BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
November 8, 2004
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley, John Connolly.
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on November 8, 2004 in the amount of $527,269.83. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,135,162.79.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the July 12, 2004 meeting.
As Town Hall had experienced a power outage and the briefing books were not ready until that day, members of the Board had not had an opportunity to read the minutes of the July 26, 2004 and August 9, 2004 meetings. The Board agreed to table approval until the next meeting.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION: ARMORY TASK FORCE; GUIDO JACQUES
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve the resignation of Guido Jacques from the Armory Task Force.
TCAN: REQUEST TO CLOSE PORTION OF SUMMER STREET
The Board was in receipt of a letter from David Lavalley, Executive Director of The Center for Arts in Natick requesting permission to close the portion of Summer Street from Main Street to Spring Street on November 16, 2004 between the hours of 8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m. during the transportation and hoisting of the cupola onto their building at 14 Summer Street.
Mr. Hughes felt that it seemed like a long time to close the street, and Mr. Ball explained that the hours indicated were because there was a lot of uncertainty of how quickly the truck bringing the cupola could deliver it from Wellesley. If the Board decided to shorten the hours, he didn’t think it would pose a problem.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the request had gone before the Police Department, and Ms. Challis advised that an e-mail was sent to Sergeant Davis requesting his recommendation, but he had not as yet responded. Sergeant Davis was on vacation this week.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the insurance certificate and was told that one would be necessary.
Mr. McKinley expressed concern with the impact on the adjacent businesses, noting that their customers wouldn’t be able to access them if the street were shut down. Mr. Ciccariello agreed and suggested just closing the street from Main Street to TCAN.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to where the transport truck and crane would be positioned. Mr. Ball advised that it would be in the alley, and Mr. McKinley questioned if it would make more sense to close the alley and not Summer Street. Mr. Ball noted that he was not an expert but it (cupola) was a structure that weighed two tons and people want to be well clear of it. This was a public safety measure and it seemed like a little larger radius would be prudent. Mr. McKinley found Mr. Ball’s point to be well taken but pointed out that if arrangements were not already made to clear vehicles parking in the alley, it was an even
TCAN: REQUEST TO CLOSE PORTION OF SUMMER STREET (contd)
greater hazard. Mr. Ball noted that it was just at the Summer Street end of the alley and the only thing at the end of the alley was the dumpster. The lifting would be done in the alley area so theoretically cars could go back and forth on Summer Street. This was just a precaution.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about requiring Police details, and Mr. Ball responded that he checked on it. In terms of the transport from Wellesley, the answer was no. That was his understanding from Lieutenant Mabardy.
If the street were going to be closed during business hours, Mr. Lemnios thought that the Board would want Police officers at each end to direct people. Even if the street were not going to be closed, it would likely attract spectators so the Board may still want to require Police.
Mr. Connolly stated that his only suggestion was for a Police detail. If there was a Police detail traffic could be allowed. If it (hoisting the cupola) didn’t happen until noon, traffic could keep going along and when the truck came in, firm it up at that point. That way there would be access to the businesses.
Mr. McKinley moved approval of TCAN’s request to close a portion of Summer Street on November 16, 2004 during the hoisting of the cupola onto their building subject to the following:
1. Specifications of schedule and time to be determined by the Chief of Police.
2. Two Police officers – one at each end of the street – to be posted to supervise the activities once the truck and crane arrives to insure safety of pedestrians and vehicles
3. A certificate of liability insurance naming the Town of Natick as an additional insured. Signing and returning the attached indemnification agreement.
4. Making sure that the abutters, specifically Steve Wolf of the Clark’s Block, are aware of this activity and have no objection to it.
Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Ciccariello wanted to be sure that TCAN sent a notice to everyone on the street. Mr. McKinley didn’t disagree but said he was mostly concerned with the Clark’s Block.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. The New Englands Neighborhood Association
Peter Golden noted that he was a resident of a neighborhood called The New Englands composed of five streets in the Oak Street/Route 9 area. There were 50 households on the street and for the last eight years most of those households were united in fighting the attempts of various developers to rezone or re-permit the lot on Route 9 the site of a former Exxon gas station.
Mr. Golden stated that he was there that night on behalf of the neighborhood association to thank the Board for its support individually and as a group and through the Department of Community Development in defending the neighborhood most particularly in the form of the lawsuit that defended the interest of the neighborhood. The ruling came down favorably to the Town and the interests of the neighborhood, which was so ably defended by Mr. Flynn. The neighborhood had a letter commending the Board and most particularly the Department of Community Development and most particularly Sarkis Sarkisian who had been their champion.
Mr. Golden continued that he wished he could say this was the last the Board would see of him or hear of this for some time to come, but unfortunately it was still a neighborhood under siege. The plaintiff was back again and will appear informally before the Planning Board to seek re-permitting for a car rental, which in the opinion of The New Englands Neighborhood Association would entirely defeat the lawsuit. He also heard a rumor that the now retired Texaco station was going to be used in part or whole as a fast food facility. He asked the Board
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
to imagine the impact on the neighborhood if that became a fast food place. The neighborhood was facing commercial encroachment.
Mr. Golden presented the Board with letters from The New Englands Neighborhood Association thanking the Board and the other Town officials and employees who had successfully defended against the lawsuit and had helped to maintain their neighborhood as a child-safe, family-oriented community within the Town.
John Barbieri of 26 Connecticut Avenue also expressed his thanks to the boards that were involved and Town Counsel for going through all the steps that were taken in regard to their neighborhood.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF RULES & REGULATIONS FOR CLUBS HOLDING ALCOHOL LICENSES
Mr. Hughes reported that last Thursday Mr. Lemnios, Town Counsel John Flynn, and he met with the Chairman of the ABCC Edward Jenkins and the ABCC Chief Counsel William Kelley. They presented the concerns of the Town and the clubs with regard to the ABCC’s interpretation of the ‘proceeds’. Mr. Jenkins was going to take it to the other commissioners and get back to the Town by November 22 so the Board should have something by the next meeting.
Mr. Hughes moved to continue the public hearing on the rules & regs for clubs holding alcohol licenses to be issued permits to sell alcohol at functions and events at which people were present who were not members or guests of members. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Lemnios advised that the clubs were notified of this outcome on Friday and advised that they could be here tonight if they wished but Mr. Hughes’ recommendation to the Board would be to continue the public hearing.
NATICK HOUSING AUTHORITY DIRECTOR: SECTION 8 PROGRAM
Representing the Housing Authority was the Director Edward Santos.
Mr. Ball inquired if the Natick Housing Authority dealt only with Section 8 and was not a public housing authority. Mr. Santos advised that that was not correct. Section 8 was a program run by the federal government, which the Housing Authority ran for the federal government in this area. In response Mr. Ball noted that the inference was that the Natick Housing Authority was not a public housing authority in the sense referred to in the document presented to the Board.
Mr. Santos explained that the Natick Housing Authority was essentially a state housing authority. The document referred to a federal housing authority and the difference was that the federal government was not funding Natick for the regular conventional housing. They were only funding Natick for this program. For purposes of this document the Natick Housing Authority was only a rental assistance program.
