BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
December 8, 2003
5:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Jeffrey A. Stern at 5:50 p.m.
PRESENT: Jeffrey A. Stern, John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on December 8, 2003 in the amount of $1,373,679.28. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $3,933,012.64.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. McKinley, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation and release of executive session minutes. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 5:50 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES
With corrections as noted, Mr. Ball moved approval of the minutes of the September 15, 2003 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. 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.
CHABAD CENTER: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Chabad Center’s request to display the menorah on the Common from December 18-30, 2003 and to hold the Menorah Public Lighting on December 21, 2003 from 4:00-5:00 p.m.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Thank You
Steven Greenberg, Natick Center Associates Director, thanked the Board and the Town Administrator for having an extra DPW crew cleaning the downtown sidewalks and roadways for tonight’s First Light ceremony.
APPOINTMENT OF NATICK POLICE PATROL OFFICER
Police Chief Dennis Mannix recommended the appointment of Brett P. Conaway to the Natick Police Department. He requested that Mr. Conaway be conditionally offered employment as a full-time police officer
subject to successful completion of the Police Academy training, medical and psychological exams, and the agility test.
Chief Mannix noted that Mr. Conaway was a life-long resident of Natick. He (Mr. Conaway) graduated from Natick High School and earned a B.A. in Political Science from Stonehill College and a M.Ed. in Counseling from Providence College. Having completed the Reserve Officer Training while at Stonehill College, Mr. Conaway was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Massachusetts National Guard in 1992. In addition to his experience as a military police officer and company commander with the National Guard, Mr. Conaway, had participated in local youth programs as a camp counselor and camp director with the Natick Recreation Department during the summers from 1992-1998. In 2001 Mr. Conaway was the program director for “Street Peace” in Boston, where he assisted in developing and administering a
youth development and violence prevention program.
APPOINTMENT OF NATICK POLICE PATROL OFFICER (contd)
Mr. Conaway was called to active duty on September 11, 2001 following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and served overseas in Iraq from March through September 2003 where he participated in counter-terrorist missions and assisted in training Iraqi nationals as police officers for post-occupation duties in Iraq. His accumulated military awards include the Bronze Star and two Army Commendation Medals. Mr. Conaway continued his reserve duty with the Massachusetts National Guard and retained the rank of Captain.
Mr. McKinley noted that tonight’s recommendation was preceded by several telephone calls overwhelmingly endorsing the appointment. He moved the conditional appointment of Brett P. Conaway to the Natick Police Department. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Prior to the vote, Mr. Hughes inquired as to the number of vacancies and was told by Chief Mannix that there was one. Chief Mannix reminded the Board that one of the two prior appointees chose to accept an appointment closer to his home. A new certification list was received and Mr. Conaway was first on the list. It was Mr. Hughes’ understanding that the layoff list had to be used, but Chief Mannix advised that that list had been exhausted for all people eligible.
ON LINE PAYMENT PLAN
Assistant Treasurer/Collector Melanie Phillips introduced Kenneth Redding, UniBank Chairman.
Mr. Redding told the Board that he had been involved in municipal finance for over 30 years and with him tonight were Pat Baker formerly of Boston Safe Deposit & Trust and Steve Knight who had been working with Natick for over 20 years since his days with BayBank. They were here tonight to talk about a new online banking program. It became clear that the wave of the future was to allow residents to pay excise property taxes online and allow citizens to pay using the internet. There really wasn’t anybody supplying it and he thought it would be a breeze. The closest they could come to someone providing it was a
company in Providence, Rhode Island and Unibank worked with them for about l-l/2 years to develop software necessary to allow communities to pay online. They added a dimension to allow a more diverse use and allow the ability to pay water & sewer bills, landfill permits, softball fees. They tried to automate as much of the municipal payments as they could and afford the citizens the convenience of the product. They were now at the point where the product was being rolled out. Ms. Phillips had been working with them in defining the needs of Natick.
Before turning the floor over to Ms. Baker for a Powerpoint presentation, Mr. Redding thanked the Board for allowing them to come tonight and allowing Unibank to work with the Town.
Pat Baker who headed up Unibank’s Government Financial Operation, thanked Ms. Phillips and the Board and stated that she was excited about this product. It was an incredible product and Natick was their first community. There were other communities waiting to see how Natick made out. The bills were out and they were ready to start accepting payments.
Ms. Baker noted that it was a tailor made product that allowed the citizen to click and pay real estate taxes, excise, utility bills, license fees, permits and registrations. The benefits included faster access to the funds, less check handling, no extra processing to do to automate file updates, and electronic balance reconciliations.
As to the cost to the taxpayer, Ms. Baker advised that it would be 50 centers per transaction for a debit payment or if a credit card was used it would be 50 cents per transaction plus the credit card company fee. She repeated that Unibank was ready. The water bills were out and collections were due January 4. The taxpayer would simply go to the Natick website, pick the bill they wanted to pay, and it would bring them to the bank center. The bank center was at Unibank but addressed as the Town of Natick. It popped up as Natick because they
ON LINE PAYMENT PLAN (contd)
already had the tax files from the Collector’s office. The resident will be asked for an e-mail address. It wasn’t required, but it would make it easier from them to get a confirmation that payment was received.
Mr. Ball inquired as to what Ms. Baker meant by the cost to the taxpayer for a credit card was 50 cents plus the credit card company fee. Ms. Baker explained that the credit card company charged a percentage to the bank for the transaction which was typically a couple of percentage points. Ms. Baker confirmed as correct Mr. Ball’s statement that if a resident was paying their real estate tax by credit card, it would add 2% to the tax for the convenience. Mr. Redding added that he didn’t see many people using a credit card to pay real estate taxes because they would not want a 2% fee, but they may be willing to pay 2% on a $200 motor excise tax. It was there for the convenience. It was the only way to offer the product and make it cost effective.
If someone didn’t want to use a credit card, Mr. Ball questioned how they would make the payment from a checking account. Mr. Redding responded that they would have to enter a bank routing number and come as a direct ACH debit. They would not have to make prior arrangements with their bank.
Mr. Ball noted that he heard that Unibank had the tax files from the Town and questioned where the authorization had come from to share that information with an outside organization. It seemed to him there was a privacy issue, but Ms. Phillips advised that it was a public record.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the cost to the Town to use the service and was told by Ms. Baker that there was no cost to Natick. Because the idea had originated in Natick, Ms. Phillips noted that as a consideration to Natick Unibank would allow Natick residents to use it for free. There would be no charge to the Town at any time, and through June 30, 2004, the service would be available to the residents at no charge.
Mr. Hughes then inquired as to the timeframe in terms of the bank turning the money over to the Town. Ms. Phillips advised that there would be a 24-hour confirmation of the ACH transfer and the Town would download the payment files. The money would be received faster. It created a virtual Collector’s office that would be open 24 hours a day online.
In consideration of Murphy’s Law whereby anything that could go wrong would, Mr. Ball asked if a block of time had been set aside for sorting out the mistakes which would undoubtedly occur. When someone says they paid and the Collectors’ Office says they had no record, people get testy. How did Ms. Phillips propose to resolve the problems and what kind of percentage was expected to be problematic or was she just hoping for the best.
Ms. Phillips responded that testing would start this week. They were starting out with the water bills, which gave them 4,000 bills. They would use and test the product on the water bills before getting to a bigger piece.
Mr. Ball congratulated Ms. Phillips on her role in creating this. He then asked if there were potentially any competitive products out there – if there was anything else on the market or on the horizon. Ms. Phillips replied that on the horizon the answer was definitely, but on the market she didn’t think so. A lot of banks were developing something like this but no one mentioned any type of fee structure that came close to Unibank. From what she had seen from other banks in development this was the least cost-wise.
Mr. McKinley added his commendation and compliments for everything accomplished and shared Ms. Phillips’ enthusiasm. This was the first he heard about it and some things came to mind on the impact this could have on monthly reconciliations and what audit trails were being put in
place. The concept of paying bills electronically was not new. What appeared to be different was that the payment was being pulled into the bank rather than pushed, but it made him more uncomfortable that the bank was sucking out the payment rather than him pushing it out.
ON LINE PAYMENT PLAN (contd)
Ms. Phillips responded that the bank was using the Town’s own format and it was the same as the Town used regularly from tax services. There was a balancing process for any electronic payment received. You balance to what you were told were the number of payments and the dollar amount. As far as receipt and proof of payment, the individual would have the opportunity to have two different receipts. The resident would get a confirmation when doing the transaction and get the opportunity to get an e-mail confirmation.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Stern, Ms. Phillips advised that the confirmation would come from the bank. Mr. Stern responded that he would like to see some confirmation coming from the Town saying the Town got this payment and everything was good. Mr. McKinley thought that Mr. Stern and he were asking the same question. If he paid the Town, he would get an e-mail from the bank saying they had his money.
Mr. Redding noted that the confirmation would say Town of Natick on it. The taxpayer would think they were dealing with the Town and in fact it was going into a Town of Natick account through the Federal Reserve system. With the file would come the deposit recap, and the files would be staying on the website for a long time – probably 1-2 years. He was committing that the bank would use whatever resources it had at its disposal to solve any problems with any resident in the community who said they paid. The call would come into Natick and Unibank would work hand and glove with Ms. Phillips to make sure it was resolved. It was the same issue as if a taxpayer sent a check to the Town.
