BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
March 23, 2009
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly.
ALSO PRESENT: Martha L. White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on March 23, 2009 in the amount of $608,381.25. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,036,017.77.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to litigation and collective bargaining. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 5-0-0 vote. At 6:10 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:15 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
A press release was read announcing the Office of the Town Clerk would be sponsoring an educational seminar on the Open Meeting Law at the Natick Town Hall on Tuesday, April 7, 6:00 p.m.
A reminder was issued for everyone to vote in the Town Election on March 31.
PROCLAMATION: DEMOLAY MONTH
A proclamation declaring March 2009 as DeMolay Month in the Town of Natick was read and presented to John Brainerd and Aaron Azzoriti.
Mr. Brainerd thanked the Board for their continued support.
SCHOOL COMMITTEE TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
The Board was joined by members of the School Committee.
Article 15 - School Committee: School Bus Transportation Subsidy
School Superintendent Dr. Peter Sanchioni noted that all three of the School Committee articles would be covered. He deferred to William Hurley, Director of Fiscal and Management Services for the Schools, to speak to Article 15.
Mr. Hurley informed the Board this article sought $311,186 and explained it was the tradition for a school bus transportation appropriation to come out of the general fund to offset the cost of bus transportation for students. The Schools contract with Connolly for 20 buses and generate an average ridership of 51 per loop. This money (supplemental appropriation) went to maintaining a fee structure that was within the range of other districts in the area. He noted that the Finance Committee had supported the article.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the amount of the bus fee and Mr. Hurley responded that it was $150 with a family cap of $300. Mr. Connolly didn’t recall seeing anything like this concept before, but Mr. Hurley reiterated his understanding that this has been in place for a number of years. Ms. White confirmed that the bus transportation had been supplemented for several years. Last fiscal year it was $302,122.
Noting the 60/40 split between the Schools and the Town, Mr. Connolly inquired as to where that fell in that split. Ms. White explained that it was part of the shared costs before the 60/40 split.
School Committee Chair Stephen Meyler noted that a number of years ago the decision was made to supplement school bus fees through Town Meeting as opposed to adding money to the School budget. There was an order for expending these funds and he asked Mr. Hurley to give an overview. Mr. Hurley responded that the order of depletion was the School appropriation, then all fees from ridership, and the last the Town appropriation. The past fiscal years there has been money returned to the Town as a result of that process.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the history for returning fees and Mr. Hurley advised that last year they returned $45,000 (of the school bus appropriation). Mr. Meyler added that once it was done, the money was returned to free cash. There was no intent to use the money for anything else.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if the criteria for who would be charged the fee had changed for next year. Mr. Hurley noted there was a recommended change in the policy and that would be voted this evening. Currently the students who live beyond 2 miles in grades 7-12 were not charged and the recommendation was to charge anyone in grades 7-12.
Mr. Ostroff asked about the bus contract and was told by Mr. Hurley that this was the first year of a two year option. The value for one year was slightly in excess of $1 million. About $180,000 was collected in bus fees last year. The rest was in the School budget.
Mr. Meyler noted there weren’t always sidewalks and although the DPW had been working diligently to put sidewalks down, certain land was owned by private individuals. From a standpoint of safety and access they (Schools) do their best to balance the cost.
Mr. Connolly asked about families in need that couldn’t afford the bus fee. Mr. Hurley responded that the schools were cognizant of families in need and anyone that qualified for free or reduced lunch would qualify for a free or reduced pass. For any family with a short term problem, they were always willing to work out a schedule of payments.
Mr. Ciccariello believed the School Committee had received notice that the Natick Schools would get $1.7 million (in stimulus funds) and an additional $600,000 in possible education grants and asked if there was any discussion in the School Department or Committee where those dollars might go.
Mr. Meyler reminded the Board that the School Committee was there to talk about Town Meeting articles. What he would say was that there had been an article written about $1.7 million and that a number of towns that received nothing were contesting it. Nothing has been approved. The Schools did not have that money and didn’t know when they would get it. He thought it would take some time to get it through the approval cycle. There will be a lot of debate at the statehouse and issues, and challenges for how the money could be spent. A number of factors were unknown. The School Committee was going to talk about it this evening. They first had to understand the facts, then understand what they would get, and then the limitations of what that money could be used for. Then the School
Committee would sit down with the Superintendent’s recommendations to decide how to best utilize those funds. His guess was that it wouldn’t happen before April.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to support favorable action on Article 15. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Speaking to her motion, Ms. Van Amsterdam was pleased there was a change in the guidelines and hoped the School Committee would support the change in criteria such that children riding the bus in grades 7-12 would be paying a nominal fee.
If the bus fee could be eliminated Mr. Ostroff was sure the School Committee would be on board because it was a disincentive to getting people there safe. He thought the article was a reasonable compromise in keeping the fee about the same.
Mr. Connolly asked if the non-union School personnel would be giving up a COLA. Mr. Ciccariello suggested first dealing with the warrant articles.
Mr. Meyler recognized there was only a small amount of money left in the Town. This was a strong collaboration and he appreciated the Board’s support in these warrant articles. He added that the School Committee was under confidentiality for any negotiations and couldn’t talk about it outside executive session. He could not comment on any activity at this time.
Mr. Connolly questioned if that applied to non-union personnel. Superintendent Sanchioni assured the Board that the School Committee and he were aware of the economic conditions and valued maintaining personnel at the highest level possible.
Mr. Meyler noted that the School Committee agreed with a 61% split and had taken an aggressive position in terms of conditions within the School Department and had to live with cuts within the budget and live within its budget.
In response to a comment from Mr. Connolly, Mr. Ciccariello said he believed the Board did the right thing in giving non-unions a zero. Mr. Connolly didn’t know why it was so complicated to get a formal response.
Article 31 – Transfer of funds for Special Education Transportation, Salaries and Expenses
Superintendent Sanchioni informed the Board that Article 31 in the amount of $247,667 had been approved by the Finance Committee. He explained that in the spring of 2008 the School Department was awarded $247,667 for extraordinary relief circuit breaker funds provided to districts when costs exceed 125% the previous year. Those funds were supposed to be spent in FY08. The School Committee incorporated the funds into the FY09 budget. Funds not spent when they were supposed to have to be returned to the town and included in free cash. For compliance reasons these funds must be spent on special education and the removal has created a budget overrun that cannot be covered by any other means.
Ms. White noted that the money was properly closed out to free cash but could only be spent on special education. The monies were received very close to the end of Fiscal 2008 making it impossible to expend in the timeframe the School Department was given.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, and unanimously voted the Board unanimously voted to support Article 31 in the amount of $247,667.
Article 33: Natick High School Project – Partial Architectural Services
Article 33 sought $2 million for partial architectural service for the replacement/renovation of Natick High School.
Mr. Hurley reported that the School Building Committee met on this topic last Wednesday and voted to recommend approval of funding. It would put them in a good place once the feasibility study concludes in April and would take the project from that point to full design construction documents sometime in the fall of 2009.
As Chair of the School Building Committee, Mr. Ciccariello didn’t believe the Building Committee recommended approval. They recommended to advise the School Department that in order to proceed with this project these funds would be needed.
Mr. Meyler advised that the School Committee received a recommendation from the Building Committee and voted to approve this in support of the Town Meeting article.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the impact on the Fiscal 2010 budget. Ms. White didn’t anticipate any impact on FY10, but thought it was important to point out a worst case scenario although the hope was that wouldn’t happen. Mr. Hurley had a conversation with the MSBA and in the event the debt exclusion was put forward and not voted it wouldn’t necessarily mean Natick would go to the bottom of the list. There could be other opportunities to present it to the voters. If the debt exclusion was not successful these funds would have to be paid back in 4-5 years and that would have a significant impact on the budget. If there was a debt exclusion vote this would be included.
