BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
November 26, 2007
6:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chair Carol A. Gloff at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Carol A. Gloff, Charles M. Hughes, Joshua Ostroff, John Ciccariello, Kristine Van Amsterdam
ALSO PRESENT: Martha L. White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on November 26, 2007 in the amount of $1,727,953.68. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,924,762.77.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to collective bargaining and executive session minutes. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 3-0-0 vote. Ms. Gloff, Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Ciccariello voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff and Ms. Van Amsterdam had not as yet arrived and did not vote. At 6:31 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:05 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Ms. Gloff announced the Town was hosting a reception and open house at Town Hall on December 11, 2007 from 6:00-8:00 p.m. The purpose of the event was to provide residents of the Town an opportunity to meet the new Town Administrator and other town leaders and to provide the public an opportunity to conduct business and ask questions outside of normal business hours.
JOINT MEETING WITH LEGISLATORS AND SCHOOL COMMITTEE
Joining the Board were the Town’s legislators – Senator Scott Brown, Representative David Linsky, and Representative Alice Peisch. Senator Karen Spilka was ill and not in attendance. Also joining the Board were members of the School Committee – PersonNameRick Wynn, Dirk Coburn, Karen Adelman Foster, Ann Zernicke.
At 7:05 p.m. Mr. Wynn called the School Committee meeting to order.
Representative Linsky began by addressing the question of local aid. He noted that the last several years the state budget had been on time and would expect it to be on time this year. He would expect a local aid resolution around April 1. Chapter 70 was entering the third year of a five year commitment to bring every school up to a certain level. In FY08 Natick saw an increase of 12% over FY07 or about $500,000 which was on top of the previous few years where the Chapter 70 increases were running 10%. That was good news and Representative Linsky said he could confidently expect in the next fiscal year Natick would see an increase of around 5%.
Representative Linsky continued that in lottery funding Natick went up 2%. The number 1 priority for the MMA was to fully cap the lottery and he assured the Town that every single dime went back to the cities and towns. In the past fiscal year Chapter 90 increased for Natick by 25% which translated to almost $800,000 or an increase of $170,000-180,000. He also pointed out that Natick’s special ed circuit breaker was around $800,000 which was the highest number ever. He expected to maintain that level, maybe slightly higher.
Senator Brown noted that funding for the Metco program increased and he thought that would happen again. When the Governor set the budget last year he was $50 million short in terms of education of what the House and Senate agreed to. It was increased by $25 million and there was an effort to increase another $25 million but it failed.
JOINT MEETING WITH LEGISLATORS AND SCHOOL COMMITTEE (contd)
Senator Brown warned there were some red flags. The lottery was $250 million short and another shortfall was projected for FY09. Something would give and he didn’t know where as of yet. In FY08 they had to backfill the lottery with rainy day money so cities and towns could get the money they were promised. Instead of offering cuts, they were backfilling which means the Town shouldn’t go crazy in its spending as there may be some bumps coming down the pike. There were some potential clouds.
With respect to the home rule petition for the Speen Street National Guard, Senator Brown said he asked the chairman of the committee to move forward as quickly as possible. The home rule petition for retired police officers to do details was being filed. Plus he co-sponsored a bill on special education that lifts the funding cap. He further noted that the Town’s legislators were aware of the parking garage issue and the tolls.
Representative Peisch spoke to the issue of the charter school formulas and noted that about three years ago the formula was modified. She recognized there was still a situation where Natick was losing when students went to a charter. There has been a hearing on some legislation, but she wasn’t terribly optimistic about that passing this session.
Regarding the property tax, Representative Peisch assured everyone that the legislators were aware of the fact that property taxes were the primary revenue source for the Town. She has signed onto bills that would give some relief to senior citizens on an override. There has been some progress but it hasn’t gotten to the floor for a vote and she suspected it was unlikely for that to happen this session. There have been proposals for a meals tax and telecommunication tax. It hasn’t been taken up, but it was her understanding the telecommunication tax had the best chance for success and she would urge the local officials to contact the legislators.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the legislators’ position and Representative Peisch responded that she was in support of a local option meals tax and telecommunication tax and hotel tax.
