BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
March 19, 2007
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Charles M. Hughes at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Charles M. Hughes, John Ciccariello, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly, Joshua Ostroff
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on March 19, 2007 in the amount of $1,547,033.15. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,678,050.40.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to litigation and collective bargaining. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 5-0-0 vote. At 6:01 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:10 p.m.
A moment of silence was observed in memory of former state legislator Walter Burke.
Ms. Gloff extended an invitation for anyone wishing to attend a reception on March 28, 2007, 8:00 p.m. at the Dolphin to thank Mr. Connolly and Mr. Lemnios for their service to the Town.
CONTINUING DISCUSSION OF PROPOSITION 2-1/2 OVERRIDE BALLOT QUESTION
Finance Committee Chair Bruce Wright reported that last Wednesday night as the result of the March 12 meeting with the Selectmen, the FinCom Budget Planning Subcommittee met to take a look at the revenue sources. In attendance were the six members of the Subcommittee, two representatives of the administration, two members of the Board of Selectmen, and a member of the press. They took a blank whiteboard and looked at all the potential sources of revenue, whether it was recurring or non-recurring, the benefit of using it, and the risk of using it. There was a lengthy discussion of what was and what should be the policy surrounding the use of these sources and they took into consideration what the entire town needs not just the Schools.
Mr. Wright stressed that the budget problem was a town wide problem, not just the Schools. The total shortfall was $4.9 million, not the $1.9 million voted by the School Committee. To make the general
government level funded, $500,000 had been cut and there was $2.5 million in additional capital that should be in there.
Mr. Wright advised that by a 6-0-0 vote of the Budget Planning Subcommittee and an 11-0-0 vote of the Finance Committee, the Finance Committee recommended funding $2 million of that gap ($4.9 million) by using some reserve funds although there was still some debate on that. The recommendation was to use $1.65 million of the $2 million to cover the Schools, $350,000 for general government, and zero for additional capital. He urged the School Committee to look at their end of the year spending to cover the gap of $250,000 from what they had asked. The general government was about $150,000 less.
Mr. Wright reviewed the recommended revenue sources for the $2 million and the future year effects of using those sources:
$540,000 from reallocated available - recurring – should be
available in future years - $170,000
$866,000 from existing excess overlay reserves – Little if any
overlay reserve available for FY09
$200,000 from reduced overlay appropriation FY08 – Reduced
overlay surplus FY10, FY11, FY12
$394,000 from additional use of Stabilization Fund – Reduced
Stabilization but there were more dollars in
the Stabilization Fund than projected
The FinCom did not propose the use of the $200,000 unused snow set aside as the amount was weather dependent nor did they propose using $400,000 in FY08 cash flow savings from bonding all eligible capital. The FY08 savings would be more than offset by principal and interest in future years and the FY08 budget already assumed that trash packers were bonded.
Mr. Wright emphasized that the consequences of using these revenue sources would mean that the Town would have almost depleted some of the reserve funds and have depleted cash in FY09. This action did not eliminate the need for an override. It just delayed it. The FY09 override would be in the $5-7 million range. In FY09 with a 7-1/2% increase in schools and level funded on the municipal side, there would be a $5.4 million gap.
Mr. Wright continued that with a proposed $1.7 million override this year, the cost to the average house would be about $133 per year. For a $5-7 million override, the cost would be about $500 for an average $500,000 house. He also stressed that for an override to pass would require the effort of everyone if the citizens wished to retain services. If the $1.9 million override were to go forward, it would have the divisive nature that pits the Schools against the Town. The Budget Planning Subcommittee recommended planning an operational override almost immediately with the involvement of the 3 major boards. In their opinion it would be preferable, if an override were to occur, to have it in the fall so when the budget process began everyone would know what the citizens want to pay. Waiting a year
from now would be
too late. He requested the Boards to add a permanent item to their agenda on the budget.
Mr. Wright reviewed the breakdown of the $540,000 in reallocated revenue:
($200,000) less in state aid than assumed in Town Administrator’s budget
$370,000 from health insurance
$78,000 from general government energy
$100,000 from Medicaid revenue
$200,000 from general government wage settlements although that may
drop to $150,000
($85,000) Water/Sewer Indirects. Adjustment for GIS
$42,000 Water/Sewer wage settlements
$35,000 Other
Continuing, Mr. Wright pointed out that if the Town didn’t have the Mall the budget gap would be another $1 million. Zero for capital was still a real concern. There was a backlog of capital spending of about $12.8 million and that had to be addressed.
In conclusion Mr. Wright noted that this went through a detailed process. They really went into and understood exactly where everything was; however, all this did was to give a six month reprieve. The thought was that trying to go for an override at this point probably wouldn’t be the right thing to do. Again he stressed there would be a need for an override next year.
Mr. Hughes asked if the 11-0-0 vote of the FinCom was to recommend the funding schedule to Town Meeting and the vote being taken tomorrow was what items to add back into the general government. Mr. Wright advised that was correct.
Regarding Mr. Wright’s mention of the difference in the wage settlements going to $150,000, Ms. Gloff inquired as to where that would be found. Mr. Wright responded that there was $44,000 in encumbered funds and on Thursday they (FinCom) may look at capital to see if something could be put off until October.
Mr. Connolly recalled talking about sending a letter to the legislators and Mr. Lemnios assured him that a letter would be drafted.
Mr. Hughes noted that the discussion this evening was whether or not to put an override on the ballot this year for $1.9 million and he was getting the sense that didn’t have the vote of at least three members.
Mr. Connolly inquired if the School Committee was happy with the proposed funding. Several members of the School Committee were in the audience and indicated they were happy.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, to support the Finance Committee recommendation and hold off until next year. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Gloff,
Mr. Connolly, Mr. Ostroff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes was opposed.
Mr. Connolly thanked the Finance Committee for an amazing job.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ciccariello noted that in going through the process trying to find places to pick up funds to support this year’s budget, everyone had to understand even if the override request of the School Committee were done this year, another override was anticipated in FY09 and FY10. After looking at the alternatives it seemed to him the best way the Town could and should move was to make an all out effort to do some strong planning over the next six months if this budget was approved by Town Meeting. Town Meeting may not necessarily vote this budget. He felt it was important that everyone work together as a community. There will be some things that various departments will more than likely have to give up in the following years. It will be a difficult situation
but if people worked together, it can be achieved. It will take an all out effort on everybody’s part and it had to be cooperative.