Mr. Stern noted that he had been asked to do banking online and was locked into a dispute over an Nstar bill that he didn’t receive. It took 18 months to resolve and kept going around and around and he didn’t want a repeat of that nightmare. Mr. Redding noted that online banking grabbed information. It was pushed but not all information went over and there was a lot of difficulty tracking. Unibank’s system was more like the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Mr. Lemnios added that this was not an e-mail bill system where the taxpayer only received an e-mail bill. The taxpayer would still receive a hard copy and could write a check and pop it in the mail and have the same paper trail. Now the taxpayer would have the option of paying with a virtual check and would get an immediate confirmation of the transaction and if he/she gave an e-mail address, he/she would get an e-mail back that said “x” was withdrawn from his/her account and here was a record of that transaction. Both records would become the paper trail in the event that a month later they saw nothing in the bank statement or got the next tax bill and saw interest. The taxpayer would present the verification of the transaction to the Treasurer and the Collector’s staff would do the paper trail
on that transaction.
If an account appeared unpaid and the taxpayer said he paid and the Collector’s Office didn’t have a record of the payment, Mr. Ball noted that it began to accrue interest charges. Would the interest charges be erased when it was sorted out? Ms. Phillips advised that it would.
Mr. Ball then asked if in paying a tax bill he were to give an e-mail address, would he receive unsolicited e-mails from the bank. Mr. Redding’s response was, “no”. Noting that giving someone’s routing number was the equivalent of giving a credit card number, Mr. Ball asked Mr. Redding to describe the security. Mr. Redding explained that once the account number and routing number was given, it was the same information that would be on the encoded check. Unibank would not maintain any of those files and would ask the taxpayer to repeat the information for the next payment. Mr. Ball noted that Unibank would not maintain those files, and Mr. Redding repeated his statement that the bank would not maintain those files.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what the Board was being asked to do tonight, and Mr. Lemnios advised that this was the presentation piece. Ms. Phillips, MIS Director Robert LeFrancois, Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer, and Director of Assessment William Chenard want to roll out
ON LINE PAYMENT PLAN (contd)
this option for taxpayers to pay. This was an opportunity to have the Collector’s function available 365 days a year, 24 hours a day.
Mr. McKinley commented that Unibank had indicated that for six months no fee was charged to the residents and starting next fiscal year there would be a 50 cents transaction fee. He inquired as to who set those fees and who approved them. To the residents it was a fee charged by the Town. Mr. Lemnios advised that the bank had set the fee on this transaction. As they looked at the popularity of the product, they would get into the discussion. The goal would be to have a scenario where the resident would not have to pay a fee and the Town may have to subsidize. If it was a popular option, it would cut down on the handling and workload in the office and the Town could realize other savings.
Mr. McKinley stated that as long as it was monitored and at any time if it was thought that the cost was exceeding the benefits, the Town would have the right to pull the plug, he was OK with it. Mr. Lemnios advised that the Town had that right.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to how much of these payments would be other than real estate because most real estate bills were paid by the mortgage holder. Mr. Redding noted that that used to be the case but more and more not. He estimated that probably 50% would be real estate.
Mr. Stern asked if there was a brochure that would show screen-by-screen report by report what’s being generated, what the taxpayer would see, and what the Collector’s Office would see. He was interested in seeing the entire package and would like to see it before it went on line. Mr. Redding indicated that that would not be a problem.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2004 WATER & SEWER RATES
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Finance Director Robert Palmer reviewed his memo dated December 4, 2003 recommended a zero percent increase in utility billing rates for calendar 2004.
Mr. Palmer noted that the rates were being set on a calendar basis so they flipped over two fiscal years. He was projecting only a small increase in cost because there were strong revenues in water & sewer. In part that was because there had been no water bans and that had enabled the revenue stream to be kept constant. The Town generated just under $11 million from utility billing. There was a very small 1% increase in the operation budget and he anticipated over the next year that the actual cost and expenditure would be slightly less than $11-l/2M. With a small use of retained earnings of $500,000 he felt the Town could move forward to 2004 without any increase in the rates. Last year the Board voted to use $800,000 in retained earnings. Using that $800,000 for 2003 and $500,000 for 2004
that would leave approximately $700,000 for any capital projects that would be needed.
Mr. Palmer continued that the next debt was the treatment plant and that had been scheduled. Over the next couple of years the Board would see a high increase in the water portion to cover the debt of the water treatment plant and a major relining project. Over the next two years that would necessitate an increase in the water rates of approximately 10-12%. The sewer and MWRA portion was expected to increase 2.5-4%.
Mr. Palmer noted that there was one recommendation in terms of changing the way the rates were applied to the water only accounts.
Regarding Mr. Palmer’s mention of a surplus, Mr. Ball noted that there was a lot of public outcry about free cash and why so much was being
charged when there was all this money. He requested Mr. Palmer to explain an enterprise account and how it worked and that it was non-profit.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2004 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
Mr. Palmer explained that in the mid-1990’s a fair amount of the cost of water and sewer was paid by the taxes. It was not self-supporting. The Board tried to make that happen (become self-supporting) over the next few years before going to an enterprise fund. The goal was to have sufficient revenue generated from billing to cover operational costs and money from liens to be used for capital and infrastructure. The goal was achieved of revenues covering the direct expense and generating more in total. There was a small surplus and this year, as was done last year, $500,000 was pulled off toward rate relief. The money always went back either in direct rate relief or used for capital projects. It was a zero gain – not a profit center.
Mr. Hughes commented that because it was an enterprise fund everything collected for water & sewer went back into the enterprise fund and
could only be used for that. Mr. Palmer added that it was still subject to Town Meeting appropriation.
Regarding the water treatment plant, Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Town received a $5 million low interest loan from the state and he asked if the number took that into account. Mr. Palmer advised that it did. Mr. Ciccariello then asked if Mr. Palmer was looking for the Board to vote to use the $500,000 in reserve and Mr. Palmer replied that that was correct and if the Board endorsed it, it would be included in the financial package that went to Town Meeting for approval.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the elderly discount. It was his understanding that if someone qualified for a real estate tax abatement, they automatically got a deduction on their water & sewer bill. Mr. Palmer confirmed that someone who applied and received an exemption on real estate automatically was discounted for water & sewer. If they had a minimum bill, they didn’t get a bill at all.
When the Board abated a water bill, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if that came out of the reserve fund. Mr. Palmer advised that it did. The reserve was there as a catchall. Mr. Ciccariello thought that a program had been developed where funds were specifically set aside for that, but Mr. McKinley pointed out that ultimately it all came out of the reserve fund.
Mr. Palmer was asked about the recommendation for multi-user water only accounts, and Mr. Palmer responded that he thought the change previously made on water only was correct, but there was one area for multi-user water only accounts. Under the current structure water only accounts were billed at irrigation rates for consumption over forty units. In the case of multi-user water only the irrigation rates were currently applied in the same manner as single living unit accounts. There were two specific areas that were hooked on a single meter but served multi-residents. They may be using 20-30 hcf per home, but were getting penalized because once they hit 40 hcf, they were paying the irrigation rates. His suggestion was to apply the tiered water rates that were utilized in the standard water & sewer
accounts for the multi-unit water only units. The impact was relatively small and these were primarily homes in Dover that Natick serviced. The net loss was in the vicinity of $20,000 and he thought it was a fairer method.
Mr. Lemnios told the Board that he had met with representatives from the Dover trustees where Natick served a number of homes. The only disagreement he would have was that this was not so much a net loss as it was revenue the Town wouldn’t realize as the result of having the inequity. The residents of his homes would be paying the same unit cost and have the same structure, but the Town had no responsibility on the other side of the meter. Natick was not responsible for all the pipes and service connections to the homes.
Asked if all these meters had been changed, Mr. Palmer replied that he didn’t know if they had been done, but they would be.
Mr. McKinley questioned what would prevent one of the units from connecting an irrigation system and getting a non-irrigation rate. Mr. Lemnios noted that there was an agreement for a single master meter and
PUBLIC HEARING: 2004 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
if the Town saw a spike typically associated with an irrigation system, it would be reviewed. Mr. McKinley proposed having the trustees certify that they have not and would not connect an irrigation system. Mr. Lemnios stated that he could speak to the trustees.
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Hughes moved to set the rates as proposed. The rates for 2004 would be the same as 2003 with the exception that the Board adopt the proposal for multi-user water only rates. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted. Prior to the vote Mr. Stern asked if Mr. Hughes’ motion included the discussion Mr. Lemnios would have with the trustees on the use of irrigation systems by the homes, and Mr. Hughes’ response was, “yes”. Mr. Ciccariello asked if the motion included the use of $500,000 in retained earnings, and again Mr. Hughes’ reply was, “yes”.
PUBLIC HEARING: CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, INC.: APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, STOCKHOLDERS
Representing California Pizza Kitchen were Attorney Jenny Anglin of Wayne, Richard & Hurwitz, and the manager Jasmine Lewan.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Ms. Anglin stated that she was before the Board tonight to request approval of a change of officers & directors and stockholders. She noted that three officers and directors had changed and there was a change in the stockholders because the company went public. It was no longer a private company.
Mr. Stern recalled that when California Pizza Kitchen last came before the Board there had been a discussion about TIPS certification of CPK’s servers, and he inquired as to where that stood. Ms. Anglin advised that with the renewal application submitted there was a sheet listing all employees who were TIPS trained as of November 23, 2003. All current employees have been updated with TIPS. Mr. Stern stated that there were no current employees who had not been certified, and Ms. Anglin’s response was, “no”.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the change in officers, directors, and stockholder as presented for California Pizza Kitchen. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
APPOINTMENT OF FINANCIAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Mr. Stern noted that the Board was to appoint two Town Meeting Members to the Financial Operations Committee, and there were three applicants.
Referring to the charge for the committee, Mr. Ball didn’t think the first bullet – to define and develop regular financial reporting mechanisms for the public, policy makers and town staff - was what the Board had in mind.