Senator Brown clarified that there was nothing before the Senate and he would need to see something to look at and study. Generally he was in favor of giving local options to communities. It was beneficial for the Town, but a lot of businesses were opposed. He agreed with the telecommunication tax, but there was no appetite from the House Speaker to have the other issues come up.
Representative Linsky noted that he was the original sponsor of the telecommunications tax and fully supported it.
Senator Brown added that the legislature had seen a complex plan on education from the Governor. It was difficult when the legislature had only been in session a few times to give any input.
Mr. Ciccariello reminded Representative Linsky of a meeting about 1-1/2 years ago with the MBTA, former Selectman Edward Carr, and former Town Administrator Philip Lemnios. It was his understanding the MBTA would like to come to the table again, but the last time the MBTA had all this interest Natick had to do all of it and he wondered what Representative Linsky’s read on this was now.
Representative Linsky thought Mr. Ciccariello was talking about a parking garage. This was something he wanted to get done and thought there was an opportunity to get it done if the Town wanted it. The MBTA hired a consultant and issued a report that outlined four possible locations for a MBTA commuter parking garage – placeWest Natick, over the tracks in air rights, the site of the present addressStreetMiddlesex Avenue, and the lot behind the missing tooth. The reality was the MBTA was going to build a garage or several garages somewhere in Massachusetts in the next few years because they were under a federal agreement with the Big Dig. If Natick didn’t take one there were other communities that want one.
Representative Linsky pointed out that the MBTA wasn’t promising Natick a garage, but he thought they were in a position where they were anxiously
JOINT MEETING WITH LEGISLATORS AND SCHOOL COMMITTEE (contd)
awaiting a response. The Town needs to make a decision on this fairly quickly. Other towns have an interest and the Office of Transportation needs to know if placeCityNatick really wants to do it. The Town had to keep in mind that the MBTA was not going to build a garage for employee parking for the downtown businesses and was not going to build a garage for use of people in downtown. They want to build a commuter garage. Their focus was commuters. He thought the Board of Selectmen or whoever was charged with the evaluation had to come up with a recommendation fairly quickly or the Town could lose that opportunity.
Ms. Gloff asked for a definition of fairly quickly and Representative Linsky responded that the report said 3-4 months. He noted that he was meeting tomorrow with the Natick Center Associates to get their feedback.
Senator Brown thought a decision would have to be made in the next month or month and a half. There were two other communities in his district interested.
Ms. Gloff commented that it wasn’t clear to the Town that the Town was being asked to provide feedback.
Mr. Ciccariello noted the Board had talked about this 3-4 weeks ago with the hope of setting up a meeting to get the MBTA in here and asked if anyone had contacted Representative Linsky. Representative Linsky advised that he had not been contacted, but could get a meeting set up.
Mr. Ciccariello requested an update on the Mass Pike tolls. Representative Linsky explained the problem had nothing to do with the operating of the Mass Pike. There was a financial plan that was given to the Mass Pike. It was a debt. The legislators were working with the Governor’s office to try to shift some of the debt service budget away from the turnpike, but until that was off not only would there be the 25¢ increase at Allston, but an additional increase this year and more down the road. This was the financing for the Big Dig and nothing to do with the operation of the turnpike. All of the MetroWest legislators were trying to fix it and the Governor wanted to do it, but he had to find something that was workable financially.
Senator Brown felt the problem whether it be the lottery or the tolls was that the useful life of the increases were flat. There have been numerous proposals to sell the lottery and come up with a guaranteed income. There were similar proposals with the turnpike and Mass Highway. For years there has been talk about doing some mergers. The Governor was trying but getting the same resistance as other governors. Until somebody took bold action to streamline the tolls will keep rising and everyone will continue to pay and more. The legislators were trying very hard to work with the administration and come up with some type of solution.
Mr. Ostroff remarked that the MBTA garage was related to making the station accessible which he would hope to see done. He then noted that the funding issues with charter schools tends to pit people against each other within the community and he hoped there was a way to address.
Representative Peisch believed most people were aware of that. Not many people think the charter school shouldn’t be there, but it was the mechanism for funding. Some believe the competition was merited, but if the schools lost some students that weren’t all at the same grade, there was not enough savings. She was in favor of changing, but didn’t believe realistically it was likely to happen this year.