Mr. Ostroff noted that the School Committee, Board of Selectmen, and the Finance Committee supports moving forward but there was a cost implication. Mr. Meyler responded that when the Schools went back to Town Meeting and requested the reconstitution of the Building Committee it was recognized that the Schools were moving forward in this process.
If the project moved forward, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the percentage of the $2 million that would be reimbursable. Mr. Hurley hoped the project would qualify for approximately 50% reimbursement assuming a model school design.
Mr. Ciccariello requested a clarification regarding the $100,000 from the high school boiler repair. He believed there was money in the reserve fund in the past for emergencies and questioned if this was not the same money that had been set aside.
Ms. White explained that there was a Town Meeting article that authorized funding a new boiler at the high school, but upon research it was specifically for new boilers and the belief was that money could not be used for boiler repairs. There was a separate set aside within the reserve fund with the intent if boiler repairs were needed there would be a funding source available for them.
Mr. Meyler agreed with Ms. White’s explanation adding that Town Meeting allowed the Schools to go forward with the possible replacement of the boiler to mitigate possible loss of heat, but in doing design work in the boilers it was recognized that it was not economically feasible to continue. The Schools recognized that it didn’t make sense to continue with replacement. It would cost the Schools and the town way too much and it was stopped. That money would be returned to free cash.
Based on discussions at the Building Committee, Mr. Ciccariello noted the intent was to go to design development and at some point come to the Board of Selectmen and discuss whether to put it on the ballot at a special election. They probably wouldn’t be expending all of the funds. Mr. Hurley stated that was correct. The Building Committee would monitor the progress of spending and only release those funds which they felt were appropriate.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to support favorable action on Article 33. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Meyler expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to give the Board answers to some questions directly and thought this was a demonstration of the cooperation between the two boards. Technically the School Committee was not required to come here, but he thought it was important for all to understand what the funds were and the use of those funds. The two boards need to act like a town and he appreciated the Board’s support.
PUBLIC HEARING: ACCEPTANCE OF COTTAGE STREET
On a moton by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Town Engineer Mark Coviello recalled that at the 2007 Fall Town Meeting there was a warrant article for the acceptance of Cottage Street. Town Meeting approved the article based on a plan that was prepared. Subsequent to that plan, it was recorded at the Registry of Deeds. Upon further research in preparing a drain easement, some discrepancies were found. The plan was prepared through the general emergency contract with BETA and BETA hired a subcontractor. BETA was asked to investigate and they (BETA) hired a new survey company – MacCarthy & Sullivan. MacCarthy & Sullivan re-surveyed and prepared what he (Mr. Coviello) believed was a correct street acceptance plan.
Mr. Coviello continued that Town Counsel advised that a new public hearing be held. If favorable action were granted by Town Meeting the plan currently prepared would be recorded at the Registry and would supersede the current plans.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if there was anything in this revision that impacted a homeowner and was told by Mr. Coviello that it didn’t affect any abutters along the street.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the discrepancies and Mr. Coviello responded that when preparing an easement plan into Sanctuary Blvd. they tried to design back to some monument and bounds and it didn’t tie back correctly. Plus there were other discrepancies similar to that.
Asked by Mr. Connolly about responsibility, Mr. Coviello advised that BETA hired another survey company at their cost. The first group was paid as a consultant through BETA with BETA making the actual payment to the surveying company.
Mr. Connolly wanted assurance that there was no extra cost to the Town and Mr. Coviello provided that assurance. Mr. Connolly then wanted to be sure that it was now done properly and Mr. Coviello replied that he felt comfortable the plan was done right.
There was no one from the public wishing to speak.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff moved to accept the revised layout of Cottage Street as shown on a plan entitled Amended Street Acceptance Plan of Cottage Street in Natick, Mass, Sheets 1 through 7, by MacCarthy & Sullivan engineering, Inc. dated February 17, 2009. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved to support favorable action on Article 30. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
COMMUNITY/SENIOR CENTER
- Update on Community/Senior Center Budget
Mr. Ciccariello, Chair of the Community/Senior Center Building Committee noted that the design process had been ongoing since 2001. Two and a half years ago at the request of the Finance Committee and charge of Town Meeting they were to go back and reassess the potential of this facility as a combined center. A survey was done and Graham Meuss was retained and for the past two years the committee has worked on design options for use as a community and senior center. Last time he spoke about a project of about $14 million and 34,000 square feet. The Building Committee looked at various options, made some architectural design changes and the building was down to about 30,000 square feet that includes a Community/Senior Center.
Describing the building as now being proposed, Mr. Ciccariello noted there was a veterans office, a room on one side of the building that would house approximately 250 residents, a gym which was a request of a lot of individuals through the assessment study, and a small component of a supportive day care area. The building was designed so that the gym could be done away with or the supportive day care could be eliminated without impacting the overall design of the remainder of the building. The charge of Town Meeting was to design it in such a way that if it became unaffordable, options could be taken out but still remain a community/senior center.
Article 34 requested $1 million that would be used to advance the project to design development. If it went to the voters and approved under a debt exclusion the remaining funds would allow for the implementation of a process immediately. To get from the present state which was schematic design to design development with an updated cost estimate, probably $450,000 would be expended for where it could be presented to Town Meeting and the public for consideration of a vote for a debt exclusion.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that the anticipation was that this project would move along with the high school building project so if it (high school) went with the debt exclusion there would only be one special election. Special elections cost $30,000-35,000 so the Building Committee felt if one project was requested both be requested.
If the community wanted to build the community/senior center that would be great, but if not there would have to be a determination of what to do with the existing senior center because it was in need of some major capital repairs. They would like to see some kind of a decision so they could move forward in whatever direction was needed.
Mr. Connolly thanked the committee for all their efforts and inquired as to a ballpark number of the new center. Mr. Ciccariello advised that originally it was $14 million, but the building had now been scaled down to under $10 million and the schematic reflected that.
Mr. Ostroff asked about the range of cost per household, and Mr. Walters Young responded that earlier this fall he was doing work for a grant proposal and at $10 million cost the average household would be $69 in year one going down to $47.02 in year 20. He cautioned that that was a very preliminary look. He just tried to get a snapshot on what the dollars would be based on the number of households.
Former Council on Aging member Jerry Pierce was thankful to be a senior in Natick. Finally there was a Town Administrator who was senior friendly as well as the Chair of the Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee, and Building Committee. The seniors have been working on this project for at least the 18 years he has been associated with the seniors. In 2005 the committee aspect came into play and many seniors were brought on board. A lot of seniors had spent hours and hours on this project. The question why had been determined and the when and the how had to be dealt with. The seniors have made due with what’s down there with a good heart and the staff has to make due. The seniors consider it a second home and it was time for them to look forward to something a little safer and more
dignified.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to support favorable action on Article 34. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Ms. White pointed out that the non-union COLA had not as yet been pulled out of the budget for the Council on Aging and Human Services. It reflects some reductions from the current year’s services with a 2% budget cut.
In response to Ms. White’s request that she describe the impact of the reduction, Moira Munns Council on Aging & Human Services Director responded that both departments (Council on Aging and Human Services) were human services agencies that act as information support services. The Council on Aging serves as information resources, provide case management, offer programs including wellness and advocate for older adults and individuals with disabilities.
When looking at the Human Services agency they support services for children and adults, case management and crisis intervention programs. They assist in the planning and implementation of community projects and work with the School Department and state agencies to address service needs. They assist family and individuals and foster the development of young leaders in Natick.
Ms. Munns continued that she was asked to turn in a level service budget and the 2% reduction was made to that level service budget. The reduction was made by reducing a part-time volunteer coordinator that was funded for 19 hours to 12 hours. That saved $4,000. The other reductions were to the wellness program and transportation from $21,456 to $19,000. That didn’t total the 2% and she asked that the remainder of the reduction from the Human Services budget.
