Feb 1 2010 BOS Minutes

BOARD OF SELECTMEN

Natick Town Hall

February 1, 2010

5:00 p.m.

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 5:00 p.m.

PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly

ALSO PRESENT: Martha L. White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on February 1, 2010 in the amount of $618,621.19. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,262.221.79.

NATICK FIRE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION: AMBULANCE STUDY

Making the presentation was President of the Firefighters Union Daniel Hartwell and Vice-President Michael Quilty.

A power point presentation provided an analysis of response times and resource allocation at fire and EMS incidents. It was explained that the purpose of the presentation was to provide an analysis of the Fire and EMS response in an effort to demonstrate the importance of maintaining the current staffing and the need to keep up with the growth of the community.

An overview of Fire Department companies and units showed:

(4) EFR engine companies

(1) One ladder company

(2) Ambulances

(1) Command Car

The composition of staffing:

(3) Firefighter/first responders

(41) Firefighter/EMT – Basics

(16) Firefighter/EMT – Intermediates

(21) Firefighter/EMT – Paramedics

The staff members were divided among four shifts, working in rotation throughout the week.

The presentation went on to review the staffing levels. Firefighter Hartwell identified a 20 man shift as the staffing needed to staff all apparatus to do the minimum level. A 19 man shift lost the third person assigned to the ladder company; an 18 man shift lost the third person assigned to the ladder and one person assigned to ambulance two; a 17 man shift also lost two from the ambulance and one person was assigned to staff another engine. When staffing goes to 17 men, the firefighter on Engine 1 jumps between the engine and A2. If Engine 1 responds to a call, A2 was uncovered until such time that a covering apparatus was in place. If A2 responds to a call, Engine is reduced to a 2 man Engine Company.

In looking at the staffing levels, in 2002 there were 17 personnel 68% of the time; 18 personnel 21% of the time; 19 personnel 8% of the time; 20 personnel 3% of the time. In 2009 there were 17 personnel 81% of the time; 18 personnel 15% of the time; 19 personnel 4% of the time; 20 personnel 0% of the time. Firefighter Hartwell explained that a comparison was done back to 2002 because that was the year following the overrides. That was probably the best scenario with overtime reduced by $368,000.

The presentation continued with a look at the volume of calls. In 2006 through 2009 the department responded to an average of 4,608 calls per year of which 61.5% were EMS calls. In 2009 there were 2,860 EMS responses and 1,885 fire responses and they still hadn’t felt the impact of the new buildings in Town.

A breakdown by district of the total calls for 2009 showed District 1 at 1,413; District 2 at 405; District 3 at 817; District 4 at 1,607. Medical calls for 2009 were broken down by district: District 1 at 887; District 2 at 239; District 3 at 544; District 4 at 1,114. A breakdown of calls by apparatus was also provided.

The next area talked about was the emergency mutual aid agreement. Firefighter Hartwell explained that when Natick’s fire apparatus or ambulances were committed to calls and were unavailable to immediately respond, neighboring departments were called to Natick’s incidents if they were available. Mutual aid did not guarantee that the citizens of Natick would receive a timely response or an Advanced Life support ambulance. It was now more common for chiefs not to send mutual aid to bordering communities. They will respond to emergencies but will sit at a fire station to cover that time. Now the response time was from their home town.

From 2006 through 2009, the department had 3406 simultaneous EMS calls, of which 967 necessitated the response of an outside ambulance. The 967 were calls they did not bill for although they were still sending the fire apparatus.

Between 2006 and 2009 Natick Fire had an average Engine Company response time within the NFPA and AHA recommended guideline of 4 minutes. In addition, Natick Fire ambulance’s average response time was 5 minutes, 35 seconds. This was within the recommended guideline of 8 minutes. Mutual aid average response time was 9 minutes, 7 seconds.

Firefighter Hartwell stressed that mutual aid ambulances did not meet the NFPA/AHA guidelines. With the current four-station configuration, we can respond to 90% of the Town within the NFPA and AHA guidelines. Many communities strive to have that response time and Natick got it on a daily basis because of the station configuration.

Closing the East, West, or South Natick Station would increase the travel time to those areas of Town from 2 to 3 minutes to 7 to 9 minutes. The travel times to the remote areas of each district would increase even more drastically.

Relying on mutual aid increased response time well outside the NFPA and AHA guidelines. Other factors such as availability of Mutual Aid and their unfamiliarity with Natick streets, target locations, and building layouts only add to the overall time it took an outside agency to get to the scene of an emergency.

Charts were presented showing the travel time from each station. To get the impact of closing one station, Firefighter Hartwell pointed out that to take an engine company out of service and have the next closest respond, in some places it doubled the response time and the next closest engine company was not always available.

