BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
January 5, 2009
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, 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 January 5, 2009 in the amount of $1,726,265.97. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $5,557,744.74.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, 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 5-0-0 vote. At 6:03 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:10 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF MUNICIPAL INNOVATION AWARD: NATICK 360
Ms. White told the Board she was very pleased and proud to announce that Natick was one of only three communities to receive the Kenneth E. Pickard Municipal Innovation Award. The award was being received for the Natick 360 planning process and folks who made this happen were invited to tonight’s meeting.
Craig Ross, Co-Chair of the Oversight Committee, stated that he was thrilled to speak on behalf of the committee of which there were four members present. This was an acknowledgement that the whole community had done something extraordinary and as one of the sponsoring boards this process was the Board’s process. He felt that what got the attention of people at the MMA was the quality of the work that was done. It was a blue print that would serve the community very well and with some difficult times ahead, when things got difficult a plan like Natick 360 could be a valuable resource. With the goals there were plenty of opportunities to find ways to make the cuts necessary and maintain the value of the community. It was an excellent document and he hoped the Board could get good use out of it.
In conclusion Mr. Ross stated he was proud Natick 360 got this recognition and thanked the almost 2,000 residents who participated.
Given that Mr. Ross took the leadership and this was his vision, Mr. Ciccariello felt that Mr. Ross should be the one to accept the award when given. He so moved. Mr. Connolly seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Anna Mancini said she had been a member of the Design Review Board for the past five years and was very proud of the Town in which she lived. She had a design background and was a Historical Commission member. She wanted to see great projects happen in Natick and would like to continue.
Mr. Ostroff didn’t think the public was as well informed about the Design Review Board as it could be and he had worked on a web page with the Community Development Director. Currently the Design Review Board didn’t have a web page and Mr. Ostroff asked consideration would be given to putting it on a future agenda.
Ms. Mancini thought it was a great idea and would talk to Mr. Reffett.
Mr. Connolly noted an e-mail from the Chair of the Historical Commission Steven Evers recommending the reappointment of Ms. Mancini.
Mr. Ciccariello raised the issue of criticism that the Design Review Board was overstepping their bounds and asked how Ms. Mancini as a member could assure the Selectmen that the guidelines would be followed and the Review Board would stay within the boundaries of its charge. How did the Review Board intend to improve communications with individuals that come before them?
Ms. Mancini responded that this was the first she heard of any issues, but she was not surprised if people had complaints or issues. The Design Review Board was advisory and they critiqued people’s work. Because they were advising on design, it tends to be a little more subjective. The goal was to make downtown Natick a better place to live and work and they had a high standard. For communication they have been asking for better representation from the Planning Board and ZBA. Right now the Review Board writes a letter of recommendation to those boards on projects, but didn’t have any involvement thereafter.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to reappoint Anna Mancini to the Design Review Board. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Noting the term was three years, Mr. Ostroff inquired if the effective date would be from today. Ms. Challis explained that generally the Board makes all terms of appointments to boards and committees expire June 30 unless otherwise stipulated in the By-Laws or Charter. Mr. Ciccariello designated Ms. Mancini’s term to run from July 1, 2008-June 30, 2011.
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT
Making the presentation was Timothy Tapley, recently appointed Chair of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
Mr. Tapley distributed the written report and recognized the other members of the committee who were in the audience. He noted that the Advisory Committee had been around for some time, but this past year they went through a rebuilding year and now saw themselves going forward as opposed to standing still. The accomplishments listed show the steps being taken to move forward which include a broad spectrum of things from being involved not only in construction projects but taking a proactive approach in getting involved with Townspeople and hosting some events. Moving forward in 2009 the committee hoped to take what was done in the past six months and move forward strongly.
Mr. Tapley continued that first and foremost was keeping up with their role on advising the Board of Selectmen. Fortunately they were becoming more of a conduit for the townspeople and they hoped to be more involved this year creating more educational experiences for the Town to encourage people to get out there and ride and walk rather than driving all the time. One of the events they had was the ice cream ride. There wasn’t a large attendance but the people that participated loved it. Of importance to the committee was their recent invitation to have a member become part of the Route 27 project. That was one of the best ways to use their collective knowledge.
As to how the Board could assist the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Mr. Tapley listed three items the first being to allow the committee to continue to update the Selectmen. The second would be to allow the committee to present those grant opportunities of which they became aware and the third to ensure that the committee was represented on all major construction projects on Natick roadways.
Mr. Tapley noted there was an incredible knowledge base on the committee. Often grant opportunities were brought to their attention for things such as bicycle racks, etc. and they would appreciate the opportunity to bring those opportunities to the Board of Selectmen. There was money out there to be had.
Mr. Connolly inquired if a committee member had been assigned to the Route 27 project and was told that Ken DelPapa had been named, but there hadn’t been a meeting as of yet.
If there were grant opportunities the Board could help with, Mr. Connolly said he would be happy to offer his assistance.
Mr. Ostroff assumed the NBAPC would be providing a narrative for the Annual Town Report and Mr. Tapley advised that would be done.
Mr. Ostroff then inquired as to how the Committee could utilize some grant writing expertise. He was aware of a program for funding of bike racks at the Natick T station and wondered how they should proceed.
Ms. White advised that it would depend on the application and the funding source. Some were straightforward enough that she would like to rely on the committee itself with maybe some help from staff. If there was an opportunity to obtain money particularly without a local match, the administration would do all it could. She asked that the Committee go through the Town Administrator’s office.
With respect to SHARE THE ROADS signs, Mr. Ostroff noted that he saw some on Route 135 and asked if there were others the Committee requested that have not as yet been installed.
Mr. Tapley was not aware of any requests other than Route 135, but wanted to confer with the other committee members.
DPW: SNOW OVERDRAFT
DPW Business Manager William Chenard reported that $257,723.73 had been spent through December 31 which put them in a negative position.
$46,004.55 was expended for sand & salt
$12,368.26 for equipment parts & repairs
$102,869.50 for contractors
$86,136.77 for staff overtime
$6,887.07 for fuel
$3,457.58 for administrative or miscellaneous
One item for which there was some foresight last spring was the sand and salt. At that time salt cost $48+ and this fall it came in at $77+. Purchasing it last spring saved money. Mr. Chenard noted that as of this morning there were 7 incidents requiring the treatment of the roads.
Mr. Chenard reviewed the history of snow removal expenditures. In 2005 the cost was $895,000; 2006 - $449,000; 2007 - $353,000; 2008 - $882,000.