Ms. White noted that for purposes of making the 2% cuts, the two departments were combined.
Mr. Connolly inquired if the fax he received today was the position being reduced to 12 hours. Ms. Munns advised that was correct. The individual was currently at 19 hours and would be reduced to 12 hours on July 1.
Mr. Connolly referred to a letter in the briefing book from a citizen that needed transportation to the Senior Center and were helped by the Town Clerk’s office. He thanked the Town Clerk’s office for their assistance.
Looking at the budget, Ms. Gloff noticed the line item for ½ Assistant Director position and inquired as to whereabouts of the other half. Ms. Munns explained that there was one person doing two jobs. From FY 1998-2007 the Council on Aging staffing included 2.49 volunteer resource positions. In FY09 one was restructured for half time volunteer coordinator and half assistant director.
Ms. Gloff requested an explanation. The budget only showed a volunteer position that went from .4 to .3 and didn’t explain the other. She didn’t know if the numbers were adding up correctly.
Ms. White informed the Board there was a new bottom line number for the Council on Aging of $296,151. Ms. Munns indicated she had $295,851.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Council had a licensed social worker and Ms. Munns responded that there were three different levels of license and in the Council on Aging there was one licensed. Mr. Ciccariello noted that he was getting a lot of telephone calls about the Natick Service Council. If the Council on Aging had a licensed social worker and the Natick Service Council had one was there a way to work together. He would like to see both parties discussing opportunities to share.
Ms. Munns couldn’t say if the Service Council had a licensed social worker, but noted that cases were referred back and forth between the two agencies. Certain services one organization can provide and not the other and back and forth.
A member of the Service Council Linda Abrams informed the Board that the Natick Service Council was in the process of hiring a full-time licensed social worker and anticipated expanding services. She was sure the Service Council Director would be happy to work with the Town to determine if that person could be shared.
Ms. Munns advised that in the Human Services budget the only budget reduction was in service support which was reduced by half. There was a 30 hour a week licensed social worker and a 15 hour a week licensed independent clinical social worker.
Mr. Connolly disclosed that he had a relative that worked in this department.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the affect of the reduction on the ability to provide services to the clients. Ms. Munns noted the largest reduction was in the staffing and transportation lines in the Council on Aging budget. There was a volunteer force of over 200. Most volunteers work in the community delivering meals, providing transportation, doing chores which meant they weren’t subject to direct supervision. That calls for very careful recruitment training and assignment.
Reducing the volunteer coordinator position from 19 to 12 hours didn’t eliminate the ability to do that but it reduced the level. The transportation reduction reduces funds for the cab coupon program for transportation of seniors with no other means of transportation. There will be a reduction in the program.
Susan Salamoff stated that she was an employee of Bay Path Elder Services and thought the Town should be very proud of the Council on Aging. She found it to be a wonderful organization to refer elders to when services were needed. In times of state budget cuts their (Bay Path Elder) budget has been cut too and it has reached a point where elders have had to be put on a waiting list for services. They (Bay Path) work jointly with the Senior Center where they (Council on Aging) may be able to provide services when Bay Path can’t or alert Bay Path to people needing servings right away.
Ms. Gloff wanted to make a pitch for volunteers noting that she signed up to provide rides for medical appointments and there was a huge need. She probably got 3-4 telephone calls a week. If anybody had some time and could do that, she encouraged them to volunteer. You couldn’t imagine how appreciative the people were.
Going back to the $296,151 number given by Ms. White and the $300 disparity between that number and Ms. Munn’s number of $295,851, Mr. Walters Young advised that was his error and the same was true with the Human Services budget. The correct Human Services budget number was $97,361.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on the Council of Aging budget in the amount of $296,151 to be decreased by the COLA.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on the Human Services budget in the amount of $97,361 to be reduced by the removal of the COLA.
ZONING ARTICLES: NATICK PAPERBOARD SITE
Representing the proponents of Articles 41,42,43 was Attorney Linda Abrams.
Ms. Abrams reported that the proponents were asking Town Meeting to take no action on Articles 42 and 43 and the Finance Committee would report no action. She was here to address Article 41 which dealt with the zoning of the parcel known as Natick Paperboard. She explained that nothing this article did impacts either the current proposal or the Smart Growth Overlay District going forward. The concern of the residents and people that sponsored the article was that the underlying zoning of the site was still industrial and if the current project did not go forward and another Smart Growth overlay didn’t go forward this parcel could be used for an industrial development.
The Planning Board wants to deal with the whole area and were concerned this article would impede their review of this whole area but some of the other areas were already being used for residential, i.e. Whipple. The proponents suggested RG because the parcel was contiguous to an RG. It (this article) would require a site plan permit from the Planning board so the proponents believed the Town would be protected, but they wanted to be sure in the short-term there could be no industrial use on the parcel. It was in the aquifer protection district and PCB’s were found on the site which went unreported far longer than required.
Ms. Abrams continued that industrial use could cause major difficulties. The article is one of insurance for the Town and the residents. There were two lawsuits filed that could impact the development of this site. She anticipated this project would go forward but on the oft chance it didn’t, the proponents would like to have this article. The Finance Committee voted 9-0-0 to support the article and she hoped the Selectmen would do the same.
An abutter to the site and one of the proponents of the article Aaron Socrat explained that they came up with the RG zone because it was contiguous with the Washington Avenue neighborhood and the potential rail trail. They also thought of it from an affordable standpoint. Two family houses can have a renter. This article provides a stop gap between the next six months and when this project comes to light. The Planning Board was excited about changing the zoning and will have control over it. The proponents didn’t want to wait until the next Town Meeting. They didn’t want to see it go back out with an RFP as if the proposed project fell apart. Mr. Socrat reiterated that it didn’t affect anything with the development in front of the Planning Board and he would hope the Board of
Selectmen would support the article.
Town Meeting member and former Electrical Inspector Larry Forshner urged the Board’s support of the article. Like the other two speakers he believed the zone change would protect the property. He was a little troubled over the past couple of years when zoning articles came to Town Meeting, the Building Inspectors were responsible for interpreting and enforcing the zoning laws. The Building Inspector had to be autonomous. If the parcel were rezoned and sold, it would be the Building Inspector who issues the permit. One of the Inspectors should be here tonight and he would urge them to get up to speed on this article and be at Town Meeting because they were the only ones that can answer the questions.
Ms. Van Amsterdam found the argument to have merit, but wondered what would be heard from the Planning Board at Town Meeting. Ms. Abrams responded that the Planning Board voted for referral. While she didn’t know what the Planning Board would say at Town Meeting, they (Planning Board) thought some residential zone was more appropriate than industrial but wanted to look at all the parcels that need to be rezoned. The proponents applaud that but didn’t want to leave the industrial zone on this parcel until the Planning Board came back to do that.
Mr. Socrat told the Board that his take was that the Planning Board wanted to be very comprehensive, but the proponents of the article wanted something in place now.
Ms. Van Amsterdam commented that should the article be approved, the Planning Board could say they weren’t happy with RG but wanted a slightly different definition and to sponsor their own article.
Ms. White responded that she was hearing that the Planning Board was contemplating an analysis of that part of Town larger than this single property and they could initiate that. Ms. Van Amsterdam pointed out that Article 41 and comprehensive review were not mutually exclusive.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to why the proponents believed that the article didn’t impact the proposal on the table now. Ms. Abrams explained that the article was not touching the Smart Growth overlay. The zoning under which the proposal was proceeding would still be in place. Once the plans were submitted any change in zoning didn’t impact that particular proposal.
To Mr. Connolly it sounded like a safety mechanism so if the site didn’t develop, it couldn’t go back to an industrial use and he thought it was a good idea.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support Article 41.