Mr. Ostroff then asked about the National Guard Depot, but to Representative Linsky’s knowledge the National Guard had no plans to vacate the property. Senator Brown was also not aware of anything happening with that space.
Having been asked to weigh in on the bicycle legislation, Mr. Ostroff asked if that was timely. Senator Brown didn’t think anyone should lose any sleep over it. Everything was in committee and nothing has come out. There were some battles between the three power players and everything was frozen.
JOINT MEETING WITH LEGISLATORS AND SCHOOL COMMITTEE (contd)
Ms. Adelman Foster thanked the legislators for coming and was glad to hear property taxes addressed. She would guess that everyone was concerned with property tax being the primary support of the schools and it helped to have another hand of voices, there was at least one. She then noted that placeCityNatick charged a fee for students to ride the bus. Town Meeting subsidizes the fee, but it was still difficult for many families. Was full funding supported?
Senator Brown responded that an effort was made to fully fund regional transportation. Local bus transportation was local there was very little help that he was aware of.
Representative Linsky added that it had been several years since the local transportation line had been funded. As much as they would like to see it come back, that had been folded into Chapter 70. He had a bill that would make the fees tax deductible and he would like to see the federal government do that as well. He didn’t think it was realistic to think all transportation was coming back.
Although grateful for the increase in Chapter 70, there has been an increase in children with disabilities and Ms. Adelman Foster didn’t think the increases were keeping up. She asked the legislators to please keep those increases coming. The way special ed was funded not only puts funding between special and non-special education students, but community to community. It was a matter for a regional approach so the risk and responsibility was spread over the entire Commonwealth. She wondered if there was anything brewing.
Senator Brown responded that he thought there were some bumps coming and added that Representative Linsky was very instrumental in doing a lot of work in special ed. In terms of the amount, Senator Brown said he was not sure because they were waiting to see if the Governor was going to bring in any new revenue streams. There were some pilot programs on transportation for special needs that was saving a tremendous amount of money on one of the biggest costs.
Senator Brown continued that a lot of conditions traditionally taken care of by health providers were being taken over by the schools. That was a situation on which the legislators were trying to get their hands on. The controversy was worse before the way special ed was viewed was changed, but there was still a lot to do. In his 12 cities and towns there were a number of issues affecting the schools.
Senator Brown further noted that the legislators tried to increase the senior circuit breaker, and veterans and disability benefits, and were trying to bring back Chapter 90.
Representative Linsky noted that the reason for the 197% increase in special ed was advances in medical care. The special education law doesn’t have to be on the books because there was a federal law that guarantees the same. The state legislature appropriates about $240 million for special ed circuit breaker which meant $800,000 for placeCityNatick, but the federal government contributed zero. It needs to be done on the federal level. They (federal government) need to step up to the plate and start delivering on what they guarantee. $472 billion has been spent in placecountry-regionIraq and zero in special education.
Ms. Adelman Foster suggested that maybe the School Committee should get in touch with Representative Linsky about getting involved in the pilot program for special ed transportation.
On behalf of the School Committee, Mr. Wynn thanked the legislators for coming and giving Town officials the opportunity to voice their concerns. He noted that he would like to put in a plea. The high school was in need of some help and he would ask the legislators to become acutely aware of the help needed. The report from the last review (accreditation) issued asked the Schools to take some action but it was difficult given some of the financial impacts facing the Town right now. He would ask the legislators’ support in getting the message to the SBA that Natick needs some help. The
JOINT MEETING WITH LEGISLATORS AND SCHOOL COMMITTEE (contd)
Town has signed the statement of interest and the SBA has looked at the project and the hope was to find out in the next couple of months where it was in the SBA priority list.
Representative Linsky assured everyone that the Town’s legislators stood ready, willing, and able to do what they could do.
Ms. Gloff expressed the Board’s appreciation for the legislators coming and asked if there was anything the individual legislators were working on on which they would like to comment.
Representative Linsky responded that he thought they should be able to move the home rule petition regarding addressStreetSpeen Street quickly. The home rule petition for retired police officers doing details arrived last Wednesday and was filed the same day. That would take a little while although there was some thought about maybe attaching it to other towns doing the same thing.
