BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
November 22, 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: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on November 22, 2004 in the amount of $541,118.96. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,038,734.24.
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.
Following a moment of silence in honor of the men and women serving in the military, Mr. Ciccariello thanked the Board of Selectmen, Council on Aging, Fire Department, and in particular Mr. Connolly for sponsoring Senior Information Day. It was a terrific event and hopefully something that could be done every year. There were a number of groups that participated and quite a few attendees.
Mr. Ciccariello then thanked the Town of Natick and veterans’ organizations for all the activities that took place on Veterans’ Day. In particular he thanked Mrs. Conaway, Mrs. D’Antonio and the Johnson School Peacemakers. He also thanked the Fire Department for sponsoring the dinner that evening. It was a great success.
MINUTES
Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved approval of the minutes of the July 26, 2004 meeting. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley abstained.
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the August 9, 2004 meeting.
Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. McKinley, moved approval of the minutes of the August 16, 2004 meeting.
CONFIRMATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSION’S APPOINTEE TO THE OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to confirm the Conservation Commission’s appointment of George Bain to the Open Space Advisory Committee to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of Jason Makofsky.
Mr. Ciccariello asked that a letter of thanks be sent to Mr. Makofsky.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to accept the resignation of Michael Radin from the Zoning Board of Appeals with thanks.
METROWEST GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DIRECTOR DONNA JACOBS
Mr. Lemnios informed the Board that Donna Jacobs, MetroWest Growth Management Committee Director, had called the office that afternoon to postpone her appearance before the Board due to illness. Ms. Jacobs would be rescheduled for a future agenda.
UPDATE ELDERLY & DISABLED TAXATION COMMITTEE
Director of Assessment Jan D’Angelo noted that she was a member of the Taxation Committee and the Chair, Ralph Letner had requested an opportunity to speak to the Board. Mr. Letner had not as yet arrived and she thought he was just running a little late.
When Mr. Letner did not arrive by the end of the meeting, the Board tabled the item to a future agenda.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF RULES & REGULATIONS FOR CLUBS HOLDING ALCOHOL LICENSES
Mr. Hughes reported that he had spoken with Town Counsel and Mr. Lemnios and the ABCC was going to consider this tomorrow night. The ABCC had not formulated a response and he would ask that the hearing be continued to December 6, 2004. He believed the clubs had been notified.
Mr. Lemnios stated that ABCC Counsel William Kelley had advised that the ABCC Commission would be taking the matter up tomorrow and it was impressed upon Mr. Kelley, as it had been in the meeting, that a decision would be most helpful and the Town hoped the ABCC would move on it as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Ball noted that there had been a number of comments made about closing time and he had included some draft language that would deal with the definition of closing and when people could be served. He inquired as to when it would be appropriate to discuss that one issue.
Mr. Hughes felt that a separate public hearing would be needed.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to what the Board was trying to solve – was there some ambiguity. Ms. Challis explained that the issue came up at license renewal time with a request from the Police Department for a clarification of when an establishment could serve the last drink.
With the licenses being issued for January 2005, Mr. Hughes asked if the hearing for modification should be before the first of the year, but Ms. Challis pointed out that the Board could modify the rules & regs at any time during the year and set an effective date for the modification. Rather than rushing it through, Mr. McKinley preferred to take some time. Mr. Hughes agreed, but suggested picking a hearing date in January. The Board agreed to schedule a hearing for the first meeting in January.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2005 TAX CLASSIFICATION
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
A letter from the Town Moderator Paul Connolly dated November 19, 2004 was read. In his letter Mr. Connolly noted that usually he adds to his chart showing how the assessment of the Natick Mall (five parcels; building and land only) continues to rise each fiscal year while the amount of taxes paid by the Natick Mall continues to drop each fiscal year. Most residential properties have seen the amount of taxes paid continue to rise each fiscal year. However, this year he was unable to add to his chart. The FY2005 assessment information was not available online for residents to view their new assessments. He inquired at the Office of the Assessors to view this information on the department’s system. Although he was told that the information was for FY2005, he was skeptical. All the parcels he
examined (admittedly less than 10) showed the exact same assessment values as published for FY2004. This lack of change never occurred in his previous examination of data over the past four years. Consequently he was making the assumption that the FY2005 assessment information was not being made available to the
residents sufficiently in advance of the Board’s tax classification hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2005 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
Mr. Connolly’s letter continued that he hoped the Board would verify his assumption. In any event it was clear that the FY2005 assessment information was not being made easily available. To hold a public hearing when relevant information needed by the public was not made available implied that the public input was irrelevant to the subject of the hearing. He hoped the Board would take a second look at the tax classification hearing process this year. Was it working effectively in a way that would inspire public confidence in the operation of the Town’s government?