Speaking to the motion Town Meeting member Jerry Pierce was of the opinion that people in this neighborhood were paying high tax assessment and this property has been a blight to the neighborhood and an embarrassment to the Town. This area was a gateway and he thought it was disgusting the way the owner had let it go. He was thankful the Natick Paperboard was no longer there and didn’t want anything industrial there.
Mr. Ostroff noted that ultimately he would not support going forward with a zoning change without the Planning Board’s support, but he thought the safety net had merit. The pace of this proposal has been slow and he thought the neighbors had a right to be concerned. The only motivation the property owner had was money and he thought it would be good to have this zoning in place knowing the Planning Board would put forth their best effort over the summer and come back in the fall.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
Connecticut Avenue resident Nyssa Gyorgy read a letter outlining the concerns of the neighborhood with the proposed Hess Express at 230 Worcester Road (corner of Maine Ave and New Hampshire Ave). This was a neighborhood of multi-age families. There were 36 homes with children and no sidewalks. Concerns expressed were with traffic, noise, security, lights, fencing.
Under the concern of traffic, the letter recognized that the customer base for the Hess Express would mainly come from Route 9 but the convenience store will encourage people from south of Route 9 to cut through their neighborhood to get there. Although Hess would be eliminating the curb cuts that currently exist on Maine and New Hampshire Aves, people coming from south of Route 9 will use Connecticut Avenue and Maine as route to the convenience store. The agreed upon curb cuts were crucial to limiting the traffic passing through their streets, but were not enough to prevent the neighborhood from being used as a cut through for patrons and delivery trucks seeking easy access to the gas station/convenience store. Traffic south of the proposed convenience store will use Connecticut and Maine Ave for access and traffic
ease will use Oak, Connecticut and Maine, allowing them to void a lengthy turn-around via Route 9/27 overpass to change directions.
In Newton, Hess opened a Hess Express and gas station and paid for street modifications to enhance safety. While the neighbors were aware that some of the following recommendations were not usually done in Natick, they asked that the Town recommend and require Hess to pay for the following:
- Street closures at Maine Avenue and New Hampshire Avenue and Route 9. Until that could be accommodated they would ask that speed humps be put along all streets in the neighborhood. There were temporary speed humps that could be removed in the winter.
- Stop signs at the intersections of Maine and Connecticut; New Hampshire and Connecticut; Vermont and Connecticut; Massachusetts and Connecticut; and Connecticut and Oak
- Neighborhood signs (Children, speed signs, no delivery trucks)
They would like to see regular delivery trucks restricted from the neighborhood. The neighbors were aware that this was not a restriction the Town could impose, but perhaps the Town could request that Hess impose it on the deliveries made to their site as a condition of good will and community benefit.
With respect to noise, Hess requests no limitation on operating hours, but that would severely impact the quality of life for not only the abutters but houses a bit farther away. The neighborhood requested that the hours of operation be limited to 7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.
As the property abuts a residential neighborhood, security was an issue. The request was for a security camera with an offsite recorder be installed at the east and west end of the gas pumps to record license plate numbers as well as in the parking area.
The neighborhood further requested that all exterior lights be turned off from 10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. Lighting should not infringe on any neighboring properties.
The fence detailed in the Site Plan provided by Hess was 6 feet high which was not acceptable to the neighborhood. The residents requested that a fence of durable material and not less than 10 ft. high be erected and that it extend to Route 9 on both sides of the property. Landscaping should be on both sides and include large trees and shrubs to reduce noise and improve appearance.
Vermont Avenue resident Peter Golden asked for a show of hands of audience members in support of the speaker. Six people raised their hands.
Maine Avenue resident Arthur Barker stated that he was the closest abutter and had been there since 1961. There had been a lot of changes at the Texaco station, but those changes had not affected him because the station always closed at 11:00 p.m. and opened at 6:00 a.m. and there was no problem. The Hess across the street with lights blaring at 2:00 a.m. and employees out there cleaning the parking lot could wake anyone. He urged that the 24 hour operation not be allowed.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what the Selectmen could do in terms of regulating activity or what control the Planning Board had.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the site was formally a gas station which was a permitted use. He didn’t know if an application had been filed for a building permit.
Mr. Golden advised that both the Planning Board and ZBA denied the application. The applicant litigated and the court found on behalf of the applicant. The court has spoken. The residents’ concern was that as abutters the quality of life would be somewhat abridged and he would hope the Board wherever it had control would act. The application would be before the Planning Board on April 1 and he believed the ZBA had reversed itself.
Ms. White noted that the Board of Selectmen had very little control. There were a couple of items that would warrant referral to the Safety Committee. The ZBA warranted the best opportunity for conditions and a letter could be sent to them.
It was Mr. Connolly’s understanding that some of the streets in that area of Route 9 had time limits, but Mr. Golden noted that those limits were removed by the state on behalf of MathWorks. Mr. Ostroff added that the Community Development Director was working with the State.
Mr. Golden believed the nuisance ordinance spoke directly to fumes and noise. He also noted that the streets in this area were narrow without sidewalks. There was a substantial risk and he hoped the Board of Selectmen would support the efforts of the neighborhood. They needed some help.
- Newton Wellesley Expansion
Vicky Emerson, a registered nurse at Leonard Morse Hospital and a member of the Professional Nurses Union, told the Board that she was there to express strong opposition to allowing Partners and Newton Wellesley to establish a new surgical center in Framingham. Newton Wellesley would be competing in our town for our patients and if that facility took patients from the MetroWest Medical system, it threatened the financial viability of the hospital. That could lead to the closing of Leonard Morse or the reduction of services. The short-term gain was nothing compared to the long-term cost of closing a hospital.
In the interest of long-term public health, she (Ms. Emerson) hoped the Board would use its influence to stop this.
Ms. White advised that she spoke with the MetroWest Medical Center CEO Andre Soren and he would be coming to the Board.
Ms. Emerson requested that she be notified of when Mr. Soren would be here.
Former Electrical Inspector Larry Forshner noted that the Natick Collection’s address was 1245 Worcester Road and the expansion was 330 Speen Street. In accordance with MGL Chapter 59 when a property was improved over 50% of the original value the property tax was pro-rated to the date the temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy was received. From what he could gather from the tax information in Fiscal 2008, Natick Collection paid full value the 3 & 4 quarter and he believed they owed full value for the second quarter and one month for the first quarter. They (Natick Collection) were given a temporary C.O. on September 6 and the doors were opened. They started paying full taxes January 1.
Mr. Forshner noted that the Building Inspector determines the address and 330 Speen doesn’t exist anymore. The Natick Collection was expanded and was one building. He believed the expansion fell under MGL Chapter 59.
Ms. White reminded the Board that with their approval, the Assessors hired special counsel to recover any taxes due and she would be surprised if special counsel missed anything.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that the Board would follow-up on Mr. Forshner’s concern.
- Letter to DPU – West Natick Transmission Line Project
Maureen Allain appeared before the Board in follow-up to the meeting of February 23 when the Board requested Town Counsel to submit a letter to the DPU (on the West Natick Transmission line project). It was her understanding that the letter has not gone out and she was wondering it had not as yet been sent.
Ms. White responded that she would nudge Town Counsel. It was important and the letter needs to go out. The preparation for Town Meeting was extraordinary this year, but she would make certain Town Counsel did the letter right away.
Mr. Connolly wanted a timeframe and Ms. White stated that she would call Mr. Flynn tomorrow. He (Mr. Connolly) felt that three weeks was a long time to direct a letter to be sent and have it not done and he wanted to know why.