Mr. Stern explained that one of his goals was to advance the state of financial reporting so that monthly reports would be generated and sent to all members of the Board, the Town Administrator, and the Finance Committee and each member of Town Meeting. Mr. Ball responded that he understood and agreed, but he wanted to make it clear that the objective was to inform everybody and the reporting was done by Town staff. As a member of the committee, Mr. McKinley said he understood and appreciated Mr. Ball’s concern and understood the mission.
a. Richard Sullivan
Richard Sullivan of Precinct 7 told the Board that he had devoted his whole career to public service. He had retired from state government after 25 years and had been involved in both disbursement of public funds and revenue and research. He brought to the assignment an
APPOINTMENT OF FINANCIAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE (contd)
interest in the Town and being retired he had more time and was interested in Town activity.
Mr. Hughes inquired if in his service as a Town Meeting member, Mr. Sullivan felt he was lacking certain information needed to make decisions. Mr. Sullivan responded that he couldn’t say that. He felt pretty well prepared particularly for the annual meeting. As long as someone was willing to do some line item analysis, he felt Town Meeting members got good preparation for the session.
As a follow-up Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Sullivan could suggest ways to make the material received more easily understandable. Mr. Sullivan noted that he wasn’t a municipal finance expert but at the state level he was constantly on the spot to present data to legislators, legislative committees, business representatives, organization representatives and taxpayers. He had a lot of experience trying to present the work of the state to external audiences, and he didn’t think it was too much different than trying to present it to Town Meeting members. He thought people had a built in trust and the people reporting had just as much integrity as what’s on the spreadsheet.
Mr. McKinley inquired if Mr. Sullivan had any thoughts from his constituents on how well they understood Town finances and how comfortable they were with the individuals managing. Mr. Sullivan responded that there were 3-4 areas that people were concerned about – free cash and its use, the issue of agreements with employee groups, and the operation vs capital spending. The operations budget was done in the spring and capital in the fall and as the budget got tighter that was more difficult to carry out. There was some interest in the
long-term debt and when there would be a window to do something when certain bonds were paid off.
Mr. Stern asked if Mr. Sullivan had any experience in designing reports and deciding what information went into those reports. Mr. Sullivan advised that he had been a deputy commissioner for an agency and one of his assignments was to present the condition of different funds, pay outs, projections. To place the number in context was a challenge, but unless the numbers were placed in context, people couldn’t make decisions. He had to come up with a series of good reports and putting those together was a challenge. The creative part was in the quarterly reports particularly to the legislators.
b. Kenneth Goldman
Kenneth Goldman stated that he had been a resident of Natick for 16 years, but was a relatively new Town Meeting member of 3 years. He decided to try to give back to the Town and help where he could. A year ago he had been appointed as a technology subcommittee member for the School Committee. He was a CPA and had over 23 years experience as a chief financial officer for 6 different private enterprises. While he did not claim to be a municipal accounting expert, he did have two large municipal clients. He was a businessman and a pragmatist and he thought he could give a unique perspective of how to run a business from the point of view of someone who was not a financial expert although that was his background. If appointed to serve, he could challenge conventional thinking hopefully in a positive manner
for constructive dialog.
While on Town Meeting, Mr. Hughes inquired if at any time Mr. Goldman felt the information he received was insufficient. Mr. Goldman responded that a lot of reliance was placed on the Finance Committee and Board of Selectmen. There had been a lot of information but he wasn’t sure it always presented the full picture. The information presented was at a fairly high level. One question that came up was what it cost to run the Town. There was no free anything. He reiterated that there was a lot of information, but he wasn’t sure it
provided the answers and he hoped to find another way to provide both the information and the answers.
APPOINTMENT OF FINANCIAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE (contd)
c. Susan Salamoff
Susan Salamoff told the Board that she put her name in because she thought she brought a different perspective. She was a process person who had worked for over 30 years in various aspects of Town government. Twenty-one years ago she was instrumental in redesigning the Town budget into the beginning of the omnibus budget and she looked forward to redesigning the reporting. She brought the perspective of how the general public learned and understood things, and she was a strong advocate for making sure the general public understood what’s going on. The Town was faced with serious issues, and contract compliance should be part of the process. There were issues relative to when to audit certain projects and at what financial levels audits should be
considered. From her private sector work experience, that had been an aspect of the regular work process.
Ms. Salamoff thought the Board had interviewed two terrific choices before her from the financial perspective, but she would offer herself as someone tuned in to what’s going on the last 30 years and able to write and understand what helped the public to understand.
When asked about her status as a Finance Committee member, Ms. Salamoff responded that the midnight hours conflicted with her job and she had to resign. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked if Ms. Salamoff felt she would have the time to serve on this committee, and her response was, “yes”.
Mr. Hughes asked the same question as he had of the other two candidates – if during her tenure as a Town Meeting member Ms.
Salamoff felt that the information provided had been incomplete
and not presented in an easily understandable form with which to
make decisions.
Ms. Salamoff replied that because she went to hearings and was part of committees, she basically knew what was going on, but her colleagues didn’t necessarily feel that way.
Mr. Stern asked Ms. Salamoff to elaborate on her comment that she had developed and drafted budget procedures, and Ms. Salamoff responded that she was a writer of the Town charter and she had written by-laws as a member of the By-Law Charter Review Committee. In the work place she had drafted procedure processes for operation.
In view of there being three candidates each bringing something to the party, Mr. McKinley asked if the Board would consider appointing all three. Neither Mr. Stern nor Mr. Hughes had any objection. Mr. Ciccariello wanted to hear from the Town Administrator, but Mr. McKinley pointed out that there were 5 Selectmen, 15 Finance Committee members, and 180 Town Meeting members and he didn’t think a few extra Town Meeting members would hurt. Given the workload, Mr. Lemnios thought it would be fine.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Richard Sullivan, Kenneth Goldman, and Susan Salamoff to the Financial Operations Committee. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
FRANCIS O. HUNNEWELL: ACCEPTANCE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTION
Appearing before the Board was Tom Hunnewell representing the Hunnewell family and Wayne Bitler from the Trustee of Reservations.
Mr. Hunnewell stated that he was before the Board to request approval of the second of a three-phased project. The conservation restriction and perpetual easement was presented to the Natick Conservation Commission on November 3, 2003 and received their favorable report. The restriction was between Leach Lane and Pond Road and straddled
Natick and Wellesley. One third was in Natick and two-thirds in Wellesley. A few changes had been made to the original submittal and the Conservation Commission was apprised of those changes. It was Mr.
Hunnewell’s understanding that Town Counsel had signed off on this. The Wellesley Natural Resource Commission had acted favorably and the Wellesley Board of Selectmen had accepted the restriction.
FRANCIS O. HUNNEWELL: ACCEPTANCE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTION (contd)
Mr. Bitler explained that this was the second of a three-phase conservation restriction to protect some open space. The first phase was in 1997. This phase consisted of approximately 20 acres and abutted approximately 54 additional acres of conservation land to the north and added to more than 145 acres of land already protected by previously recorded conservation restrictions within a one-mile circumference of the premises. The premises drain into Lake Waban and into the Charles River. In addition the premises are located over the Waban Brook Aquifer, which underlies both Wellesley and Natick. The restriction serves to protect the view from and natural setting of the Sudbury Aqueduct easement to which the public has been granted access through a conservation restriction adjacent to this
restriction.
Mr. Bitler referred to a map showing Phase I, II, and III, which was envisioned to happen in the next three years. Phase I provided for public access. One concern with Phase II was public access. It only went to the center of the aqueduct and the Hunnewell family was considering whether to give additional access.
Mr. Bitler noted that the conservation restriction now before the Board was consistent with several open space goals in Wellesley and Natick, specifically Section 8 of the Natick Open Space Plan. He further noted that the conservation restriction prohibited construction, but there were two building envelopes. Building envelope 1 allowed the house that exists and Building envelope 2 allowed not more than two single-family houses to be built. The only significant change to the draft made available was that continued use of the sand pit for private purposes was allowed, but no material excavated could be taken offsite.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Hughes, Mr. Bitler advised that building envelope 2 was all located in Wellesley. When asked about access, Mr. Bitler stated that it was his understanding that should it ever become a building sight, it would come off Pond Road. Mr. Hunnewell added that the existing house had an existing driveway onto Pond road. The strong preference would be to use the existing driveway if and when the two houses were built. Mr. Hughes commented that there was no access to get to the envelope off Leach Lane, and Mr. Hunnewell confirmed that as being correct.
Mr. Stern inquired as to how this phase integrated with the third phase and was told by Mr. Hunnewell that it wouldn’t integrate any more than being the second of three phases. If there were an impact on Phase III it was that originally the right was reserved to build a road from Pond to Leach Lane and restricting Phase II in this fashion would obviate
the need for the road to be built. These were two (Phase II & III) bookends with the middle already being conservation restricted.
Mr. Stern then asked what Mr. Hunnewell envisioned Phase III to be, and Mr. Hunnewell responded that as currently proposed, it would be fully restricted other than the carve out of two building envelopes. In total there was room for approximately 15 buildable lots and this (restriction) would bring it down to four. That would obviate the need to build a road.
To Mr. Stern’s inquiry as to how big the envelopes were and what size structures, Mr. Hunnewell responded that the buildings would be single family homes no more than two each (2 in Phase II and 2 in Phase III). There hadn’t been any cap on the actual size other than the strong understanding that they would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.
