BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
November 18, 2002
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Paul R. McKinley at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Paul R. McKinley, Jeffrey A. Stern, John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary;
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on November 18, 2002 in the amount of $494,606.76. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,293,558.94.
BOY SCOUT TROOP 7
Mr. McKinley welcomed members of Boy Scout Troop 7 to the meeting. For the benefit of the Scouts, Mr. Ball briefly reviewed an organizational chart of Town government and highlighted the functions of the Board of Selectmen. The Troop leader accepted Mr. Ball’s offer to attend a meeting of the Troop and provide more detail.
PROCLAMATION: AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK
A proclamation declaring the week of November 17-23, 2002 as American Education Week was presented to the Vice-Principal of Kennedy Middle school, Robert Parga.
MINUTES
With correction as noted, Mr. Hughes moved approval of the minutes of the October 7, 2002 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley abstained as he was not present at the October 7th meeting.
RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION: ANNOUNCE RESIGNATION
Mr. McKinley announced that there was a vacancy on the Recreation & Parks Commission left by resignation of Jeanne Keohane. Since Ms. Keohane was an elected official, the Board would have to meet with the remaining members of elected portion of the Recreation & Parks Commission to fill the vacancy.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes to post the opening for joint interviews to be held on December 16th. Letters of interest due in the Selectmen’s office no later than December 12. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
ELDERLY DISABLED TAXATION COMMITTEE: RE-ANNOUNCE VACANCY
The Board re-announced the vacancy on the Elderly Disabled Taxation Committee left by the term expiration of Bruce Willens.
Director of Assessment William Chenard was asked about the amount of money handled by the committee and the number of people helped. He advised that he didn’t participate on the committee, but he understood that it was going well and the donations were still coming in. For Fiscal 2002 a greater number of people were helped than in Fiscal 2001.
Mr. Hughes was concerned that people weren’t responding to the notice and asked that the staff make sure that the notice gets to the Council on Aging. Mr. Ciccariello concurred and further suggested posting the notice at the Senior Housing Authority.
A motion was made by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ball, to re-post the vacancy on the Elderly Disabled Taxation Committee and in addition to the regular posting, post it at the Kennedy Senior Center and Cedar Gardens. Unanimously voted.
MEDICINE WHEEL PRODUCTIONS: AIDS DAY VIGIL ON COMMON
Nancy Halpern requested permission to use the Natick Common on November 30, 2002 from 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. for a vigil in honor of AIDS Day as a pre-runner to the Medicine Wheel.
In her letter Ms. Halpern indicated that she planned to have a small, contained fire in a FirePit, Jr. as part of the vigil. When asked to explain what a FirePit, Jr. was, Ms. Halpern referred to the drawing on her letter and noted that it had a base that contains the fire, a wire grid and a cap. It (FirePit, Jr.) was being used at the suggestion of the Fire Department.
Noting that the application was on behalf of Medicine Wheel, Mr. McKinley inquired if Ms. Halpern was an employee. Ms. Halpern responded that she was not. She was a volunteer. She added that the Medicine Wheel had been taking place in Boston for the last ten years and since this was the 10th anniversary, they wanted to spread out.
Mr. McKinley asked about insurance and was told by Ms. Challis that as of yet an insurance certificate had not been received. Ms. Halpern noted that a letter had been submitted to the Board saying that the Medicine Wheel would insure the Town for up to $1 million.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of using the Natick Common on November 30, 2003 from 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. for an AIDS Day vigil subject to approvals from the Fire Department and the submission of an insurance certificate. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
Lookout Farm Advisory Committee
In response to an inquiry from Irma DeBruyn, Mr. McKinley advised that the Chairman of the Lookout Farm Committee was Ken Soderholm, the Board of Selectmen’s representative was John Ciccariello, and currently there was no staff person. Ms. DeBruyn requested consideration of there being a staff person.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION: CHRISTOPHER MILFORD
As to his background and why he was interested in being appointed to the Historic District Commission, Christopher Milford told the Board
that he was a friend of Michael Collins and he heard about the committee through Mr. Collins’ actions. He (Mr. Milford) noted that he lived in a house that was adjacent to the Historic District. He was an architect. He didn’t have a strong background in historic renovations, but he was familiar with historic styles and thought he could contribute to the committee.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Milford practiced any architectural work in Natick and if he had every gone before the Historic District Commission. Mr. Milford’s response was, ‘no’, adding that for the last couple of years most of his work had been commercial and exterior projects.
From a comment made by Mr. Milford, Mr. Stern stated that he wasn’t convinced that Mr. Milford really wanted to get into this and devote the time and energy. Mr. Milford assured the Board that he had an interest and thought it was an opportunity for him to contribute back to the community.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Christopher Milford as an alternate member of the Historic District Commission. Seconded by Mr. Stern and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2003 TAX CLASSIFICATION
Director of Assessment William Chenard began the presentation by advising that the Board of Assessors was no longer required to make a formal recommendation just the pros and cons. He noted that for the third consecutive year there was a small shift from commercial to residential. The percentage increase in the average residential property was 14.9% for Fiscal 01. Commercial only increased 5%. Those statistics came from the Warren Group who produces the Banker & Tradesmen.