Town Meeting member Mary Brown voiced her concerns with the upcoming town Meeting. Members had requested to have everything presented to them and not at the last minute. She would like to have all the amounts with all the money, not the projected money. She found that Town Meeting becomes a rubber stamp with things thrown at them at the last minute or everything gets tabled and it ends up being more work. She was concerned that the budget was up in the air, Town Meeting was around the corner, and nothing was happening.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that the Finance Committee was required to send their recommendations to all Town Meeting members and to his knowledge they planned on doing that in the appropriate timeframe. As far as the budget was concerned, everything was available to be viewed by the public. It was on the web site and that was a public record. There was nothing preventing Town Meeting from having access.
Ms. Brown countered that she wasn’t just talking about the Finance Committee material. Often the Town Administrator or Deputy Town Administrator hands out things that weren’t in the books.
Mr. Ciccariello responded that the Board was reviewing every budget presented by the Town Administrator and at times didn’t have the information but that didn’t mean there was no action on the budget. It was an ongoing process.
Ms. Brown requested an update of the five year capital plan for every Town Meeting member. Mr. Ciccariello suggested that it was available on the web site.
Director of Council on Aging and Human Services requested the Board’s help to publicize and promote the MetroWest Marathon Food Drive. The MetroWest Leadership Academy of which she and Mr. Walters Young were members required the performance of a community service project this year and the group she was working with has chosen to do a food drive beginning April 6. She spoke with the Directors of both local pantries and they equally were anticipating Natick’s participation. Collection bins would be located at Town Hall and the Senior Center.
Following a ten minute recess the meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
VETERANS COUNCIL: (2) REQUESTS TO HONOR VETERANS’ FAMILY WITH A PLAQUE: SCHEDULE HEARING
Ed Jolley, President of the Natick Veterans’ Council presented the Board with a request to dedicate the square at Farwell and Cottage Streets in honor of the Arena family and the square at Morse and Garfield in honor of the Grupposo family. Multiple members of both families served their country with distinction in past wars.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to schedule a public hearing for April 21, 2009 on the dedication of Farwell and Cottage Street in honor of the five Arena family brothers who served in World War II and one brother in the Korean War.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to schedule a public hearing for May 25, 2009 on the dedication of Morse Street and Garfield Street in honor of the four Grupposo brothers who served in World War II and Korea.
Sebastian Grupposo was in the audience and thanked everyone who was responsible for doing this for his family. He saw it as a great tribute to his brothers and himself.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLE 8: Bacon Free Library
Ms. White informed the Board that a great deal of time was spent talking to the Bacon Free and Morse Institute separately and together to minimize the impact and the cooperation has been great. The Bacon Free will adjust their hours so the Town can achieve the 63 unduplicated hours. The budget amount the state looks for still won’t be met but hours will be met.
Bacon Free Library Director Diane Wallace noted that with the Morse Institute closing on Sunday there was a deficit of two hours. The Bacon Free already makes up 2 hours and would now be providing four. The additional hours will be made up by salaried staff.
Mary Ellen Ames stated that she was a member of the Bacon Free Library since 1954. The Bacon Free was small but had a range of services that was very open and welcome. She thought it was a jewel and wished the rest of Natick would come down and use the facility. It had a wonderful children’s program.
Ms. White noted that the net effect of library services would be impacted in not having any Sunday hours. Several difference scenarios were looked at, but at least they were able to salvage 63 hours.
If the School Committee were to vote it, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if any of the federal stimulus money coming for education could be put toward libraries. It may be a stretch, but it was something she would like to investigate.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he read an article a week ago that the Board of Libraries for the Commonwealth would look at assisting communities that made an effort to maintain their hours which he thought would be very favorable to Natick. The article also indicated there would probably be less money available from the state. He added that he received several e-mails in support of the Bacon Free. From his perspective he put it on the list to take a look at. He felt the Bacon Free had done their due diligence and he was willing to support it.
Ms. Gloff thanked everyone involved in working out a schedule with the Bacon Free and Morse Institute that kept the Town at 63. That would help keep the accreditation. She had been at the library recently and it was booming and she suspected the same was true at the Bacon. She would support favorable action of the article.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to support favorable action on Article 8. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved approval of the Bacon Free Library budget of $116,974. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
TCAN: REQUEST FOR (4) ONE DAY BEER & WINE LICENSES
Mr. Ostroff disclosed that he was a member of TCAN and had a statement on file in the Town Clerk’s office. He had no financial interest and intended to vote.
Both Ms. Van Amsterdam and Ms. Gloff disclosed that they were members of TCAN.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to grant The Center for Arts in Natick a one day beer & wine licenses for performances to be held at 14 Summer Street on April 25, May 3, May 7, May 9, 2009.
PAY-AS-YOU-THROW TRASH FEE
John Merritt told the Board that he was there in the event a question arose about his offer from a previous meeting.
Mr. Ciccariello reminded the Board that Mr. Merritt came to a past meeting to offer his expertise in the pay-as-you-throw fees. He (Mr. Ciccariello) and Mr. Ostroff have both had discussions with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Merritt’s offer to assist the Town pro bono to do a review of the Town trash service remains. Mr. Merritt has set up what he would need to accomplish his review. Would the Board want to reconsider the trash fee vote or wait until the Board desires to have Mr. Merritt provide assistance?
Looking at Mr. Ostroff’s memo on what would be needed, Ms. Gloff inquired as to when the administration felt it could make the time to work with Mr. Merritt.
Ms. White responded that realistically between now and Town Meeting, and she realized the timing may be somewhat off, but Mr. Walters Young and she were just as busy as you could be. It’s been a struggle to keep pace with the flurry of activity that was going on.
Ms. Gloff asked about the requirement for someone else’s time, and Mr. Merritt responded that this was a project specifically aimed at assessing the budget. He viewed the trash fees differently. The data he was looking for didn’t require any time. If the data didn’t exist he would be shocked. It was budget material on the variety of line items and if it didn’t exist, the Town was in a lot more trouble than he thought. The idea of deferring to start to Town Meeting was a non start. The idea was to get it ready for Town Meeting so people could discuss. There would be a text narrative and a spreadsheet for now and going forward and if the Board ended up agreeing with the concept, it (spreadsheet) could be used to calculate the fees. This was 1-1/2 days of his work.
There was a very short list of data that should be available by a business manager at the DPW and he was ready to start tomorrow morning.
Ms. Gloff noted that the Board’s vote to increase the bag fees was to implement the new fee as of July 1. While she heard Mr. Merritt’s urgency, there was a little time. She believed it was the responsibility of the Board of Selectmen to set trash fees and wasn’t quite certain why a presentation at Town Meeting would be required.
Mr. Merritt explained that the idea would be that the Board may recognize it was a better way to do it and that could be presented to Town Meeting. He thought it would be good for Town Meeting to know how the trash fee would ultimately come out. Town Meeting will be working on the budget.
Mr. Ostroff didn’t believe the additional revenue anticipated was planned for appropriation at this point, but Ms. White noted that the school’s portion was planned.
Mr. Ostroff thought it had to be figured out if Mr. Merritt was talking about a change in the revenue or a different way to capture the revenue. It was his understanding that Mr. Merritt wasn’t necessarily talking about changing the amount received and not necessarily talking an enterprise fund unless the Board wished to make a drastic change. What was being talked about was how it was priced.
Mr. Merritt confirmed that his plan didn’t mean one penny more or less in revenue.
That lead Mr. Ostroff to think the urgency wasn’t necessarily there. It didn’t necessarily have to be done before Town Meeting although there may be some questions. He knew how hard the administration had been working but maybe a conversation with Bill Chenard (DPW Business Manager) could get this up and running.
Ms. Van Amsterdam understood that Ms. White and Mr. Walters Young were under the gun, but if Mr. Merritt needed a day and a half and budget data already there, the Board could hear it April 6. While Town Meeting doesn’t vote on it, she would think it would be great news to go forward to say this was how the fees were looked at in totality. She thought it was a win/win for the Board.