Mr. Ball referred to the Housing Authority’s mission statement which included that the Housing Authority was to manage, maintain, develop and create quality housing and inquired if the Housing Authority had attempted to create housing. Mr. Santos responded that the Natick Housing Authority was created in 1948 and it was initially started to create and develop housing under the old Chapter 200 program for returning veterans from WWII. The Housing Authority continued to build elderly housing and continued to build family housing at several sites as well. This was their mission statement as a state housing authority and incorporates rental assistance as well.
Relative to the waiting list, Mr. Ball thought a few hundred families were missing and asked if there was another category that was not listed here. Page 8 didn’t add up to the waiting list program. Mr. Santos advised that some families may be double counted because an applicant may fall into more than one of the categories.
Mr. Ball then referenced page 11 – The Reasons for Selecting Strategies. Checked off was ‘extent to which particular housing needs
NATICK HOUSING AUTHORITY DIRECTOR: SECTION 8 PROGRAM (contd)
are met by other organizations in the community’. Mr. Ball inquired as to what other organizations. Mr. Santos responded that the Housing Authority supported affordable housing throughout the community and was looking to the Mass Housing Partnership to extend (the amount of affordable housing).
Page 19 talked about the priority for preference, but there was no priority chosen and Mr. Ball wondered if that was an oversight. Mr. Santos pointed out that under other preferences he had checked off working families and those unable to work because of age and disability, veterans and veterans families, and residents who live and/or work in the jurisdiction. Asked if he could rank them for which was the most important or if they were all of equal importance, Mr. Santos responded that they were all of equal importance.
Referring to Page 18, Mr. Ball inquired as to what kind of information the Housing Authority shared with prospective landlords. Mr. Santos advised that the only information the Housing Authority would share was family size and family composition. Mr. Ball then noted that under eligibility Mr. Santos had checked off that the Natick Housing Authority did not request criminal records from local law enforcement. Mr. Santos responded that the Housing Authority had access to that. When asked about not requesting criminal records from the FBI, Mr. Santos replied that under the law the Housing Authority could only request it in Massachusetts from the Criminal History Assistance Board. The Housing Authority didn’t have authority to access the FBI. Mr. Santos added that this document was used in every state
in the country and here that was not the Authority’s only recourse.
On Page 31 Mr. Ball noted that a copy of the most recent board approved operation budget for the public housing program was not being included. Mr. Santos explained that this referred to the conventional public housing boards and Natick didn’t have it. Mr. Santos agreed with Mr. Ball that the budget of the Natick Housing Authority was a public record and if someone wanted to see it, they could request it as a regular public document from the Housing Authority.
Mr. Hughes moved to authorize the Chairman to sign the five-year plan document for Section 8 housing. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Santos thanked the Board for their continued support of all of the Housing Authority’s programs. He felt that it created an environment that was helpful to all of the residents who need housing.
NATICK MALL: ZONING ARTICLE
Appearing on behalf of General Growth Properties, the owner of the Natick Mall, was Attorney Robert Davis of Goulston & Storrs.
Mr. Davis told the Board that in conversations with the Planning Board, it was determined that the best way to encourage a public discussion on the next phase (of the Mall expansion), which was essentially the residential component, was to submit a zoning petition for referral to the Planning Board to be the subject of a public hearing. Under MGL the petitions need to be filed with the Board of Selectmen first and the Board refers it to the Planning Board. He wasn’t asking for the Board to support the petition at this time but simply that it be referred to the Planning Board.
Mr. Hughes asked if the zoning change would only affect the residential portion. Mr. Davis responded that it primarily affected the residential, but it included as a possibility the zoning of the north parcel to permit retail development as a matter of right.
Asked what was there now, Mr. Davis replied that it was retail by a special permit and that special permit had been appealed. In follow-up Mr. McKinley questioned if that (zoning change) removed the requirement of the Planning Board’s approval. Mr. Davis replied that it would be in accordance with a development plan consistent with the Planning Board and Town Meeting would approve.
NATICK MALL: ZONING ARTICLE (contd)
To Mr. McKinley’s comment that in addition to allowing residential, the zoning change would remove the special permit requirement for the north parcel, Mr. Davis pointed out that a special permit would still be required for the residential but not the retail.
Mr. McKinley inquired if there was a reason why those two were linked. Mr. Davis advised that General Growth thought it may be appropriate to consider it as a right pending the status of the resolution of the appeals. At this point they were merely submitting it for discussion purposes at a Planning Board hearing. They were not asking for an article at Town Meeting.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Davis anticipated that this would go to Town Meeting next spring. Mr. Davis answered that they would like the residential piece to go to a Special Town Meeting prior to that time. Asked if he had any sense of when, Mr. Davis stated that they wanted to try to determine the status of this element of the project, the response from the Planning Board and the public and depending on that, they would like to try to move forward with something. Assuming it was favorable, maybe the beginning of February.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board refer the zoning petition submitted by General Growth Properties to the Planning Board. Seconded by Mr. Ball. Mr. McKinley offered an amendment to the motion to include a recommendation to the Planning Board that the proposal for rezoning the north parcel to remove the retail development from the special permit requirement and the residential component were two separate subjects
and that the distinction between the two be recognized and talked about as two separate items. The maker and seconder of the motion accepted the amendment. Unanimously voted.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Connolly questioned how the petition would affect the appeals in place. Mr. Davis advised that there was nothing right now. It would only affect the appeals if there was Town Meeting action. Mr. Davis reiterated that General Growth was only asking that it get referred to the Planning Board for a public hearing. They were not asking for the Selectmen to support it.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Mr. Davis was suggesting that the special permit be retained for the housing portion. Mr. Hughes stated that he thought that the referral meant that the Planning Board was to discuss the retail as a right as one issue and the residential as one issue so it didn’t become clouded into one. Mr. McKinley clarified that it didn’t mean that the Planning Board couldn’t come back with it as one by-law recommendation, but he wanted it recognized that they were very different discussions and to treat them as such and then decide what to do.
JACK TANNER: TAX TITLE
Jack Tanner of 52 Beaver Dam Road appeared before the Board to discuss his tax title situation. He told the Board that up until this past August he never knew he had a tax problem. He wrote a check on bill payer and sent it for the August 1st taxes. Someone informed him that it was not like the federal government in that it was not when it was mailed but when it was received. He explained the situation to Beth Kelley in the Collector’s Office and she informed him that there was a slight penalty and then informed him that by the way the Town was in the process of foreclosing on his house.
Mr. Tanner continued that he tried to figure out what had happened and Ms. Kelley put together something. It went back to 1994. In the packet of information he had provided for the Board’s review were newspaper articles. In 1998 his name was published in the newspaper for not paying his taxes. He called the Town and as stated in the letter from Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer there was a hand written letter saying he would go to the bank and get back to the Collector’s Office.
A letter from Mr. Palmer to Mr. Tanner outlined the events:
1/18/94 there was a letter from Natick Federal disbursing a check in the amount of $132.18 to Mr. Tanner. The letter indicated that this
JACK TANNER: TAX TITLE (contd)
was the escrow account balance and directed Mr. Tanner to send the check along with an additional amount of $778.48 to the Tax Collector for taxes due February 1, 1994.