Mr. McKinley moved to accept the conservation restriction as submitted by the Trustees of Reservations on behalf of Francis O. Hunnewell for approximately 7 acres of land in Natick, which adjoins an additional 13 acres of land in Wellesley. The restriction applied to a portion of
the parcel shown as Map 54 Lot 80. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
FRANCIS O. HUNNEWELL: ACCEPTANCE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTION (contd)
Mr. McKinley thanked the Hunnewell family for their generosity. Having served on the Conservation Commission for many years, he (Mr. McKinley) always found it a pleasure to deal with the Hunnewell family.
Mr. Hunnewell presented the Board with the final documents for signature. The documents were signed and given back to Mr. Hunnewell.
FACILITY MANAGEMENT CORP: APPLICATION FOR COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE – WEST SUBURBAN ARENA
Before the Board was an application from Facility Management Corp to operate a snack shop at the West Suburban Arena at 35 Windsor Avenue.
Representing Facility Management Corp. was Bill Winfield, the rink manager.
Mr. McKinley inquired if all of the improvements to the snack shop had been approved and signed off by the inspectors. Mr. Winfield advised that they had with the exception of the Health Inspector.
Mr. McKinley moved to grant a common victualer’s license to Facility Management to operate a snack shop at West Suburban Arena at 35 Windsor Avenue. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Following a 10 minutes recess the meeting was again called to order at 9:10 a.m.
FISCAL 2004 TAX CLASSIFICATION
Appearing before the Board was Director of Assessment William Chenard.
Mr. Stern prefaced the discussion by noting that the Board held a public hearing, which was now closed and tonight was the discussion phase. The Board was in receipt of a letter from the Natick Center Associates in opposition to a split tax rate.
Planning Board member Julian Munnich informed the Board that at its regularly scheduled meeting of December 3, the Planning Board discussed implications of splitting the tax rate and the Planning Board unanimously voted to recommend that the tax rate not be split. It (splitting the rate) would put the Town at a disadvantage with the type of development the Planning Board would like to bring to Town for parcels coming up for redevelopment and those as yet to be developed.
Mr. Chenard noted that he had been asked to prepare a number of documents. He had been asked to prepare what percent would maintain Natick Mall at the 2003 level, what would maintain the FY2003 levy percentages, and the percentage to maintain the average single family bill at its FY2003 level. To maintain the Natick Mall at the 2003 level, the split would have to be 18%. That would increase the commercial rate to $12.00 and decrease the residential rate to $9.65. If the Board were to do that, Mr. Chenard thought it was important to note that the downtown businesses would increase 17.1% over FY03. If the single rate were maintained, the downtown business taxes would be about the same. Classification would also mean that the $1 million homes would go down substantially.
To maintain the levy percentage at 75.5/24.5 would require an 11% split. The commercial rate would be $11.29 and the residential $9.88. The Mall would pay less, the downtown businesses would pay more, and the single-family relationship would be the same. The low end would pay FY03’s taxes and the higher end would have a significant savings over FY03.
With regard to maintaining the average single tax bill at the same levy, Mr. Chenard advised that he had some difficulty doing that because of the properties in excess of $600,000. It would mean a 17% shift to commercial with a commercial rate of $11.90 and a residential rate of $9.62. The Mall would pay slightly less.
Mr. Chenard noted that at the hearing it had been said that although taxes were going down, it was for a small percentage of properties and he had been asked what those properties were. They were the four hotels and the Natick Mall. If they were removed from the
FISCAL 2004 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
calculations, the majority of commercial taxes would stay flat or see a slight increase. He then noted that he had been asked about the Mall expansion, and setting aside the condo units or the hotel, the current tax rate would produce about $1.8 million. Adding a 200-room hotel would produce an additional $180,000.
Mr. Chenard had also been asked to prepare a list of communities that were classified and no longer classified. He noted that he did an analysis of split rates from 1990-2003 and that analysis was in the
packet given to the Board. He also pointed out that once a community classified, it was difficult to move backwards. Some did it, but it was very difficult. In some cases the community decreased the split each year. The number of communities that classify decreased from 105 to 93 in FY2003.
Included in the material was a bulletin from the Department of Revenue that said the Board did not have to vote this evening and could send estimated tax bills. Mr. Chenard recommended that the Board not do that. That was for communities that had classified and were at their limit.
Mr. Hughes noted that the additional revenue at the Mall and the alternative of the hotel was just the real estate and did not include income from the room tax. Mr. Chenard indicated that that was correct. Mr. Hughes then noted that commercial real estate value was set on a cost, and Mr. Chenard replied that it was both cost and income approach. The Assessors relied most heavily on income. Mr. Hughes pointed out that if taxes were raised on commercial properties, it decreased their income and set it up so that next year their value would go lower again. Mr. Chenard agreed, and noted that if the rate wasn’t split, the tax rate would decrease and in some cases it would increase their (commercial) value next year.
Having heard it said that the burden of the tax base was a cyclical thing, Mr. Ball inquired as to the last time the burden shifted off of the shoulders of residential taxpayers and more heavy onto commercial. Mr. Chenard believed the last shift toward commercial was FY98-99 and he believed that was about a 2% shift. Mr. McKinley added that the chart went back 20 years and there was a definite cyclical trend. If you believed what’s happening in the marketplace, it was almost at an end. Even the real estate agents were beginning to say that some of the sellers were asking too much. The bubble was there to be burst. Last year the retail economy had a miserable year, but there were signs that it was beginning to turn around. He thought people could be comfortable that the cycle would reverse
itself and begin to change.
Mr. McKinley continued that the Mall seemed to be the lightening rod in this discussion. He looked at the history of taxes the Mall paid for the last eight years and since the new Mall came on line their taxes have been pretty stable. This year because the income method was used to appraise, there appeared to be a windfall, although Mr. McKinley noted that he wouldn’t use the word ‘windfall’ because the Mall took it in the teeth and their value declined, but it would come back. Even if the Mall was set as the benchmark and everything was adjusted around it, it was arbitrary and would kill some of the businesses that were just as important if not more important such as the downtown businesses. He asked that the Board not make a short-term decision but to stay the course that had served the Town
well for many years. It was tied to the open market, which corrects itself over time.
In response to the comment that by using the income approach, the adoption of a classification would lower the valuation of the businesses for those commercial taxpayers that own property, Mr. Stern inquired as to what that decrease might be. Mr. Chenard responded that he had done some of those scenarios and there were ranges. Mr. Stern was concerned that should the Board take action that would adversely
affect a certain class that it may trigger some of their loan covenants coming due. Mr. Chenard agreed that if the rate were split to maintain the Mall’s taxes, it could trigger some of those numbers. It’s a long-
FISCAL 2004 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
term effect and it would take awhile to factor in and it would differ for each property.
Of the 22 communities that had split their rate, but did not in FY03, Mr. Stern inquired as to which ones were demographically similar to Natick. Mr. Chenard thought that Chelmsford and Shrewsbury were probably the closest. When asked if he had any conversation with his counterparts as to why they moved away from classification, Mr. Chenard responded that as an Assessor he saw this as a political decision. He had talked to some Assessors and the feeling was it was a negative on the business growth and wasn’t accomplishing what they wanted to accomplish.
After thanking Mr. Chenard for all the helpful information, Mr. Ciccariello commented that as he looked at it and started running the numbers on the residential side, it seemed the low end residential market seemed to have the highest increase this year, but if the rate was split, they wouldn’t really benefit. The high end homes in the $800,000-$1M range got the greatest benefit of a split tax rate. In looking at the commercial property charts, the taxes went up for a little over 300 businesses in Natick. 300 went down, but a great percentage seemed to be the major office complexes, the Mall, Boston Scientific, and the hotels. Noting the significant drop in value for the hotels, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what had caused that and was told by Mr. Chenard that that was directly related back to 9/11.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that for a couple of the hotels, their taxes were dropping by 33%, and Mr. Chenard explained that what drove that was the income. One of the hotels was sold and it sold below the assessed value. Decreases in occupancy were in the 20% range.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that when Mr. Chenard went through the evaluation presentation for FY03 and FY04, it seemed like some properties went up in value, but their taxes were pretty much the same or reduced slightly. Mr. Chenard responded that all commercial properties except for five went up in value. As to why the value went up and their taxes went down, it was for the same reasons that a $1M home went down. It wasn’t that they weren’t increasing, but the $500,000 and above properties only increased 5.6%. Those properties that sold for less increased in value by 25.6% or a 20% difference. The Mall went up but less percentage wise than the low end residential. If everything went up at the same percentage, everyone would pay the same taxes. The low end residential was increasing in
excess of 20%. Commercial was increasing but not keeping pace.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that if the Board tried to get to the FY03 tax level just focusing on the Mall, when he looked at the numbers it said to him that the high end residential got the greater benefit, but a lot of businesses got hit with an increase. Their (businesses) taxes already went up but the value of their property was not as great as the commercial entities getting a reduction. If there was a split, it was hard to say what that number should be so that it was not only fair to all residents but to all businesses. Some residential folks would get hurt and some business folks would get hurt no matter what way it was done.
Mr. Ball stated that he struggled with this issue more than the previous 5-6 years put together and that was motivated by the fact that there were a lot of people in low end housing that were hurting and the apparent inequity of the Mall whose taxes went down $400,000. He found the inequity within the classes to be especially difficult to get his arms around. Everyone would like to have their homes worth as much as possible, but only when they want to sell them. The low-end houses were increasing in value because they were what people could afford and they offer potential sights for McMansions. The bottom line was that it was the price of living in a desirable place. This was a situation of the Town’s own creation. It was not something done intentionally but Natick was made a more desirable place
to live and the very low-end
homes were still more affordable. That’s the way it was, and he had to come down on the side of a single tax rate. There was no equity and there was nothing the Board could do to adjust the change in burden
FISCAL 2004 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
from low end to high-end houses or between commercial and residential. Many of the businesses in the Town contribute to the fabric of the Town and he would hate to see any of them forced into a position where they said they couldn’t afford to contribute to Spooktacular or Natick Days. He would vote for a single rate.