The presentation centered in on the response time to the Natick Collection and other existing apartments, and hotels in West Natick– specifically the Crowne Plaza, Cloverleaf Apartments, Deerfield Forest, Sherwood Village, Courtyard Marriot, and the Hampton Inn. Coming soon would be the Chrysler Road apartments and Nouvelle at Natick.

In East Natick there was the existing Apple Hill complex, Brandon School, Walnut Hill School, and Whitney Place. Coming soon was the MathWorks expansion project.

Existing in South Natick was the Riverbend Nursing Home, Tobin School, Leonard Morse Hospital and the Mary Ann Morse Center. Coming soon was the Sunrise assisted living, Hunters Hill and South Natick Hills.

In the downtown the existing and recent construction/conversion include North Main Street units, 110 East Central Street units, Dean Residences, and Parker Court. Coming soon was The Castle, Grant Street, Admiral’s Curt, South Avenue, Natick Paperboard.

The presentation went on to the NFPA Standard that defines various companies and typical operations with staffing levels defined for each one. Engine – pump and deliver water to seat of fire (4 person minimum). Natick currently operates with a three person crew. The ladder – perform ventilation, search and rescue, forcible entry, aerial operations (4 person minimum). Currently Natick operates with a 2 person crew. Supervisory Chief officers (1). Special units as determined by jurisdiction. Natick uses its ambulance, when available, to supplement fire suppression functions.

The presentation reviewed the reason for the four minute response time and reported that with the EFR Engine Companies and Paramedic Ambulance, Natick currently provides ALS within four minutes or fewer from time of dispatch. A sample of response times for medical calls on two specific dates was reviewed. Firefighter Hartwell noted that the Department was keeping track when there were two incidents going at the same time, but it became daily and ridiculous to try to keep track. The back-to-back multiple calls seem to be an everyday occurrence.

In closing Firefighter Hartwell stated that the Fire Department always worked to make the situation better and never settled for good enough.

He recalled that back in the 1990’s the department did BLS which had a lot of deficiencies. Around 1991 with the work of the Chief EMS was expanded and all our personnel were trained from EMS to ALS and the MetroWest Medical Center provided paramedic. The system was highly successful but the Medical Center wasn’t always available and relying on an outside level of paramedic services left them hanging.

In 2002 with the help of the override, the department advanced to some paramedic care, but there were still some deficiencies in response time to the outlying areas of Town. Last year all engine companies were certified to deliver ALS care. Hopefully in the near future a medical waiver will be accomplished so both ambulances can run at the paramedic level.

On the Fire side, the department had its own 12 member dive team and a number of highly skilled hazardous material specialists. They were also trained in trench rescue and high rise building recovery. The department was constantly trying to prepare themselves for any situation. They didn’t have the luxury to pick and chose the calls.

Mr. Ostroff was interested in knowing what was needed to accomplish the waiver, but he wasn’t sure how this presentation was responsive to the ambulance study in its current form. A great job was done in presenting the urgency of medical response but the Board wanted to make sure it had the firefighters most current thinking on the hybrid model or keeping it (ambulance) in house.

Firefighter Hartwell responded that he thought the presentation showed the department ran an outstanding medical and fire service. They were constantly trying to improve themselves with training in both aspects (medical and fire suppression). He thought they brought out quite a few of the negative impacts of privatizing the ambulance and he thought the presentation summed up why it was best to keep the ambulance service in Town and the same station configuration.

Ms. Van Amsterdam found the presentation to have loads of good information and very consistent with the information she received as Chair of the West Natick Fire Station Study Committee. In the information received, there were 21 paramedics in the department. From the staffing steps there were always two paramedics on Engine 1 and she inquired as to how they were deployed on any shift.

Firefighter Hartwell responded that the Deputy and Chief try to deploy their ALS and paramedics to the out station companies. There was at least an ALS whether it be an intermediate or paramedic at all corners of the Town.

Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to how that would add to the response time for an ambulance if a paramedic was in a station where there was no ambulance. She was trying to understand the decision to put the paramedics anywhere but where the ambulances were located. Doing that there would be paramedics on the ambulance 24/7.

Fire Chief James Sheridan noted that many times there were only two paramedics on duty. Sometimes three but there would need to be two on A2 to treat at the paramedic level.

Ms. Van Amsterdam was trying to understand the math, and Firefighter Hartwell advised that some (of the paramedics) were in the office service positions and did not regularly serve on the ambulance. Asked why, Firefighter Hartwell responded that through promotions they moved up.

Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned if these paramedics in the office service positions never served on the apparatus. Chief Sheridan advised that they could work an overtime shift, but they were administrative staff and wouldn’t be going on a piece of fire apparatus. There were 2 paramedics in administrative positions leaving 19 paramedics available to serve on the ambulance.