Mr. Chenard encouraged people to visit the Assessors’ Office to look at their property and understand how it was assessed, and he would be happy to sit down and discuss it. There was also literature at the
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2003 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
library and the web site. If someone felt there was an error in his/her property assessment, he strongly recommended the filing of an abatement application by the due date of February 1st. If an abatement was not filed by that date, there was no way the Assessors can help.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, and unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Mr. Chenard advised that the Board of Selectmen must adopt a residential factor. Setting the factor at one would maintain a single tax rate. Lower then 1 would split the rate. Mr. Chenard referred to the tables in a handout that showed what would happen if the rate was split.
Mr. Chenard continued that the Board could approve a residential exemption of up to 20%, but that changes the burden within the class. It shifts from the lower end property to the higher end. The people who benefit the most would be the condo owners. The Board could also approve a small business exemption, but the Board would only want to do
that if the tax rate were split. There were only 71 properties that qualify this year, which was a significant drop from last year.
A point to consider is that if the residential factor were shifted downward that would shift the burden to the commercial. Splitting the rate would reduce the value of commercial property. The reason was that the selling price was based on the income that the business would produce. Splitting the rate 10% didn’t always mean a 10% shift because of abatements in the first year and the values being lower in the second.
Mr. Chenard continued that the levy limit for FY03 was $53,521,724 plus $639,000 from the debt exclusion for a total of $54,160,724. Setting the factor at 1 would mean a $12.32 tax rate.
Mr. Hughes asked if the $12.32 rate would raise the maximum permitted, and Mr. Chenard advised that that was correct.
Mr. Hughes then asked about new growth, and Mr. Chenard advised that there were no changes since this was prepared and it has now been approved. Mr. Hughes noted that the only way the new growth could change was if it were more than expected and the tax rate would go down and that was not likely to happen. Mr. Chenard concurred.
When asked by Mr. Ball how much more money would be raised if the tax rate were split, Mr. Chenard’s response was, ‘zero’. He explained that splitting the rate would not raise any more taxes just shift it. Mr. Ball noted that if the Board chose the maximum shift, for every $1.00 the residential rate would drop, the commercial rate would go up about $3.00. Mr. Chenard concurred.
Hal DeBruyn questioned how long the Selectmen had the packet of information before this meeting, and Mr. McKinley replied that the Board received it in their briefing books last Friday. In follow-up Mr. DeBruyn questioned if the Board fully understood it. Mr. McKinley responded that he would not answer for the other members of the Board, but based on his number of years on the Board, he understood it very well.
Continuing, Mr. DeBruyn asked why the public didn’t get some of this information ahead of time. If this was a public hearing, the Board and the public should be on an equal playing ground. He (Mr. DeBruyn) was not. Mr. DeBruyn noted that he had been in this Town for a long time and had a good mathematical background and he couldn’t grasp this thing in 15 minutes. He would be surprised if the Board was only putting in 10 hours a week, that the Board would have time to absorb it. He noted that one question was how much would it increase, but he wanted to know how much less would be raised if the rate were split. Mr. McKinley advised that it wouldn’t change the amount at all.
If it didn’t matter one way or the other, Mr. DeBruyn questioned why so many Towns around this area have split their rate. Mr. McKinley noted that based on the comprehensive study done a year ago there weren’t that many with split rates and many have reverted back to a single rate. The data suggested moving toward where Natick was – not away from here.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2003 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
Mr. DeBruyn stated that he would like the Board to start the public hearing over again and translate it into a homeowner’s concern. Mr. McKinley didn’t understand and Mr. DeBruyn explained that he would like to know what the choice one way or the other meant to his tax bill. Some time back a tax increase could be challenged on the basis of a similar home on a similar street to now taxing everything townwide.
Mr. McKinley asked Mr. Chenard to explain how he used residential selling costs to adjust assessed values in different neighborhoods and whether that was used to ripple across the whole Town. Mr. Chenard advised that it could be used across the Town, but it didn’t necessarily. If someone had a colonial similar to another colonial there were still distinct residential sales neighborhoods. It didn’t mean just your street, but it was an area around your home. Wethersfield was an example. The Assessors’ Office wasn’t going to use the sale of a Colonial in South Natick to appraise Wethersfield.
Mr. McKinley then asked Mr. Chenard to describe what splitting the tax rate meant from a homeowner’s perspective. Mr. Chenard explained that if the rate were split, the homeowner would benefit. It would shift the burden from residential to commercial. It would reduce the taxes paid by the homeowner and increase the burden on what the commercial properties pay. The 75% vs 25% was almost perfect for a split, but the problem with splitting the rate was that the Town was basically hitting one property owner and that was the Natick Mall.
Mr. McKinley commented that doing that (splitting the rate) would be a short-term gain (for the homeowner). Mr. Chenard agreed because it would mean a reduction of commercial values which would erode away at the commercial. If someone were going to buy a strip mall that produced $1 million in income, would he pay $10 million for the same property that pays $200,000 in taxes in Framingham and $100,000 in Natick. Natick was attracting more property because it was worth more in Natick. In the economic climate now, it was difficult to continue. New growth has allowed the Town to build the building we were now standing in. There may be a time when there was no more space for commercial property and it may make sense to split the rate. He added that he was not allowed to make a recommendation.