Director of Assessment Jan D’Angelo explained that her job here was to bring to light all the information the Board of Selectmen would need to make a decision on classification. She referred to the memo previously reviewed with the Board at the last meeting and noted that this year
there was a shift in value from residential to commercial. Residential value represented 77.88% of the total value and this year that number drops to 77.59% and that results to a small tax shift to commercial.
Ms. D’Angelo noted that property sale prices continue to rise although the rate of increase had slowed. The median sales price for a single family home was $390,000 in 2003 and that number increased to $420,000
in 2004. The projected tax rate assumed the Department of Revenue would certify new growth and that has been done, and assumed that the state aid estimates did not change. The projected single tax rate was $10.60.
Ms. D’Angelo continued that at the conclusion of the public hearing the Board had the following options: To split the tax rate the Board must vote a residential factor below 1.00. The minimum residential factor was 85.559%. Voting a residential factor of 1.00 would maintain a single tax rate. The Board would also be asked whether or not to adopt a residential exemption of up to 20%. A residential exemption shifts the burden from owner occupied to non-owner occupied and from low valued property to higher valued property. It did not change the residential tax levy.
Ms. D’Angelo advised that the Board could also adopt a small business exemption of up to 10% for businesses that employ less than 10 employees annually. In addition the property must be assessed for less than $1 million. All tenants must meet the eligibility requirements. Approximately 70 properties would meet the criteria.
Ms. D’Angelo identified several points to be considered – splitting the rate would shift the tax burden from residential to commercial and all residential tax payers including multi-family would pay less and all commercial/industrial would pay higher. The mixed use property including home businesses would pay higher. Since most of the commercial properties were appraised via the income approach, splitting the rate would increase commercial and industrial taxes and lower their overall value. The potential for commercial/industrial abatement requests would increase and that could mean an increase in the overlay, which would reduce the revenue for the operating budget. A split tax rate would also require additional staff time and perhaps additional staff.
Ms. D’Angelo referred to a memo dated November 5, 2004 from Finance Director Robert Palmer giving a breakdown of the projected increase and an explanation of the makeup of the tax rate. Based on an assessed value of $5 billion, the projected tax rate was $10.60 with an excess levy capacity of $52,836.70. For Fiscal 2004 the excess levy capacity was $9,852.12. The relative value of residential remains nearly static. If a single rate were adopted, there would be a .2912 shift from residential to commercial.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Ms. D’Angelo to comment on the Town Moderator’s correspondence with respect to his opinion that the FY2005 assessment
information was not made available on line. In response Ms. D’Angelo noted that the FY05 rates have not been established as of yet and the FY04 values were on the web site. Paul Connolly had contacted her via e-mail the night before last and had questions about five properties, but was not explicit about which five properties. She told Mr.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2005 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
Connolly that she would make the projected FY05 values available to him as well as any others he may need to make an evaluation.
Noting that historically the Town had always had a single tax rate, Mr. Ball inquired as to the history of the residential exemption and small business exemption.
Ms. D’Angelo responded that it had been the practice to have one tax rate and along with that the Board never adopted the residential or small business exemption. The small business would probably only benefit 70 businesses. The residential would be the lower end property and only if owner occupied. It would probably be the lower end condos.
Asked by Mr. Hughes if she had any sense of how many non-owner occupied properties would be affected, Ms. D’Angelo responded that originally the residential exemption was for communities with large non-residential populations. She thought Natick was probably looking at 9,000 small condo properties that may benefit. She pointed out that this exemption would shift back to the other residential properties. It was just a shift within the residential class. The value of the property would have to be less than $358,684.
Mr. Hughes thought the number cited seemed high. Ms. D’Angelo apologized for the error noting that that looked like the residential class. Asked if the number of properties that would benefit was a small number, Ms. D’Angelo replied, ‘yes’.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the free cash number, but Ms. D’Angelo didn’t have the number adding that it had not as yet been certified. Mr. Connolly then asked about the stabilization fund, and was told by Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer that free cash was $5.5 million and the stabilization fund roughly $4 million.
To Mr. Connolly’s inquiry as to the plans for free cash and the stabilization fund, Mr. Lemnios responded that that was more in the purview of the Board of Selectmen and budget presentation. At Spring Town Meeting the FY05 budget was presented and a certain amount of free cash was allocated. At Fall Town Meeting a portion of free cash was utilized to support some bonding projects to clear up drainage problem areas and a portion of free cash will be used to support the FY06 budget.
