BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
December 15, 2008
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chair John Ciccariello at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Carol A. Gloff (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), John Connolly. Absent: Kristine Van Amsterdam
ALSO PRESENT: Martha White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on December 15, 2008 in the amount of $572,546.58. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,802,841.26.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to litigation and executive session minutes. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Gloff had not as yet arrived and did not vote. At 6:02 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:05 p.m.
JAVA’S: APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE
Representing Java’s was Clara Proket.
Ms. Proket told the Board that Java’s would like to start having some entertainment in the afternoon and evenings at their 22 Main Street location. Java’s was previously Java Jim’s. Java Jim’s had an entertainment license and they were looking to transfer the license to Dominico Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Java. The common victualer’s license had been transferred by the Board on November 17, 2008.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that in the past the license had some restrictions:
Performances limited to Monday-Friday between the hours of 7:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m. and on Saturdays between the hours of 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Occupancy maximum 52. The front door must be closed if amplification was used.
Ms. Proket requested some modification of the hours, noting they would like to include Sunday and extend the Saturday hours from 1:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m.
Ms. Challis explained the requirements of a Sunday license and the additional fee of $250 to the Town and a fee to the State. Ms. Proket responded that was OK, noting they were trying to rent the restaurant for private parties.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to grant Dominico Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Java an entertainment license for the purpose of having radios, television, amplifiers, cable TV, widescreen TV, movies, instrumental music with the following hours of operation:
Monday-Friday 7:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m.
Saturday 1:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m.
Occupancy maximum of 52. The front door must be closed if amplification is used.
Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, and unanimously voted to grant Dominico Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Java a Sunday entertainment license for the purpose of having radios, television, amplifiers, cable TV, widescreen TV, movies, instrumental music with the following restrictions:
Hours of operation 1:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m.
Occupancy maximum of 52. The front door must be closed if amplification is used.
PUBLIC HEARING: RENEWAL OF CLUB SPECIAL PERMIT
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
No one was present from the VFW.
PUBLIC HEARING: RENEWAL OF CLUB SPECIAL PERMIT (contd)
Mr. Connolly disclosed that several people on the list of sponsors were personal friends of his.
Mr. Ciccariello noted receipt of all paperwork and noted the statute said all proceeds must go to charitable donations.
Representing the American Legion was Finance Officer Robert Ahern.
Mr. Ciccariello noted there was a list of bartenders submitted as part of the application but there was no sponsor list as required. He didn’t think the Board could take any action until the list of sponsors with names, addresses and telephone numbers was submitted.
Ms. Challis pointed out the permit expires as of December 31, 2008. The Board had a meeting scheduled for December 22 at 3:00 p.m. and Mr. Ciccariello suggested the Board could take up the American Legion’s special permit at that time if the information was provided.
Representing the Natick Elks was the manager Arthur Hurst
Mr. Ostroff pointed out that the Natick Elks revenue was just under $17,000 and they reported charitable donations of $17,500.
Mr. Connolly disclosed that he knew several people on the list of sponsors.
Representing the Sons of Italy was Richard Burke, Board Chairman.
Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff all disclosed they were social members of the Sons of Italy. Mr. Connolly stated that he had friends.
All required paperwork had been submitted for the Sons of Italy.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Ms. Gloff moved to renew the special permit for the Sons of Italy in accordance with Chapter 336 of the Acts of 2004 to allow the sale of alcohol at functions at which the attendees were not necessarily members of the club. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Ms. Gloff moved to renew the special permit for the Natick Lodge #1425 of the Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks in accordance with Chapter 336 of the Acts of 2004 to allow the sale of alcohol at functions at which the attendees were not necessarily members of the club. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Ms. Gloff moved to renew the special permit for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Natick Post 1274 in accordance with Chapter 336 of the Acts of 2004 to allow the sale of alcohol at functions at which the attendees were not necessarily members of the club. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Ms. Gloff moved to table the application to renew the special permit for the E.P. Clark Post #107, American Legion to December 22.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Ciccariello explained that the Design Review Board was established by Town Meeting in 2003 and consists of 5 members – 3 appointed by the Planning Board and 2 appointed by the Board of Selectmen. Of the two appointed by the Board of Selectmen, one must be a person who serves on the Historic Commission and one must be a person who serves on a downtown business organization.
Avigail Shimshoni was asked why she would like to continue to serve on the Design Review Board and she responded that she loved serving on the Board and felt it was a good match. She was an architect and part of Natick Center Associates so she brought to the table someone who used the center a lot and had a design perspective. Natick had a beautiful downtown and it was really important to maintain that beauty.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to how well Ms. Shimshoni thought the Design Review Board was able to balance the historic interest with the interest of developers. Ms. Shinshoni thought it was a real challenge. People think
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (contd)
design review was only aesthetics and did not see the relationship and how it could help.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he had received several complaints about the Design Review Board from individuals who went through the process and heard complaints from people who didn’t actually have to go through the process when they heard back some of the comments. This was supposed to be an advisory committee. If reappointed how would she ensure that individuals that came before the Board would be treated with the proper respect and that the Design Review Board would continue to work within the guidelines.
Ms. Shimshoni responded that she didn’t know the specific cases about which Mr. Ciccariello was talking, but it was important for people coming before the Review Board to have complete documents and she thought the Review Board should make it clear there wouldn’t be a discussion before everything was complete. Projects that don’t have to come before the Review Board shouldn’t be coming to them, but that was the person setting the agenda. She thought there was a lot of confusion and there was a need for a lot more communication with the Planning Board and she spoke with Community Development Director Patrick Reffett about that.
Ms. Shimshoni added that the respect and clarity of the process had to come from both sides. People need to come with proper documents. It was a two way street.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to reappoint Avigail Shimshoni to the Design Review Board as a representative of a downtown business organization. Unanimously voted.