As for the residential exemption, Mr. Chenard explained that a homeowner whose home was $385,000 or less would benefit. If the home were worth more, the homeowner would pay more in taxes. Who that really benefits were the condos in West Natick.
Asked to comment on the small business exemption from a homeowner’s perspective, Mr. Chenard told the Board that it didn’t do anything for a homeowner unless the homeowner had a small business. If the rate were split, that individual (homeowner with small home business) would pay two rates – one for the portion dedicated to the residential and one for the business. There was no exemption for personal property and that was what counts. Personal property has been hit the hardest with almost a $4 million drop in the class.
Mr. McKinley asked if the $4 million was likely to come back, and Mr. Chenard responded that Jordan Furniture was gone. When Jordan’s Furniture became a corporation rather than a partnership, they no
longer pay personal property tax on inventory. The drop from Rizzo Associations was likely to come back.
Irma DeBruyn asked whether anybody (Town or State) taxed corporation inventory. Mr. Chenard responded that it was a state law. If you were certified by the state as a manufacturer, you don’t pay the municipality anything in personal property. If certified as a corporation, you don’t pay on inventory, you pay a state tax.
When asked by Mr. Stern for an indication of what’s happened to commercial rents the past year, Mr. Chenard reported that they were increasing although not what he would like to see. Some retail has been terrific. Industrial was extremely flat.
Since Mr. Chenard used the Natick Mall as an example, Mr. Stern asked that Mr. Chenard give a picture of the impact on the Mall if the Board adopted the minimum residential factor. Mr. Chenard responded that it would be about 52%. In response to Mr. Stern’s follow-up on what that would do to the proposed expansion, Mr. Chenard thought the Mall would
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2003 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
look at that a lot more aggressively than now. They (Mall) may consider scaling it down.
Lynn Sand Economic Development Director with the Chamber of Commerce thanked the Board for maintaining the single rate for many years. In the 10 communities the Chamber represents, Natick has been hailed as the model.
Mr. DeBruyn commented that to him the exemption below $385,000 seemed to be an executive tool to move the greater burden of the tax rate onto South Natick. He didn’t know too many other places that were running the way South Natick was with nothing less than $400,000. A house next to him was sold for $555,000. The values down there (South Natick) were getting out-of-hand and the residents were beginning to pay a penalty. That coincided with a comment he heard that not only did the Town have the Mall to pay for everything, we have South Natick to pay for anything left over. Wasn’t it true that the $385,000 exemption taxed South Natick more?
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Town hadn’t adopted the residential exemption.
Mr. DeBruyn questioned if the rate adopted tonight would be applied evenly across the entire Town. Mr. McKinley gave assurance that the rate adopted tonight, if the Board did not adopt a residential exemption and the Board has never done it, would be even across the Town.
Mr. DeBruyn noted that he was shocked to find out that the inventory was not taxable income.
Mrs. DeBruyn said she wanted to clarify a statement made by her husband on the issue of a tax rate across the Town. They were led to understand that South Natick was taxed and thought of as much more favorable than other parts of the Town. In some cases that was true and certain streets go for enormously different amounts of money. She knew the buildings on their street were valued as not particularly well
built, but there were houses in South Natick going for millions. Was that kind of kind of evaluation and thought across-the board and if somebody builds a $1 million house that was seven streets away, does that philosophy get applied to other parts of South Natick.
Mrs. DeBruyn continued that this was very complex and she thought some of these figures should be made available at least a week prior to the meeting so one could attempt to understand them. To come to a hearing and try to digest at once was overwhelming. She also noted that she had not seen studies done on the relative costs of charging some of the commercial establishments in the amount of Police, Fire, and building inspections they require. She asked if the Board was looking to make a decision tonight and would the public have had a reasonable amount of time to digest what has been given to them.
Paul Connolly also felt that the Board may need a chance to assess the numbers just received and he would recommend delaying making a decision. He noted that he had asked the head of the Assessing Department if there was an easy way to understand it, and he (Mr. Chenard) said there wasn't an easy way to understand it. Mr. Connolly then noted that he had looked at a couple of commercial properties and compared them to residences. He looked at the Natick Mall consisting of all five properties which was $212 million for Fiscal 2003. From FY01-FY02-FY03 the total taxes paid by the Mall have gone down each year. Their (Mall) assessed value has gone up, but the taxes have gone down because of the shift. When talking about a major taxpayer like the Mall if their taxes were fair last year and they paid that
amount, when it comes to this year and their taxes go down and most of the residents go up, Mr. Connolly questioned why were this year’s taxes for the Mall fair. He offered to make his spreadsheet available to show the figures.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to why the values of the residential market assessment increased so much. Mr. Chenard had mentioned that the market data used for 2001 increased 14.9% and that was going to impact this fiscal year. In this wonderful depressed economy the taxes were essentially going to be impacted based on the thing that happened in 2001. Was that fair particularly when you saw that the assessment for the other commercial property he looked at didn’t change. There will be a significant shift in the taxes paid by the residents. Natick Mall
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2003 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
will pay less taxes again this year. Mr. Connolly stated that he hoped the Board would look at those things and try to find out if there was a way that fairness can be brought into it. If they paid this amount of taxes last year, then the fair thing would be to increase it proportionately so that everybody would increase the same. Mr. Connolly reiterated that he hoped the Board took into account the fairness factor and didn’t philosophize that equal rate meant equal.
