BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
August 9, 2004
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley, John Connolly
ALSO PRESENT: Deputy Town Administrator Stephen Lisauskas; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on August 9, 2004 in the amount of $521,799.99. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,805,682.63.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation, and the approval of executive session minutes. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:00 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Ball called attention to page 18, second paragraph of the minutes of April 12, 2004 and noted that a motion was made relative to the approval of bar stools for Nicholas’s Restaurant but no second or vote. It was his recollection that a vote was taken.
Mr. McKinley noted that on page 9, he was listed as the seconder of the motion on the Border Road chair lift. As he voted against the motion, he didn’t think he had seconded.
With the corrections as noted, Mr. Hughes moved approval of the minutes of the April 12, 2004 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the minutes of the April 15, 2004 meeting. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 3-0-2 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ball and Mr. Connolly abstained.
REQUEST TO CLOSE PORTION OF ELWIN ROAD: BLOCK PARTY
The Board unanimously voted to approve Mary Kenny’s request to close a portion of Elwin Road between 20-28 on August 29, 2004 from 2:00 p.m.-
8:00 p.m. for a block party. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Natick Center MBTA Train Station Accessibility
David Bertino of 20-22 Winnemay Street and of Brookline expressed concern with the zero handicap accessibility at the Natick Center MBTA station. He noted that he spoke about it 10 years ago trying to get something done. He has now heard that Eastern Bank wants to put a deck over it and he thought the development was moving too fast and he wanted more public meetings on it. Mr. Bertino stressed the importance for people to have access and putting in an elevator was not much and it was part of ADA.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that the Board of Selectmen was not the permit granting authority. The Board would only be voting and discussing whether it concurred with the Building Inspector on the waiver for the parking. The application would be before the ZBA and Mr. Bertino should voice his concern at the ZBA.
EASTERN BANK: REQUEST FOR PARKING WAIVER
Representing Eastern Bank were Attorney Richard Glaser, the architect Doug Watts, and Warren Bowes, Vice-President of Eastern Bank.
EASTERN BANK: REQUEST FOR PARKING WAIVER (contd)
Mr. Glaser reminded the Selectmen that Eastern Bank had been before the Board two weeks before regarding the proposed project at 2 South Avenue. The Building Inspector had issued a letter in response to his (Mr. Glaser) letter granting a waiver from 10 to 6 spaces. The Board was looking for a redraft of Mr. Melchiorri’s letter and Mr. Glaser believed that letter had reached the Board that was specific to the plans submitted. Section V-D5 of the Natick Zoning ByLaw indicates that the Building Inspector may with the concurrence of the Board of Selectmen waive all or part of these off-street parking and loading requirements in a Downtown Mixed Use District if he determines that a reasonable effort has been made to meet requirements and no additional spaces can be provided on site and it was Mr. Glaser’s belief that
that was the Building Inspector’s determination.
Mr. Glaser advised that Eastern Bank had proceeded with the Design Review Board and was going before the ZBA this evening and would ask for the Selectmen’s concurrence in respect to the determination of a waiver of six spaces at this time.
It was Mr. Hughes’ understanding that the design had changed and it was no longer necessary to do the cantilever over the station. Mr. Glaser noted that the Design Review Board came up with some recommendations, but the ZBA hadn’t granted any variance and hadn’t opened their hearing. In light of the Design Review Board’s recommendations a second schematic was developed to be presented as an alternative.
When asked which design was going forward, Mr. Glaser responded that it would be the original design; however, if the ZBA conditions permit
them to move the building, Eastern Bank wasn’t adverse to that and the new plan did work. There were a number of issues that had to be considered. The by-laws require a 15-foot setback and the Design Review wishes the building to be moved closer to the street. He believed it was a decision the ZBA would make. In any event they would have six spaces.
Mr. McKinley inquired if either design included a drive-thru and was told by Mr. Glaser that both plans did. The other banks in the downtown included a drive-thru and most banks felt this was a requirement for them in order to provide customer service. Right now the property had parking and a driveway through the entire site, and he believed the Eastern Bank situation had a much better flow.
In follow-up Mr. McKinley asked if both plans had a drive-up window and also six parking spaces. Again Mr. Glaser’s response was that they both did.
Mr. Connolly asked if Mr. Glaser heard what the citizen had said during citizens concerns and if Mr. Glaser had any thoughts. Mr. Glaser replied that he believed the MBTA’s position was that the West Natick station was handicapped accessible and they had no plans presently with respect to the downtown site. That didn’t mean it couldn’t change. He (Mr. Glaser) understood the problem and he thought it was up to the MBTA to deal with it. The bank would not be involved.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board concur with the Building Inspector’s waiver of 10 spaces to 6 spaces and a further waiver of any other off street parking and loading requirements pursuant to Sec V-D5 in that it was determined that a reasonable effort had been made to meet requirements and no additional spaces can be provided on site. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion Mr. McKinley qualified that the determination was based on the plans submitted to the Building Inspector and should those plans change, the Board could reconsider.
Mr. Ball thought that Mr. Glaser had made it clear that irregardless of which set of plans went forward, there would still be six spaces.
Mr. McKinley countered that the Board was ratifying a decision the Building Inspector made based on plans submitted to him. If different plans resulted from the ZBA, Mr. Melchiorri (Building Inspector) may want to reconsider his determination and the Board’s concurrence was based on Mr. Melchiorri’s determination.
EASTERN BANK: REQUEST FOR PARKING WAIVER (contd)
Mr. Ball noted that he was present at the Design Review Board at which the suggestion was made to move the building forward. If the ZBA approved that idea and the bank and the architect were willing to pursue, Mr. Ball questioned what that meant with respect to the Board’s ratification of the Building Inspector’s waiver based on old plans.
All it would change was the location of the building so it seemed like a stumbling block.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the letter from the Building Inspector spoke to specific plans or as may be amended so he didn’t know if that addressed Mr. McKinley’s concerns. Mr. McKinley commented that if Mr. Melchiorri wanted to leave it that open, it was OK with him.
MATH WORKS: TAX INCREMENT FINANCE
Representing Math Works were Jeanne O’Keefe, Chief Financial Officer; Joseph Joyce, Real Estate Development; Jonathan Speros, Price Waterhouse Coopers. Also present was Bobby Matthews, Revenue Director of the State Office of Business Development.