REPRESENTATIVE TO METROWEST REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY: CONTRACT FUNDING
The Town’s representative to the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority, Charles Hughes, reported that the Authority was going pretty well. All the buses were new and the MWRTA was exploring a link to the MBTA at Woodland train stop. Right now they were working on the seamless transition of The Ride and looking to expand service down to Oak Street.
Mr. Hughes advised that he wanted to alert the Board to the contract funding. When the MWRTA started the Town and the State shared the cost of services. The State traditionally provides funding for 70% of the contract services and the Town paid the additional 30% out of the Town’s MBTA assessment so actually there was no cost (for the Town). The Town was sending about $200,000 out of its $600,000-700,000 assessment.
One concern was that prior to the existence of the MWRTA there were 14 other RTA’s that shared that line item in the State budget. Now there were 15 and the line item has not dramatically increased. The need this year was $62 million and the budget was $58 million. Historically that occurs and the balance was made up in a supplement budget. Because the MWRTA was new the MBTA funds haven’t been exhausted and people may feel funding wasn’t needed.
Mr. Hughes asked the Board to make Representative Linsky, Representative Peisch, and Senator Brown aware and keep in contact with MWRTA Executive Director Ed Carr to ensure the 70/30 split was maintained. It wouldn’t affect Natick’s cost because Natick still had the MBTA, but as the money gets used up it could affect the ability to add new service. Senator Spilka attended the MWRTA meeting so she was aware.
A copy of a letter from Mr. Carr to the Governor had been given to the Board in their briefing book and Ms. Gloff moved to request Mr. Carr to send a copy of the letter to each of the legislators. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Hughes to evaluate the MWRTA’s performance since it started, and Mr. Hughes responded that he would say it was doing very well. The web site tells exactly where the buses are and there were plans to expand so that information would be available for cell phones.
Ms. Gloff stated that she had the opportunity to use the RTA service and was very pleased. She was also happy to hear they were looking for expansion in the northeast corner.
Mr. Ostroff asked about the timetable for evaluating the expansion, and Mr. Hughes advised the assessment was going on now. The letter has gone to the MPO to check the funding. He didn’t know the timetable after that. The Ride was the most pressing at this time. He didn’t anticipate any changes to The
REPRESENTATIVE TO METROWEST REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY: CONTRACT FUNDING (contd)
Ride services just that The Ride would be provided through the MWRTA by contract with a company.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there had been an increase in ridership since the Mall, but Mr. Hughes didn’t recall.
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY: HANDICAPPED DOORS, SLED FOR RINK
Mr. Connolly, also a member of the Commission on Disability, explained that before the Board was an invoice regarding equipment installed at the Chase rink for doors and access sled. The Commission voted to support payment of the invoice, but it needed approval of the Board of Selectmen. The sled was $568 and the front doors $7,422.
It was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding that the source of funds was from fines from handicapped parking violations and he inquired as to the balance.
Mr. Connolly didn’t know the balance but there were enough funds to support this request.
Mr. Ostroff moved approval of the expenditure of the funds from handicapped parking fines to pay for the handicapped sled and doors for the Chase Rink. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: ACCEPTANCE OF LAND DONATION
Community Development Director Patrick Reffett noted that in 2002 the Planning Board had before them the Bernardi Group looking for a special permit to expand their property. The permit was provided, but as part of that the Bernardi Group was required to provide the Town with an actual piece of property to the rear of Bernardi’s. The property only fronts on Bacon Street.
The intent of the Planning Board was for that property to be used for affordable housing. In 2002 the Town didn’t have an Affordable Housing Trust or Community Development Advisory Committee, but both were now in place. About a year ago at Fall Town Meeting the Planning Board members worked hard on an Affordable Housing Trust fund. The body was approved and appointed by the Selectmen. One of the Trust’s abilities was to obtain property as a gift and this would be the entity he would recommend the Board of Selectmen select as the entity to manage the property that was part of the Bernardi decision. It took awhile to get to the Town because of Land Court difficulties and defects with the title, but that has been cured. He was getting a copy of the title and would get it to the Board of
Selectmen.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if there was a house on the lot and was told by Mr. Reffett that it was vacant. When asked if it was a buildable lot, Mr. Reffett responded that RSA zoning requires 15,000 square feet and this was 12,000+.
Mr. Ostroff didn’t believe there was Town sewer on that end of Bacon Street and asked if that would pose a problem. Mr. Reffett noted there were other homes on that portion of Bacon, but he hadn’t done an evaluation. Town Engineer Mark Coviello believed the property could be served by Town sewer by extending the sewer at Bacon/Route 9.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if it was possible that the house lot would fall under the Furcolo Law. Mr. Reffett thought it was possible.
Mr. Connolly moved to accept the donation of land from the Bernardi Group with a letter of appreciation to Bernardi’s. Ms. Gloff seconded with an amendment that the Board designate the property shown as Lot 1 with frontage on Bacon Street and recorded on Land Court Plan #18326 to be under the control of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Mr. Connolly accepted the amendment. Unanimously voted.
As the Board’s representative to the Affordable Housing Trust, Ms. Gloff reported that that board had not taken a vote on this property until after the Board of Selectmen. At the Trust Fund’s last meeting they were aware this property was close to being made available and members were uniformly enthusiastic about this. There will be a lot of questions to determine whether it could be used for affordable housing but it gave the Trust Fund something to work on and they were looking forward to it.
HEARING: ROOM FOR DESSERT D/B/A FINALE: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
Representing Finale were the owner Paul Conforti and his attorney Steven Miller of McDermott, Quilty & Miller.