Firefighter Quilty pointed out that those people were entitled to vacation and time off. Even though 4 or 5 were assigned, there may only be 2-3 on duty that day.

Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if on any given shift there may only be two paramedics. Chief Sheridan’s response was, “at times”. He clarified that he wasn’t saying it was the majority of time. Sometimes they had to call in a paramedic on overtime.

If there were four paramedics on a shift, two were on A1, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to where the other two were deployed. Chief Sheridan advised that they were deployed to their normal assignment. He advised that Ms. Van Amsterdam was correct in saying they were not deployed to A2.

Firefighter Hartwell added that just because they weren’t assigned to A2 didn’t mean they wouldn’t go on that apparatus. The theory was that they (paramedics) could get there quicker than if responding to downtown. There was nothing to prevent them from going on A2 and transporting to the hospital.

Ms. Van Amsterdam requested a scenario that showed if a paramedic was at Station 4 and the ambulance was downtown and A2 had to be driven to wherever, that it was faster than the paramedic being downtown jumping on the ambulance and getting there. Firefighter Hartwell noted that it was in the response time, but Ms. Van Amsterdam didn’t think it could be completely equivalent because the State wouldn’t give Natick a waiver.

Firefighter Hartwell explained that two paramedics were required to transport. The waiver would allow them to transport with one.

Chief Sheridan noted that about 80% of the time the department was at 17. There was only one person getting on that truck and responding. They were trying to do a balancing act with trying to maintain fire response standards and EMS standards simultaneously. It was quite challenging at this staffing. The spots in the out stations were filled not only with paramedics but ALS intermediates.

Ms. Gloff inquired if the deployment of paramedics to the outlying stations was related to the study of 2004-2005. Chief Sheridan advised that was correct. The MMA study refers to a paramedic engine company, but that wasn’t actually done. He was trying to keep an ALS person on each out station for a four minute response.

In response to a series of questions from Ms. Gloff, Chief Sheridan advised that there were paramedics employed by the department at a level higher than firefighter. Those individuals weren’t typically assigned to A1. They were assigned to the engine company, but had to do their rotation. Part of the time their assignment was to be the officer in charge at some station on their shift.

Ms. Gloff continued that she would be curious to see the staffing levels in 2004 relative to 2009. She seemed to remember some discussion at that time that staffing levels would look the best after the training of the new hires because they wouldn’t be entitled to that much vacation.

Firefighter Hartwell advised that the optimal was in 2002. From that point with people retiring or leaving it got diminished. 2002 was probably the best 20 man scenario.

Mr. Connolly began by first thanking Captain Eugene Rothman for his efforts in the Haiti earthquake relief.

Mr. Connolly thought the presentation contained good information and pointed out that if AMR strikes there would be very little the Town could do. That was cause for concern. Privatizing the ambulance service concerned him. Framingham privatized their ambulance and the new Chief was trying to bring it back. If something worked, don’t fix it. He was for saving money but he didn’t want to compromise safety. In his view privatizing also compromised the fire suppression. So much of the department was based on the ‘what if’s’.

Mr. Connolly continued that he thought the Fire Department showed a commitment to the community and didn’t think it would be the same commitment to community without the ambulance. He had yet to hear any citizen either write or publically speak to have it privatized. He thanked the men and women of the department for the service they provide

Chief Sheridan thanked Firefighters Hartwell and Quilty for the excellent presentation. He invited everyone to watch a story Channel 5 was doing on fire station closings and the impact. He also pointed out that AMR didn’t have the equipment and training to operate in hazardous areas.

Mr. Ciccariello thanked the firefighters for the presentation and asked that anybody with any more questions get in touch with the Chief or Firefighter Hartwell. He (Mr. Ciccariello) anticipated a final report on February 22.

SCHOOL PRESENTATION: NATICK HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT

Appearing before the Board were Superintendent of Schools Dr. Peter Sanchioni and Assistant Superintendent of Fiscal Affair William Hurley.

Dr. Sanchioni proclaimed this to be a great story for Natick. A great school was being built on a great site with a great reimbursement rate with a great construction market and great collaboration. Tonight they were there to share the number given last week at the MSBA and the component known as the South Campus.

Mr. Hurley began the power point presentation by reporting that on January 27 approval and funding was received from the MSBA. The total project budget was $88,987,414 broken down as follows:

OPM Administration $ 2,272,500

Architecture & Engineering 3,455,614

Construction 70,825,000

Alternates 2,685,500

Contingencies 4,828,800

Miscellaneous costs 1,110,000

Furnishings & Equipment 3,810,000

Total $88,987,414

Mr. Hurley added that of the four projects approved last week, Natick had the lowest per square foot cost.

