checks and balances may suggest this function would be preferable performed in the Collector/Treasurer’s Office since the actual checks were cut from the Comptroller’s Office.
Simultaneously, the administration was working on decentralizing payroll such that each municipal department as well as the school system will enter their payroll directly into the Munis system. Presently, the departmental payrolls were submitted in a variety of formats and entered by the payroll clerk into Munis. The administration did not believe this would be more time consuming for the individual departments as they were compiling the payroll records anyway although certainly training would be necessary. There will be considerable efficiencies produced by this change for the payroll function and accordingly the proposal was to combine the payroll function with the responsibility for bank reconciliation, which function was currently performed by a part-time position that will be phased out. The full-time
position will be within the Collector/Treasurer’s Office and will be a Level 5 Clerical Union position.
The existing Administrative Assistant position within the Comptroller’s office that presently also fulfills the payroll duties will return to its previous status and remain effectively unchanged. This is a Level 5 Clerical Union position.
A part-time non benefits eligible Accounts Payable position within the Comptroller’s Office was proposed. This would be a Level 4 Clerical Union position.
The net result in terms of full-time equivalent positions was unchanged from the number of positions currently funded.
Simultaneously the job description for the Assistant Comptroller was being updated to better reflect the duties and expectations of this non-union position. It will be presented to the Personnel Board for their approval at their next meeting.
Ms. White continued that this realignment and clarification of responsibilities was expected to achieve critical improvements within the finance functions of the Town; such improvements served as the overarching objections and guided the development of this realignment proposal. The specific improvements include:
- Improved division of responsibilities between the Collector/Treasurer and Comptroller offices to enhance the system of checks and balances and separation of duties between the offices.
- Enhanced performance of various functions within both the Collector/Treasurer’s Office and Comptroller’s Office including:
Timely and more frequent reconciliation of concentration account (payroll checks, worker’s compensation, vendor)
Timely research and resolution of tailings
Timely completion of abandoned property disposition
Ms. White advised that the realignment plan had been endorsed by Kristine Van Amsterdam who served as the Board’s liaison to the Finance departments.
In conclusion Ms. White sought the Board’s approval to fill two positions notwithstanding the hiring freeze:
- Full-time Level 5 Clerical Union position within the Collector/Treasurer’s Office, said position to be responsible for the payroll function as well as bank reconciliation.
- Part-time non-benefits eligible Level 4 Clerical Union position within the Comptroller’s Office, said position to be responsible for Accounts Payable.
Ms. Van Amsterdam informed the Board that she met with and Ms. White and Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer and had a very extensive discussion about certain activities occurring in the Collector/Treasurer and Comptroller’s offices and the open positions. There was a discussion about payroll and because of the work of the Expense Control Task Force she knew some of the efforts under way to try to de-centralize payroll and streamline the process. Given there would be a new Comptroller soon, it made sense to move the payroll function to the Collector along with bank reconciliations. The checks and balances were still in place and the accounts payable function still needed to be conducted under the Comptroller’s office.
Ms. Van Amsterdam thought Ms. White had captured the full essence of the discussion that took place and described the recommendations and rationale. She (Ms. Van Amsterdam) endorsed this plan wholeheartedly and thought efficiencies would be seen. Some of the load has been lightened in the Comptroller’s office to address what needs to be addressed.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to when this would happen in terms of departments doing payroll directly and was there any action Town Meeting needed to take to appropriate funds within the departments.
Ms. White responded that the personnel would be paid out of the department that could pay them. They may technically be located in the Treasurer’s Office but if the appropriation was in the Comptroller’s budget that was where they would be paid for now but the FY10 budget will reflect the restructuring.
As far as payroll training, Ms. White didn’t think it would be too challenging. It would be easier in some departments than others. The hope was to get the entire system decentralized around the first of the year.
Mr. Palmer added that decentralizing the payroll would be rolled out in several key departments the first of the year. Once the payroll position was filled that position could be a trainer for other departments. For some departments it will be challenging but it would be done over the next few months.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted it also provides the opportunity to look at some things suggested by the Expense Control Task Force like moving to direct deposit.
Given that what was being talked about was the different departments doing their payroll, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there had been a discussion with the department heads about having a confidence that each department can do it.
Mr. Palmer noted that the single largest department was the Schools and they were anxious to move forward. The DPW and Police were anxious as well. The Library would be able to do it, but Fire may take a little longer. It was just a matter of doing it on line as opposed to doing it on paper.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that a few weeks ago there was a discussion during a presentation by Comptroller Fred Witte about reconciliations and it was said at that time that some of the functions being done were still entered by hand.