Notice had been given of the hearing to be held for Finale having no approved manager on the premises from March 2008 to November 2008 in violation of Section 26 of Chapter 138.
Mr. Conforti told the Board he was embarrassed to be called before them this evening especially given the help the Board gave him last year in adopting the cordial permits. He was here to apologize. He explained that he had a restaurant manager named Don Hladko who was present until March 2008 and then a new manager was brought in and Mr. Hladko was moved. Once the move became permanent, Mr. Conforti recognized that he should have filed a change in manager. When it was discovered and an application was filed, it was brought to the Board’s attention that Mr. Ouellette (the new manager) was not TIPS certified.
Mr. Conforti stated that he was not aware that Mr. Ouellette was not TIPS certified and believed that he was. When he (Mr. Conforti) found out Mr. Ouellette was not, Mr. Ouellette took the test on line today and passed with flying colors. Again Mr. Conforti apologized for the oversights.
Mr. Connolly noted that what troubled him the most was that Mr. Ouellette was the manager of record since March 2008 and was not TIPS certified until November. The Board was obligated to uphold certain regulations from the State and this situation was magnified by an alcohol server that was not certified and it went by everyone. This was a big responsibility and based on that timeline he was looking for the Board’s thoughts.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that the last time Mr. DeLuca gave the Board a sense of what they could do. The Board could suspend, revoke, or modify the license. In his opinion the other disconcerting issue was when the new manager was asked who was there when he wasn’t, the answer was the kitchen person. His (Mr. Ciccariello’s) concern was who was the serving the alcohol. Was it the kitchen person who wasn’t TIPS certified? Mr. Ouellette was honest and sincere and that was appreciated. The renewal of the license for 2009 was too late and this license will expire January 1.
Mr. Miller responded that Finale understood its obligation and made a mistake. He also pointed out that the obligation to be TIPS certified was a Town regulation, not the State’s. It was part of the Town’s rules.
Mr. Conforti told the Board that he wasn’t sure what Mr. Ouellette may have been thinking when he said it was the kitchen manager serving when he wasn’t there. There was a manager cross trained to work in the dining room and kitchen and the servers were all TIPS certified.
Ms. Gloff noted that she had a little different understanding of what Mr. Ouellette was saying. She thought he was saying when he wasn’t there the person in charge of the kitchen was the manager in charge, not that he (kitchen manager) was serving the alcohol.
Mr. Conforti stated that he was aware Finale’s renewal application was not filed and was aware that if Finale wanted to renew the license, they would have to do a whole new application. They made a decision that having a liquor license at this location didn’t work and made a conscious decision not to renew the license.
Mr. Miller noted that Finale had been opened since September 2007 with no incidents and that Mr. Conforti apologized. The rest of the staff was TIPS certified. Mr. Ouellette was the only one not certified and he was a long term employee of the restaurant business.
Ms. Gloff inquired if Finale was serving alcohol at this time, and Ms. Conforti was, “yes”, adding that it was his understanding the license was valid until December 31.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to authorize the Chair to send a letter of reprimand with respect to the violation of not having a TIPS trained manager and not notifying the Board and State of a change in manager. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted. A second motion was made by Mr. Connolly prior to the vote. That motion failed.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Connolly noted this was the same thing the Board did for the other establishments. What troubled him about Finale was that
HEARING: ROOM FOR DESSERT D/B/A FINALE: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
the manager was not TIPS certified and to think they would get the same punishment as the others bothered him. It seemed inconsistent with a letter of reprimand for a change in manager.
Mr. Ostroff explained that he would have suggested a one day suspension but since Mr. Conforti stated his intent not to renew the alcohol license, he (Mr. Conforti) wouldn’t impose that at this time.
Mr. Connolly moved a one day suspension of the alcohol license held by Room for Dessert d/b/a Finale. Mr. Ciccariello seconded for discussion. Following a brief discussion the motion failed on a 2-2-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff and Ms. Gloff were opposed. The vote was then taken on Mr. Ostroff’s previous motion and that passed unanimously.
Speaking to Mr. Connolly’s motion Mr. Ciccariello said he felt the same way. There were several situations that came before the Board and this was probably the most severe. If Finale were going to renew their license, the matter could be addressed then, but he didn’t want to be put in a position of debating this and would rather deal with it now.
Mr. Ostroff didn’t think a letter of reprimand meant the Board wouldn’t consider a suspension.
In Finale’s defense Mr. Conforti hoped the Board would consider not adding the suspension. Even though the piece of paper didn’t exist, the knowledge was there. Finale operated three other liquor licenses and never had a violation in over 10 years and he would say this was a responsible company making a mistake, but it wasn’t intentional.
A recess was called at 8:10 p.m. with the meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
SASSAMON TRACE GOLF COURSE: UPDATE OF ANNUAL REPORT
Appearing before the Board on behalf of Sassamon Trace Golf Course were Superintendent of Parks and Recreation Richard Cugini and Golf Pro Peter Meagher.
Chairman of the Oversight Committee David Baier introduced the presentation by stating that the Committee reviewed the documents with Mr. Cugini and Mr. Meagher and thought there was a strong case for keeping the course open. There was a strong plan for issues coming up with the well, increasing play, and the maintenance contract. This was the only multi-generational recreation facility in the town and it was only going to get better. Last year was particularly rugged with miserable weather and the recession and there were plans for making the course viable.
Mr. Meagher recalled that at the meeting of November 17, the Board asked them to return with information. Mr. Meagher noted that he was here when the course opened in September 2001. At that time he worked for Sterling Golf Management who the Town paid for the complete management of the course. The contract expired in 2003 and in the Spring of 2004 Mr. Cugini and members of the committee started thinking of a different model. They hired him and cut out the middle man which saved $130,000 even taking into account the additional payroll.