Mr. Ostroff reinforced Mr. Wright’s recommendation for a standing agenda item and noted that it was important to get together as quickly as possible to make sure the community understands the gravity being faced. Looking at Natick for the long-term there was a need to budget accordingly. The money sitting in the stabilization fund or overlay wasn’t being wasted, it was producing interest. Everyone had to look to the future and he was looking forward to having the discussion.
For the last 25 years since the passage of Proposition 2-1/2, Mr. Hughes thought Natick had the benefit of sound fiscal planning and policy. Spending reserves not to put an override on the ballot was a bad economic idea and in his view this was being politically expedient vs financially prudent. The Board of Selectmen should be setting policy for how the Town moves forward and tonight’s action would be making sure the Town has a $5.6 million deficit that may pit department against department. Generally the Town raises an additional 3-1/2-4% in revenue, but this year more money was needed for one department and (if an override were on the ballot this year) the whole Town would be united to get the $1.9 million (for the Schools). Instead of allowing the people who put the officials in the positions in
which they were now to have a say, the decision was being made not to bother them or let them decide, but that makes sure that next year the hole was much bigger. There were major capital projects such as the Senior Center so not only would it be department against department but projects as well. In his opinion the Board should let the people decide now if they want to go forward and with these recommendations that was no longer viable.
In conclusion Mr. Hughes noted that Town officials spend the people’s money and were supposed to spend it wisely and he would suggest that was not what’s being done here today.
NATICK POLICE DEPARTMENT: PROMOTION TO SERGEANT
Lieutenant Peter Mason reviewed Chief Mannix’s written recommendation for the promotion of Officer Brian Ingham to Sergeant.
Chief Mannix wrote that he believed Officer Ingham was highly motivated and would provide the leadership qualities and command presence that were essential to effective supervision of a young patrol force. Officer Ingham was listed in a first-place tie on the current certification received from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Human Resources. After reviewing performance indicators of the eligible candidates, the level of voluntary participation in activities that support the mission of the Natick Police Department, leadership qualities, and seniority in grade, it was the unanimous opinion of the department’s command staff to recommend Officer Ingham for promotion.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to promote Officer Brian Ingham to Sergeant.
Sergeant Ingham was sworn in by Town Clerk Jane Hladick.
Sergeant Ingham thanked the Chief, the administration, and the Board of Selectmen noting he looked forward to the many challenges ahead.
PUBLIC HEARING: RECOGNITION FOR NICK ARTHUR
Representing Nicholas Arthur’s family was his daughter Jean Kadlik.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
The Board was in receipt of memos from the Community Development Director and the Historical Commission both stating they had no objection to dedicating the corner of Grant Street and Route 135 in recognition of former Assessor Nicholas Arthur.
A member of the audience Jerry Pierce spoke of the importance of Mr. Arthur to the seniors in Natick and the time Mr. Arthur spent working with the legislators on tax exemptions for the senior residents. Mr. Pierce described Mr. Arthur as the epitome of volunteerism.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to dedicate the corner of Grant Street and Route 135 in recognition of Nicholas Arthur with a sign to read: NICK ARTHUR, HONORABLE & DEDICATED HUMANITARIAN. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET ACCEPTANCE – DOTTIES COURT, COTTAGE STREET
Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, moved to open the public hearing. Unanimously voted.
Town Engineer Mark Coviello informed the Board that Dotties Court was a five lot subdivision off Pine Street. All the work had been completed
in compliance with the subdivision plans, the bond was released, and the Planning Board unanimously voted to put forward a recommendation of acceptance.
With respect to Cottage Street, Mr. Coviello noted that money was appropriated last year to create a street layout plan for Cottage
Street. The street had never been formally accepted and there was no formal layout that showed the limits of the road. A ground survey was conducted to create a street acceptance and survey plan and that survey could be used for any future improvements on Cottage Street. As part of the street acceptance process, notices were required to be sent to all abutters for the purpose of taking input from people living along the street. Several residents brought in some discrepancies in the survey. Mr. Coviello stated that he hadn’t had time to verify what the residents brought in but he believed there were some minor discrepancies in the survey that should be corrected before moving forward.
Mr. Coviello recommended that any action be tabled until he went back to the surveyors and check some of the areas where there were concerns. There was no way to have it done in time to go forward for this Town Meeting.
Mr. Hughes asked if the paved roadway was within the layout, and Mr. Coviello responded that definitely all the pavement was within the layout. He believed most of the plan was correct. It was from Woodland toward Everett where there may be a problem, but he thought they were minor corrections.
Asked how many properties were involved in the discrepancy, Mr. Coviello advised there were two locations where there were some concerns.
Mr. Connolly asked if this was the first the residents were hearing that Cottage Street may not be accepted this Town Meeting. Mr. Coviello advised that a couple knew, but this just came up on Thursday.
In response to Mr. Connolly’s query as to whether this was an error of the surveyors, Mr. Coviello noted that it was hard to tell. This was a difficult area and the surveyors will correct any difficulty with the plan.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the effect of the delay and was told by Mr. Coviello that in the overall scheme it didn’t matter. It could be brought back in the fall. If it were accepted now, it would have to be put into the capital budget planning and no Chapter 90 money was allocated for Cottage Street. If it were accepted in the fall perhaps it would be put into the capital budget or use Chapter 90 for a portion. He didn’t think accepting it in the fall would delay anything.
Mr. Ostroff questioned if it would affect the Town’s state reimbursement, but Mr. Coviello didn’t think the mileage would make any difference.
Nancy Boyns of 67 Cottage Street noted that she was at the portion from Woodland to Everett and the survey being talked about would take her land right up to the house. The house was built in 1780 on Farwell Street and moved to its current position in 1811. At that time Cottage Street did not come down that far. She didn’t see how the Town could take their land when the house was there before the street was there.
Mr. Ostroff offered reassurance that just because the layout might go up to the house didn’t mean it would be paved. Plenty of people’s front yards were in the layout. Ms. Boyns noted that the way the letter was worded indicated that down the road the Town could have the opportunity of taking that land.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Ostroff moved acceptance of the layout of Dotties Court. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
No action was taken on Cottage Street.
PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR; SPEEN STREET; ONE NEW POLE; ONE POLE TO BE RELOCATED
The public hearing was opened on a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously voted.
In a memo to the Board, DPW Rights & Permits Engineer Bill DeRosa, recommended approval.
Noting that Pole 158/7a appeared to be in the state layout, Ms. Gloff inquired if state approval was required before the Board approved. Mr. Lemnios advised that the Board’s approval would be contingent upon state approval. Ms. Gloff then pointed out that one place referenced pole 158 and another referred to pole 258 and she wanted to be certain it was the same pole.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if pole 158 was going to be removed from its present location and left there.
