BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
February 2, 2009
6:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam (arrived 6:40 p.m.), Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly.
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Walters Young, Deputy Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on February 2, 2009 in the amount of $1,704,178.30. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,850,383.17.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to collective bargaining and compensation of non-union personnel. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Van Amsterdam had not as yet arrived and did not vote. At 6:03 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.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Ciccariello announced the deadline for Town Meeting nomination papers was Tuesday at 5:00 p.m. Anyone interested should contact the Town Clerk’s office.
- Nstar – West Natick Transmission Line Complaint
Mr. Connolly inquired if the Nstar agenda item would be open for citizen input. Mr. Ciccariello responded that he would allow individuals to speak on certain issues but it would be controlled so there weren’t 12 people all saying the same thing.
POLICE CHIEF: SAFETY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Police Chief Dennis Mannix announced he would be reporting on three meetings and in the interest of time he would only read the items requiring the Board’s approval. For the meeting of July 28, 2008 all the actions have been taken:
- A sign on Winter Street alerting motorists of children in the area
- The posting of NO PARKING signs on the northeast corner of Windsor Avenue from the DPW driveway.
- The posting of two “live” parking spaces for cars picking up and dropping off passengers as well as two spaces exclusively for the use of taxis. The committee also suggested relocating the bus stop signage “No Parking from Here to Corner” which would restrict cars from parking on the south side of North Avenue from North Main Street to the corner.
Chief Mannix believed the Board could disregard the July meeting.
Meeting of October 28, 2008
Intersection of Hayes/Route 135/Lincoln Street
Chief Mannix noted the only item on the October 28, 2008 Agenda for the Board’s approval was the queuing problem experienced at the Route 135/Hayes Street/Lincoln Street traffic signals. It was particularly difficult for people coming out of Hayes going east. The Safety Committee’s discussion was to have the DPW paint a stop bar and post a sign saying do not block intersection. This could be a resolution until a final decision was made as to whether there was ever going to be a working traffic light or not.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the timetable for resolving whether the intersection would be signalized and was told by Chief Mannix that it was a matter of ongoing discussion among Town officials. He didn’t know the timetable.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to install a stop bar and sign on the northeast corner of the intersection of the Route 135/Hayes Street/Lincoln Street traffic signals. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted the request for a hearing to name Nouvelle Way. Ms. White inquired if Nouvelle Way was depicted on any site plans and approved by the Planning Board, but Chief Mannix wasn’t sure. The Community Development requested approval of the name for the road in the Natick Collection, but he (Chief Mannix) would be happy to get a clarification and report back to the Board.
Meeting of January 27, 2009
Crosswalk Marion Street
As recommended by the Safety Committee, Ms. Gloff moved to install a new crosswalk across Marion Street a short distance south of Pauline Drive. The new crosswalk will require a curb cut on both sides of the street as well as the installation of two double-backed high visibility pedestrian crossing signs – one on either side of the street at the crosswalk location. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Connolly advised that he was at this Safety Committee meeting and there was some conversation on Route 135 and Route 27. Chief Mannix noted that with regard to the pedestrian crosswalks, there was agreement to have an officer out there and as soon as the weather cleared that would be done. Mr. Connolly requested that the Board be kept informed of what the officer found.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if it would be appropriate for the Board of Selectmen to approve the installation of high visibility crosswalks in those areas subject to the Safety Committee’s review. Chief Mannix didn’t think it required a vote. Years ago the Board voted to require those types of signs with any crosswalks in Town starting with the schools which he believed had been accomplished. He would request the DPW to install the signs.
Mr. Ostroff asked if the Safety Committee would consider a townwide review of signage. Many were old and faded. Chief Mannix advised that on his list of community service projects for high school students was for students to make notices of signs that need to be replaced.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE FROM MCDONALD’S OF NATICK TO MD MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A MCDONALD’S (WORCESTER ST)
Representing MD Management Company in the application for a transfer of the common victualer’s license held by McDonald’s of Natick for the 290 Worcester Street location was the owner of MD Management David Yee.
Mr. Yee stated that he was applying for a license transfer from the corporation to his franchise. The restaurant would remain the same. The personnel would remain the same.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that at the last meeting a member of the Board had an issue with the McDonald’s on the Mass Turnpike and asked if a representative of the McDonald’s Corporation could be here.
Steven Weil, Attorney for McDonald’s and Michael Kuronen, Director of Development came forward. Mr. Weil voiced his support for the transfer of the common victualer’s license to Mr. Yee, noting the transfer should stand on its own merits and to the extent there were issues the Board wished to raise on the Mass Turnpike rest stop, they (Mr. Weil and Mr. Kuronen) were here to answer questions and try to be responsive, but that was a totally different issue. Mr. Yee was an independent operator and had successfully operated other restaurants.
Mr. Connolly felt that Mr. Yee’s request was completely different and he would like to see the Board vote on the license and then chat with the McDonald’s representatives.
Mr. Ostroff explained that he represented to Mr. Yee that his (Mr. Ostroff’s) intention was to support the transfer but he wanted to take advantage of the application to bring issues of the neighborhood to the attention of McDonald’s.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the transfer of the common victualer’s license held by McDonald’s of Natick to MD Management Company, LLC d/b/a McDonald’s for premises at 290 Worcester Street. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE FROM MCDONALD’S CORPORATION TO MD MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A MCDONALD’S (NATICK COLLECTION)
David Yee, owner of MD Management Company, requested a transfer of the common victualer’s license held by McDonald’s Corporation to MD Management Company, LLC d/b/a McDonald’s for premises at the Natick Collection, 1245 Worcester Street.
As with the Worcester Street location nothing would change.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the transfer of the common victualer’s license held by McDonald’s Corporation to MD Management Company, LLC d/b/a McDonald’s for premises at the Natick Collection, 1245 Worcester Street. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had received some complaints about the general lighting conditions at the McDonald’s on the Mass Pike which was something put out to bid and McDonald’s contracted with the Mass Turnpike.
Mr. Ostroff added that about eight years ago the Turnpike contractor installed much taller light towers along the Turnpike. The effect of this was to shine light into people’s homes and yards of abutters. There have been attempts through the legislature and working with the Turnpike Authority to address this but that didn’t work out. His intent in asking the Board to delay action on Mr. Yee’s application was to focus some attention on this and get McDonald’s to come in and hear from some of the neighbors.
Mr. Ostroff read a couple of e-mails he received from Doran Able of Cypress Road and David & Lilian Fisher of Cypress Road.
He was looking to start a process by which the Town could work with the Turnpike Authority, its tenants, and the neighbors to reduce the height of the sign particularly where it served no purpose to have it illuminated. It seemed like a reasonable request to accomplish if it was in the Board’s domain but it was not. Natick has a lighting by-law and copies could be provided if McDonald’s wanted to consider that as a starting point.
Mr. Kuronen, McDonald’s Development Director, noted that he was around when the RFP was put together. The signs were a collaborative effort of the Mass State Police, the Turnpike, and McDonald’s for the safety of the traveling public. The height was determined based on visibility. He (Mr. Kuronen) understood the lighting issue and was willing to sit down with a group of the neighbors to talk about it, but the real reason for the height was safety issues. They weren’t put up just for the purpose of high rise signs, but he was willing to talk to a group. McDonald’s was more concerned with the lighting on the lots and it was more of a safety issue for a mother getting out of a car at 2:00 a.m. to have the platform lit. There were some things that could be done to the lights.
Perhaps something could be put on the back so the light would only shine forward.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested that Mr. Kuronen exchange business cards with Mr. Ostroff and get a meeting scheduled with the neighbors.
Mr. Ostroff noted the presence of some of the neighbors who wished to speak.
Bayberry Road resident David Shaughnessy didn’t think a sign that tall that could be seen a half mile away was needed. He would like to see a mailing list created so whenever there was a meeting about this people on the list could be notified. Mr. Ciccariello suggested that Mr. Ostroff be given a couple of names and numbers. Mr. Ostroff could then contact those individuals and they in turn could reach out to the rest of the neighbors.
Mr. Ostroff was curious as to how many people were in the audience for this subject and the count was 8-10. Mr. Ostroff stated that he would like to see a representative of the restaurant, Mass Turnpike, the Town and as many neighbors as would like to attend be at this upcoming meeting to address some of the lighting issues. He thanked the people for coming this evening.
Mary Connaughton, a member of the Turnpike Authority Board, noted this issue had been around for a long time and Mr. Ostroff invited her to come and hear the neighbors. She would like to participate in the discussion and asked that she be invited to the meeting.
William Costello of Hammond Road stated that he came to support his neighbors. He didn’t personally have an ax to grind but questioned why the sign faced east when the westbound traffic can see it but can’t use it.
Mr. Ciccariello thought that was a valid point and he was sure there would be an opportunity to raise it at the meeting.
Another Hammond Road resident Michael McGoldrick noted there were two McDonald signs on Route 128 that were 10-15 feet high and he didn’t think there were any issues with safety. This was too much sign for a small neighborhood area.
DPW: SNOW OVERDRAFT
DPW Business Manager William Chenard reported that the snow budget for the year had been exceeded including the overdraft approved last month and they were now asking for an additional $250,000 to cover the cost of the salt that has been on order for approximately 2-1/2 weeks. Mr. Chenard highlighted the expenses: $140,873 for sand and salt (not including $95,000 for the upcoming delivery); $14,259 for equipment parts and repairs; $188,460 for contractors; $197,383 for staff overtime; $16,630 for fuel; $4,652 for administrative or miscellaneous expenses.