At that time the course didn’t have a clubhouse and the parking lot wasn’t finished. Over the years the infrastructure has been increasing with landscaping, benches on the course, Keefe Tech built a deck, and volunteers raised money. In 2008 the revenue was down from the year before. Last year the weather was so good and there was a record number. This year they came out of the gate strong but then July 1 developed a strange weather pattern that cut into play and once Labor Day hit the economy came into play. Revenues were in a shortfall of $42,000. FY09 revenues were $515,000 down from a projection of $592,000, but there were plans to help reduce expenses.
Mr. Cugini referred to material submitted to the Board in the briefing book noting that the open/close scenario gave the open option as of December 1, 2008. Included was a Fiscal 2009 budget vs Fiscal 2009 projected. The close option ran through the various items for which the Town would still be responsible. If the course were to close now, there would still be four months of maintenance contract and six months of a clubhouse lease. In the comparison he pointed out the savings if well water was used. Starting in Fiscal 2011 up to $70,500 per year could be saved or $700,000 over a 10 year period.
SASSAMON TRACE GOLF COURSE: UPDATE OF ANNUAL REPORT (contd)
Also included in the packet were all of the expenses from 2002 to the current as well as a projection to 2013 plus the operational issues. Mr. Cugini defined the operational issues as the golf maintenance contract, clubhouse, lease, golf carts, and well. The maintenance contract expires on December 31, 2009 and that was an area where it was thought some money could be saved. The Board will be asked to go out to bid. The golf carts were 8 years old which was having relics and the Board will be asked to talk about going out to bid. Two bidders were very interested in extending the price for 90 days and very interested in having a clause that if the course were to close, the Town would not be held to a complete contract. One of the biggest issues was the well consideration. Mr. Cugini also advised he
and Mr. Meagher have gone to the Personnel Board to discuss the current employees at the golf course. The rate survey showed Natick’s rates were higher than most and the Personnel Board will be taking a final vote in January to reduce those pay rates. These were times when drastic measures had to be taken.
Mr. Ostroff noted the difference of the open/close scenario showed a negative position if the course were opened for FY10 and asked how much was within Mr. Cugini and Mr. Meagher’s control in terms of the cost reduction strategy.
If there was success with the well water, Mr. Cugini believed it would take care of up to 80% of the difference and the other could come if the contract maintenance went out to bid. You had to realize a company was not doing it for free and considering the profit margin he believed the Town could save $40,000-50,000. It would be within the Town’s control there were six pieces of equipment that would supplement the lease for other equipment.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the maintenance contract could be structured in such a way that the Town could suspend it part way through. Mr. Cugini responded that it was a Town Meeting appropriation and could be stopped as of July 1, 2009.
Mr. Connolly was of the understanding the lease payment had to be paid no matter what and there was another 39-40 years to go. Mr. Cugini confirmed that as correct. With a savings of $70,000 for a well, Mr. Connolly inquired as to the earliest that could happen. Mr. Cugini advised it would be late spring/early summer of 2010.
When asked by Mr. Connolly if he believed the maintenance could be done inhouse, Mr. Cugini thought that if it were bid the numbers would have to be reviewed, but a lot of cities and towns have done it.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to the cost to drill a well and Mr. Cugini advised that to drill was about $15,000 but the big costs were the draw down costs. Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois added that the pump test would have to precede construction and that was likely to be $18,000-$35,000 depending on the parameters of the test.
If that went well and the well was drilled at a cost of $15,000, Ms. Gloff inquired as to additional costs. Mr. Bois advised that the water would have to be delivered and he believed the plan was to use the existing irrigation plan. Mr. Cugini noted that consultant Haley & Ward priced out the costs. It was in the capital plan for $75,000 but hadn’t been brought forward for construction.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that when it was looked at before there were issues with DEP plus it was budgeted for $100,000 so how did it get cut to $75,000.
Mr. Bois explained the process. In 2003 a project plan review was filed with MEPA for a well in a different location than now proposed. MEPA responded with a requirement for additional review, a process that involves bringing in other state agencies. This time a plan was filed for the new location and MEPA sent it back with the recommendation for a pump test and a bunch of minor things. He anticipated that when DEP was brought in their focus would be on the Water Management Act. There was time and effort involved and it costs money. The last time this process was done Town Meeting approved $5,000 to come up with an estimate for irrigation use. The first time it was under the threshold and he anticipated it would be under the threshold the second time. It would probably be 3-4 months before
MEPA rendered a decision.
Asked if he had any sense for how many gallons per minute would have to be produced from the well, Mr. Bois said they got about 75 gallons per minute. It was an area where water could be gotten.
SASSAMON TRACE GOLF COURSE: UPDATE OF ANNUAL REPORT (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the best estimate just to go through the process in engineering fees and Mr. Bois’ reply was $25,000, As to where the funding would come from, Ms. White imagined it would be borrowing because it would be toward the investment in the well itself.
Ms. Gloff found the idea of $70,000 in savings appealing but the Town was looking at some difficult numbers as a whole over the next fiscal year and she didn’t see where the Town had that money.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired about the expended balance in the maintenance building account and where the money came from. Mr. Ciccariello advised that $131,631.16 came out of 3 different landfill accounts from the 2006 Spring Town Meeting and $35,465 from a 1988 appropriation to design the transfer station. The amount spent to date was $120,512.72.
Since three of the accounts had to do with the landfill and golf course, Mr. Ciccariello asked if it would be reasonable to consider transferring the unexpended balance of approximately $46,000. He requested a legal opinion from bond counsel on whether those funds could be re-appropriated. That was one idea to knock off some of the debt for the coming year
Ms. White believed Mr. Ciccariello hit on a key question if part of the funds for the maintenance building became unexpended borrowing authorization there was a whole set of restraints.