Mr. Merritt noted that when he did this project for other communities, rarely had the Town Administrator been involved. This was very low level data. Generally it was the business manager.
Mr. Ciccariello didn’t see any problem in doing this. It may give a different perspective.
Ms. Gloff had no problem and given the discussion that had already taken place thought Mr. Merritt should be thanked for his offer and be provided the information. She asked if this could be done within the next two weeks.
In the good faith in which he was embarking on this project, Mr. Merritt asked if the Board would consider a vote to reconsider the trash fee.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to reconsider the pay-as-you-throw fee at the meeting of April 6. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff noted that the Board may get analysis that may be somewhat complex and be a change in how the fees were applied and he doubted that decision would be made on April 6.
If the analysis was completed before the 6th, Ms. Van Amsterdam felt certain that Board members could come and pick up the analysis in advance. Mr. Merritt agreed to make it available as soon as possible.
Mr. Ostroff stressed that he didn’t want people to think the Board would do away with fees to support that service. The Board was just looking at a different way of pricing it. He thanked Mr. Merritt for his offer.
FISCAL 2010 BUDGET DISCUSSION
Veterans Director John MacGilivray was present to answer any questions.
Ms. White advised that the Veterans Services budget was increased by $50,000 which was based on two years of experience of going over budget. Already this year a reserve fund transfer of $70,000 had been done and Mr. MacGilivray was reporting that he anticipated running short even with that supplement. This was a direct service to veterans.
She noted there was some discussion that instead of supplementing the Veterans’ budget that the $50,000 be supplemented to the reserve fund, but she did not recommend that action. Last year the reserve fund was supplemented by $100,000 for repairs to the high school because it was felt that some repairs were inevitable. That made sense in her view because the School Department was a bottom line budget and that money could have been spent on anything. This was not a comparable case. These line items were specifically dedicated to veterans services. With at least two years of history and no sign of things improving, she recommended increasing the budget by $50,000.
Ms. Gloff asked if the reimbursement went back to the general fund and Ms. White responded that the reimbursement from the state went back through the cherry sheet.
Mr. MacGilivray confirmed that he was fairly close to spending the $70,000 transfer with about $15,000 left. The money provides direct financial assistance for veterans and if they qualified for that they qualified for medical assistance. The money can help pay for doctors, insurance premiums, drug bills, hospital. Veterans Services helped bury veterans and would pay up to $2,000 for rental arrearages or mortgage but that would have to be approved by the State. For medical bills the money would be paid to the doctor.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that it took over a year to get the reimbursement from the State and wondered if there was any way to get it back sooner. Mr. MacGilivray assured the Board that the problem was not unique to Natick. It was the cycle time.
Ms. White showed the total budget for Veterans Services at $232,801 and Mr. Connolly questioned if that was enough. Mr. MacGilivray didn’t know. The way things were going he imagined that he would probably have to ask for more. At a recent conference they were told that unemployment benefits would start running out and the next step would be veterans services. He knew he could always come back and request a transfer.
Mr. Connolly moved to support the budget for Veterans Services of $232,801 to be decreased by the percentage of COLA for personnel board employees. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Superintendent of Recreation & Parks noted that a level services budget had been presented and then changes were made. The office receptionist was cut by 20%. The department registered over 200 programs and collected over $1 million in programming fees and that cut in the receptionist would make it more difficult in the office operation.
The second cut was the play group director by 20%. The play group choices were being cut downward, but the time was being upped for the remaining classes and the fees were being upped. The department had over 300 part-time positions and the recommendation was no increases be given outside the Woodtrail Director and Camp Arrowhead.
Staff training was cut by $1,800 and paper supplies were cut by $750.
Mr. Cugini continued that if everything passed the organic farm agreed to cover the salary of the three benefitted positions.
Program cuts included bowling, magic and the event at the flea market event on the Common. This year they were offering a health and fitness event on the Common which he thought would be a much better program.
Mr. Cugini stated that the department tried to carefully scrutinize everything to get the reduction of $11,000+ and increase the revenues. The restructuring was more in line with today’s economy.
Ms. Gloff expressed her appreciation to the staff for their willingness to take a look at the breadth of programs being offered. That was something on her list of possible reductions.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the three people at the farm if the article were to pass and Ms. White explained that there would be an exchange of revenues such that the Town would receive $100,000 from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Walters Young added that from a budgeting standpoint the expenses remain unchanged. The add was to the revenue side.
As the owners of the farm, Mr. Ciccariello thought the Schools wanted a percentage of the money being paid by the Conservation Commission to go to crossing guards. Ms. White advised that she, the Superintendent, the Chair of the School Committee and Police Chief have reached an agreement. The way the motion was crafted addressed all but one of the School Committee’s concerns. As of this morning the Chief and the Superintendent were going to propose that 3 crossing guards come back into play.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s query as to how much of the salaries the Town had been getting back from the Farm Board, Ms. White responded that the reimbursement had been 100% of the office assistant and 1/3 of the Assistant Director and zero for the Director. The Farm already committed to provide 100% of the Assistant Director in the coming year.
It was Ms. Gloff’s understanding that the Farm had been paying for parts of salaries and other things that weren’t salaries. Based on Town Counsel’s opinion the Conservation Commission can pay for certain things – not the salaries but other things the Farm currently paid for could be covered by the Conservation Commission and the money the Farm was using to cover those other things could cover salaries.
Ms. White noted that the Conservation Commission had committed $100,000.
The recommended budget was $576,770 but Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that what might happen with the farm wasn’t known and the budget couldn’t be reduced because as of yet there wasn’t a decision.
Ms. White noted those decisions would happen outside the budget in process. These positions needed to be funded because they were Town employees and the reimbursement could be worked out later. Whether the Farm funds the animals and seed, the Conservation Commission contribution will be $100,000. She envisioned that the Conservation Commission would provide the Farm with money for eligible expenses and that would free up the Farm money to reimburse the Town even further so the net to the Town would be $100,000.
Mr. Ciccariello wanted to be sure the $100,000 would not be spent in this budget. Ms. White was hesitant because of the discussion between the Superintendent and Police Chief and the crossing guards, but Ms. Gloff pointed out that 3 or even 7 crossing guards wouldn’t cost $100,000.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to approve the Recreation & Parks budget in the amount of $576,707 minus the COLA for personnel board employees. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
For the April 6 meeting Ms. Van Amsterdam requested an update on the irrigation issue at the golf course. Before the discussion got too far along, the Board needs to know more about it because what if the irrigation agreement didn’t prove to be beneficial to the Town. There was a reduction of $18,200 in the budget that was tied to the irrigation.
Ms. Van Amsterdam felt the Board needed a sense of what the contingency would be if the Board of Selectmen voted not to approve. It was Ms. White’s expectation that any contract would have to come before the Board for a vote.
Mr. Ciccariello thought the Board should discuss the $18,700 uncovered by the new Comptroller. That money was no longer in the revolving fund and that impacts retained earnings. Either way $19,000 was going to be lost.
FARMER’S MARKET: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
Mr. Cugini advised that the Recreation & Parks Commission recommended approval of the Natick Center Associates’ request to use the Natick Common every Saturday from 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. for the period of May 16, 2009-October 2009 and that there be a $25 registration per group.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who would get the fee and was told by Mr. Cugini that it would come back to the Town for maintenance in the area.
Ms. Gloff moved approval. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
NATICK RECREATION & PARKS: REQUEST TO USE COMMON – HEALTH, FUN & FITNESS DAY
Mr. Cugini requested the closure of Park Street on May 16, 2009 from 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m. as part of the Health, Fun and Fitness day on the Common. He explained there seemed to be a lot interest in the event and it would replace the welcome to spring event.