When asked what those functions were, Mr. Witte responded that he reports a journal entry manually every month to record accounts receivable and then reconciles that with the Assistant Treasurer on his automated system.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned how instead of everybody putting it in by hand it got to the point where it went in automatically. There was Munis and Point software and how did it get to the point of becoming computerized. He needed some assurance the Town was moving in the right direction. Right now he didn’t have a lot of confidence every department could do this because they haven’t had the training.
Mr. Witte advised that this proposal (payroll restricting) didn’t relate to what he told the Board during the past presentation. He also pointed out that right now people were filling out the payroll sheets manually.
If the Town had the system, Mr. Ciccariello questioned why it was being done manually and Ms. Van Amsterdam responded that that was what this restructuring would do.
Ms. White added that Mr. Witte had modernized a lot of systems in the Comptroller’s Office, but Mr. Ciccariello felt the Town couldn’t seem to get over the issue. This has been going on for years. This proposal sounds great and Ms. Van Amsterdam has endorsed it, but in addition he would like to see numbers. The Comptroller was leaving in November and this was left. What’s this change going to cost?
Ms. White believed the cost would be about the same, but Mr. Ciccariello requested the numbers.
Mr. Connolly thought the whole theory sounds wonderful, but to him a hiring freeze was a hiring freeze and sometimes you had to make do with what you have. The reconciliation issue has been going on since he (Mr. Connolly) had been involved and he didn’t see why more money had to be spent. It seemed strange to have a hiring freeze and hire anyway. He wouldn’t support it.
Mr. Ostroff thought the Town would end up spending a lot more money if the payroll wasn’t straightened out. He thought it would be helpful to get a
sense of where the Town was in terms of hiring. The Board may be hearing of a few but there may be 20 positions left unfilled. He would also be interested in getting the cost of not filling a critical payroll position. He wanted to avoid mistakes.
Mr. Connolly countered that the payroll was getting done now and he wanted to avoid foolish spending.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the positions. Was this replacing one vacant position and adding another part-time? Ms. White advised one was presently vacant and the part-time was a funded position. Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the part-time position was filled right now and Ms. White’s reply was, “yes”.
It was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding that there was someone in the Comptroller’s office doing 1-1/2 jobs and being paid and what was being talked about was moving the function into the Treasurer’s office but that other job within the Comptroller’s office still needs to be done.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the part-time person was now working for the Town and Ms. White’s response was, “yes”. Ms. Gloff added that the part-time position exists in the Treasurer’s office and that ends up with the Comptroller and the full-time position in the Comptroller’s office moves to the Treasurer.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to endorse the realignment of positions in the Comptroller’s and Treasurer’s offices. 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. Ostroff was opposed.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Ostroff said he thought it was important for the Town to manage its personnel and money effectively and he thought this would save money in the long run.
Mr. Connolly disagreed.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was in favor of doing anything fiscally possible to make Town government and these functions be most cost effective and efficient. He didn’t know if it would happen because it hadn’t been tried, but the way it has been done has not been as efficient as it could have been. However, he would like to have assurance that more money wasn’t being spent and it would have been nice to see where the money was now and where it was coming from. He still wanted to see the numbers. He also would like to have reports moving forward on how this was working.
Ms. Van Amsterdam saw this as an excellent first step. If this wasn’t done there was no way to address efficiencies that will start to save the Town money.
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR POSITION
At the last meeting Ms. White mentioned that she was looking to fill the Personnel Director position on an interim part-time basis. She had a person in mind and the Board wanted to see the resume, but the person was no longer interest. The MMPA has given her a list of potential names and while other options were being evaluated that was the direction in which she would like to go. This topic would probably appear on the Board’s agenda for the next
few meetings until it was resolved. Temporary part-time was the direction in which she was looking.
Mr. Connolly inquired if there was any consideration to not filling the position. Ms. White’s reply was, “not in my view”. It was an incredibly important position to have to handle day-to-day crises that come up and long-term planning. It helps protect the Town from potential liability. She wouldn’t recommend not filling the position in one way or another but some cost effective alternatives were being looked at that came out of the Expense Control Task Force which was why she was looking at a part-time interim.
To address some of Mr. Connolly’s concerns, Ms. Gloff asked if Ms. White could provide the Board with some specific duties performed by the Personnel Director. Ms. White said she would try, but probably wouldn’t have it for the next meeting.
Ms. White agreed to provide a copy of the job description noting that it was updated not long ago so it should be current.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that the Expense Control Task Force had both Marianne Davis (School Personnel Director) and Elizabeth Dennis (former Town Personnel Director) come before the Task Force to give a description of everything they did. That discussion was in the Task Force’s minutes.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the Personnel Director played an important role in structuring contracts and Ms. White’s response was, “absolutely”. The Town Administrator, Labor Counsel, and the Personnel Director would put together what they hoped to achieve.