4/26/94 from Natick Federal indicating that the February 1, 1994 taxes in the amount of $910.66 have not been paid. The letter requested Mr. Tanner to send the amount to the Town by May 2, 1994.
· Copy of the 4th quarter 1994 tax bill indicating an amount due of $1,821 with a hand written noted that appears to indicate the $910.66 remained unpaid
· Copy of check from Natick Federal payable to John Tanner and Town of Natick in the amount of $132.18. Rear of check cleared the bank 6/27/94.
· Copy of Munis distribution of $132.18 received and posted 6/24/94
· Copy of Natick Bulletin Advertisement 4/23/98. Hand written note indicates that Mr. Tanner called on 4/24/98 and indicated he would go to the bank
Mr. Tanner noted that after walking out of the bank in 1994 he never heard anything until 1998 when his name was posted in the newspaper. He had relied on the bank to pay his taxes and he went to see then Collector/Treasurer David Webb. Mr. Webb said it was his (Mr. Tanner’s) fault because he didn’t pay it and he had to write a check for $1,200 because of a penalty. He (Mr. Tanner) also had to see his name in the newspaper. The bank screwed up and Mr. Webb said to sue the bank. Mr. Tanner said he wrote a check for between $1,200 and $1,500.
Mr. Tanner continued that he went to see Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer and Mr. Palmer said there was nothing he could do. Mr. Tanner said he spent three days researching old newspaper articles talking about the difficulties the Town was having with the Collector’s Office. He had a newspaper article talking about checks being put into other people’s account, people being over billed, and if they didn’t have a check they couldn’t get reimbursed. He (Mr. Tanner) talked to Mr. Lemnios and asked a question that might have helped him in 1994 or 1998 - why didn’t the Town send a notice that the property was going to tax title, and Mr. Lemnios said people probably wouldn’t sign for it because they knew it was from the Tax Collector. Mr. Tanner pointed out that if somebody
didn’t sign for something, the post office would send a notice back and the Town would have a record.
Mr. Tanner told the Board that he knew he paid the taxes and didn’t ask Mr. Palmer to forgive him the taxes. He couldn’t prove he paid, but reading the newspaper articles neither could Mr. Webb. Mr. Palmer said there was nothing he could do, but he (Mr. Tanner) read that there were some people who didn’t pay their water bills and the Board allowed those people to settle a dispute of back billing. Four out of five Selectmen voted to allow that to happen and he was here to ask for the same thing. He couldn’t prove he paid that tax bill, but of all the taxes he had paid the Town, it was one quarter. Every other tax payment had been on time so why would he take that one-quarter and not pay it. He didn’t have an exact figure for his latest bill, but Ms. Kelley told him it was
around $4,500 and climbing.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Mr. Tanner had not received anything from the Tax Collector’s office stating he presently owed “X”. Mr. Tanner responded that if he didn’t call the Town about the problem with the taxes (August) he would have never known about it. His house was in
his wife’s name and he didn’t open her mail. She never received notification. In 1993 a tax title was done and nobody did a tax lien.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that this started in 1994 when he supposedly did not pay the third quarter tax bill. Mr. Tanner explained that Natick Federal was paying his taxes. There wasn’t enough money in the escrow, but they told him they would pay the taxes and add it to his (mortgage) payment. He didn’t know he had a problem until four years later and subsequent to that six years. He couldn’t prove he paid the $1,200 but he knew he didn’t have a windfall. Mr. Tanner added that he
JACK TANNER: TAX TITLE (contd)
offered to pay the original taxes of $1,245 but now that bill has grown and was going higher. He wondered how many people in this Town had the same problem about getting a tax lien and never being told about it and down the road will get handed a bill.
Mr. McKinley inquired if there was any doubt that all taxes since the incident in 1994 were current and paid. Mr. Palmer confirmed that they were current and paid.
Mr. McKinley called attention to the opinion from Town Counsel stating that the Board of Selectmen didn’t have the authority to grant the applicant’s request for relief but was the Board able to request the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue or make a recommendation that such relief be granted. Town Counsel, John Flynn, advised that the answer was, “yes”, but he would recommend that the request come from the taxpayer and the Board of Selectmen’s role would be solely to support that if that was the inclination.
For those who were on the Board for 9-10 years, Mr. McKinley felt they could well remember the days when the Treasurer/Collector’s Office was the Town’s worst nightmare. He was pleased that those days were behind us and he was not willing to judge this resident that he (Mr. Tanner) was at fault especially given that his taxes were not in any sense in arrears since 1994. The problems with that office were well documented in the newspaper and in the Board’s minutes and he would, therefore, suggest that Mr. Tanner petition the Mass DOR for this tax amount and penalties and that the Board support that request with a letter of endorsement and recommendation for approval.
Mr. McKinley moved to request that Town Counsel draft two documents: 1) an abatement request under the name of John Tanner; 2) A letter of support of the abatement from the Board of Selectmen. Seconded by Mr. Ball. After further discussion Mr. Ball offered an amendment to add Mr. Palmer to the list of signatories for the letter of support. The amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. The motion was unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Ball noted that it was the original bill back in 1994 which the Town believes it has no record of it being paid in Mr. Tanner’s name and if that wasn’t an issue, Mr. Tanner wouldn’t be here. The $800-900 bill has grown into $3,600. Mr. Ball wondered if the DOR Commissioner had the authority to say that he thought it was
paid, the bill was forgiven and Mr. Tanner owed the Town nothing. He felt that that was where the Board and Mr. Palmer were at – that a mistake had been made and the Town would like to correct it but didn’t have the authority. Mr. Palmer responded that he thought the DOR had the authority, but there were no guarantees. He didn’t know if the DOR would act on it separately, but he (Mr. Palmer) would also like to be part of the support from the Town.
Mr. Flynn added that in his opinion the DOR had the authority. There was no time limit on the abatement authority and the statute was broad enough to grant the relief that would include the authority to waive the entire tax, charges, penalties, and fees.
Mr. Connolly asked Mr. Tanner if what the Board had in mind made sense, and Mr. Tanner responded that he needed help from the Board and if that was the Board’s suggestion (it was OK). Mr. Connolly expressed his frustration. There was no legal authority for the Board (to grant an abatement), but this resident came for help and there was no authority.
If the DOR did not return a favorable position, Mr. Lemnios asked what Mr. Tanner should do at this point to stop any accrual of interest. Mr. Palmer advised that if the DOR did not authorize the abatement, which would extinguish the interest, he was not sure he could stay the interest calculated. The good news was that when he (Mr. Palmer) spoke to Mr. Tanner in 1994 he (Mr. Palmer) asked that the taking proceedings be stopped and that would save Mr. Tanner $450 in legal fees. If the DOR acted favorably, the charges would disappear. If they didn’t act favorably, Mr. Palmer didn’t think he could stop them.
JACK TANNER: TAX TITLE (contd)
Mr. Ball thought the Board had the authority to instruct Mr. Palmer not to continue interest charges. Mr. Palmer responded that the Board had that authority for water & sewer charges.
Mr. Ciccariello asked that Mr. Tanner get in touch with Mr. Lemnios to arrange a meeting with Town Counsel.
DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION FY05 TAX RATE
Appearing before the Board were Director of Assessment Janice D’Angelo and Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer. Mr. Palmer stated that there would be a brief presentation tonight and Ms. D’Angelo would make the full presentation at the public hearing in a couple of weeks.
Ms. D’Angelo, who had taken over the responsibilities in the Assessors Office from Bill Chenard, explained that the public hearing would be held on November 22 as required under the statute at which time the Board would hear from the public, input from the Assessors, and make a determination on how taxes would be split among the classes. The preliminary presentation was being done this evening because notification had been received from the DOR that the sooner the information got to the DOR the better off the Town would be in a position to set a tax rate. They wanted to be able to give the Board as much information as they could this evening and ask that if things
went well that the Board makes a decision on November 22. If it was pushed off until December, it ran the risk of not setting a rate.
Ms. D’Angelo advised that the values were remaining relatively static. If the Board used the same policy as historically and adopted a residential factor of 1, there would be a fractional shift from residential to commercial. The Board had to be aware that it was adopting a residential factor. Adopting a factor of 1 the residential and commercial were the same or the Board could classify up to a factor of 85.559%. She called attention to the material submitted that included impact examples that showed the impact were the burden shifted along with a full options table.
Mr. Hughes asked about the special legislation for Towns to go beyond that (85.559%). Mr. Palmer responded that in communities that had classified at 150% when the reval was happening there was an option added where those communities could go higher to 175%, but the community had to be at 150% and could only keep it static and not automatically go to 175%. Here the Board had historically used a factor of 1.
Mr. Palmer noted that the Board had the ability to adopt a residential exemption up to 20% of the average assessed value of all residential property, but that didn’t change the burden off residential, it only shifted. Anybody whose property was at the average value or below would see a benefit. Properties above that or properties that were not owner occupied would have a higher burden.
Mr. Palmer explained that the small business exemption would only apply to about 70 properties. The Board could shift about 10% of the burden to the remaining commercial properties. It was an exemption to consider but it was only within the commercial class and only for approximately 70 properties. Mr. Palmer noted that if the Board was to classify and the tax burden rose, it would have a negative impact on the value of commercial properties. When the tax factor went up it reduced the value of the commercial properties. He also noted that it was not uncommon when the rate was classified to see an in increase in abatement applications.
Mr. Palmer continued that in the memo dated November 5, 2004 he tried to give the Board some idea of a couple of other items. The projected single tax rate was $10.60. Currently it was $10.17. The memo also reported on the excess levy capacity and the impact of debt exclusion of the Wilson Middle School. He noted that the full impact of the Wilson Middle School would be seen this year. Thirty-four percent of the increase in tax levy from FY2004 to FY2005 was the increase related to repayment of debt for the Wilson and Kennedy Middle Schools. That
DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION FY05 TAX RATE (contd)
represents $96.38 on the average home, which was about $20 less than projected when the original projections were done.
Mr. Hughes inquired if it (Wilson tax) was less because the interest rates were more favorable and Mr. Palmer that that was correct.
Mr. Hughes then asked if the $10.66 included the debt exclusion, and advised that it did.
Mr. Ball pointed out that going from a tax rate of $10.17 to $10.60 was about a 4% increase in the tax rate. He understood from Ms. D’Angelo that while his taxes would still be going up, he, as a resident would be bearing a small percentage of tax increase. Mr. Palmer responded that last year was a reval year and there was a significant shift from commercial to residential. This year that was not happening. There was a small shift to commercial. He also noted that under Proposition 2-l/2 a 2-l/2% increase was allowed and 34% (of the 4% increase) was the debt service. Asked if the only increase was for new growth, Mr. Palmer advised that it was.
Mr. McKinley inquired if the same rule applied for commercial growth, Mr. Palmer responded that new growth would be just that – new construction and major renovation. Mr. McKinley noted that the slight shift from residential and essentially the same growth represented a trend. Mr. Palmer agreed that there has been some trending up of commercial values.
Mr. Ciccariello commented on the adjustment of condo values of just under $1 million, and Ms. D’Angelo replied that there were two condos that made various adjustments downward. 2004 was a reval year and two complete condo complexes had to be adjusted which resulted in a drop in condo values.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the fact that the SBA announced that it would pay back quicker would have any impact on Natick. Mr. Palmer’s response was, “no”, adding that when he came before the Board in April he had borrowed the Town’s share of Wilson. The 59% was still in this amount. In 2007 a drop would be seen because the Town would get a lump sum payment, but there were a couple of years before any drop would be seen.
Several years ago the Board commissioned a study on the split tax rate and Mr. Ball requested that copies be included in the briefing books for November 22. Mr. Hughes requested that Mr. Palmer send a copy of the handout to the library and post it on the web site.
When asked if there was any information the Board would like for the hearing on the 22nd, Mr. Hughes noted that last year a big part of the shift meant a tax reduction to the five largest properties. If that was happening this year, he preferred to know about it rather than waiting to the next meeting. Ms. D’Angelo advised that the Natick Mall was increasing in value as well as the parcel the Mall recently purchased. The Mall would see some increases. Regarding the hotels some recovery was being seen. The hotels were down after 9/11 but were now seeing some increase.
If 34% of the increase was for the school, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how long that would stay. Mr. Palmer noted that this was the
highest year – this year and next year and after that it will continue to decrease very slightly over the next 20 years. When it (Wilson) was paid off, it was gone.
Mr. Connolly called attention to Page 2 of the handout to the section stating split between residential and commercial. Mr. Palmer explained that if someone had a mixed used property, both rates would be applied based on the percentage of use. It was not new because the Town hasn’t split the rate. Mr. Palmer added that new growth was predicted to come in slightly less than $600,000. That was down about $178,000 from the prior year.
Mr. Ciccariello moved to schedule a public hearing for November 22, 2004. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION FY05 TAX RATE (contd)
Mr. Lemnios clarified that if 2-l/2% was added to the current tax rate, it would bring the rate to $10.42 and then adding the debt exclusion would bring the rate to $10.60. If the Town did not have a debt exclusion the rate would be approximately $10.42. He didn’t want people to think the tax rate was going up without any rhyme or reason. There were two components – what occurs at Town Meeting and the debt exclusion passed several years ago.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR WINE & MALT LICENSE: TANO’S, INC. D/B/A FRANCO’S RISTORANTE PIZZERIA
Representing Franco’s Ristorante Pizzeria were the owner/manager Franco Bruno and Attorney Richard Glaser.
Before the Board was an application from Tano’s Inc. d/b/a Franco’s Ristorante Pizzeria for premises at 218 Speen Street.
Mr. Hughes moved to open the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes noted that reference was made to a seasonal license. Ms. Challis explained that the Town of Natick did not have the ability to grant a seasonal license. In his application Mr. Bruno’s request for a seasonal license referred to the deck.
Mr. Glaser stated that the restaurant opened in May at the Golf Learning Center on Speen Street. It was a family affair with Franco Bruno, his wife Donna, and son Michael. Donna and Michael have run the present restaurant on Route 9 for five years. Mr. Bruno purchased the restaurant at the Golf Learning Center and was interested in the wine & malt license. Mr. Glaser noted that he had been to the restaurant. It was good Italian food and had a good showing, but Mr. Bruno would like the beer & wine license for economic reasons. Currently if there were four people and one person would like to have a glass of wine, Franco’s looses those customers to other places.