Mr. Cugini advised that he would work with Safety Officer Lieutenant Lauzon and contact the businesses along Park Street.
Ms. Gloff moved approval. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
Article 19 – Re-authorization of Revolving Funds
Ms. White referred to a proposed motion that covered the renewal of six revolving funds.
Ms. Gloff moved to support favorable action on Article 19, Motion A the Council on Aging transportation account with a $15,000 maximum. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff moved to support favorable action on Article 19, Motion F the Senior Center building maintenance account with a cap of $12,000. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff moved to support favorable action on Article 19, Motion B the Conservation consulting account with a cap of $15,000. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Ms. Gloff moved to support favorable action on Article 19, Motion C for the sale of equipment for the DPW with a cap of $25,000. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello requested an update of what had actually been sold last year, the revenues generated and what was purchased. Ms. White advised that as of December 31 the receipts were $31,000 and expenditures were $21,000.
Ms. Gloff moved to support favorable action on Article 19, Motion D for Library materials with a cap of $85,000.
Mr. Ostroff moved to support favorable action on Article 19, Motion E for library maintenance and equipment with a cap of $15,000. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
For both Motion D and Motion E, Mr. Ciccariello requested that at a future date the Board be provided with the amount brought in and the amount expended during the year.
FISCAL 2010 BUDGET DISCUSSION
Last year the department added a housing/general planner and a member of the Board of Selectmen raised a couple of questions about retaining the individual and also raised a question about the inspector position. Ms. White referred to a memo in the packet from the Community Development Director urging that those positions not be eliminated.
There was an 8.2% budget reduction in the Community Development department that was accomplished through the elimination of summer temporary help, reduced supplies, one part-time inspector position and another part-time inspector position were reduced. The Department was facing and expects some substantial applications including South Natick Hills, the Grant Street 40B, MathWorks expansion, some development or redevelopment on Pond Street, Natick Paperboard, the Mall, Chrysler Road, and Hunters Hill.
Ms. White continued that certain state and federal regulations require the department to have a mechanical inspector and one of the inspectors was the only one to do that. There was also the new trench law and there was data from surrounding communities on the number of inspectors. Needham has 3 inspectors, Wellesley 3 inspectors, Milford 3 inspectors. In the area of affordable housing a planner was hired and he would oversee all affordable sales, and manage the $80,000 HOME grant.
Mr. Walters Young reported that the Finance Committee voted a lower amount. Ms. White noted that the administration supported the full amount requested.
Ms. Gloff noted that through the affordable housing, she had exposure to the individual hired last year and he had already made a huge difference on the Affordable Housing Trust in what the committee can accomplish. The Community Development Director would attempt to come to the meetings, but it was difficult as he had to attend a lot of late night meetings. There would be things the committee needed staff to do and it was difficult for the Community Development Director to fit those things in. With the Housing Planner a lot of projects were moving along. The Housing Planner was looking at the Bacon Street and Everett Street properties and figuring out to manage the HOME. She saw so much value in what he (Housing Planner) was doing.
Mr. Ciccariello commended Mr. Reffett on a very detailed, concise summary of what the department was doing and the workload. It actually showed how much effort was going into this and as a result of getting the summary, he would support the budget.
Mr. Connolly asked about the step increase slotted for the Housing Planner and Ms. White explained that he (Housing Planner) was non-union and would be eligible for a step raise. In both union and non-union, Town and School as you proceed along in time you go up a step, typically at your anniversary date until reaching the top step. The COLA increase would be applied July 1.
In these economic times it seemed strange to Mr. Connolly that step increases would be given. Mr. Ciccariello noted that this had been talked about and the Personnel Board had been asked to look at the step raises. Mr. Connolly responded that it seemed like a lot of money and he would like to take a hard look at it.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to support the Community Development budget in the amount of $686,266 with a reduction of COLA for personnel board employees. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Ms. White advised that the employee fringe benefits was not as yet ready to be discussed.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES:
Article 1: Omnibus Budget – Fiscal 2009
Ms. White advised that the only item at this time that may be dealt with under the Fiscal 2009 budget was the legal budget.
Article 5: Omnibus Budget – Fiscal 2010
With work still remaining to be done on the budget, there was no discussion.
Article 9: Elected Officials Salary
Ms. White proposed a level funding of the elected officials salary.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to support favorable action on Article 9 in the amount of $64,234.67.
Article 12: Capital Equipment
Ms. White noted that the Board had asked the administration to take a look at the Water & Sewer capital. There had been talk about funds potentially available from water & sewer projects that were completed and funds remaining. In a discussion with the DPW Director and Water & Sewer Supervisor, they did not recommend scaling back any of the capital, but by applying the funds remaining, the projected rate increase would be 1.8% per year with the average user seeing an increase of $4.31 per quarter or $17.25 per year. Any changes the Board might make such as implementing additional averaging methods would affect the rates. She also pointed out that the water & sewer rates were driven by things largely beyond the Town’s control primarily the MWRA increase.
With regard to potential savings in future years, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to what would be looked at aside from cutting personnel. Ms. White confirmed that the budget was very personnel driven. There were a lot of costs that were non-personnel such as the chemicals and you couldn’t cut back on those. The maintenance of the equipment was essential. The water conservation efforts have been successful but that didn’t mean less people were needed to produce the water or make sure the sewer was flowing as it should. Less revenue couldn’t be converted into fewer people to manage the system. It was a highly technical operation with hundreds of millions of infrastructure. In her (Ms. White’s) experience it was a well run operation, but you couldn’t scale back people
and expected it to be well run.
Ms. White indicated that she was expecting the Board to take a vote on this article. Mr. Connolly was not ready to take a vote but if forced would do so. He felt there were things the Board could still look at within the water & sewer enterprise. Water & Sewer was the only department not taking a hit throughout the government. He still felt that either a position could be eliminated or some way could be found not to increase the rate. He wanted to wait and see where retained earnings came back in the fall.
With respect to some of the capital items, Mr. Connolly believed the SCADA was a wish list item and he thought it was a poor time to increase fees.
Ms. Gloff agreed that the system could live without the SCADA but she didn’t think that was in the best interest of the community. This was the water people used to drink and cook with and she thought an alarm system would be in the best interest of the community. She heard that the software there now wasn’t working well and it was time to get something new and the Town should be getting a new system before the old one died.
Mr. Ostroff noted that testimony was heard last Friday about a connection fee and whether that could produce revenue from a large development that might offset an increase in the rates. He would like to take a look at that before discussing the rate setting. Mr. Ciccariello agreed, adding that he suggested the fee to DPW Director Charles Sisitsky. Most communities charge more than Natick. The Community Development Director identified numerous projects that were going to start and if the Board was going to do it the sooner the better.
Mr. Ostroff believed the highest priority was maintaining a safe water system and close behind that was making sure it was affordable and the key was to balance the two. The ratepayers were paying for many improvements that put the system in good shape and there were great people taking care of a good system. There was a need to focus on what needed to be done to keep the water safe and he would love to explore how to keep the rates reliable.
Ms. White inquired as to when the Board might consider voting it and what more was needed. The Finance Committee has been reluctant to vote because the Selectmen haven’t and that put the administration in a difficult position in getting ready for Town Meeting.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to support the Town Administrator’s list of capital equipment proposed for Fiscal 2010 in the amount of $403,560. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Connolly stated that it frustrated him to see things repeatedly going up and up and the Board saying it was driven by cost. He didn’t think it was. There was a fleet of 11 cruisers and when money was tight maybe we should get none. The most the Police Department ran at any one time was seven. The Board represents everyone and he wished the Board would start to take a hard look at the expenditure.
Article 13 – Capital Improvement
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to support the Town Administrator’s recommendation of $1,400,000 for capital improvement. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
Commenting on the motion, Mr. Connolly said he would ditto what he said before.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that when the water & sewer audit was done one of the big recommendations was that the DPW needed to improve their capital planning of projects and how they estimate the projects, but the Board still wasn’t getting that stuff.