As the legislature got into the budget, Representative Peisch encouraged all the Board and School Committee members to call any of the Town’s legislators if anything came up in the next few months.
A recess was called at timeHour19Minute507:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at timeHour20Minute08:00 p.m.
TCAN: REQUEST FOR THREE (3) ONE DAY BEER & WINE LICENSES
Representing The Center for Arts in placeCityNatick in its request for three one day beer & wine licenses for performances on December 1 and December 15, 2007 and January 18, 2008 was Sherry Sandoval. Ms. Sandoval noted that if granted, that would give TCAN a total of 25 one day licenses.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes to approve a one day beer and wine license for David Lavalley of TCAN for December 1,December 15, 2007 and January 18, 2008 for premises at 14 Summer Street. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Ms. Van Amsterdam advised that she was no longer on the TCAN Board and felt comfortable voting on issues with TCAN.
Mr. Ostroff noted that in the past his wife was a server but she was not doing that now and he didn’t think he would be in conflict voting on this.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2008 TAX CLASSIFICATION HEARING
Making the presentation on the Fiscal 2008 Tax Classification hearing was the Director of Assessment Jan Dangelo and Assistant Assessor Carl Marshall.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Using a power point presentation, Ms. Dangelo provided the Board with an overview of the hearing. She explained the purpose of the classification hearing was to determine the percentage share of the tax levy that each class of property will pay. The Board of Selectmen must determine a residential factor. The residential factor is used by the assessors to calculate the tax rate and levy paid by each class of property.
She then proceeded to the property assessment review in which she advised that this year there was a shift in value from residential to commercial. This was a reversal of a recent trend. The result was that commercial taxpayers will pay a larger share of the tax levy.
Single family home values stabilized this year, ending multiple years of rapid value increases. The median single family assessment dropped from $427,600 to $419,900.
Condominiums and vacant land increased slightly. Commercial property values increased. The largest increases occurred along Route 9. Small retail properties continue to outperform the remaining commercial class. Industrial properties remained flat with virtually no change.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2008 TAX CLASSIFICATION HEARING (contd)
Continuing, Ms. Dangelo told the Board that new growth was certified at $883,280. Condominiums had the largest growth at 3.4% of its base. Single family homes and commercial properties had new growth at about 1% of base value. She pointed out that the majority of the new growth expected from the placeCityNatick Collection project was not completed by January 1, 2007 and was not included this year.
The maximum levy allowed for fiscal year 2008 was $65,210,458. This year’s excess levy capacity was $23,797.76. Ms. Dangelo explained that the excess levy capacity was the difference between the maximum levy and the actual levy. The Town was at the maximum allowable levy since increasing the tax rate by one cent would exceed the limit.
Ms. Dangelo addressed the residential factor noting that the minimum residential factor was 86.8496%. This was the factor that would split the tax rate toward commercial up to 150%. This would increase the commercial tax rate by $5.01 per thousand and reduce the residential rate by $1.32 per thousand. A residential factor of 1.00 will maintain a single tax rate. A residential factor below 1.00 will result in a split tax rate.
Referring to examples of tax classifications, Ms. Dangelo pointed out that a split rate benefits all Class I properties. The largest benefactor was large apartment complexes and high value properties.
Ms. Dangelo continued that the Board could also adopt a residential exemption of up to 20% of the average residential value. The average residential value was $423,000. The residential exemption shifts the tax burden within the residential class. Non-owner occupied and many residential properties would actually pay a higher effective tax rate than commercial properties. The residential exemption works well in communities with a high percentage of non-resident property owners. Natick did not have a high percentage of non-resident owners.
Ms. Dangelo advised there were 13 communities that adopted the residential exemption in 2007. Those communities include Barnstable, Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Nantucket, Waltham, Tisbury, Somerville.
Continuing, Ms. Dangelo noted the Board could also adopt a small commercial exemption of up to 10%. This was only available to businesses that employ less than 10 people annually and were valued less than $1,000,000. All businesses at the property must qualify. Approximately 117 properties would qualify.
She further noted that in 2007 six communities adopted the small commercial exemption – Avon, Bellingham, Braintree, Somerset, Westford, and Wrentham.