Mr. Connolly continued that the question had been asked about what would happen if the Board adopted the 83.77% factor and there was a calamitous answer, but what would happen if the Board were to adopt the first line. He thought that the residential exemption, the way it was explained, sounded pretty good and thought it required some additional study. He had a list of communities that adopted it (residential exemption). Last year there were 11 communities.
Mr. Connolly again stressed his point of fairness and noted that if the Board were to do the same as last year, there will be a considerable shift to the residential property owners. The assessment for residential properties in the $200,000-300,000 range will jump $25,000-30,000. It wasn’t anywhere close to that last year. The previous was $2,000-5,000.
In regard to Mr. Connolly’s emphasis of the issue of fairness and reference to the residential exemption and split tax rate, Mr. McKinley asked Mr. Connolly why it would be fair for the Board to agree to either. Mr. Connolly explained that if the taxes raised last year were fair and the businesses paid that amount and the residences paid that amount, then the amount of taxes they should pay this year should be similar – not one go up and the other go down.
Asked if it was his recommendation to use the split tax rate to balance annual shifts one way or another, Mr. Connolly’s response was, ‘yes’. Mr. McKinley noted that in the study those lines crossed several times over the last 10-12 years and maybe next year it would shift the other way. He asked if Mr. Connolly would then argue to increase the residential tax bill 5-7% because the lines had crossed. Mr. Connolly replied that he didn’t think the residents would complain if the amount of taxes they paid one year were similar in proportion.
As to the residential exemption, Mr. Connolly noted that a lot of sales were very large homes. Those people have the money to pay those prices. It was the other people on fixed incomes just trying to hold onto their houses and they were essentially benefiting from the push up in assessed value because of new structures that were flooding the Town. It was raising the assessment and what the residential exemption was saying was to give some of those people a break. It shifted from what he (Mr. Connolly) considered high value homes with more income for a break to lower assessed homes with less income.
Mr. McKinley questioned how that was equitable to the homeowner paying more. Those homeowners were not burdening Police and Fire more and probably not sending more children to the Schools and not using more services. How would the Board rationalize that.
Mr. Connolly responded that someone buys a house at $1 million, but it gets assessed for less than that. The rules of assessing property were very complex and it was in the final outcome as to whether that was fair or not.
Mr. Chenard acknowledged that Mr. Connolly was correct that a $1 million sale won’t be assessed at $1 million, but neither would the $200,000 home. They were at the same percentage.
In response to Mr. Stern’s request for the names of some of the 11 communities that had adopted a residential exemption and how they were different from Natick, Mr. Connolly listed Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Marlborough, Chelsea, Waltham, Watertown, and Tisbury, Nantucket.
In view of the comment that the taxes paid by the Natick Mall had gone down, Mr. Ciccariello asked that Mr. Chenard explain how commercial
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2003 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
property was assessed compared to residential. Mr. McKinley added a request that Mr. Chenard confirm that the taxes paid by the Natick Mall had declined and were expected to decline for this year.
Mr. Chenard responded that the actual assessment quoted by Mr. Connolly was not correct, but the taxes will decline. However, the majority of the stores pay personal property taxes and there was an increase over the last year.
As to how the commercial properties were assessed, Mr. Chenard advised that the state required the use of two methods and Natick looks at three. One problem with the comparison method was that there weren’t that many Natick Malls that were selling. He looks at the income of what the property generates and deducts expenses of what it costs to manage. The vacancy factor was developed of how many were vacant and for how long. To develop taxes, he develops the capitalization rate and that was the rate that will arrive at the market value.
Mr. Chenard continued that the other approach was the cost approach. He looks at market value for the land portion. There were still a significant number of land sales in surrounding communities. He develops the land value and calculates what it would cost to build a new building. It was not ideal and probably the worst valuation method that was done, but it was a factor.
Mr. DeBruyn noted that he didn’t hear Mr. McKinley’s question answered – was it true in absolute dollars that the Natick Mall paid less the last 2-3 years. Mr. Chenard responded that he didn’t know about the past years, but this year the Mall will pay less in taxes than last year. He added that if the market for commercial property was “X” that was what he had to assess it for and the residential values were increasing.
Mr. DeBruyn commented that a low tax rate for business does not get rid of business nor get more in. Waltham has the most business and they have a split tax rate. He objected to paying more taxes next year if the Mall wasn’t.
When the Mall was paying more taxes 5,6,7 years ago, Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. DeBruyn objected to that. Mr. McKinley urged Mr. DeBruyn to get a copy of the study report done last year and he (Mr. DeBruyn) would see that the trend over the years has been that those valuations cross. Residential property values were going up at ridiculous rates and unfortunately that meant that the homeowner was paying the burden, but in the years when the residential property collapsed, it was the commercial that picked it up.