Noting there were 16 staff members, Mr. Ciccariello asked about the possibility of reducing staff. He also warned that no one should be looking for a pay raise.
Continuing, Mr. Ciccariello stated that he had concerns with the environmental monitoring and felt the Town had to convince Sherborn that the monitoring done in the past was more than adequate. There haven’t been any issues and for FY11 the number jumps from $8,000 to %15,000. That was another potential way to pick up some savings.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that today the golf course was about $60,000 in the hole and money would be lost in January, February, March, and likely April on payroll and benefits and asked if there was any sense in what might be drawn in revenue to offset this loss. Mr. Meagher responded that the only thing at that time was all the season passes and leagues.
Putting aside the water, Mr. Ciccariello pointed out in the open/close scenario the golf course was looking at about $350,000 in cost overruns. Mr. Baier mentioned some ways to generate new revenues and he (Mr. Ciccariello) would like to hear the ideas. Mr. Meagher thought Mr. Baier was talking about reducing expenses by a well and the maintenance.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to when the analysis of the maintenance would be done. Mr. Meagher responded that he knew the Sterling contract and it could go out to bid as soon as possible. He felt the bids would come in significantly higher than the last time. Asked when the study would be done, Mr. Meagher advised that it was already done. Mr. Ciccariello requested the numbers.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked for the drop dead date for the Board to make a decision for this upcoming year. Mr. Cugini thought something would probably have to be done within the process so by February 1, but Mr. Meagher pointed out that people were already purchasing their season passes for next year. Mr. Cugini still thought February 1 was the drop dead date.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that one issue making it difficult to look at the close scenario was the other conditions. The Town was stuck with the debt and the lease payments and if the Town tried to get out of the lease there were some serious restrictions in terms of restoring the five holes on the Dowse side.
Noting there were a lot of people in the audience wishing to speak, Mr. Ciccariello said he would allow a member of the Golf Course Advisory Committee and a couple of residents to speak. He continued that even though he supports the golf course without being a golfer, there were citizens in the Town that have access to various recreation activities supported by the Town. This was a difficult one and if the golf course was going to continue on this track, ways had to be found to generate other sources of revenue.
SASSAMON TRACE GOLF COURSE: UPDATE OF ANNUAL REPORT (contd)
Mr. Ostroff raised the possibility of realizing revenue through winter use, i.e. cross country skiing, but Mr. Cugini advised that at best it was revenue neutral. He added that the Supporters of Sassamon Trace have been trying to come up with different ideas, but none would generate the revenue needed.
Mr. Ostroff then asked about the potential to explore leasing space for someone to develop a restaurant. Mr. Cugini advised that whether or not to find an outside firm to come in had been looked at, but the course was built with taxpayer municipal bonds. He noted that since the Town has run the course, he thought the track record had been a good one.
Mr. Ciccariello referred to at least 23 letters of support in the briefing book and encouraged any of the supporters in the audience with ideas for generating revenue to share those ideas.
Chairman of the Supporters of Sassamon Trace, Edward Salamoff, explained that the Supporters were an independent group that raises money for the golf course, i.e. the benches, landscaping, drainage. They met the other night and the main thing was to find other revenue streams, i.e. leasing the clubhouse out for birthday parties. He still liked the idea of having some winter activities even if was just some food sales.
One idea was to serve a wide variety. They were getting young kids coming out on the course and that was the future. Golf was a sport that deals with the weather and there has been a real rough stretch. Dr. Salamoff assured the Board the Supporters would continue to work to raise money to keep the pressure off the Town.
Mr. Cugini echoed Dr. Salamoff’s comments and he too assured the Board that he and Mr. Meagher would carefully look at saving every dollar and coming up with ideas to pursue, but if the course was short in any given year, he believed it was the cost of doing business. 27,000 rounds were being played by men, women, and he didn’t see that as not working out.
Mr. Ciccariello responded that he wanted to make it clear that the Board was not here tonight to suggest that Mr. Cugini and Mr. Meagher or anybody else involved had done anything inappropriate or hadn’t given their best 100% effort. There have been some creative ideas. The course was in trouble when it first opened and was able to get through that and now experienced a bad year and it happens to be when everything else has gone bad.
Mr. Ciccariello emphasized that he didn’t want anybody to think the Board was holding anyone responsible for what’s happened. The Board recognized there were issues other than the money issues and once it was closed it would never come back because it will cost too much to bring it back.
Mr. Ostroff commended Mr. Meagher and commended the ingenuity and passion of the Supporters. This was a great facility with great assets that make Natick great, but the Board had to look at everything.
PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND STREET OPENING RULES & REGS
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Town Engineer Mark Coviello noted there were two issues – one was the inclusion of trench permit regulations and the second was a provision to waive the restriction of no street surface openings within the 5th last year of the Street Opening Moratorium Period.
Last summer when fuel and oil were sky rocketing people were looking at ways to lower the cost and one was to connect to natural gas. There were a couple of instances where people wanted to make that connection but the streets were paved under the five year moratorium. The Board asked for a provision to allow them to do it in the fifth year and page 15 of the Street Opening Rules & Regs. has been revised to allow someone that wishes to connect in the fifth year but the backfill requirement was more stringent.
The other change was the inclusion of the trench permit. The municipality was required to issue a permit for any construction within the Town way or private property that involves a trench. The trench permit legislation was to go into effect January 1, but a decision was just made to delay that until March 1. Nothing will change but the date of implementation.