The budget appropriation was $150,000 and Mr. Chenard stated that in his view that was inadequate. 1,000 tons of salt was $96,000 alone and to remove snow from one storm was about $80,000.
Mr. Chenard advised that tonight he was seeking $350,000 and that will pay expenditures to date and allow the DPW to fill the salt shed and probably cover 1-1/2 additional storms.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the advantages and disadvantages of increasing the budget for snow removal and Mr. Chenard responded that the disadvantage was if it wasn’t expended it was part of the tax rate. The advantage was that it made better municipal financial planning.
Ms. White noted that the budget had been increased modestly for FY10 to $250,000. History has shown the Town doesn’t spend less than that. The administration was being conservative because of the fear of appropriating too much.
Ms. Gloff was of the understanding that once you budgeted for an amount, you couldn’t budget for less than that amount. If the budget was increased to $250,000 in FY10, every year after at least $250,000 would have to be budgeted.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to where the $350,000 came from and Mr. Chenard responded that it would be added to next year’s tax levy.
Mr. Ostroff noted the benefit of a lower amount was that it freed up the current year but that had to be balanced with what was being done to next year’s budget.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to the possibility of bidding contract services and Mr. Chenard responded that it could be done but it would be putting yourself in a bid process. Chapter 30B does not exempt snow removal. Mr. Chenard advised that he did a comparison to other communities and Natick was pretty much in the middle. If the Town wasn’t competitive it wouldn’t get the contractors. There was a lot of work around and the Town had to be competitive.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if most contractors were local. Mr. Chenard thought most of them were within 10 miles of Natick.
Mr. Ciccariello then noted that the equipment repairs were the result of snow and questioned if any of the equipment was used by Water & Sewer. Mr. Chenard explained that the plow itself was not equipment Water & Sewer would
have. The plow went on the Water & Sewer trucks. Equipment was shared through the various divisions.
Mr. Ciccariello expressed his appreciation for the detail and breakdown provided.
Mr. Connolly questioned if the Town fueled the contractors’ vehicles and Mr. Chenard’s reply was, “absolutely not”. The contractors were responsible for their own fuel and maintenance.
Mr. Connolly noted that he had a few calls on the Pond Street sidewalk and Eastern Avenue sidewalks. Mr. Chenard advised there was some equipment failure on some sidewalk plows, but as soon as it was fixed the guys got out there and did the best they could. Mr. Connolly acknowledged that he saw the staff out there working hard.
Noting the loss of 2-3 spaces from the snow in the Town Hall parking lot, Mr. Ciccariello asked if there was any opportunity to get rid of it. Mr. Chenard responded that an effort would be made to get rid of it. A decision was made to limit overtime for snow removal, but it was on the list and would be taken care of.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to authorize an overdraft in the amount of $350,000 for the purpose of snow removal in Fiscal 2009. Unanimously voted.
Ms. White thanked the DPW and DPW Director Charles Sisitsky for marvelously combining getting rid of the snow and minimizing overtime, but because of the nature of the storm, it couldn’t be entirely avoided.
Mr. Ciccariello echoed Ms. White’s comments, adding that he hadn’t heard a lot of complaints.
INTERVIEW FOR COMPTROLLER POSITION
Ms. White introduced the interview by highlighting the search process. A Screening Committee was established by the Selectmen that reviewed resumes and conducted initial interviews. The Screening Committee was putting forward one candidate for the Board’s consideration. For tonight’s interview a list of questions was put together and the format would be for the Chair to ask the questions and the other Board members would be afforded the opportunity to follow up. Ms. White’s recommendation was for the Board not to proceed to a decision tonight but to take it up at the next meeting on January 12.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that Mr. Panagopoulos would be given an opportunity to introduce himself, followed by a list of prepared questions with follow-up from members of the Board, and then a closing statement.
Mr. Panagopoulos thanked the Board and the Town Administrator for allowing him to be here tonight. It was an honor. He noted that he was currently
working for the City of Boston in the Auditing Department of the City which was similar to what the Comptroller was required to do. He had an undergraduate degree from Suffolk in Political Administration Policy with a
minor in paralegal studies. In June he graduated from Harvard with a Masters in Liberal Arts and Business Management which was similar to an MBA.
In his current job he made decisions about which bonds need to be refinanced and money to be borrowed for short and long term. He did all the financial reporting for the City including writing the management letter of submittal. He was familiar with the laws of finance and reporting to the DOR.
Mr. Panagopoulos noted that he had one direct report and was the floor supervisor for his department. Before that he was at the Boston Housing Authority.
Question 1: Describe your qualifications for the position of Comptroller
Mr. Panagopoulos thought all his courses at Suffolk and Harvard had prepared him. When he graduated in June with a degree that was similar to an MBA he wanted to apply his degrees to good use. From his understanding the Comptroller’s position was very similar to what he did now, just a little higher level. He had great knowledge and could come in and hit the ground running. Boston had a budget of $2.4 billion with bigger projects so nothing he had seen would deter him. It was public finance, making fiscal policy recommendations and it interested him a great deal.
Mr. Panagopoulos advised that he had been in his current capacity for about
7-8 years with a little bit of an upgrade the past 1-1/2 years. Currently he did all the duties of a Comptroller on a different level and felt he could hit the ground running. Many of the State requirements he had done such as the implementation of GASB, started implementation of OPEB and GASB 49 which he thought would be a huge advantage to the Board, other offices, and the Town Administrator.
Asked by Mr. Ostroff if he had any experience working with the Retirement Board, Mr. Panagopoulos responded that he did. He dealt with them with risk management and the COLA calculation every year.
Question 2: Under MGL the Comptroller has certain powers and duties over the payment of bills. These duties and powers may put the Comptroller in a position where he or she feels that a bill submitted for payment by a department head or member of the Board of Selectmen should not be paid, how would you handle this situation?
Mr. Panagopoulos responded that the MGL was clearly stated. When he signed off on a payment or a warrant the rule of thumb doing due diligence was to never sign anything without making sure the purchase order or requisition matches the amount of the bill and he looked at the encumbrances to make sure there was enough to cover. There were a slew of criteria. Depending on the time of year you would look at the reserves and compare the budget status reports with what’s on the bill. Department heads usually want to get their last wish list in before the fiscal year closed and sometimes that couldn’t be done. At the City his department was the brain of the entire operation. All payments came through his office and they had complete oversight of all transactions.