Ms. O’Keefe began the presentation by telling a little about The MathWorks, what they did and why they would like to buy the building. She noted that The MathWorks was a privately held company and the leading developer and supplier of technical computing software. They developed comprehensive mathematical computing language for engineering and science applications which sounded complicated but it was actually something people used everyday if they drove a car. The company was founded in 1984 by Jack Little and Cleve Moler and since its inception, The MathWorks has been profitable every year and anticipated continued growth in the future.
Ms. O’Keefe continued that The MathWorks had been a Natick employer since 1988 and had grown from 10 to 782 Natick employees. They had a strong community and charitable relationship. Every year they took a certain percentage of the profit and donate it. They have been heavily involved in many things such as high school scholarships, TCAN, and because they were a math company they had employees who tutor students in the fourth grade and donated software to high school students. Natick was a great community and they would like to stay and an opportunity has come along. With some of its leases expiring shortly at its current location in Natick, The MathWorks was at a critical juncture in its history. The current owner, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, had made its intention of selling the property
known, and The MathWorks would like to make its current location permanent. The MathWorks was planning to purchase its currently leased Natick headquarters buildings at Apple Hill along with an adjacent parking garage for $49.7 million from the current owner and would like to close on the property in the Fall of 2004.
Ms. O’Keefe introduced Joe Joyce, Director of Real Estate who spoke about the site. Mr. Joyce noted that right now The MathWorks leased 260,000 square feet at 1,2&3 Apple Hill. There were 66,000 square feet vacant at 2 Apple Hill. The MathWorks would like to purchase the buildings and would like to stay in the area. They had an option to purchase 2&3 Apple Hill (307,000 sq feet) and could fill out the existing space at 2 Apple Hill. They felt they could add another 400 jobs over the next six years.
Mr. Joyce noted that they were looking to invest $3 million in improvements to the property, but were not expanding the footprint of anything on the site. The total acreage was 22.58 of which 5.68 acres were conservation land. There was 16.9 acres of useable space. There were 589 parking spaces in the parking garage and the entire site had 1,283 parking spaces. Pictures of the buildings were shown.
Referring to the power point slide that showed the vacant office space in MetroWest, Mr. Joyce pointed out that there was about 3.52 million square feet of vacancy in the Natick/Framingham area, which was a healthy amount. If The MathWorks moved forward and bought the building that would reduce the Natick vacancy from the existing 9% to 4.5% by expanding.
MATH WORKS: TAX INCREMENT FINANCE (contd)
Director of the Massachusetts Office of Business Development Bob Matthews gave the Board an overview of the economic incentive program. He explained that it was created 10-11 years ago and was primarily a business retention program and a three-prong approach to bring new business to a target area. In return a municipality offers a percentage of real estate tax exemption – Tax Increment Finance (TIF) for a period of 5-20 years and for the length of the TIF, the business receives a 5% investment tax credit. That was a big savings for the company.
Mr. Matthews advised that the Framingham-Marlborough ETA (economic target area) consists of Framingham, Hudson, Ashland, Marlborough, and Northborough. The Natick Board of Selectmen would have to petition the other communities to be in their target area and would need to fill out an application that would require State approval. The MathWorks would fill out a project application and would enter into a TIF agreement that would need Town Meeting approval and then State approval. He (Mr. Matthews) noted that he had notified all of the existing communities that he would be having this discussion with Natick today and they were all overwhelmingly supportive. Framingham Town Planner Kathy Bartolini said she loved The MathWorks and wanted them to stay.
John Speros, a senior manager of Price Waterhouse Coopers noted that the plan developed was outlined in the Economic Impact Report. The Town was required to offer a modest property tax reduction in real estate taxes and The MathWorks was more than willing to offer an offset to the Town, which could be talked about in the agreement. A modest increase in the assessment was assumed although they hadn’t talked with the Assessors as of yet. There was no increase in the footprint. Based on an increase in assessment of $1 million, there would be a savings for The MathWorks of $150 and The MathWorks would more than offset that. The main benefit would be the State. It was estimated that over time The MathWorks would pay over $14 million in taxes to Natick and $36,000 in building permit fees. Plus
there would be stable tenants in the building. Mr. Speros reiterated that The MathWorks wanted to do something as a benefit to the Town and would work on that
with the TIF (Tax Increment Finance) agreement and solidify the relationship.
Mr. Speros continued that if this moved forward and the Town received this designation (ETA), the Town could use this program for other potential business. There was discretion and not every business would get it. A business had to make a commitment in writing that they would increase jobs. If in the future something was to happen to the military labs and they closed, the Town would have this tool to redevelop the labs. Recently Hanscom had been designated as a target area. This would retain The MathWorks.
In conclusion Ms. O’Keefe noted that The MathWorks had been in Natick since 1987 and hoped to stay here. The significant piece for The MathWorks was the tax credit from the state. It would allow the company to continue to grow the business and invest in people and the community and continue the relationship with the Town.
Mr. Ball inquired as to the cost to the Town, and Mr. Speros referred to page 13 of the Economic Impact Report. He (Mr. Speros) noted that the estimates he made assumed the numbers in Column D, which estimated a new building assessment at $1.18 million. That gave an incremental tax of $12,000. From the State perspective the Town had to agree to exempt some percentage and he assumed 1%. It added up to $3,100 over 20 years and The MathWorks was more than willing to compensate the Town by doing some community benefit.
To Mr. Ball’s query about the benefit from the State, Mr. Speros responded that for every dollar The MathWorks invested in Natick, they
would get a 5% credit off their Mass taxes. Once The MathWorks made that investment if they were profitable enough, that credit could be used to offset the tax liability although they could only offset l/2. Not only did The MathWorks have to buy the asset and use it, they had to use it for its entire depreciable life. Each year the company had to submit a report to both the Town and the State and that would be outlined in the agreement. If they did not meet their goals, towns had the right to cancel their agreements.