Mr. DeBruyn countered that the values were going up, but the jobs were going down and the Board will be increasing taxes just at the time the house sales in South Natick were slowing up. The Board will help them slow down because taxes will increase.
Mrs. DeBruyn raised the question of it being fair for people building $1 million homes to pay a fraction of a percentage different as the federal government recognizes a luxury schedule for automobiles, clothing, etc. over a certain amount. It was an established policy
that beyond a certain point people pay a different amount and it was considered a luxury.
Mr. McKinley asked if Mrs. DeBruyn was in favor of arguing for a residential exemption for people whose house was less than $385,000. Mrs. DeBruyn responded that she hadn’t enough time to think about it, but she didn’t think it was a valid argument that it wouldn’t be fair for people at the top to pay more.
Mr. Lemnios pointed out that the exemption could have a potential adverse impact on people renting. People living in an apartment may pay a rent increase. It didn’t just impact those at the top end, but may have an impact on those who were not in a position to own a home and paying rent. He also noted that over time there has been a stable split in the community. The State allows the Town to raise a certain amount of money every year from four categories: residential, industrial, personal property, commercial. Over time that mix has stayed relatively stable although industrial has migrated to commercial. Natick has a good stable mix in the tax base and the worst thing to happen would be to lose one of those four types. Nobody likes to pay more taxes but Natick has had what
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2003 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
a lot of communities don’t. Some communities were using tax policy to maintain a commercial/industrial base or when they were losing residential. Natick hasn’t had that.
A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Hughes asked by what date the Board had to set the residential factor, and was told by Mr. Chenard that it had to be set prior to setting the tax rate. Ideally given the level of staffing in the Assessors' Office, he (Mr. Chenard) would request that the Board do it this evening. If it wasn’t set this evening, especially if the Board was considering splitting, it would greatly impact the Assessors Office.
If the Board were to set the rate at the next meeting, Mr. Hughes inquired if that would impact the mailing of tax bills that would be due February 1st. Mr. Chenard replied that the bills would still get out, but he probably wouldn’t have them printed until December 31st as opposed to December 15th.
Mr. Ball advised that he would not be present for the December 2nd meeting.
As to the issue of fairness and luxury, Mr. Ball noted that someone who lived in a $500,000 house thinks someone living in a $1 million home is living in luxury and the guy in the $250,000 house thinks that of the person in the $500,000 house. Taxes were inherently unfair no matter how you slice it and the Board’s job was to decide based on all citizens of the Town.
Mr. Ball felt that Mr. DeBruyn raised one point that resonated with him and that was the difficulty he (Mr. DeBruyn) felt he had in interpreting the data based on what was available. Mr. Ball concurred with that and thought if the Board wanted the public’s input, then the
information on which the Board was going to base its judgment should be supplied to the public in a timely fashion so the public can come and speak in an informed fashion.
Mr. Ball continued that he was debating whether to support continuing the hearing to December 2, but was torn. He wanted to encourage Mr. Chenard and anyone else who supplies the Board with information for a public hearing to do so in a timely manner so that it was available in enough time so that people can have the opportunity to chew on it.
At Mr. McKinley’s suggestion, Mr. Ball moved that the Assessors’ Office make the data for the classification hearing available to the public and to the Board of Selectmen at least ten days prior to the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted. Mr. Ball had originally proposed two weeks, but Mr. Chenard felt that two weeks was sometimes difficult because of the Department of Revenue. Mr. Chenard concurred that the information should be available and agreed to get it to the Board as early as he could, but it depended on the State and right now the State was short staffed.
Mr. McKinley outlined the four decisions before the Board as follows: Set the residential factor, make a determination on the residential exemption, make a determination on the small business exemption, set the rate. Mr. Chenard advised that the Board didn’t formally set the rate. That was done by the Board of Assessors, but the rate would be $12.32.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he had heard some interesting discussion tonight regarding exemptions and some may be valid, but he was not sure if the Board could get enough information in ten days that would make the Board, or at least him, change the tax rate. He felt it warranted consideration. The residential exemption was interesting and may have some validity, but he didn’t think he could get sufficient information in ten days that would alter his opinion.
Mr. Stern noted that the study done a year ago was extraordinarily exhaustive by a highly qualified panel. He didn’t see that any of the factors that were highlighted had changed. What he did see was that the Town was approaching being in a real estate bubble. It may well burst as it did in the late 1980’s and values may drop dramatically and that line will cross again. What’s perceived to be unfair to the homeowners this year may be entirely different in a year or so and the
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2003 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
commercial property will carry the burden. He didn’t think single family homes could sustain the rate of appreciation at the rate they have been appreciating. To him the Board wasn’t looking at anything different than what has been seen in the past.
A motion was made by Mr. Stern, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, to adopt a residential factor of one. Unanimously voted.
A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. McKinley, not to consider any residential exemption. Unanimously voted.
The question arose as to whether the Board was required to vote the residential and small business exemptions if they were not going to adopt them, and Mr. Chenard advised that no vote was required. Mr.