To get answers to the questions raised, Mr. Ciccariello moved to continue the public hearing to April 9, 2007. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
NATICK VETERANS COUNCIL: WOMEN’S VETERANS MEMORIAL
Ed Jolley, President of the Natick Veterans Council, reported that he met with Recreation & Parks Superintendent Dick Cugini and they looked at different locations in the Common for the Women’s Veterans Memorial. In the meantime he (Mr. Jolley) went to the library. They were very
responsive and he ended up going to the Library Trustees meeting on March 13 and they have a location for the memorial. As of right now the Women’s Memorial will be at the library and be dedicated on Memorial Day.
Mr. Hughes asked that Mr. Lemnios make sure the DPW put in the platform for the memorial.
TRANSFER OF CLASS I APPLICATION: FROM FOREIGN MOTORS WEST TO HERB CHAMBERS OF NATICK, INC. D/B/A MERCEDES BENZ OF NATICK
Appearing before the Board on behalf of Herb Chambers of Natick, Inc. d/b/a Mercedes Benz of Natick was Attorney Richard Glaser and Corporate Controller for Herb Chambers Denise DeVoe.
TRANSFER OF CLASS I APPLICATION: FROM FOREIGN MOTORS WEST TO HERB CHAMBERS OF NATICK, INC. D/B/A MERCEDES BENZ OF NATICK (contd)
Mr. Glaser informed the Board that an agreement had been reached with Foreign Motors West with respect to the purchase of the dealership located at 253 North Main Street and Herb Chambers was requesting consideration of a transfer of the Mercedes Benz and BMW licenses. The transfer will take place some time over the next few weeks and he was requesting the Board’s vote to transfer the licenses from Foreign Motors West. The details would be worked out with the Registry and the Foreign Motors licenses would be turned in.
Mr. Glaser noted that he had reviewed the history of the site with his client and they were well aware of the restriction.
Mr. Ostroff moved to transfer the Class I license held by Foreign Motors West for premises at 253 North Main Street to Herb Chambers of Natick, Inc. d/b/a Mercedes Benz of Natick. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Hughes, Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Ostroff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was not in the room at the time and did not vote.
TRANSFER OF CLASS I APPLICATION: FROM FOREIGN MOTORS WEST TO HERB CHAMBERS BOSTON POST ROAD, INC. D/B/A BMW OF SUDBURY
Mr. Glaser explained that the Registry required a separate license for each line of cars being sold. Peugeot and Rolls Royce were not going to be sold at this site which was why they were only applying for two licenses.
Noting the d/b/a, Mr. Glaser was asked if BMW was moving off the site. Ms. DeVoe’s reply was, ‘not immediately’.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff to transfer the Class I license held by Foreign Motors West for the sale of BMW at 253 North Main Street to Herb Chambers Boston Post road, Inc. d/b/a BMW of Sudbury. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Hughes, Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Ostroff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was not in the room and did not vote.
APPLICATION FOR COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE: STELLAR RESTAURANT GROUP D/B/A BOLOCO
Representing Boloco in their application for a common victualer’s license at 1265 Worcester Street was the corporate vice-president Adam Liebman.
Mr. Liebman explained that Boloco was taking a portion of the Container Store and would be located between the Container Store and Ben & Jerry’s.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if Planning Board approval was required, and Ms. Challis noted that the Building Inspector had indicated his approval of the application. Mr. Ciccariello then asked about approval of the outside seating and was told by Ms. Challis that would be part of the approval of the common victualer’s license.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if Boloco anticipated applying for a beer & wine license. Mr. Liebman’s response was, “no”, adding that Boloco did not have beer & wine at any of their other locations except for one.
Asked when the restaurant would be opening, Mr. Liebman said he anticipated opening in about 7 weeks.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the issuance of a common victualer’s license to Stellar Restaurant Group d/b/a Boloco for premises at 1265 Worcester Street. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT: PRESENTATION ON HOW PROPERTY VALUES ARE DETERMINED
As Mr. Connolly had requested this item to be on the agenda, Mr. Hughes turned this portion of the meeting over to Mr. Connolly to chair.
Jan Dangelo, Director of Assessment, and Carl Marshall, Assistant Assessor gave the Board a power point presentation on how property values were determined.
Ms. Dangelo began by noting that the Assessors were required by the Mass General Laws to assess all property in the Town of Natick. The assessment date was January 1 immediately preceding the fiscal year. They were responsible for assessing residential real estate, commercial real estate, industrial real estate, mixed use, exempt real estate, personal property, and motor vehicle excise tax. There were over 11,000 residential parcels in the Town with an assessed value of $5,231,791,970. The total commercial value was $1,183,005,630 and Industrial real estate totaled $63,004,100.
Ms. Dangelo explained that personal property was the merchandise, furniture, fixtures, and equipment that exists in Natick. The furnishings of a person’s domicile were exempt from taxation. Poles, wires, conduit, and machinery of telephone companies were also assessed as personal property. Property owners were required to return a list of taxable property annually. The Assessors also regularly inspect personal property accounts to verify returns. Owners who fail to
return a list or return an incomplete list loose their right to appeal the assessment.
Personal property was assessed using the item’s cost less depreciation factor for age and condition. There were two exceptions. Telephone companies were assessed by the Department of Revenue and given to the local assessors for taxation. Utility companies provide their net book value and new growth additions to local assessors annually. Natick had 1,588 personal property accounts with a total assessed value of $81,646,530.
Mr. Connolly asked several questions concerning personal property and Ms. Dangelo responded that there was a computer model used to determine depreciation. A visual inspection was done as part of the assessment. Usually the Department tried to go through the Town every 10 years. As to a requirement for special certification, certain assessors become more proficient in personal property. Typically there would be 1 or 2 in the Assessors office. In follow-up Mr. Connolly inquired if someone were to match up the insurance company with the assessment, would it be the same. Ms. Dangelo said she would like to think it would be.
DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT: PRESENTATION ON HOW PROPERTY VALUES ARE DETERMINED (contd)
With respect to excise tax, Ms. Dangelo advised that motor vehicle and trailer information was supplied to cities and towns from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Excise tax assessments were based on a mathematical formula using the original manufacturers suggested retail price multiplied by a depreciation factor based on the age of the vehicle. The formula was set by Massachusetts statute. The tax rate was $25 per thousand and assessments were based on a calendar year. Last year the Town committed 32,984 bills totaling $4,113,876 in tax dollars.