Mr. Hurley continued the presentation with a breakdown of the non-reimbursable costs.

Administration $ 60,000

Construction 2,535,352

(site costs in excess of 8% of building cost)

Alternates (South Campus) 2,685,500

Miscellaneous costs 1,000,000

(MSBA did not pay for temporary space or storage)

Furnishings & Equipment 690,000

Total non-reimbursables $6,970,852

Mr. Hurley noted that this was very favorable with regard to the percentage as it relates to the total project. It was about 7-8% of the budgets and the lowest of the projects (approved) that day.

Continuing, Mr. Hurley reviewed the project cost split:

Total project budget $88,987,414

Non-reimbursable items ( 6,970,852)

Basis of MSBA Grant $82,016,562

Reimbursement Rate 52.63%

MSBA Reimbursement 43,165,317

Natick Portion of Project 45,822,097

The breakdown of the reimbursement rate was as follows:

Base Rate 43.63% which was driven largely by socio-economic

Maintenance 1.00%

Energy Efficiency 2.00% for the design of the school

Smart Growth 1.00% Natick was the first community to receive

The smart growth reimbursement, largely due to the efforts

of the Community Development Director

Model School 5.00% This will save almost $7 million

Total 52.63%

Dr. Sanchioni added that when they walked into the MSBA the reimbursement rate was 51.63%, but Mr. Hurley and Mr. Reffett doggedly pursued the smart growth and Natick was the first community to receive the reimbursement.

The presentation then centered on the South Campus alternatives:

Maintenance Facility $ 300,000

Memorial Field House Renovation 300,000

Running Track/Memorial Field 400,000

Bleacher Renovation 85,000

Electrical Repairs 75,000

Design & Contingency 44,500

Turf Field at Memorial Field $1,200,000

The district wide school maintenance staff and shop was proposed to be relocated from the existing High School to a new site. At this time the Maple Street location presents itself to be the most feasible both economically and functionally. To include the maintenance department in the new high school as a non-reimbursable expense would be $238/sq. ft. The cost to locate the maintenance department at another site as a non-reimbursable expense - $120/sq. ft.

The proposal for the $300,000 Memorial Field House renovation was to build two changing rooms as an addition to the field house to provide changing rooms for fall and spring team sports. The Whitman-Hanson model provides three locker rooms for each gender with a total of 196 locker each. The current Natick High School provides 378 lockers for the boys and 184 for the girls. MSBA did not allow reimbursement for additional locker rooms as part of their model school program. The cost to include additional locker rooms in the new high school as a non-reimbursable expense was $238/sq. ft. The cost to include additional locker rooms at the field house of LFNR building as a non-reimbursable expense was $120/sq. ft.

Mr. Hurley noted that the renovation of the field house would reduce the wear and tear on the brand new building and allowed the spring and fall sports teams to be close to where they practice and play.

$400,000 was being proposed to rebuild the track at Memorial Field. It has been almost 12 years since the existing running track was resurfaced and was showing wear and needs replacement. Including the track as an alternate would ensure that the lowest possible cost would be obtained. MSBA did not allow reimbursement for track resurfacing as part of their model school program. The renovation/replacement of the track has been included in the Town Capital Plan.

$85,000 was slotted for bleacher preventative maintenance. A recent study completed by an engineering firm confirmed the structural integrity of the existing bleachers. However, the structure needs the preventive maintenance of sand blasting and painting to stop further corrosion and prolong its useful life. The bleacher structure has not been painted in nearly 20 years. Paint has chipped off and the structure was rusting. MSBA did not allow reimbursement for bleacher renovation as part of their model school program.

$75,000 was allocated for electrical repairs to upgrade the electrical service to the site as required. MSBA did not allow reimbursement for electrical repairs as part of their model school program. At this time it was considered to be a safety hazard.

A turf field at Memorial Field was being proposed at $1,200,000. The existing natural grass field at the Memorial Field stadium has not been replaced for over 15 years and it has remained in good condition because of extensive continuing maintenance and limiting use of the field to just major varsity games and some youth league games. To maximize availability and usage of an athletic field by school and community sports groups a synthetic turf field was proposed within the Memorial Field stadium. The new turf field will allow year round use for both games and practice and maintenance costs were significantly lower.

Last year Memorial Field was used for a total of 40 events. The addition of a turf field to this project addresses a severe shortage of playing fields experienced by all Natick Youth Sport Programs. Mr. Hurley noted that this had been vetted by multiple people and a turf field could have 40 events a month.