MATH WORKS: TAX INCREMENT FINANCE (contd)
Mr. Hughes commented that the first economic development area was a negotiation between the Board of Selectmen and the other towns. Mr. Matthews confirmed that as correct, noting that the ETA would have to amend the area and bring it before the State. It was an application that his agency would work with the Board of Selectmen to submit. The approval of the existing municipalities would be needed and in his conversations with them, they were all very supportive.
Mr. Hughes then asked if it was the TIF (tax increment finance) agreement that needed Town Meeting approval. Mr. Matthews advised that that was correct. He noted that the agreement would be negotiated between the company and the Board of Selectmen, would need Town Meeting approval and then go before the State. He added that it (TIF) didn’t affect any tax base, only the investment going forward.
Mr. Hughes noted that the company wanted to have the negotiated agreement in time for the October Town Meeting, and Mr. Matthews thought that that was correct.
When asked by Mr. Hughes about the depreciated life, Mr. Speros advised that it followed the federal code. Massachusetts says depreciated life was 40 years. You have to use the property for the length of the depreciated life, but there was an exception that says it had to be used for at least 12 years. Mr. Matthews indicated that the minimum was 5 and the maximum 20.
Mr. McKinley noted that Natick didn’t have a split tax rate. At some point in the future should the decision be made to alter that, how would that affect The MathWorks decision to go forward with this? Responding from a numbers perspective, Mr. Speros responded that depending on the split, it would increase this number. Mr. Ciccariello noted that if the Town went to a split tax rate, The MathWorks would pay the portion of the split tax rate and only get the benefit on the additional $1.2 million at 1%.
Noting that the TIF savings was only a little over $3,000, Mr. Connolly questioned why all this was being done for a little of $3,000. Ms. O’Keefe explained that the benefit was really the benefit The MathWorks would get at the state level.
Beyond The MathWorks staying in Natick, Mr. Connolly inquired as to what the benefit was for the Town. Ms. O’Keefe replied that in addition to The MathWorks staying, the ETA was something that The MathWorks were shepherding with Price Waterhouse Coopers, but then it would be in place for Natick. This legwork has been done and if other people want to use it, it could be used as an incentive. The Town would still negotiate with each company, but at least the groundwork was in place.
To Mr. Connolly’s inquiry as to any recommendation from the Tax Collector, Mr. Ciccariello advised that there had been a couple of meetings with Tax Collector Robert Palmer, Deputy Town Administrator Stephen Lisauskas and himself. Mr. Palmer had looked at this but didn’t have a lot of comments to make. He (Mr. Palmer) didn’t think page 13 was out-of-line. It was pretty much what it was. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that real estate assessments on commercial properties were based on vacancy rates. In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s comment that the Town could negotiate a lump sum payment from The MathWorks for the loss of the taxes, Mr. Connolly questioned if that was completely legal. Mr. Ciccariello advised that it was
completely legal and typically done. Framingham had received $40,000 to do some communication improvements.
Mr. McKinley couldn’t imagine the Board not wanting to go forward. An employer the stature of The MathWorks was someone the Board wanted to keep and increase their growth. Whether it was $3,000 over 20 years or
10 years, he thought it was relatively insignificant to having a high quality employer.
Mr. McKinley moved to authorize the Town Administrator and Deputy Town Administrator to enter into discussions with officials from The MathWorks and the State to define specifically the nature of the TIF so the Board could decide whether to approve it. Mr. Hughes seconded for
MATH WORKS: TAX INCREMENT FINANCE (contd)
discussion and later offered an amendment to place an article on the Town Meeting warrant. The amendment was accepted by Mr. McKinley. The motion with amendment was unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley moved to undertake whatever action was necessary to acquire approval from the surrounding towns for Natick to become part of the Framingham-Marlborough Economic Target Area (ETA) and get the application into the state. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the TIF agreement would be cancelled if The MathWorks decided to move out or if the buyer could be allowed to enter into the agreement. Mr. Matthews advised that that clause could be written into the TIF as part of the agreement.
Mr. Hughes proposed that the motion to direct the Town Administrator to enter into discussions should place an article on the warrant so that Town Meeting could approve a TIF agreement if it was approved by the Board and the negotiations should take place between now and Town Meeting. Mr. McKinley noted that that was going to be his third motion. He agreed that it was incumbent on the Board to at least place an article on Town Meeting and he would accept Mr. Hughes’ amendment.
Mr. Hughes stated that he wanted it to be clear that the State had nothing to do with the agreement between the Town and The MathWorks. Mr. Matthews responded that the state owned the program but didn’t get involved (with the agreements between the towns and the companies).
Mr. Connolly said he would like to see the cost to the Town and the benefit.
Mr. McKinley nominated Mr. Hughes to represent the Board in the negotiations. The other members of the Board concurred.
AZALEA REALTY TRUST: AZALEA ESTATES ACCEPTANCE OF DEED
Representing Azalea Realty Trust was Peter Burke.
Mr. Burke noted that before the Board was a deed reviewed by Town Counsel for an excess piece of land from the Subdivision at 102 Union Street to be donated to the Town for conservation purposes. The donation of this land was consistent with the subdivision decision. Using a map, Mr. Burke showed the location of the property.
When asked how much of the land was wetlands, Mr. Burke responded, “none”.
Mr. Hughes moved to accept the approximately 2.2 acres of land known as Parcel A on the plan entitled ‘Azalea Estates’ Definitive Subdivision Plan for conservation purposes. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Having accepted the title to the land, Mr. McKinley questioned if the Board would have to take steps to transfer it to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Lisauskas was asked to look into it.
PUBLIC HEARING: THE WINE NETWORK, INC. D/B/A LEARY’S FINE WINES: CORPORATE REDEMPTION OF STOCK; PLEDGE OF LICENSE
Representing The Wine Network, Inc. d/b/a Leary’s Fine Wines was Attorney Charles Cremens.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Mr. Cremens told the Board that this was a corporate transaction for a distribution of stock and financing of the purchase of the building Leary’s presently occupied. They expected to close on the building tomorrow. He noted that Ms. Simboli would eventually be taken out of the corporation.