Question 3: If you discovered a fellow employee was committing an act of fraud, what would you do? Would your response be any different if the person was a friend, or if the person was your boss?
Mr. Panagopoulos responded there would be no difference at all. You had to play by the rules and that applied whether it was a friend, co-worker, subordinate, no matter who.
Asked what he would do, Mr. Panagopoulos said it would depend on the severity. He would research the situation and investigate to get to the bottom of it. Whether it was an extreme situation or not, he would want to get proper evidence and approach the individual
As Mr. Panagopoulos’ appointment would be made by the Board of Selectmen, Mr. Connolly asked if he would pass that information along to the Board. Mr. Panagopoulos responded that if it was at a high level, absolutely. If it was something at a low level, he would want to get all the investigation together before approaching the Board.
Question 5: If selected for this position describe what your priorities would be during the first 90 days.
Mr. Panagopoulos said the first thing would be to accustom himself to the budget. Knowing the budget was more than half the battle. Policy and fiscal control comes from knowing the budget and he would want a good grasp. He would want to see the free cash level, tax levy, and a summary of the accounts and if it was not in place, he would want to look at the internal budget controls for offices submitting purchase orders. Like any new environment, he would want to familiarize himself with every committee and department as to who did what and familiarize himself with his staff as well to see how maybe tasks could be juggled around.
Mr. Ostroff noted that within the first 180 days he (Mr. Panagopoulos) could be dealing with free cash certification and asked if that was something he could do on his own. Mr. Panagopoulos’ reply was, “absolutely”, adding that with his boss he was involved with a lot of discussion with the Division of Local Services representing the City of Boston and this year had undertaken Munis training which was a gateway system. It was a direct submission to the data piece.
Mr. Ostroff then asked if Mr. Panagopoulos had been in a work environment where there was a hybrid of systems. Again Mr. Panagopoulos’ reply was, “absolutely”, noting that he previously worked with Wintergrade and Boston still did some things manually. He thought the one constant in municipal government was always changing systems and ways of doing things to save money and if it was a cost savings measure why not.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked Mr. Panagopoulos to talk about any operation performance initiatives he had undertaken to reduce costs. Mr. Panagopoulos responded that he saved $20,000-25,000 in doing the CAFA report on line. He had an idea that he recommended to his boss to charge back half of his salary to the Budget Department because a lot of his work was budget related. Because of that his department saved a couple of jobs.
Having mentioned that he had one direct report, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if in his years of experience he was familiar with union employees and job descriptions that were governed by contracts.
Mr. Panagopoulos responded that his department had contract employees and temporary employees all of whom were union. His department had five divisions. His was the Accounting Division and that was the only division
that all the staff were middle managers. As a floor supervisor he had one direct report. The other staff weren’t his direct reports but he could use them if necessary. His direct report was a union employee and there hadn’t been anything to report negatively where he had to be reprimanded.
He did a lot of workshops with unions and knew the steps that had to be taken. At Harvard he took a course on conflict resolution, HR management and how to handle employees and colleagues.
Ms. Gloff noted Natick had a Finance Director who was also the Treasurer/Collector and asked Mr. Panagopoulos to describe what he saw as the difference of duties.
Mr. Panagopoulos responded that Boston had a Treasurer/Collector’s office that did all the warrants and made all the payments on the bonds. He (Mr. Panagopoulos) envisioned the Treasurer/Collector handling the warrants but he too had experience doing that. He thought managing the cash was the big thing the Treasurer/Collector should be doing and doing the bond recap. He listed the cash, warrants, and bank balance and statements as the primary duties.
Ms. White pointed out that in Natick the warrants were prepared under the Comptroller. Mr. Panagopoulos reiterated that he had experience with the warrants so it was fine.
Question 6: At your last job describe one time your involvement in a situation made a positive impact on the outcome.
Mr. Panagopoulos thought it was his decision to charge half his time to the Budget Office and relieve the Auditing Department of that burden. He managed over $900 million in bonds and general debt and his decisions affected the bond rating. It was his understanding Natick had an AAA rating and Boston was just below that. The way he managed the bonds had a huge impact on the rating.
Question 7: Describe a time when you had a problem with an employee that worked directly for you or a fellow employee.
Mr. Panagopoulos responded that he first had his assistant about 1-1/2 years ago when his position was upgraded. His assistant came aboard and hit the ground running. There were things he wanted his assistant to undertake and at first the response was sort of I will do it later so he (Mr. Panagopoulos) scheduled a time line for him. It was easy when you worked with great people. His assistant was very knowledgeable and he (Mr. Panagopoulos) just had to set time aside to show him things and go over what needs to be done.
Question 8: Describe a time when you had a problem with your boss and how you resolved it.
Mr. Panagopoulos stated that the biggest thing he disliked was people going over people’s heads and he saw that a lot in his department. The City’s Auditor was the department head and then the Deputy Auditor and some Assistant Auditors. The Auditor wants everything controlled so that you went to the section head and everything flowed through them and you can’t approach the Auditor unless it was through your boss. He had an instance recently where his boss gave the OK for someone a level below him to go to the City
Auditor. He (Mr. Panagopoulos) could have questioned why it was ok for this individual, but instead he just e-mailed his boss and asked if it was OK for him to go to the City Auditor as well. His boss explained that the individual below him was working with the City Auditor on OPEB and had a question.
Mr. Panagopoulos felt you always wanted to be cautious and never wanted to be in someone’s face about something whether it was setting some time aside or sometimes playing dumb you didn’t want to overstep your boundaries.
Mr. Ostroff noted the Town had a lot of wills and trusts and asked if Mr. Panagopoulos had experience with those. Mr. Panagopoulos’ reply was again, ”absolutely”. Boston had different pools of money set up for different gifts and fiduciary funds that were restricted for specific gifts.
Given the opportunity to make a closing statement, Mr. Panagopoulos thanked the Board and the Town Administrator for the opportunity. It was a pleasure to be here and he couldn’t describe enough his willingness to come on board if given the opportunity. He thought what he did was comparable to what the Comptroller did here and thought he could be a huge attribute to the Town with GASB, reporting to the State, OPEB.
Mr. Connolly thanked Mr. Ciccariello and Ms. Van Amsterdam for the effort they put forth in the screening of the candidates.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
Jerry Pierce told the Board he was concerned about sustaining the viability of the Leonard Morse Hospital. In the pre-merger days he was very active in protecting the rights of the residents to keep the hospital in Natick. At the time many doctors and former trustees fed him information and they too wanted to preserve the hospital, but now some of those same doctors that fed him information were paving the way to close the Leonard Morse Hospital. They were doing that because they have changed their allegiance to Partners. The doctors that have joined for profits have multiplied because they get a bigger payment.