Athletic Director Tom Lamb was introduced to speak to the proposed turf field. Mr. Lamb told the Board that a turf field would transform the field from a football field that was used once in awhile for other purposes to a multi-use field. Other towns around have done this and it ends up that the football team uses it less than the other teams. There would be 54 home soccer games, 45 lacrosse, and 24 field hockey games.

Mr. Lamb noted there was a rule in the state that a playoff game could only be played on a turf field. This year they had to play at Framingham because Natick did not have a turf field. Many people came looking to move here and when they were showed around the first thing they ask was why there wasn’t a turf field. It was important for all of the sports.

Dr. Sanchioni added that Superintendent of Recreation & Parks Richard Cugini analyzed the fields for all youth sports. The fields in Natick were being worn out and some need to come out to be re-generated. The addition of a turf field provides the facility the teams need as the population increases year after year.

The advantages of a turf field were listed. First was the environmental benefit. It would eliminate the use of fertilizers; significantly reduce the amount of water; and reduce carbon emissions from gas driven lawn mowers.

The second advantage was the reduction in the number and severity of injuries. Research has proven that a field turf was flat, even and soft and helped reduce the number of injuries versus natural grass fields which were often uneven, bumpy and dangerous when wet.

With a turf field there would be a reduction in annual maintenance. The annual cost to fertilize, water and cut was estimated at $25,000 per year. The annual cost of field turf was $5,000.

Other potential benefits of turf field were the opportunity to host MIAA events, reduction of the travel time currently required to practice for youth groups; events could be held in inclement weather, and expectation of favorable pricing. If this was included in the package, Dr. Sanchioni expected the cost to be greatly reduced from the general contractor.

The presentation continued with a partial list of towns with turf fields. It was noted there were 22 communities in this vicinity.

With respect to the financial offsets, it was noted that the Natick Youth Soccer, Football, and Lacrosse realized a turf field was critical to the success of their programs. At this time Natick Youth Sports have donated $107,500 to offset the cost of the turf field plus the $5,000 annual cost.

Dr. Sanchioni reported that Youth Football was willing to pay the $5,000 annual maintenance costs for 10 years and corporate naming rights were being pursued.

Michael Machen of the Natick Youth Soccer Board of Directors advised that the Natick Soccer Club was offering $100,000 towards funding the turf field. The field situation in Natick was critical and there was overwhelming support for the project.

The formal presentation concluded with a project review:

Total Project Budget $88,987,414

Natick Portion of Project $45,822,097

Average Household Tax Impact

With Meals Tax

First Year $253.40 $233.22

Last Year $146.41 $115.09

Average (20 year) $199.90

Based on a Home Value of $393,200

Incremental impact of the turf field $4.36

Ms. Van Amsterdam referenced the drawing of the renovation in the briefing book and inquired if it was being designed in such a way to accommodate the combining of the Town and School maintenance should that happen at some point in the future or was the single focus on the needs today.

Dr. Sanchioni responded that this was a conversation with the Town. Although it was designed with housing maintenance in mind, they were looking at a facility the Town may use.

Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if any of the truck bays could be utilized by Town apparatus. Ms. White wasn’t sure there were enough truck bays. She believed all would be utilized by School vehicles. Mr. Hurley advised that was correct. He noted there was a little bit of synergy going on now. When the DPW needs a skill not on their staff, they ask Bob Graham and his staff.

Ms. Gloff appreciated the information and the work over the last few weeks in sorting out where it made sense for the maintenance and she could see that using Maple Street brought the price down, but why the price increase for the Memorial House renovations.

Mr. Hurley responded that after discussions with Ms. White, Mr. Ciccariello and Town department heads particularly Engineering through the vetting of the conditions of the plumbing and electrical, it was determined to be necessary to increase the budget. The rooms will be outfitted with lockers which wasn’t in the original plan.

Ms. White added that it would allow for hooking the building up to sewer as opposed to staying with septic.

Ms. Gloff stated that she received telephone calls from two citizens who were concerned about the alternates and one asked her what the School Department and School Committee were proposing to do that they would have liked to do or had in the plans and took out.

Dr. Sanchioni responded that in evaluating the needs of all the public schools multiple things were considered. A swimming pool was considered. Certain sizes of soccer fields were considered and it was determined that putting in the turf was the most advantageous. The one requested meets the minimum but it would be more advantageous for a larger field, but that would have necessitated taking down the bleachers.

Mr. Connolly called attention to the letter from the MSBA that approved a maximum grant of $43 million, but said the final may be less. Dr. Sanchioni replied that it was felt that the $89.9 million budget would come in less when the bids came in and the MSBA would adjust their reimbursement in accordance. Asked if there was any other way to read the letter, Dr. Sanchioni’s response was, “no”.