Referring to page 10, Mr. Ostroff asked if the requirement of a police officer was something new: “All street openings will require the presence of
PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND STREET OPENING RULES & REGS (contd)
a Policeman to be on duty for traffic safety. If, in the determination of the Traffic Safety Officer or his designee, a Police detail officer will not be necessary then the Permittee will be required to return to the Engineering Office a copy of the Street opening permit with the appropriate Police Department signatures stating a detail will not be required”.
Mr. Coviello advised that it was not new, but someone coming in for a street opening permit would be required to take the permit to the Police Department and the Safety Officer would have to sign if an officer was required or not required and then come back. That wasn’t happening. The onus was being put on the person pulling a permit.
If there was a condition where a detail could be worked by a flagman, Mr. Ostroff commented that he wouldn’t want this policy to be in conflict. Mr. Coviello pointed out that the requirement to have a flagman would probably be in a construction contract. What were referred to here were for private sewer connections and utility connections.
Mr. Ostroff wondered if the language should be modified to provide for a flagman.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he had the same issue. A policy was being created and depending on what happened in the future it may be affected. He had a problem with the way it was written and would rather see some different language. Someone could be cutting a hole on a dead end street and it was up to one person if someone was needed.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Ms. Van Amsterdam was not present and he didn’t believe any action needed to be taken this evening.
On the issue of the appointment of a trench officer, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Ms. White had spoken to him (Mr. Coviello). Mr. Coviello advised that they had spoken and noted there were three departments within the Town that issues permits with trench associations – the DPW, the Building Inspector, and the Board of Health. He would suggest there be three trench officers – the Town Engineer or designee, the Building Inspector or designee, and the Board of Health Director or designee.
Mr. Coviello advised that he was creating an online permit form so each department would be able to do it online and tied into the specific permit they were asking for and then an e-mail could be sent to the Department of Public Safety.
Mr. Ciccariello felt the Board needed to talk to the Building Inspector and the Director of Public Health.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR ANNUAL REVIEW
Mr. Ostroff reported that all five members have had a meeting with the Town Administrator and provided a written review. He will consolidate the comments into a report and distribute with the expectation of voting at the next meeting. He had an opportunity to go over the material with Ms. White and she was fine with it.
In addition Mr. Ostroff handed out an opinion from counsel. There had been some concern with how much of this was for a public record and Town Counsel had given some conflicting advice about a month ago.
WALCOTT FUND
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young reviewed a memo prepared by Ms. White advising that a discrepancy had been identified within the accounting of the expendable portion of the Walcott Trust Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003. A transfer was made in Fy03 from the General Fund to the Expendable Trust Fund in the amount of $12,669.15. A special audit was commissioned with respect to this transfer and the auditors (Powers & Sullivan) characterized this transfer as inappropriate and advised that the amount of $12,669.15 should be paid back from the Expendable Trust Fund to the Town’s General Fund. Such action will leave the Fund in a significant deficit position of approximately ($11,400).
The memo continued that through Town Counsel, an inquiry was made of the Department of Revenue as to whether the Town would be permitted, with Town Meeting or other proper authorization, to appropriate funds to the expendable
WALCOTT FUND (contd)
portion of the Walcott Trust Fund to replenish the Fund. Absent such a transfer, it will be years before sufficient interest was earned to put the fund back into a positive position such that funds could be distributed as intended. Further, this negative balance would affect the Town’s free cash position each year until it was eliminated.
In a recently received opinion from the DOR, the DOR concluded that there were questions as to whether it was proper to appropriate Town funds to the Walcott Expendable Trust Fund but they stopped short of prohibiting the Town from doing so.
In conclusion Ms. White’s memo stated that when this matter first came to light, it was her intention to recommend to the Board that the Fund be replenished if permitted by the DOR. Given the Town’s current fiscal situation, she could not at this time recommend such an action. Should our situation change in the future, perhaps the matter could be revisited and consideration given to making a request to Town Meeting to appropriate funds for this purpose.
Mr. Connolly noted previous discussions of accountability and thought now was the time to do it. He wanted to know where the money went and who took it and thought the Board had an obligation to do the right thing and hold somebody accountable.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that in 2003 when the subject matter was brought to the Board it was clear there was a transfer of funds made by the then Comptroller and those funds were transferred from the general fund to the Walcott Trust to fund some gifts for people requesting assistance. It wasn’t the case of the person taking the money from the general fund and taking it home. It was the case that the transfer of funds into the Walcott Trust paid for these awards and the thought was at some point the money could be transferred back, but the situation has existed since 2003 and it took the new Comptroller and administration and Accountants (Powers & Sullivan) to go through this and figure out what happened. The Walcott Fund expended both the interest and some principal which resulted in this transfer which was
definitely inappropriate. It should have been brought to the Board of Selectmen and the Town Administrator, but the person was no longer employed by the Town.
Mr. Connolly noted that he was under the impression most of the awards were in the $250, $500 area and thought it was one award which he was ready to overlook. He didn’t know it was this much money. People were in need of that money and now that fund wasn’t accessible at all. It was wrong and he refused to let it go. There had to be some accountability.
Ms. Gloff agreed with much of what Mr. Connolly said, but the person that transferred these funds did not “stiff” the Town. The person made a mistake and used the wrong judgment, but they fulfilled requests that were made to help people. Were those requests more or less deserving than now, she (Ms. Gloff) didn’t know and she wished money was available now because of the economy. That person didn’t play by the rules and she didn’t like it, but the Board has put forward guidelines for administering the fund.
Mr. Connolly believed the whole situation to be criminal. Somebody played judge, jury, and executioner and will get away with it. This left a bad taste in his mouth and he thought the Board should do something.