Mr. Pierce noted that what concerned him about the comments in the newspapers was the advice to close Natick and consolidate with Framingham. If that happens it would be a bad situation for Natick and just a matter of time before Goliath slays the small community hospitals. It would be a sad day in Natick if Leonard Morse closed.
Mr. Ciccariello asked the Town Administrator to look into it.
ELIOT SCHOOL: PROPOSED COMMITTEE COMPOSITION
Ms. White reminded the Board of their previous request for her to put together a recommendation for a committee to work on the disposition of the Eliot School which could either be by lease or sale consistent with the recent Town Meeting vote.
In a memo to the Board Ms. White proposed the following committee makeup:
Town Administrator or designee
Representative from the neighborhood
Representative from the Historical Commission
Representative from the Finance Committee
Citizen-at-large
She urged that the committee be small which was why she proposed a five member committee and thought that was critical to its success. The issues will be cumbersome and complex. The committee would be advisory only and be charged with crafting an RFP that would come to the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Connolly noted the absence of someone from the Planning Board, and Ms. White explained that she saw that as a second step to the process. If there was a change of use any new building would have to go to the Planning Board.
Reflecting back to the discussion at Town Meeting, Ms. Van Amsterdam remembered persons stating that if such a committee were to be formed there should be a level of expertise. While respectful of the needs of a neighborhood, she was looking more for the qualification of persons to serve. She would be looking for committee members to come forward with a skill set of a group of five that can do the due diligence and address the issues that will be cumbersome and complex. She was not sure a member of the Historical Commission would have that background, but didn’t know. Her preference would be to have some criteria beyond there being an interest.
Mr. Ostroff suggested the advertisement should identify the charge and look for skills.
Having been on the past committee to look at whether to sell or lease, Mr. Ciccariello noted there were a lot of different folks involved and he tended to agree with Ms. Van Amsterdam. He thought people were needed with expertise. There were some thoughts on the past committee that because of the historic significance, there should be someone with a background in historic preservation and that may not necessarily be someone on the Historical Commission. Someone in real estate could be helpful as well as someone with a background in construction and engineering and someone with a background in financing. Whatever was done with the RFP, Mr. Ciccariello thought some money would have to be put into it and someone with a background in finance could provide some guidance.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that he thought the sale vs lease had been studied and the recommendation came back to lease.
Hearing it was back to the drawing board, Ms. White suggested she come back with a specific charge and focus more on qualification vs representation.
Planning Board member Kenneth Soderholm asked to address the Board and clarified that he was not speaking on behalf of the Planning Board. He noted this (Eliot School) was a subject that had been going on for a long time and a lot of qualified people have looked at it. The concern that has come to the front recently was the land across the street and the Montessori School’s plans. There were people including former Planning Board member Robert Eisenmenger that have been having off line discussions about the future of both those properties. His concern with this process was that if it only focused on the school without the property across the street the Town may be missing an opportunity to have a global solution. He thought there were solutions available and thought it was important to have a discussion
of what might happen to the property across the street.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he had heard some suggestions and assumed those things would be brought up in public and addressed. He understood there were some thoughts that maybe something could be addressed in an RFP.
Mr. Soderholm commented that the way the municipal complex was developed was creative and he thought the Town would be worse off down the road if the focus was just on the school building itself.
Former Planning Board member Robert Eisenmenger advised that the informal group included the Chair of the Historical Commission, Chair of the Historic District Commission, Doug Jenkins an expert in historical preservation, Chair of the Open Space Advisory Committee and Natick Community Gardens. Mr. Eisenmenger told the Board that he never worked with a more creative group. They have come up with a lot of creative ideas and it might be useful to have some of those creative ideas before putting out the RFP. In his (Mr. Eisenmenger’s) opinion the group has come up with a spectacular solution. It was across the street that was important – more than just the Eliot School – and he suggested the group talk to Ms. White off line about their ideas before putting out an RFP. If their concept were accepted
it might be included in the RFP.
Mr. Ciccariello didn’t want any preconceived ideas of what should be done at the site. He hoped the committee would consider whatever the public offered.
Mr. Ostroff shared the concern of having something in mind and make it the equivalent of spot zoning. He had heard some great ideas but the road that led us there had to be open and transparent.
Ms. White thought she could accomplish what the Board had asked in terms of the charge and committee qualifications for the next meeting, but didn’t know if the meeting with the other folks would fit into that schedule.
Mr. Ciccariello felt the most important was to set up a charge to get the ball rolling. The lease expired June 2010 so there wasn’t a lot of time especially if looking at a long-term lease. He didn’t want to be in the position where the tenant left and there was a vacant building.
FISCAL 2009 BUDGET UPDATE
Ms. White advised there was very little to report. This was a time for holding our breath and crossing our fingers. The biggest issue was if there would be any current local aid cuts. She noted that she had been communicating by e-mail with other municipal managers and they were all over the map. No one knows. Some managers have taken action similar to Natick, i.e. hiring freeze. Many have instituted spending freezes and that was being looked at for Natick. Some managers were looking to make cuts up to 5% but the majority were not. Most were being as cautious as they could be short of making cuts and that was pretty much the approach she had recommended to the Board to date.
Ms. White continued that the projected shortfall of $200,000 was something that could be closed by year’s end if that was the end of the state aid cuts. Right now Fiscal 2009 was a watch and wait.
Mr. Ostroff noted that from everything he heard whatever didn’t get cut the current year would be cut the next fiscal year.
Ms. White noted that in the e-mail communication with the other managers the question being proposed was what they were planning for the current year and
the plan for FY10. There were no clear projections. Some managers have projected 5% cut and only for certain categories and some were projecting 15% across all categories. Natick was at 10%.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how the $267,000 deficit for Fiscal 2009 impacted free cash at the end of the year. If there was still a deficit at the end of the year, did that mean there wouldn’t be any free cash? Ms.