Mr. Connolly commented that his biggest concern was getting hard numbers so the citizens knew how much they were getting into and for how long.

Mr. Connolly noted that he came up with the thought of adopting a senior or the buddy fund, but that couldn’t be done. The Walcott Fund had been mentioned and that was an existing fund. The project number was less than anticipated but it will be difficult for young families and senior citizens. Currently the Walcott Fund was in the arrears, but hopefully people will look into it.

In response to a question raised by Mr. Connolly regarding the Maple Ave site rather than expanding LFNR, Mr. Ciccariello responded that as the result of him being the Chair of the High School Building Committee over the past 4-5 weeks the expansion of LFNR, field house, etc came up and he suggested the School administration get together with the Town administration. A few weeks ago on Friday afternoon there was a meeting with the School administration, department heads, Community Development, DPW, Building, Fire, and Police to talk about not only the South Campus but anything on the Town side that might be impacted from the construction of a new school. Every department head had an opportunity to express their thoughts and issues. A list was made.

There was a second meeting. They looked at the LFNR building and the expansion and how it would affect the Town side. That was followed up with a meeting on January 29 and the consensus was that it would be best for the School administration to renovate Maple and left LFNR as it was or slightly expanded for use by the Town.

Regarding the field house, Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau pointed out issues with the water service and to put an addition on and add new plumbing was not a long-term solution and would put a burden on the Town to take care of all the systems and the Town would be responsible for replacing.

Mr. Ciccariello stated that he agreed the revised plan was the best solution. In all likelihood they would get the most competitive pricing. He clarified that the Building Committee didn’t weigh in on whether the turf field was good or bad.

Mr. Ostroff commented that on sponsorships and naming rights there hadn’t been the level of enthusiasm to collaborate between the Town side and the School side and he thought this was an opportunity to ensure that when businesses were approached there was a consistent approach between what Recreation & Parks may do and what the Schools may do. If that was something open to consideration the Town Administrator and School Superintendent could work together to generate funds.

School Committee Chair Dirk Coburn read a motion passed by the School Committee last week referring to their commitment to this effort:

The School Committee accepts and endorses the full scope of the new Natick High School project as presented to the Massachusetts School Building Authority for consideration at the January 27, 2010 board meeting of that authority as the scope of the project proposed to the citizens of Natick, whose support we request through favorable action at Town Meeting and through a ballot question to enable a debt exclusion for funding. This motion is subject to the understanding that the superintendent of Natick Public Schools shall cause to be implemented a comprehensive program of seeking financial support from private sources that conforms to the following intentions and principles:

• The volunteer talents and expertise of Natick residents with professional exposure to high-level fundraising or grantmaking or management of corporate donations programs or other relevant activities shall be sought;

• There shall be a comprehensive set of opportunities articulated for naming rights, sponsorships, long-term lease commitments, and/or enrichment opportunities;

• The scope of opportunity shall include all aspects of the facilities and programs deemed promising by professional advisors or sought by prospective donors, including core academic facilities, art facilities, public assembly facilities, athletic facilities and programs, and others as deemed appropriate and promising by the superintendent

• A commemorative fundraising effort shall be conducted with close direction from the superintendent and administration that reaches out specifically to the community of athletes, athlete alumni, and others supportive of the athletic program shall focus on reaching goals for one or more key naming opportunities;

• The comprehensive effort shall be conducted administratively by the superintendent and any legally eligible affiliate deemed appropriate, such affiliate to be ratified by the School Committee, and the results of the comprehensive program shall be made public on a quarterly schedule starting on a date to be determined with advice from expert volunteers.

Mr. Ostroff heard nothing in the motion that would preclude the School Administration from working with the Town Administration. Mr. Coburn wholeheartedly agreed.

DEBT EXCLUSION BALLOT QUESTIONS

Ms. Van Amsterdam recalled that at the last meeting Mr. White talked about 1 or 2 ballot questions and that needed to be resolved before Town Meeting starts.

Ms. White reported that Town Counsel advised that the way Town Meeting votes would restrict the form of the ballot question. The form of the ballot question was required to mirror the vote of Town Meeting. If the Selectmen wished to place two questions on the ballot, then two separate borrowing authorizations would have to be voted by Town Meeting in substantially the same form as the ballot questions. In her and Town Counsel’s opinion the Selectmen must determine in advance of the Town Meeting vote whether to place a debt exclusion question on the ballot for the high school project and whether that would be one or two questions.

Ms. Van Amsterdam felt that a decision had to be made tonight, but Ms. Gloff was not prepared to vote tonight. She understood the time limits but needed more information for her to understand the questions. She was getting approached by a number of people to do a pyramid approach.