Mr. Hughes commented that the corporation was buying most of Ms. Simboli’s stock to comply with its financing for the purchase of the
PUBLIC HEARING: THE WINE NETWORK, INC. D/B/A LEARY’S FINE WINES: CORPORATE REDEMPTION OF STOCK; PLEDGE OF LICENSE (contd)
building and Mr. Cremens confirmed that as being correct, adding that Ms. Simboli’s shares would be reduced to approximately 19%.
Mr. McKinley noted that 200,000 shares of stock were authorized but only 100 were issued. He questioned if there would still be 100 out when this transaction took place, and Mr. Cremens responded that there would be 59-l/2 shares. Mr. McKinley then noted that the other stockholder did not gain an increase in shares, and Mr. Cremens advised that that was correct.
Mr. Cremens pointed out that the original application had requested a pledge of license, but he received a different request today and would deal with that after this transaction. They were going to pledge the license to secure Ms. Simboli, but now they were buying the building and there was a request to secure the stock for the purchase of the building. He would like to avoid further publication.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. Cremens would like to continue the public hearing and Mr. Cremens replied that he would. After Mr. McKinley pointed out that the Board couldn’t vote to authorize the change until the public hearing was closed, Mr. Cremens changed his mind and asked that the Board close the hearing and he would come back at a different date for the pledge.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of The Wine Network, Inc. d/b/a Leary’s Fine Wines’ petition for the corporate redemption of stock. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC AND VERIZON: BACON STREET; ONE (1) POLE; REMOVAL OF ONE POLE (1) POLE
Representing Nstar was Renee Vance Clark.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the present pole was located either directly on a water shut off valve or water line.
Asked to bring the Board up-to-date on discussions with the DPW, Mr. Lisauskas referred to a diagram and explained that when the sewer main was brought down Bacon Street it was brought near the home but not into the home. Water was brought into the home. The gate vale was not serviceable and could not be accessed because the pole was there. The DPW has determined that an option exists that may obviate the need to move the pole. The service line could be clipped before the pole and a joint could be attached and a sewer service line could be run at an angle to the house and provide sewer service. The water line could be clipped and abandoned and a new water service established at an angle and down to the property.
Mr. McKinley asked if what was being proposed was to abandon the current service and trench on both sides to establish new service to the house. The public hearing to remove the pole would be obviated. Mr. Ciccariello responded that that was correct.
Mr. Lisauskas advised that the DPW would pay for any water work in the street. To construct the new service line the DPW would come out to the edge of the hot top and the homeowner would be responsible from the
edge of the pavement down to the house. That service line needed to be replaced anyway and the Town would pay for the right-of-way work and the homeowner would pay for the work on private property. Because the sewer line would not get into the paved portion, it would be the responsibility of the homeowner and the homeowner and Nstar could enter into an agreement.
Noting that someone would be trenching close to the pole, Mr. McKinley questioned if that was safe. Mr. Lisauskas responded that there were some instances in South Natick where the sewer or water service ran within 1-2 feet of an active pole. A truck could be backed up and support the pole so digging could be conducted close to the pole without risk.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC AND VERIZON: BACON STREET; ONE (1) POLE; REMOVAL OF ONE POLE (1) POLE (contd)
Rather than removing the pole that Nstar put in without the permission of the Town, Mr. Ball asked if Ms. Clark was in a position to address whether Nstar was willing to compensate the homeowner for the expense
he had to incur for relocating the water and sewer service around this pole. Ms. Clark responded that she wouldn’t be able to address that and that prompted Mr. Connolly to ask if there was somebody who could find out if the homeowner would be able to get assistance from Nstar. Ms. Clark replied that she could have someone contact the homeowner and negotiate.
Mr. McKinley wasn’t sure that the Board could have any meaningful debate until Nstar and the homeowner came to an agreement. The Town was willing to do its part but the homeowner and Nstar had to agree otherwise it was meaningless.
Mr. Ball suggested tabling with the request that Nstar contact the homeowner and Mr. Lisauskas for an estimate of the costs. If Nstar was willing to cover the cost everybody won – the property owners get water & sewer service, the neighbor doesn’t lose the tree, and Nstar didn’t incur the Board’s wrath for installing a pole without getting permission.
Mr. Connolly questioned how Mr. Ball knew that Nstar had installed the pole improperly and Mr. Ball responded that as of last meeting there had been no record of a grant of location. Ms. Clark, however, presented the Board with a copy of the petition and grant.
Owner of the property at 6 Bacon Richard Guiliani told the Board that he and Steve Indressano owned the property since February. They had been told that there would be no problem and they could get hooked into the existing “T” and would only need somebody to mark the location. There was no question that the sewer pipe was under the pole. That sewer “T” might still be good and Nstar told them they would remove the pole and if the sewer “T” was damaged, Nstar would pay for it. The real cost was replacing the sewer, not the water. The water needed to be done anyway and was not an issue. For them to pay for this (re-routing) was something they couldn’t afford and without removing the pole Nstar has said that there was no way to determine if the sewer “T”
was under there. It (wire) didn’t touch the tree and they (Mr. Guiliani and Mr. Indressano) had no problem taking 5 feet of their own property so it wasn’t on Mr. Crowther’s property and they wouldn’t have to cover the cost.
Mr. Guiliani also expressed concern that putting in a junction in the sewer main would mean that they couldn’t run a disposal. It was a restriction for the flow and subject to blockage. Mr. Guiliani reiterated that he had been told there were no problems with this property and he hoped it could be worked out. As far as he was concerned the pole had to be moved. They were paying a mortgage and couldn’t live there. He showed the Board pictures.
To Mr. Guiliani’s concern about not being able to run a garbage disposal, Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was sure the DPW wouldn’t do
anything that wouldn’t function. Mr. Guiliani replied that he would want to talk to them (DPW) before having it voted.
Mr. Connolly suggested that Mr. Guiliani speak with Ms. Clark, but Mr. Guiliani responded that he dealt with three other people in Nstar and they said for him to be reimbursed, Nstar needed to dig the pole and confirm that the “T” was there. For him to pick up the cost was impossible. Mr. Connolly repeated that he thought it was important for Mr. Guiliani to talk to the Nstar rep, but Mr. Guiliani couldn’t see why the street would be dug up when the “T” was right there and the pole could be moved. He proposed moving the pole to the other side of the driveway.