Ball, however, thought it would be better for the Board to vote on the two issues to make it clear that it was something the Board addressed.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, not to adopt a small business exemption. Unanimously voted.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE OFFICER: MURPHY PARK ACTIVITY USE LIMITATION
Robert Bois, Environment Compliance Officer, told the Board that the Town had removed two 3,000 gallon underground storage tanks from the Murphy Park site. There was a release of oil and the Town removed 35 cubic yards from the area, but that didn’t fully remove all of the contamination. Several studies were completed, and the site was a Tier 2 site, which doesn’t require DEP oversight. The soils showed contamination at 6-13 feet below the surface, which exceeded the S1 standards and the GW standards. Because there was contamination above the standards, the Town needs to think about control activities. The control was referred to as an AUL (Activity Use Limitation) which controls activities on the site. The AUL limits construction of an occupied building in a 120 ft x 180 ft area to prevent
residential development and excavation below six feet and it implements a soil management plan. He noted that the site was primarily at the old school and most of it was the parking lot.
The Murphy site was a park, and Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini feels that the use under the AUL was consistent with his plans for the site. Mr. Bois noted that the document before the Board was boilerplate and had been reviewed by Town Counsel. He was still waiting for some edits from Town Counsel. The signed document was due the first week of December and if it were not in, the Town would have to file for an extension and pay more money.
Noting that Earth Tech was the environmental consultant, Mr. Ciccariello asked if they were still actively involved. Mr. Bois advised that they were, adding that Earth Tech was the licensed site professional and it was their opinion in the AUL.
Once the document was submitted, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the Town’s responsibility. Did the Town have to continue monitoring? Because contamination was being left, Mr. Bois advised that the Town was required to sample at least twice a year and submit to DEP. The AUL was reviewed every five years and he was hoping that over the next five years, the concentration would go down and the Town won’t have to continue the monitoring and reporting on the AUL. The cost of monitoring and reporting was about $10,000 annually.
In view of the annual cost of $10,000 for monitoring, Mr. Ciccariello asked about the cost of removing the contamination. Mr. Bois advised that it was significant and added that when the decision was made not to go chasing after the remaining contamination, he was told that the cost was in the six figures. Dewatering a site was expensive and a major construction project.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board authorize the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman to sign the Activity Use Limitation for the Murphy Park site. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
POLICE CHIEF
Emergency Management
Police Chief Dennis Mannix noted that he had been asked to look at the emergency management function for the Town. Historically emergency management became an issue in 1950 pursuant to the Acts of 1950 created
POLICE CHIEF (contd)
by the Mass Civil Defense. It required the Chief Executive Officer to appoint a Civil Defense Director to respond to disasters. The Town’s By-Laws make this an appointment of the Board of Selectmen.
Chief Mannix continued that in 1986 legislation called SARA and EPCRA were passed that required every community to have a local community committee to create a comprehensive emergency management plan for the Town. Natick has one that has all but the hazardous material piece done. The LEPC (Local Emergency Planning Committee) has responsibility for reviewing the plan annually and making changes and rewriting the plan every five years. In 1997 because very few communities had an active LEPC, new procedures were promulgated that created a three-phase process by which it became a certified LEPC. Natick was in the first stage of the certification process. Part of that start-up phase requires two meetings of the LEPC and that gets submitted to the State. He was scheduling the first meeting of the LEPC for the
first week in December and the second for latter part of January.
Chief Mannix noted that it was a convoluted process. Lieutenant Grassey and he attend a series of start-up workshops and they were finding a fair amount of confusion throughout the Commonwealth. Last year there was an item on the news and the notion was that because there wasn't a LEPC, communities weren’t ready for a disaster and couldn’t handle it. That was not the case. There were plans, but the plans were not in accordance with the State and that was when the State decided to get back in. Last week there was a meeting with the hospital, Police, and Fire in which they participated in a drill at the Army Labs funded by the Labs to assess the readiness of the Labs to respond to weapons of mass destruction. This was a fairly complex exercise and although the formal results were not as yet
in, they (assessment firm) were impressed with the Town’s ability to respond particularly from the Hazmat cleanup team and the regional agreement with the other Police Departments. They thought Natick had the best operational capacity out of the 100 institutions they had surveyed. They (assessment firm) noted that Natick did not have plans in writing so there was some significant work to do in terms of documentation, particularly hazardous material and response plan.
Chief Mannix explained that the LEPC was the organization that drives the emergency management plan, which was similar to an accreditation process. He found that improvements were needed in providing an ongoing awareness and training of hazardous materials by all employees who may be impacted. Everybody was trained 4-5 years ago in awareness, but with the turnover in people, that training needs to be reactivated. He has been working with Lieutenant Grassey to understand what needs to be done and has worked with Bob Bois, Environmental Compliance Officer, in trying to understand chemical issues. Both he and Lieutenant Grassey will be attending the MEMA conference in Worcester.
Mr. McKinley commended Chief Mannix for having taken this task over and asked if a formal decision had been made that Chief Mannix should continue to take the lead on this matter. Mr. Lemnios noted that it
was the Board’s appointment, but he believed Chief Mannix should continue.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Stern, to appoint Police Chief Dennis Mannix as the Emergency Management Director. Unanimously voted.