Mr. Chenard noted that weekend storms, of which there had been a few, accounted for most of the cost. That was when overtime was paid. The other factor was the increase in the cost of the salt, and there would be some discussion with the administration and the Board as to whether we want to fill the shed at the end of the season. That was done last year and it saved the Town money, but this year he thought he was going to do a little research and perhaps not fill it. If it looked like the price was going up, perhaps the recommendation would be to fill the shed, but that was a discussion for later.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was a problem getting salt deliveries. Mr. Chenard advised there wasn’t a problem getting the salt but it was taking a long period of time. Deliveries weren’t quite as fast as in the past.
Ms. Van Amsterdam observed that some persons put in l/2 an hour overtime, some 10 hours. There were varying amounts of time and she wondered if moving forward the administration was looking at being more creative in how the staff was deployed.
Mr. Chenard explained that the huge difference in individual overtime hours came from each division in the DPW. The higher hours came from Highway. That (snow removal) was their primary duty. If there was a water break that division wasn’t available for storms or if LFNR was removing trees, they wouldn’t be available. That was why there was a difference in the number of hours. It was kind of restricted to the collective bargaining agreement on how to deploy personnel. The Department has looked at ways and has reduced overtime and still maintain safety. In the downtown snow removal was being done piecemeal when guys were free rather than bringing in a whole crew at night.
Mr. Connolly asked about the $800 spent on food on 1/6/09. Mr. Chenard responded that providing food was not done for every storm. It was done rarely, but if there was an extended storm and the guys were working 16-18 hours, the Department provided food and coffee for them. Asked who makes that decision, Mr. Chenard advised there was a policy in place for a number of years. It would be the DPW Director or Town Administrator.
Ms. White pointed out that there was one payment for food, but it probably covered a number of storms. Mr. Chenard confirmed that it was for more than one but not every storm.
Mr. Connolly then inquired as to the status of the North Avenue bus shelter. Ms. White believed it was hit by a sidewalk plow because the distance between the snow bank and the structure was narrower than the driver realized. It was her understanding the DPW was looking for a different location that would have greater width. She thought a claim had been filed with the insurance company but she didn’t know the outcome.
Mr. Connolly was concerned with the stability of the structure and felt it should be taken down. Mr. Chenard responded that he would have someone take a look in the morning.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to authorize an additional $250,000 for snow and ice removal for Fiscal 2009. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the funding and was told by Ms. White that it would have to be raised out of next year’s budget which would impact the deficit for FY10. $325,000 was budgeted for next year’s overdraft and that forecast would have to be adjusted to make up the difference.
Mr. Connolly questioned if this (overdraft) was the only way to fund it. Ms. White noted that more could be budgeted. The minimum amount was budgeted now, but it will have to be paid for one way or another. Part of the logic for not budgeting a large amount in one year was because by law whatever was budgeted in one year could never be reduced in the future.
THE MATHWORKS, INC.: TAX INCREMENT FINANCE (TIF)
Representing The MathWorks was Doug Barbo, Senior Vice President, Mark Perros of National Development and Jonathan Spero of Price Waterhouse.
Mr. Barbo stated that The MathWorks was here tonight to ask the Board of Selectmen to sponsor two warrant articles related to their proposal for a TIF (Tax Increment Finance). He noted that The MathWorks had been in Natick for over 16 years and tonight’s presentation would familiarize the Board with The MathWorks and give an update. There would be a description of the project and an explanation of the TIF and associated benefits to the Town.
The power point presentation began with the background of the company. The MathWorks was a software company founded in 1984 by Jack Little and Cleve Moler to develop comprehensive mathematical computing language for engineering and science applications in the automotive, education, aerospace/defense and telecommunications markets. The MathWorks has been a Natick employer since 1988 growing from 10 to 1,454 Natick employees. For 10 years they experienced an 18% annual growth and had a record of strong community and charitable relationships.
Mr. Perros prefaced the portion of the project presentation by commenting that this was an important request to continue MathWorks’ presence in Natick and expand. The TIF would assist them in purchasing the existing Apple Hill 1 building and expanding their campus.
Of the 1,454 current employees, 161 were Natick residents. The MathWorks owns 295,000 square feet at 2&3 Apple Hill Drive and leases 130,000 square feet at 1 Apple Hill Drive. They had an option to purchase 1 Apple Hill (173,000 square feet) that will provide an additional 600 jobs over the next five years and will invest $74 million in improvements to the property and Route 9.
Included was a rendering that showed a new 859 car garage and a new office building.
MathWorks’ proposed financial contribution to Natick was roughly $5.89 million. Broken down into the following major components:
$2.85 million for density bonus payment
$1.04 million for additional mitigation
$1.30 million in MA MORE Jobs Grant. This has been applied for and
a grant received
$0.70 million in building permit fees
Mr. Speros continued the presentation with a description of the economic development incentive program. He noted the Town applied for and was approved for an ETA (Economic Target Area). Because the area was already designated as an ETA, they were looking for two warrant articles. One would authorize the Board of Selectmen to submit to the Massachusetts Economic Assistance Coordinating Council an application designating the property located at 1 Apple Hill Drive as an Economic Opportunity Area. The second would authorize the Board of Selectmen to enter into a Tax Increment Financing Plan with The MathWorks in connection with the purchase of property located at 1 Apple Hill Drive.
Mr. Speros noted that within the proposal was a specific agreement, the details were found on page 15 of the material provided to the Board a few weeks before the meeting. It was estimated that over a 20 year period the total property taxes will be $32.3 million assuming a 2-1/2 levy growth rate. New construction will generate about $9.5 million in new taxes with the modest exemption. The proposal being presented was about the most modest that would be accepted by the State. The State requires the Town to do a share because the State tax benefits will be significant.
As to the community benefits, Mr. Speros said he could personally say The MathWorks was an exemplary corporate citizen. More important than the dollars was the commitment. Every MathWorks employee gets 8 hours pay a year to go out into the community and perform public service. They have also allowed local charitable events to be held at their facilities. MathWorks was a strong financial contributor to the Museum of Science and worked a partnership to bring traveling exhibits to Natick which will help the Schools to save money on field trips.
This program was important to the Town and important to MathWorks. They want to stay and grow in Natick and if the company grows the expectation was the community benefits should grow.
Mr. Ciccariello informed the Board that Community Development Director Patrick Reffett, Ms. White, and he met with members of The MathWorks and National Development 3-4 weeks ago and they requested to make a presentation to the Board.
When speaking modest exemption, Mr. Connolly questioned what that meant in terms of a dollar amount.
Mr. Speros advised that the State wanted at least a 5% exemption and what was proposed relates to about a 4% exemption. It averages to about $84,000 per year over 20 years including an inflation factor. Under the current tax rate they would be looking at a $360,000 increase on taxes and an additional $60,000 exemption. MathWorks would pay 100% of the existing taxes. When the two (existing and new) were factored together it would be about $1.2 million.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to when the first TIF was done and was told by Mr. Speros that it was in 2004. This was not a continuation of the first TIF. There would be two separate agreements built on two separate parcels.
If the modest exemption were $60,000 a year over a 20 year period, Mr. Connolly questioned why the Town would want to do this. Mr. Speros pointed out the increase in taxes would be about $360,000. The benefit to the business was important to make sure the project moves forward at a strong pace and increases the employment base. The amount of community benefits brought to the Town was far greater than the property taxes.
Mr. Connolly thought the playing fields and scholarship came after the Town agreed to the first TIF. Mr. Speros advised that was correct and added that the major component was the agreement to hire employees and make a commitment to the Town. MathWorks has exceeded the first agreement. They hired 600 in a four year period and more than met their projection and exceeded their investment. The purpose of the program was to help companies make an investment to create jobs. The community benefits were nice but it wasn’t the main focus. The main focus was to hire people and make an investment on the site. MathWorks has exceed their goals and the expectation was they would do the same this time.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the 5% was only for the new component and didn’t impact the previous.
Mr. Speros confirmed that the existing facilities were still taxed at 100% and they were projecting a 15% exemption on the new portion which averaged out to 5%.
Mr. Connolly stated that when the proposal was originally done he was against it because the neighbors were concerned and he was concerned with the neighbors.
Ms. Gloff recalled that the last time MathWorks bought two existing properties and the TIF only applied to the upgrades. Mr. Speros’ reply was, “yes”. The buildings were already there. A lot of modification was done but not much of a change in terms of an assessment and the TIF wasn’t a real value. In this case they were talking about building a whole new building and that will increase the assessment on the property substantially.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to the percentage of tax exemption with the original TIF and Mr. Speros responded that it was 1%, but after that the State changed the rules. They no longer allow diminimus TIF’s. The State wants the towns to make an investment in the property. Their (State) practice usually was a minimum exemption of 5%. The State’s benefit will be much more.
In follow up Ms. Gloff asked if the 5% was on all property or new growth. Mr. Speros responded that if it were all new it would probably be 5% on the whole. Here about 2/3 was in place.
When making a presentation to the Town, Mr. Ostroff asked that MathWorks not use the Town seal. The Town seal was for Town documents.
Mr. Ostroff commented that he didn’t see the footprint changing, and Mr. Barbo responded that it was important for MathWorks to be all together.
Mr. Ostroff noted a 5% TIF was the offer and there would be some negotiation, but the public process for people to weigh in will be the Finance Committee hearings and Town Meeting. He also noted that the 5% exemption was something that applies whatever the taxes may be so if there was a future debt exclusion there would be 5% off of that or if the Board were to adopt a different classification, it would come off of that.
Mr. Speros explained how the value of the TIF was calculated noting that it was not tied into the tax rate or other items.
Mr. Ostroff thought it would be helpful to have a digital copy of the proposal and Mr. Speros said he would send it to Ms. White tomorrow.
Stating that he was not passing judgment on this particular proposal, Mr. Ostroff noted there was a huge global recession and the way to get out of it was to seize on our strengths. There were issues with the neighbors that need to be addressed as best as they could be, but he was glad to see MathWorks’ willingness to continue to invest here and provide service.
Ms. White wanted to make it clear that as with any new development this won’t be new revenue. The tax levy was still the same. It just helps shift the burden. It was not as if it closed the budget deficit. There was a new growth component but it was not new revenue.
Ms. White advised that what was before the Board tonight wasn’t to render a decision on the proposal but to determine whether to put the two articles on the Town Meeting warrant. There would be a process of negotiation and the Board may want to designate a member to work with the administration on that negotiating process.
Community Development Director Patrick Reffett stated that he would bemoan the notion the Town was foregoing any money in such a difficult time but Natick was the envy of pretty much any community in this area. He was not aware of any business at any level creating the level of jobs as MathWorks. They were creating 600 high paying jobs and that was quite the contrary of what was being heard every day in the news. MathWorks was a tremendous company and have been a good neighbor. They have worked with the Planning Board to expand the existing site and everyone will continue to work with the neighbors. MathWorks has given a great deal to the schools and having 600 new individuals working in the community patronizing local businesses was an incredible boon.
Mr. Reffett noted that MathWorks has agreed to provide the community with about $4 million of traffic oriented improvements. Those improvements will help the neighborhood and the region. He applauds MathWorks for being willing to work with the Planning Board, the administration, and the State.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that Mr. Speros viewed the exemption as moderate in comparison to what the State recommended and she was curious if Mr. Reffett had looked at other TIF agreements in his professional expertise and if he could comment on the percentages. Mr. Reffett advised that he had not seen the package that came to the Board. In the meeting Mr. Ciccariello mentioned, he believed MathWorks was requesting the smallest amount.
Mr. Speros noted that all of the agreements were public information and he could send the Board the latest list of all the agreements done. What was allowed under the law was between 1-100% but the State was looking for something that wasn’t diminimus and generally at least 5%. He added that he was involved in a deal in Framingham that started at 25% for 15 years and gradually went down. This was a process where each community decides what they want to negotiate.
Ms. Van Amsterdam felt it was important to educate people so they understand and to educate the different groups to whom presentations will be made.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that he had been involved in the first TIF and MathWorks provided a lot of services particularly to the School system before they even came for the first TIF. When the first TIF was done former Selectman Charles Hughes and the Town Administrator did the negotiation and MathWorks provided the $250,000 match for the gravel pit and then developed the scholarship fund. There was a lot of discussion with the first one and he was sure there would be a lot of discussion with this one. A lot of local contractors in Natick will have a great interest. He asked if National Development had a signature with any of the unions and Mr. Perros responded that the company had a signature with the carpenter’s union.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry as to when MathWorks anticipated groundbreaking and pulling permits, Mr. Perros responded that the first phase was to add the fourth level of the existing parking garage. They anticipated filing for a permit sometime this month. That was in the range of $35,000-40,000. The hope was to file permits for the west garage and new office building in the Fall and that was substantial.
Referring to Mr. Speros’ comment that the first TIF was an existing building and didn’t have a great impact, Mr. Ciccariello believed the buildings were gutted and that raised the value of the buildings.
Mr. Speros thought about four years ago the assessment was $47 million and was now $51 million, but he didn’t know how much was due to normal inflation.
The Town had received a MORE grant and Mr. Ciccariello recalled there had been some discussion about applying for additional MORE funds and looking for support from MathWorks for the Route 9/27 intersection. He asked Mr. Reffett if that had been done.
Because the reconstruction of a full bridge and expansion for additional lanes was a substantial piece of design and engineering and more than the MORE was providing, Mr. Reffett said he was advised by the State that the best approach was to pursue an economic development grant in March with a determination to be made in May. The Town probably had half of what was needed now for 9/27.
When asked what the FAR mitigation funds had been assigned to, Mr. Reffett responded that not a single penny was allotted to open space. The vast majority went specifically to traffic improvements – new intersection on Route 27, Wethersfield, intersection improvements on Route 27 and construction funds for individual locations. Once the design process for Route 27 was done, the Town would have the ability to tell Mass Highway there were some construction funds in hand which will make their providing matching construction funds a lot more desirable. The Planning Board was very astute about obtaining not just design funds but construction funds.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to when the first steps toward the Oak/9 intersection were expected to be taken. Mr. Reffett advised that there had been two internal meetings and there was to be a meeting with Mass Highway Thursday. The design process has begun and within 1-1/2 months a public review information session will be undertaken. He noted that through Representative Markey the Oak/9 project had already been provided $1.4 million. Because funds were already allocated, it makes that project a lot more preferable. Because of the MORE grant, federal funds didn’t have to be used for design.
With all due respect to MathWorks, if they were bringing in 600 more cars they should make it better. If he were asked why the Board cut MathWorks a $60,000 slack, what would he say? From what he could see if the Board didn’t go along with this, the Town would get the project either way.
Mr. Speros explained that the TIF was to help MathWorks stay and grow in the State. The benefits will be re-invested into the property. He couldn’t answer what would happen if the Town did not approve it. That was a decision the owners would have to make. Given the times we are in now MathWorks was the type of company that Towns would like to make a modest investment to help them stay in the community. He thought the benefits would more than outweigh any dollar amount being talked about.
To Mr. Ostroff this seemed to protect the long-term interest of the Town by ensuring MathWorks will invest in the Town but what happens five years from now if MathWorks gets a better offer. Were there penalties and would people have assurance MathWorks would live up to its end of the bargain?
Mr. Speros reminded the Board that MathWorks exceeded what they said they would do in their first agreement and he thought that was the most important gauge. Each year the company was required to submit a report to the State to make sure they were meeting their obligations and if not either the Town or the State could petition for de-certification. Any benefits from the property tax would be cancelled and the State benefit would be cancelled. If the building had a 40 year tax life and after three years someone purchased it and it was de-certified they would be required to pay back the remaining tax life. However, the State looked at it from a job creation standpoint and if you had 500 jobs in Natick and moved 500 jobs to Marlborough, it didn’t create any new jobs in the State and you wouldn’t be meeting
your State requirements.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam for the Board of Selectmen to sponsor an article to authorize the Selectmen to submit to the Massachusetts Economic Assistance Coordinating Council an application designating the property located at 1 Apple Hill Drive as an Economic Opportunity Area. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. 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.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam for the Board of Selectmen to sponsor an article to authorize the Selectmen to enter into a Tax Increment Financing Plan with The MathWorks in connection with the purchase of property located at 1 Apple Hill Drive. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccarillo, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Mr. Ciccariello proposed appointing two members of the Board to meet with the Town Administrator and MathWorks to negotiate. Mr. Connolly offered to be one of the members. Mr. Ostroff was concerned about appointing a member that was opposed, but Mr. Connolly thought there should be an open discussion. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t have a problem with two different perspectives. Until it was vetted through the public process he didn’t think any of the Board members were prepared to vote yes.
Mr. Ostroff nominated Mr. Connolly. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted. Mr. Connolly assured the members that he would try to go into it with an open mind.
Mr. Ciccariello nominated Ms. Gloff. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
A recess was called at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:05 p.m.
NSTAR: WEST NATICK TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young reviewed his memo to the Board dated January 30, 2009 on the NSTAR grant of location project off Melody Way/Ranger Road/Tournament Road. At the direction of the Board he investigated the activities of Nstar and their subcontractor in West Natick earlier this week. Following the Board’s directive on January 26, he notified Town Counsel, the Chief of Police, the Director of Public Health and the Conservation Agent concerning the activities being performed in and around the right-of-way in the area of Melody Way/Ranger Road/Tournament Road. He personally toured the sight on Tuesday with the Conservation Agent Bob Bois and witnessed the removal of trees within the easement and talked with several neighbors.
Upon his return, Mr. Walters Young reported that he conferred with the Chief of Police and Town Counsel as to the legality of the actions being performed by Nstar and the recourse, if any, the Town had in regards to the clearing of large amounts of vegetation, trees and shrubbery within the right-of-way. Town Counsel advised that the Town had no legal right to stop the project unless a threat to public safety existed. Lt. Lauzon of the Natick Police Department investigated the site and reported back to Chief Mannix who stated to him that no such threat to public safety existed. The contractors were operating within the right-of-way granted to Nstar and police details were present during the entire time that tree and vegetation removal was being performed.
The memo continued that after finishing this analysis, he called and then wrote the letter, as the Board directed him to do, to Nstar formally requesting their presence at the February 2 meeting. A copy of his letter to Nstar was attached along with supporting documentation provided by concerned neighbors, a copy of the original grant of location by the Board of Selectmen, a recent letter from the Conservation Agent in regards to Nstar’s non-compliance with the conditions of the Conservation Commission’s Wetlands Protection by-laws and regulations regarding the elimination of vegetation.
Mr. Walters Young concluded his memo by stating that in his professional opinion there was no action the Town could have taken to force Nstar to stop the project on Melody Way/Ranger Road/Tournament Road. The regulatory authority in this matter, the Mass Department of Telecommunications and Energy, has issued an order of conditions which Nstar was legally mandated to comply to, and where the affected neighbors have standing to ensure that proper compliance with the order was assured.
Mr. Walters Young then referenced an opinion from Town Counsel advising that the Town cannot use the citation mentioned last week, Chapter 164, Section 75 of the Massachusetts General Laws, to allow the Board to take action.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that he would allow different authorities to speak including the Conservation Agent and Nstar and he hoped everybody would listen.
The Conservation Agent was asked to provide an update of the Conservation Commission issues, if Nstar was in violation of anything, and what if any steps were being taken.
Mr. Bois advised that the activities going on in the right-of-way were covered by an approval by the Conservation Commission and an exemption from the Wetlands Protection Act. The issue with the poles was approved by the Conservation Commission in 2004 for three years and was extended to 2007. That dealt with just the installation of a pole in a resources area and primarily has been complied with.
Mr. Bois noted that a utility had an obligation to maintain and clear a right-of-way and the exemption from the Wetlands Protection Act only applied to those activities. They were exempt from filing and notifying the Conservation Commission but not exempt from the performance standards of the Wetlands Protection Act. Nstar clearly did not meet that standard. They (Nstar) clear cut right to the back of a brook. Their environmental person stated Nstar had an internal best management practice and they were in violation of that. Selective cutting could have been allowed. There were invasive plants you don’t like to see, but it stabilized the bank.
Mr. Bois advised that the Conservation Commission was discussing further action. The Commission’s oversight was primarily focused on areas where poles were going in and Nstar’s exercising the exemption for maintaining the right-of-way.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Mr. Bois had indicated that Nstar was in violation of not protecting the edges of the brook and asked if the Conservation Commission was going to hold a hearing. Mr. Bois responded that it was being discussed internally where to go. After discussion with the Nstar environmentalist, hay bales were put in but he didn’t feel that was enough.
Asked if those discussions would be part of a public hearing, Mr. Bois noted that enforcement was usually an internal discussion, but the Conservation Commission could hold an information meeting.
Mr. Connolly questioned if that was enough to stop Nstar. Mr. Bois responded that the damage had been done and they have moved on. If Nstar had been caught in the process of cutting a cease and desist order could have been issued for the area over which the Conservation Commission had jurisdiction.
Asked if Nstar couldn’t be held accountable for it now, Mr. Bois advised they could through an enforcement action. The Commission could get them to stabilize the brook from selective clearing in the resources area, and do some planting.
Mr. Connolly questioned when that would happen and was told by Mr. Bois it would be within the next month. He (Mr. Bois) thought there were several issues on which he could work with Nstar to prevent this from happening again. A contractor clear cut something they should have and he was disappointed with the response from Nstar. He would like to set up a process where Nstar did some training for their contractors that work in Natick and train those contractors on their internal best management practices. He would also like the wetlands permanently marked so it wouldn’t be repeated again and again.
Mr. Connolly thought there had been issues with Nstar several times and Mr. Bois confirmed that to be correct. To Mr. Connolly’s comment that Nstar was thumbing their noses at him, Mr. Bois noted that their response was that it was the contractors.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if there was precedent for Nstar to take restorative measures outside the wetlands. Mr. Bois explained that the negotiation was back and forth and it could be brought to the table. This was a small piece of the overall cutting.
From the correspondence Mr. Ostroff didn’t think the Town had direct control over this and it would be left to the residents to appeal directly to one of the least responsive agencies. Can the Conservation Commission use their leverage and try to work with the company. There were important health concerns, but the Board didn’t have any jurisdiction.
Mr. Bois thought a little could be handled through the Conservation Commission. In the order from the State agency there were some conditions that relate to cutting that could be part of the remedy.
Mr. Ciccariello was of the understanding that it was the Conservation Commission’s and Mr. Bois’ opinion that Nstar violated the conditions set forth by the Commission and not the Wetlands Protection Act. Mr. Bois’ reply was, “yes”.
Having sat on the Board when this was done, Mr. Ciccariello remembered there being extensive review of the Conservation Commission and a lot of discussion with the neighbors. Mr. Ciccariello read the conditions imposed by the Board of Selectmen in the grant of location dated May 16, 2005:
- The Department of telecommunications and Energy (DTE) are made a condition of the approval.
- The Order of Conditions issued by the Natick Conservation Commission date of issuance March 17, 2005 and issued to Nstar via a letter dated March 18, 2005 from Bob Bois the Conservation Agent were made a condition of the approval.
- Nstar agrees to furnish and install low profile flowering and screening shrubs along the corner of Mill Street and entrance driveway to the Brown/Kennedy School as noted on the attached sketch plan dated May 19, 2005.
- Nstar agrees to meet with the owners of 164 Mill Street to discuss the relocation of five (5) existing low profile trees and recently planted screening within the right-of-way. If acceptable to the owner, Nstar will relocate said trees and shrubs to another location on the property at no cost to the owner.
- If Nstar makes any changes to documents previously approved by the DTE or the Natick Conservation Commission, and such changes require approval by DTE or NCC, Nstar shall advise the Natick Board of Selectmen in writing of such changes and obtain the approval of the Board of Selectmen for said changes.
Given that Nstar was in violation of the Conservation Commission Order of Conditions, Mr. Ciccariello believed the Board could revoke its approval.
Mr. Bois clarified that the violation being fought was with the By-law not the Order of Conditions. The Order of Conditions was for the poles and they were in compliance.
Mr. Ciccariello requested a copy of the Order of Conditions and asked if the Order said Nstar had to comply with the Town’s wetlands by-laws. Mr. Bois’ response was, “yes”. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that if Nstar didn’t comply with the by-law then they didn’t comply with the Order of Conditions.
Ms. White felt Mr. Ciccariello raised a good point that the Board’s approval of the grant of location was conditioned upon compliance with the Order of Conditions which hasn’t been complied with; however, since a public hearing was required for a grant of location it would seem a public hearing would be required to revoke one. She would also probably want to talk to Town Counsel and urged the Board not to revoke it this evening.
Given that the Board didn’t have a copy of the Order of Conditions, Mr. Ciccariello stated that he wouldn’t suggest revoking it tonight.
Mr. Ostroff proposed communicating with other communities that may have issues such as this as they may want to hold off giving permission. Mr. Bois suggested that he could contact Sherborn and Framingham.
Representing Nstar was Joanne O’Leary, Community Relations representative; William Hobart, Project Manager; Chris Fallon, Senior Aborist; and Kevin McKeon, Senior Environmental Engineer.
Mr. Hobart explained that the Nstar project was the result of a March blackout in MetroWest in 2003. Federal and State regulating agencies mandated that electrical utilities address any liability issues they may have, and a reliability issue was identified in this right-of-way with two transmission lines on one tower. Those two service six substations in the region and with those two lines out other lines try to back up the capacity, but it exceeds their rating and they fail. You get a cascading effect and it causes a large outage. The solution was to take one line off the existing tower and put it on its own set of poles. In that way the reliability of the system was being increased.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the two transmission lines were from a single source or a different source. Mr. Hobart believed they were from a different source. They were different voltages.
Mr. Connolly recalled Town Meeting ordering that all new lines had to be buried, but Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that was after this project had been approved. Mr. Ostroff didn’t think any high voltage lines would be buried.
Ms. O’Leary explained that the right-of-way was established in 1940 and with the growth of MetroWest over the years, in the late 1960’s a steel tower was constructed in the transmission right-of-way and the high voltage wires were shifted to the new tower. There were new regulations that must be followed to ensure the delivery and transmission of power to all users. In 2004 Nstar went before the DPU to get approval to take the 115KV line to its new structure. There were some delays and some crews anticipated to be working on this project were re-routed. In the filing with DTE, Nstar was asked to make sure there was communication with the residents and a web site was established.
Ms. O’Leary noted that when they got the green light the first thing she did with the project manager was to meet with the three Town Managers on what was going to occur. Personally she walked over three lines of the route and delivered a handout that gave the scope of the project, her name, telephone number, and a web site so people could contact her. The project team worked with the Conservation Commission. With the tree removals they worked with their contractors who gave door knockers and the senior arborist spent numerous hours explaining to people why the tree had to come down. There was a Police detail at all times for the safety of the residents.
There were certain things where they had to identify alternatives. The alternatives were reviewed by DTE and DTE agreed the proposal before them was the most favorable one for the public at large for ensuring reliability. All abutters had an opportunity to participate in the public hearing or could submit a written statement.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Ms. White if she had been involved, and Ms. White responded that she met with Ms. O’Leary and had her describe the project. There were also a few correspondences and she (Ms. O’Leary) expressed that the project was of significant magnitude.
Ms. O’Leary noted that there had also been three separate open houses to bring out the project team members to go over the project in the beginning stages. They tried to address any concerns early on. Asked if the open houses were held in Natick, Ms. O’Leary said one was in Natick, one in Framingham, one in Sherborn. There was more attendance in Natick than the other two. She believed it was held in April 2004.
Asked if there was consensus on the project, Ms. O’Leary’s reply was, “yes”, adding that Nstar had to look at alternative ways and decided on a new 115KV voltage on the easterly side. That was about twice the money because they had to make sure the projects were reasonably sound. The focus was on the reason for the project and the public interest. They (Nstar) knew there were impacts and it was an emotional thing but they had to go by why they were in the neighborhood. A commitment was made to working with some customers to see what they could do but they had to select plants and trees that would allow them to maintain and get to the right-of-way to maintain the wires.
Mr. Connolly commented on mention being made that it was not about the money, but Ms. O’Leary talked about the money. Protection of Nstar customers was also talked about, but he (Mr. Connolly) took an oath to look after the citizens’ best interest. He thought Nstar was running rough shod over the Town’s citizens and he had little sympathy for Nstar.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that an allusion had been made that views were shown at the public hearing and she questioned if those views reflected the new landscape.
Ms. O’Leary responded that the new structure on the easement was shown and it would have shown some clearing with the right-of-way being easier to see. Nstar always said trees would be removed. They never said what trees, but they had to do the staking and worked with the arborist to work with the homeowners on the trees.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he was trying to understand if the trees or plantings removed were identified in the scope of what was promised and if so was there a commitment to make the residents whole.
Senior Arborist Chris Fallon advised that some screenings were removed and the stumps will be ground to help maintain the integrity of the landscape. Phase II was the replanting to review what was taken out and what was allowed. Once there was agreement, there would be a selection of plantings and he would even help the homeowners pick them out. The low growth would help Nstar not have to come through. It was cleared for the safety of the people installing the structure.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the homeowners referred to were the direct abutters to the right-of-way. Mr. Fallon’s reply was, “yes”.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to when that would happen and was told by Mr. Fallon that planting would be done by a professional probably early spring. He (Mr. Fallon) wanted to have a plan made up for the project manager by the end of winter. The maintenance and watering of the trees would be up to the homeowner.
In follow-up Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the timing for reaching out to people. Mr. Fallon advised that it would be almost immediately. He had been waiting for the poles to be placed. That would give a benchmark of what could go where. It would probably be a week.
Mr. Connolly questioned when the last time was that this was maintained. Mr. Fallon noted that it was three years ago and last year it was herbicided. Mr. Fallon agreed with Mr. Connolly that it was nothing to this level. The infrastructure wasn’t there.
It was Mr. Connolly’s understanding that by the end of this month Nstar would be done. Mr. Hobart advised there were five more poles to set near the Mall. The schedule was to pull conduit the third week of February which will probably take into March. The line will then be energized and Nstar will go back to do the clean up. Asked if it would be done by mid March, Mr. Hobart responded that as far as the electricity was concerned it would.
Ms. O’Leary noted that the web site reflected the newest schedule changes.
Mr. Ostroff didn’t know what standing the Board had and was concerned that the neighbors didn’t have much recourse. If people felt aggrieved he thought the Board owed it to them to stand up and do what it could.
Mr. Ciccariello reiterated the need for a copy of the order of conditions for the Board and Counsel to review. Town Counsel should be made aware of all conditions and then the Board could take whatever action it felt was necessary. The Conservation Commission will be discussing this and although he couldn’t dictate to them, his (Mr. Ciccariello) preference would be that they (Conservation) do this in public vs doing it in discussion so anybody who wants to have input could have input.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would allow a couple of members of the neighborhood to speak but didn’t want to get into debate. Complaints were heard last week and the Board will stay on top of this and do whatever it could possibly do including following up on comments from Nstar on developing plans and meeting with abutters.
Maureen Allain told the Board that she had a copy of the report done after the 2003 blackout. Trees were found to be falling on wires, but it was also found that most utilities spent very little on vegetation management so minimum standards were established that the utility companies must abide by or be fined in the million dollar range which was why they did this strip clearing so they didn’t have to come back for 20 years.
Ms. Allain continued that Nstar was moving the 115KV wire from one side of the easement to another but on both sides the EMF’s were going up. In their (Nstar) own petition to DTE someone felt it was necessary to say that 50’ from the edge of the right-of-way the EMF dropped but that was in 9 houses. Most of the neighbors didn’t know where the easement was until last month. This was in her backyard. It had been stated there would be visual impact and the noise level would be kept down, but she could hear them at O.B. Hill’s when they talked on the speaker system. That was not a minimum impact. She wanted something in writing as to what Nstar was going to do with the planting.
Ms. O’Leary noted that the DTE filing was on the web site and in that filing was a section directed to EMF. When a project like this was done, Nstar knew there were a lot of concerns and one was EMF and what it meant. She was not an expert at EMF but Nstar hired an expert and relied on his expertise on this subject. There was no value of EMF other than the one that was recommended. The maximum Nstar can reach on the edge of a right-a-way was a value of 85 milligauss.
Ms. O’Leary continued that Ms. Allain was accurate that the EMF will slightly increase and that was documented. On the east edge where the new pole was installed would be from a peak value of 9.6 mG to an off-peak of 2.0 mG without the project increasing to 21.9 and 7.5mG for peak and off-peak respectively with the project. On the west edge of the right-of-way the maximum magnetic field values would be 23.4 and 10.0 mG for peak and off-peak operation respectively with the project increasing to 25.2 and 15.4 for peak and off-peak operation respectively with the project. The calculation showed that, 50 feet away from the right-of-way edges, magnetic field levels would drop off further, reaching levels 1/3 to 2/3 those at the right-of-way edges.
Ms. O’Leary noted that Nstar’s expert, Dr. Valberg, testified that no regulatory or public health agency in the United States has established a numerical standard based on health applicable to the project area and that EMF values of the proposed transmission line were well below the guideline levels set by the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Even though the levels were slightly going up, they were still very much below the value Nstar was allowed to have.
As to the question of why the EMF was going up if a transmission line on the west was being moved, Mr. Hobart explained that when two lines were next to one another, there was some overlap plus when the lines were put on two poles instead of galvanizing to lessen the visual impact and noise levels it increases in the area.
Melody Way resident Peter Langan told the Board that he built his house in 2000. He knew there was an Nstar easement and did a reading to check the levels. In his house it was a 1 mG. There was an abundant amount of information that anything above a 3 was unhealthy. Nstar informed him that his house was outside the edge and would go from a range of 9-22 which was totally unsafe. He believed the edge of the easement should stop all of their (Nstar’s) rights. For Nstar to change the inflow to his house outside the easement was his concern and that was why he thought the project could be stopped.
Mr. Langan advised that he had 76 signatures on a petition requesting a cease and desist based on a safety matter. The relocation will concentrate the EMF which was on the low end on their (Mr. Langan’s) side. He hadn’t been aware of the cancer concentration, but there were 8 cancer diagnoses within 600 feet and those were the closest houses. This new pole will be 60 feet off his house. Nstar used Dr. Valberg, but that was what he did for the utility companies for his career.
Mr. Langan continued that for a small time the EPA classified the EMF as a carcinogen, but backed off. However, if it wasn’t harmful, why would there even be a limit on it. Mr. Langan advised that he had correspondence with Dr. David Carpenter and in his presentation he (Dr. Carpenter) states a three was unacceptable and if they (Nstar) think there could be a problem they need to take precautionary measures.
Mr. Langan noted that earlier the Board met with McDonald’s over a lighting problem and here there was a magnetic field that will come outside Nstar’s easement and into the houses. There was endless documentation to argue everything Nstar had and the neighbors’ goal was to stop the project on a safety issue. He added that he had never met Ms. O’Leary or anybody from Nstar until Friday.
The visual impact was another issue. Nstar cut 40 trees on his (Mr. Langan’s) lot and understood they could do that. The neighbors were arguing the safety issue. The government was regulating saturated fat which he had a choice to buy and yet he was getting this possible cancer causing element without a choice. He would like to find out what the mitigation plan would be. The line relocation could go underground which would solve the EMF issue.
In conclusion Mr. Langan asked if the town could grant a temporary cease and desist. Nstar’s goal was to have it up and running mid-March and once that happened it would never be taken out. It’s proven to be harmful and he believed safety was the number 1 thing the Board was allowed to stop the project on.
Ms. Natanel told the Board that she just inherited property from her mother who had multiple bouts of cancer. Ms. Natanel submitted a copy of the easement and the people directly affected that have cancer. She noted that a humongous bridge was built across her yard for Stonebridge Circle. All the brush was removed and it didn’t come close to touching the power lines. The vegetation didn’t have to be maintained. It was all natural. Now she was having a problem selling the house looking like this. Most of the value was in the land and that was gone. With all the extra power lines anybody would be out of their mind to live there. She was 30 and she wouldn’t live there and she questioned why her mother was paying taxes for the last 30 years on the easement. Ms.
Natanel commented that she never saw a Police detail during the work.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Nstar was working on Ms. Natanel’s property and Mr. Natanel advised that they were, adding that Nstar says they would replace everything but for the property value it was too late. Her mother had nothing else and didn’t use a computer or the internet and the door knocker was dated after her death.
Samuel Path resident Randy Buckman stated that his wife was a physician and there were studies to show EMFs cause cancer. Currently his house was at 6 and with the proposed lines it will go to more than 7.
Jerry Pierce stated that he was a friend of the neighbors. He saw this as a destruction of private property. Contractors have a different interpretation than the company which was why we get properties that were stripped, i.e. in South Natick a contractor removed truck loads of rich loam.
Mr. Pierce noted that he was concerned with Town officials’ oversight after the fact. After the fact the Board became aware of these things happening. If something of this magnitude was going on in the neighborhood, the Board should be aware of it. His advice to the neighbors would be to call the Police as soon as they see a bulldozer or a bucket truck and he encouraged the neighbors to insist that Town officials do due diligence.
Tournament Road resident Lynn D’Agnelli agreed with everyone and stressed the need to get something done. The land was absolutely stripped and she could now see traffic lights on West Central Street and hear the O.B. Hill loudspeaker. Could any kind of a buffer be put up? Nstar has known about the studies and she didn’t see how they could consider exposing the people to more EMF exposure. Dr. Valberg was paid by the utility companies but there were other studies by independent scientists. There were safety issues and she would like to know what it would take for a temporary cease & desist order.
Ms. D’Agnelli asked if something could be done. Were there coatings that could go on the lines or was there a by-law that could be put in to prevent this in the future? She felt a stand needed to be taken with Nstar. She thought Nstar had been stepped on too long by this company and Nstar had to be told enough was enough.