Of the $9.5 million available, Mr. Connolly asked what portion would be used. Mr. Lemnios advised that the stabilization fund had been used for the last 6-7 years to help support the debt for this (Town Hall) building, library, police and fire. A plan put forward to help pay for these buildings used the stabilization fund. For the past three years
a large amount of free cash has been used. This year $2.7 million was used and next year the projection was to use $3.6 million and bank the balance. Mr. Lemnios warned that the Town needs to stop depending on free cash and overlay surplus to balance the budget and start putting it more toward capital.
Mr. Connolly questioned if there was a way to kick it back to the taxpayers to take some of the sting out of the Wilson Middle School. Mr. Lemnios pointed out that it was going back to the taxpayers in the form of capital projects and stability in services, but there was nothing that precluded the Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee, or Town Meeting from saying they want to use it in a different manner, but it had to be recognized that if it was taken from use it won’t be available for another use.
Mr. Connolly then asked about a safety net, and Mr. Lemnios replied that the stabilization account was an interest bearing account. The choice in this community was to use it to help pay for these buildings
(municipal complex). Free cash was different. At the end of the fiscal year you look at what revenues came in and what you spent. There was no hard and fast rule of what you should have left over, but you should be trying to generate 3-5% in free cash in any given year. Many things affect the revenue. Property tax was static and what a Town can expect to raise was known. There were estimated receipts and
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2005 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
those categories fluctuate. It was known that in FY05 or FY06 the Mall will file for building permits and that will be significant. If GM offered 0% financing, there might be a big jump in excise taxes. A spending plan was put together and assumptions were made as best as possible. Some folks feel the estimated receipts were too conservative and some feel they were being set too high. For the past several years Natick has set its assumptions in a way that generates free cash, but there was nothing that precludes a discussion on whether or not to take some of the money and use it for tax relief.
Mr. Connolly commented that having money left over was wonderful, but $5.5 million was a lot of money. Mr. Lemnios agreed that it was a lot of money, but as a percentage of the overall budget it was right in line. Mr. Connolly reiterated that if it were kicked back it might take the sting out of Wilson. Mr. Lemnios replied that that could be done, but that money would not then be available for the FY06 budget and consideration may have to be given on how to adjust the FY06 budget.
The Town’s biggest product was the provision of service in education, police, fire, library, but at some point a look had to be taken at the revenue coming in to support those services and there may have to be a recognition that some of those services may have to be reduced.
Mr. Lemnios continued that when contemplating a budget there was incredible tension. Everyone wanted good service and at the same time there was a whole group of people who were elderly, on fixed income, low wage earners who find it increasingly difficult to live here. It was a discussion that should be ongoing, but he (Mr. Lemnios)
wasn’t sure it could be solved this evening. The FY05 budget was already voted and approved by Town Meeting and now coming up was the discussion of the FY06 budget.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that there was no action in residential assessment, and Ms. D’Angelo advised that that was correct unless there was a review of the property or a building permit was pulled.
Looking at the material submitted, Mr. Ciccariello noted that of the 455-commercial/industrial properties many had gone up $200-300,000 and there was one situation where one tax bill went up $73,000. He felt that particular parcel would need to be checked. He then noted that several of the businesses and department stores had significant tax increases and asked if that was the result of the retail market and the vacancy rate.
Ms. D’Angelo responded that Natick’s vacancy rate was very low and rebounds were being seen in the retail and with the hotels. Some parcels saw a large increase and those were due to building permits. There was a Speen Street property that was a lot more. Last year the occupancy wasn’t included, but this year the full impact was being seen.
Mr. McKinley stated that he had plugged in this year’s number to the data of 15-20 years and Ms. D’Angelo was exactly right. For several years the Town had watched the residential rate rise much faster than the commercial. This year that was reversed and that shift in the curve appears to take place every 8-10 years where for a while the housing market was hot and then it turned back around to the commercial. This year we were seeing those two curves change and he would encourage the Board not to do anything rash and watch to see if those trends were coming back to what was expected.
Natick Center Associates Executive Director Steven Greenberg read a letter signed by members of the Center Associates Board of Directors
going on record as being opposed to setting a split real estate tax rate for Natick.