Prior to the vote Mr. Ciccariello asked if Chief Mannix was willing to continue doing this, and Chief Mannix responded that he was willing to serve. He added that he was concerned with time limitations and he had to move some things around in his department, but the short answer was that he was willing to continue and hoped to get it done with the cooperation of the Town Administrator and department heads.
Mr. Lemnios commented that he felt very fortunate to have the Chief willing to step into this role. He noted that he (Mr. Lemnios) had attended the first orientation and was amazed at the amount of information the employees will have to become familiar with. This will add a burden to the public safety departments and will require an incredible amount of training and upgrade of certain types of equipment.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the makeup of the management team, and Mr. Lemnios responded that during the course of the planning phase the Chief would be identifying the positions associated with the LEPC – Board of
POLICE CHIEF (contd)
Selectmen, Town Administrator, member of the local media, and a position within the public safety. Chief Mannix noted that the LEPC was dictated by federal law and listed 13 disciplines. Some agencies serve multiple functions and he thought the makeup would be 13-15 people.
SAFETY COMMITTEE
As Chairman of the Safety Committee, Chief Mannix reviewed the recommendations from the Committee’s October 15, 2002 meeting.
Point/Pond Street Intersection
The Committee recommended installing a SIDE STREET warning sign on the northerly side of Pond Street, 300 feet east of Point Street.
Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Stern and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley questioned if the sign would make any difference. Chief Mannix noted that it was a particularly obscure opening to the street and he thought the onus would be on the individual leaving the street. He didn’t know how much the sign would do, but it was not much of an expense.
Dewey Street/Signage
The Committee recommended the installation of one high visibility sign stating ROUTE 135 USE HAYES STREET be installed on the north side of South Avenue 100 feet west of Hayes Street.
Chief Mannix reported that the sign had been installed per the Board’s vote at the last meeting. It was not as high visibility as he would
like and he may ask the DPW to move it. The Board had talked about evaluating it in 60-90 days and he thought that was appropriate.
Natick Center Associates/Safety Concerns
To address concerns of the Natick Center Associates regarding crosswalks in the downtown area, the Committee recommended placing two
double-back crosswalk signs, one on either side of the crosswalk in front of Town Hall. The Committee also recommended placing similar double-back pedestrian crossing signs at the crosswalk on West Central Street at the municipal parking lot.
Chief Mannix advised that the Town would be able to re-use the signs when Route 135 was done next year.
Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Stern and unanimously voted.
Oak Street/sidewalk-stop sign
The Committee discussed concerns of the Oak Street residents regarding safety of their children walking on Oak Street, north of Pickerel Road, without a sidewalk. The Committee recommended sidewalk installation on Oak Street from Pickerel Road to the Wayland line. Although the Committee recognized the potential difficulty in installing such a sidewalk due to wetland and cost involvement, this recommendation was made from a pedestrian safety perspective.
Mr. Hughes proposed having Mr. Lemnios, Town Engineer Mark Coviello, and Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian look into it.
Mr. Lemnios noted that it was his understanding that the sidewalk had been discussed in the Planning Board and a couple of cost estimates have been prepared. The Planning Board was looking for cement sidewalks with granite curbing, and he had asked for another estimate with asphalt. Another idea being looked into was a combination. There was approximately $118,000 in that fund. The difficulty in starting the project was that traditionally you cannot start and just lead it to nowhere. You want it to go from A to B and not stop in the middle.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if there was sufficient land available to extend sidewalks all the way without infringing on private property. Mr. Lemnios wasn’t sure, but he would confirm it with Mr. Coviello.
Pleasant Street/North/Park Avenue
The Committee recommended installing a crosswalk from the northwest corner of Pleasant Street across Park Avenue.
Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
SAFETY COMMITTEE (contd)
Lilja School Crossing
The Committee recommended replacing the existing RIGHT ON RED AFTER STOP signs with NO TURN ON RED signs.
Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Stern and unanimously voted.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. McKinley noted that there may be a severe policing problem at this intersection. Chief Mannix felt it may be a design issue. It was a wide intersection but given that there were crosswalks and kids using it, the recommendation of the Safety Officer was to change the signs. Mr. McKinley suggested that Chief Mannix may want to think about some specialized education that things have changed.
BUCA RESTAURANTS 3, INC. D/B/A VINNY TESTA’S: APPLICATION FOR STOCK PLEDGE
Representing Vinny Testa’s was the manager William Winans, and Attorney Trish Farnsworth.
Ms. Farnsworth explained that Buca Restaurants was seeking a stock pledge with respect to the liquor license. Buca Restaurants was a publicly traded company and a finance agreement with Fleet Bank required a pledge of their stock. This was a $25 million refinancing agreement with Fleet that had no connection with the restaurant operation in Natick. It was just a line of credit.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of Buca Restaurants 3, Inc. d/b/a Vinny Testa’s pledge of stock. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
SPECIAL TOWN MEETING #2 WARRANT ARTICLES
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board recommend No Action for Articles 6-12. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
In speaking to his motion, Mr. Hughes noted that the rationale for putting the finance articles before Town Meeting was because of the new certification of free cash, but he would suggest that free cash not be used at this time because of budget impacts for both Fiscal 2004 and Fiscal 2005 where it (free cash) may be needed to close budget gaps.