In conversations with the Water & Sewer Supervisor, Mr. Lisauskas stated that Mr. Perodeau indicated that the water service change would require a cutting into the street but the work in the sewer main could be done on Mr. Guiliani’s property. Mr. Perodeau was proposing to shunt around the pole. Mr. Lisauskas said he would be happy to have a conversation with Mr. Perodeau on the impacts to a garbage disposal,
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC AND VERIZON: BACON STREET; ONE (1) POLE; REMOVAL OF ONE POLE (1) POLE (contd)
but Mr. Lisauskas couldn’t imagine that Mr. Perodeau would make a recommendation for something that wouldn’t function.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that these were things that Nstar and towns work out all the time. He further noted that he went to the site today. The existing wires did not go over any trees now, and when he looked at it today, if the pole were moved 35 feet it would go over the abutter’s tree and he (Mr. Ciccariello) was not willing to support that.
Mr. Guiliani asked if there could be an agreement to move it 20 feet, but Mr. Ciccariello advised that there couldn’t be an agreement until there was an engineering plan.
Mr. McKinley was confused as to what was the problem. If the homeowner was paying to restore the water line, it was an expense he had to bear. The only thing that remained was the cost of re-routing the sewer pipe and if Nstar was willing to reimburse the homeowner, the homeowner would get the service at no cost. The pole wouldn’t get moved and the argument could be dismissed.
Mr. Guiliani responded that he would have to come up with the money for the Town to do it, but Mr. McKinley said ‘no’, not if Nstar was agreeable to reimburse whatever costs were associated. Mr. Guiliani countered that Nstar had said they wouldn’t, but Mr. McKinley clarified that Ms. Clark had actually said that she wasn’t authorized. Mr. Connolly again asked that Mr. Guiliani talk to Ms. Clark and tomorrow speak with the Deputy Town Administrator who would follow-up with Nstar. Mr. Guiliani responded that he couldn’t believe it had come down to being too close to another tree. Mr. Guiliani was still concerned that it was costing him money that he didn’t have and they couldn’t afford this and would eventually lose this house because they
couldn’t afford it. He had hoped to get everything taken care of tonight.
Mr. Ball thanked Ms. Clark for delivering a copy of the grant of location, but noted that it appeared to be for a different pole. It said Bacon Street opposite College Road.
Steve Indressano asked that the Town provide the angles and depth of the proposed re-direct of the sewer “T”. He noted that he and Mr. Guiliani had been told that that there was going to be an engineer’s drawing and asked who was responsible for providing it. Mr. Ciccariello advised that it was not the Town’s responsibility to provide an engineering drawing. Nstar did not provide one. Mr. Ciccariello suggested that Mr. Indressano meet with Mr. Lisauskas.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to continue the hearing to August 23, 2004.
SOFT SECOND LOAN PROGRAM
Mr. Ciccariello called attention to a letter from the Massachusetts Housing Partnership indicating that a homebuyer in Natick was interested in obtaining a SoftSecond mortgage through one of their
participating lenders. Becoming a participating community would allow public funds to be used to subsidize the interest payments on eligible homebuyer’s mortgage payments. There was no financial obligation for the Town. All funds were administered through MHP.
To become a participating member the Board would need to send a letter along with letters of support from local lenders. Mr. Ciccariello noted letters had been received from both Citizens Bank and Sovereign Bank.
Mr. Hughes moved to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to Mass Housing Partnership requesting that the Town of Natick become a participating community in the SoftSecond loan program. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
AWARD CONTRACT FOR FIRE STUDY
Mr. Hughes reported that the Fire Study Committee met on July 21, 2004 and voted unanimously to award the Fire Study contract to MMA Consulting Group, Inc. MMA Consulting was one of two to submit responses. One was judged not to meet the criteria. MMA Consulting did meet the criteria
AWARD CONTRACT FOR FIRE STUDY (contd_)
and the committee voted to recommend awarding the contract for $29,800. The appropriation was $35,000. The committee had a presentation on July 28 from Mark Morse and was confident in going forward with this group.
Mr. Ball noted that there was an issue about adding a survey questionnaire and it was unclear whether that might add some small cost. It seemed as though the consensus was that it was worthwhile and he would not want to preclude the ability to do that (by awarding the
contract for $29,800). Mr. Hughes thought that as long as it was within the appropriation, it could come back to the Board to act.
Mr. Hughes moved to award the Fire Study contract to MMA Consulting Group, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $29,800. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
To Mr. Hughes’ inquiry as to what the Planning Board was doing on the HOOP, Mr. Ciccariello advised that he had met with Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian this morning. Mr. Sarkisian was presently looking at redefining HOOP 2 going from North Main Street to Route 9 and discussed adding a couple of other sites which would be site specific. Mr. Ciccariello said he told Mr. Sarkisian that he had to be careful not to do spot zoning. The Planning Board was talking about redefining the area along North Main Street and instead of doing the entire area at once doing a portion of it.
Mr. Sarkisian advised that the Planning Board was meeting on Wednesday night and may be proposing an overlay along North Main. He would provide them with a conceptual plan of where the overlays were and discuss.
Mr. Hughes asked if the plan was to have an article for this Town Meeting, and Mr. Sarkisian’s response was, “yes”. He (Mr. Sarkisian) noted that there had been talk about a 25-acre parcel that was real ambitious. What he was proposing was a line from North Main back 100 feet. The other area needs a lot more study and planning charettes.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to when Mr. Sarkisian would make a presentation to the Board of Selectmen, and Mr. Sarkisian responded that he was bringing it to the Planning Board to sponsor the article
for Town Meeting. He agreed to come back to the Board of Selectmen’s August 16 meeting.
At Mr. Ball’s request Mr. Sarkisian explained spot zoning noting that it was zoning for one particular parcel. These overlay districts encompass several. HOOP 1 has 18 parcels. Hoop 2 was one parcel but stated that a minimum of 20,000 square feet was needed and it had over 30,000. He noted that the State was initiating funds for communities that take the initiative of putting these districts together for
density in the suburbs that was unheard of. He felt that the Town should continue (with the HOOP) and noted that there were a lot of charettes coming up. Hopefully there would be one for the Armory and
Natick Center Associates was having one. He cautioned against spot zoning, but felt that the Town hadn’t done that as yet.