Ranger Road resident Lou Julian noted that he wasn’t a direct abutter but was one house away. The matters of health were paramount, but it was now a financial issue as well and people will get 20% less for their property. He didn’t know anybody who would buy a property in this area. The entire neighborhood values were in the gutters.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to order a cease and desist order based on the new information on the EMF levels. To him this was a huge safety issue. Mr. Ostroff seconded for discussion. Discussion continued and no vote was taken.
Speaking to his motion, Mr. Connolly thought the citizens had said it. The Board was elected to stand up for the citizens and he thought the Board needed to show them the Town had their back. The citizens’ safety was in jeopardy and he wanted to put it on Nstar to prove the EMF levels.
Mr. Ostroff acknowledged the people that came out tonight, knowing that it affected everyone deeply. His concern was that he wanted to make sure the Board had the legal authority to act. Whatever the Board did had to stick. Leaving aside the wetlands issues as there were competent people to pursue that and leaving aside the issue of replanting, he didn’t know if saying Nstar couldn’t energize the line because of the EMF would stick. It sounded like there were a couple of weeks before that needed to be done and he thought the Board needed to find out on what basis it could act.
Mr. Connolly believed that people were asking for help and the Board should give it to them.
Mr. Ostroff responded that he didn’t want to give someone a lifeline that was not attached to a pier. A symbolic vote was only symbolic. If there were a few days to find out if the Board had standing to stop the company from energizing the lines, that was fine but he hadn’t seen any opinion saying that could be done.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he wanted to have the order of conditions in front of him before making a decision. There were some requirements under chapter 166 requiring a certificate and recording in the Town Clerk’s office and he wanted to see if that was done and would like an answer for the next meeting. This was an emotional issue and he wanted to be sure to do the right thing. It didn’t help anyone if it was done wrong. He would also like to write a letter to DTE with substantial backup and ask that they step in on this matter and reconsider the original decision based on all the information the Board has been hearing.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board needed a solid reason for a cease and desist order. He wasn’t happy with what’s going on here. A lot of allegations have been made about things that have happened and the Board had to be sure when it took action that they were in a position to defend it. Based on the approval the Board granted for a grant of location, he believed the Board may have an opportunity to ask for a cease and desist and if the order of conditions reflect what he believed they did, he felt the Board could take a vote next Monday to issue a cease and desist.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to table to February 9. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. 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.
Ms. Gloff stated that she wanted to send a message that the Board wasn’t voting a cease and desist tonight because they didn’t have all the information. She was a scientist and she needed to see the data and get the information available. Just because she was against voting the cease and desist tonight didn’t mean she was against it permanently. She just needed more information.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to which parties in Town the Board would be talking to and who would be looking through the DTE documents. Mr. Ciccariello responded that the Conservation Commission would be getting the order of conditions and he (Mr. Ciccariello) would be looking through those. He didn’t know the role of the Board of Health but he would talk to the Director. He would also speak with Town Counsel and ask Ms. White to speak with the Town Clerk or check the records that were supposed to be provided when a grant of location was given.
Mr. Ciccariello requested that this be the first item on the February 9th agenda.
At 10:50 p.m. Mr. Connolly left the meeting.
STEPHEN WEINSTEIN: REQUEST TO OCCUPY PUBLIC WAY – POND STREET
Before the Board was a request from Stephen Weinstein for permission to use the area of Pond Street and the south side sidewalk of Pond Street at 6 Pond Street to enable the excavation and construction of the front wall and utility services to the new building to be erected on and at 6 Pond Street to replace the building burned last summer. It would be necessary to close the sidewalk and the approximate five foot area of the roadway immediately next to the sidewalk for the purpose of excavating the site.
The Board was in receipt of a memo from Safety Officer Lieutenant Brian Lauzon recommending approval subject to the contractor meeting on site with him.
Community Development Director Patrick Reffett suggested the following requirements:
- The Town be provided with a structural engineering plan with a professional engineer’s stamp to support the abutting town sidewalk and road
- A fencing plan should be prepared and provided which depicts where the use of the public, existing sidewalk was being eliminated, existing on-street parking, and can the fencing as designed withstand adjacent snow plowing
- Means of accommodating pedestrians during the occupied period.
- How many public parking spaces were being eliminated and if there were any means of mitigating
- How did the closure affect nearby properties and general pedestrian circulation and what could the applicant do to mitigate
- How long is the closure and what if it went longer
Stephen Weinstein told the Board that he was here to address 6 Pond Street, the one story commercial building with six store fronts that was standing in downtown Natick until destroyed by fire in June 2008 displacing the independent businesses and their staff. Two of the businesses found some space in a business he (Mr. Weinstein) ran at Home Town Paint. It’s been 7-8 months and he was at a point where he believed he was able to begin construction and get these businesses back on their feet to start generating some income for the Town and provide a livelihood for themselves. The first step was the excavation. His contract could address specific questions on how Pond Street could be shored up to prevent problems. They did not anticipate any heavy equipment on Pond Street.
The general contractor John Rosenfeld stated that he was not aware the shoring plan needed to be stamped by a professional engineer until now and he was not aware he needed to engage the Police Department. He estimated the closing of the sidewalk during the construction to be 3-4 months from the date the permit was executed. The parking spaces would only be needed for 3-4 days while the front wall was excavated and backfilled.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to a plan to stabilize the sidewalk and Mr. Rosenfeld responded that the wall of the new building was in the exact spot of the old building so he should only need additional space for a man to work the excavator. That may only be half the sidewalk.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked if Mr. Rosenfeld anticipated excavating the entire sidewalk. He responded that he anticipated removing the sidewalk. He did not plan on doing a trench excavation.
Mr. Ciccariello felt the Board needed more information. There were certain requirements regarding trench cuts and the Town should know how the cuts were going to be stabilized. He (Mr. Ciccariello) had concerns with a 2-3 trench cut against the existing wall and questioned how the soil conditions would be stabilized.
Mr. Ciccariello presumed that alternative methods weren’t being considered because of the expense, and Mr. Rosenfeld responded that sheet piling would cost as much as the entire job. He would consider road plates and would not mind putting that in writing.
Once the Board grants approval, Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what came next and if there was a way to ensure these things were done. Mr. Ciccariello noted the request from the Community Development Director to have all of his recommendations responded to and considering the Community Development Director oversees the Building Inspector he (Mr. Ciccariello) didn’t think a building permit would be issued without these things. The contractor will be removing Town of Natick sidewalk and there had to be assurance the sidewalk would be rebuilt and that should be conveyed to the DPW. If there were any utilities in the street that needs to be reviewed by the DPW and all of the insurance certificates need to be submitted.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if staging would be put over the sidewalk and Mr. Rosenfeld responded that the sidewalk would be closed until it could be replaced. He imagined in 3-4 months the façade would be complete and there would be nothing to stage. Mr. Rosenfeld added that the building permit application was signed by the Town Engineer Mark Coviello and he (Mr. Coviello) had his insurance certificate.
Mr. Ostroff commented that people were curious as to what was going to go there, and Mr. Weinstein responded that ideally he would like to see a three story building, but after trying to obtain a building permit it was made clear to him that the quickest would be to put back what was there. The plan was to go on the existing footprint. The intention was to get back the businesses. All the businesses were interested in coming back but time was going by.
To Mr. Ostroff’s comment that there was no plan to have a multi story, Mr. Weinstein advised that he applied for a one story building. Those were the plans submitted and that was what he has been working on since last June. He had been doing everything he could to expedite getting a building permit and getting construction under way, but it has taken a lot longer than anticipated and he had limited funds.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was not going to oppose this permit. He thought Mr. Weinstein should be allowed to rebuild the building, he (Mr. Ciccariello) just wanted to be sure the Town had all the answers.
Just looking at what he had been doing since June, Mr. Weinstein thought showed he had no intention of skipping any steps. As soon as he was given a task he went right out and completed it. He expected to have everything done by September-October. The Town was losing tax revenue and losing the services and products of the companies.
Mr. Reffett was asked how he felt and responded that he thought it was important to have the continued ability to work with Mr. Weinstein. Back in June he (Mr. Reffett) had three meetings with Mr. Weinstein and probably a dozen more with the Building Department since that time. It was complex to rebuild a structure and a lot of elements needed to be dealt with. Mr. Reffett noted that he was comfortable using a conditions approach and he would be happy to work with Mr. Weinstein and the Traffic Control Officer.
A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello to grant permission to Mr. Weinstein to use the area of Pond Street and the south side sidewalk of Pond Street at 6 Pond Street to enable the excavation and construction of the new building. Permission to be conditioned upon the following:
- Permission is granted for a period of 3 months during March, April, May 2009. This condition was amended to include June
- The applicant meet with Lieutenant Lauzon to resolve the closing of the sidewalks, proper signage, parking spaces, and potential interferences with vehicular traffic
- The applicant meet with Mr. Reffett to address the six items noted in Mr. Reffett’s memo of January 30
- Submission of insurances.
Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Rosenfeld requested the permit to extend through June as it may be another 2-3 weeks until he had the engineering in place. Mr. Ciccariello amended his motion. Ms. Gloff as the seconder accepted the amendment.
Ms. White advised that by that time the applicant may be required to get a trench permit.
Helen Taylor, Mr. Weinstein’s partner, asked if there was a way that they could meet with the required people within the next week or so. Mr. Ciccariello suggested that she speak with Mr. Reffett on the way out. Mr. Reffett advised that the Building Inspector would require 48 hours to respond to a request. He assured the Board that the Community Development Department would meet with whoever comes to the department.