Ted Welte, President of the MetroWest Chamber of Commerce, echoed Mr. Greenberg’s comments adding that the single rate had worked very well and the Chamber would urge the Board to stay with the single rate.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2005 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
Mr. Ball moved to establish a residential factor of 1. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. 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.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board not establish a residential exemption. 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.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board not establish a small business exemption. Seconded by Mr. Ball. 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 speaking to the motions, Mr. Connolly stated that he would rather have seen the Assessors come back with an approach to using some of those funds. That was why he was voting no.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that it would have to go back to Town Meeting (to use funds), but Mr. Connolly responded that he would like to have seen it explored. Mr. Ball pointed out that that was not within the purview of the Assessors. It was in the preparation of the budget. This was the second step. Mr. McKinley added that a rate was being set based on what Town Meeting approved. Mr. Ball continued that the right time to press this issue was the budget preparation time when the FY06 budget was being prepared rather than now. The Assessors had no ability to do what Mr. Connolly was asking them to do.
Mr. Connolly asked if the Assessors would have the ability to do that at that time (budget preparation), but Mr. Hughes explained that it was not the Assessors. Mr. Lemnios proposed a budget to the Finance Committee and that would be presented in January. This year’s budget was passed in April at Town Meeting.
Mr. Palmer noted that the papers required to be submitted to the DOR had been left for the Board’s signature.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if there was anything the Board needed to know about the enterprise fund. Mr. Palmer advised that the golf was two parts. The planned deficit was fully in there and there was a $77,690 deficit from the prior year. FY04 ended up better than projected, but a small piece of that was raised this year (FY05). You would not see a deficit next year.
Mr. McKinley inquired if the Board was being asked to sign off on the enterprise when the water & sewer rates hadn’t been approved. Mr. Palmer advised that the Board always signed off before the rates were done. When the recap was done, a conservative estimate was anticipated and that was why typically there was a healthy retained earnings. For the last several years the Board hasn’t adopted water & sewer rates until the tax rate was set.
Mr. McKinley pointed out that inclusive of setting the tax rate was a set of assumptions of the enterprise fund so it was kind of backing in. Mr. Palmer acknowledged that that was true, but it was already part way into the year.
Asked if he needed the recap sheets signed tonight, Mr. Palmer said, ‘yes’, noting that the actual recap had to go to the State and if it
wasn’t in by the first of December, the Town wouldn’t be able to get bills out for the third quarter. Historically the Board set the water & sewer rates after the tax rate.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that instead of asking the Board to just sign the forms, his preference would have been to have some kind of presentation made so the Board would have a clear understanding of what they were being asked to sign. The other members were familiar with the golf and water & sewer enterprise funds, but this being his first year on the board Mr. Connolly may not be. If the Board was being
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2005 TAX CLASSIFICATION (contd)
asked to sign something, he (Mr. Ciccariello) would appreciate having a presentation.
Asked if he would like a presentation now on the enterprise fund, Mr. Ciccariello said he would. To give Mr. Palmer an opportunity to prepare, the Board moved on to the next agenda item.
ARMORY TASK FORCE: DESIGN MASTER PLAN FOR NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY, SENIOR CENTER, COURTHOUSE AREA
Appearing before the Board was the Armory Task Force Chair Tim Collins.
Mr. Collins noted that the task force was created to not only study the armory but to look at the current senior center and courthouse through a state grant. Those sites were looked at considering the priorities as determined by the stakeholders. The complete report as presented was substantially the same as two weeks ago. The report was completed using all the supporting documentation and interviews with stakeholders.
Mr. Collins told the Board that the recommendation was that the Town ask the state to allow a 21E assessment to be conducted (on the armory) to determine if there was any hazardous waste on that site. If the Town was not allowed to do that assessment, then on the current senior center and courthouse housing be built along with a new senior center as presented in plan 5.7b. If a 21E assessment was allowed, and he suspected that it would not be allowed, the recommendation was to reconvene the task force to review the results of that analysis, the cost analysis, and potential scenarios for use of that space.
Mr. Collins continued that he went back (after the last meeting) and discussed in more detail the courthouse and why it was not included and if that was or was not appropriate. It was not included in either of the scenarios because it was not identified as a priority for the community and not considered appropriate for the neighborhood where housing and a senior center were being recommended. Plus the Town had not been given any long-term commitment from the state beyond the current one-year lease. Mostly, however, it was the fact that it wasn’t a priority for the community and the committee felt it was not appropriate in its recommendations.
Mr. Collins reported that new information had been received that the auction had been put off until January.
In conclusion Mr. Collins stated that the plan being recommended was identical to what it was two weeks ago.