Mr. Ciccariello felt it left a bad taste with all the Board members. It was disturbing and the Board had to notify those responsible for dispersing these funds there were no funds and they can’t award anything because there was nothing to award. If the Board was going to discuss any action relative to the person involved, he (Mr. Ciccariello) believed it would have to be done in executive session and the person notified. As to where all the money went, Mr. Ciccariello that Mr. Connolly sit down with the Comptroller and look back at what awards were made and in what amounts.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Mr. Walters Young advised that the updated financial principles had been unchanged with the exception of the capital policy.
As to what would happen in the proposed FY10 budget if the principles as laid out were adhered to, Mr. Walters Young referred to a spreadsheet. He pointed out that under the minimum, free cash availability would drop by $100,000. Under the stabilization fund with a 2% minimum there would be no change in
BUDGET/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES (contd)
availability, but with a 5% maximum no money could be used from the stabilization fund in FY10, and $2.19 million would have to be added.
For capital the minimum was 8% of general fund revenues to be set aside annually to fund capital needs and with a target amount of 10%. About 7-7-1/2% was spent on capital expenses, mostly tied up in debt services. For 2010 without any new debt or capital the services will be about 7-1/4%. Eight percent would increase the FY10 expenditure by $787,661 and 10%, $2,829,954. The reality was the maximum couldn’t be implemented this year but the idea of setting goals and doing whatever possible to adhere to them was good.
Mr. Ostroff noted that he had a conversation with the Town Administrator and had in mind a set of principles and this (proposed financial principles) accomplishes a lot of the same stuff. It was distressing to see the projected deficit being doubled (under the principles), but it points out the magnitude of the cushion the Town needs to see it through the bad times. If these principles had been adhered to 5-6 years ago, maybe it would be better.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested the Board may want to discuss the financial principles when all five members were present.
Mr. Walters Young noted the Board had received a copy of a letter from the Sudbury Town Manager to the Chair of the Special Municipal Relief Commission and Natick was being asked to concur with the priorities and possibly send a letter in agreement. The priorities listed in the Ms. Valente’s letter were as follows:
- Modernization of health plans
- Restructure Civil Service so that it remains responsible for only the testing of entry level applicants for police officer and firefighter positions
- Transition police and fire personnel into the workers compensation system and eliminate MGL c4., s111F
- Require police and fire personnel to adhere to the same drug testing standards as those employees who are required to hold a Commercial Driver’s license.
- Standardize all purchasing laws to the thresholds included in Chapter 30B
- Raise the threshold in Chapter 149 and 30 requirement payment bonds for repair and construction projects from $2,000 to $50,000
- Allow long-term leases to extend more than 10 years upon vote of the Board of Selectmen. Suggest limit be changed to 99 years
- Create a prevailing wage exemption by implementing a lower limit of $1,000,000 before the prevailing wage rates apply
- Allow Boards of Selectmen to create administrative districts for provision of services on a regional level without creating new governmental entities
- Allow Town Meeting to implement an impact fee schedule associated with new development
- Eliminate the penalty from State Library Commissioners when municipalities reduce library funding.
- Encourage payment in-lieu-of taxes programs by creating a process for municipalities to reach agreement with for-profit entities that are located on state or federally owned land
- Allow applicants for police officer and firefighter positions to attend training academies and be fully trained prior to being hired by towns.
As part of the budget/hiring freeze, the Board was in receipt of a memo from Police Chief Dennis Mannix requesting permission to hire a part-time dispatcher. Chief Mannix felt utilization of part-time dispatchers saved the Town from paying a replacement part-time dispatcher straight time and the time and one-half pay required to be paid to a replacement full-time dispatcher and a second benefit from having a reasonable complement of part-time dispatchers available for duty thereby requiring fewer forced overtime shifts for dispatchers required to remain beyond their normal tours of duty.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if someone had retired or left the position and Mr. Walters Young believed that to be the case.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to authorize the hiring of one part-time dispatcher by the Police Chief. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed
BUDGET/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES (contd)
on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Connolly was of the opinion that a hiring freeze was a hiring freeze and if the Board were to say no to the Police Chief it would be a lot easier to say no to anybody else. People joke at the hiring freeze.
The way Ms. Gloff looked at it, two dispatchers were needed on duty and did the Town spend the money paying overtime or less money not replacing a person that left and to her it made sense to spend less.
Mr. Connolly countered that then there shouldn’t be a hiring freeze, but Mr. Ciccariello explained that when Ms. White talked about a hiring freeze she said there may be times when she would come to the Board to fill certain vacancies. In this case she was telling the Board that if the Chief didn’t fill the position part-time he would have to pay overtime which will cost more money. It was his understanding that Ms. White decided not to fill one of the vacancies previously discussed.
Ms. White advised there was a position at the library – the Young Adult Librarian - that has not been filled and the Trustees agreed. She has also not proceeded to fill the Personnel Director although she stressed that she considered the position essential. However, looking at the budget deficit if she were to hire somebody in that position, they would be among those considered for a layoff and she didn’t want to do that. Leaving that position vacant will continue to be a drain on the staff in the Administrator’s office but it was her intent to leave it vacant for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Connolly commented that to him that was a hiring freeze.
Mr. Ostroff thought it was important to know the impact of filling or not filling the position. His thought was that the money shouldn’t be spent, somebody should make a motion to have less than two dispatchers. He was supporting it (hiring part-time dispatcher).
Mr. Connolly noted that was not what he said. Those were Mr. Ostroff’s words.
From Mr. Ciccariello’s perspective if the Board decided to tell the Chief not to hire this position, the question was how the Chief would deal with it and make it work within his budget and let him come back and explain.