Ms. Van Amsterdam pointed out that if Town Meeting voted before the Selectmen met again, that would inform the Board that it could only do a single question. Ms. White responded that that was her understanding from Counsel. Asked by Ms. Gloff if she had talked with Counsel this afternoon, Ms. White said she had not. Ms. Gloff was not certain that was the case with the pyramid approach.

Ms. White raised the possibility of a special meeting in order to get an answer to questions posed.

Ms. Gloff moved to schedule a meeting for Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the ballot question and warrant article. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.

Mr. Connolly noted that the Board’s job was to get the information to the voters. An educate voter was the best customer. He thought Jeffrey Silverstein had some clever suggestions and thought it would good for him to share his thoughts.

Given the schedule, Mr. Ciccariello did not anticipate having other individuals speak. If a member of the public wished to speak they should come to Town Meeting. The Board didn’t have the time as the meeting room was booked for 7:30 p. His intent was to only recognize one person on the presentation made tonight.

Town Meeting member Bruce Whitney stated that he completely supported the building of a new high school and community center, but unfortunately the timing stinks. Natick residents have been tested beyond their means. Many were out of work for over a year and each week the paper had a full page of foreclosed homes in Natick. There was a $3 million deficit in next year’s budget. Everyone here tonight had good jobs and security and didn’t have to worry about their next meal or mortgage. A $200-300 increase in taxes wouldn’t be a concern.

Mr. Whitney continued that he was there to express his concerns about the cost. The MSBA estimates $72 million while the administration estimates $88 million and he didn’t know why the $12 million difference. He was here to ask the School Committee and Board of Selectmen to scale the project back to under $80 million. Cut out the fat – cut out the turf field. Some alternates such as electrical, irrigation system, and sanitation could be done with Town employees. Others could be done over a five year period. The Town has spent $100,000 for repairs the last five years that will save $45,000 in heating expenses each year so why not use the saved money.

The Community Senior Building Committee was at $15 million and went back to the drawing board and scaled it back to $10 million. He (Mr. Whitney) would like the School Committee to do the same thing and scale this down to $80 million.

SPECIAL TOWN MEETING NO. 1: WARRANT ARTICLES

Mr. Ciccariello noted that in an opinion Town Counsel advised that several warrant articles could not be placed on the ballot and they should be reviewed by the Board of Selectmen.

With respect to the issue of putting it on the ballot, Ms. Gloff explained that it became apparent last week that articles to change the Charter that were passed in the fall had to go to the Attorney General for approval. They were approved. In looking at MGL to see what else had to be done for them to be put on the ballot, it was discovered that the timeframe between the Attorney General’s approval and being on the ballot must be two months. That was not a problem for the ones approved at Fall Town Meeting but there was not two months left for anything approved at this Special Town Meeting. Even if the articles were approved by Town Meeting, they could not be put on the ballot and would have to wait until next year.

She advised that today the Charter & By-Law Review Committee voted to request referral back to the CBLRC of one of the proposed charter changes and it would be placed on the Spring Annual Town Meeting.

On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to reconsider Article 5.

Ms. Van Amsterdam then moved referral of Article 5 (Amend Charter Article 2: Legislative Branch) to the Charter & By-Law Review Committee. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.

Article 9 – Amend Charter & Bylaws: Fiscal Procedures

Ms. Gloff reported that the CBLRC was asked to work with the proponent because the article required some charter changes. This morning the CBLRC proposed referral and the lead proponent agreed.

On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to recommend referral of Article 9 to the CBLRC.

Article 2 – Amend Charter Article 3 & By-Laws: To Provide that the Town Clerk shall be an Appointed Position

A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to reconsider Article 2. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.

Mr. Ostroff then moved to recommend referral of Article 2 to the lead proponent. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.

Ms. Gloff commented that it was her understanding that the lead proponent will support referral.

DEBT EXCLUSION BALLOT QUESTION

There was no discussion of this item as it would be the focus of the Board’s meeting on Thursday.

NATICK HOUSING AUTHORITY VACANCY

Mr. Ciccariello informed the Board that he had a discussion with the Department of Housing and Community Development and asked about the audit and if there had been any follow-up. He also requested information on any capital improvement funding the Housing Authority had requested over the years and any monies they received. In addition he asked DHCD to look at the Natick Housing Authority’s reserves and if there was any idea how much money had been spent in reserves in lieu of looking to obtain funding for capital improvement. DHCD advised that they would be happy to do some research and get back to him.

Mr. Ostroff advised that in addition to the memo covering the vacancy on the Natick Housing Authority Board, he got an opinion from Town Counsel relating to the position held by the late James White leaving a vacancy. The Town Clerk’s Office provided nomination papers, but according to MGL the timing didn’t work out for that (James White’s position) to be on the ballot for a March 30 election.