Mr. Ball noted that in a 21E you dig out and do core samples to determine if there was gas or oil. He inquired if the extent of those pollutants was listed to a degree to predict the cost of cleanup or was it just yeah you have a dirty site. Mr. Ciccariello explained that in a Phase I an environmental firm would look at documentation, review the history of what the site was used for, and make a determination of whether it should go to a full phased assessment which drilled wells and did a soil investigation. Part of the Phase I was an investigation of whether asbestos was there. If there was concern that the soil was contaminated, it went to a Phase II which was much more in-depth and at the end it gave a sense of the cost for the fix.
With regard to a Phase I 21E, Mr. Ball pointed out that if the documents available to the investigator were lacking, the site could
still have substantial soil contamination and it wouldn’t be known at the end of a Phase I 21E. Mr. Ciccariello acknowledged that it was possible, but in most cases that didn’t occur. In this case (Armory) there was a shooting range and the investigator would look for contaminants and if oil was ever changed or vehicles repaired there. Mr. Ball noted that it was all a paper search, and Mr. Ciccariello agreed.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to why Mr. Collins didn’t think the state would grant the Town the right to go on there and do an environmental
ARMORY TASK FORCE: DESIGN MASTER PLAN FOR NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY, SENIOR CENTER, COURTHOUSE AREA (contd)
test. Mr. Collins replied that the cost doing the assessment was not significant, but the state wouldn’t allow it because if a Phase I was done and then a Phase II and contaminants were found, then it was the state’s liability and potentially big dollars.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that at the last meeting Mr. McKinley had asked if the courthouse had been considered and some early plans developed by the consultant showed a couple of different scenarios. One scenario was to leave the courthouse, take down the armory and build 26 units, but it would not build a senior center. The second option (1.a) could build 9-10 units via special permit and under the HOOP could add one unit and leave the courthouse and expand and renovate the existing senior center. The property would remain status quo and there was no reason to acquire the armory. A private developer would come in and try to build. The other scenario was that the Town not acquire the armory, leave the courthouse but no senior center and have 8 units of housing. To him (Mr. Ciccariello) the housing
and the courthouse wasn’t a great use.
Mr. Ball inquired as to when the Board would know for sure whether the state would allow a Phase I 21E. Mr. Ciccariello thought the next step
was that the Town Administrator had to report back to DHCD on how the grant was used, the results and the recommendations and part of that would be whether the state would allow the Town to do a 21E.
Mr. Lemnios advised that upon finalization of the report, there would be a meeting with DHCD. Mr. Ciccariello asked if they would be looking for a consensus from the Board on what direction to go. Mr. Lemnios thought at some point, but he thought some members of the Board wanted to seek input from other stakeholders.
Looking at the financing for 5.5b and 5.7b, which were the original recommendations that were presented to the Board two weeks ago, Mr. McKinley noted that the cost of a new senior center was essentially the same in both properties within 10-15% of each other. By building housing and selling them, the Town offset some of the cost of building a new senior center – some but not all. Was the principal argument for doing housing on this site to generate revenue for a senior center?
Mr. Ciccariello’s reply was, ‘yes’, but it wasn’t determined that it should just be age qualified. The preference was to get some mixed use. That came from the charette. It was felt that just throwing senior housing there wasn’t the best solution. They wanted mixed and affordable. Mr. McKinley noted that there could be age qualified and affordable and asked if what was being said was that people wanted young families with children. Mr. Ciccariello thought that that was what came out of the charette.
Mr. Collins explained that the option was not chosen based upon the financial impact to the Town. What was created was the option for what the committee thought was the most appropriate use and then put together the financial scenarios. The finances were not the driving force. It turned out that the two top recommendations were two of the best financial options as well, but that was not a goal of the committee.
VERIZON PETITION FOR CONDUIT – WEST CENTRAL STREET: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Representing Verizon was Rights & Permits Manager Chris Parella.
Mr. Parella stated that he was there to discuss something that would come up officially before the Board on December 6, 2004. West Central was under construction and once West Central Street was paved it would be closed to any underground connections for five years. Verizon put together a petition to make two connections that required the cutting of Washington Avenue and with the weather closing in, they needed to get the work done and were looking to do one of the two petitions before the public hearing.
VERIZON PETITION FOR CONDUIT – WEST CENTRAL STREET: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello noted that both plans were dated July 26, 2004, and Mr. Parella responded that it was designed in July. The paperwork was sent
sometime between July and November and has been circulating and being coordinated between Engineering and the Selectmen’s office.