The presentation continued with a graph of the average FY07 residential tax bill in surrounding towns. Ms. Dangelo pointed out that Natick was still in the low area. Only Framingham was lower and Framingham split the rate.
Ms. Dangelo noted that Natick’s average single family tax bill has increased 28.76% in the last six years. This was less than every bordering community and the statewide average. The statewide average was 32.85%.
In conclusion Ms. Dangelo reviewed the Board’s options.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the current tax rate and was told by Ms. Dangelo it was $9.58. If the Board kept the single rate, it would go to $10.01. She noted that last year was a reval year and usually values go up and rates drop.
Based on the proposed rate should there be a single rate, Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the average increase in a residential single family and commercial. Ms. Dangelo advised the single family increase would be approximately $101 and because of the shift in value commercial taxes would be increasing about 5%.
In looking at some of the largest commercial taxpayers, it looked to Mr. Ostroff that they would see a 4-1/2% increase and he wondered if the Board
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2008 TAX CLASSIFICATION HEARING (contd)
could consider a small business and residential exemption independent of whether to split the rate. Ms. Dangelo responded that they were three separate votes, but it may not always make sense for a community to do so.
Mr. Ostroff noted that he had asked about small businesses in the downtown area. The small commercial exemption could be given if the building was less than $1 million, but a lot of small businesses were in buildings that were more than $1 million or perhaps businesses in them may disqualify them because they employ more than 10 people annually. He was interested in knowing how the small business exemption would be implemented and didn’t know if it was right for the community.
There was no one from the public wishing to speak.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Ostroff moved to accept the residential factor of 1.00. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted. Ms. Gloff clarified that that would set one tax rate.
Mr. Hughes moved not to adopt a residential exemption. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes then moved not to adopt a small business exemption. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff stated that this was for tax bills going out in July, but Ms. Dangelo corrected him that it was for tax bills going in January. She also noted that when she got all the information from the DOR she would post the values to the web and it will be available in the Assessors’ Office.
Mr. Ciccariello requested a list of properties in Natick that were tax exempt whether it be non-profits or religious and if any were paying an in lieu of tax.
FRESH CITY OF NATICK, LLC D/B/A FRESH CITY: CHANGE IN MANAGER
Appearing before the Board on behalf of Fresh City of Natick, LLC d/b/a Fresh City’s request for a change in manager was the proposed new manager, Stephen Scriver, Sr.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to how long Mr. Scriver had been the manager, and Mr. Scriver responded that he had been there for about a month and a half. Asked if he was aware that these things (change in manager) need to get taken care of a little earlier, Mr. Scriver apologized and assured the Board that he was aware of having to get it done. He noted that he planned to get everything in for the renewal next week.
Ms. Challis explained that were the Board to vote to renew Fresh City’s liquor license for 2008, the renewal would have to be submitted no later than Friday, November 30. After that the Office couldn’t take any renewal applications.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that on the personal information sheet, most of Mr. Scriver’s past experience had been in management of facilities that do not serve alcohol. Asked if he had any experience with the service of alcohol and if he were TIPS trained, Mr. Scriver responded that Fresh City was in the process of getting certificates. That would be scheduled next week. He noted that the average weekly sales were $40 and the beer & wine was delivered to the table.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the individuals presently serving beer & wine were certified, but Mr. Scriver didn’t know who was and who wasn’t. There were people certified before him. Mr. Ciccariello asked Ms. Challis if there was a list and she explained there was a list submitted last year at the time of renewal. The submission of a list of employees who sell or serve alcohol and their training was part of the renewal requirement.
FRESH CITY OF NATICK, LLC D/B/A FRESH CITY: CHANGE IN MANAGER (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello asked when Mr. Scriver would be certified and he responded that he talked to the district manager today. He (Mr. Scriver) thought he had until next week, but there were training classes throughout the Boston area on a daily basis.
Mr. Ciccariello referenced the indication on the application that Mr. Scriver would spend 50 hours a week on the premises. Mr. Scriver confirmed that he would spend a minimum of 50 hours.