Mr. Hughes moved to set the rate at a factor of one. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. McKinley thanked Mr. Ball for his insightful comments and noted that Mr. Ball and he had wrestled this over for the last few weeks. What frequently got overlooked was the fact that Natick still had one of the lowest tax bills of MetroWest. The only one lower was Framingham and Framingham was split almost to the limit. He thought it was a testament to how well Natick ran its finances.
REFERENDUM QUESTION – FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Finance Committee Chair Frank Foss submitted the full record of the hearing on which the Finance Committee made their recommendation. The Finance Committee had been asked by the Board of Selectmen to investigate and look into the ballot question that voters would be facing on December 16, 2003. Mr. Foss informed the Board that the Finance Committee took a vote to strongly recommend that the electorate vote no on the subject matter of ballot question #1 on December 16. There had been a lot of discussion through three meetings and the
FinCom attempted to gather as much information as it could. The level points were compiled and the Committee’s thinking was segmented into three areas: Findings – Ballot Committee/Subject matter/legal; Findings: Financial; Findings: Operational.
Mr. Foss highlighted the discussion points and noted that the FinCom included the ballot committee information provided to the Committee and entered into the record by the Committee’s budget/planning subcommittee. A copy of the Natick Taxpayer’s Association web site was included in the record and they (FinCom) received a tremendous amount of information from Natick Saves. The Committee examined that but didn’t opine because although much was factual some was political and that was up to the electorate to take into account. The amount of information provided by Natick Saves was quite enlightening and factual and substantive. He thanked the Town Administrator, department heads, and PAYT Committee.
Mr. Foss continued that the Committee had looked at some legal questions and tried to understand what the question was. Town Counsel came before the Committee on the legal ramifications. As noted in the executive summary, the Committee believed the question included both trash and recycling and very likely included the expansion of the trash and recycling to some, but not all, of the l,834 existing condominiums and apartments and some future developments or 40B projects. Were the question to pass, they discovered that a number of changes in the rules & regs could be made.
The Committee found that significant potential existed for litigation on a number of points in connection with the proposed by-law, but litigation could be brought on any topic concerning the By-Law. There was some discussion on what could and couldn’t occur, but that was as gray as gray could be. Town Counsel gave as much information as he could.
Regarding the finances, Mr. Foss noted that the Finance Director with the Town Administrator provided the FinCom with a tremendous amount of information. In the fall of 2001 the Town Administrator reported that the Town was entering into a time and place where the mathematics started to converge with the Proposition 2-l/2 limitations and the Town’s operational costs. Where the Town hit the wall was where expenses exceed the ability to raise the levy capacity. At the same
time the Town Administrator was careful to say that other things were about to occur such as shortfalls in local aid and drops in revenue, which would add to the mathematical convergence. From 2002-2003 the Town started to realize a lot of the shortfalls. There was great
REFERENDUM QUESTION – FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
concern going into the budget and the State added to the cuts already made. The Fincom had to analyze the budget and engaged a lot with the Selectmen and School Committee on how to deal with the shortfalls.
Mr. Foss continued that the Finance Committee went through all kinds of exercises as to how to make up the shortfalls. At that time the question came up to raise revenues to close that gap. The Board of
Selectmen instituted a one-year trash fee and at the same time started to investigate Pay-As-You-Throw. Rubbish disposal could have been supplemented by other means from override to cutting budgets dramatically, but the decision was made to implement the fee. At that time the Town had normal amounts of free cash available annually which was used on a selective basis. Normally free cash was used to shore up the stabilization fund or used to buy capital equipment and improvements. In 2003 there was a clear decision to stop all capital purchases unless direly necessary. In 2004 the free cash balance was $4.5M. The $4.5M could have been used for a number of things but the Town Administrator laid out a plan for 2005 & 2006 to avoid operational budget cuts and the need to implement new or additional fees
or seek an override.
Mr. Foss noted that free cash was a topic that had come up and why it was not being used to possibly eliminate the trash fee as known today. The free cash was built up from one year to another and the fiscal prudence of the management of the departments and the close watch by the Town Administrator on certain expenditures allowed the Town to recoup some costs that fall into free cash. In 2002 changes started to be made in the Treasurer/Collector and through the efforts of the Board of Selectmen the Treasurer was directed to collect $1.8M in back taxes. In addition the Board re-issued a number of bonds at a lower interest rate, which freed up some funds that would have been used for the debt, which dropped into free cash. The Finance Committee believed it did a number of things in concert with the Finance Director
and Town Administrator in being conservative in revenue estimates that proved fruitful.
Regarding the financial impacts in the event the question were to pass, Mr. Foss advised that were PAYT eliminated and the Town had to pay additional tonnage and expand trash pickup, the Town could realize an additional cost of $1.8M. Over the next two years it was estimated that a little over $4M would be needed to fund the increased costs (if by-law passed). If the $4.5M were used as suggested in some testimony (to fund trash pickup), it ($4.5M) would essentially be gone. He noted that some surrounding towns had to pass overrides, but Natick only had one for a specific purpose – a second ambulance. The Town has been fiscally sound and hasn’t had to do that (override).
Mr. Foss felt that a couple of items that didn’t make the report needed to be illustrated. The Town’s budget was about $82M and could be broken down in many ways. He and some of the other drafters of the report put together an analysis of what was disposable or what could be cut. Debt, insurance, and things mandated through the state totaled about $21M. If Schools, public safety, DPW, library were taken out, only $5M was left. There was a government to run and if the Treasurer/Collector, Town Administrator, Town Clerk and general budget were taken out, that left $1.4M. The $1.4M was the cost of Recreation, Senior Center, Neighborhood Bus, Board of Health. There was very little room for discretionary spending in the budget. Most of the operating budgets were very tight and
supported the services we want to
provide. If the Town had to face the possibility of $4M over two years, something would have to be taken from somewhere if it wasn’t shorn up with free cash.
Mr. Foss felt that it should also be noted that the passage of the question would increase the tonnage delivered to Millbury, and that increase in tonnage would mean elimination of a program that reduced
tonnage. He pointed out that the only way to reduce the cost at Millbury was to reduce the tonnage. That contract had an escalator cost that increased each year about $3 per ton. If the volume wasn’t decreased, it would be a budget buster.
REFERENDUM QUESTION – FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
Mr. Foss thanked the Community Development Director for his work on the spreadsheet that broke down the multiple dwelling units. He also noted that he couldn’t give the Board a thumbnail of the information provided by the PAYT task force. Many if not all of the facts provided regarding the operational aspects indicate that PAYT was an effective program. It clearly encouraged household recycling saving the Town revenues and the environment.
Mr. Foss continued that for years the Finance Committee, Town Meeting, and the Board of Selectmen had been concerned with the physical infrastructure. Millions were spent on Town buildings, but nothing was being spent on improving them now. The Town Administrator was trying to get his hands around what the capital needs were for the future. The requests from departments totaled over $15M that could or should be planned for in the coming years.
In summary Mr. Foss stated that no matter how mad the electorate was about the things that occurred, this initiative would have a negative fiscal and operating affect and possibly open up the Town to some other events for which the Town was not prepared. The Finance Committee tried to be as fair as possible in gathering the facts and putting together a conclusion. The Finance Committee believed the voters should vote no.
Mr. Stern told Mr. Foss that he appreciated and the Board appreciated the thorough and objective analysis the Finance Committee put into this as well as the time involved and the quality of the report produced. The report would be put on the web site and the Board would do its best to have the report available for people to read. Mr. Foss advised that there would be a copy at the Clerk’s Office and at the main library.
Mr. Hughes offered his thanks to Mr. Foss and the Finance Committee for producing the report. The one criticism he (Mr. Hughes) had of the whole referendum question was the use of the word free. There was no such thing as free trash pickup. If the Town paid it would come out of the tax levy to the tune of almost $2M and that was not free. That elevated trash to almost anything else. He was very happy with the report and thought it was extensive, he was just concerned with the use of the word free. The alternative was the loss of other services or an override.
Mr. McKinley stated that he too very much appreciated the work of the committee on short notice. During the course of the hearings there was a lot of discussion by the proponent to some areas where the Town could afford to cut. Did the proponent provide any enlightenment? Mr. Foss advised that the proponent appeared only one time during the warrant hearing before Fall Town Meeting. He didn’t come to the recent hearings. Mr. Foss added that he had reached out personally to the proponent and the chair of the Natick Taxpayers Association. He did not receive a telephone call back from the proponent but the Chair of the committee didn’t think the proponent would come to the hearing. Mr. Foss recalled that he had asked the question raised by Mr. McKinley at the Fall Town Meeting
hearing and the answer was that he (proponent) didn’t want to propose anything – that you folks know better.
In response to Mr. McKinley’s question, Mr. Stern read the following excerpt from the report: ‘We urge readers to review these documents and evaluate them on a factual basis. To that end, the Committee indicated throughout the discussion and debate segments of its proceeding that the Natick Saves: Citizens for Pay As You Throw data focused clearly on the subject matter of the Question and was completely fact based. Conversely, the Committee indicated that the Natick Taxpayers Association focused rhetorically on some information and/or provided common partisan positions including questionable facts, all of which skew the reader from the subject matter of the Question’.
……….’To that end, it is the understanding that representatives from Natick Taxpayers Association, the Ballot Question Committee supporting the affirmative on the Question, elected to forego providing their input and information during the public hearing process, either in person or in writing.
