BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
March 9, 2009
5:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 5:30 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly. Absent: Kristine Van Amsterdam. John Ciccariello left after the executive session and returned at 8:10 p.m.
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Walters Young, Deputy Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on March 9, 2009 in the amount of $622,475.40. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,246,576.98.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to litigation. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. At 5:30 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:00 p.m. Vice-Chair Joshua Ostroff chaired the first hour and a quarter of the meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Interim Town Clerk Onorina Maloney announced that March 31 was the voter registration deadline for individuals who wish to vote in the Town election. Her office would be open from 8:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m.
MINUTES
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the August 11, 2008 meeting.
RECYCLING COMMITTEE: ANNOUNCE RECYCLING EVENT
Appearing before the Board were the Recycling Committee Co-Chair Terry Miller and committee member Brinley Vickers.
Ms. Vickers described the upcoming event called “Clean Your Attic Recycling Day” scheduled for March 21, 2009 from 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. at the Natick High School parking lot. E.L. Harvey would be on site for paper shredding at a cost of $5.00 per bin for residents and $10.00 per bin for businesses. Also present would be Big Brothers Big Sisters collecting clothing, household goods and furniture. Bicycles would be requested and donated to Bikes Not Bombs.
In addition the Natick Food Pantry would be accepting donations. They were especially in need of personal care items. Got Books will be collecting books, VHS tapes, DVD, CD and albums. There will also be recycling of TV’s, computers, and electronic items.
Ms. Vickers told the Board that the Recycling Committee had launched a huge marketing campaign and there had been a number of nice newspaper articles in the past five weeks. The Committee also worked the pancake breakfast, put an ad on Pegasus, spoke to the Rotary Club, distributed flyers and would have display tables this weekend at the library, DPW and hopefully Town Hall.
Mr. Ostroff asked if the information was on the Town’s web site or calendar. Ms. Miller responded that she just sent the information over for posting on the web site and hopefully it will get posted soon. It was on the Recycling Committee’s web site at www.natickrecycle.pbwiki.com.
BRIGHTER TOMORROW: REQUEST ONE DAY LIQUOR LICENSE
The Board was in receipt of a request from Ted Armstrong for a one day liquor license to host a fund raiser for Brighter Tomorrow for Africa on Sunday, April 5, 2009, 4:00-8:00 p.m. at The Center for Arts in Natick, 14 Summer Street.
Mr. Armstrong advised that Brighter Tomorrow was a grass roots effort to raise money for Africa.
Ms. Gloff inquired if music was going to be played, and Mr. Armstrong responded there would be a presentation on the foundation and then five different musical groups would play including the Flutie Brothers Band and Ernie and the Automatics.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to grant Ted Armstrong a one day liquor license on behalf of Brighter Tomorrow for Africa for April 5, 2009, at the Center for Arts in Natick. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted
In making the motion Mr. Connolly raised the possibility of waiving the $50 fee, but Ms. Gloff thought it might be setting a precedent for other non-profits. Mr. Connolly rescinded the waiver from his motion.
BOSTON MARATHON JIMMY FUND WALK: REQUEST PERMIT
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Boston Marathon Jimmy Fund Walk’s request for a permit to conduct the annual Jimmy Fund walk through Natick on September 13, 2009.
PRODUCTION RESOURCES: REQUEST PERMIT FOR BANNER
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve Production Resources’ request to display a banner alongside West Central Street near Fisk Pond promoting Adidas America during the running of the Boston Marathon. The banner would be hung from a construction scissor which would arrive on April 19 and be removed April 21, 2009.
ST. PAUL’S CHURCH: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
Mr. Connolly moved approval of St. Paul’s Church’s request to use the Natick Common on Sunday, April 5 from 8:45 a.m.-9:00 a.m. and 10:45-11:00 a.m. and on Friday, April 10, 2009 from 11:45 a.m.-12:30 p.m. for Palm Sunday and Good Friday services and to waive any associated fees. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
LILJA PTA: REQUEST BANNER
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Lilja PTA’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period May 4-May 11, 2009 in advertisement of the Lilja Spring Fair.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION: OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to accept the resignation of Georgia Gojmerac-Leiner from the Open Space Advisory Committee and to send Ms. Gojmerac-Leiner a letter of appreciation. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
JON’S CAR SERVICE: LIVERY PERMIT
Representing Jon’s Car Service was Jonathan Goldstein of 31 Centre Street. Mr. Goldstein was applying for a permit to conduct a livery service in the Town of Natick.