Ms. Dangelo then described the steps for real estate assessment. Legal data was assembled that includes property ownership information provided by the Registry of Deeds, subdivision or plot plans, and any external influences such as easements, right of ways, or water influences. Property was inventoried which was accomplished by inspecting each property. The Assessors attempt to inspect every property at least once every nine years during which they captured external measurements and property details. The interior attributes were listed and the property was entered into the computer assisted mass appraisal system. They also attempted to inspect all building permits and sales.
The third step to real estate assessment was the sales data collection and verification. The Assessors reviewed all property sales for validity. Sales were then analyzed to produce the contributory value of all data features. Ms. Dangelo highlighted several examples to demonstrate how the sales were analyzed. She noted that a residential property had over 140 different data characteristics. It was possible for a property to have a negative contributory value with some examples being hazardous waste contamination, traffic, easements. It was also possible for a property characteristic to have a positive contributory value and change to a negative contributory value. One example of that
was electric heat. Thirty years ago it was very popular and had a positive value and a short time after that it became expensive and had a negative value. Today it is again positive. Market characteristics change over time.
Ms. Dangelo continued that the fourth step in real assessment was the assessment model application and testing. The contributory value of all data features was then applied to the sale set and tested for assessment level and accuracy. The term full and fair value used by the Commissioner of Revenue was his certification letter and had significant meaning. Full and fair value means that all property must be assessed at market value and that similar properties must be assessed similarly.
The fifth step was the complete assessment to sale ratio studies. Ratio studies measure both the level of assessment and assessment accuracy. In Massachusetts the Department of Revenue reviews assessment and accuracy levels annually. The Assessors must submit ratio study statistics (to the DOR) prior to certification and approval of the tax rate. To be considered at full and fair market value assessments must meet certain requirements. Those requirements were established by the Department of Revenue.
Ms. Dangelo provided examples of the assessment ratio requirements and the calculation of the assessment to sale ratio. The last step was finalizing values. The valuation models were then applied to all parcels. Computer models allow the Assessors to value properties at current market value. All properties must be assessed at their market value as of January 1st just prior to the fiscal year. The assessment date for FY07 was January 1, 2006. Assessments must meet minimum assessment standards annually prior to certification by the Department of Revenue. If the Assessors fail to meet either assessment level or accuracy requirements, actual tax bills will be delayed until the Commissioner of Revenue certifies the assessments at full and fair value.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the number of abatements and was told by Ms. Dangelo there had been 198 filed. About 50% were granted although they were still going through the process. Asked if 198 was high, Ms. Dangelo responded that it was a re-evaluation year. Typically people who don’t normally apply believe that since it was a reval year they would put in an abatement anyway. She would expect the number to be higher in a reval year. The year before there were 139 abatements filed.
Mr. Connolly commented that he had citizens call him saying they got whacked on their property taxes. Ms. Dangelo responded that the assessments report the market and it all depended on what the market was doing. The Assessors look at sales that happened in 2005 and at that time people were continuing to pay higher amounts. Mr. Connolly questioned if up-to-date information was looked at, and Ms. Dangelo
stated that she would be looking at that again to set values for next year.
Mr. Lemnios noted that people receive a tax bill with an assessed value that reflects the value of January 1 of the previous year. The Town was about to issue tax bills in another week and those reflect the assessed value of January 1, 2006. People had to think back to what the housing market was doing. The Assessors didn’t visit every property every year and from the sales, generalizations were made of what was happening to everybody else’s property.
Ms. Dangelo added that assessments mirror market activity and the Assessors must meet minimum assessment standards annually. The Assessors were required to complete more than 180 credit hours and additional hours each year.
If someone renovated their house, Ms. Gloff inquired as to when that would be added into the assessed value. Ms. Dangelo noted that January 1 had been talked about as the assessment date, but there was one exception. The Town locally accepted the certification of occupancy. If someone takes out a building permit, the Assessors would look at the house January 1 to see if the renovations were completed. If not, when the renovations were completed, if they were significant, they would be required to have a CO. The Assessors assess the property from that date (when a CO was issued) of its new value reflective of the changes and that generates a new bill. Someone taking out a building permit
may not see the reflection in assessment for almost 18 months before seeing the increase.
Mr. Hughes resumed as Chairman.
MECHANIC STREET P&S
Deputy Town Administrator Martha White informed the Board that information had been received from CSX late this afternoon. The glitch was in respect to reuse restrictions that the Town believed should not be imposed based on the environmental results. Late this afternoon two documents were received from CSX. One was a proposed amendment to the P&S which would not allow the Town to use the property for any other use specifically residential or recreational. The language proposed striking 6.4a and replacing it with this amendment, but in the P&S 6.4a included a lot of important language as to how to relieve the restriction. She hoped that was a mistake on CSX’s part. The other was an extension of the close to April 11.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the purpose of acquiring the Mechanic Street parcel was to provide access to the rail trail with both parking and potentially part of a public park. If the Town decided to put some benches and tables there, would that be considered a recreational use and what happens?
Ms. White thought that was an important question and one that was proposed months ago. This (new document) took them back to the
beginning of the negotiations. Mr. Hughes pointed out that CSX’s proposal would prohibit recreational use and the Town hasn’t agreed to that.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that in the original document there were some restrictions as a result of some environmental issues, but according to the Town’s consultant and CSX’s consultant those environmental issues no longer existed that would prevent the recreational or residential uses from occurring. Ms. White confirmed that was the Town’s position. Mr. Ciccariello was of the understanding that the environmental consultant determined it was OK. Ms. White explained that the results were that there were should be no restrictions on the property but their (CSX) environmental attorney had a different take on the matter. If this property was provided as parking for the rail trail, it would have landscape islands and it was the island that CSX was talking about.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if it was CSX’s position that the site was hot. Mr. Hughes clarified that CSX’s position was that they don’t care if the site was hot or not, but they don’t want to be bothered. Mr. Ciccariello felt that was putting a burden on the Town and CSX would walk away clean. Mr. Hughes suggested that the Board appoint him as a subcommittee of one and that Town Counsel and he talk to the CSX environmental lawyer to see if this can be resolved. His preference would be to stay with the old language and then argue whether the restriction would still apply.