Ms. Gloff questioned if Mr. Scriver would have his training this week and Mr. Scriver responded that he would have his training this week. Ms. Gloff assumed he would look at the list of people from last year and who was presently on staff and figure out who needs to be trained.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if the Board ever had the occasion where it was up against the November 30 date and the appropriate TIPS training had not been completed and yet the Board votes. Ms. Gloff pointed out that typically the Board didn’t look at the information when voting, but it was available. Ms. Challis explained that since the adoption of the training policy, every licenseholder was required to submit a list of employees who sell or serve, their date of hire, date of training, and type of training. Renewal applications without that list were not accepted. There were times, however, when someone may have been a recent hire and there will be a notation that training will be held within the required 30 days or give a date for when the training was scheduled.
Ms. Gloff re-emphasized that she would like Mr. Scriver to get his training this week. Mr. Scriver indicated it would be done.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve Fresh City’s petition for a change in manager from Spencer Morrison to Stephen Scriver, Sr.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to renew Fresh City of Natick, LLC d/b/a Fresh City wine and malt license for 2008.
PROPOSED LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR BICYCLE LEGISLATION
The Board was in receipt of a letter from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee seeking the Board’s support of the pending bicycle legislation.
Mel Albert, Acting Chair of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee, stated that he was mindful of the comments just made by the legislators, but felt there were some fine aspects of the legislation that would be helpful to Natick and the state at large. If there was any information the committee could provide to help the Board make a decision, they would be happy to do so.
Mr. Ciccariello referenced a letter to the Board in which Chief Mannix supported additional training provided in the legislation but there was an aspect he didn’t recommend supporting. If this was not a matter that needs to be submitted, he (Mr. Ciccariello) would like to hear comments from the Chief on how he intends to handle those.
Ms. Gloff wasn’t sure the Committee was aware of Chief Mannix’s comments and Mr. Albert confirmed that he had not seen them. Mr. Hughes suggested tabling discussion for two weeks, and Ms. Gloff asked Mr. Albert to have a conversation with Chief Mannix to get an understanding of his concerns. Mr. Albert responded that he would welcome a conversation with the Chief and would bring information to the Board.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to table to December 17.
Mr. Ostroff thanked the members of the committee for bringing this to the Board’s attention.
FINDINGS OF HEARING OFFICER: KIM DOG HEARING
Ms. White informed the Board that she held a hearing with respect to a dog complaint concerning a neutered part pit bull at 30 Spring Street owned by Song Kim and his family. She found the pit bull attacked a collie owned by a neighboring family. The pit bull owner was remorseful and made some changes. She made some recommendations and reviewed those recommendations with Town Counsel.
Ms. White pointed out that the situation was complicated by the owners of the pit bull moving to another location in placeCityNatick. Neither the animal control officer nor herself have had a chance to view the new property, but her recommendation was:
1) The Kim’s property at 30 Spring Street be made secure with perimeter fencing and closed gates sufficient to contain the Kim’s dog at all times, or provide a secure kennel enclosure on this property or any property where they may reside in Natick.
2) The Kim’s dog must be restrained with a muzzle at all times while in the public way and when being conveyed between the house and the family vehicle.
3) Mr. and Mrs. Kim be required to obtain obedience training and/or other appropriate training to modify their dog’s aggressive behavior.
4) Submit to the Natick Animal Control Officer any plans, drawings, contractor or invoices evidencing compliance with requirement to provide a secure outside environment for the dog and appropriate obedience training.
5) Upon relocation to 274 North Main Street, Mr. and Mrs. Kim shall contact the Animal Control Officer for a review of the environment at that location in terms of its security for containing the dog. The hearing officer, through the Animal Control Officer, reserves the right to require improvements to the property at 274 North Main Street to ensure a secure environment. Until such time as required improvements are made, the Kims shall provide a secure kennel enclosure and shall keep the dog within this enclosure when it is outside.
There was some uncertainty as to the Kim’s new address, and Mr. Ostroff suggested that the conditions apply to any location in Natick. Ms. White agreed.
A motion was made to accept the recommendations of the hearing officer with Mr. Ostroff’s suggestion. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
AWARD CONTRACT: addressStreetLOTTERY AGENT DEWEY ST. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Ms. White told the Board that she was happy to be seeking the Board’s consideration of this contract. The Community Development Director had been working hard to get a contractor to perform the marketing and consulting services for the two affordable units on Dewey Street. It was difficult to find someone and Mr. Reffett had to put the proposal out two times. The contract will be paid by funds from HOME. The Board was being asked to award the contract to Stockard Engler Brigham, LLC who were the same contractors doing the lottery for General Growth.