Mr. Goldstein told the Board that he had a specialized livery company. His clients were a lot of elderly that he took to appointments and to Boston for specialized care. He was also an early morning service company. A lot of people were in need of very early or late at night service to Logan Airport or Logan Express and he specialized in that because of the hours he was willing to put in. He gave quality service and ran a vehicle that had been inspected by the Town and passed with flying colors. He was told a livery permit was needed and was here to apply for that permit.
Mr. Connolly inquired if taxi and livery permits were one in the same. Mr. Ostroff advised that they were not. Taxi was pick up in the street and livery was by appointment.
Mr. Goldstein stated that he did not solicit at the train station. He booked in advance.
Mr. Ostroff was of the understanding there was nothing on Mr. Goldstein’s car to provide advertising, but Mr. Goldstein said that was a question he wanted to find out. What route did he have to take for advertising? He had signs on his car and was told to remove them. If he was not allowed to have a sign, Mr. Goldstein said he would live by the rules. He would like to find out the right way of advertising for his company and would like the Board’s feedback.
Mr. Ostroff pointed out that the Town wasn’t in the business of providing business advice. The Board could tell him the rules, i.e. he couldn’t wait at a taxi stand, and he couldn’t solicit fares.
Mr. Goldstein noted that he was trying to work with the seniors because there was a need. He had built up a good rapport with a lot of the seniors and they liked the service he provided. He reiterated that he was not applying for a taxi license and didn’t pick up anybody off the street.
Mr. Ostroff commented that should the Board receive any complaints he was sure the Board would very concerned.
Tim Kelley, owner of JFK Transportation, told the Board that he had both a taxi and livery service. His concern was that for the taxis there was a CORI background on the owner and his employees, a worker’s compensation insurance requirement, and a business certificate. There were senior coupons at the Council on Aging and only a couple of companies listed and he was concerned with Mr. Goldstein jumping on the coupons.
Fran Goldstein, Jonathan’s wife, noted that JFK was a taxi and livery. Jonathan’s business was specialized which was for the elderly. He (Jonathan) has been through a CORI check, through drug testing and passed with flying colors. He (Mr. Goldstein) was not giving coupons. He was a one man operation so he didn’t have worker’s compensation, but he was fully insured. He came to Town Hall, took out a business license and paid $40.
Ms. Gloff inquired if the state required a livery service to have worker’s compensation and was told by Mr. Goldstein that only if there were employees.
Mr. Goldstein confirmed for Mr. Ostroff that he would not be using the coupons available.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to grant Jonathan Goldstein d/b/a Jon’s Car Service, Inc. a permit to conduct a livery service conditioned upon Lt. Lauzon passing the vehicle and Mr. Goldstein submitting a copy of the CORI check and a copy of his automotive insurance. Mr. Ostroff seconded with an amendment that the permit was limited to this particular vehicle and Mr. Goldstein was the sole driver. There was to be no use of senior coupons. Mr. Connolly accepted the amendment. Unanimously voted.
NORDSTROM CAFÉ BISTRO: CHANGE IN MANAGER
Representing Nordstrom Café Bistro was Attorney Patricia Farnsworth of Lawson & Weitzen and the proposed new manager Yvonne E. Santos.
Ms. Farnsworth told the Board that Ronald Sanderson was being transferred to Peabody. Yvonne Santos has been in Nordstrom working in a restaurant for 10 years. She (Ms. Santos) was both TIPS and Serve Safe certified and knew Natick’s regulations.
Ms. Gloff pointed out that the application said Ms. Santos had been a manager from January 4th to present. Ms. Santos explained that she was an assistant manager in Texas and came here and trained with Mr. Sanderson.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve Nordstrom Café Bistro’s petition for a change in manager from Ronald Sanderson to Yvonne Santos.
Noting that this had been an issue with license holders in the past (not petitioning for a change in manager), Mr. Ostroff thanked Nordstrom for coming in.
REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT: ALBERTINE LEBLANC
Albertine LeBlanc noted that in November she wrote requesting a water bill abatement. She had installed a new lawn and wasn’t aware that it would have been in her best interest to get an irrigation meter. She was shocked to get her bill. A good chunk of the charge was sewer fees, but the water didn’t go into the sewer and she was hoping for some type of abatement.
The Board was in receipt of a memo from the Finance Director Robert Palmer. Mr. Walters Young noted that the Finance Director had been asked two questions: 1) the history of Ms. LeBlanc’s bills and from the history you could see the spike; 2) What the average use and then the irrigation rate would be for the added units. The difference would have been $321.00 in the November 2008 bill if an irrigation meter had been in place and $92.00 from the July 2008 bill. That was based on looking at the average use for the past three years.
Ms. LeBlanc pointed out that she had another issue in 2006. An undesirable tenant had a leaking washing machine that resulted in 2-3 quarters of high water bills that were unusual. That period was included in the calculation. At that time there was a bill for $474.
Ms. Gloff understood the point Ms. LeBlanc was making, but noted that water went into the sewer system.
Mr. Connolly understood that Ms. LeBlanc was not disputing the fact the water was used. Ms. LeBlanc’s response was, “not at all”.
Were the Board to accept Mr. Palmer’s memo, Mr. Ostroff noted that it would be $321 for one month and $92 for the previous quarter for a total of $413.
Based on the watering of the lawn that didn’t go into the sewer system, Mr. Connolly moved to abate Albertine LeBlanc’s water & sewer bills of November 2008 and July 2008 by $413. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT: MARK D’ANTONIO
Discussion of this item was tabled pending Mark D’Antonio’s arrival.
PUBLIC HEARING: MATHWORKS: AMEND LICENSE TO STORE FLAMMABLES – PARKING GARAGE
Representing The MathWorks was Attorney Richard Glaser, Jack O’Neill the developer, and Matt Leman from The MathWorks.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Mr. Ostroff advised that this was a garage that exceeds the threshold and state statute requires a permit to store the gasoline in those cars.
Mr. Glaser stated that this was a modification of the original permit. There was a three story garage that was going to four stories. All notices were sent by certified mail and advertised. The applicant met with the Fire Department on numerous occasions and the major focus was for fire protection. They met with the expert for the Fire Department and the Chief and the Chief signed the application. He (Mr. Glaser) wasn’t aware of any remaining fire protection issues.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to grant The MathWorks an amended storage permit for a four-level (easterly) parking garage for a maximum of 772 vehicles for premises at 568-590 Worcester Street. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT: MARK D’ANTONIO
Mr. Ostroff noted receipt of a letter from the Finance Director denying Mark D’Antonio’s request for a water bill abatement as a matter of policy and referring him to the Board of Selectmen. Ms. White distributed a copy of the history of the account. Mark D’Antonio had requested an abatement of his January 2009 water & sewer bill totaling $990.79.
Mr. D’Antonio told the Board that he thought the Finance Director misunderstood. He (Mr. D’Antonio) had a washing machine that was leaking into the laundry tray. It didn’t drain into the sewer. It drained into the ground.
Mr. Connolly disclosed that he and Mr. D’Antonio were personal friends and business associates.
Reviewing the history, it appeared to Mr. Ostroff that the average use was $51 or a $660 difference.
Given that Mr. D’Antonio brought new information that the water went into a hole in the basement vs the sewer, Ms. Gloff questioned if the Board had an obligation to send it back to Mr. Palmer to see if he had any reconsideration. Ms. White advised that that could be done although she had some concern with the water draining into the ground.
Mr. D’Antonio responded that it was overflow and this was the only time it happened in 10 years.
Ms. Gloff stated that she would suggest sending it back to Mr. Palmer. She was concerned about constantly getting in the mode of just doing an abatement and had a feeling that if Mr. Palmer had this information, he may have felt differently. If Mr. Palmer didn’t feel any differently then Mr. D’Antonio could come back to the Board. She suggested that Mr. D’Antonio put in writing that the washing machine drained to a pan and didn’t drain into the sewer, but instead into a hole.
Mr. Connolly didn’t see why it had to be continued. It was pretty clear to him and Mr. Palmer already sent it to the Board.
Mr. Gloff responded that she was concerned that Mr. Palmer either didn’t understand or didn’t have all the information and he should have that in writing. The Board didn’t have that in writing either and that was her concern.
Mr. Ostroff suggested that Mr. D’Antonio call Mr. Palmer and explain and if something further were required to let Ms. Challis know and he (Mr. D’Antonio) could be put on the beginning of the next meeting. He thought it could be resolved administratively through the office. Mr. Palmer believed the water was going through the sewer system and with the new information he may have a basis to make a different determination.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to refer Mr. D’Antonio’s request back to Mr. Palmer for the reasons discussed. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 2-1-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff and Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
DPW DIRECTOR: SNOW OVERDRAFT
DPW Business Manager William Chenard reviewed the budget and previous appropriations. He advised that expenditures as of March 6, 2009 were $810,307.46. With a FY09 budget appropriation of $150,000 plus overdraft authorizations of $600,000 that left a negative of $60,307.46. The breakdown of the expenditures were as follows:
Sand & salt $256,231.60
Equipment Parts & Repairs $ 33,738.26
Contractors $236,046.25
Staff overtime $258,390.08
Fuel $ 21,249.20
Administrative $ 4,652.07
In the memo to the Board, the DPW requested an additional $250,000, but Mr. Chenard advised that last Thursday the Finance Committee changed the requested and only authorized $150,000 for the rest of the year. The DPW would probably be before the Board early next fall to purchase salt or the shed could be filled this spring. Last year the shed was filled in the spring which saved $38,000. The current price to fill the shed would be just over $160,000 so if the authorization was only $150,000, before they even start plowing they would have a $10,000 deficit.
Ms. Gloff inquired if any plowing, salting, or sanding had been done in the last 24 hours and was told by Mr. Chenard that there were two staff members from Building Maintenance on duty and they had six crews for sanding and salting.
Mr. Connolly noted that a citizen asked him why snow removal was done on Pond Street on Friday when the anticipated forecast was 60o. Mr. Chenard responded that the DPW paid for a service and did look at the forecast but knew there was going to be an event and tried to remove it for safety purposes.
At 8:10 p.m. Mr. Ciccariello returned.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he had a citizen express concern about the snow removal and the damage to the roads and sidewalks. The Board relied on the experts of the Highway Division to figure out how to get the best bang for the buck.
Mr. Chenard assured the Board that the DPW looked at it and took every step possible to minimize overtime without sacrificing safety.
Mr. Ostroff asked if Ms. White had any comments on the Finance Committee recommendations. Ms. White indicated that she did not that Mr. Chenard summed it up accurately – you either fund it now or later. The administration tried to increase the appropriation because the $150,000 was so blatantly unrealistic so the thought was to increase it incrementally.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to authorize an additional $150,000 for snow removal for Fiscal 2009.
Mr. Chenard noted that at some point the Board would have to make a policy decision as to whether to fill the salt shed or wait.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the price of salt had ever gone down. Mr. Chenard’s response was, “no”, adding that there was one oddity last fall and the Town took advantage of it.
Mr. Ciccariello resumed as Chair.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
John Merritt told the Board he was unhappy about the vote to raise the fee for trash bags. He noted that he was not commenting on whether the Town needs to raise fees and was not questioning the Board’s authority to set such fees nor was he questioning whether the fees should or should not be raised. He was saying the manner was unfair.
Mr. Merritt didn’t want to go into detail about his concerns, but asked the Board to review the copy of the piece from the newspaper that he just handed out and once the points he was trying to raise were reviewed and discussed, he would respectfully request the Board vote to reconsider and re-vote the vote taken on February 23. If that were done and trash fees were set that were fair, transparent, and environmentally friendly, he was here to offer his service pro bono in clarifying these issues as he had done for other communities for many years.
If the Board was not willing to do that Mr. Merritt said he would not let the matter rest. He had already established a committee, RAFT (Residents Against Fee Tierney), that would work toward educating the neighbors about these difficult issues using e-mail and direct mail and work to identify and explore any political possibilities.
Mr. Ostroff believed the last time Mr. Merritt and he engaged in the subject was in 2003 when there was a campaign to reverse pay-as-you-throw. He applauded Mr. Merritt for raising the issue and there were further issues of who gets the service and how it was funded. Currently the Town provides service to around 70% of the households.