White explained that the Town could not end with a deficit so it would be closed out one way or another. She understood Mr. Ciccariello was alluding to the more the deficit was closed (before the end of the Fiscal year) the more free cash and that was in the FY10 budget message that as revenues became scarcer, it effects free cash.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked if being in a deficit now meant there wouldn’t be any free cash. Ms. White’s response was, “no”. Not every budgeted dollar would be spent. Mr. Ciccariello questioned what would happen if every dollar budgeted was spent and Ms. White responded that there was $2.4 million in free cash now and if none of that were spent that would become the free cash position, but there were a lot of other offsets that went into the calculation. It wasn’t simply were the revenues equal to the expenditures. She felt Mr. Ciccariello’s concerns were valid.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how Ms. White intended to make up the deficit moving forward. Ms. White responded that the revenues would not be exactly as projected in those figures and hopefully those revenue estimates were conservative. They were watching the quarterly revenue report carefully and her concern would be the March motor excise tax. She pointed out that $267,000 was approximately ¼ of 1%.
Ms. Gloff added that some positions authorized by Town Meeting haven’t been filled and the saved salary money decreases the budget deficit.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that he didn’t want to be scrambling at the end of the fiscal year and discovering there was a deficit and there was nothing left for free cash. Ms. Gloff agreed but at this point it was only l/4 of 1%. Not every one of the budgets would spend every single dollar budgeted and that will come back as free cash and if positions weren’t filled it would lower the budget deficit.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that when he saw a deficit it said to him everything budgeted was being spent and nothing would be left to go to free cash, but he was being told there will be money coming back. Ms. Gloff responded that that may not be the case for every department, but some don’t spend every dollar and there were positions that haven’t been filled.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would be more comfortable if he had an estimate of the money that may be coming back and a list of unfilled positions.
Ms. Van Amsterdam thought the Board was asking for more specificity than just saying ‘we are watching’. She asked if at each meeting Ms. White could give the Board an update of what was watched.
Ms. White agreed to try to give the Board some specificity such as the Human Resources Director position would be unfilled for about ¾ of the year.
PRESENTATION OF TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S FISCAL 2010 BUDGET
Ms. White read her budget message for Fiscal 2010:
To the Honorable Board of Selectmen and the Residents of Natick it is with honor I submit the Town Administrator’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget.
The economic challenges prevalent throughout the nation – and, indeed, world-wide – are affecting local governments as well. Natick is currently
experiencing substantially lower than normal receipts in several key local revenue categories, and we anticipate this trend to continue for quite some time. These revenue categories – notably permit fees, motor vehicle excise tax and investment income – are directly affected by the larger economic conditions.
Permit Fees
In recent years, Natick has benefited from sizable increases in permit fees driven largely by the Natick Collection project. We had initially projected a return to normal receipts in this category for FY 2009 and FY 2010, but we are instead seeing a substantial drop-off in building permit applications and associated fee revenues. Alarmingly, this decline in new construction will also negatively impact New Growth tax receipt projections for FY 2011 and beyond.
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax
While motor vehicle excise tax receipts cannot be accurately predicted until the state Department of Motor Vehicles submits data to the communities in March, this revenue sources is directly related to new car sales, which clearly have plummeted nationwide and locally.
Investment Income
Investment income – derived through the town’s investment of the various funds it has on hand throughout the year – is down simply due to low interest rates.
State Aid
The outlook for State Aid – including Chapter 70 Education Aid – is bleak as well. Prior to the economic downturn, our FY 2010 projections called for increases of between 4-11% in various local aid categories, consistent with recent trends. Our current projections call for a 10% decrease in all local aid categories.
Summary Regarding FY 2010 Budget
The current projections for revenues that will be available in support of the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget deviate substantially from previous fiscal years and will necessitate sizable reductions in expenses. The stability afforded to us by passage of the Proposition 2 ½ Override last spring has been undercut by the widespread recession conditions.
Based on current revenue and expenditure forecasts, a FY 2010 “level service” operation budget, including just minimal capital spending, results in a projected funding shortfall of approximately 44.7 million (See Appendix A).
On the expense side, both the general government and school department have developed operating budgets that can be characterized as “level service” budgets in that they provide no new personnel and no new services. To maintain level services, a 2.2% increase in general government department budgets is projected (including the budget for General Government Energy).
The School Department level-service budget results in a 4.0% increase over current year costs. It is important to note that we will be unable to fund these level service budgets given anticipated revenues.
In fact, significant reductions in spending will be necessary to bring the FY 2010 budget into balance. The Town and School Administrations will undertake
this effort over the coming weeks in conjunction with their respective boards. It is anticipated that the extent of cuts necessary will
significantly impact the quality and variety of services to which Natick residents have grown accustomed. Sadly, personnel layoffs will be unavoidable and Natick will contribute to the growing ranks of the unemployed.
Until the passage of the Proposition 2 ½ Override in the spring of 2009, Natick had endured several years in which new revenues did not keep pace with increasing costs. During this period, Natick balanced its budgets by drawing upon sources of revenues that are not considered to be recurring, primarily Stabilization Fund, Overlay Surplus and Free Cash to fill the gap. It was hoped that the Override would enable Natick to cease such practices and adequately fund the Town’s exemplary services with recurring revenue sources, while also adequately funding our capital needs. Regrettably, economic conditions that extend far beyond our boundaries will make these goals unattainable in FY2010 and beyond.
Related Discussion of Current Year Budget
The decline in revenue from Permit Fees, Motor Vehicle Excise Tax and Investment Income s impacting the current year budget (FY 2009) as well. As the operating budget for a fiscal year is developed, available funds are determined by projecting anticipated revenues. Sound fiscal practice demands that such revenue estimates should be realistic, yet conservative, to minimize the potential of shortfalls in the operating budgets and corresponding impacts on free cash. Put simply, revenue projections are intended to reflect the minimum revenue that we would realistically expect to receive. This conservative approach helps to ensure that adequate revenues will be available in support of approved expenditures, and that revenue above and beyond that needed for those expenditures will be available as free cash after
year’s end.
Today’s economic challenges were not present or anticipated when our revenue estimates for FY 2009 were developed. Accordingly, actual receipts are tracking perilously close to projections. As a result, at present there is a modest projected shortfall in this current year’s budget. While this deficit can be addressed in the months remaining in this fiscal year, of greater concern is that, with expenditures tracking so closely to revenues, the year-end free cash will be negatively impacted. This concern became reality after FY 2008 was closed, when the state Department of Revenue certified Free Cash just over $2.4 million; typically Natick’s Free Cash is more in the range of $4 million.
Further, as of this writing, the Governor has announced further declines in projected state-wide revenues and has asked the legislature for additional authority to institute budgetary cuts, including potential cuts to current year state aid allocations. Such an action would be devastating to Natick and would necessitate reductions in current year operations.