Mr. Hughes inquired if Stockard Engler Brigham ran the last lottery as he had a couple of questions about that lottery. At least one person came to him and said they could not find where it was advertised. Less than half applied and he wondered if the Town should be using that firm.
Ms. White noted there was an extensive marketing program approved by the Board and she knew one place they were required to advertise where it did not occur was CHAPA. CHAPA spoke to Stockard Engler Brigham and their records showed they had sent it to CHAPA. She hadn’t had a chance to follow up to see if all the advertising was done.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what would be done to assure that the next time these things happen. Ms. White gave assurance there would be follow up to make sure the marketing plan approved by the Board was adhered to.
AWARD CONTRACT: addressStreetLOTTERY AGENT DEWEY ST. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (contd)
Ms. Gloff suggested that maybe this was something the Community Development Advisory Committee could be involved in checking.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to award the contract for consulting services to perform affordable housing marketing and lottery services for the two Dewey Street affordable housing units to the low bidder, Stockard Engler Brigham, LLC in an amount not to exceed $10,000.
2008 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL
Ms. Gloff noted that at the time of liquor license renewal for 2008, the Board did not renew two licenses due to outstanding taxes and/or fees. It was her understanding that the issues for both licenseholders have been resolved.
Mr. Hughes moved to renew the following liquor licenses for 2008:
Natick Restaurants, Inc.dba Curry Leaf 1328 Worcester Road Vinod Kapoor, Mgr.
Nicholas’s 85 East Central St. Sharon Stournaras, Mgr
Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
NATICK CENTER: HOLIDAY PARKING
The Board was in receipt of a letter from the placePlaceNameNatick PlaceTypeCenter Associates requesting the Board to institute the “Free Holiday Parking” program for downtown Natick during the holiday season. The free parking program would begin on December 1, 2007 and end on January 2, 2008 and would still include the 2 hour limit. As they had done in the past, Natick Center Associates would place red bags with white lettering on the meters.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he was a member of the Natick Center Associates and intended to vote.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the free holiday parking as requested by the Natick Center Associates. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Ms. Gloff wanted to make certain the public was aware that setting aside December, they need to put money in the meters Monday-Friday but do not need to put money in the meters Saturday or Sunday. Mr. Ostroff added that there was a button on the meters on Main Street and by pressing the button someone would get 10 free minutes.
WATER & SEWER RATE STUDY: UPDATE/SCHEDULE WATER & SEWER RATE HEARING
Ms. White told the Board that it was frustrating to still not have the water & sewer rate study. She had hoped to have a presentation this evening, but the consultant was not prepared to do so this evening. Some of the water & sewer use data was not available in a format he could use. She recommended scheduling the consultant to present his findings for the December 10 meeting and scheduling the rate hearing for December 17. There was likely to be a proposal for a new rate structure so the Board may not get all the way through it the first night. There would probably be two nights of hearing beginning December 17 and continued to January 7.
Ms. White advised that she reviewed the proposed timetable with the Finance Director and it didn’t appear to present any significant problems. She made an administrative decision to hold back the December bills and the January if necessary to ensure that each district receives the same number of bills under the new rate structure. To help facilitate getting this through in 2 meetings, Ms. White asked if the Board would designate 1 or 2 members to meet with the staff and the consultant.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was extremely disappointed that progress wasn’t being made on the rate study. In the packet were minutes from the meeting when the Board awarded the contract and he pointed out that the Board thought 45 days was pushing it and suggested 60 days but were told it could get done. Sixty days have come and gone and he didn’t understand why the consultant wasn’t getting the information or getting it at the last minute. The Board talked about this last week and he (Mr. Ciccariello) thought it was all set. Based on the fact Ms. Van Amsterdam was the liaison
WATER & SEWER RATE STUDY: UPDATE/SCHEDULE WATER & SEWER RATE HEARING (contd)
for the DPW, if she was willing, he suggested that she be the person to sit in on the meeting.
Ms. Van Amsterdam accepted.