Mr. Ciccariello then inquired as to what happened if the Board didn’t approve this, and Mr. Parella replied that next Monday it would be before the Board to officially ask for consent. Theoretically the Board could vote yes (on 12/6) and then they would go to the DPW for a street opening permit and if the weather were to close in, it could be held until next spring. In the meantime the roadway could be paved and Verizon would have to wait five years. These were two simple connections from an existing pole to an existing manhole.
Mr. Ball saw no reason to oppose this and Mr. McKinley stated that he was ready to approve.
Mr. Hughes moved to grant a permit to Verizon for the installation of conduit on West Central Street conditioned upon a public hearing on December 6, 2004. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
DISCUSSION OF BOARD’S POSITION ON SALE OF METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER
Mr. McKinley updated the Board on what had transpired since the hospital sale was last discussed. He noted that four weeks ago based on a series of meetings held by representatives of the Framingham Board of Selectmen and the Natick Board of Selectmen a draft agreement as to what was felt that both boards were prepared to support was generated. That was the two-page A&B list that the Board voted to support four weeks ago. The document was discussed by the Framingham Board of Selectmen. They did not formally vote to support or not support, but did generally agree and instructed their representatives, Ginger Esty and Esther Hopkins, to proceed accordingly. Approximately 2-l/2 weeks ago there was the first of a series of public hearings before the DPH on the license transfer and at that public hearing a
representative from the Framingham Board of Selectmen made reference to a seven page document which Mr. Ball and he only received that afternoon and the other members of the Board had never seen.
Mr. McKinley continued that that document was presented at the public hearing as among other things representing the combined consensus of a variety of organizations including the Natick Board of Selectmen. He realized there were some things contained in that document that either the Board had not discussed or had explicitly decided not to support. He expressed concern about where the document came from and whether it fairly represented the intent of the Board. Subsequent conversations with the Framingham Board indicated there was some confusion or over-optimism on the part of others for what the Board did or didn’t support. This was a critical issue, and it was decided that the best course of action would be for the Board to review the two page document and review the seven page document that was submitted
at the hearing and to reaffirm or modify the Board’s previous position and submit that to Framingham who will do the same thing and possibly at a future meeting a week from tomorrow night the two boards could meet jointly
and affirm what they did and did not support and submit that information to DPH. Should that information align with what the other groups were purporting, fine, but he was looking for clarity of what the Framingham and Natick’s Boards did and did not support. Last week there was a meeting of representatives from this group (initiators of
the seven page document) and Vanguard and this morning there was a meeting of these people. He deferred to Mr. Ball to fill the Board in on what transpired.
Mr. Ball advised that in addition to the seven-page document mentioned by Mr. McKinley, there was another seven-page document and a distinction needed to be made between the two. The document called conditions of sale was generated by the coalition of groups including the Chamber of Commerce, foundation, hospital board. That was presented at the Wednesday meeting to Vanguard and they (Vanguard) responded with a document titled agreement with a list of what they
DISCUSSION OF BOARD’S POSITION ON SALE OF METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER (Contd)
were willing to do. It was considerably diluted from the requests made by the coalition. The question was what position the Board wished to take and without a document in front of the Board it was hard to take a position. Mr. Ball noted that there was some discussion this morning about issues contained in the agreement from Vanguard and there will be another go around. As the Board’s next meeting was two weeks from now, there will be a copy in the briefing book of the latest and greatest seven page document describing what all these parties would like to see Vanguard agree to.
Mr. Ball suggested tabling any further discussion until the meeting two weeks from now at which time the Board would have a document and would have the opportunity to read it carefully. A lot of the issues were much more significant to the Framingham campus.
Mr. Ball would provide the document from Vanguard and Mr. Hughes requested that the Board get the document that said final conditions of sale. Chamber of Commerce President Ted Welte responded that ‘we’ hope to have it next Tuesday, and Mr. McKinley questioned who ‘we’ was. Mr. Welte responded that it was the five-taxpayer group although it was actually six because the hospital board had joined. Asked if the group included the Board of Selectmen, Mr. Welte advised that it did. Mr. Hughes inquired if the final conditions purport to be what the five-taxpayer group supported including the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Welte replied that that was the way it was presented and clearly that was incorrect.
From Mr. Ball’s previous comments, it was Mr. Hughes’ understanding that there was another document from Vanguard that was in flux. Mr. Ball noted that markups were being done which prompted Mr. Hughes to inquire as who was doing the markups. Mr. Welte responded that it was the representatives from the taxpayer group. Mr. Ball had joined that group.