The appointment to fill Mr. White’s seat would last until the 2011 election. The process by which the appointment would be filled would normally be with a joint meeting with the Natick Housing Authority, but the Housing Authority Board had to provide notice to the Board of Selectmen within 30 days of the vacancy. They failed to do so. Consequently the law required the Board of Selectmen to fill the vacancy. Given that the appointment was for 14 months and the necessity of having someone on the Housing Authority Board to help provide the oversight needed, Mr. Ostroff recommended posting for interviews at the February 22 meeting.

A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to advertise for the vacant position on the Natick Housing Authority and seek applicants to be interviewed on February 22. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.

SIGN WARRANT FOR SPECIAL TOWN MEETING NO. 2

On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to sign the warrant for Special Town Meeting #2.

Mr. Connolly wanted assurance that the warrant would be properly posted and Ms. White responded that there had been at least four sets of eyes on this and safeguards put in place. Two people will be going out to do the posting.

Mr. Ostroff offered to verify the postings, but Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think it was necessary.

APPLICATION FOR ONE DAY ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE FOR HAITI RELIEF

The Board was in receipt of an application from Sheryl Sourkes, IT Project Manager at 3 Apple Hill, seeking a one day entertainment license to hold a Haiti Relief Concert fundraiser at the Crowne Plaza Hotel from 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. The concert was being organized by a group of individuals at Apple Hill.

Ms. Gloff moved approval. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.

CITIZENS CONCERNS

• New Natick High School

Robert Berg of 20 West Street addressed the Board in regard to the site selection for the new High School. He noted that he had brought up the same concerns time and time again that fell on deaf ears. His biggest concern was the way the property floods. Having lived there 20 years, there was a flooding problem. He submitted photographs of flooding showing a storm on January 25 and it wasn’t even a big storm. In a bad storm the water came down so fast off his back hill.

Mr. Berg told the Board that he thought it was naïve for AI3 to give assurance that the school property would be designed to take all the water that came onto that property. Twenty-five years down the road the property will flood and the Schools won’t start pulling their checkbooks out and it will go to litigation. He was here so the Board could see (through the pictures) that the amount of water going onto the property was a considerable force.

Mr. Berg continued that during the site selection process, there was a lot of information given on the finances and how in these tough economic times nothing that was more could be supported. He questioned why the school couldn’t be built at Memorial Field. When he contacted the MSBA, he received a call from Brian McLaughlin who said the only question Natick posed was in regard to assistance on a new stadium. The MSBA was never approached about swapping fields. He asked the MSBA what they would say if they had been asked about swapping fields, but they could not answer a hypothetical question from the public. When asked if they would absolutely reject it, the answer was “no”.

Mr. Ciccariello responded that the Board understood what Mr. Berg was saying and his concerns, but a lot of these decisions were not made by the Board of Selectmen. They were made by the School Committee and School administration and Mr. Berg should be voicing those concerns to them.

Mr. Berg countered that that had already been done.

With respect to the drainage, Mr. Ciccariello said he would speak to the Town Administrator and talk to the DPW. The Engineering staff will be required to review any drainage designs whether on the present site or some other. There was a formal process and a public hearing regarding the site selection. There were a lot of meetings and the decision was made to build the school on this site. Many factors were considered. It was not just a dollar consideration.

Mr. Berg noted that at the end of the day after going through the figures, it only came down to $1 million and the Town would get a new school and a new stadium with the turf field expanded. $1.1 million was going to modular classrooms.

Mr. Ciccariello offered to give Mr. Berg’s handouts to the School Committee Chair and he (Chair) could discuss it with Mr. Berg if he felt it necessary.

• Natick High School

Jeffrey Silverstein inquired as to what constitutes Plan B.

Mr. Ciccariello suggested that he bring that question to the School Committee, but Mr. Silverstein felt that the Board would be asked to put the question on the ballot and his request to the Board would be that the School Committee produce a Plan B before putting it on the ballot.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board couldn’t direct the School Committee to do a Plan A,B,C or D. It was up to the Board of Selectmen to determine whether to put the question on the ballot, but the Board couldn’t dictate what the School Committee should do.

Mr. Silverstein commented that he thought it would be irresponsible to approve a ballot question without a Plan B. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that that was Mr. Silverstein’s opinion. The Selectmen’s responsibility was to have adequate information to let the voters decide what was to occur.

Mr. Silverstein urged discussion about whether different options would be offered and his hope would be to support or reject a Plan B. Mr. Ciccariello noted that was not under consideration. If the question went on the ballot everybody who wanted to vote could vote and could express their views on the ballot.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

_____________________________

Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk