BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
December 1, 2008
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly
ALSO PRESENT: Martha White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on December 1, 2008 in the amount of $621,432.85. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,545,870.84.
Following the moment of silence for the men and women serving in the Armed Services, a moment of silence was observed in memory of former Finance Committee member Frank Salvoni.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE EXPENSE CONTROL TASK FORCE
William Idzal told the Board that he had served on the Finance Committee for five years which gave him insight into the budgets of the Town and areas for reduction. He had worked with a couple of members of the Task Force in the past and believed he could work well with them.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if Mr. Idzal had looked over any of the work product of the Task Force and if he had any observations. Mr. Idzal said he had not. Since the Task Force was already in operation, he would need to get up to speed on what areas had been looked at and where his experience on the Finance Committee could be of benefit.
Mr. Ciccariello noted there were two vacancies on the Task Force and the Board had interviewed three candidates.
By paper ballot the Board voted to appoint William Idzal and Andres Rochwerger to the Expense Control Task Force. Mr. Idzal received five votes; Andres Rochwerger received four votes, and Justin Harder received one vote.
Mr. Ciccariello voted for Mr. Rochwerger and Mr. Idzal
Mr. Ostroff voted for Mr. Rochwerger and Mr. Idzal
Ms. Van Amsterdam voted for Mr. Rochwerger and Mr. Idzal
Ms. Gloff voted for Mr. Rochwerger and Mr. Idzal
Mr. Connolly voted for Mr. Rochwerger and Mr. Harder
Ms. Gloff asked that Mr. Harder be encouraged to go to the Task Force meetings because there was always a chance somebody would need to resign.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2009 TAX CLASSIFICATION
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to open the public hearing. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the publication of the notice and Ms. Challis advised it was published in the MetroWest Daily News on November 20, posted in the Town Clerk’s Office, and posted on the web site.
Jan Dangelo, Director of Assessment, and Carl Marshall, Assistant Assessor presented an overview.
Ms. Dangelo informed the Board that this year there was a shift in value from residential to commercial which was a reversal of recent trends. This year the shift was 1.88%. Single family homes decreased slightly. Last year the residential value represented 79.176% and this year that dropped to 77.294%. The average single family home dropped from $482,400 to $471,000, but not all properties would see that drop. The average single family tax bill will be $5,223.39 or an increase of $394.57. In Fiscal 2008 the average single family tax bill was $4,828.82. The largest residential drop appeared in the condominium market highlighted by a drop of 5.66%.
The largest growth in commercial was attributed to the Mall location. Industrial properties remained flat.
Additionally the Town was able to assess all of the high end retail accounts for personal property. The Department of Revenue has also changed the process for providing the communities with assessments of many telecommunication companies. Due to the recent appellate rulings, local communities received an increase in new growth.
The maximum allowable levy for Fiscal 2009 was $73,092,702.
Ms. Dangelo explained that the classification hearing was designed to allow the Board of Selectmen to receive input from the Board of Assessors and Taxpayers of the town. After the conclusion of the public hearing the Board has the following options.
The Board must vote to adopt a residential factor to determine the tax levy to be paid by each class of property. A residential factor below 1.00 lowers the proportional share paid by residential taxpayers and increases the share aid by commercial, industrial, mixed use, and personal property taxpayers Voting a residential factor of 1.00 will maintain a single tax rate. To split the tax rate the Board would vote a residential factor below 1.00. The minimum residential factor is 85.3124%. Currently 108 of the 351 Massachusetts communities split their rate.
Ms. Dangelo referred to a chart showing the impact of classification and advised that with a single rate the rate would be $11.09.
The other consideration was a residential exemption. Municipalities can vote a residential exemption of a dollar amount that cannot exceed 20 percent of the average assessed value of all residential class one properties. The exemption reduces the taxable valuation of each residential parcel that was a taxpayer’s principal residence and transfers the tax to non-resident residential parcels. Fourteen communities of the 351 adopted this exemption in FY08.
Residential property owners that do not occupy their homes, all residential land owners, apartment owners, and higher value homes would pay higher taxes if a residential exemption were adopted. Most condominium owners who occupy their properties would benefit greatest from a residential exemption.
The Board could also adopt a small business exemption of up to 10% for small businesses that employ less than 10 employees annually. In addition to the 10 employee requirement, the assessed value must be less than one million dollars. A small business exemption will benefit approximately 74 businesses. This exemption will shift the tax burden within the commercial class. The commercial tax exemption without splitting the tax rate would result in an effective tax rate for some commercial and industrial property that is below the residential rate. Six communities adopted a small commercial exemption.
Ms. Dangelo reviewed a comparison of the FY08 average single family tax bill for area communities. Framingham was $4,821; Ashland $5,338; Dover $10,860; Holliston $6,015; Needham $6,664; Sherborn $12,073. She noted that since 2010 the average tax bill increased 36.72% which was less than every bordering community and below the statewide average.
In conclusion Ms. Dangelo reiterated that there had been a shift of 1.8% from residential to commercial. The minimum residential factor was 85.3124%. The excess levy capacity was $64,736. The projected tax rate was $11.09 for a single rate.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the new growth represented the newly taxed poles and wires. Ms. Dangelo advised that it did. Mr. Ostroff commented that a significant portion had to stay within the overlay and Ms. Dangelo agreed that at this point it was wise to account for this particular assessment because it was still under appeal. Until the decision was 100% solid, she felt it was best to retain that value.
Mr. Ostroff requested Ms. Dangelo to come back to the Board with a number on what that represented (telecommunication tax). Ms. Dangelo said she would provide a summary of what she thought could eventually be released to the general government.
If the tax rate were to be split, Mr. Ostroff pointed out that for every dollar that might be saved for the residential taxpayer, it would cost the commercial taxpayer $3. Ms. Dangelo confirmed that to be correct, adding that using a $100,000 valuation, if the Board adopted a 110% split, the tax rate would be $10.01 and it would save residential tax payers $33 and commercial would increase by $111. This would hit the commercial hard if looking at a 150% split. Using the same $100,000 value a 150% split would save residential taxpayers $163, but increase commercial $554.
Mr. Connolly remarked that he thought an override would make the world a better place and the Board would not have to deal with this again. Ms. Dangelo didn’t understand and Mr. Connolly explained that the town voted for an override and a lot of conversations were that if the override went through the Town would be much better off. Did the override do everything it was supposed to do?
Ms. White responded that the override increased the Town’s ability to tax the levy limit. There was never any discussion that the Town wouldn’t live within Proposition 2-1/2 which was to increase the levy limit by 2-1/2% every year. It (override) just increases the base levy amount.
Mr. Connolly noted that people were questioning why their property value went down and yet the taxes were going up. Ms. White explained that it was all geared around the levy limit and the amount of taxes the Town was able to generate. For an individual owner there were two factors – value and tax rate.
Mr. Connolly pointed out that in December 2007 there was a water rate increase. In March 2008 there was an override and in June 2008 the majority of the Board voted for another water rate increase and here we were asking citizens for more.
Ms. Gloff noted that it was true the citizens voted for the override in March 2008 but that was for Fiscal 2009. The tax rate was now being set for FY09 and she thought it was a tax rate that includes that override amount.
Mr. Connolly questioned if anyone thought when the override went through the majority of the voters knew the rate would be set now.
Ms. Gloff responded that as long as she could remember it had been done this way. The first two tax bills were estimated but then the Board of Selectmen sets the tax rate in December so the next two tax bills for this fiscal year incorporated that new official tax rate. Her tax bill went up in early July with the passage of the override and the assumption the extra 2-1/2 would probably be needed. It was an estimated number and now it gets sorted out.
Mr. Connolly again reviewed the recent increases and his understanding was this would mean a $400 increase per home. People were out of work, homes were being foreclosed and he would beg this Board to demand that the administration take this back and do what they could do. The citizens were really hurting.
Ms. Dangelo had provided the Board with an update of the Tax Classification Study done in 2001 and Ms. Van Amsterdam was curious moving forward if the Towns with a series of overrides, if the assessed value had gone down. Lexington and Needham both have split rates and yet have very different situations. Had Ms. Dangelo looked to see if there was a correlation between passage of overrides and the decision to split a rate? Lexington’s assessed values declined and yet had multiple overrides and Needham was the opposite. Did Ms. Dangelo see a correlation between the decline of assessed value and passage of overrides vs the opposite?
Looking at the classification study, Ms. Dangelo said she saw those communities were all basically pushed to the maximum of their shift. They have gone all the way they can. In her opinion that was not a good sign and she found it interesting they were still having overrides. Pushing the shift to the maximum hasn’t helped them maintain a low rate or tax bill for their residents. With the shift to the maximum there was nowhere else for them to look. Ms. Dangelo noted that when she reviewed the classification study she decided to add an override column and she thought the Board would find it (splitting the rate) didn’t help that much. Communities still had to go for overrides.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the maximum split and Ms. Dangelo responded that for Natick the maximum was 150%. Mr. Ciccariello commented that Framingham had a split rate for quite some time and he thought they had to petition the state for an increase.
Ms. Dangelo noted that when residential values were increasing at the rate they were and commercial not so fast, a lot of communities had to petition for special legislation to take that shift a little higher, but after a certain amount of time they have to back that off and go back to the allowable shift.
Ms. Van Amsterdam thought it would be helpful to include a discussion of communities such as Lexington or Needham because the public will want to know about a split tax rate, the effect of assessed values going up and down, and whether or not these towns continue to pass overrides. It would be great to put on the web site some discussion about Lexington and Newton of what some towns have done.
Ms. White clarified that the Board didn’t vote the tax rate. The Board voted the residential factor and whether it will be a split rate. The Board of Assessors vote the actual rate.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Ms. White was suggesting that if the Board wanted to keep the rate at last year’s rate, the only way to do that would be to vote for a split rate. Ms. White’s reply was, “yes”, noting that would be the only way to come up with the conclusion of the Assessors. Ms. Dangelo added that a split would do that for one part of the Natick population – the residential.
Ms. Gloff said she understood the Board didn’t vote the tax rate but by setting the fact the Selectmen were indirectly voting the rate.
Mr. Connolly asked if the Board of Assessors had voted the $11.09. Ms. Dangelo explained that it was simply a calculation. The Board of Assessors put it in place and report to the Department of Revenue what the Board of Selectmen decided to adopt. The tax rate was out of their (Assessors) hands. In follow-up Mr. Connolly asked if Ms. Dangelo’s math came out that the rate had to be $11.09 to support the current budget. Ms. Dangelo said yes.
Mr. Connolly pointed out that cutting the budget would allow the rate to stay at $10.01, but Ms. White reminded him that Town Meeting votes the budget. That prompted Mr. Connolly to question what the Board was doing talking about this. Split rate or not that was it. Ms. White advised that was correct and explained that by State statute the role of the Board of Selectmen was the residential factor or split rate. It was a complicated process with a lot of intertwined factors. The levy limit and the budget set by Town Meeting led to what was before the Board tonight. It was a complicated formula and the Board’s hands were tied tonight. The only choice for the Board was for the residential factor.
Mr. Connolly questioned if Town Meeting made this decision indirectly and Ms. White responded that to some extent they did. The budget was voted at a certain amount. Mr. Connolly noted that part of him wished Town meeting knew that what they decided in the spring and fall would ultimately end up here and end up with a $11.09 tax rate. The citizens were hurting and he didn’t see why the Board was sitting here if there was nothing they could do.
Ms. White responded that she thought the taxpayers understood the budget that was voted had to be funded largely through taxation. She didn’t think that was lost among Town meeting or the citizens.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the budget for Fiscal 2009 had been approved and if it wasn’t increased by 2-1/2% the operating budget would be in a deficit. Ms. White agreed and she couldn’t imagine the chaos that (not increasing tax levy by 2-1/2%) would ensue. The Town wouldn’t be able to set the tax rate.
Having voted for a $3.9 million override in March, Mr. Ciccariello asked if that was increased by 2-1/2% for this tax classification. Ms. Dangelo’s response was, “yes”. Mr. Ciccariello felt that most voters were not aware in voting for a $3.9 million override in March that it would ultimately be increased by 2-1/2% now. He would have guessed the 2-1/2% would not be effective until 2010.
Ms. Dangelo could understand the desire to help everyone today, but thought Ms. White’s explanation and the information presented showed that the Board didn’t have that option now. These commitments have been made. When the Town went for an override there was an override calculation made available that predicted a larger increase than now being experienced. There was some new growth which was directly attributed to the Mall and that helped alleviate some of the burden.
A lot of the stuff was so complicated that Mr. Ciccariello felt it needed to be explained in more layman’s terms. The simple thing for the override would have been $3.9 million plus 2-1/2%. Ms. Gloff believed that had been said repeatedly and Ms. Van Amsterdam noted it was on the web site for people to look.
In her report for tonight’s hearing on page 4 under conclusion, Mr. Ciccariello noted it said the excess levy was $64,736. Was that a correct number? Ms. Dangelo believed so. That was the levy capacity and the Town would want to use all of it.
On pages 8&9 was a sampling of commercial properties. Eighty-three were listed and Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the increase was approximately $1.8 million in additional tax most of which came from 330 Speen Street which was the Mall. Ms. Dangelo clarified that it was part of the Mall – the new Natick Collection section, not the anchors. She noted that she had given the Mall breakdown at the preliminary classification hearing and projected they would generate $4.5 million in taxes for the Town.
Given the economy and conditions at the Mall, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Ms. Dangelo anticipated the Mall coming back for abatements and had that been taken into account. Ms. Dangelo hoped they would not. When the Town allowed the Mall to be built they projected the value of the property and she looked at various publications to see what other malls were generating. Hopefully the Mall will do well. In her opinion it was assessed at fair market value at this point.
If they were to file for an abatement, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if there were sufficient funds to cover it. Ms. Dangelo advised there was the overlay account and she believed there was enough to handle anything that came along. It was set aside for all abatements in the community.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how commercial properties were assessed vs residential. Ms. Dangelo explained that residential was typically assessed at market adjust cost. Sales of similar properties were looked at. Commercial properties were different. A lot of business publications were looked at for the region. There was an income approach looking, but consideration also had to be given to the sales place to see what the property was worth. If a property were in trouble it may sell at a lower value so when she set the value she would take that into consideration.
Following up on a question from Mr. Ostroff, Mr. Ciccariello was of the understanding the overlay probably wouldn’t be spent until everyone was sure the telecommunication questions were settled. Mr. Ostroff noted there would be legislation filed in January to give communities flexibility and provide access to the funds.
Referring to the LA4 form, Mr. Ciccariello noted the number of tax exempt properties that pay no taxes and nothing in lieu of taxes remarking that it was an astounding number. Ms. White advised that a lot of the property was the Town of Natick’s or the Army Lab’s.
Resident Arthur Lamont noted that the Town didn’t have a split tax rate, but Framingham did and Natick was compatible with the Framingham population. If there was a split rate, would it keep the tax rate at $10.01?
Ms. Dangelo responded that the Board of Selectmen will adopt a residential factor and if a factor of 1 were adopted, Natick will continue to have a single rate and that will be $11.09. If the Board went less than 1, that would split the rate. To keep the $10.01 tax rate the Board would have to find and vote the shift to keep it there. The shift would go to commercial.
To Mr. Lamont it seemed only fair to the taxpayers as the country was obviously in a recession.
Ms. Gloff felt there was some confusion. It was 2-1/2 to what could be raised in FY08 plus new growth and then the $3.9 million. Mr. Ciccariello was talking about $3.9 million being increased by 2-1/2.
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s statement that the $3.9 million didn’t get increased by 2-1/2% until FY10, Ms. Dangelo responded, “correct”.
Resident Mary Brown hoped the Board would take this under advisement this evening. She didn’t agree with the Town Administrator. Perhaps a call should be made to the State. In her opinion it might be time for a split tax rate. Homeowners cannot keep taking this burden. It was not the elderly but the young people that can’t afford food. To just keep raising the tax rate was not the answer or a solution.
Ms. Brown continued that tonight there was a poor showing because notices don’t get out and people weren’t informed. The various departments should go through their budgets with a fine tooth comb. When the Board voted for the override the next item was for the Town Administrator to get an assistant. She favored getting rid of some of the top. There were people in Town Hall making six figures that don’t live in Town and weren’t paying the tax.
Ms. Brown questioned what would happen when everybody starts losing their homes. The Selectmen were the leaders of the Town and now all of a sudden there was an administrator that reflects that she was the sole head of the Town. If that were the case maybe Natick needs a mayor. The Board didn’t have to rush into this tonight. Check it through.
She also felt that when people from any Town department came before the Board they should come with all the answers so that not one or two Board members were informed but all of the Board members were informed. If the Board didn’t have the information it should be tabled until the information was received.
Ms. Brown further noted that the Governor had taken away all the State cars and Natick must do that as well. The Town shouldn’t have a blank checkbook. If there had to be layoffs, let it start with the higher ups in Town. She also asked that Mr. Connolly stop saying something was above his head. He (Mr. Connolly) really did get it and he was speaking for the people.
Another resident Fran Losurdo found this to be very confusing and inquired as to what the Board was voting on tonight. Mr. Ciccariello responded that the Board was not voting on the tax rate. They were voting on the residential factor and if the Board voted for less than 1, it would create a split rate and then the Board would need to determine what that split would be.
When asked by Mr. Losurdo what happened to the residential taxes if the split rate was adopted, Mr. Ciccariello advised that it would depend on the split. Ms. Dangelo would provide a series of figures and if the Board was determined to keep the rate the same as last year’s rate, an analysis of the various rates and what the split might be would be done. If a vote was not taken tonight, the hearing would be continued and a vote taken at the next meeting.
Mr. Losurdo then asked if Natick was going to adjust the assessment of all residential properties or keep them the same. He believed for two years straight residential real estate has dropped in value.
Ms. Dangelo noted the reval was conducted every three years, but the assessments must be looked at every year. Natick has always looked at the markets every year and made adjustments. Single family homes did decrease this year but the decrease did not start to be seen until the later part of 2007. The assessed value was as of January 1 and in most cases if there were no building permits or changes to the property a single family property would probably see a decrease to their property for Fiscal 2009.
Not knowing the future but presuming there wouldn’t be too many increases in real estate values, Mr. Losurdo asked if the taxpayers should assume all the residential assessments would go down.
Ms. Dangelo responded that if the sales price showed sales have dropped, the assessment would reflect that the following year as long as there weren’t changes to the property.
Mr. Losurdo didn’t see valuations going up. The whole world was in contraction and he was concerned the residential taxpayer had born their share of the tax burden.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that if residential values continued to decline the following year that would be reflected not in what the tax bill may be but the value of the property. If Mr. Losurdo’s property was valued at $500,000 and next year at $400,000, there may be a slight decrease in the tax bill but not significant because the Town needs to continue to increase its revenue every year and the tax rate may go from $10 to $14.
Mr. Losurdo requested an explanation of the market adjusted cost for residential assessments, and Ms. Dangelo responded that information was extracted from the sales place. It was the cost of the property adjusted by what’s happening in the marketplace.
Mr. Losurdo felt that everybody works extremely hard and these were tough times and he would like the Board to understand the residential taxpayer was under stress. A lot of people think the Board of Selectmen is taking orders from other people. There was a lot of confusion about what’s going on and he thought it was about time to stop digging into the till. The homeowner shouldn’t be treated as an ATM machine. Homeowners were faced with high heating bills, overrides, excise taxes, income taxes, meals tax, property tax and he hoped the Board took that into consideration.
Mr. Ostroff thanked Mr. Losurdo for coming and asked if he was proposing that the Board split the rate so residents would pay proportionately less and the businesses pay more. Mr. Losurdo responded that he would suggest a freeze in tax increases and a freeze in increases to any employees.
Mr. Ostroff advised that that was not the decision the Board was here to make tonight. That was the decision in the budget process. He again asked if it was Mr. Losurdo’s contention that the Board reduce the residential tax rates and increase the commercial rates.
Mr. Losurdo’s response was, “no”. His contention would be that the residential taxpayers not have an increase especially with property values going down. Mr. Ostroff pointed out that the Board had to deal with what’s in front of them and that was whether to shift the tax burden. Mr. Losurdo questioned if that was the only choice, and Mr. Ciccariello said “yes”, for tonight.
Mr. Losurdo questioned if there was the choice to retain the par, and Ms. Gloff explained the budget had already been passed for this fiscal year and there was a need to fund that. The budget was passed by Town Meeting.
To Mr. Losurdo query as to what revenues were used, Mr. Ciccariello responded the override, excess levy capacity, investment revenues, property tax, fees were all put in as projected revenues and to meet that obligation the Board has to decide how to split the burden between residential and commercial taxpayer. Maybe a tax rate should be decided before a budget, but the tax classification was always done in December.
Mr. Ciccariello added that earlier tonight he was going to suggest that if the Board was going to consider splitting the rate there should be an independent group updating the 2001 study. This didn’t just affect big businesses but the small businesses as well and the impact on those businesses had to be taken into account. Would splitting the rate force them to close? There were certain businesses in Natick that were suffering substantially to meet their obligations. That was why it was difficult to decide. The split rate didn’t generate any more revenue. It only shifted the burden from residential to commercial. The Board was trying to figure out everything moving forward and it wasn’t an easy job. It was a difficult decision and he didn’t know if he would be
prepared to vote on splitting the rate tonight without a lot more information. A lot of business owners live in Natick pay both commercial taxes and residential taxes.
Mr. Losurdo inquired as to the amount of uncollected taxes in Natick and Ms. White responded that the collection rate was 98-99%.
Former Selectman Paul McKinley felt a couple of things hadn’t been clearly made and should be. The fact the rate was $10.01 last year and $11.09 this year implies taxes were going up 10% and they were not. It was very mechanical. If all house values double, the rate would go down to $5. The only issue that counts was how much was taken out of your pocket and sent to the Town. The argument for splitting the tax rate was to shift the burden to the businesses and give the residents a break. It was a powerful argument especially in difficult economic times but when the burden was shifted to the businesses it made it that much harder for them to succeed. As difficult as it was for the residents there were plenty of businesses going down the tubes as well. Very few of the small
businesses could tolerate a split rate.
Mr. McKinley continued that once the rate was split it was very difficult to get out of it. Trying to go back would be forcing the residents to pay a much larger bill. An example was downtown Framingham. That was what a split tax rate looked like. The average residential tax bill was about $4,800 and Framingham was about the same. If you want to control costs it starts with Town Meeting. Town Meeting determines how much money the Town will spend and they would have to authorize less spending. He agreed with Mr. Ciccariello’s point that the study done in 2001 was a powerful management tool and it probably was time to bring it up-to-date and if the Board were inclined he would encourage the formation of a task force.
In conclusion Mr. McKinley said he would strongly encourage the Board not to split the rate.
Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, moved to close the public hearing. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Board wished to make a decision tonight or if members felt they needed more time. If a vote was not taken tonight, what would be the impact?
As to the impact, Ms. Dangelo advised that it would delay tax bills being sent and revenue coming into the Town. She noted that a chart had been supplied in the packets telling about the split and what the tax bill would be. She reminded the Board that the shift would be all commercial, personal property, industrial and if someone conducted a business from their home there would be a portion assessed to the residential rate and a portion to the commercial rate.
Mr. Connolly moved to postpone the vote. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello for discussion. The motion failed on a 1-4-0 vote. Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff were opposed.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to adopt a factor of 1 for Fiscal 2009, maintaining a single tax rate. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Speaking to his motion, Mr. Ostroff thought that part of the Selectmen’s duties as leaders of the Town was to look not just at the short-term. There were people who were struggling to make the family budgets and that was significant but the implication of splitting the rate was making things worse
for future generations. To impose an additional tax on businesses that don’t use a lot of public services was very shortsighted. It helps make Natick an attractive place to locate a business. He heard the argument and was sympathetic to giving the taxpayers a break and the way to do that was to reduce the services and if that was the will that was within Town Meeting’s domain.
Mr. Connolly stated that he was frustrated with this entire conversation. He believed that Mr. Ostroff’s sympathy for people trying to make their budget could be shown. He (Mr. Connolly) had a struggling business and didn’t think splitting the rate was the way. The frustration was the dog and pony show put on here and at Town Meeting to get them to vote a vote that was inflated. To him this was a waste of time and he hoped people came to Town Meeting and gave them hell. He wanted everyone to stop talking about how the Board felt for the taxpayers and prove it.
Ms. Van Amsterdam recognized what was in front of the Board in terms of a vote and encouraged all persons interested in getting involved in the budget to show up at the Financial Planning, look at the meetings that are scheduled for Revenue Enhancement Task Force and the Expense Control Task Force. Many were televised. She encouraged people to come to the budget meeting to express support for or opposition to the services offered.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was not prepared to vote a split rate without an updated study. In his opinion the split rate didn’t solve the problem. Moving the burden from one to another in today’s economy didn’t’ help. His business was in Framingham and he saw the effect of the split rate. The only way to solve the budget problem was to realize the Town could no longer spend more than it could afford. More and more people cannot afford to pay for the operating budget we have. The Town spent quite a bit last year and he thought everyone had to recognize including the Town Administrator that we can’t continue to have the increases experienced over the past years. There were great revenues but that was no longer the case and the Town couldn’t
afford the services we now have.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that voting against this created a major budget problem. At the last meeting the Board was told by the Town Administrator that there was a deficit in the FY09 budget. Voting a single factor had no impact on the operating budget for this year and if the Board wanted to cut the budget that was what they needed to do. If services and employees needed to be cut that what was needed to be done.
If the Board were to revisit the 2001 Tax Classification Study, Mr. Ostroff asked that the task force be constituted no later than May or June.
Given that the administration was working on the FY10 budgets, Mr. Ciccariello thought it would be nice to know in advance based on the budgets proposed by the Town Administrator what the tax impact for next year would be.
Ms. Dangelo advised that she could only estimate what she saw the sales doing now and come up with an estimate. It was not very clear cut.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he understood it was only a projection and was looking for a sense of ‘what if’.
A recess was called at 9:05 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
FINANCE DIRECTOR
- Update of Investment Income
Finance Director Robert Palmer noted that his intent was to highlight three areas of local receipts that he felt could be somewhat lower than would like and may not meet projections: Investment income, permit fees, motor vehicle excise.
Comparing the first quarter of this year and last year for investment income, last year was almost $380,000 and this year around $180,000. That was all based on cuts in rates and now there was talk of another cut. The rate was about as low as it could go now. Last year the general fund investment income was $905,000 and the year prior was $1.4 million so it has been declining. There could be a drop off to $550,000 unless the rates start coming back.
With respect to permit fees, the administration had planned on a large reduction. In the first quarter of 2008 the Building Department fees were $1.2 million and right now it was $307,000. He anticipated the annual income to be $1.2 million and noted Building permits were the heaviest in the first and last quarter.
Mr. Palmer continued that the area that was the most problematic and couldn’t get a firm estimate at this time was the motor vehicle excise. Sales of automobiles were down 30-40% and that had an impact on motor vehicle excise. The total excise collected in FY08 was around $4 million. The estimate for FY09 has been reduced to $3.8 million but if that was way off, it could drop down to $3.5 million. He couldn’t give the Board a firm number until commitment #1 and he wouldn’t have that until February/March.
Mr. Palmer advised that the Comptroller’s office had completed the update of the general ledger through the end of the first quarter and a summary report will be prepared for the Board. He expected the summary to be distributed within a week. All receipts were updated through September 30 and the bulk through October. It takes about six weeks to do the reports.
The other activity (revenue income) was nothing out of the ordinary.
As the second quarter ends the end of December, Mr. Ciccariello requested an updated report by mid February that included the whole report plus a summary.
Mr. Ostroff asked if the Board could get a sense of how Natick was comparing with its local receipts to other cities and towns. Mr. Palmer advised that you could see if an override had been done, but in terms of receipts the DOR did a once a year snap shot. In follow-up Mr. Ostroff asked if there could be a comparison with other Town Administrators to see if what Natick was seeing was universal.
Mr. Palmer responded that he didn’t think Natick was different than any other communities in terms of the budget pressures and didn’t think anybody else had been seeing anything other than State revenues were down and that translates to lower State aid. The FY08 free cash was down because local receipts were down because of economic reasons. It was happening in every community.
When he spoke of revenue report status, Mr. Connolly inquired if that was the same as reconciliation. Mr. Palmer advised that it was not. There had to be a general ledger update and be able to generate numbers to conduct a reconciliation but here he was referring to reports of the revenue received.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the status of the reconciliations between the Comptroller and Treasurer and Mr. Palmer responded that the last comprehensive one would have been June 30.
Mr. Connolly then asked about the building fees for the Natick Collection and if they were up-to-date with all their fee permits. Mr. Palmer advised that anything they have filed and received a permit for they (Natick Collection) have paid.
Asked if there were any inconsistencies in the fees pending, Ms. White responded that it was still being looked into. She had previously reported that Town Counsel had engaged a Building Code specialist to help determine what the fees should have been and what they were. The Board had appointed Paul Moriarity as special counsel, but he had a conflict of interest.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
Mary Brown noted that Town Meeting had voted to put money into the Conservation Commission budget and it was her understanding the balance was quite high. She had been told the money couldn’t be taken out but Town Meeting had voted to put it in and she didn’t know if the Board of Selectmen would have to submit an article or citizens. It could be beneficial to use the money and replace it at a future time. She thought the Town probably needed a moratorium in building because a lot of the building was costing the Town money. She was serious about looking into revenue possibilities and cutting back.
If Ms. Brown was speaking about the Conservation operating budget, Ms. White pointed out that was an approved budget that could only be adjusted by Town Meeting. If Ms. Brown was speaking about the Open Space fund, Ms. White advised that was not appropriated by Town Meeting. It was under the control of the Conservation Commission and State statute governs the expenditure of that fund.
Ms. Brown inquired as to how much was in both and Ms. White responded that the Conservation Commission operating budget was part of Community Development and she didn’t know how much was attributed to the Conservation Commission. The Conservation Fund was somewhere in the range of $7 million but heavily controlled by State statute.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that the Board of Selectmen and administration had pursued that (Open Space Fund) many times and have gotten nowhere because of the Statutes.
Arthur Lamont inquired as to how much money had been spent on the Cochituate Rail Trail.
Mr. Ciccariello didn’t have the amount but explained the Town hadn’t expended any taxpayer money. It was strictly Mall mitigation money.
HEARING: BARBER BROTHERS FLORISTS: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
Before opening the hearing Attorney David DeLuca of Town Counsel’s firm of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane was asked to explain the statutory requirements for establishments to have an approved manager of record.
Mr. DeLuca explained that each year licenseholders were required to renew their license for the coming year. In advance of the license renewal the Police do a compliance check. One requirement was for the licenseholders to have an approved manager on the premises. The Police determined a number of establishments had an inconsistency with the manager on the license as compared to the manager at the premises. There was a good reason for that requirement. It was important for the supervision of the service of alcohol.
Mr. DeLuca noted that in Chapter 138 §26 there was a very specific requirement that any licenseholder must have an authorized manager approved by the local licensing authority and the ABCC to be in full authority and control of the premises. The Town through its investigation found several licenseholders that did not comply and the Board of Selectmen provided notice to the licenseholders of a hearing to be held and may take action to modify, suspend, revoke or cancel the license.
Mr. DeLuca didn’t think there would be a dispute on the facts, but it was still incumbent on the Board to hear the stipulated factors and decide what would be the appropriate disposition.
Three hearings were scheduled tonight and they may bear some similarities and they may not.
Mr. Ostroff asked about the possibility of a fine, but Mr. DeLuca advised that was not part of the statutory options. It was available to the ABCC but not the local authorities. Asked if the matter could be referred, Mr. DeLuca said it could be referred to the ABCC for their investigation and action on the Board’s report.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Representing Barber Brothers was Attorney John Burke.
Mr. Burke told the Board the original license was issued to Barber Brothers about 3-5 years ago and at that time the manager was Judith Petrone who worked at Barber Brothers since 1999. This was a family business and they decided to acquire a liquor license as a supplement. It was a small but important part. Ms. Petrone served as the manager until 2008. This was not the type of facility where there would be a change of manager every year and they were unaware of their obligation to notify the Board and thought a new manager would be approved at the time of license renewal.
Mr. Burke recognized there was no excuse and there was a violation, but it was an unintentional violation. The new manager was Sarah Ward. Ms. Ward has been employed since 2003 and she was TIPS certified and has always been TIPS certified. At no time has this establishment had a manager that was not TIPS or ServeSafe certified. There was an administrative oversight.
Mr. Burke assured the Board that Mr. Barber considered having this license a privilege and not something to which he was entitled. Mr. Barber took it seriously. It was not a big organization. He (Mr. Barber) and his wife were the owners and they were there every day. Mr. Burke also assured the Board this would not happen again and pointed out there had never been a violation of any provision by this licenseholder. The Natick Police have never been called to Barber Brothers for any liquor related call.
Mr. Burke reiterated that they stipulated it was technically a violation and Barber Brothers was extremely sorry for this and there was no question they would not be back here for this kind of hearing again.
Ms. Gloff asked if it was safe for her to assume the service of alcohol was incidental to the service of food. Mr. Burke responded that the restaurant was an incidental part of the business.
Mr. Ciccariello referenced a letter outlining the employees of the Café and it looked like everybody presently employed there had been certified. Mr. Burke repeated that at no time was there a manager that was not TIPS or ServSafe certified.
Mr. DeLuca suggested the Board could make a decision case-by-case or suspend the hearing to hear the others and then come to a decision.
If the Board was going to move forward on a disposition, Mr. Burke thought the appropriate way would be a letter of reprimand. Compliance was the name of the game and Mr. Barber had taken steps to be in compliance.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to suspend the hearing until after the other hearings.
HEARING: NORDSTROM, INC. D/B/A NORDSTROM CAFÉ BISTRO: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
Representing Nordstrom Café Bistro were Eric Salzer, Nordstrom Regional Restaurant Manager, and Ronald Sanderson new manager for Nordstrom Café Bistro.
Mr. Salzer stated that Mr. Sanderson took over the establishment in June. The restaurant at the Natick Collection was opened in September 2007 under a different manager. He assured the Board that all times the manager has been TIPS certified, but during the transition there was neglect on Nordstrom’s part in understanding the laws of Natick. They recognized the necessity of compliance and of being a responsible liquor handler and some changes have been made in the organization to make sure there was compliance on all levels. They have added quarterly liquor compliance audits to ensure the manager was certified within the city and that this didn’t happen again. Nordstrom’s appreciated what a license allowed them to do and represented a dining option for the Natick community.
Ms. Gloff pointed out that this was a Mass State Law requirement, not just Natick.
To Ms. Van Amsterdam’s query as to whether he was TiPS certified when he took over, Mr. Sanderson responded that he had been certified since the age of 20 and used to be a trainer. Presently he was ServSafe certified.
With respect to the license audit, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if that came about because of this situation. Mr. Salzer noted that Nordstrom’s regularly did audits, but they have modified their Massachusetts audit to ensure this (approved manager) was something they check. The quarterly audits come from the corporate office to him and he went through each store to make sure all requirements were met. To the Massachusetts locations they have now added on a check of the manager status. It would be his (Mr. Salzer’s) responsibility to notify the city if a manager were to leave. The quarterly audit was just a fail safe.
Mr. Salzer stressed that Nordstrom’s did not take this lightly. They were embarrassed to be here and were committed to ensure the Board never saw them here again in this light. They wanted to represent the city and their company well.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to suspend the hearing until after the other hearings.
Mr. Salzer asked that the Board forgive their lack of diligence and understand that Nordstrom’s was proud to be here in the Town of Natick. He asked that a letter of reprimand be given and again gave assurance that Nordstrom’s would not be here again.
HEARING: ROOM FOR DESSERT D/B/A FINALE: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
Mr. Ciccariello advised there was a request from Finale’s attorney for a postponement to December 15.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to move the hearing for Room for Dessert d/b/a Finale to December 15. Unanimously voted.
HEARING: DAH MEE, INC.: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to open the hearing.
Mr. Ciccariello read the following letter addressed to the Board of Selectmen into the record:
RE: Dah-Mee Restaurant – Liquor License
I, Young Ho Lee, wish to inform that I, along with Soon Young Lee, are owners of the above restaurant. I also wish to inform that I, Young Ho Lee, is the manager of the liquor license of the restaurant.
I am writing this note to apologize for the miscommunication of one of my employees to the Police authority, on the operation of the liquor license of the restaurant.
I wish to again state that I, Young Ho Lee, is the manager of the liquor license of the restaurant.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Young Ho Lee
Owner
Mr. Young Ho Lee told the Board that he was terribly sorry to have caused this trouble. His wife and he have owned this restaurant since July 2000 and have had a liquor license since November 2000. Every year they were TIPS certified. Apparently one of his employees informed the Police officer that he (Mr. Lee) wasn’t there. He assured the Board this wouldn’t happen again.
Mr. Ostroff asked if Mr. Lee was saying he was the manager and frequently on the premises. Mr. Lee responded yes along with his wife. Mr. Ostroff noted that he shared a building with Dah Mee and seldom saw Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee thought that was because he spent most of his time in the basement chopping.
Ms. Gloff inquired if the employee had said there was no manager or that Mr. Lee’s wife was the manager. Mr. Lee noted that his employee couldn’t speak English and said that he (Mr. Lee) was not there and thought he (Mr. Lee) was no longer there.
If Mr. Lee was not there and Mrs. Lee was not there, Mr. Connolly asked if there was someone else there. Mr. Lee advised there was and that person was also TIPS trained. Mr. Connolly asked for confirmation that at no time the person in charge was not TIPS trained. Mr. Lee’s reply was, “no”.
Mr. DeLuca brought it to the Board’s attention that Dah Mee was the one license that had not been acted on with respect to renewal since there had not been a response to the Board’s request.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if all conditions had been met for renewal and Ms. Challis advised that they had.
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to suspend the hearing.
Having heard from three different licenseholders concerning non-compliance for a lack of an approved manager, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how the Board would like to proceed.
Based on what he had heard, Mr. Connolly believed the Board had an obligation to the State and the Town and believed in all three of these it was done in oversight and he would recommend for all three a strong letter of reprimand with a copy to the Police Department and with a warning that if there were another violation there would be a strong consideration for suspension.
Since there was no finding of violation, Mr. Ostroff inquired if it was Mr. Connolly’s intent to send a letter of reprimand to Dah Mee. Mr. Connolly advised that it was since they didn’t renew their license. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that Dah Mee did renew their license. The Board just did not take any action pending the outcome of this hearing.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to close the Barber Brothers Florists hearing.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to close the Nordstrom Café Bistro hearing.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to close the Dah Mee hearing.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to send a letter of reprimand to Barber Brothers and Nordstrom’s with a copy to the Police Department and the ABCC. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested that Town Counsel draft the letter and that he be given the authority to sign on behalf of the Board.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to take no action on the Dah Mee liquor license. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
2009 RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSE
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam the Board unanimously voted to renew the All Alcohol restaurant license for Dah Mee Restaurant, 25 Washington Street, for 2009.
HEARING: NICHOLAS’ – RENEWAL OF 2009 LIQUOR LICENSE
Mr. Ciccariello noted the notice of hearing sent to Nicholas’ Restaurant and an e-mail from Beth Kelley of the Collector’s Office stating a payment was made but there were still accounts outstanding that would hold the license under the By-Law. Nicholas’ had defaulted on a forbearance agreement. The issue was payment of taxes and since they made a payment the Board could vote to issue their license with the condition they pay their taxes by a certain date and if not the license would be automatically suspended.
Mr. Connolly stated that these folks (owners of Nicholas’) were friends of his and business associates. He (Mr. Connolly) was under the impression Mr. Stournaras did not have to be here tonight.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he has known this family for many years and they were great individuals, but unfortunately the Board was faced with a decision it needed to make.
Mr. DeLuca noted that the by-law tracked the State statute on the issuance of licenses and permits for those that had a tax delinquency for a year or more. In this case the amount at issue was the payment due November 2007. It was within the Board’s authority to renew the license with an agreement that payment would be made within a specific period of time and if not further sanctions may be imposed after a hearing.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that the letter from Ms. Kelley said the forbearance was in default and that all taxes must be paid to forestall collection, but didn’t say by when.
Mr. DeLuca explained the forbearance was separate from the license. The Board of Selectmen’s piece was relative only to the amount delinquent more than a year which was less than the subject of that demand.
In follow-up Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if the Collector’s Office could shut Nicholas’ down, but Mr. DeLuca said no. The Collector’s Office would avail themselves of all the remedies available for tax collection but with respect to their licensing that was a matter for the Board of Selectmen to determine.
Asked if the Board was able to take into account any actions another department may take or if the Board should only focus on the 12 months, Mr. DeLuca advised that the issue for the Board was the delinquency over 12 months. For the Collector’s Office it was the entire amount.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to notify Nicholas’ that all amounts due to the Town payable on or before December 31, 2007 must be paid by midnight December 31, 2008 and if not their alcohol license will be suspended 12:01 a.m. January 1, 2009. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Ciccariello said his preference would be to give Nicholas’ until the end of January to meet their obligation so they have an opportunity to take advantage of the holiday season to generate income.
Ms. Gloff felt that through December 31 was pretty much the holiday season. The Board had another meeting December 15 and if Nicholas’ wished to come in and state their case, she would be willing to listen. The Board had to be careful not to look like anybody was being given preference.
Mr. Ciccariello assured the Board he was not looking to give anybody any preference and liked the idea of advising Nicholas’ they would have an opportunity to come before the Board on December.
Ms. Gloff moved to schedule another hearing for December 15, notify Nicholas’ of the Board’s vote and given them the opportunity to come in. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
BUDGET/HIRING FREEZE
Ms. White referenced a memo in the packets about a legislative breakfast she attended. A number of State legislators were present and stated what was feared and what was known that local aid levels would likely not be sustained into FY10. The group talked to the legislators about the importance of revisiting opportunities to give municipalities opportunities of generating revenue and cutting costs, i.e. unfunded mandates. The management group of which she was a part was working to come up with ways to help municipalities cut costs for down the road.
Ms. White distributed a handout showing the latest revenue and expenditure forecast, noting that it was basically unchanged from the last version. The most change was the retirement appropriation. The number dropped. It was early on and the administration was taking a very conservative approach, but the outlook was very bleak.
Ms. White then handed out the budget preparation manual, noting that Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young had revamped the budget information materials and she thought the end result would be a much clearer and concise budget presentation. She noted that she had stressed the importance to the departments of providing updated informative and concise narrative sections to make sure the community understands the mission of the department and the challenges faced.
With respect to the schedule, Ms. White noted that December 5 was the deadline for returning budgets to the Town Administrator and she would then proceed to meet with each of the departments. The budgets submitted will be level service budgets so there will not be a balanced budget at the start of the session. As the revenues were refined, the administration will work to tighten expenditures so there would be a balanced budget by the time it went to Town Meeting.
As a final handout, Ms. White provided the Board with a news release from the MMA stating that the outlook for FY10 looked bleak.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if the local receipt numbers were reflected in the forecast presented. Ms. White thought the projection on excise tax was accurate for this current year and the administration would be closely monitoring the revenues and controlling the expenses.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that according to Mr. Palmer’s memo discussed earlier in the meeting, excise tax would be down $400,000 from the estimate and he inquired as to how Ms. White anticipated making up the deficit.
Ms. White noted that it was half way through the fiscal year and while she didn’t want to minimize the situation, for a budget the size of Natick’s, $267,000 was not an unattainable budget gap. She didn’t feel any dramatic action should be taken, but continue to watch the revenue. Some improvement had been seen in the fuel/utilities costs and a couple of measures such as the hiring freeze had already been implemented. She had talked to the department heads about the importance of looking for savings.
If the Town was in a deficit now and there was only $2.4 million received last year in free cash, Mr. Ciccariello asked if that meant free cash for FY09 would be less than $2.4 million. He was concerned that come the end of FY09 all of free cash would have been expended.
Ms. White thought that was a good point and agreed the closer it was cut to the bone with respect to revenue and expenditures the stronger free cash would come out. FY09 was probably shaping up to be a year that produced relatively light free cash.
For information purposes, Ms. Van Amsterdam requested that a copy of any budget presentations given to the School Committee be given to the Board.
Mr. Ciccariello requested a list of all the vacancies not filled since the hiring freeze. Ms. White advised the only one was the library position of Young Adult Librarian.
ADOPTION OF PROPOSED FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Ms. White noted this was revisiting an old issue. The draft financial principles had been put forward about a year ago and she thought it was a very important complement of the Town’s financial practice to put forward these practices. The principles as drafted covered a wide area from the use and recommended balances of reserves, capital planning and budgeting, debt issuance and management, cash management, to financial planning and forecasting.
She noted that principles similar to these had been presented to the Financial Planning Committee and the Board may want to have them debated there or just debate them here.
Based on the budget situation today, Mr. Ciccariello questioned how realistic it was to maintain free cash of 1% of revenues and the stabilization fund at 2% as a target. Ms. White noted the free cash targets had been carefully worded as goals and she thought it was important to have as goals. She felt having these goals could help control the spending down of the reserves, but they weren’t mandatory and could be violated.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the effect if the Board were to consider making it mandatory to maintain these levels and have 3% of the general fund for capital. How would that impact the budget? Ms. White advised that it would impact the amount available for general operations.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that the Town let the capital projects go for so long that instead of spending $100,000, 3-4 times that would have to be spent to do the fix. At some point there had to be some insistency that these were the goals and principles and the Town would have to stay within them. Otherwise they would never be achieved. He would be interested in seeing the impact.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if Ms. White was looking for a vote of the Board, but Ms. White said not necessarily. This was a significant move and she imagined it would warrant more than one evening of discussion. She felt that even in draft form they should be attached to the preparation manual. As to Mr. Ciccariello’s request, she (Ms. White) thought it would be interesting to take one budget and see the impact. That department would represent “x” of the total to be in the stabilization fund. She also agreed the money needed to be set aside for capital, but until it was put on paper she didn’t think others could be convinced.
Mr. Ostroff thought this was great. The principles looked inward and part of running the Town was ensuring there was revenue from all sources and hopefully there will be a day where there was a realistic level of state funding. At some point there was a need to have funds coming into the town at a higher percentage than funds going out of the Town into the State general fund. The point at which the Town can uphold these principles may mean there was additional revenue coming in to support schools, roads. This could help the Town be more self-sufficient.
Ms. White inquired if the notion of putting the financial principles to the Financial Planning Committee was appropriate.
Mr. Ciccariello responded that he was not ready to vote until there was sufficient information. If there were going to be goals, then the Town had to stick to them.
Ms. Van Amsterdam believed the financial principles could be used as a guide and the Board may come to a decision these were too onerous. Mr. Ciccariello agreed they could be viewed as a guide, but he still thought that at some point in time you had to have the numbers.
Ms. Gloff stated that she was familiar with these from last year and she was a little concerned with implementing them now when the Town was at a point in its financial life where there wasn’t a chance of living with the principles without major cuts. She was concerned that implementing them now may make people feel that the principles may be down on paper but the Town will never live by them. That was something to think through.
With respect to the involvement of the Financial Planning Committee, Mr. Ostroff recalled the committee saw this as being in the domain of the Board of Selectmen. He thought it was up to the Board.
Ms. Van Amsterdam commented that she didn’t want the financial principles to lay fallow.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he had asked for some analysis and when that was provided, there could be a discussion.
LEGAL FEES EXPENDITURE REPORT
In response to a request from the Board to provide quarterly reports for legal expenses, Ms. White reviewed the memo in the packet showing the legal expenses for the first quarter.
Under special counsel there had been no expenditure for the Paul Moriarity hired to do the Mall building fee audit. Ms. White explained that Mr. Moriarity had a conflict of interest and the Town didn’t end up retaining him.
Lisa Mead, 40B attorney - $10,600 was expended but of that $9,340 was paid by developers
David DeLuca – Tax Title - $5,357.98
Kenneth Gurge – Tax Appellate - $2,060.00
Peter Epstein – Cable - $740.00
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane
Self-insured worker’s compensation - $1,750.00
Ms. White noted that the labor counsel portion included an extra month but deducting that out the first quarter expenses was $65,678. That was a bit ahead of schedule.
Mr. Connolly inquired if the executive session item was figured into the legal expenses. When told that it was, Mr. Connolly noted that he was under the impression that the executive session item by itself was more than shown here. Ms. White explained that when talking about legal costs, it referred to over the life of the case.
TOWN MEETING ACTION
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to table discussion of this item to December 15.
WALCOTT FUND
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to table discussion of this item to December 15.
NATICK CENTER ASSOCIATES: FREE HOLIDAY PARKING
The Board was in receipt of a request from the Natick Center Associates to institute the “Free Holiday Parking” program for downtown Natick during the holiday season. They requested the free parking program to begin on December 1, 2008 and end on January 2, 2009 and include a two hour limit. Natick Center Associates offered red bags with white letters to place on the meters.
Mr. Ostroff disclosed that he was a member of the Natick Center Associates and had filed a statement in the Town Clerk’s office.
Ms. Gloff moved to approve the free holiday parking to begin on December 1, 2008 and end on January 2, 2009. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. There was no vote taken after a subsequent motion passed.
Mr. Ostroff moved to begin the free holiday parking on December 12, 2008 and end on December 24, 2008. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Gloff and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
Speaking to his motion Mr. Ostroff noted that the average monthly revenue for parking meters was about $8,400. The free parking in the month of December was something that had been done for years, so he didn’t know if the $8,400 would be typical for the month of December. Given the economic climate, he weighed foregoing that revenue against the businesses and thought a compromise would help the businesses and still bring in revenue.
RENEWAL OF LICENSES FOR 2009
- Common Victualer’s Licenses
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following common victualer’s licenses for 2009
(The) After School Workshop Agostino’s Restaurant
Michael Williams 23 Washington St.
89 Washington Ave. Suite O
A’Loto Gelato American Girl Boutiques,Inc.
Petroco,Inc. dba Peter Belezos Natick Collection
127 West Central St. 1245 Worcester St.
*Restriction: 16 seat limit
Asia Bistro Au Bon Pain, ABP Corp.dba
G.E.N. 8888,Inc. dba Michelle Kong Natick Collection
195 West Central St. 1245 Worcester Road
Bakery on the Comon Barber Brothers Florist,Inc.
Chrisma,Inc. dba (Marina Jorge) 215 West Central St.
9 South Main St. *Restriction: Maximum 58 seats
*Includes 3 seats outside Hour Restriction
Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Black Cow Café, LLC
Glenelg, LLC dba Lars Mohlin Tai dong
1265 Worcester Road, Suite 4 251 West Central Street
*Restriction: 16 Seat
Boloco, Stellar Restaurant Group California Pizza Kitchen, Inc.
Adam Liebman Natick Mall
1265 Worcester Street 1245-1321 Worcester Road
*Includes outside seating
Cajun Café & Grill Casey’s Diner
Henry fong Investments, dba 36 South Avenue
Natick Mall 1245 Worcester St
Central Street Grill Charles River Coffee House
Pabla Ferraz Henriques Steve Cote
158 East Central St. 57 Eliot Street
The Cheesecake Factory Chuck E. Cheese
The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants,Inc. CEC Entertainment dba
Natick Collection 801 Worcester Rd
1245 Worcester St., Suite 1098 *Hour Restriction
Corporate Chefs (Cognex) Corrado’s Sub Sandwiches
1 Vision Drive 7 Middlesex Avenue
Crazy Jayne’s LLC Culinary Delights, Inc
Paula Felopulos Michael Khalip
29 Main Street 229 North Main Street
*Includes 2 tables with 4-6
seats outside
Dah Mee Restaurant DeliMax, Inc.
Soon Young Lee Stephen Stelmach
25 Washington Street Luiz Pereira Ferraz
6A Wethersfield Road
Delops, Inc. dba Delops,Inc. dba
D’Angelo’s Sandwich Shop D’Angelo’s Sandwich Shop
381 Worcester St. Natick Mall 1245 Worcester St.
Dolphin Seafood Restaurant Dunkin Donuts
Dimas, Inc. dba East Central Street Donuts dba
7 South Ave. 50-52 East Central Street
Dunkin Donuts Marval, Inc. dba Dunkin Donuts
NatDun, LLC 249 North Main St
1362 Worcester St.
*24 Hours
Finale, Room for Dessert, LLC dba Flamers, Inc. BFR Enterprises,Inc
1245 Worcester Street Natick Mall-1245 Worcester St
Franco’s Ristorante-Pizzeria Fresh City of Natick, LLC dba
Tano’s, Inc. dba Fresh City
Francisco Bruno 1400 Worcester Road
218 Speen Street *Restriction: Hours
Friendly’s Ice Cream Corp. George’s Pizza (George Kalfas, Inc.dba
Natick Mall 1245 Worcester Rd. 41 South Main St.
Gloria Jean’s Gourmet Coffee Gloria Jean’s Gourmet Coffee
RMF Java Co. dba RMF Java Co. dba Michael Forest
Natick Mall-1245 Worcester Rd 1245 Worcester St. 2nd Location
Gourmet India Honey Dew Donuts
India House of Burlington dba Nisha donuts, Inc. dba
Vishal Sood Hushmukh G. Patel
1245 Worcester Rd.-Natick Mall 179 West Central St.
Java Jim’s, dba Melina Shapiro Joan & Ed’s Deli
22 Main Street The Deli, Inc. dba
1298F Worcester road
Sherwood Plaza
Jordan’s Furniture, Jorwest LLC dba Jordan’s Furniture
1 Underprice Way IMAX Theatre concession Stand
1 Underprice Way
Kelly’s Roast Beef King Wok, Inc.
2 Underpriced Way 7 South Main Street
*Hour Restrictions
Liberty Ice Cream Parlor Liberty’s Pizza
Ionnis Bouris Athanasios Kotsias
2B Mill Street 2D Mill Street
Lola’s Italian Restaurant Mahan field DugOut Committee
Anthony Matarazzo c/o Michael Melchiorri
9 Main Street 5 Melody Way
Mahan Field-Natick High School
McDonald’s of Natick McDonald’s Corp.
290 Worcester St. Natick Mall – 1245 Worcester St.
Mandarin Café, Inc. Melt Gelato & Crepe Café, Chill,Inc.dba
Yong He Lin Natick Collection
5 Wethersfield Road 1245 worcester St., Space #4075
Metropolitan Bar & Grill Minado Restaurant (Namee Enterprise,Inc dba
The Metropolitan Club dba (Namee Enterprise, Inc. dba)
1245 Worcester St.,Suite 3009 1282 Worcester St.
Minerva Indian Cuisine Moonstruck Chocolate Co. dba
MBR Group Foods, Inc. dba Moonstruck Chocolate Cafe
Prakish Reddy Natick Collection-Space 4021
1318 Worcester road Natick West Center-1245 Worcester St.
Morrison Management Specialists,Inc Natalie’s Italian Kitchen
MetroWest Med Ctr. Employee Cafeteria Weder Marra dba
Food & Nutrition Services 319 North Main Street
67 Union Street
Natick Dairy Queen, Inc. Natick Gourmet Decisions,Inc. dba
323 North Main Street Gourmet Decisions
Stephanie Spinozza
12A Washington Street
Natick Pizza Palace Natick Recreation & Parks
58 East Central St. Sassamon Trace Golf Course
233 South Main Street
Natick Sports Club,Racquet Club dba Natick Subway, Inc.
Longfellow Sports Club Mary Vytheswaran dba
203 Oak Street 181 Worcester Road
Nicholas’ Restaurant Nick’s Pizza House
85 East Central St. Cosendey & Cosendey,Inc. dba
Lucio Dutra
179 West Central St.
Nordstrom, Inc. Nordstrom, Inc.
Dba Nordstrom Café Bistro dba Nordstrom E-Bar
290 Speen Street 290 Speen Street
Oga’s Japanese Cuisine One Forty-Eight on Central
Minoga, Inc. dba 24 Associates,LLC dba
915 Worcester St. Mitchell Maxwell
148 East Central St.
Panera Bread, PR Restaurant dba Papa Gino’s, Inc.
Route 9/27 Plaza 292 Worcester Street
841 Worcester Street
Park Street Ice Cream Shoppe Performing Arts Center
14 Park Street 14 Summer Street
*Restriction: Valid only during performances
P.F. Changs’China Bistro,Inc. Pieces, Ltd. Inc.
Dba P.F.Chang’s China Bistro John Bertin
Natick Collection 160 West Central Street
1245 Worcester St., space #3008 *Hour Restriction
Pizza Hut Pizza Market
Redberry Resto Brands Intl, Inc. dba Latifa Bassou
1274 Worcester St. 5 outh Main St.
Pizza Peddler & Deli, dba Beleco,Inc Pizza Plus
Petros Belezos Y.S.A.Inc. (Maged Amin,Yasser
127 West Central St. Lawendi,Kamil Saied)
*Restriction:Limited to 16 Seats 16 North Main St.
Quiznos Rise N’Shine, O’Hare & Daigledba
SB,LLC-Pawan Mannan Dennis O’Hare, Laurie Daigle
61 Worcester Rd. 45 Main Street
*Extended Hours – 5:30 a.m.
Salad Creations,Salid Enterprises,Inc Sarku Japan, SJ Burlington Food,Inc dba
Irina Salgan-Natick Collection Natick Mall
1245 Worcester St.,Suite 2002 1245 Worcester St.
Sarku Japan,Sushi Bar Sbarro
SJ Burlington Food,Inc. dba Natick Mall
Natick Mall-1245 Worcester St. 1245 Worcester Road
Sel De La Terre, New France Natick,LLC Shangai Tokyo Cuisine
Natick Collection A.T.Panb corporation dba
3032 Natick West Shopping Ctr. 54 East Central Street
Skipjack’s, Lampara,Inc. db Starbucks Coffee Company
400 Worcester Road 1346 Worcester Road
Sherwood Plaza Sherwood Plaza
Station 5 Grille, MCJ Corp.dba Super Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.LLC
17 Watson Place Operating aStarbucks Coffee
*Hour Restriction-Seating Restriction 829 Worcester Road
Subway-Anish & Anjali Corp dba Theo’s Pizza, Tsitos Enterprises, Inc.
Mitesh Patel-251 West Central St. 231 North Main Street
*Maximum 16 seats
Three Lucky Stars Uptown Gourmet
G.M. Huang, Inc. dba Olson Meat & Seafood Co.Inc.dba
West Central St. 3 Apple Hill (MathWorks)
*Hour Restriction
Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers of NY,Inc
303 West Central St. 355 Worcester Road
West Suburban Arena
Facility Management Corp.
35 Windsor Avenue
b.Innholder’s
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following Innholder’s licenses for 2009:
Natick Hotel Associates N.H.Hotel Associates,Inc
Dba Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza 319 Speen Street
1360 Worcester road
GSH CY Natick,LLC
Dba Courtyard by Marriott-Natick
c.Class I
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the following Class I licenses for 2009:
Bernardi’s, Inc. Bernardi’s, Inc.
Dba Bernardi’s Honda dba Bernardi’s Audi
960 Worcester St. 521 Worcester St.
Bernardi’s, Inc Brigham Gill
Dba Bernardi Honda 817 Worcester Road
1000 Worcester St.
Connolly Buick Co.,Inc Herb Chambers of Natick, Inc.