Mr. Hughes expressed concern about not being consulted on the conditions of the sale before it was submitted to Vanguard and it was the same problem with the agreement from Vanguard – that it was being marked up before the Board had a chance to see it and discuss what proposals the Board may want. Mr. Ball agreed except for the fact that the Board had two representatives to work on the markup process.
Mr. McKinley noted that Mr. Welte represented the Chamber of Commerce and, therefore, not one of the 10-taxpayer group. Even if this group (10 taxpayer) produced a document that the people who go to the meetings agreed on, it still didn’t mean that the Board approved the agreement. It needed to be very clear in the first paragraph that either none of the 10 taxpayers agreed or say that the Natick Board of Selectmen didn’t agree until they saw it and voted on it or produced a modified version. It was now on record of the public hearing of the Department of Public Health that the Natick Board of Selectmen supports the seven-page document. His suggestion was that if nothing else, the Board should get a letter on file saying that that was not correct. The letter could include a copy of the
A&B list and indicate that discussion was continuing, but for the record the representations made at the public hearing were not correct.
Mr. Lemnios was asked to draft a letter.
It was noted that December 21, 2004 would be the final hearing. Mr. Welte advised that the DPH wanted comments in for December 7, 2004.
RENEWAL OF ALCOHOL LICENSE FOR 2005
Approval had been received from the ABCC of Barber Brothers Florist’s application for a wine & malt license at 215 West Central Street. As the approval was received during the renewal period, the license was a 2004 license and Mr. Ciccariello advised that the Board would have to vote to renew the license for 2005.
RENEWAL OF ALCOHOL LICENSE FOR 2005 (contd)
Mr. Hughes moved to renew the wine & malt license held by Barber Brothers Florist for 2005. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
REPORT ON ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Mr. Palmer submitted a memo on the golf course enterprise along with copies of the forms for last year and this year’s schedule A2 of the tax recap. He explained that the tax recap was the formal reporting to the DOR of where the Town ended up for FY04 and took into account the actions taken by the Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting for FY05. It was a recounting and finalization of the prior fiscal year and a snapshot of the current fiscal year with a half year behind you. There were several forms the Board of Selectmen was required to sign. Form A2 was the enterprise funds. Each one was accounted for and a recapitualization done separately.
Mr. Palmer noted that in FY04 the new model of operation of the golf course called for a supplement of $435,000. Because of the unusual circumstances of how the enterprise fund was funded in FY04 with only a portion funded and the remaining balance appropriated to the reserve fund, since the Selectmen were deciding on whether or not to keep the course open, the money from the reserve fund wasn’t dedicated to the enterprise fund. When the A2 was prepared the amount carried to be raised from the tax levy wasn’t $435,000 because there wasn’t a full year’s appropriation. $248,930 was appropriated. The total income available was $755,747.61 for the golf course. The budget was $894,056. Expenses came in under budget and the total expended was $833,437.87 creating a deficit of
$77,690.26. That was part of the $435,000 – it just wasn’t raised in FY04. When the additional $77,690 was raised the total deficit for FY04 became $326,620, which was $108,379 lower than anticipated. For FY05 it was loaded into the recap because the golf course was fully funded and the total being raised was $77,690 and the $460,000 (supplement appropriated by Town Meeting) for a total of $537,690.
He noted that the Board of Selectmen, Comptroller, Board of Assessors and Town Clerk were required to sign the forms.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the reason for the major increase in debt and interest and was told by Mr. Palmer that it was related to the appropriation of the surplus balance at the landfill and the appropriate appropriation to the golf course.
In follow-up Mr. Hughes asked if the Town was paying both principal and interest on the debt, and Mr. Palmer, replied, ‘yes’, noting that it was a 20 year bond.
Asked if the number included all the lease payments, Mr. Palmer advised that it was everything.
Mr. Lemnios reminded the Board that last year beginning in November there was a process that concluded in January to make a determination on whether to continue operating the course. At that point there were three scenarios and the Board chose for the Town to operate the course and contract out for grounds maintenance. A $460,000 shortfall was projected and accounted for, as it was known that there weren’t enough revenues to cover operating and debt. There was a small difference between keeping the course open and closing it so it made sense to keep it open.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board needed to go through that process again this January, and Mr. Lemnios responded that he was preparing for it and recognized the need to go through that on an annual basis. He felt confident that based on the performance this year that hopefully the Board would give the facility another year. Asked if the course was still open, Mr. Lemnios advised that it had been open a couple of days last week and would stay open as long as weather permits. The staffing had been cut dramatically.