Mr. Glaser called attention to a petition with about 450 signatures indicating they would appreciate the Board’s consideration in granting
a beer & wine license. That was one of Mr. Bruno’s primary considerations – to service those customers.
Mr. Glaser continued that Mr. Bruno was willing to continue with the hours of his common victualer’s license: Monday-Saturday from 11:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. On Sunday Franco’s opened at 11:00 a.m., but alcohol service would not begin until noon. He also noted that Mr. Bruno had gone through alcohol service training again.
With respect to the deck, Mr. Glaser stated that his client was asking for the entire premises of 82 seats to be licensed although during the winter the deck would not be used. He added that Franco’s expected to abide by all the rules of the Town with the service of alcohol including sales of only 20% of gross proceeds. He pointed out that the original special permit granted to Fairway talked about an eatery.
In conclusion Mr. Glaser stated that a number of people from the public had indicated that they were pleased with it and would like to have the ability to have beer & wine.
Mr. Ball referred to the attestation in the license application concerning the number of hours Mr. Bruno would spend at this location. It was a large number. Mr. Ball inquired as to who was the manager of Franco’s Café Italian and was told that it was Donna Bruno and Michael Bruno was the assistant.
In the packet was a letter of opinion from Town Counsel concerning Mr. Bruno’s disclosure on the application that he had a criminal record. Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Glaser would like an executive session. Mr. Glaser hadn’t seen Town Counsel’s letter and was given a copy. Mr.
Glaser responded that he would be pleased to have an executive session to review anything the Board would like. Mr. Glaser offered to waive
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR WINE & MALT LICENSE: TANO’S, INC. D/B/A FRANCO’S RISTORANTE PIZZERIA (contd)
any notification requirements and provide any information he could in an executive session tonight.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that a telephone call had been received from Erin VanSpaybrock who was opposed to Franco’s being granted a beer & wine license and a letter from Jean Lesniack who was also opposed.
Regarding the use of the exterior deck, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the hours Mr. Bruno anticipated serving on the deck and if it was being used right now. Mr. Glaser responded that the deck was closed because of the weather. In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s follow-up, Mr. Bruno indicated he had been using the deck in the summer until 9:00 p.m. Mr. Glaser didn’t believe there were any complaints.
Mr. Ball brought to the Board’s attention the fact that this site sought a liquor license a number of years ago and was denied because the service of alcohol in a primarily residential area was not in the best interest of the neighborhood. He noticed that a number of the petitioners lived in the neighborhood and those were individuals the Board they were protecting (by denying the license). He was puzzled by what’s change.
Mr. McKinley who was also on the Board when the license was denied felt that circumstances were different. The use of the space (of the prior applicant) was not so much a restaurant with emphasis on dinner but rather a place where golfers could get a sandwich and something to drink with their sandwich. They also weren’t looking for just beer & wine. It was all alcohol and the hours of operation were until 11:00 p.m. A large number of neighbors were in support of denying the license 7-8 years ago and while he was hearing that a few neighbors were still opposed, based on the petition 100’s of people were positively disposed. To him there were some important distinctions to be made between this application and the prior one.
Mr. Ball recalled that there had also been an issue with traffic and whether people who had a couple of beers were ever so slightly impaired. The traffic did barrel along and that has not changed.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the number of tables, and was told by Mr. Glaser that there were 62 seats inside and 20 outside.
Alan Grady who lived six houses down from Franco’s stated that he was very much in favor of the beer & wine license. There have been a number of businesses there that have come and gone and Franco’s was a very good neighbor. Mr. Bruno hosted a meeting for the neighborhood shortly after moving in for the Mall expansion. Mr. Grady didn’t think it (Franco’s) was a place where people would linger and excessively drink. Most of his neighbors thought it was pretty civilized to have a glass of wine with dinner. His (Mr. Grady’s) daughter lived five houses down and she too was in support of the beer & wine license.
Pam Kelley noted that her yard abuts the back of the Golf Learning Center parking lot and the Golf Center was not a good neighbor. She didn’t know Mr. Bruno, but she had issues with things going on in the parking lot. The Police acknowledge that there was not enough lighting and security in terms of anyone can come in and it was a lover’s lane. People do transactions out of the back of their cars. Anytime someone turned around, their headlights shine into her house and she was told by the Golf Learning Center, ‘tough’. Ms. Kelley stated that she was not opposed to a liquor license but was opposed to any more traffic.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that the Golf Learning Center was there by special permit from the Planning Board and asked if any of those conditions required any plantings that were never done. Ms. Kelley responded that she spoke with Mr. Melchiorri (Building Inspector) and he said that in the original special permit all they were required to put up was a 6’ stockade fence. It was there but poorly put in and
because the grade of the parking lot was so much higher, it didn’t do anything.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR WINE & MALT LICENSE: TANO’S, INC. D/B/A FRANCO’S RISTORANTE PIZZERIA (contd)
Speen Street resident and abutter to the Golf Center, John Skinner stated that he had lived there for 15 years and thought the Golf Center were good neighbors. He had a concern about the golf balls and the Golf Center turned the facility around. It was a family center and a place where teens and others weren’t going to go to party and drink. He didn’t think somebody having a glass wine would have an impact on Speen Street. Considering that Speen Street was like the Mass Pike going north and south, in the big picture of things, this (beer & wine license) didn’t matter.
Town Meeting member and resident of Fairway Estates Robert Savoie was of the opinion that at times the Golf Learning Center management was not the most compliant but they had done a good job cleaning up a messy area and they had a very good family restaurant. He didn’t think the drinking would be excessive. As to the safety, Mr. Savoie agreed that Speen Street was a nightmare and in the winter it was dark and there were all kinds of errant traffic parking there, but having a couple of glasses of wine wouldn’t make a difference. He was in favor of the license.
With respect to the site, Mr. Glaser noted that he handled the permit (for the Golf Learning Center) and became sensitive that some of the lighting was shining on people. He has been working with Mr. Bruno to remove some of the lighting. One light was removed facing Speen Street that was shining into someone’s eyes and the focus was changed on another.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing this application (the personal reputation and character of an individual). Mr. McKinley seconded. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board retired to executive session at 9:20 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open meeting resumed at 9:35 p.m.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that a letter had just been submitted from Charles & Ann Fagan of Fairway Circle expressing their support.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the number of beer & wine licenses the Board could grant. Ms. Challis advised that the number was 7. Currently there was one existing license and one pending approval by the ABCC. This would be the third.
Asked if the abutters were notified, Ms. Challis responded that the notification had been done and the certified mail green cards returned to the Board.
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
During deliberation Mr. McKinley inquired as to how the members felt relative to the service of alcohol on the deck. He couldn’t think of a precedent in Natick of where it exists. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Board had just approved a license for Barber Brothers, which had outside seating.
Mr. Ciccariello raised the deck’s location, and Mr. Hughes advised that it fronted the south parking lot – not the lot Ms. Kelly spoke of.