REFERENDUM QUESTION – FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
Mr. McKinley asked about the debate that was supposed to be held that morning at the Senior Center, but Mr. Stern advised that it had been cancelled. There would be a debate tomorrow at the library.
Mr. Ball referenced the movie ‘I am madder than hell and I am not going to take this any more’, and noted that there were folks who were madder than hell. He thought the point had been made that there was no free lunch, and no free trash pickup. The taxpayers would pay for it one way or the other, but those who recycle would pay for their neighbors who don’t recycle. The proponent of the referendum suggested that it could be paid for out of free cash. An analogy of how bad that was because your expenses this year exceeded your income you dip into your savings. That could get you through this year but next year the same thing would happen and your savings would be much smaller and eventually you would run out of money. He understood that people may say that it was Town government
justifying what they had done, and Town officials couldn’t be trusted before and couldn’t be trusted now. There was money to be had and fat in the budget. There had to be waste somewhere. He asked Mr. Foss if there was fat in the budget and waste in Town government and a way to fund the $2M initiative.
Mr. Foss responded that from a policy of good fiscal prudence there was no money that was fat in the budget. In his business they looked at margins meaning profit. Free cash was 3-4% of the budget and that was the Town’s margin. If you look at the fat or some way to trim, you can’t trim a budget with a 3-4% margin. The Department of Revenue recommended planning on a reserve in the area of where the Town was now. There was no fat in the budget.
Mr. McKinley recalled the proponent pointing to one area where there may be an opportunity to return some money to the general fund and referenced the six figure salary of the Board of Selectmen. In a week or so the Board would be receiving their checks for 2003 and he was prepared to return his paycheck to the general fund. If his colleagues did the same, that would be $250 and he asked his colleagues to join him.
Mr. Lemnios commented on the accolades heaped upon the Finance Committee for this report in a short time, and added that having participated with many Finance Committees over his career, this committee did an incredible amount of due diligence on this issue. The amount of time spent over two weeks at a number of meetings and the research was extraordinary. It was a great report and regardless which way someone felt, the report would give the basis for making a decision.
Mr. Foss singled out Finance Committee members Paul Greismer, Linda Sussman, Gail Kaprielian, Carol Gloff, Bruce Wright, and himself as the leaders in writing the report.
Susan Salamoff urged the Board to take a vote and make a recommendation. She encouraged a ‘no’ vote.
Milton Gilbert noted that he heard people saying maybe the Town should do something and pickup trash at the apartments, but those who were around at the time of the West Natick Village development would recall that the 1200 acres was industrial zoned. He viewed as sacrosanct in the Zoning By-law the language of a PCD that the owner would provide to the occupant certain services customarily provided by the Town in other districts. There were two services – trash pickup and private roads. The people living there didn’t realize that they wouldn’t be living there without this zoning by-law.
Finance Committee member Paul Greismer re-enforced a couple of points. When the trash fee was implemented the Town was in a situation where the cost of tipping fees was going up over 10% per year. He found the chairman’s remarks on free cash to be right on point. The free cash was the result of savings and the collection of back taxes. Having free cash was a good thing. It meant that the Town was spending less than it took in. Mr. Greismer reminded everyone that the Town had also stopped funding capital and was not buying DPW trucks or police cars
REFERENDUM QUESTION – FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
and fire trucks. The minimum cost of this question was $1.8M if it was interpreted to mean weekly curbside pickup. It opened the Town to any
number of possible lawsuits, and the Town could be tied up in litigation with this poorly written by-law for years. He thought it would be a big mistake to do anything other than vote no.
Finance Committee member Jeffrey Phillips noted that there was a story on each side. There was a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ vote. The no vote had spent a lot of time putting together facts and figures to present to tell the story of ‘no’ and why it (referendum question) was a bad choice. To find the story of ‘yes’ has been a little in the dark and the only place to go was into cyber space and find the answer of the sponsor. The story being told was that there were mistakes made in the Town. There was mismanagement and bad decisions and to correct those bad decisions people need to go to the polls and vote ‘yes’ and get rid of some kind of waste that was in the government. Most of the anger has been directed to the happenings of the golf course.
Mr. Phillips stated that he would like to point out to the sponsor that in fact what he was doing would force people who have concerns about things in the administration that were not quite right not to bring those concerns forward but to hide them as this was the result. He noted that the Board of Selectmen formed a committee to address procedures, the Chairman invited him to make a presentation, and Mr. Ciccariello and his committee spent a lot of time reviewing (the golf course), and he (Mr. Phillips) would have to support the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee in trying to put things right.
Mr. Phillips was of the opinion that the voters should send the proponent a message and vote ‘no’. The proponent would be welcome to come to the meetings and find out what’s going on. What he (proponent) was trying to do promotes bad government. In the story he (proponent) was telling, he could misrepresent the history of this Town but we all knew that we went through some tough times. The chief administrator had an illness and some mistakes were made, but that was the story the voters should know about and the Board should be commended for the work it did. The Town had one of the best bond ratings around and wasn’t going to the voters for an override. Employees made a sacrifice in giving up raises and on December 16 the voters should go to the polls and vote ‘no’.
School Committee member Michael Cashman hoped the voters kept the priorities in mind. If trash pickup were the biggest priority then an extension of that would be a lesser priority on other things namely the school system. The school system would continue to improve if it remained a top priority as it was now. Public safety and schools always need improvement and additional funds and need to be prioritized at the highest level. He hoped voters realized that when the Town had to set priorities that the priority in this Town should be public safety and public schools.
Planning Board member Robert Eisenmenger felt that it had to be frustrating to be a member of the Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee, or Town Administrator now because they got a lot of flack.
The Planning Board recognized that and decided to write a letter to the editor in opposition to the referendum.
Joshua Ostroff of Natick Saves thanked the Finance Committee for their work. He was concerned that a lot of voters saw this as being an insider thing – a self-preservation of government. The focus was not about who was sitting at the table, but the 33,000 people who made this their home. A lot of people had a perception of government. They had
seen mistakes made or how they were treated by being a Town employee and that carried into the voting booth. He thought the officials had to make sure to have a certain amount of humility in how they dealt with voters. This particular proposal was a bad idea but it didn’t end there. Even though today’s debate was cancelled, he went there and sat around with 8-10 people and heard some good ideas and some concerns with waste in Town government. He knew that the Finance Committee Chair felt there wasn’t waste, but that didn’t mean things couldn’t be
REFERENDUM QUESTION – FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT (contd)
improved. People should participate and should always feel the doors to Town Hall were open. He noted that over 100 volunteers had been organized to debate, but it didn’t end there. He wanted to be sure a positive message came out of this. He recalled that three years ago there was a forum at the library for people who didn’t like the way things were done. Maybe PAYT could have been implemented better but it was a good system and he hoped the Town kept it.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board of Selectmen go on record as opposing the referendum question and urging the citizens to vote ‘no’. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley conveyed that the Board heard the words and the wisdom about the importance of being an open government and sensitive to cost savings. If the argument was toward big government and preservation of big government, he pointed out that everyone there that night with the exception of Mr. Lemnios and Ms. Challis was a volunteer.
Mr. Ciccariello felt that sometimes criticism was good and a lot of times you heard criticism and reacted to it in a positive way. The tax classification was an example. As a member of the Board he spent an inordinate amount of time investigating why the single rate should be kept. Most people on the boards were volunteers and spent time away from their families. Most of the board members ran for office because they felt things weren’t done right and could they could change things. They didn’t run out and try to have a ballot question, but got involved as a Town Meeting member, ZBA, etc. and tried to express their view that way and get change that way. The proponent of this proposal has failed to present valid points. He had the opportunity to come before the Board of Selectmen to do
that and before the Finance Committee.
Mr. Ciccariello urged the voters to look at this and if they were dissatisfied with the way things were run that they get involved in a Town committee or Town Meeting. That was where they could affect change – not simply by running out and voting for a referendum that today didn’t make a lot of common sense. This Board was very
accessible. The Town Administrator was very accessible and the Finance Committee was very accessible during budget discussions. He urged every taxpayer to get involved in the process.
From his perspective Mr. Stern said he read through the Finance Committee report and would emphasize the fiscal consequences of the referendum passing. If the residents voted ‘yes’ in the majority and the referendum passed, the Finance Committee came to the conclusion that the potential deficit would be in the neighborhood of $4M over 2 years. The proponent stated no big deal and free cash could cover, but free cash was generated from one-time events and was recurring money. If the Town were looking at that kind of deficit and reordering the priorities a ‘yes’ vote would guarantee an override or a ‘yes’ vote would guarantee a dramatic cut in service. That was not scare tactics. That was fact. He urged everyone to read the report. This was probably the most
fundamental and profound issue the Town had faced in 10 years. He urged everyone to think and be informed before casting a ‘yes’ vote. He would be casting a ‘no’ vote.
FINANCIAL PROCEDURES POLICIES
Mr. Lemnios reminded the Board that at the previous meeting Mr. Ball put forward a series of recommendations. In the cover memo Mr. Lemnios referred to a policy update to be used for contracting and purchasing goods and services. In the addition to the implementation of this policy, a training session would be scheduled in January to refresh the department heads on 30B. He would also be requesting from all
department heads a list of current contracts in each department with a status report on each contract for the quarter ending December 31, 2003 with a report due some time in January.
Mr. Hughes inquired if it was the intent to apply the purchasing policy to the provision of professional services that the by-law exempts, and Mr. Lemnios responded that as a matter of good business practice professional services should be looked at.
FINANCIAL PROCEDURES POLICIES (contd)
Mr. Hughes stated that he wanted it to be clear. Mr. Ciccariello made a good point with the golf course study and he (Mr. Hughes) thought it was bad policy for professional services of that magnitude to be approved without the Board of Selectmen knowing. He hoped it would not happen again.