Dba Herb Connolly Hyundai dba Mercedes Benz of Natick
157 West Central St. 253 North Main Street
Herb Chambers of Boston Post Road, Inc. Metro West Subaru, LLC
Dba Foregin Motors West BMW dba Metrowest Subaru
253 North Main Street Frank Hanenberger
948 Worcester Road
Quality Emergency Vehicles, Inc.
Richard Willis
86 South Avenue
d.Class II
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the following Class II licenses for 2009:
Advantage Automotive Aku-World
Michael A. Frasca dba Moses Osagie-Victor Igue
11 Middlesex Avenue 179 West Central Street
*Restriction:Maximum 3 cars for sale *Wholesale Only
stored on property at one time
Auto Wholesalers Bernardi’s, Inc.
135 West Central St. 910 Worcester St.
Central Auto Parts Coach & Carriage
327 West Central St. Joseph Gagliardi
*Maximum of 4 cars on display 55 Middlesex Avenue
E & M Auto Consulting,Inc. European Performance Locators
Eugene Bushmelov David E. Maynard, President
3 Penobscot Road 15A Cochituate St.
*Restriction:Wholesale Only-No *Restriction 4 cars
cars sold or stored on premises
Gabi’s, Inc. Glidden Auto Sales
Gabi Aoude William Glidden
225 North Main Street 124 East Central Street
*Wholesale Only
Graham’s Garage Greg Malany dba
Richard Graham Greg’s Repair Service
134 East Central Street 47 Summer Street
*Wholesale Only
Gassiraro Auto INPAK, LLC
Ed Gassiraro dba Hamid A. Haider
10 Rear Cochituate Street 10 Squire Court Unit #1
Wholesale Only
John J. Ingemi MPL Auto Sales
26 Bacon St. Lentini, Michael
*Restriction: Wholesale Only, No 72A Oakland Street
cars sold or stored on the premises *Wholesale Only. No Cars sold or
stored on the premises. Storage of 1 car approved.
Natick Auto Clinic, Inc. Natick Citgo
Gordon Russell George Matukas
193 Worcester Road East Central Street
*Restriction: Maximum of 5 cars
stored on premises
Olympic Rental Riders Repari
dba Tom Pratts Auto Care Center Richard Knights
1 Homeward Road 6 Leach Lane
*Restricted to 2 cars
e.Class III
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following Class III licenses for 2009:
Central Auto Parts of Natick, Inc. Sansossio Auto Body
327 West Central Street Natick Used Auto Parts, Inc.
*Maximum of 4 cars on display 13 Cochituate Street
f.Automatic Amusement Device Number of machines
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following Automatic Amusement Device licenses for 2009:
American Legion, E.P.Clark Post 107 6
13 West Central St.
Amvets 6
Prime Parkway
Golf on the Village Green 25
315 Worcester St.
SEND TO: Paul Cohen
50/60 Worcester Rd
Framingham, MA 01701
Natick VFW 6
West Central Street
CEC Entertainment dba Chuck E. Cheese 66
801 Worcester Road
Papa Gino’s 2 (claw machine & juke box)
292 Worcester St
g.Daily Entertainment
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following Daily Entertainment licenses for 2009.
(The) After School Workshop 1 license
Michael Williams cable, musical instruments
89 Washington Ave suite 0 phono, amplifiers, TV
American Legion 1 Live music
13 West Central St.
Dimas Corp. dba Dolphin 1 license live
12 Washington Street live entertainment, piped
Cheesecake Factory 1 license
Natick Collection Radio, TV, Amplifiers
1248 Worcester Street
Finale, Room for Dessert 1 license
1245 Worcester St. piped in music
Fresh City of Natick, LLC dba Cable TV
Fresh City
1400 Worcester Road
Minerva Indian Cuisine TV, piped in Music
MBR Group Foods, Inc. dba
1318 Worcester Road
Natick Gourmet Decisions, Inc. Live music
12 Washington Street Piped in Music
Papa Gino’s 1 Juke Box
291 Worcester St.
The Center for Arts in Natick 1 live entertainment
14 Summer Street
Jordan Furniture 1 license
Imax Movie Theatre movie theatre
1 Underprice Way
Lampara, Inc. dba Skipjack’s 1 license
1400 Worcester Street Piped in Music
Metropolitan Bar & Grill Televisions w/cable
The Metropolitan Club dba Piped in Music
1245 Worcester St., Suite 3009
Natick Hotel Associates 2 licenses
Dba Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Dancing, sound music
1360 Worcester Street
*Restriction
Nicholas’s 2 licenses
85 East Central Street Live Bouzouki, Cable TV
Nordstrom, Inc. Piped in Music
Dba Nordstrom Café Bistro
290 Speen Street
P.F.Chang’s China Bistro Piped in Music
1245 Worcester St., Space 3008 Cable TV
Sel De La Terre Cable TV, Piped in Music
Newe France Natick, LLC dba
Natick Collection
3032 Natick West Shopping Ctr.
h. Sunday Entertainment
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following Sunday Entertainment licenses for 2009.
Natick Hotel Associates 2 Licenses
Dba Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Dancing, Sound Music
1360 Worcester St
*Restriction
The Center for Arts in Natick 1 license
New France Natick, LLC 1 license
Sel De La Terre Live entertainment-jazz
i.Lodging House
The Board unanimously voted to renew the Lodging House license of Robert Krauss
c/o B.K. Realty Management for 25 Pond Street. The vote was taken on a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly.
j. Fortune Teller
The Board unanimously voted to renew the Fortune Teller license held by Annie Mitchell for 546 Worcester Street. The vote was taken on a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam.
MINUTES
Mr. Ostroff moved approval of the minutes of the May 5, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
ST. PATRICK CHURCH – REQUEST TO DISPLAY CRECHE
Mr. Connolly disclosed that St. Patrick Church was his employer and he was a parishioner.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to approve St. Patrick Church’s request to display the Christmas Creche on the Town Common from December 10, 2008 through January 9, 2009. Unanimously voted.
NATICK CENTER ASSOCIATES: REQUEST BANNER
Mr. Ostroff stated that he was a member of the Natick Center Associates and intended to vote.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved approval of the Natick Center Associates’ request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of June 1-June 15, 2009 in advertisement of the Farmer’s Market and for the period of May 4-May 15, 2009 in advertisement of the Art Walk. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
RECREATION & PARKS: LIGHTING CEREMONY
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, to approve the Recreation & Parks Department’s request to use the Common on Sunday, December 7 from 2:00-6:00 p.m. for the Town Holiday Lighting Ceremony. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello volunteered to address the gathering.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
Mr. Connolly reminded everyone of the Pearl Harbor Day observance at the Library and noted that Boston and Natick were the only two areas in the state that acknowledge that event.
Mr. Connolly noted that he had submitted a list of possible agenda items, but since nothing had happened he would change the date and resubmit the list.
Ms. White advised there was information on the items provided in the correspondence section of the briefing book, but Mr. Connolly countered that the boiler information was insufficient and he had tried several times to call Ms. White.
Ms. White pointed out that she responded to the field mowing question and the boiler update said if more information was required to let her know. Mr. Connolly responded that he was looking for information from day one and tried every way possible to get that.
Continuing down Mr. Connolly’s list of items, Ms. White stated that she replied to the double pole issue and discussed with the Chair about bringing the utilities in. She couldn’t solve the double pole issue and the plan was to schedule them to come before the Board.
Ms. White questioned if Mr. Connolly was implying that she was unresponsive, and he responded that he wanted the boiler information from day one to now and as for the crosswalks, Ms. White provided him with the number of violations but he wanted to do something about it.
Mr. Ciccariello asked that he be given the opportunity to look at Mr. Connolly’s list with the Town Administrator and follow-up. Ms. White noted that she thought the information provided had been what was asked for.
Mr. Ostroff advised there was a hearing about the tolls on the Mass Turnpike on December 17 and he would be glad to incorporate some points into a statement.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if there was a plan to revisit the trash bag fees. Mr. Ciccariello imagined it would be part of the budget, but Mr. Ostroff suggested the Board might want to consider it to address the short-term deficit in FY09.
- Town Administration Evaluation
Mr. Ostroff reminded the other members of the Board to schedule a time to meet with the Town Administrator and then an executive session would be scheduled for some time late next week.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that for the meeting of December 15 and thereafter he would be meeting with Ms. White and Ms. Challis to discuss upcoming agenda items. He asked that Board members get any items they would like to have included to Ms. Challis by the end of this week so they could be added to the list.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
___________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