COMPTROLLER POSITION: SCREENING PROCESS
Ms. White reminded the Board of a previous discussion about forming a subcommittee. Resumes were due this Friday and the hope was to proceed with culling through them and conduct interviews.
Ms. Gloff recalled that the last time the makeup of the subcommittee was former Selectmen Charles Hughes and herself representing the Board, the Town Administrator, the Deputy Town Administrator, the Finance Director, Personnel Director, the Town Accountant from Newton, and Dan Sullivan from Rogers & Sullivan CPA.
As there was no Personnel Director, Mr. Ciccariello suggested asking someone from the Personnel Board to participate. Ms. White noted that if the interviews were during the day that may be more problematic, but she could ask. She also noted that the participation of the Deputy Town Administrator would depend on how the budgets were coming.
The Board agreed on the following subcommittee: Ms. White, the Finance Director, the Deputy Town Administrator (time permitting), a representative of the Personnel Board, two members of the Board of Selectmen – John Ciccariello and Kristine Van Amsterdam, and a Town Accountant from a nearby community.
Ms. White raised the possibility of a small subset culling through the applications, but Mr. Ciccariello preferred that it be done by the group as a whole.
2009 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to renew the Beer & Wine with Cordials license for 2009 for Room for Dessert d/b/a Finale, Natick Collection. 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.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to renew the Beer & Wine license for 2009 for Fresh City, 1400 Worcester St.
Ms. Gloff moved to renew the all alcohol license w/bar stools for 2009 for Nordstrom Café Bistro, Natick Collection. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to renew the Beer & Wine license for 2009 for Barber Brothers, 215 West Central Street.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to renew the all alcohol license w/bar stools for 2009 for New France, Inc. d/b/a Sel De La Terre.
In their compliance report, the Natick Police Department advised there had been a change in the manager of record for Dah Mee, 25 Washington Street. There had been no response to letters sent to Dah Mee regarding the unapproved change in manager. On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to schedule a hearing of non compliance for December 1.
Vinny Testa’s, 801 Worcester St., had closed their restaurant in June and returned their all alcohol license. On a motion Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to not renew Vinny Testa’s all alcohol license for 2009.
The Tax Collector’s Office had informed the Board that Nicholas’s Restaurant, 85 East Central Street, and E.P. Clark Post #107 American Legion, 13 West Central Street both had outstanding taxes/fees that would affect renewal. On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to schedule both establishments for a hearing on December 1.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW PROCESS
Mr. Ostroff requested each member to use the goals and objectives form and schedule a time to meet with the Town Administrator. The intent was to have the review on December 15. He would propose an executive session to consolidate the responses a week before the evaluation so the sooner everyone met with the Town Administrator the better.
MEETING SCHEDULE
Without formal vote the Board approved the following meeting schedule: December 1, December 15, 2008, January 5, January 12, January 26, February 9, February 23, March 9, March 23, April 1, April 6, April 20, May 4, May 18, June 1, June 15, June 29.
MINUTES
Ms. Gloff moved approval of the minutes of April 22, 2008 with a correction as noted. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
FRIENDS OF THE SENIOR CENTER: REQUEST TO HANG BANNER
Ms. Gloff disclosed that she was a member of the Friends of the Senior Center.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Friends of the Senior Center’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of November 20-28, 2008 in advertisement of the annual spring fair.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
Ms. White reminded everyone of the Open House and Reception at Natick Hall on Thursday, November 20 from 6:00-8:00 p.m.
The Board agreed to post their attendance as a meeting.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
Mr. Ostroff proposed a joint meeting with the Planning Board at which someone from DHCD would come to talk about parking strategies.
The Mass Turnpike Authority increased the tolls on the turnpike and Mr. Ostroff wondered if the Board would send a letter.
- West Natick Parking Garage
Mr. Ostroff expected to hear something about the West Natick parking garage in the next week or two.
Mr. Ostroff announced Ms. Gloff had office hours at the Senior Center on Thursday and Ms. Van Amsterdam would be in Town Hall in two weeks.
With regard to the office hours at the Senior Center, Ms. Gloff noted nothing was scheduled for December, but a staff member had asked so she (Ms. Gloff) would have office hours at the Senior Center December 11 as well as Thursday.
Mr. Connolly expressed his appreciation for Mr. Ostroff’s efforts on the Veterans observance and thanked the firefighters for hosting the dinner. He noted he was proud of all of the Board.
Mr. Connolly noted he attended his first Commission on Disability meeting and the Chair mentioned that the Commission would like to come before the Board of Selectmen to share what has been going on and what they would like to do.
Mr. Connolly listed the following as possible agenda items: N-Star double poles, field mowing – overtime and subcontracting, streetlights, crosswalk violations, boiler update for Police/Fire Town Hall.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
_________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