Mr. Merritt noted that one professional piece of work he did for the Town many years ago was bringing condos on line and he couldn’t agree more in the fairness approach.
Mr. Ostroff felt the other thought was how to treat the entire operation. It could be an enterprise fund and increase the cost to the people who use it. He wondered if Mr. Merritt would mind developing that line of thought and the issue of what was fixed and variable.
Mr. Ciccariello told Mr. Merritt he was interested in talking to him and other members were open to meeting with Mr. Merritt as well if they were interested. Mr. Merritt offered to schedule time with anyone, reiterating that he was prepared to give the full professional time he had given many communities.
Ms. Gloff stated that she was interested, but felt to have a real discussion tonight was a little premature.
Mr. Connolly said he would love to join the RAFT and pointed out that to get a reconsideration of the vote it had to be done by the majority of the yea votes.
Mr. Ostroff thought Mr. Merritt was talking about something a lot more complex than 25¢. He believed Mr. Merritt was talking about an evaluation of how the service was delivered.
Mr. Merritt clarified that what he was talking about wouldn’t be cheaper. It would just be a fair distribution.
Aaron Socrat and Josh Tower delivered a citizens petition to the Board concerning two fundamental issues of the development of the site known as Natick Paperboard.
Mr. Socrat noted that one was the issue of the monetary commitment to the Town and a loss of over $200,000 per year in real estate taxes to the Town as apartments vs condominiums. The Planning Board has been asked numerous times by citizens to review the approved article by Town Meeting as well as the minutes of discussion on the floor to see if this change to apartments was valid. The citizens were asking the Board of Selectmen to use its authority to request a legal review of this issue.
The second issue was that the site was contaminated and the residents wanted all the contamination removed. The Natick Paperboard site was a dirty site. It was in the Aquifer Protection District and affected the drinking water. The contaminants were already in the water table and the residents believed capping was a bad idea. The wellness to the site was important and this was a bad deal for Natick. Both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission suggest they are powerless to demand the removal of the contamination. The Conservation Commission hastily closed the hearing and people didn’t get a chance to speak.
Both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission have been urged by its citizens, the Cochituate State Park Advisory Committee as well as some of their own board members to remove all the contamination. The residents have asked the boards to step up and be courageous on behalf of the citizens of Natick. The signers of the petition were asking the Board of Selectmen to encourage the Planning Board and Conservation Commission or by any other legal means to mandate that all the contamination be removed from the site.
Mr. Ciccariello reported that he had a meeting with the Town Administrator, Community Development Director, the Chair of the Planning Board and another Planning Board member, and the Environmental Compliance Officer and the subject matter of Mr. Socrat’s and Mr. Tower’s complaints was brought up. Mr. Bois, the Environmental Compliance Officer, was asked to speak to Town Counsel regarding the Conservation Hearing and the Planning Board was asked to speak to Town Counsel regarding the intent of the original article filed at Town Meeting. As soon as he (Mr. Ciccariello) heard back he would get Mr. Socrat and Mr. Tower the information. He had been advised by both committees that they have stayed within the process required by statute. He would accept the petition presented, but the Board of
Selectmen’s authority was somewhat limited because the Planning Board were elected officials and although the Conservation Commission was appointed by the Board, the Selectmen didn’t have the authority to tell them what to do. He asked both boards to review the process with Town Counsel, but was assured by both that they were following the required process.
Mr. Socrat responded if Town Counsel made a determination that things were done in a proper manner, then Town Meeting would be satisfied but there needed to be a written response because a lot of Town Meeting members felt uncomfortable.
A recess was called at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES:
Articles 7 & 8 – Morse Institute Library; Bacon Free Library
Ms. White prefaced the discussion by noting that the directors of both libraries had been asked to focus on the impact of the budget cuts – to focus on the larger picture.
Jane Finley, Acting Director for the Morse Institute, told the Board that she had been asked to prepare a budget that had a 6.5% reduction from level service. Because the funds for the library were about 85% personnel, the cuts would impact the personnel lines the most. The first impact was due to the hiring freeze and the loss of the Young Adult Librarian for Fiscal 2010. That will result in a decrease in service especially in programs and events. It will fall under the reference desk but it will be a drain on the reference desk. There was a grant this year that focused on young people and because there was no Young Adult Librarian, the programs would not continue after this year.