TOWN CLERK POSITION
The Board had designated Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff, and Ms. White to review the applications received for appointment of Interim Town Clerk. In a memo to the Board Ms. White reported that the three had met to review resumes submitted in response to the search for Interim Town Clerk. The Administrator’s Office conducted extensive outreach for this position including posting on both the New England and the Massachusetts Town Clerks’ websites, ads in the MetroWest Daily News and direct email to members of the Massachusetts town Clerks’ Association. Eleven resumes were received for the position and the recommendation was for the Board to interview four at the meeting of February 9. It was felt that these four candidates were uniquely qualified to this position based on their experience.
Attached to Ms. White’s memo were the Examples of Duties, resumes of the four candidates and Town Counsel’s opinion regarding the appointment.
If the members had suggested questions for the interviews, Ms. White requested that they be forwarded and in advance of the February 9 interviews Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff and she would develop a list of interview questions. In the meantime the Town Clerk’s retirement was scheduled for February 3 and Ms. White suggested that the Deputy Town Administrator be appointed as the Interim Town Clerk until such time as the more long-term interim appointment was made.
At 11:25 p.m. Mr. Connolly returned.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to appoint the Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young to serve as Interim Town Clerk until another appointment was made. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested starting the February 9 meeting at 5:00 p.m., but Mr. Connolly said he would not be available. Mr. Ciccariello wanted all members to participate in the interviews and suggested starting at 6:00 p.m. to clean up some routine matters.
COMPTROLLER POSITION
Ms. White reviewed her memo to the Board in which she advised that the staff recommended the hiring of Charles Panagopoulos as Comptroller, subject agreeing to terms of such employment. The recommended terms include the following:
- Salary shall be the starting step at Pay Grade M3 ($71,993.83). Ms. White reported that she spoke to Mr. Panagopoulos this afternoon and was advised that his current salary was close to $75,000 and that he was scheduled for a step raise in a couple of months. He has asked consideration to start at Step 2 of the pay scale, a salary of $77,121.75.
- Initial appointment term shall be from February 23 until June 30, 2009 per section 6-3 of the Town Charter; a three year appointment would then be considered.
- Mr. Panagopoulos will attend identified training programs, including but not limited to
- The so-called “boot camp” for Town Accountants scheduled for February 5, February 26, and March 5, 2009 offered by The Abrahams Group. This course was a detailed general ledger journal entry course designed to train accountants to learn the Uniform Massachusetts Accounting System
- The Massachusetts Municipal Auditors and Accountants’ Association Annual Education Program to be held March 15-18 at UMass Amherst
- As yet unidentified management training and other opportunities to be determined by the Town Administrator
Ms. Gloff noted that she had requested tabling to this week because she wanted to speak with Mr. Panagopoulos again. She did not manage to do that, but Ms. White addressed most of her questions and comments in her (Ms. White’s) further conversation with Mr. Panagopoulos and she (Ms. Gloff) was comfortable.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if this salary was less than was currently being paid to the Comptroller and Mr. Walters Young advised that the budgeted amount for FY10 was around $8,000 more.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked about money in the budget to deal with the training. Ms. White knew there was money in the budget for training and a consultant but wasn’t sure of the expenditure to date. Mr. Walters Young advised that between $3,000-8,000 was available for this year for training and another $15,000 was budgeted in FY10.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to authorize the Town Administrator to offer Charles Panagopoulos an interim position of Comptroller and negotiate specific contract terms that includes a review process leading up to the Board’s decision of a three year term effective July 2009. Ms. Gloff seconded with a change from contract terms to employment terms. Mr. Ostroff agreed to the change. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Van Amsterdam was opposed.
Speaking to his motion, Mr. Ostroff thought this was a role the Board had to fill. It was essential to the well being of the organization. In a perfect world there would be more candidates to chose from, but the market didn’t seem to be producing that and he had confidence that Mr. Panagopoulos would serve the Board and the community well and he looked forward to working with him.
Ms. Van Amsterdam shared Mr. Ostroff’s comment that this was an extremely important position to be filled, but disagreed this individual was the best fit for Comptroller. She was concerned about the amount of training that would be required and would be voting against the appointment.
BUDGET UPDATE FY09 & FY10
Ms. White reviewed her memo to the Board dated January 30, 2009 on the FY2009 projection. She advised that earlier the Governor issued his 9C cuts which reduced the amount of State Aid to Natick by a total of $462,153 for FY2009. As was stated last Monday, the administration plans on accounting for this reduction in aid through a series of hiring and purchasing freezes and if need be, work hour reductions and, as a last resort, layoffs.
Ms. White noted that as promised last week attached to her memo was a FY2009 projection. She pointed out that the administration was projecting that through the course of normal operations and the additional actions taken and are going to be taken, the Town would end the year with slightly over $2,000,000 in fund balance at the year end. Ms. White stressed that she wanted to be very cautious about that projection. All things being equal, this would serve as an unofficial estimate of year end free cash.
The memo continued that there were a few caveats and notes to keep in mind which may help the picture:
- Departmental turn backs may exceed the estimates shown. In developing the projection, staff averaged the turn backs for the last four fiscal years and subtracted that average from the FY2009 appropriated budget. The estimated turn back amount of $285,500 was very conservative, and the hope was there would be more at the year end.
- Revenues may exceed estimates although State Aid had been cut. Initial billings for Motor Vehicle Excise were not as dramatically reduced as had been feared. Also, staff’s revised projections for building permits assumed a significant drop-off in building activity. If there were any permits pulled for new construction, the amount of revenue generated would increase. Finally, any decision made by the Board of Selectmen on raising fees could be implemented immediately and begin flowing to the bottom line before the end of FY 2009.
- Encumbrances and Capital Projects. Not ready for this projection was an amount of estimated turn backs which can be produced from closing out prior year encumbrances and finished capital projects. The administration will work with department heads to determine that amount and present it to the Board at a later date. This would generate potentially sizeable amounts of turn backs to boost year end free cash.
Continuing, Ms. White reviewed a memo outlining budget containment measures to be taken effective February 1 beginning with purchasing restrictions. Effective February 1 all municipal departments, committees and commissions would have the following restrictions placed upon purchasing:
- Any purchase with a contract and/or purchase order value in excess of $1,000 must be reviewed and approved by the Town Administrator. This would include any equipment, supplies, consulting services, etc. – basically all non-personnel expenditures. She explained that this meant no new contracts were to be entered into without the Town Administrator’s prior permission. It also meant that existing contracts with balances should be evaluated if the service needs to be maintained and before work orders cut, reviewed by the Town Administrator.
- Immediate suspension of all discretionary spending (less than $1,000) for such items as office supplies, paper products, any inventory items (parts, consumables, etc).
- Immediate freeze on all conference expenses, training, and non essential travel. There to be no conferences, no new training, no non-essential travel, unless explicitly reviewed and approved by the Town Administrator.
She noted that the Natick Public Schools have implemented a purchasing freeze across all departments as well.
Ms. White then reviewed further actions to be taken post February 1. Should the actions taken prior to February 1st be insufficient to close the ever increasing declines in available revenues, staff was contemplating a variety of different measures, including but not limited to layoffs of personnel and the reduction of hours for all non-public safety personnel in all municipal buildings.
In conclusion Ms. White advised that as it stood now because of the actions taken to date FY 2009 was balanced so projections did not reflect us ending the year end in a negative balance, which could not be done. A positive year end was projected and now the administration was looking to ensure it wasn’t just positive but that there was a reasonable amount of free cash.
Ms. Van Amsterdam saw this as good news for tonight. Fiscal 2009 was covered but would the administration be looking at additional actions to be taken in FY09 to alleviate some significant impacts in Fiscal 2010 and 2011. Would the administration be looking at making structural changes that were sustainable over the long run?
Ms. White responded that with virtually no exception the department heads were in a mind set of efficiency and that was the mind set throughout the administration. There were a number of whole new ways of doing things that were not reasonable to implement in a short period but a number were being looked at for Fiscal 2010. They were looking at not just cutting the budget but a different way of doing things, but between now and the close of FY09 there probably wouldn’t be any major innovations.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that last week the Town was $3/4 million in the whole for Fiscal 2009 and now it was suggested that the Town was no longer using potential money that may become available for free cash.
Ms. White explained that when that projected deficit was shown it was referred to as a paper deficit based on expenditures as approved by Town Meeting. The current spreadsheet showed expected expenditures. A lot of expenditure amounts were reduced from what was budgeted.
Mr. Ciccariello thought there was some indication that there was a certain amount of dollars returned last year that went to free cash and questioned if that amount was being substantially reduced and would affect certification for this coming year.
Ms. White’s response was, “no”. $3 million of free cash was appropriated for Fiscal 2009 but by reducing expenditures in personnel and other areas, the goal was to close out FY09 with a decent free cash number that would be used toward Fiscal 2011. The encumbrances haven’t been reviewed as of yet and that will help drive the $2 million up.
Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think historically the amount recouped from encumbrances was substantial and there weren’t any other projects than water & sewer.
The golf course deficit was shown as $355,000, but Mr. Ciccariello thought it was much greater. Ms. White advised that number hadn’t been identified with certainty and there could be a supplemental appropriation made at the Spring Town Meeting that would affect the Fiscal 2009 number. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that was assuming the decision was made to leave it open, but Ms. White noted that would largely need to be done anyway for whatever the balance was at the time of the closure. If the course wasn’t opened in the spring a supplement would still likely be needed.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that a budget was provided in January which was not a balanced budget and now everyone was trying to move forward to establish a real budget for Fiscal 2010 and there have been issues raised with FY09 budget. The Board was getting a lot of stuff piecemeal and he would like to know when it would be wrapped up and the cuts for FY10 proposed. When would the Board have a real number? It was frustrating. The Board had to make decisions and had to start moving forward.