Town Counsel John Flynn noted that in an ideal world the better position for Natick would be to take out the use restriction in the
deed so the Town wouldn’t have to go to that fight. Ms. Gloff questioned if there was any real chance to get CSX to change the wording. It hadn’t happened yet and it seemed as though CSX was making it more restrictive. Mr. Flynn agreed with Ms. Gloff although CSX was still talking and he believed CSX wanted to sell the property. It was just a painful process. Apparently it had to be clear to them that the results of the environmental inspection would satisfy their own terms. He would say optimistically there was a chance of getting the wording changed.
If the Town were to walk away from this now, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Conservation Commission would lose their deposit. Mr. Flynn advised that the deposit would be at risk and the Town would have a fight to get it back.
Mr. Connolly was of the opinion that CSX was not to be trusted. If the Town and CSX couldn’t negotiate a parking lot, how would they get through the rest of the rail trail?
Mr. Ostroff felt this (new language proposal) said a lot about CSX and pointed to the patience and perseverance needed in dealing with them. He supported Mr. Hughes serving as a subcommittee. He didn’t think it was malice on CSX’s part. They had a lot of property to dispose of and not a lot of people.
A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello to have the Chair work with Town Counsel to see if everything could be wrapped up on the purchase of Mechanic Street in the next month. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to accept the extension of the P&S to April 11, 2007 and authorize the Chair to sign the extension. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
GOODTIME EMPORIUM: INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Representing the Goodtime Emporium was Attorney Paul Galvani.
Mr. Hughes introduced the discussion by noting that he knew Mr. Galvani from Framingham. Mr. Galvani called him and said this use was being thought of for the former Sam’s Club location.
Mr. Galvani advised that there had been an informal conference with the Planning Board regarding this proposal. He introduced Daniel and Deb Hayes, the owners and operators of the Goodtime Emporium in Somerville. The Goodtime Emporium was a family operated business started in 1992 that currently occupied over 100,000 square feet. The area was undergoing redevelopment and originally slated to be redeveloped as Ikea and the Goodtime Emporium was seeking a new location. The former Sam’s Club was seen as ideal and they would hope to relocate subject to the various necessary licenses and permits. The premise was large enough with a little over 115,000 square feet and had sufficient parking with 554 spaces. It also had convenient highway access, was isolated from residential neighborhoods, was
in the middle of a large population center and although there was multi square foot retail and office space in the area, there was very little entertainment beyond
entertainment during the day for children and very little entertainment for adults in terms of music and watching events on TV.
Mr. Galvani advised that this location would be similar to the Somerville location. It would offer entertainment for the whole wide range of ages from small children up through young adults and senior citizens. There were go karts, laser tag, billiard tables, areas for birthday parties, corporate events, and community events. There was also extensive food. Total employment was nearly 150 people and they would retain police details as needed. Town officials from Police to anyone was welcome to contact officials in Somerville. Mr. Hayes had a good track record and maintained a good relationship with Somerville authorities.
Mr. Galvani stated that he believed the Goodtime Emporium would be a great asset to the Town. The facility would require an all alcohol restaurant license. They hadn’t applied for anything, but they would need to know if the Board would consider it and if there was a license available. He had reviewed the Town’s regulations concerning liquor and was familiar with those regulations.
Mr. Galvani noted that a similar presentation had been given to the Planning Board. The location was a highway mixed use and the use
appeared to be allowed as a matter of right with a special permit from the Planning Board.
Mr. Hughes inquired if there was any plan to change the egress and was told by Mr. Galvani that it would be looked at very carefully. He didn’t know if it was feasible, but much more adequate signage would be helpful.
Mr. Ostroff questioned if the current licenses permit this type of establishment. Ms. Challis noted that there would actually have to be an application filed in order for the Board to make that determination, but the rules & regs were set up for the service of alcohol to be incidental to the service of food.
Having said that he had reviewed the rules & regs, Mr. Hughes thought Mr. Galvani was aware of the 80/20 rule and that the Town didn’t generally have a bar. Mr. Galvani responded that he understood and added that there was extensive food service and there were parties. How that mix would come out, he didn’t want to speculate. The facility had seating at bars and tables.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the facility would have a restaurant and inquired as to the seating capacity. Mr. Galvani noted that Somerville had different rules and it was set up differently. Goodtime Emporium had functions and parties and even in the area of billiards there were tables and bars for service of food and beverage. At the sports bar there were numerous tables and chairs. He noted that he would have to come back to the Board and to the Planning Board with detailed plans outlining the different areas.
Mr. Ciccariello reworded his question and asked if within this framework if Goodtime Emporium would have an area that was considered a restaurant where someone could get a meal. Mr. Galvani’s reply was,
“yes”. Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the seating capacity and Mr. Hayes responded that right now everything was informal but there would be a good size restaurant with TV. There would be a separate section for a restaurant with the opening onto other areas. The seating would be over 100.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. Hayes presently had a liquor license in Somerville and when Mr. Hayes advised that he did, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how the service of liquor was controlled from one function to another. Mr. Hayes explained that in Somerville the whole area was allowed to have liquor except for the children’s section. Other than that people could drink and eat food everywhere. If Natick didn’t allow that, Mr. Ciccariello asked if that would become an issue. Mr. Hayes stated that it could. There was a drink rail by the pool tables and after certain hours, alcohol could brought into the arcade area. The club area was different. Mr. Ciccariello commented that he didn’t believe the current liquor rules allowed for that.
Mr. Hughes noted the requirement for servers to be trained, and Mr. Hughes advised that everyone who worked for them had to go through TIPS.
Mr. Hughes then noted that the Somerville site was a location where everybody walked to. One concern with the Sam’s Club site was that nobody would walk. People will have some alcohol, get into their car, and leave. Mr. Hayes felt that was a concern with any place that served liquor and pointed out there weren’t many places where someone could walk along Route 9.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if Mr. Hayes had had any discussions with the landlord about putting in any improvements. Mr. Hayes noted that the lease would be about 12 years and he wasn’t sure how much money anyone would want to invest.
Asked if Goodtime Emporium was still open in Somerville, Mr. Hayes advised that he had 55 more weeks.
Mr. Galvani reminded the Board of other similar entertainment complexes that had been in the area such as the Chateau DeVille and Bonkers although that didn’t involve the range of things such as basketball courts and go carts. In his opinion most of the facility would fit within the Town’s regs although the closing time would be an issue. To operate any successful entertainment when there was a live band or different sporting events was difficult with a last call at 11:30 p.m. and a 12:00 p.m. close.