Ms. White noted that the Chief’s position was that it was a cost savings. He uses part-time dispatchers to fill in for vacations.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Board were to say no, was there enough money in the present Fiscal 2009 budget to cover. Ms. White responded that it will cost money to reject this request. If the objective of the hiring freeze was to save money, this was one occasion where it was counter intuitive.
TOWN MEETING ACTIONS
- Home Rule Petition – Eliot School
Ms. White advised that she was seeking the Board’s authorization to file a home rule petition authorized by Town Meeting for the Eliot School. There were two separate approvals – one allowed for a lease not to exceed 50 years and the latter allowed a lease up to 99 years. She asked if the Board wished to direct the staff to file one or the other and if so which one. She would suggest the Board consider authorizing the 99 year lease.
If the less restrictive one were done, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Legislature could change it. Ms. White advised they could, but even if the Legislature authorized up to 99 years, the Board wouldn’t have to lease it
for that length of time.
Mr. Ostroff pointed out that one main difference was the more recent would provide for a sale which didn’t require a home rule petition.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to authorize the Town Administrator to petition the general court to enact legislation to authorize the Town to lease the Eliot School for up to 99 years.
- Fall town Meeting: Home Rule Petition – Parking Fund
TOWN MEETING ACTIONS (contd)
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to petition the General Court to enact legislation that would establish a parking fund in accordance with the passage of Article 20 at the Fall Town Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
TURNPIKE TOLL INCREASE: BOARD’S STATEMENT
Mr. Ostroff reminded the Board that at the last meeting he had handed out eight or so points that would go into a draft statement to a Mass Turnpike hearing this Wednesday. The draft as before the Board was something he would like to present on Wednesday.
Ms. Gloff stated that she was fine with the draft.
Neither Mr. Ciccariello nor Mr. Connolly wanted to acknowledge the Turnpike’s debt payments and Mr. Ciccariello said he wasn’t necessarily in favor of the gas tax and he was not in favor of a toll increase.
2009 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL – UPDATE
The Board was informed that two restaurants had reported alcohol sales above 20% - The Met Bar & Grill and One Forty-Eight on Central (Maxwell’s).
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Maxwell’s had been in the 34% range the last few years and he didn’t see any reason to have them come in.
Ms. Gloff knew that Maxwell’s alcoholic beverages were expensive and that the Met Bar & Grill was expensive as well.
The Board took no action.
2009 LICENSE RENEWAL UPDATE
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to renew the common vicutaler’s license for 2009 for:
148 on Central, 148 East Central Street, and
Nicholas’s Restaurant, 85 East Central Street.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to renew the Class II license of Glidden Auto Sales, 124 East Central Street for 2009.
MEETING WITH THE LEGISLATORS
Mr. Ciccariello announced the annual meeting with the legislators was scheduled for January 12, 2009.
In the packet was a letter from the MMA seeking support for the Municipal Relief Package which Ms. White thought would be a key part of the discussion with the Legislators.
Mr. Ostroff suggested sending the letter to the Legislators and requesting their comments.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to when the MMA intended to send the letter and in response Ms. White noted the issues have been presented as testimony at a hearing of the Municipal Relief Committee. She also noted that she (Ms. White) had a meeting scheduled this Friday with Representative Peisch because she (Rep. Peisch) was on that committee. Ms. White advised that she personally would be advocating for these items in the relief package but the MMA would like the Board of Selectmen in as many communities as possible to push them as well.
Asked if the Board had to express its support before the January 5 meeting, Ms. White said probably not. Ms. Gloff proposed adding it to the December 22 meeting agenda.
SPRING TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
Mr. Ciccariello noted there was a significant piece of property on Everett Street. The Board made several attempts to auction it off for sale. There was an opinion from Town Counsel that it was a buildable lot, but it hasn’t sold and he would like to transfer the property to the Affordable Housing Trust so they could perhaps get an affordable single family home.
Mr. Connolly like the idea.
SCHEDULE MEETING WITH PLANNING BOARD ON PARKING ISSUES
Mr. Ostroff provided the Board with an outline of the joint meeting with the Planning Board scheduled for December 22.
The meeting was to provide an update on a number of parking issues including a progress report on the Middlesex garage, an update on the recent Town Meeting articles and legislation to establish a fund to help pay for parking acquisition, an opportunity to ask Jim Gallagher a transportation planner with MAPC questions, and a possible update of the West Natick garage.
MINUTES
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2000 meeting.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
Now that the Board added several items to the December 22, Ms. White suggested the Board consider convening at 2:30 p.m. because there were some invited guests coming at 3:00 p.m.
The Board agreed to a 2:30 p.m. start.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
Mr. Ostroff reminded the Board of the invitation to serve at the Senior Center Christmas luncheon on December 18.
Mr. Ostroff recommended the MMA conference being held January 23 and 24.
- Revenue Enhancement Task Force
Mr. Ostroff reported that the Revenue Enhancement Task Force had asked to be on the agenda in January to talk about an economic development committee. The Task Force was also going to ask the Board of Selectmen to embark on a PILOT program to see if non-profit property owners were interested.
They were also looking at developing a sponsorship and advertising recommendation.
- Information Systems Advisory Board
Mr. Ostroff raised the possibility of inviting the School Committee to have a liaison to the Information Systems Advisory Board since the School Technology Director comes to the meetings and it could be helpful to have someone from the School’s policy board present.
Ms. Gloff noted there was a Medical Reserve Corps of which she was a member. She had been contacted about the state of emergency that occurred in the freezing rain and was asked if she could go to Gardner to help. She went on Saturday and from that experience she would encourage anyone who could find a way to sign up to do so. A medical degree was not needed. Having participated she learned a whole lot about what the Medical Reserve Corps could do.
Mr. Connolly thanked Mr. Ciccariello and Ms. White for their follow-up on some of his questions.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
_______________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