In summary, we are presently facing multiple and multi-year budgetary challenges, including
- Anticipated decline in revenues in key local receipts categories
- Anticipated limited available free cash in upcoming years
- Potential reduction in state aid in this current fiscal year
- Virtually certain reduction in state aid in FY 2010
- Likelihood that such trends will continue into subsequent fiscal years
Other Notable Fiscal Challenges
We also have a number of pending liabilities that must be noted, including
- The Police Superior Officers’ Uni0on contract expired as of June 30, 2007 and we have been unable to come to terms on a successor agreement. Other unions have generally received 3% cost of living allowances in the intervening years.
- We are funding a $325,000 supplement for this winter’s snow removal activity. This projected expense will continue to be monitored throughout the winter and will be adjusted as needed.
- While the FY 2010 budgeted increase for the Contributory Retirement System is modest, market and other conditions would suggest that we should expect future years’ appropriations to increase significantly.
- We must begin to plan for funding of the Town’s “other post-employment benefit” (OPEB) obligation. The OPEB obligations are primarily the health care costs for retirees. The Government Accounting Standards Bureau (GASB) is requiring all municipalities to identify their OPEB obligations by 2010; our analysis is underway. While GASB has not, as of yet, required municipalities to fund their OPEB obligations, such a mandate is inevitable. The liability will be significant – millions of dollars – and accordingly many municipalities have already initiated their efforts to fund the obligation.
- The proposed FY 10 budget has just $350,000 allocated for capital spending. This capital allocation is dramatically lower than what is necessary to adequately address our capital needs and represents yet another in a series of years in which our capital spending is inadequate.
Prudent Measures for Fiscal Progress
We continue to evaluate all operations for opportunities for savings and have instituted several measures recently including
Instituting a program whereby employees can voluntarily reduce their work hours (4 participants).
- Instituting a hiring freeze unless conditions warrant that the position be filled.
- Assessing opportunities for reduction of overtime costs throughout all departments. For example we conducted the fall residential leaf and brush pick up program on a series of Mondays, deferring the customary Monday bulky waste pick-ups during this period.
- Deferring action on certain capital projects that have been authorized but for which funds have not yet been expended.
- Evaluation of opportunities to increase fees where warranted pursuant to the Fee Analysis recently conducted.
- Refinancing existing debt, resulting in savings of approximately $436,000; our FY 2010 total debt obligation of $7.159 million begins to drop off in FY 2011, potentially creating opportunity for additional borrowing to fund needed capital projects.
- Evaluating opportunities, in conjunction with representatives from the School Department, to collaborate on the delivery of services, as recommended by the Expense Control Task Force.
- Establishment of Financial Management Principles (see Appendix B). Over the coming weeks, I will be seeking endorsement of these concepts from the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee.
We are also working with state and federal government officials on key efforts to improve our financial situation. Specifically, in conjunction with the Massachusetts Municipal Managers Association, a set of initiatives has been presented to the Legislative Special Municipal Relief Commission. These initiatives include ideas to improve municipalities’ ability to effectively manage human resources by adding tools which are available to the commonwealth, local government in other states and private sector employees; modernize purchasing laws; and increase flexibility within local government.
And finally, we are preparing a comprehensive package for submission to the Lt. Governor in response to Economic Stimulus Package that is anticipated to be approved at the federal level. This bill will likely include significant funding for infrastructure projects for which construction can commence within 180 days and which can be completed within two years. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, public safety, wastewater, water, solid waste, recreational, city and town buildings, senior/community centers, some garages (those not linked to the MBTA), public library and cultural facilities. Natick will certainly submit competitive applications for all projects that meet the stated criteria.
A Note Regarding the Budget Format
Those familiar with Natick’s customary budget presentation format will notice significant changes. We hope that these changes will bring further clarity and transparency to the budget review process. My thanks go to Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young for these enhancements and to Finance Director Robert Palmer for his solid financial management and support to Michael and myself throughout the budget preparation process. Thanks also to Richard Jennett, Chair of the Finance Committee for his input regarding the presentation changes.
Our challenges over the coming months are many. Our services to the community will be changed as a result of the economic challenges that we now face. We will do our best to minimize impacts to services most needed, and we will undertake this effort with the greatest possible transparency and with due care and concern for residents and employees. We seek the public’s awareness and participation in this challenging effort.
Sincerely,
Martha L. White
Town Administrator
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the status of the OPEB analysis and was told by Ms. White that a consultant had been under contract for about two months and she imagined they were near completion because it was not that complicated of an analysis. When asked if a presentation would be made to the Board in the near future, Ms. White responded that it wouldn’t necessarily be the consultant but a report would be presented.
Mr. Ciccariello requested a list of Tier 1 and Tier 1A projects under capital spending. Ms. White advised that as of now the administration had gone through the analysis and it was just a placeholder.
With respect to the economic stimulus, Mr. Ciccariello asked about the Sassamon Trace well, but Ms. White pointed out that a key component to the stimulus was job creation.
With respect to the Contributory Retirement system, Mr. Ciccariello thought it was important for the board and the community to know how much money the general fund was contributing to the retirement system and maybe a letter from the Board as to what the Retirement Board was intending to do to try to increase their revenues through investments as opposed to relying on the Town to continuously add more money to the system.
Mr. Ostroff reported that he was at a Retirement Board meeting a couple of months ago and one member was explicit that the Retirement Board had no duty to the citizen and taxpayer. Their sole responsibility was to the members. Had the Retirement Board invested in the Pension Retirement Trust 10 years ago, it could be millions less, but that was hindsight. The way the system was constituted the accountability was not there. They were only beholding to the employees.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that for every new hire and contract negotiation she would prefer for the Board to look at what was being added. In years past when municipal employees were not paid as well as the private sector consideration was made to give certain add on’s that would increase pay. She would hope that with all the decisions being made in hiring and contract negotiation that whether the State was paying the pension or the Town was paying toward the pension that it would be taken into account that whatever dollars were given out today would have an impact 20-30 years from now. She looked at the hard core costs. The teachers’ contract was up in June and the Town employees’ contracts were up the year after that.
Ms. Van Amsterdam continued that very few employees participate in the rate savers plans which was an area the Expense Control Task Force has focused on. Most businesses across the country were focused on health care costs and she thought this was one area where the Town had to be more diligent in contract negotiations. She felt the budget message had efforts to be prudent, but what she was looking for were efforts to be creative. Were there some creative ways to provide services that hadn’t been thought about before. For everything the Town did the question should be asked if there was an alternative way. That should be part of the process. If department heads were not encouraged, due diligence was not being done. She would like to see the Town Administrator expound on areas where
she had the department heads focused, i.e. no raises – was that the alternative vs laying people off.