About the timing of getting the consultant the information, Ms. White advised that the consultant had it for some time. There were some formatting issues, but he had it since September.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to schedule the water & sewer public hearing for December 17.
Mr. Hughes moved to nominate Ms. Van Amsterdam to serve as the Board’s subcommittee. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello. Mr. Ostroff noted this was something he brought to the Board in 2006 and would appreciate the opportunity to work on this as well. Both the maker and the seconder of the motion agreed to amend the motion to include Ms. Van Amsterdam and Mr. Ostroff. Unanimously voted.
When the Board receives the report and proposed new rate structure, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if it would include all the Town Meeting votes to expend additional water & sewer funds, the five year capital plan proposing to expend $3.5 million, and the fact that retained earnings were dwindling. Would the consultant project that the Board may have to increase the water & sewer rates on a one time basis or over 2-3 years.
Ms. White responded that the consultant had received all the information except maybe the last Town Meeting votes. Certainly the five year plan was an information piece. Part of the objective for the consultant was to take a long-range view of how the capital plan and the retained earnings would affect the rates.
ORDER OF TAKING: COTTAGE STREET
Mr. Hughes moved to approve the order of taking for addressStreetCottage Street per the vote of Town Meeting. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
MEETING SCHEDULE
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the following meeting schedule for the first half of 2008:
January 7, January 14, January 28, February 11, February 25, March 10, March 17, March 26, April 7, April 22, May 5, May 19, June 2, June 16, June 30, 2008.
Prior to the vote Mr. Ostroff noted that he had a conflict with March 10 and asked the Board’s consideration to move it to March 3 or March 11. Mr. Hughes suggested waiting until it was closer to the date of the meeting.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the dateYear2007Day18Month6June 18, 2007 meeting.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
a. Open House
As a follow-up to the announcement made earlier about the open house and reception scheduled for December 11, 2007, Ms. White advised that she had requested a number of departments such as the DPW, Community Development, etc. to provide representation. She had also extended an opportunity for the Schools to attend. She further noted that if the open house was as big a success as they thought, it may become an annual event.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Deputy Town Administrator Search
Mr. Ciccariello requested an update on the search for a Deputy Town Administrator.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
Ms. White informed the Board that 56 applications had been received and today she began to weed through some of the candidates. She noted that she spoke with the Chair about the formation of a committee to begin the interview process with the goal of having someone by January 1st.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the make up of the committee, and Ms. White responded that when she interviewed the committee was the Town Administrator, Ms. Challis, Maureen Fleming, the Finance Director, Police Chief, and the Personnel Director. She would like to involve a member of the Board of Selectmen, but other than that she thought it was a good committee.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about appointing someone from the Board, but Ms. Gloff felt that was Ms. White’s decision.
b. Cochituate Rail Trail Title Search
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the results of the Cochituate Rail Trail title search had been received. Ms. White advised that it had not. The title examiner promised it for last Thursday which was Thanksgiving so she didn’t expect to receive it then but did expect to receive it today.
c. Robert Eisenmenger’s Retirement
Mr. Ostroff noted that Robert Eisenmenger had announced his intention to retire from the Planning Board on December 5 and he (Mr. Ostroff) would like the Board to invite Mr. Eisenmenger to come in and be recognized for his service.
d. Update Selectmen’s Concerns
Mr. Ciccariello requested an update of the outstanding Selectmen’s concerns at the next meeting. He pointed out that under update of double poles it said November, but obviously that wasn’t going to happen. Ms. Gloff responded that the double poles update was scheduled for December 17.
e. Natick High School
Ms. Van Amsterdam encouraged her colleagues to read the Commissions report for the placePlaceNameNatick PlaceTypeHigh School.
f. Met Bar & Grill
Mr. Hughes pointed out that one of the new holders of a liquor license was at 31% in sales of alcohol. At this time there was only one month history and he would like the Board to write a letter requesting their figures after six months.
Mr. Hughes moved to send a letter to the Met Bar & Grill requesting their sales figures after six months. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
g. Selectmen’s Office Hours
Mr. Ostroff announced that Ms. Van Amsterdam was scheduled to hold office hours on December 5.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
_________________________________
Joshua Ostroff, Clerk
| 