Ms. White thought the capital planning had improved considerably but the estimating process could use some more help.
Article 20 – Re-authorization of Revolving Fund – Sassamon Trace Golf Carts
Reference had been made before that the Sassamon Trace revolving fund was not carried forward. The balance in the fund was closed out to fund balance and subsequently rolled into the retained earnings for the golf course.
Ms. White reminded the Board that it was the administration’s intent to use the remaining balance in the revolving fund ($18,721.33) to partially fund the 3 year lease for the golf carts. The plan was to expend one third of the revolving fund in each of the three years of the lease. Whereas those funds were now part of the retained earnings, that funding source would be used instead. A change to the Sassamon Trace Enterprise Fund operating budget would be required.
As a result, there would be no action under Article 24 as there was no need to reestablish this fund.
Article 23 – Conveyance of 56 Everett Street to Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Mr. Ciccariello advised that the lot was 22,216 square feet with 115 feet of frontage which exceeds the required frontage. The only question was if there were really wetlands. A small house may still be able to be built, but if the wetlands question couldn’t get resolved, no action would be sought and it would be brought back to Fall Town Meeting.
Article 24 – Appropriate Funds for Survey of Main Street
Ms. White noted that the section of Main Street from the intersection of Route 135 to the North Main Street bridge was never accepted. This article was initiated at the request of Natick Center Associates as the first step to getting this section accepted and they have pledged to pay 1/2 the costs of the survey. A maximum of $20,000 was being budgeted with Natick Center Associates to pay $10,000.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 24.
Article 27 – Reduce Previous Appropriation for Golf Course Maintenance Building
Ms. White advised that these funds were drawn from the stabilization fund and she would propose the money be put back in the stabilization fund.
Mr. Walters Young reported that the Finance Committee voted both Motion A – that the Town vote to release the unexpended balance of $35,467.45 from an appropriation voted in Article 8 of the 2006 Spring Annual Town Meeting for the purpose of construction of the Sassamon Trace Golf course maintenance facility; and Motion B – that the Town appropriate the sum of $35,467.45 from the released appropriation to the Stabilization Fund.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action of Motions A & B for Article 27.
Article 37 – Citizen Petition: Appropriation of Open Space Funds
Ms. White advised that answers had not been gotten for the two questions that arose concerning the article. Mr. Proia the sponsor of the article suggests the way money was put into the conservation fund was inappropriate. Town Counsel was asked to call the DOR, but hadn’t gotten an answer.
The Board agreed to table to the meeting of April 6.
Article 38 – Restriction of Level 3 Sex Offenders
Mr. Connolly had suggested the filing of the article and expressed his frustration with the level of going forward with it. He told the Board that he had been in contact with the District Attorney’s Office and Senator Brown’s office. He knew what he would like to do but didn’t want to set the Town up for litigation. He asked for another week and then if he didn’t have answers would seek no action.
Article 40 – Citizen Petition: Compositon of Existing High School Building Committee
The Board was in receipt of an e-mail from the petitioner of the article seeking no action.
Article 35 – Amend by-Laws to Increase Gasoline Storage Fee
Ms. White informed the board that this was more complicated than first envisioned and given the timing for sending out the renewal of licenses, it wouldn’t affect this year. She suggested either no action or referral to the Town Administrator.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to reconsider Article 35.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to recommend referral of Article 35 to the Board of Selectmen and Town Administrator.
MINUTES
Mr. Ostroff moved to approve the minutes of the August 25, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. 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.
NATICK CENTER ASSOCIATES: REQUEST BANNER
Mr. Ostroff disclosed that he was a member of the Natick Center Associates.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam to approve the Natick Center Associates, Inc.'s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of June 15-June 21, 2009 in advertisement of their new web site. Unanimously voted.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
Ms. White informed the Board there would be a meeting on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. on the Route 27 design.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
- Draft Policy for Waiver of Building Fees
For a future discussion Mr. Ostroff presented the Board with a draft policy for waiving building fees.
- Natick Education Foundation
Mr. Ostroff offered to present the citation signed by the Board for the Natick Education Foundation’s recognition of two former Selectmen – Jay and Erica Ball.
Members of the Board requested updates at a future meeting on the early retirement program, regionalization of the Animal Control, update from the group focusing on emergency services, the Mall permit fee, and the Police/Fire Town Hall boilers.
Mr. Connolly announced the Police Department would be holding a blood drive to benefit an officer’s young child.
- Human Resources Director Position
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to when the Board of Selectmen’s budget with the HR Director would be considered and was told by Ms. White that it would be discussed at the meeting of April 6.
The Expense Control Task Force identified Human Resources as a potential source of reorganization and Mr. Ciccariello suggested that be considered. Whether there would be any savings he didn’t think that had been identified but there might be and there might be some efficiencies. His thought was to keep the salary in the Fiscal 2010 budget but that no one be hired until all the analysis was done and the Board of Selectmen would direct the Town Administrator not to fill the position until a complete analysis was done. It may be that instead of a Director, an Assistant Director would be hired depending on the Schools’ input.
Ms. White liked the idea of a consolidated department and appreciated the Board of Selectmen’s support of filling the human resources position. She noted that she would be fine with what Mr. Ciccariello stated.
Ms. Gloff didn’t have a problem with Mr. Ciccariello’s suggestion, but she didn’t get the impression that the School Department and School Committee had any significant interest in that and the Board couldn’t force it to happen.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that Ms. White was very supportive of this initiative (to combine HR Departments), but she (Ms. Van Amsterdam) would argue to keep the Human Resources position in the long-term interest. There needed to be additional discussions with the Schools but given that Ms. White and Mr. Walters Young were very busy with Town Meeting it was relayed back to the Expense Control Task Force that a meeting would be set up in mid April.
Mr. Walters Young noted that the Board of Selectmen budget was $659,023 with the COLA already out.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to funding for the HR position and Ms. Gloff responded that a piece of it was being taken out of labor legal counsel - $22,000. Ms. White added that there had been a number of refinements, new revenues through fees, cutting back in other areas such as the COLA so there was money available for this position. However, whatever was produced now and spent meant less free cash coming out at the end of the fiscal year.
Ms. Van Amsterdam then inquired if the new revenues the Board voted were sufficient to sustain this position long-term or just for Fiscal 2010. When preparing for the Fiscal 2011 budget, the fees won’t be increased again and the legal budget won’t be able to be raised. What was being done to keep the position?
Ms. White said she didn’t have a specific funding source in Fiscal 2011. The position would be part of the overall operating cost and the administration will try to find new revenues and opportunities for savings. Health care was her main priority in terms of opportunity for savings. That was an area with potential significant savings and having a Personnel Director would make that a lot easier to accomplish.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if the Board was comfortable in making this vote today when it may mean the layoff of another position in the Town for Fiscal 2011.
The way Mr. Ciccariello saw it was that the Board had the final decision
whether the Town Administrator filled the position. The Town may be in
worse shape in Fiscal 2011 than this year and could be looking at more cuts
and layoffs, but that won’t be known until we saw what was going on in
the economy and with state revenues. In July the Board could decide
the position shouldn’t be filled and the money would go back to free cash.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to support
the Board of Selectmen’s budget in the amount of $659,023 with the COLA
already removed. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello,
Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion.
Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Mr. Connolly stated that he could not support the budget with the
HR Director. Looking around he saw layoffs of other positions
and cuts, but the budget the Board directly controlled had nothing cut but
the COLA. He liked the idea of waiting until July and the thought of combining with the School. He didn’t think the Board was sending a good message that its budget wouldn’t be affected and he would vote against the motion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 a.m.
________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