In conclusion Ms. Van Amsterdam recognized the information was tenuous at this time and a lot of guesswork, but she (Ms. Van Amsterdam) could be a
better Selectperson if she thought the budget work was superb. This (budget message) was a great first start and she was hopeful persons would be coming forward with some creative ideas.
Mr. Connolly said he would echo a lot of what Ms. Van Amsterdam said, i.e. the reality of going without raises. Next week the Board was meeting with the State representatives and he thought the Board should ask them about state aid and demand answers. With a $4.7 million deficit he understood the Town was looking at potential layoffs. Quite a few would have to be laid off to cover that and he questioned if there was a possibility of an operational override.
Ms. White responded that her position was that when the override was put together the last time a commitment was made that the override would last two years. No one could have envisioned and foreseen the nationwide and worldwide economic crisis, but she did not plan to propose an override.
Mr. Connolly then asked about the Mall mitigation money under the Conservation Commission and if some could be used. Ms. White noted that question came up at a recent meeting an opinion from Town Counsel. There was no way to tap into that money. It had to be used for its intended purpose.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that years ago former Planning Board member Milton Gilbert tried to get some legislation passed about money gotten through mitigation, but got nowhere. Then 3-4 years ago former Town Administrator Philip Lemnios put an article on the warrant that money coming from mitigation be reconsidered with 33% going to open space. That too got nowhere. The only way he (Mr. Ciccariello) saw something like that happening was through legislation.
Mr. Ostroff tipped his cap to Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young, Finance Director Robert Palmer, and Ms. White. He was glad Mr. Connolly asked the question about the override, but it was not viable to ask the taxpayers to close this gap. He didn’t see the Board going down that road, but he wanted to know when the Town Administrator anticipated having the discussion of what would happen. You could talk in theory of no raises but if talking about something to which the Town was contractually obligated, he wasn’t sure how far it could go.
Ms. White explained that collective bargaining strategies couldn’t be discussed in this forum, but it could be discussed one on one. In terms of a timetable, her plan was to spend the bulk of January on cuts. The Financial Planning Committee would be meeting Monday morning and her recommendation would be for that group to begin to discuss the Town/School split for this deficit. During January she would be working on budget cuts and expected by early February to have some specific proposals put forward.
ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL
As has been all over the news, Ms. White noted that President Obama has been talking about an economic stimulus package. That has filtered to the States and the Lieutenant Governor has asked about projects that will be shovel ready in 180 days. The administration has already begun to put a list together with the DPW Director because a meeting had been scheduled with Representative Markey that has been rescheduled for this coming Thursday. The Town had a backlog of projects but only a limited number would apply. Her intent was to submit a comprehensive crystal clear package. For the meeting with Representative Markey she intended to give the same project
list, but also include others that don’t meet the criteria but were incredibly important and come close, i.e. Community Senior Center.
When asked for a sense of the projects, Ms. White listed the South Natick Dam, Pleasant Street bridge, five year road and sidewalk plan to see what could be designed in-house, 75% design work was complete on the drainage work on Willow Street, a couple of sewer projects were at 25% complete design, some school projects, 2 school roofs, 2 school cafeterias.
Ms. Gloff asked if there was any way the State could move the Oak/Route 9 intersection along. Ms. White advised that the Community Development Director was working on that and was meeting with State officials tomorrow.
Relative to the Middlesex garage, Mr. Ostroff said he was thinking about John Magee’s Town Meeting article for a percentage of spaces in a garage to have charging stations and wondered if there was a way to incorporate that into the Middlesex garage to be more environmentally sustainable. Working that into the document could make it more compelling.
Ms. White responded that the Town didn’t have the design money.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that this (stimulus bill) was a great initiative but what hurts Massachusetts was having to go through a public bid process. A lot of states don’t have to go through all of these requirements and can put out design bid packages and it would make those states more competitive.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR ANNUAL REVIEW
Mr. Ostroff recapped the process, noting Ms. White’s review was based on the criteria of goals & objectives for 2008. Some members did an interim review based on the goals & objectives for the Town Administrator to get feedback. A couple of months later members met with Ms. White and provided him with their narrative. Those were part of the personnel file and not a public document.
Mr. Ostroff continued that he has provided a summary in the areas of financial management, communications, operations, and long range planning. The score sheet showed the average, high and low, but he didn’t think the Board wanted to say Ms. White scored a 4 out of 5. These were guidelines for the Board to see if the Town Administrator was on target. This was not something that factored into salary. It was substantially to know if the Town Administrator was on target.
Mr. Ostroff thanked members for taking the time to go through this and for Ms. White’s time. If people were content he suggested there be a vote to accept or if changes were to be made, he could make those changes.
Mr. Ostroff gave an overview of the narrative received from members of the Board in the four categories and noted that he attempted to pull quotes that represented the range of what people said.
Financial Management: Members identified the budget process as an area where the Town Administrator has made significant improvement, yet one that will only increase in difficulty in the year to come in terms of both operating and capital budgets given the external and internal pressures on the Town’s budget: Has made tremendous progress this past year in development and execution of an organized budget process; has sought to balance immediate needs against the Town’s long term well being; we need a better explanation
of how much this is going to cost the taxpayer; provided information requested by citizens during the Spring 2008 override discussion in a timely
and clear manner; making strides and looking for ways to improve Natick’s financial picture.
Communications: The Town Administrator generally responds to, and communicates well with the Board and with individual citizens, but members identified the need for continued improvement and coordination at the department level, as well as by anticipating issues with other Boards and Town Meeting: The Town website could be improved by more timely updates; willingness to share opinions, differences and listen to various points of view; internal and external communications are a work in progress; presentations provide significant detail and solid recommendations; follow up to citizen requests has improved.
Operations: Members acknowledged the value to the Town in balancing the abundant day-to-day issues with the strategic work necessary to effect lasting changes, and the difficulty in striking that balance given a lean management team: Imperative to implement innovative, cost effective initiatives; has been taking steps to improve productivity and cost efficiency… needs to push staff to obtain needed info; very good on operations.. some missed deadlines but not on critical areas; at times takes the hit for others but also takes the reins to move things forward; has introduced performance measures and goal setting that will pay dividends.