Mr. Ciccariello proposed that in making a recommendation on these articles that the Board state why they had taken this position. Although the Town had all this free cash, it didn’t mean it should be spent. He didn’t see anything in these articles that was critical, and the Board needed to emphasize its position to Town Meeting.
Mr. Lemnios commented that there was some confusion relative to free cash certification. It has been rectified, but it came after the close of the most recent Town Meeting. The concept of placing these articles back on Town Meeting was more of principal. He would not recommend seeking action, and the administration would not be putting forward any actionable items. He hoped the Moderator would provide a courtesy for the Town Administrator to address Town Meeting at the beginning of the meeting. He added that Fiscal 2004 promised to be a difficult year for all budgets across the Commonwealth. Natick will not be spared and a portion of that free cash will be used to mitigate (the deficit).
If the Moderator was kind enough to afford Mr. Lemnios the opportunity to address these articles, Mr. McKinley felt that that would identify why the Board was recommending no action. Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would like to see Town Meeting have the Board’s position in writing before Town Meeting. Mr. Hughes agreed, noting that at the last Town Meeting the Board presented Town Meeting with a list of articles and
the recommendation. He would like to see the rationale made available to Town Meeting.
The Moderator, Paul Connolly, recommended that the Board ask the Finance Committee to put the information the Board wanted to send in the FinCom mailing.
Mr. Hughes was assigned the duty of writing the rationale for Articles 6-12.
Article 3
Mr. Ciccariello reported that he went to the Planning Board hearing and heard some extensive discussion on the zoning articles. Article 3 was
SPECIAL TOWN MEETING #2 WARRANT ARTICLES (contd)
an amendment to the by-law, which would allow individuals to create in-law apartments. This allowed for a senior who owned their own home to convert some space and allow children to move in and for the senior to remain. The article allowed this use via a special permit. He had received several calls from seniors, and he would ask that the Board support it.
Mr. Ciccariello moved that the Board support favorable action on Article 3. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
In discussion of the article, Mr. Ball stated that he supported this in principal. However, at some point this house with an in-law apartment would be sold and what would then happened to that in-law apartment. Was its occupancy still limited?
Mr. Ciccariello advised that if the home was sold it reverted back to a single-family occupancy and the in-law condition was voided. There were conditions that required the kitchen to be removed in its entirety.
Mr. Ciccariello was asked to write the rationale.
Article 1
Although he didn’t know if the Planning Board had made any changes, Mr. Hughes felt that the Board was clearly in favor of the concept of getting the Natick Mall to that site and was in favor of what’s come before the Board in terms of a development that included the Mall and several anchor stores. He felt the Board should take a position of being in favor of the concept of changing the zoning even though it was difficult to recommend to Town Meeting without knowing what changes the Planning Board may make if the article were adopted.
Mr. Hughes moved to support the intent of Article 1 and leave the specifics to the Planning Board. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted. Mr. Hughes to write the rationale.
Article 2
Mr. Ciccariello explained that Article 2 had to do with the highway corridor on Route 9. This would allow a developer of specific property on Route 9 that conflicted between residential and commercial that if there was a single family home, two units could be developed and if already two units, four units could be developed with the stipulation that at least one unit had to be set aside for affordable housing. In
lieu of affordable housing, there was a cash payment of 5%. There was a lot of discussion about that 5% not being what the Town was looking for and he (Mr. Ciccariello) thought it would be modified by the Planning Board. Ms. Fancy of the Natick Housing Corp objected to the 5% rule. The feeling was that if the Town wanted to develop affordable stock, the way to do it was not to allow them to pay the 5%. If a developer wanted three units on the site where one was allowed, then one should be set aside as affordable housing.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would like the Board to consider supporting this article as a great way to get some affordable housing and the abutters were in favor of this change.
Mr. Stern pointed out that maybe the article wasn’t properly written because one of the most effective ways to provide affordable housing was not to construct but to purchase.
Mr. McKinley felt that discussion of this article hadn’t settled out as of yet, and suggested tabling further discussion until December 2.
Article 4
Mr. Ciccariello advised that there had been a tremendous amount of discussion at the hearing and there would probably be a lot of amendments.
Given the time and the executive session scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Hughes proposed discussing the remainder of the items on the agenda at the next meeting.
Mr. McKinley agreed although noted that one other item had to be voted that night.
2003 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Mr. McKinley requested that the Board members review the goals & objectives in the briefing book and pick out 3-5 they thought significant for purposes of discussion.
MASS WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT TRUST LOAN
Mr. Hughes moved to approve a $287,297 bond for water pollution abatement. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
It was noted that this would replace the bond anticipation note with a permanent note.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to enter into executive session for purposes of discussing matters pertaining to litigation and collective bargaining. The Board so retired at 10:05 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would not return to open session.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
_________________________
John Ciccariello, Clerk
| 