REPORT ON ENTERPRISE FUNDS (contd)
Mr. Palmer reviewed the water & sewer enterprise reporting. Column A reiterated the revenues generated by the water & sewer bills primarily and user fees, sewer connection fees, liens. In Fiscal 2004 the total revenue was $12,084,048.21. In an attempt to be conservative the Fiscal 2005 estimates were downgraded very slightly. He pointed out that the retained earnings appropriated (for FY05) was the action the Board took to use $500,000 (for rate stabilization) and the other $108,000 was capital approved for Water & Sewer equipment and that made up the $608,000 shown on the recap sheet. The revenue necessary to run the enterprise this year (FY05) was $11,725,800. He noted that he would be recommending to the Town Administrator to try to hold rates and use a piece of retained earnings.
Mr. Palmer called attention to 2a of A2 and explained that the reserve fund of $200,000 was money the Board could release if no unexpected expenses came up. Under salaries & wages he noted that one difference between April and now was $30,000+ in wage settlements. 2b was a re-statement of actions taken by Town Meeting.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how it was tracked, and Mr. Lemnios replied that some of it was straightforward for health insurance. For joint employees the number of hours spent supporting the enterprise fund, i.e. payroll service, engineering, was estimated. It was not done to the same degree of accuracy that an attorney or doctor might do billable hours, but there was a good idea.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the balance of the water & sewer surplus and Mr. Palmer responded $4,835,051.66. He added that he would be recommending using between $750,000-$1 million for rate relief.
Mr. Ciccariello requested that the Board be given various options, and Mr. Palmer responded that the Town was generating enough revenue. There was some debt coming on which would use retained earnings. The Board would have to go up in water rates but that was a small impact on the bill. The sewer rates could remain stable for several years.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the proposed increase in water rates was due to the debt service on the treatment plant. Mr. Palmer advised that it was and noted that it would definitely hit in full in FY06, but not FY05.
Mr. Palmer explained that the last piece the Board signed was to adopt a residential factor. He pointed out that in the past these forms have not been prepared for the classification hearing, and in the future he would try to have those out and available to the Board.
QUARTERLY REPORTS OF BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS
Mr. Connolly had proposed having reports from the various boards, committees, and commissions. Mr. Ciccariello noted that in the past the Board had had presentations from Fire, Police, and the DPW although it had been some time since the last one. He wondered how the Board would like to structure it and who the Board wished to have come in.
Mr. McKinley asked if what was being talked about was department reviews or boards and committees. Mr. Ciccariello thought that Mr. Connolly would like to get as many different groups in as possible, but he (Mr. Ciccariello) thought it should definitely start with the departments.
Mr. Connolly explained that he was looking for a general information thing and some could come in yearly and some more frequently.
Mr. Hughes stated that he would like to hear from the Boards appointed by the Selectmen – the ZBA and Conservation Commission in particular.
Mr. Connolly told the other members of the Board that he would be better prepared for the December 6th meeting. Mr. Ciccariello suggested that the Board start planning to meet with the groups after the first of the year.
ROUTE 135 TRAFFIC
Having experienced unbearable traffic in coming from his office to Town Hall, Mr. Hughes stated that he wanted to be sure the Town was being proactive and would continue to be proactive talking to abutters during the reconstruction of Route 135. He wanted the Town to be as proactive as possible especially in the residential area.
Mr. Lemnios reported that there were regular meetings on the Route 135 project. The contractor was getting ready to wrap up work for this season and they were talking about having a kickoff meeting before they start up again some time in mid April after the Marathon. Mr. Lemnios assured the Board that the administration would do the best it could to mitigate and the best mitigation was to give people a clear sense of what was going to occur and when.
MEETING SCHEDULE
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the following meeting schedule: January 10, January 24, February 7, February 28, March 14, March 21, March 30, April 4, April 19, May 2, May 16, May 31, June 13, June 27, 2005.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Senior Information Day
Mr. Connolly thanked everyone who had participated in Senior Information Day.
b. Church Street – Telephone Pole
Mr. Hughes reported that he had received a phone call about a telephone pole in the roadway of Church Street behind Town Hall.
c. Amy Burns – Request for Streetlight
In a letter to the Board Amy Burns complained about the darkness outside her building on Strathmore Road. The Board asked that Ms. Burns’ letter be referred to the Safety Committee for review.
d. Holiday Parking
Parking Clerk Sebastian Grupposo reminded the Board that each year from December 1-January 2, the Board has approved free parking at the two hour meters.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of two hour free parking at the meters in the downtown from December 1-January 2, 2005. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
____________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