Long-Range Planning: Member input was varied on the Town Administrator’s leverage of the Town’s investment in strategic planning. In general, members know that the Town Administrator considers the long range consequences of the actions and decisions made today: Values Natick as a community; has proposed a number of changes that would assist in long range planning and implementation; has incorporated strategic goals into operations; should act more forcefully to protect the long-term financial, economic and environmental interests of the Town.
Mr. Connolly thanked Mr. Ostroff for his efforts, noting Mr. Ostroff did a nice job summarizing the comments.
Ms. White recognized the effort put into it and in particular thanked Mr. Ostroff.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to accept the document as presented as the Board’s calendar 2008 performance evaluation of the Town Administrator. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
2009 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Mr. Ostroff had provided the Board with a proposed list of Town Administrator goals & objectives for 2009. Mr. Ciccariello suggested the members review the list and come back with comments.
Mr. Ostroff thought the Board may want to get these established as early as possible and noted that he had two additions. One was to monitor the goals & objectives for department heads and the other would be a category of dealing with unanticipated events.
An item under communication was keeping the Town web site current, but Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think this was something the Town Administrator was overseeing. The Town Administrator had much more important things to do and
he thought someone else should have the responsibility for updating the web site.
Mr. Ostroff responded that he could guarantee that the Town Administrator was not updating the web site. It was a matter of delegation. Having a current and updated web site was cost effective for the Town.
Mr. Ciccariello clarified that he wasn’t saying the web site wasn’t important. He just didn’t think Ms. White should have the responsibility.
Ms. White thought they were both right. She didn’t update the web site but Mr. Ostroff was correct that a lot of what was expected of the Town Administrator was not personally done by the Town Administrator, but the Town Administrator through delegation was responsible for ensuring that it happens. She would not object to items being on the list for which she was not personally responsible but were important to the Board and for which she was responsible.
When looking at the item for the web site and the Town Administrator newsletter, Ms. Van Amsterdam thought that was very specific where none of the other goals & objectives were specific. She didn’t think items b (Town web site is current with a mechanism for updates and feedback or c (TA newsletter is distributed quarterly needed to be on the list.
Ms. Gloff proposed rolling b & c together to maybe say the Town Administrator uses methods to communicate with the residents.
The Board agreed to put the matter on their January 26 agenda.
PILOT PROPOSAL
Mr. Ostroff reported that the Revenue Enhancement Task Force voted on December 10 to recommend that the Board of Selectmen pursue a voluntary Payment in Lieu of Taxes program with tax exempt property owners in the Town. The Task Forces proposes that the Board of Selectmen send out a letter seeking voluntary participation along with a reply form. A draft letter was provided for the Board’s review.
Leaving aside the State and federal government, Mr. Ostroff noted if the other properties were taxed at regular rates it would provide a little over $2 million. Other communities have been reaching out to see if these property owners were willing to make some payment. It may yield some results or it may yield none or perhaps it could bring an offer of some other in-kind service.
Mr. Ciccariello thought sending a letter was a good idea but also thought the issue of excluding the non-profit tax exempt status should be pursued with the Legislature.
Ms. Gloff also thought it was a good idea. She didn’t know if many of the property owners would feel they were in a position to make a PILOT payment, but it didn’t hurt to ask.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to send the letter as drafted, signed by the Chair, to each of the non-tax property owners to see if they wish to participate in a PILOT. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on
a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Connolly stated that he was employed by one of the organizations and while he loved the idea of thinking outside the box, he felt funny asking.
SPRING TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
Ms. White reminded the Board that the deadline for filing articles for Spring Town Meeting was February 13. She had a list she was tracking to be included.
One idea was to create a capital planning committee and reduce the number of members of the Finance Committee. This has been reviewed with the Finance Committee Chair, the Charter and By-Law Review Committee, and the Chair of the Board of Selectmen. She (Ms. White) thought the Town needed a capital planning committee that was committed to and devoted to advocating for the Town’s capital needs. The Board may see this proposal at the January 12 meeting or shortly thereafter.
CIVIL WAR MONUMENT UPDATE
Ms. White advised that the Civil War monument on the Common was covered with blue tarp. The joints in the base of the monument were separating such that cracks as wide as one inch or more have developed. The DPW Director, Recreation & Parks Superintendent, Supervisor of Land Facilities & Natural Resources and she at the monument recently with a contractor and a historic monument expert and determined the following:
- The monument base needs to be covered and protected from the weather to prevent further separation of the joints in the base. This work has been accomplished by DPW personnel.
- Remedial work to stabilize the base should be completed after spring thaw. O.B. Hill Trucking has given a quote of $2,835 for this work; this quote resumes that a DPW crew will first clean out the loose mortar material from within the cracks at the base. This price covers the labor for one day. She was working on identifying a funding source.
- A quote was also obtained from a historic monument restoration specialist, Dario Fiorentini, in the amount of $15,400 for necessary cleaning, repointing, repairing, and molding. This work would be subject to obtaining quotes from qualified vendors and at present there was no funding source for this work. The staff felt that restoration of this important monument will generate interest within the community and that a fundraising effort might be appropriate.
Ms. White noted that she would continue to explore the full restoration costs and fundraising possibilities and report back to the Board at a later date. In the meantime the remedial work will proceed in the spring.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if this would fall under the economic stimulus bill and Ms. White responded that she would see if it could be added.
MINUTES
Ms. Gloff moved to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Van Amsterdam abstained.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
Ms. White advised that the organization that hangs art work in Town Hall, the Arts Bridge Group, would be doing a new installation the end of January with an installation reception scheduled for before the Board’s meeting of February 9.
Ms. White informed the Board that the Director of the Council on Aging and Human Services was organizing a home energy expo with a number of vendors available for January 15.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
- Dedication of Morse Institute
Mr. Ostroff acknowledged the wonderful work done by the Library Board of Trustees, Maureen Sullivan, and volunteers for their re-enactment of the dedication of the Morse Institute.
Mr. Ostroff reminded the Board members of the MMA Trade Show in January.
Mr. Ostroff reminded everyone of the February 10 filing deadline for folks seeking town wide office.
Ms. Van Amsterdam announced that she would be at Town Hall for office hours tomorrow from 6:30-7:30 p.m.
Mr. Connolly requested an update of the requests from four individuals seeking an abatement of a portion of their water & sewer bills. The requests were in correspondence from the December meeting.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that hearings were scheduled for January 26.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to how the Town obtained the Segways being used by officers in the downtown. Ms. White advised that she would have the Police Chief write a memo.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
_______________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