Mr. McKinley clarified that he wasn’t saying there were bad choices made (for professional services), but it didn’t have the appearance of independent objective choices and he would stand with Mr. Hughes in making sure professional services fell under this.
In the $5,000-$24,999 range, Mr. Ciccariello stated that his preference would be to require fax or mail. Preferred meant that someone could just make a telephone call. Over $25,000 he would like to see an ad run in the Central Register.
Mr. Ball noted that at some point Town Counsel was involved in approving contracts to form. There was no mention of that and he would suggest that it be added in the appropriate place.
Mr. Hughes moved to adopt the policy for purchasing and contracting with Mr. Ciccariello’s and Mr. Ball’s incorporated. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ball noted that the Board had not voted to establish a policy requiring the Town Administrator to do what he said he was going to do and he would like to see the Board vote a policy.
Mr. Ball moved that at least once a year the Town Administrator review the contents of the purchasing and contracting document with department years. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ball then moved that the Town Administrator request quarterly reports from department heads on the status of each contract valued at $25,000 or more currently being executed under the department’s direction. The reports to include a description of each project, its progress, financial status, and any change orders executed to date which might increase or decrease the executed amount. The reports to be signed by the department head and Comptroller, and a copy provided to the Board of Selectmen. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
In view of the hour and the anticipated length of discussion, the Board agreed to table this item to the next meeting.
ST. PATRICK’S LEASE
Mr. Lemnios highlighted the terms of a lease renewal between the Town and St. Patrick’s Church for use of the St. Patrick’s parking lot. The renewal was in the amount of $40,000 for the period January 1, 2004-December 31, 2004. He advised that the funds were in place and parking permits would be sold to cover the cost. Last year 84 permits were sold and the cost was recovered and the intent was to do the same this year.
A motion was made by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, to renew the lease with St. Patrick’s Church and authorize the Chair of the Board of Selectmen to execute the lease. Unanimously voted.
In his cover memo, Mr. Lemnios had indicated that the lot had been over sold because not every pass holder used the lot on a daily basis. If
the lot was being over sold, Mr. Ball questioned what would happen if the lot was full and somebody with a sticker showed up. Mr. Lemnios responded that the permit holder would be given the opportunity to park next door. He noted that Parking Officer Sebastian Grupposo had surveyed the lot for two weeks and found that even though the lot had been over sold, there weren’t over 40 cars there at any one time.
EVERETT STREET PROPERTY
Mr. Lemnios reported that the appraisal of the property at 56 Everett Street valued the property at $325,000. The Assessors’ value of the lot was $308,000. He thought the Board could safely put a minimum bid price on it of $325,000. The question was whether the Board wanted to authorize him (Mr. Lemnios) to put the property out to bid for a single residence.
Mr. Ciccariello voiced concern with what seemed to him to be a rush to get it on the market without knowing what the Town would do with the money.
As Mr. Hughes understood it, the money would go into an account called sale of surplus property and could only be used for capital improvements. Mr. Lemnios advised that if the Town realized the value, the money would be appropriated in the Fiscal 2005 budget to support the FY05 capital expenditures.
Mr. Hughes moved to authorize the Town Administrator to put 56 Everett Street out-to-bid at a minimum bid price of $325,000. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
SNOW OVERDRAFT
Mr. Lemnios noted that the significant snow event this weekend had the DPW crews mobilized. The cost of the storm, including a final cleanup of the downtown tomorrow evening, will be $125,000 and that will put the Town beyond the annual snow budget of $150,000.
Mr. Lemnios explained that snow removal was the only account where the Town was allowed to overspend because it was highly unpredictable and by statute it was the Board of Selectmen who must vote for an overdraft. He requested the Board’s authorization of an overdraft for up to $200,000.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of a $200,000 snow overdraft. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
RENEWAL OF LICENSES FOR 2004
a. Common Victualer’s License
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following common victualer’s licenses for 2004. Excluded from renewal because of an outstanding tax balance were King Wok, DeliMax, Pizza Peddler.
Agostino’s Restaurant Aladdin’s Café
23 Washington Street Boston Blaze LLC, dba
Natick Mall
1245 Worcester St.
Au Bon Pain Bagelmania
1245 Worcester St. Petro Belezos
127B West Central St.
Restriction: *Limited to 16 seats
Bakery On the Common Barber Bros. Florist,Inc.
Ranz, Inc. dba 215 West Central St.
(Raymond Anzick) Restriction:Maximum 58 seats
9 South Main Street Hour Restriction
Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream California Pizza Kitchen,Inc.
Shama, Inc. Natick Mall
Shama Nannapaneni 1245-1321 Worcester Rd.
1265 Worcester Rd. Suite 4
Cajun Café & Grill Casamia Café and Bakery
Henry Fong Investments, dba Larry Tsai
Natick Mall 218 Speen Street
1245 Worcester St. Restriction: HOURS
Casey’s Diner Central Street Grill
36 South Avenue Adinaldo Andrade
158 East Central St.
RENEWAL OF LICENSES FOR 2004 (contd)
a. Common Victualer’s License
Chuck E. Cheese Clever Monk
CEC Entertainment dba Mattison Enterprises,Inc. dba
801 Worcester St. Thomas Rossetti
*Hour Restriction 57 Eliot Street
Corporate Chefs (Cognex) Corrado’s Sub Sandwiches
1 Vision Drive 7 Middlesex Avenue
Curry Leaf Dah Mee Restaurant
Natick Restaurants, Inc. dba Soon Young Lee
1328 Worcester Road 25 Washington Street
Delops, Inc. Delops, Inc.
Dba D’Angelo’s Sandwich Shop D’Angelo’s Sandwich Shop
381 Worcester Street Natick Mall
1245 Worcester Road
Dolphin Seafood Restaurant Dunkin Donuts
Dimas, Inc. dba East Central Street Donuts dba
7 South Ave. 50-52 East Central Street
Dunkin Donuts Marval, Inc. dba Dunkin Donuts
Natick Refreshment Corp. 249 North Main Street
1372 Worcester Street
*24 Hours
Edmund Tocci dba Ed’s Place Ellie’s Deli
3 Union Street Longfellow Sports Club
203 Oak Street
Mr. Falafel Flamers, Inc.
Elias Nehme BFR Enterprises, Inc.
Natick Mall 1245 Worcester Street
1245 Worcester Street
Franny’s Place, BW Corp. dba Friendly’s Ice Cream Corp.
17 Watson Place Natick Mall
*Hour Restriction 1245 Worcester Street
George’s Pizza Gloria Jean’s Gourmet Coffee
G.(George)Kalfas, Inc. dba RMF Java Co. dba
41 South Main Street Natick Mall
1245 Worcester Street
Haagan Dazs
5th Avenue Ice Cream of Honey Dew Donuts
New Jersey, Inc. 179 West Central Street
Natick Mall
1245 Worcester Street
Hong Kong Delight Corp. Java Jim’s dba Melina Shapiro
Wah Yu Lee 22 Main Street
195 West Central Street
Joan & Ed’s Deli Johnny Rockets
The Deli, Inc. dba Rt. 9 Rockets, Inc. dba
1298F Worcester Road Natick Mall
Sherwood Plaza 1245 Worcester Street
Jordan’s Furniture Jordan’s Furniture
Jorwest LLC dba Imax Theatre Concession Stand
1 Underprice Way 1 Underprice Way
Kelly’s Roast Beef Kimberly Ornstein
2 Underprice Way Legends Frozen Yogurt & Ice Cream
*Hour Restrictions 251 West Central Street
*16 Seat Restriction
RENEWAL OF LICENSES FOR 2004 (contd)
a. Common Victualer’s License contd)
Liberty Ice Cream Parlor Liberty’s Pizza
Ionnis Bouris Athanasios Kotsias
2B Mill Street 2D Mill Street
Loews Theatres McDonald’s of Natick
1398 Worcester Street 290 Worcester Street
McDonald’s Corporation Manchu Wok
Natick Mall Golden II, Inc. dba
1245 Worcester Street Natick Mall
1245 Worcester Street
Mandarin Café Maria’s Sub Sandwich Shop, Inc.
Yong He Lin (Paralia, Inc. dba)
5 Wethersfield Road 189 Worcester Street
Minado Restaurant Morrison Management
(Namee Enterprise, Inc. dba) Specialists, Inc.
1282 Worcester Street MetroWest Medical Center
Employee Cafeteria
Food & Nutrition Services
67 Union Street
Natalie’s Italian Kitchen Natick Dairy Queen, Inc.
Weder Marra dba 323 North Main Street
319 North Main Street
Natick Pizza Palace Nick’s Ice Cream
58 East Central Street 85 East Central Street
The Grillin Great at Oga’s Japanese Cuisine
Olymbos Pizza Minoga, Inc. dba
Fotios Mpouris-Foti Corp. 915 Worcester Street
179 West Central St.
Papa Gino’s, Inc. Park Street Ice Cream Shoppe
292 Worcester Street 14 Park Street
Performing Arts Center Pieces Ltd., Inc.
14 Summer Street John Bertin
*Restriction: VALID ONLY 160 West Central St.