As to direction, Mr. Hughes didn’t think he was hearing that the Board was saying forget it. He was anxious to see the facility in Somerville and would keep an open mind. Mr. Galvani welcomed that visit and offered to provide referrals from some of the Somerville Town officials. Goodtime Emporium had been there for 14 years so there was a track record. This was something Mr. Hayes was doing now and Natick would be designed fairly similar.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he heard from people who were concerned with the safety issue and the additional demand on Police resources, but at
the same time he heard from people who thought it would be a great destination. He (Mr. Ostroff) would like to check it out.
Mr. Galvani recognized that legitimate concerns had been raised and he expected to work with the agencies to deal with them.
Mr. Hughes advised there were 9 liquor licenses left, but there were three applications in the office awaiting a hearing.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Paula Polk Week
Ms. Gloff announced that the Morse Institute Library Trustees had declared March 19-25, 2007 as Paula Polk Week. Among other things Ms. Polk was being honored for having shepherded the library through the complete renovation of the building and the building of a new library.
AWARD BID: GRAVEL PIT PROJECT
Mr. Lemnios recalled that several years ago the Board began the process of turning the gravel pit into a recreational facility by authorizing the decomposition of the gravel operation. The Board secured a grant from The MathWorks to create a playing field and the Conservation Commission has pledged $300,000 for a total of $550,000. To date about $125,000 has been spent preparing the site for conversion into a playing field. There was a new road into the back portion which will separate the DPW from the use.
Mr. Lemnios continued that what was before the Board tonight was the third time this had been bid. The first bid was for the field renovation and structural addition to the DPW and that came back too high and the second time there were some bid technicalities requiring another bid. This bid was for the renovation of the playing field only and the recommendation was to accept the lowest qualified bid.
Procurement Officer Christopher Bradley told the Board that Green Acres Landscape & Construction Co. had been reviewed by Beta Group and the reference came back positive. Superintendent of Recreation & Parks Richard Cugini found some other municipalities that worked with Green Acres and the feeling was that they (Green Acres) had the expertise to do the work.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if this was within the budget, and Mr. Lemnios advised that the Conservation Commission had agreed to add $50,000 to their original grant bringing the total to $550,000.
Mr. Ostroff then inquired about the removal of the shed. Mr. Lemnios reported that a bid of about $160,000 had been received which would have put the project well beyond the budget constraints. Since it was not an original component of the plan, the feeling was that the plan should go forward and deal with the removal of the shed separately.
To Mr. Ostroff’s query about the timing, Mr. Cugini replied that the construction would start in the spring with use targeted for the Fall of 2008.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Town Counsel had reviewed the bid document and if a copy of the contract was included in the bid document. Mr.
Bradley advised that Town Counsel reviewed the bid document and a copy of the contract was included. Confirmation was given that all insurance, payment, and performance bonds were included.
When asked about the project itself, Mr. Cugini explained that there would be a 2 acre field for soccer or lacrosse that would be irrigated. A fenced in area would delineate the field and the DPW operation and there would be a 66 car parking lot. There would be landscaping in front between Oak Street and the field as well as landscaping around the property. The fence would be opened up between Sergeant Field and the new field giving direct access to the school.
Mr. Hughes believed the only entrance would be on school property and Mr. Cugini confirmed that to be correct. Asked if it had been
discussed with the schools, Mr. Cugini stated that the schools were aware of it. He didn’t know if they had taken a formal vote, but it had been shown to the administration. Mr. Ciccariello commented that he wouldn’t want to spend the money and then have the schools say no. He suggested having them take a vote.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to award the contract for the Oak Street field improvements to the low bidder Green Acres Landscape & Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $395,000.00. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Cugini thanked Mr. Lemnios for his guidance on the project, the DPW for their work, and especially The MathWorks and Conservation Commission for their financial support.
MIDDLESEX PARKING GARAGE RFP
Mr. Hughes announced that the RFP was still being worked on and would be discussed at the next meeting.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
Article 30 – Youth & Families Study Committee
Mr. Hughes noted that the Finance Committee voted favorable action on the article.
Co-Chair of Natick Cares, Jen Ward Maseda, told the Board that the article was a community effort with Natick Cares and residents. It was a group that got together and was interested in bridging the gap between the services within the community for youth and adolescents. Some research done by a consultant hired through a grant from the MetroWest Health Care Foundation helped to understand a little more about services in our community and what children want, what parents want, and what the community leadership wants. One of the outcomes of this research was the suggestion to create a youth commission so there was a direct group that was responsible for the needs of the youth in the community. A warrant article was filed to create a study committee to review the research done by Natick Cares.
Maryjane Norris Geary, Chair of the Leonard Morse Grants Panel, stated that over the past two years it had been noticed that there was an array of services available to children in the community but many times there were gaps and significant overlapping and as a result various bodies had been trying to address some of the unmet needs and on a
sporadic basis. The group was asking for authorization to go forward and convene a study commission so the next steps for identifying the delivery of services to children and families could be addressed.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to who would appoint the members of the youth and families study committee and how many people would be on the committee and will it be a permanent committee. Ms. Maseda provided a proposed list of members and responded that the study committee would not be permanent, just the Youth Commission. The study committee would be to understand the programs and services available and those not available. Ms. Geary added that there was a volunteer group for a
number of entities providing service but not a comprehensive coordination of the delivery of service.
Ms. Geary was asked if she foresaw the study committee being a grant applicant. She saw it as a potential but probably not. The intent was to identify the services out there now, where there was a gap, and how the Town could go after funds.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled there being a study done a few years back by a health organization that was funded by the MetroWest Health Foundation and then another recent study done. Ms. Geary noted this was a follow-up to Ms. Robinson’s work. Although he could understand what the article sponsors were trying to do, Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that an assessment study was done for the Senior Community Center, the Natick 360 has been working on a plan, there was a Youth Advisory Board, and a recreation center. How would they all be pulled together? What was the group trying to achieve and how was this going to be done without any funds?
Deb Sayre, Director of Kids Connect and a member of the Council on Aging, responded that many of them had been meeting over time and one of the purposes of the committee was to pull together information from the study reports, find out what’s going on, what the needs were, what was being done to meet them, and how to plan cooperatively to meet them in the future. They would like to come up with a plan and work with the Natick 360.