Mr. Hughes requested that an inquiry be made to the Planning Board to see if there was anything that could be done to address Ms. Kelley’s concerns.
Mr. McKinley moved to grant a beer & wine license to Tano’s, Inc. d/b/a Franco’s Ristorante Pizzeria for premises at 218 Speen Street with the same service hours as specified in the common victualer’s license. It
was pointed out by Mr. Ball that Franco’s license allowed for service from 11:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. on Sundays, but establishments could not pour until noon. Mr. McKinley agreed to amend the motion to reflect Sunday hours of noon to 9:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR WINE & MALT LICENSE: TANO’S, INC. D/B/A FRANCO’S RISTORANTE PIZZERIA (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello reminded Mr. Glaser that his client could not sell alcohol until approval was received from the ABCC.
TCAN: ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE
Joshua Ostroff appeared before the Board on behalf of The Center For Arts in Natick to request a one-day liquor license in order to sell alcohol during the performance at their premises at 14 Summer Street on November 8, 2004.
Mr. Ostroff informed the Board that TCAN was interested in exploring the opportunity of getting one-day licenses for performances in 2005 and wanted to do it in November as a one-time trial. Permits had been received for the gala and they would like to expand that to include shows that were more adult. He understood that there was no provision for the Board to grant an ongoing license for an establishment such as TCAN, but he wanted to raise the issue to see if the Board was in favor or had concerns. He wanted to let the Board know what was being planned.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had granted TCAN one-time licenses for special events and what would make this different than that occasion. Mr. Ostroff explained that the gala was a fundraiser to which tickets were sold and this (November 8) was a normal show where in addition to selling cookies and soda, they would like to sell beer & wine. Many people have asked for it and it would be an extension of the menu. TCAN looked at it as being important to its operation. They took in $10,000-15,000 in concessions and this (alcohol) would extend that. Mr. Ostroff stressed that he wanted to make it clear that TCAN looked at this as being incidental to the reason people came to the
Arts Center. It was not essential to their operation. It was an amenity and would help them.
Mr. Ball noted that TCAN had a large number of kids flowing through the building during the period of a week and he wondered where the alcohol would be stored. Mr. Ostroff advised that for this particular performance they would bring it in and take it out afterwards. Should they do it (sell beer & wine) on an ongoing basis, they would have to have a refrigerator with a lock and some other secure facility. In follow-up Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Ostroff was assuring the Board that there would be no opportunity for anybody under age to access the beer & wine. It would come for this event and disappear first thing in the morning. Mr. Ostroff’s response was, “exactly”, noting that it would be taken out during the cleanup at 11:00 p.m.
As far as a long-time thing Mr. Connolly said he would be curious to see the situation with the ABCC and the clubs. Mr. Hughes responded that the rules didn’t permit the Board to issue a long-term permit to TCAN. The club license was a different license and TCAN didn’t qualify for a license under a club.
Mr. McKinley moved to grant Joshua Ostroff on behalf of The Center for Arts in Natick a one-day alcohol license for the TCAN premises at 14 Summer Street on November 8, 2004. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. After discussion of the motion Mr. McKinley amended his motion to limit the hours of service to 7:15 p.m.-10:00 p.m. As seconder Mr. Hughes agreed to the amendment. Unanimously voted.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ball inquired if Mr. Ostroff would be the only person serving. Mr. Ostroff replied that David Lavalley, TCAN Director, would probably also be serving. Mr. McKinley requested that both TIPS certificates be on file.
Mr. Hughes stated that he would prefer to set the hours in terms of you can’t serve before and you can’t serve after. To Mr. Ostroff’s
assertion that it would only be Mr. Ostroff or only Mr. Ostroff and Mr. Lavelly serving, Mr. Hughes asked if that meant there would be no wait staff walking amongst the crowd taking orders and bringing it back. Mr. Ostroff’s reply was, “no”. There would be a volunteer that night that would just walk around and scope it out. TCAN wanted to hear
TCAN: ONE DAY LIQUOR LICENSE (contd)
feedback and if people didn’t like it, that was important to know. They (TCAN) wanted to know if people were buying alcohol and giving it to people under age. Professionally he did a lot of work with alcohol and youth and was very aware of the dangers of alcohol to kids.
It was suggested by Mr. McKinley that the hours be limited to 7:15-10:00 p.m., and Mr. Ostroff indicated that that was acceptable. Mr. McKinley amended his motion.
Mr. Ostroff put the Board on notice that TCAN would be back for New Year’s Eve and if this (November 8) went well, he would be back for other special permits. There was a limit of 30 special licenses, but
he didn’t see TCAN coming back 30 days and would try it on a limited basis.
HENG TONG, INC. D/B/A ORIENTAL PEARL: RENEWAL OF ALCOHOL LICENSE; APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN MANAGER
Mr. Ciccariello reminded the Board that renewal of Oriental Pearl’s liquor license had been held pending a discussion regarding the status of the manager. Mr. Chen has resigned and Oriental Pearl was seeking a new manager.
Proposed new manager Phillips Ng told the Board that he would be going to a TIPS class this coming Saturday and showed a copy of his letter of resignation.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who was managing the restaurant right now, and Mr. Ng responded that Mr. Chen wasn’t there and Oriental Pearl wanted to change the license to his (Mr. Ng’s) name starting November 1.
Mr. Ball inquired as to how many hours a week Mr. Ng would be spending at the restaurant, and Mr. Ng’s response was at least 50 hours.
Asked if he had experience with the service of alcohol, Mr. Ng said yes. He had been a bartender for about 10 years and a waiter for over 20 years. In follow-up Mr. Ball questioned if Mr. Ng ever had a problem with serving anyone who was intoxicated or under age in his past employment. Mr. Ng’s response was ‘so far none’.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of Heng Tong, Inc. d/b/a Oriental Pearl’s petition for a change in manager from Yuan Quan Chen to Phillips Ng. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
In discussion of the motion Mr. McKinley proposed tabling until the Board received the TIPS certification. Mr. Hughes pointed out that in the past the Board had granted conditioned upon receiving a certificate. If this was tabled until November 22, there would be no manager and he would rather have a manager in there.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board still had to vote to renew the liquor license. Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ball was opposed.
Prior to the vote, Mr. McKinley asked if there had been any incidents at Oriental Pearl. Ms. Challis advised that the office was not aware of any. He then asked if Oriental Pearl was in arrears in taxes, and Ms. Challis explained that they had been opened for too short a period of time.
Mr. Ball commented that the Board was being asked to approve a license to a restaurant it believed had a manager who was not fulfilling his
duties. Mr. Hughes felt that if Mr. Ball was saying Oriental Pearl was in violation, a hearing should be set up to determine if that was true. In the meantime the Board couldn’t do anything to stop them from operating. Mr. Ball explained that he was seeking not to renew a license to an organization the Board had strong supposition did not have a current manager fulfilling his responsibilities. His solution was not to have a public hearing because by the time that was done Mr.
HENG TONG, INC. D/B/A ORIENTAL PEARL: RENEWAL OF ALCOHOL LICENSE; APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN MANAGER (contd)
Ng would be approved. He asked that the renewal be tabled for two weeks to allow Mr. Ng to become a valid manager. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Mr. Ng wouldn’t be a valid manager until approved by the ABCC.
TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE: DUNKIN DONUTS – WORCESTER ROAD FROM NATICK REFRESHMENT CORP TO NATDUN, LLC
Before the Board was an application for the transfer of the common victualer’s license held by Natick Refreshment Corp d/b/a Dunkin Donuts to NatDun, LLC d/b/a Dunkin Donuts for premises at 1362 Worcester Road.
Representing NatDun, LLC was Attorney Paul Galvani.
Mr. Galvani advised that this was an entity of the Scrivanos group that now operated 104 franchises. They recently purchased this particular franchise, which was adjacent to the Firestone building. There were no changes in the general management other than the Scrivanos group did not cook on the premises and did deliveries during the day. There were no additions to the building.
Mr. McKinley moved approval of the transfer of the common victualer’s license from Natick Refreshment Corp to NatDun, LLC d/b/a Dunkin Donuts for premises at 1362 Worcester Road. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
PRESENTATION OF DESIGN MASTER PLAN FOR NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY, SENIOR CENTER, COURTHOUSE AREA
Tim Collins, Chairman of the Armory Task Force, summarized the recommendations of the task force, noting that the final report would be presented to the Board in about two weeks.
Mr. Collins noted that three parcels were under study consisting of the existing Armory on Route 135, the existing courthouse, and the existing senior center along with the playing field behind the Senior Center. There was also an existing private residence between the Armory and the Courthouse. All the different options were boiled down to two. The first recommendation was to ask the State to allow an environmental study. Without that study the committee felt the risk and liability to the Town would be prohibitive and without an environmental assessment the committee did not recommend the Town purchasing the parcel.
Assuming the assessment was allowed and successful, Mr. Collins advised that the recommended plan would include renovation of the Armory, redevelopment of the courthouse and senior center. A new senior center could be put into a renovated Armory, and the existing courthouse and
senior center could be transformed into housing consisting of 1-2 bedrooms with 15% affordable. It was important to include senior housing. The plan required the purchase of a private residence and required adequate parking for the senior center and underground parking for housing. The housing would not be single family, but an apartment building. That allowed for a higher density.
Mr. Collins advised that the second option would not require the Town to acquire the Armory and the Town could move forward if the state did not allow an environmental assessment. The existing courthouse and senior center could be renovated for 1-2 bedroom units with a senior center on the first floor of a 3-4 level housing building.
Mr. Collins noted that there were pros and cons to both options. In 5.5b a senior center would need to be designed to be accessible and appropriate for seniors, but it would allow for 144 housing units. 5.7b could achieve 102 units of housing with 15% affordable and the entire first floor would be a senior center.
Mr. Collins continued that it was possible the Town could purchase the Armory in either scenario. If it were determined that a senior center wasn’t the best use, the Armory could be used for other civic purposes or housing. In both cases the 1-2 bedroom housing was the main part and in both cases the financial model payback was in the positive. The
PRESENTATION OF DESIGN MASTER PLAN FOR NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY, SENIOR CENTER, COURTHOUSE AREA (contd)
Town would be able to provide a new senior center and net positive revenue for the Town over time.
Mr. Collins reported that the committee had heard informally that DCAM had postponed the auction that was to take place November 29 until January and was waiting for a proposal from the Town.
In looking at the sketches, it appeared to Mr. McKinley that there wasn’t any area being added to the senior center. The best case was 20,000 square feet. Mr. Ciccariello noted that the existing center was 10,000.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to where the courthouse was in the plans and was told by Mr. Collins that there was no courthouse in either option. The housing and senior center were more important to the Town. Mr. Hughes questioned if the Court had participated in that discussion, and Mr. Collins acknowledged that the Court had not been represented.
In the preliminary recommendations submitted to the Board, 1c recommended that the Town continue to work on a joint redevelopment strategy; work with a potential private owner who may be able to acquire the property without conducting an environmental review prior to purchase as well s with the owner of the private parcel along Route 135. Mr. Ball inquired as to where the Town got any leverage if it were bought privately.
Mr. Lemnios explained that the committee originally started with 7-8 different options. There were weekly meetings including a planning charette and it came down to these two scenarios. If a private party purchased the Armory, the uses were limited for commercial as there was no parking. It was a 30,000 square foot lot and the Armory covered 90%. Taking into consideration zoning from a private developer’s perspective, the best and highest use was housing, but a 21E was a major component. Somebody could use it for an office type use but parking was a critical issue. The Town had the greatest amount of leverage because the Town controlled the most property (in that area), and a developer would have a strong incentive to talk to the Town about doing some partnership or discussion of how to enhance
his property.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the financing would be by an override. All the options described called for anywhere from $1.8 million to $2.3 million in net cost. Mr. Lemnios replied that the committee hadn’t gotten to the full point of discussion on where the difference would come from. They (committee) looked at the area as a planning concept. There could be a determination to take the money and use it for some other purpose. There was a desire to see a senior center developed.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what money Mr. Lemnios was referring, and Mr. Lemnios’ reply was the value of the Town owned property. Where the housing would be built had a value and helped defray some cost of building a senior center. To build it (senior center) elsewhere in Town $4-5 million was need. Another possibility was to sell the land and help pay for a senior center.
Mr. McKinley asked about the rent from the courthouse and was told that it was about $170,000. The Town also saved money on sending officers to testify making the estimated value at about $200,000. In follow-up Mr. McKinley asked if 5.5b and 5.7b would show a negative if the $200,000 for the courthouse was taken out. Mr. Lemnios responded that some of the members (of the committee) had been having the discussion of whether to include that revenue stream or not. He would ask the consultant to respond as to why that revenue stream wasn’t included. He felt the argument could be made for including it.
The consultant Christine Scott of Goody Clancy explained that the conclusion was trying to relate where the courthouse was on the site generating revenue and relate it to these scenarios where there was no courthouse. It was a way of accounting.
PRESENTATION OF DESIGN MASTER PLAN FOR NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY, SENIOR CENTER, COURTHOUSE AREA (contd)
Mr. Hughes commented on there being no courthouse, the committee not knowing where the courthouse would go and not caring. Mr. Ciccariello responded that over the course of the meetings and the charette, the consensus among a lot of individuals in terms of what was cost beneficial to Natick in priorities, the senior center was one and housing was the second and the courthouse in terms of priorities was not weighted as much.
Again Mr. Hughes inquired if the courthouse had been asked or invited to any of these meetings or charette. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t know. This was Town land and there was input from the residents and they talked to a lot of the stakeholders. As for the use the consensus was a senior center number one and housing the second most important. Most people felt that the court was a state-owned facility run by the state and this was Natick property. One thing not explained was that 5.7b allowed the Town to go out for an RFP on its own property and approach a couple of different alternatives and have a turn key development where a developer built the senior center. They didn’t have to purchase the Armory but if someone purchased the Armory and this land, through the HOOP, a developer could add more
housing. It provided some flexibility if the Town couldn’t purchase the Armory. The seniors from the senior center were not as much in favor of renovating the Armory. They felt they would be trying to take their operating program and work it into the footprint of an existing structure.