DURING PERFORMANCES *Hour Restriction
Pizza Hut of America #611042 Pizza Market
1274 Worcester Street Latifa Bassou
Sherwood Plaza 5 South Main Street
Pizza Plus Russ’ Main Street Lunch
Y.S.A., Inc. Costas Vasiloupoulas
(Maged Amin, Yasser Lawendi 45 Main Street
Kamil Saied)
16 North Main Street
Sam’s Club Sarku Japan,
1225 Worcester Street SJ Natick Food, Inc. dba
Natick Mall
1245 Worcester Street
Sbarro Shangai Tokyo Cuisine
Natick Mall A.T.Pan Corporation dba
1245 Worcester Road 54 East Central Street
Skipjack’s Starbucks Coffee Company
Lampara, Inc. dba 1346 Worcester Road
1400 Worcester Road Sherwood Plaza
Sherwood Plaza
RENEWAL OF LICENSES FOR 2004 (contd)
a. Common Victualer’s License contd)
Subway Sandwich Shop of Natick Theo’s Pizza
251 West Central Street Tsitos Enterprises, Inc.
*Maximum 16 seats 231 North Main Street
Three Lucky Stars Uptown Gourmet
G.M. Huang, Inc. dba Olson Meat & Seafood Co.Inc. dba
179 West Central Street 3 Apple Hill (Math Works)
*Hour Restriction
The Village Tea Shoppe Vinny Testa’s Ristorante
One South Avenue BUCA Restaurants 3, Inc.
Natick Executive Park
801 Worcester Road
Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers
303 West Central Street of NY, Inc.
355 Worcester Road
b. Innholder
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following Innholder’s licenses for 2004:
Natick Hotel Associates N.H.Hotel Associates, Inc.
Dba Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Owen O’Leary’s, Inc. dba
1360 Worcester Road Owen O’Leary’s Restaurant & Brew Pub
319 Speen Street
GSH Lodging, LLC dba Courtyard
By Marriott-Natick
342 Speen Street
c. Class I
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved to renew the following Class I licenses for 2004. Unanimously voted.
Bernardi’s, Inc. Bernardi’s, Inc.
Dba Bernardi’s Honda dba Bernardi’s Audi
960 Worcester Street 521 Worcester Street
Bernardi’s, Inc. Brigham Gill
Dba Bernardi’s Volkswagon 817 Worcester Road
960 Worcester Street
Connolly Buick, Inc. Foreign Motors West
Dba Herb Connolly Mitsubishi John Monahan
157 West Central Street 253 North Main Street
Foreign Motors West Natick Saturn, Inc.
Dba Land Rover MetroWest dba Saturn of Natick
790-800 Worcester Road
Natick Subaru, Inc. Nissan of Natick, Inc.
948 Worcester Road dba Nissan of Natick
671 Worcester Road
Quality Emergency Vehicles
Richard Willis
85 South Avenue
d. Class II
The Board voted to approve the following Class II licenses for 2004. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. McKinley seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted. Excluded from renewal because of an outstanding tax balance were Town Auto Sales and Central Auto Parts.
RENEWAL OF LICENSES FOR 2004 (contd)
d. Class II
Abe’s Arco Service Station, Inc. Advantage Automotive
Abraham Kaloustian Michael A. Frasca dba
2 South Avenue 11 Middlesex Avenue
*Restriction: Maximum 2 cars *Restriction: Maximum 3 cars for
for sale/store on property at sale/store on property at one time
one time
Auto Wholesalers Bernardi’s Inc.
135 West Central Street 910 Worcester Street
Charles Street Auto Body Classic Auto Sales, Inc.
Harold Cohen David M. Wolfson
20 South Avenue 135R West Central Street
Coach & Carriage Commonwealth Auto Exchange
Joseph Gagliardi Scott Carey, Don Lunny
55 Middlesex Avenue 8 Lotus Path
*Wholesale only, no cars stored or
sold on premises
Don Crawford E & M Auto Consulting
1 Lakeview Gardens, Apt. 413 Eugene Bushmelov
Kansas Street 23 Centre Street
*Wholesale only, no cars stored *Wholesale only, no cars sold or
or sold on premises stored on premises
European Performance Locators Glidden Auto Sales
David E. Maynard, President William Glidden
15 Cochituate Street 124 East Central Street
*Restriction: 4 cars
Graham’s Garage John J. Ingemi
Richard Graham 26 Bacon Street
134 East Central Street *Restriction: Wholesale only, no
cars sold or stored on premises
International Auto Works, Inc. J & D Associates
Joseph Gagliardi Jeffrey Macleave
45 Summer Street 4 Mechanic Street, Suite 103
*Restriction: No cars sold on *Restriction: Maximum of 3 cars
premises stored on premises
Kennedy, John Lawler, John Kennedy
4 Course Brook Lane 51 West Central Street
*Wholesale only, no cars stored *Wholesale only, no cars stored
or sold from premises or sold from premises
Master Motors MPL Auto Sales
Stephen DiCicco dba Lentini, Michael
18 South Avenue 72A Oakland Street
*Wholesale only, no cars stored *Wholesale only, no cars sold or
or sold from premises repaired on premises. Storage of
1 car approved.
Natick Auto Clinic, Inc. Natick Citgo
Gordon Russell George Matukas
193 Worcester Road 67 East Central Street
*Restriction:Maximum of 5 cars
stored on premises
Nissan of Natick dba Northeast Auto Sales
Nissan of Natick Used Car dba Loretta & David Presutti
Clearance Outlet 65 Lincoln Street Ext.
119 Worcester Street *Wholesale only, no cars stored
or sold from premises
RENEWAL OF LICENSES FOR 2004 (contd)
d. Class II (contd)
Olympic Rental Riders Repair
Dba Tom Pratts Auto Care Center Richard Knight
1 Homeward Road 6 Leach Lane
*Restricted to 2 cars
Wholesale Auto Services, N.E.
Ronald Garodel dba
17 Wilson Street
*Wholesale only, no cars stored
or sold from premises
e. Class III
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following Class III license for 2004. Excluded from renewal because of an outstanding tax balance was Central Auto Parts.
Central Auto Parts of Natick, Sansossio auto Body/Natick Used
Inc. Auto Parts, Inc.
327 West Central Street 13 Cochituate Street
*Maximum of 4 cars on display
f. Automatic Amusement Device
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved to renew the following automatic amusement device licenses for 2004. Unanimously voted.
Aladdin’s Castle, Inc. American Legion
Natick Mall E.P.Clark Post 107
1245 Worcester Road 13 West Central Street
Amvets Golf on the Village Green
Prime Parkway 315 Worcester Road
Kiddie Koncepts, Inc. Loews Theatres
Steven Edelstein 1398 Worcester Street
Natick Mall
1245 Worcester Street
Natick VFW NH Hotel Associates & Owen
113 West Central Street O’Leary’s Restaurant & Brew Pub
319 Speen Street
CEC Entertainment
Dba Chuck E. Cheese
801 Worcester Roads
g. Daily Entertainment
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following Daily & Sunday entertainment device licenses for 2004. Excluded from renewal because of an outstanding tax balance was Lowe’s Theatre.
Natick Hotel Associates NH Hotel Associates & Owen
Dba Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza O’Leary’s Restaurant & Brew Pub
1360 Worcester Street 319 Speen Street
*Restriction:
Papa Gino’s American Legion
291 Worcester Street 13 West Central Street
The Center for Arts in Natick Jordans Furniture
14 Summer Street Imax Movie Theatre
1 Underprice Way
Lampara, Inc.
Dba Skipjack’s
1400 Worcester Street
RENEWAL OF LICENSES FOR 2004 (contd)
h. Sunday Entertainment
Aladdin’s Castle Chuck E. Cheese
Natick Mall CEC Entertainment dba
1245 Worcester Road 801 Worcester Street
A & C Associates Kiddie Koncepts, Inc.
Golf on the Village Green Natick Mall
315 Worcester Street 1245 Worcester Street
Natick Hotel Associates NH Hotel Associates & Owen
Dba Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza O’Leary’s Restaurant & Brew Pub
1360 Worcester Street 319 Speen Street
*Restriction
Papa Gino’s The Center for Arts in Natick
291 Worcester Street 14 Summer Street
RELEASE OF EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to release the following executive session minutes: 8/21/00, 10/16/00, 11/27/00, 3/12/01, 3/19/01, 3/28/01, 4/2/01, 5/1/01, 5/17/01, 5/21/01, 5/26/01, 6/11/01, 2/12/01, 2/26/01, 4/23/01.
MEETING SCHEDULE
The Board unanimously voted to adopt the following meeting schedule for the first half of 2004: 1/5/04, 1/12/04, 1/26/04, 2/9/04, 2/23/04, 3/8/04, 3/22/04, 3/31/04, 4/12/04, 4/26/04, 5/10/04, 5/24/04, 6/7/04, 6/21/04. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Letter of Compliment
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Steven Markus complimenting Town Engineer Mark Coviello and Highway Supervisor Thomas Hladick for their work. Mr. Ball described it as warming the cockles of his heart and felt it should be duly noted by the Town Administrator and appear in their personnel files.
b. Cheryl Road
Per Mr. Ball’s suggestion, Mr. Hughes moved to refer the letter from the Cheryl Road residents requesting help in keeping trucks from entering the road to the Safety Committee. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
c. Letter of Complaint – downtown area
Mr. Ball called attention to a letter in correspondence from Gary & Kathleen Hendrick. A similar communication had been received from Mr.
Sweeper about a month ago and Mr. Ball noted that Chief Mannix had assured him that the area commander would go down there. Mr. Lemnios addressed the points raised in the letter. With respect to the loitering in front of the pizza place he would communicate with the Chief, but there was a fairly significant Police presence downtown. With respect to the trash, Mr. Lemnios felt that the area could be swept regularly and the Town could look into adding more barrels. Snow removal had been addressed, and regarding the condition of the streets at this point the relining of the water mains was complete and that should alleviate the concerns.
d. RCN
Mr. Ball commented on the notice from RCN informing the Board that they were removing two HBO channels. To him it was a service reduction without an accompanying reduction in price.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
_______________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