Asked if the group had talked to the Natick 360, Ms. Maseda advised that Co-Chair of the Strategic Planning Oversight Committee Craig Ross came to a couple of meetings. Christine Robinson spoke with Mr. Ross and felt as though that committee (Natick 360) wants to include youth and began to bring youth into some of their discussions. She thought the group sponsoring the article felt there needed to be people responsible solely for youth.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned why a vote of Town Meeting was needed. Why couldn’t a group of individuals do this unless at some point the anticipation was to make this a permanent committee and seek funding? Ms. Geary said she thought this (Town Meeting) was the next logical step. At this point in time they weren’t requesting any funds but looking for a mechanism to coordinate the services that have been identified.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the proposal was for 11 members appointed by the Board of Selectmen, but in reality 9 would be
nominated by other entities and the Board of Selectmen would only be appointing 2 and reaffirming the other 9. Were there individuals willing to volunteer to be on this study committee? Ms. Maseda advised that there were.
Mr. Ostroff noted that he met a couple of times as the liaison to Natick Cares and discussed how to move the group forward. His advice
was if they wanted to have the Town take any action, they needed to go to the Town to initiate that action and a study group would be the way to go about it. It was his advice to go forward and he offered some suggestion on the structure of the committee.
Mr. Connolly stated that his first thought was that this was re-inventing the wheel but if the goal was to bring the group together, he saw no reason not to do it. He didn’t know why they had to ask the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Connolly moved to support the article. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Article 13 – Cochituate Rail Trail: Survey & Preliminary Design
Mr. Ostroff explained that this article would appropriate funds that were earmarked for the Cochituate Rail Trail project for conceptual design which would provide a document for people to weigh in on what the project might look like. It was a way to potentially leverage outside funding. This (CRT) was something that would take years but since the Board was on a relatively fast track to decide whether to proceed with the project and there was some impetus to initiate negotiations with CSX, it seemed a good idea to move the design forward. This was separate from the money appropriated in December. He requested the Board’s support. He also noted that as of right now the FinCom didn’t have a recommendation.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he wouldn’t move to support and wouldn’t support this and not because it was a rail trail. There has only been one conversation with CSX and it wasn’t known if the Town would have the ability (to have a rail trail). The funds for this were coming from the Mall mitigation money and he didn’t believe that just because the Mall made these funds available there should be a discussion of spending them without talking to CSX as to whether the Town will have the ability to buy the property. He thought the Board had a duty and an obligation to make sure when the funds were spent at some point in time that the project had the potential to move forward and he didn’t think it was ready to take the next step.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that he was concerned about doing concept design feasibility studies without having a proper sight boundary, the topography of the area, etc. Those things had an impact. He wasn’t against it (rail trail) and if some headway was made with CSX, it could be dealt with at Fall Town Meeting. Other money was appropriated at a Special Town Meeting and that money hasn’t been spent because there wasn’t any headway made. He couldn’t see spending $25,000-40,000 without knowing where this was going with CSX.
Mr. Connolly moved to support Article 13 and urged the Town to get CSX moving. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Ostroff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Ciccariello were opposed.
Mr. Ostroff recognized that negotiating with CSX was difficult and right now everyone was waiting to see how the process went with Holliston. There was a third party appraisal identified and CSX has agreed to go forward with it and that could unlock the negotiations. The money (appropriated at the Special) hadn’t been spent because everyone was waiting to see what happened in Holliston. The money was being banked until it was needed but it would be good to have the flexibility of having the money when it was needed. Town Meeting has to authorize the appropriation of the mitigation funds because of the state law and he would ask for the Board’s support to get that (Town Meeting approval) done and then have a discussion at the appropriate time for how to spend it.
Article 24 – Acceptance of MGL C44,c.55C: Establish Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Ms. Gloff explained that the article was designed to set up an affordable housing trust fund. The Community Development Advisory Committee was set up as part of the implementation of the housing plan. Due to some timing issues, the committee was unable to have a formal vote to place the article on the warrant. The CDAC supported the filing but was requesting referral back to the CDAC. The article was written to accept certain provisions of the state law but a lot of details still need to be worked on.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, to support referral of Article 24 to the Community Development Advisory Committee.
Article 17 – Re-authorization of Revolving Funds
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to support Article 17.
Article 18 – Re-authorization of Revolving Fund: Sassamon Trace Golf
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to support Article 18.
Article 19 – Re-authorization of Revolving Fund: Natick Mall Inspectional Services
Ms. White explained that it was the Mall inspectional fees that go into this fund. The purpose was for the incremental costs above and beyond the operating budget $120,000 was approved previously and the Finance Committee approved $150,000 for Fiscal 2008.
Mr. Lemnios added that this was modeled after what had been done the last time the Mall had huge expansion. The last time there was a great call for inspectional services and when that occurs, the Town’s staff will cover the Mall inspection and outside inspectors will cover the other inspections.
Mr. Ostroff moved to support Article 19. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Article 21 - Board of Assessors: Increase Personal Exemptions
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to support Article 21.
Article 20 – Citizen Petition: Establish Ambulance Enterprise Fund
Mr. Ciccariello thought the intent was to have the two boards get together to see how the billing was done. He recalled that many years ago the Board of Selectmen voted not to try to collect some of the service from people without health insurance. The hope was to take a look at that to see if the Board wanted to continue that practice. There was no intent to try to establish an enterprise fund but to look at the methodology for billing.
Ms. Gloff inquired if that was within the scope of the article, and Mr. Hughes responded that the article could be referred to anybody and those boards could decide what, if anything, they wanted to do with the article. Mr. Hughes suggested deferring the discussion to the April 9 meeting.
Article 23 – Citizen Petition: Establish Noise By-Law
Mr. Hughes indicated that he would like to talk to the Police Chief before taking a position.
Article 22 – Indirect Cost Study Report
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the Indirect Cost Study report existed and if anybody had heard anything.
Mr. Ciccariello, who was a member of the Indirect Cost Study Committee, informed the Board that the committee met last Thursday and there would be a report for Town Meeting. He wasn’t sure the committee came to any major conclusions, but a lot of research. He believed the recommendations were being delivered to the FinCom Chair.
Mr. Hughes requested that a copy of the report be sent to the Selectmen.
COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL TASK FORCE MEMBER DISCLOSURE
The Board was in receipt of disclosures from two members of the Cochituate Rail Trail Task Force. Karla Sangrey disclosed that she was a residential abutter to the project at 302 Bacon Street. Peter Henry disclosed that riding bicycles might become an allowed use on the abandoned rail corridor and his income was earned from sales and service of bicycles.
Mr. Hughes explained that the disclosures had been submitted on the advice of Town Counsel and it was up to the Board of Selectmen whether to have those two members continue to serve on the task force.