Mr. Hughes asked that Town Counsel draft a proposed tax increment finance article to put on the warrant.
RFP EVALUATION COMMITTEE: ARMORY SITE STUDY
Mr. Lisauskas advised that the Town had put in a significant amount of work in a short time period in applying for a planning grant to DHCD. There was $3 million available with a maximum of $50,000 per grant. The timeframe was so tight that only four applications had been received by DHCD. Notification was received earlier today that the Commonwealth intends to fund the Town’s grant application for $55,000 to conduct a planning study of the publicly owned property surrounding the Armory, which would include the Armory and the two adjacent areas that being the senior center and the area of the court. The Town received notification today of the state’s intent to fund the application for $55,000 for planning money to study the area. The Town submitted an additional application for planning assistance
for the area behind the police and fire complex parking lot for the purpose of
RFP EVALUATION COMMITTEE: ARMORY SITE STUDY (contd)
planning. The Commonwealth indicated support for it but hasn’t indicated that it would be funded.
Mr. Lisauskas continued that the planning grant was requested based on action the Commonwealth had taken to surplus and sell the National Guard Armory. The state no longer surveys local governments to see if they want the property and the difficulty that creates was acting quickly enough to plan. The Town was fortunate that the grant application came up and had a connection with the timing of the surplusing of the Armory. Initially it (Armory) was to be surplused and sold in April, but the Town was successful in getting a delay to October and had gotten another extension to the end of November. That was a compressed time to do a study around that area but it was the only opportunity the Town would have to have any input with what occurs at that site. Absent the Town’s quick action, it would be surplused
and sold. It was currently zoned for 10 residential units. It was anticipated that the Armory would be sold for ten high income housing units and that piece of property would be off the table and there couldn’t be any planning or work done to create a neighborhood there that met the community’s need whether it be housing, recreation, senior center. The grant was designed to work through public input, public bodies set up by the Board of Selectmen, elected officials, charettes, a committee to determine the appropriate use for the area. That was the rationale for applying for the grant and why there was a rush to do it. Otherwise the property would be sold and removed from the equation absent the Town’s action on a tight timeframe.
Mr. Hughes inquired about the conditions for the extension on the sale of the Armory noting that one was securing the funding for the grant and the other was approval of hiring a planner at Town Meeting. Mr. Lisauskas noted that the administration would need to work with DCAM to rework the letter. He thought they (DCAM) were under the impression that Town Meeting would hire the consultant, but that was not the case. The Board of Selectmen would make the appointment.
Mr. Hughes asked if an article would be put on the warrant to authorize the Town to purchase the Armory. Mr. Lisauskas responded that the
Board could consider doing that. Questions would arise as to where the money would come from and the process, but an article could be put on
as a placeholder. The idea behind the grant was support for the community consensus of what should go there but that could be consistent with purchasing the property or developing a planning rationale for what the community would accept.
Mr. Hughes felt that the letter from DCAM could be read that if the report were done by November 29 they would give the Town more time or did an article have to be on warrant and if so what would Town Meeting
be asked to appropriate. Mr. Lisauskas replied that the Commonwealth wanted the Town to be ready to move in November either to purchase or put some master development plan in place or to say to developers
purchasing the property that this was what the Town would like to see developed in that site consistent with that property.
If right now it was zoned for 10 units and in view of the cost and environmental problems it would be high-end units, Mr. Hughes questioned how a developer could be convinced to do what the Town wanted to do without a zoning change. Mr. Lisauskas responded that there may be economies of scale associated with neighboring properties that being if the plan said something could be done with the Armory and a section of some Town owned property adjacent may increase the value and provide an incentive for a developer to create a neighborhood feel or community feel. The Commonwealth recognized that the Town was looking at the entire parcel as a whole and the developers the administration had talked to recognized that there was potential value in incorporating the parcels.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that that (selling Town owned land) would have to be on the warrant and the Board only had two weeks to decide. Mr. Lisauskas agreed that if something happened there would have to be a phased approach, but he wouldn’t necessarily say two weeks. Part of the issue was that the Town had few options. The Town could either try to do what it could and put a plan in place and tell developers this
RFP EVALUATION COMMITTEE: ARMORY SITE STUDY (contd)
was what we want and develop community consensus for what the Town wanted on this property or do nothing and allow the property to go to auction and the Town lose the ability to create something other than housing on that site. Perhaps housing was what the community wanted on that site, but we don’t know. The issue in his mind was do we try and this was the only way to make that attempt in this timeframe.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to any sense of the sale price and was told by Mr. Lisauskas that the Commonwealth was looking for $1 million. They had expressed success with armories in Waltham and others that they felt were less than this and had stuck to $1 million, but the Town assessed it at much less than that. Mr. McKinley was shocked at $1 million noting that he would have thought $250,000-300,000 and with that maybe the Board should go to Town Meeting to secure the option. He shared Mr. Hughes’ concerns and felt that the Board had to get an article on the Fall Town Meeting warrant and better be prepared to ask for some money. There may not be the option of waiting until spring. It was clear that the Town wouldn’t have the opportunity to adequately plan for what it wanted to do with that site,
but the Town may have to
be in a position to secure access to the site and go forward figuring out what to do with it.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that the unknown was the Phase I 21E. One of the scopes of work asked for in the planning grant was to be allowed to do a 21E Phase I and some of the $55,000 allowed for a Phase I assessment. Mr. Ciccariello felt that the Board needed to set aside an article for Town Meeting. When asked to do what, Mr. Ciccariello said to purchase the property.
Chairman of the Armory Reuse Committee John Griffith reported that the Reuse Committee had a meeting earlier that day and had a lengthy discussion. During that meeting the committee was surprised by the Selectmen’s agenda. They were not aware that there was a task force being put together and it caused some confusion of what their (Reuse committee) role was in looking at the Armory. They (Reuse Committee)
was also concerned that the makeup of the task force going forward did not fully capture the community involvement they felt would be necessary and he was sure there were members of the existing committee who would be interested in serving. The committee (Armory Reuse) had representation from groups using that area and the committee was concerned that the task force be enlarged or reorganized to get more community input – not just through community meetings but on the task force.