Ms. White stated that she couldn’t agree more. She believed there was a largely agreed upon plan to put together a Fiscal 2010 budget that was a level services budget so together there could be a discussion of where to balance it particularly in light of the strong consensus that the budget not just be slashed but realigned. That was an enormous job and everyone was working hard.
Mr. Ciccariello responded that he wasn’t suggesting that it wasn’t a huge job, but there were a lot of questions that need to be answered and decisions made. He was still concerned about Fiscal 2009 based on the past information given and he has stated his concerns. He was hearing the motor vehicle excise was not as reduced as anticipated, but it would be nice to get that number. Last year the Town had a $3.9 million override and made commitments that it would last two years and that wasn’t going to be accomplished. There were a lot of questions.
Ms. White pointed out that there were a lot of answers as well. There had been a lot of talk about the significant state and town wide economic conditions affecting the revenues. Thank goodness the override was passed or the Town would be in much worse shape. The staff has been working diligently and the projected deficit has closed a bit. Last week it was $4.7 million and this week it was at $4.5 million. It was very much a moving target until the budget was approved by Town Meeting and the administration would continue to bring the Board the most current and accurate information possible.
Ms. White then reviewed her memo to the Board on the philosophy for closing the Fiscal 2010 gap. She noted that the Fiscal 2010 budget presents the Town with very difficult choices. Since the presentation of her recommended budget in early January, the Town unfortunately received mixed news clarifying the financial position for 2010. The good news was that the FY 10 State Aid reduction proposed by the Governor in House 1 was less than originally projected by staff by about $200,000. The unfortunate news was that the Town had to accommodate for the current year (FY 2009) a reduction of state aid by some $460,000.
Ms. White reported that the Financial Planning Committee had met once this calendar year with the purpose of agreeing to ground rules to closing the projected FY10 $4.5 million gap. Though the ground rules were still being refined and have yet to be agreed to, the necessity of time has mandated that municipal staff pursue the following course of action to close the Fy10 budget gap.
Step 1 – Gap definition
Through the work of the Financial Planning Committee, the Gap as presented to the municipal and school sides totals $4.5 million. Splitting this gap around 60%/40%, the municipal side would be responsible for between $1.5 to $1.8 million, while the schools would be responsible for between $2.8 to $3.0 million. What this split would be was still being refined as well as the ground rules between the municipal and school sides. For the purposes of moving forward, the municipal side was working on $2.0 million of reductions.
Step 2 – Identifying solutions to gap closure
As administration has said for months, the revenues do not support the level of expenses proposed in the FY10 recommended budget. To that end, the following approach to closing the gap on the municipal side was being recommended:
- Municipal cuts: In order to maintain a sustainable level of services going forward while maintaining services for all citizens, the administration was in the process of individually examining each department budget for reductions. As a general rule, smaller departments (Selectmen, Health, Community Development, Council on Aging, Finance, Recreation, Information Technology) will be forced to reduce their budgets by at least 2% while larger departments (Public Works, Public Safety, Libraries) will be forced to reduce their budgets by at least 8%. In addition, many smaller and larger departments that have existing vacancies in positions will lose these positions through attrition. The Board of Selectmen budget will absorb a larger than 2% reduction because the Personnel Director position wasn’t being filled.
The impact of this level of cut will vary dependent upon department. The reality of municipal operations forces larger departments to take a larger share of cuts because they can scale back operations and perform less services, whereas smaller departments may be far less likely to effectively function if reduced by a similar percentage.
- Revenue enhancement: On February 9 the staff will present their recommendations for fee increases. As part of the ground rules proposed by the Administration to the Financial Planning Committee, any fees raised by the municipal side stay with the municipal side. Should the Board choose to raise fees, this increase in revenue would immediately reduce the municipal budget shortfall. Further, it is the administration’s intent to target these revenues to reducing the significant cuts imposed on the larger departments thus minimizing the impact to Public Safety, Public Works and Libraries to the greatest extent possible.
- Other options. Besides the outright layoff of personnel and reduction of services, the administration will continue to pursue other options, including exploring the reduction of work hours at municipal buildings as well as attempting to renegotiate existing contracts.
Ms. White concluded her memo by noting this philosophy was rooted in a strategy which maintains the greatest amount of services possible to Natick citizens while not compromising the integrity of the operations.
The hope was that the reductions made in Fy10 could be made in such a way as to be sustainable. The administration had a commitment to serve all citizens of Natick and this approach will allow us to best honor that commitment. This was important because she did not expect the picture to brighten in FY11.
Attached to the memo was a spreadsheet showing the local estimates of the Governor’s budget. Some of the local aid numbers were not yet authorized by the legislature, i.e. meals tax, the telecommunication loophole and hotel tax and were not included because they were not reflected in the Governor’s local aid number.
Ms. Van Amtersdam appreciated that the administration was trying to ensure that whatever reductions were taken would be sustainable and she was trying to get a sense of the criteria of the budget reductions other than the size of the departments. Her sense was that the Town would no longer be all things to all people. Was it the intent of the administration that the Board would set all priorities or would Ms. White come to the Board with the priorities. She (Ms. Van Amsterdam) would appreciate the administrator coming up with a list of priorities other than the general rule of small departments getting hit this way and large ones getting hit that way. When would the Board start to see that?
Ms. White noted that these were rules of thumb. After February 9 the Board would begin to see the specific departmental budgets and subsequent to that there may be even further tweaking. If the sum of the parts didn’t get to the number needed, there may be a need to look at scaling back hours or opening up collective bargaining agreements. Those steps out of necessity will have to come later. The Board of Selectmen’s budget was set. Baring any wage freezes, what the budget will be was known because the department absorbed a significant cut by losing the Personnel Director, but the larger departments will be near the end of February at best.
In looking at the summary of the Governor’s proposed partnership with municipalities, Mr. Ostroff said he would be interested in knowing which would have a substantial impact on the Town’s operating or capital budget.
Ms. White advised that this topic was on tomorrow’s department heads agenda and she planned to ask them how important the initiatives were to their departments, i.e. pro-rating insurance for part-time employees.
Mr. Ostroff recalled that two years ago the Board endorsed the municipal relief package but this was a longer list. Maybe if a determination was made of what could be activated and what was important to Natick contact could be made with our legislators to let them know what was important to Natick.
Mr. Walters Young reminded the Board that the FY09 projection was just that – a projection. Staff was working as diligently as it could to determine what could be turned back and what could be saved. The revenues will come in less than expected. The average turn backs over the last four years was $2 million and this year the forecast was about $1.5 million and the administration was looking to see how to maximize that to get it above $2 million. The Board will be getting the Fiscal 2010 budgets incrementally, but if that was not the direction in which the Board wanted to go, they could be saved and presented in March. The Finance Committee has asked the staff to start presenting the cut budgets as soon as possible and some of those have been done, i.e. Board of Selectmen, Sealer of Weights &
Measures.
Given that the Board hadn’t taken any action on any of these budgets, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if these budgets were going to be presented to the Finance Committee without the Board of Selectmen’s decision. He noted that it was the Board of Selectmen that established policy.
Ms. Gloff pointed out that the Board didn’t usually vote on budgets, but Mr. Ciccariello countered that the Board would have to vote for department cuts and layoffs. If that wasn’t done and the budget was presented to the Finance Committee, then the Finance Committee was setting the policy and to him that was not appropriate.
Ms. Van Amsterdam added that that was why she was asking the question about the priorities of the cuts. The School Committee would never let the Finance Committee vote the cuts without them prioritizing.
If that was what the Board was going to do Ms. Gloff felt the Board needed to find some other times to meet as it was now 12:15 a.m. Mr. Ciccariello agreed but the Board would need to have all the information.
Noting that tomorrow night the Finance Committee was preparing to hold hearings on budgets, Mr. Walters Young asked if it was the will of the Board not to go forward until the Board has reviewed and voted the budgets. Mr. Ciccariello responded that he didn’t think it was appropriate (for the Finance Committee to vote before the budgets were reviewed by the Board of Selectmen). Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she too thought the Board should be voting the budgets first.
The Board of Selectmen approved the re-alignment of personnel in the Comptroller/Collector’s Office and Ms. White noted those budgets were being reviewed by the Finance Committee tomorrow. The changes from the re-alignment were reflected in those budgets.
Ms. Van Amsterdam was under the assumption that nothing would be passed along to the Finance Committee without the Board’s review. It could be the Board wouldn’t agree with the cuts. The Board hasn’t even discussed them.
Mr. Ostroff proposed that the Town Administrator present these budgets to the Finance Committee, but that the Finance Committee not vote. He didn’t want to waste valuable time and Board members could attend the Finance Committee meeting. Ms. Gloff noted that no more than two members could attend the Finance Committee meeting. To Mr. Ciccariello that would be wasting everyone’s time.
RETIREMENT BOARD UPDATE
Ms. White informed the Board that the Retirement Board met this afternoon and John Mahaney withdrew his name from consideration for appointment as the fifth member of the Retirement Board and on a 4-0-0 vote Michael Reardon was elected as the fifth member.
MINUTES
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, to approve the minutes of the July 14, 2009 meeting. The meeting passed on a 3-0-2 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Ms. Van Amsterdam abstained.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
Mr. Ostroff noted that tomorrow was Judith Kuhn’s last day as Town Clerk and thanked her for her many years of service to the Town.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired about a letter in correspondence concerning a comprehensive environmental assessment. Ms. White believed the company was trying to generate some business and assured the Board the Town was well in compliance with the Stormwater Management Act.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
_________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