Mr. Ciccariello expressed some concern about the sale of bicycles knowing that in Dennis there was a rental company that rents bikes along the rail trail and he didn’t know the impact. There may be some
financial gain for Mr. Henry. Mr. Hughes doubted there would be a big opportunity for the rental of bikes. It was only a four mile trail.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to continue the appointments of Karla Sangrey and Peter Henry on the Cochituate Rail Trail Task Force. Unanimously voted.
BOSTON ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION: PARADE PERMIT
At the prior meeting a question was raised as to how much the Boston Athletic Association would be donating to the Town for this year’s Boston Marathon, and the Board tabled the BAA’s request for a permit to conduct the Boston Marathon. Mr. Hughes reported that the Town would receive at least $22,500.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Boston Athletic Association’s request for a permit to conduct the Boston Marathon through the Town of Natick on April 16, 2007.
MINUTES
The Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2006 meeting. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff.
NATICK MALL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES
Ms. Gloff noted that Mr. Ciccariello and she had been serving as a subcommittee working with General Growth. General Growth was required to provide affordable units with the number depending on whether they were all, none, or a portion off site. Offsite would require about 48 units. Two things were needed:
1) A general document submitted to DHCD that would be the basis to get units qualified as local action units to count toward the 10%
2) A draft RFP for inspectional services for offsite affordable housing quality standards. This would be a group that would go in and make sure that what General Growth was considering purchasing was market rate and then resold as affordable.
Ms. Gloff recognized Mr. Engler from SEB who was in the audience.
Ms. Gloff pointed out there was an error in the first document. DHCD standards and the agreement between the Planning Board and General Growth would be 1-1/2 baths for 3 bedrooms.
Mr. Ostroff moved approval of the Natick offsite affordable housing program as amended. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the RFP for inspectional services. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Mr. Lemnios informed the Board that settlements had been reached with the DPW Laborers, Supervisors and Administrators, Clerical, Recreation & Parks, Library, Patrol Officers, Firefighters, Deputy Firefighters, and Dispatchers. All were three year contracts covering the period of July 1, 2007-June 30, 2010.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (contd)
The DPW Laborers was a three year settlement with 3% increases in each plus a 6¢ increase in the Liuna Pension contribution. For Fiscal 2008 the cost of the contract was $62,000.
Mr. Ciccariello moved approval of the contract with the DPW Laborers. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
The Supervisors and Administrators was a three year settlement with a 3% increase in each year plus a 6¢ Liuna Pension contribution and stipends for the Supervisors. There was an additional stipend for the Highway Supervisor for having taken over the Sanitation Division. For Fiscal 2008 the cost was $38,000.
Mr. Ostroff moved approval of the contract with the Supervisors and Administrators. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
The Clerical settlement included a 3% increase in each of the 3 years, a 6¢ Liuna Pension contribution, 3 re-classified positions, and 1 additional bereavement day. The cost for Fiscal 2008 was $37,000.
Mr. Ostroff moved approval of the Clerical contract. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Recreation & Parks had the standard 3% increase in each year, no Liuna contribution, and an adjustment to two individuals with two additional steps. There was also a stipend for the individual assuming the Special Needs Coordinator duties. The cost in Fiscal 2008 was $8,703.
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Recreation & Parks contract.
Library had the same 3% increase, 6¢ Liuna contribution, and a $100 addition to the clothing allowance. The cost in FY08 was $45,118.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Library contract.
The Patrol Officers contract included a 3% increase in each of the year years and set the detail rate at $38.00 per hour the first year, $39.00 per hour the second year, and $40 per hour the third. The cost in Fiscal 2008 was $77,000.
Ms. Gloff moved approval of the Patrol Officers contract. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
The contract with the firefighters was the standard 3% in each of the three years. The cost in FY08 was $101,000.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to approve the contract with the firefighters. Unanimously voted.
The Deputy Chiefs contract included the 3% increase in each of the years and an additional $150 in clothing allowance. They were also
given the ability to break comp days into four hour blocks. The cost in FY08 was $15,375.
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the contract with the Deputy Chiefs.
The Dispatchers contract included a 3% increase in each of the years and provided that any vacancy occurring be posted internally. The cost in FY08 was $14,167.
Ms. Gloff moved approval of the contract with the Dispatchers. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Article 7 – Personnel Board
Mr. Lemnios advised that the cost of the article for Fiscal 2008 was $110,000 which included a 3% increase for full and part-time employees. There were no re-classifications, but there could be 2 wage adjustments.
Mr. Hughes moved to support the 3%. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
ST. PAUL’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
Mr. Ciccariello moved approval of the St. Paul’s Episcopal Church’s request to use the Common on April 1, 2007 from 8:45-11:00 a.m. and on April 6, 2007 from 11:45 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
NATICK CENTER ASSOCIATES, INC: FARMER’S MARKET
Mr. Ostroff moved approval of the Natick Center Associates’ request to use the Natick Common every Saturday from 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. for the period of May 19, 2007 through October 31, 2007 to hold the Farmer’s Market.
PRODUCTION RESOURCES: REQUEST BANNER
Mr. Ciccariello moved approval of Production Resources, Inc.’s request to hang a banner along West Central Street near Fiske Pond to commemorate the running of the 111th Boston Marathon for the period of April 15-17, 2007. The approval was subject to Production Resources notifying the Police Department of the drop off and pick up times for construction scissor from which the banner would be hung and the submission of insurance. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
NATICK ARTISTS OPEN STUDIO: REQUEST BANNER
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Natick Artists Open Studio’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of October 15-22, 2007.
DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT
Mr. Ostroff moved to surplus the 126 items of computer equipment listed in Robert LeFrancois’, Director of Information Technology, memo to the
Board of Selectmen dated March 15, 2007. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes advised that at his request Mr. Lemnios contacted the third party vendor and they have agreed to accept computer equipment from
citizens at no cost. The date and the types of things they will accept will have to be determined.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Pension Reform Legislation
Mr. Ostroff noted there was a hearing coming up on the Governor’s proposal for underperforming pension funds.
Mr. Hughes suggested sending a letter in support of the legislation which would take the 15% or so bottom pension funds and fold them into the state registered pool. Natick’s was just a little over 2.1%.
Mr. Ciccariello moved to send a letter, seconded by Ms. Gloff, and unanimously voted.
b. Police Details
Mr. Connolly noted that the Board had not heard from the Police Chief on using retired police officers to do detail work.
c. Expression of Appreciation – Selectman Connolly
On behalf of the Board, Mr. Hughes thanked Mr. Connolly for his three years of service. Mr. Connolly was recognized for bringing something to the Board and would be missed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
__________________________________
Carol A. Gloff, Clerk
| 