Mr. McKinley recalled that the committee embarked upon studying what if anything the Town was going to do with the Armory and now the concentration was on a new senior center to which some housing has been added. With reference to the community charettes, Mr. McKinley pointed out that the attendees were almost all senior citizens so he was not surprised the priority came out as a senior center. He wasn’t sure the Board formed the task force to begin getting its arms around a new senior center and he questioned if it was appropriate to call it an Armory Re-use Committee and start to think about a new senior center plan.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that one of the reasons the Town got the grant was to study the Armory and adjacent Town land and what would be the best-suited use for the property including the Armory. When the Board appointed the committee it was to look at the Armory. Nothing came of that and no decision could be generated because they (committee) didn’t have the professional experience. When the planning assistance grant was applied for, it was clear that it would study not only the Armory but the Town property and determine the best use of those two parcels for the Town of Natick into the future.
Mr. McKinley asked Mr. Ciccariello if as an architect he (Mr. Ciccariello) thought there was any viability to leaving the courthouse, have housing at the Armory and a new senior center where it was now. Mr. Ciccariello felt that 4.7b was most likely where that would occur. When again asked if he thought it was viable, Mr. Ciccariello responded he believed it was.
Mr. McKinley urged the use of caution in making plans about the courthouse until what was going to be done with the courthouse was known.
Mr. Connolly thanked Mr. Collins and the task force for their hard work.
Mr. Ciccariello found Mr. McKinley’s question of where to go from here to be a good one. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think the task force was done and hopefully they could pursue some of these questions. The environmental study and the home rule petition only gave the Town more
flexibility and there needed to be confirmation on whether the auction was going forward on November 29.
Mr. Lemnios was of the understanding that the Town had until November 29 to state potential plans and he would look to schedule a time to
PRESENTATION OF DESIGN MASTER PLAN FOR NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY, SENIOR CENTER, COURTHOUSE AREA (contd)
talk to officials about the grant. The planning grant was received for the entire area and the Town was obligated to report back on the work of the task force relative to the planning grant. A consensus was needed from the Board of Selectmen relative to was the committee on the right track. If the Board wanted to preserve the courthouse in the mix, it would change the plan dramatically. The task force looked at the charge from the Board as being what made sense for the Armory and what made sense for the site in general. He pointed out that the Town had a tenant (court) that asked for a one-year renewal on a lease, not a 10-year renewal or 20-year renewal.
Mr. Ball inquired if a request was going to be made to the State relative to the 21E permission and who would make it and when it would be made. Mr. Ciccariello assumed the request would come from the Town Administrator, himself, the Community Development Director, and the Deputy Town Administrator and they would probably approach DCAM.
Mr. Lemnios noted that at this point the State was fairly insistent that they were selling the Armory as is. That didn’t release the State from a piece of liability but made it more difficult for a potential development. If the intent was to put housing, having it contaminated may make it difficult to put housing there.
To Mr. Hughes’ question of what was left for the task force to do, Mr. Lemnios advised that they had to finalize the report and come back to the Board and approach the State relative to permission to do a Phase I 21E on the Armory site. That was a key component to determining whether a parcel was worthwhile. If not, he thought the task force would take that option off the table. The other question was if the test could be done quickly and how to pay for it. Could the test be done and back in time for the Town to determine if the Armory purchase was an option.
Mr. McKinley asked that a version of 5.7b be done and stated that he was nervous about putting a plan to the State that didn’t have a courthouse.
Mr. Lemnios agreed that the political point should not be underestimated. Governor Romney has looked to close the courthouse. More than likely the Court wanted to keep it open and there was strong reason to believe that the current administrative staff at the Court wanted to keep it open. Plus he thought the local law community would
want to keep it open, but the factor weighed (by the task force) was the best use of that property over time.
Mr. McKinley felt the Board needed to be respectful of one of the Town’s representatives who worked hard to keep the Court opened.
LIBBY ROAD: ORDER OF TAKING
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to approve and sign the taking documents for Libby Road.
FINANCIAL POLICIES
Mr. McKinley reported that the Financial Operations Committee generally felt that it had completed most of the work it was charged to do. There was one remaining action on the mission statement. Mr. Lemnios had asked them to help him in preparing a budget model for the Town budgets. The committee discussed and agreed that it was in the committee’s purview and interest to do this and he (Mr. McKinley) wanted to be sure the Board agreed to having the committee go forward in doing that one last task before asking to be dissolved.
Mr. Ciccariello felt that a lot of good things had been done and he didn’t have a problem with the committee continuing. There was no objection from any other member of the Board.
HOME RULE PETITION: NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY
Town Meeting had passed an article authorizing the Board of Selectmen to file a home rule petition that would enable the State to negotiate the sale of the Armory to the Town. Mr. Lemnios explained that in order to proceed the Board of Selectmen had to vote to forward the petition to Representative Linsky for filing.
Mr. Hughes so moved. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Sale of MetroWest Medical Center - Vanguard
With respect to the 10-taxpayer petition filed by all ten members of the Framingham and Natick Boards of Selectmen, Mr. Ball raised the question of representation at a meeting to be held at Keefe Tech on Wednesday. Mr. Ball and Mr. McKinley had previously been appointed as the Board’s subcommittee to work with Framingham on the 10-taxpayer agreement.
Mr. McKinley noted that he could not attend. Mr. Ball stated that he could not attend as well and suggested that the Board let a member of the Framingham Board speak on Natick’s behalf. Mr. Ciccariello, however, felt that someone from Natick had to be there and he would see what he could do. Mr. Hughes noted that as important as Wednesday’s meeting was the meeting with the State in Boston on December 21, 2004. Mr. McKinley advised that he would try to make Wednesday’s meeting as he got the impression this was the important one.
Mr. Ball noted that it was Framingham Town Counsel Christopher Petrini’s recommendation that a single spokesperson be designated. He (Mr. Ball) thought Mr. McKinley should be designated from this Board and if it was decided that only one person needed to speak from the two combined boards, so be it.
b. Retirement System
Mr. Ball called attention to the report from PERAC. In years past the investment performance of the Natick system had been poor compared to that of other towns and he wondered if anyone knew where that performance stood currently relative to other towns.
Mr. Lemnios explained that the Retirement Board was an independent body and PERAC stopped providing a ranking of the 104 systems. The statement no longer provided in any easy manner an opportunity to get a sense of what happened over time. In a two-year period there was a $10 million drop in assets, but the good news was that between 2002 and 2003 it went back up almost $10 million. He suggested that the Board could request the Retirement Board or the Board’s appointee to the Retirement Board to come in and talk about investment performance.
As a good chunk of taxpayer money went into the retirement system, Mr. Ball suggested that the Board do that (invite the Retirement Board in). The other members of the Board agreed to schedule the Retirement Board for some time in January.
c. Senior Citizen Information Day
Mr. Connolly reminded everyone that November 17 was Senior Citizen Information Day.
d. Thanksgiving Day Dinner
Mr. Ball reminded every that there was a free Thanksgiving Day dinner open to anyone who would like to come at the High School cafeteria from 12-3:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day. Anyone who would like to volunteer should show up at 10:30 a.m. Thanksgiving Day.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
______________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