Regarding the suggestion to put a placeholder on the warrant to allow the ability to do something before it was too late, Jeffrey Phillips a member of the Armory Reuse Committee noted that they were supposed to hear back from Town Counsel as to whether Town Meeting could go into executive session as a whole to have a discussion about the money
willing to auction otherwise it was a disadvantage to put out the price the Town was willing to bid against private entities. The article didn’t have to state a dollar amount. It just had to say appropriate a sum of money. The way the state has set up the auction the winning bidder must pay an additional 10% to the auctioneer so if the Town bid and won with $1 million, a check would have to be written for $100,000 to the auction house.
There were several other problems that the committee had been discussing since last fall and one of the reasons for having the participation of this committee was that it brought together a number of people who had concerns about the property. Upon doing some research there were some technical problems and Mr. Phillips noted that one of those was that the School Committee was still in possession of the deed for the courthouse which presents some technical problems with administration rentals and that needs to be corrected. There was an additional 9 acres of land and if that were combined with the parcel, it would have one value to the Town vs what it would do for an individual who would just have the land. One committee member did a work up on what a developer could afford to spend. The $1 million would be a low
number for the Town to spend to buy that property according to what they (committee) saw.
RFP EVALUATION COMMITTEE: ARMORY SITE STUDY (contd)
Mr. Phillips continued that the Board set up a committee and the committee was working hard to put together these numbers and he thought in the future if the Board wanted people to participate and wanted their input, the Board should invite them for these discussions and not have them find out at the last minute it was on the agenda.
Another member of the Armory Reuse Committee Susan Shea asked to address the Board. Mr. Ciccariello asked if she had something else to offer and Ms. Shea stated that as a member of the committee she thought she had a right to speak and was looking to speak to #13 on the agenda. Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board was currently discussing #12.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to what committee was being talked about and Mr. Ciccariello explained that the four individuals proposed to make up the selection committee would review firms for the planning grant. The other committee was the task force which was the committee proposed on the grant application. They were two different items.
Mr. Connolly asked if the Reuse Committee could do all of those things, and Mr. Ciccariello advised that it was possible. To Mr. Connolly it seemed to be reinventing the wheel and he would like to see the Reuse Committee do the whole gig.
Mr. McKinley inquired if the proposal to be followed to select a planning firm was in specific response to a requirement made by the state. Mr. Lisauskas advised that it was not. The firms the Town was looking at were on a pre-qualified state list comprised of companies the Town could choose to do this work. The decision was made that that was not the ideal way to select someone to do this work and an RFP was developed for the pre-qualified firms to respond to. An RFP was sent to what was thought to be the three strongest. It was not required, but for price and other reasons the RFP was done in order to maximize the returns.
Mr. McKinley inquired if the Town was doing this because the Commonwealth wants it or because the Town wants to know the answers. Mr. Lisauskas responded that the Commonwealth wants to sell the Armory and have been grudgingly giving the Town extensions to determine what the community wants to do with this. The grant was applied for because the Town wanted to and it could be the only way to have a say on what happens on that site and the only way the Town would have the site developed in a manner consistent with what the community wants. Mr. McKinley asked if the RFP was presently issued, and Mr. Lisauskas’ response was, “yes”.
In follow-up Mr. McKinley inquired if the Commonwealth required the Town to hire an outside firm to develop a plan for this site. Mr.
Lisauskas advised that in order to expend the grant money, yes, but in order to plan for this site, ‘no’. Asked if this was a condition of the grant, Mr. Lisauskas’ reply was, ‘yes’.
To Mr. McKinley’s query as to why a separate committee was needed to do the RFP, Mr. Ciccariello explained that there were two parts. There was an RFP and there needed to be a committee to interview the three firms and select. The recommendation was for the Board of Selectmen Chair, Community Development Director, Deputy Town Administrator and the Downtown Manager to interview the three firms and make a recommendation to the Board. The question was whether the Board felt comfortable having those four do the interviews and select a firm.
Mr. Hughes moved the appointment of Stephen Greenberg, John Ciccariello, Stephen Lisauskas, and Sarkis Sarkisian to review the RFP and make a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen on whom to hire to expend the grant. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
In voting in opposition to the motion, Mr. Connolly stated that he thought some of the Reuse Committee members should be included.
Mr. Griffith noted that the Reuse Committee’s concern was with Item #13 and the task force. He didn’t think members of the Reuse Committee had a problem with the selection of the firm and the contract. Mr.
RFP EVALUATION COMMITTEE: ARMORY SITE STUDY (contd)
Connolly still thought it would be worthwhile to have someone from that committee on the selection committee.
ESTABLISH DESIGN MASTER TASK FORCE: ARMORY AREA
Mr. Ciccariello explained that the proposal was to put together a task force committee that would work with the consulting firm through the process. There was a feeling amongst the Armory Reuse Committee that they should be a part of this planning study group and some individuals felt that other community groups should also be involved.
Susan Shea told the Board that the Reuse Committee’s concern was that they had spent a lot of time studying this and they were concerned that so much had proceeded without the committee being aware. All of the committee represented certain aspects and had certain expertise, but in looking at the composition of the proposed task force some others need representation such as open space. Looking at this parcel long term, housing was a possibility and some others thought more community use or open space should be looked at. The committee was not only advocating that they should be included but there should be more community involvement for what should be a community jewel and had the potential to be something of which the Town could be proud.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to when the RFP selection committee expected to make a recommendation to the Board and was told by Mr. Lisauskas that the goal was to make the recommendation next Monday.
Mr. Hughes then inquired if the Board was limited by the grant application to having the makeup of the task force as was being proposed. In a memo to the Board Mr. Lisauskas proposed a task force made up of one member of the Board of Selectmen, one member of the Planning Board, the Town Administrator or his designee, one member of the Design Review Board, and an abutting neighborhood resident. Mr. Lisauskas advised that the task force could be expanded. The task force would be responsible for the day-to-day management and oversight, but in no way did the composition limit the consulting firm’s obligation or responsibility for involving all the members of the community who have an interest (in the area). They should talk about this with the Open Space committee. One requirement of the grant was to
conduct stakeholder interviews and that could be any mix of community groups, community leaders. The fact that the task force was comprised of 5 or 10 people didn’t limit public involvement and the RFP stipulates a rather detailed public involvement requirement.
In view of the short timeframe and all the work the Armory Reuse Committee had done, it seemed to Mr. Hughes that not making them (Reuse Committee) the task force that oversees the consultant was re-inventing the wheel and putting it behind. The Board was in a position of having to respond by October 19, which was Town Meeting. Mr. Hughes moved to appoint the Armory Reuse Committee as the task force that oversees the consultant. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. Discussion continued and no vote was taken following the passage of a subsequent motion.
In seconding Mr. Hughes’ motion Mr. McKinley stated that he didn’t completely agree with Mr. Hughes although he didn’t have a problem with the existing Reuse Committee, but there were some individuals recommended by Mr. Lisauskas that he thought should be actively engaged in the process including the Planning Board and Design Review Board. Mr. Hughes noted that he had no objection to having them part of it.
Mr. Ball agreed with both Mr. Hughes and Mr. McKinley and proposed a task force consisting of the five members named by Mr. Lisauskas - 1 member of the Board of Selectmen, 1 member of the Planning Board, Town Administrator or designee, 1 member of the Design Review Board, an abutting neighborhood resident – plus three members of the Armory Reuse Committee and a member of the Open Space Advisory Committee. That would be a nine-member task force. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes was concerned with the timeframe. If the Board were going to advertise for the abutting neighbor, there wouldn’t be a response in a week. In addition when would the Board appoint the three members from the Armory Reuse Committee and what would be the process.
ESTABLISH DESIGN MASTER TASK FORCE: ARMORY AREA (contd)
To Mr. McKinley the abutting neighbor wasn’t a big deal. He felt that the Board was focusing on representation from all the key areas and he wanted the neighbors to have input but appointing one specific abutter to represent the neighborhood wasn’t his focus. There weren’t that many (abutters) and for those there were, there would be a series of public hearings that he hoped they would all come to and voice their opinions as opposed to one individual.
Jeffrey Phillips thanked the Chair and the Town Administrator for getting the grant no matter what the process. He noted that the Armory Reuse Committee had voted unanimously that the task force didn’t have to be the whole committee. Three was a good number and the Reuse Committee chair could make the appointments. Mr. Phillips suggested having a member of the School Committee on the task force since the Board would have to deal with the transfer of the property. He thought it would be nice to let the School Committee in on the process. To him there was a difference between hiring a professional to come in and go meet with different stakeholders vs having a group that has worked together since November and has discussed all these issues and understood them comprehensively. It was a lot different
than a professional coming from outside the community and going to talk to this group and that group. It left a lot up to the professional to bring all those things together and they shouldn’t have to do that because there were already people who have thought of those things.
Mr. McKinley asked about including the Community Development Director on the task force, but Mr. Ciccariello advised that Mr. Sarkisian felt it would be better for him to provide staffing.
With respect to the abutting neighborhood, Mr. Ball suggested that the opening be posted.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board ask the chairman of the Reuse Committee to appoint his three members and ask the other chairmen to appoint their representatives. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
SALE OF HOSPITAL: SCHEDULE COMMUNITY FORUM
Mr. Ball noted that Tenet was seeking to sell the MetroWest Medical Center that consists of Framingham and Leonard Morse Hospital. There has been considerable concern about what services might or might not
continue to be offered by the new purchaser and even more importantly whether Leonard Morse Hospital or Framingham might be closed. In order for the community voice to be heard when the State Department of Public Health considers the sale of the hospital to any given purchaser, it was important for the community to have made a clear statement. There has been a public forum in Natick but it was suggested to him today that it would be beneficial to the Town for the Board of Selectmen to sponsor another public forum.
Mr. Ball noted that Paul Dreyer from the Department of Public Health was very much involved in this issue of evaluating a potential purchaser and he would be willing to come to Natick and speak at a forum and address questions citizens might have. He (Mr. Dreyer) urged the Board to have such a forum and Mr. Ball said he would volunteer to organize a place and a time. The clock was ticking and if the community had things it wanted preserved or added now was the time.
Mr. McKinley recalled there being a committee set up to which Mr. Ball was the representative and asked if that committee was active. Mr. Ball responded that the committee was driven by the hospital and was
active initially and had sponsored two forums. He added that the suggestion was that it would be valuable for the Town of Natick to give the citizens another shot.
Given that Natick would have an opportunity to make comment, Mr. Ciccariello agreed with Mr. Ball that it was important to hold a public forum and moved that Mr. Ball schedule a forum with Mr. Dreyer. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
UPDATE POLICY FOR UNBILLED SEWER CHARGES
Mr. Lisauskas reminded the Board that on May 24, 2004 the Board endorsed a policy for unbilled sewer charges that had a number of
UPDATE POLICY FOR UNBILLED SEWER CHARGES (contd)
stipulations: 25% discount, could pay over time, no interest charge. July 28, 2004 was the expiration of the 30-day period that had been adopted. Eight of the nine have responded – five have paid in full, two have signed an agreement, and one said he would pay in full. The ninth indicated his interest in pursuing the matter through other means. Currently out of the 9, seven were resolved. The Town would bill both properties the full amount with no discount and they would have 30 days to pay. If they did not pay the Town would pursue it.
Mr. Lisauskas noted that there was a second group of 19 new properties that had been discovered that were previously not billed and there was one property waiting to be dye tested bringing it to 20. The next step would be to provide a copy of the Board’s adopted policy, provide them with a financial analysis, and provide 30 days to pay. Thirty days after that if there was no agreement, they would be required to make full payment within the subsequent 30 days subject to further collection efforts.
As to the two of the nine in the original group that had not paid, the Town would notify them that they had 30 days to pay in full and if that expired, the Town may need to seek additional action at the end of that 30 days.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Walcott Fund
Mr. Connolly asked if there was any information on the Walcott Fund and Mr. Lisauskas responded that he would have information on it tomorrow.
b. Warrant Article - Armory
Mr. Hughes stated that he wanted to be sure to get an article on the warrant for a home rule petition to allow the State to sell the Armory to the Town directly without going through the auction.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
_ _____________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