Ms. Finley identified the second largest impact as the loss of the overtime budget. That funds the holiday, summer vacation, and Sunday coverage. Starting Fiscal 2010, the library will be closed all Sundays and will be closed holiday weekends and summer Saturdays starting May 21.
The last impact was a cut in the technology funds. The library will have about $8,000 to meet the technology needs. They (library) will still maintain membership in the Minuteman Library Network, but due to a reduction in funds the library will need to apply for a waiver to meet the municipal appropriation required for state aid funding. The library will not be able to meet 100% of the open hours compliance, but hoped to meet the materials expenditure required. With the waiver they hoped to maintain the state aid but with the 90% compliance, they would receive a small amount of funding.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to how the Morse Institute Library and the Bacon Free Library worked together and if there was any way to express to the state that Natick had two different libraries that work collaboratively.
Ms. Finley advised that the libraries applied together for the state aid so they were working together as a unit. The hours cannot overlap (to meet open hours compliance). Right now the Bacon Free was open two hours that the Morse Institute was not.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to the possibility of an adjustment in hours, and Ms. Finley responded that there had been some discussion about the possibility of the Bacon Free being open on Sundays, but the problem was that the Bacon Free couldn’t supply the services the Morse Institute could so it was thought to be an unwise move.
Ms. Gloff agreed that the Bacon Free may not have the same services, but thought it would be better to have some service than none. Ms. Finley noted that it could be discussed. It would probably require the Bacon Free to be open more mornings. Ms. Gloff interpreted that to mean that Ms. Finley didn’t see Sunday as a possibility. Ms. Finley responded that she didn’t see Sunday as a possibility because of the volume received and she thought it would be unfair to the public and the staff. The libraries had to pay time and a half on Sundays and the money didn’t exist for either the Bacon Free or Morse Institute at this point.
Ms. White added that it (Bacon Free opening on Sundays) had been talked about and she was not entirely prepared to throw the idea out yet. She saw some positives. Maybe the facility couldn’t provide the same resources, but there would be services and it would help introduce the community to the Bacon Free Library. For Sunday hours there would be costs involved that were not in the budget but if the Board was interested she would be willing and interested in exploring it further with the two directors and the boards.
Ms. Gloff wasn’t certain if it was a good idea or not, but she would hate to lose any state aid and she was reluctant to have no library service on Sunday.
When combining the funding for Bacon Free and Morse Institute, Ms. Gloff asked if there was adequate funding. To Ms. Finley’s response that it was already combined, Ms. Gloff inquired as to how far off it was. Ms. Finley couldn’t give a clear answer because part of it was their revolving fund, but she estimated not to seek a waiver would be between $5,000-20,000. She commented that it was talking apples and oranges.
If money was found to cover the two additional hours, Ms. Gloff asked if the money being paid to the staff would count toward the $5,000-20,000. Ms. Finley responded that she thought about $35,000 would be needed to open on Sunday. Ms. Gloff suggested the focus be on the Bacon Free Library where only two people were needed to staff. Ms. Finley strongly recommended not going in that direction. There was no way the Bacon Free Library could meet the needs. Ms. Gloff understood the point but thought there would be some self-limiting. A number of people would chose not to go to the Bacon Free. She (Ms. Gloff) didn’t think it could be said that because so many people went to the Morse that nothing could be done at Bacon.
It was Mr. Connolly’s understanding that to get the state funding at least 63 hours were needed and inquired as to how many there were now. Ms. Finley advised there were 61 hours. Asked what the dollar difference in state funding was, Ms. Finley advised that it was $5,000-7,000.
Mr. Connolly questioned if the state was holding back money. Ms. White believed the state’s funding was reliable but there were two factors that could jeopardize full contribution – the hours and the Town’s appropriation to the two libraries. Even if the hours were met the Town would still be challenged to meet the appropriation. She believed Ms. Gloff was asking if the extra two hours were added if that would also meet the appropriation level, but she (Ms. White) was not sure.
To Mr. Connolly’s inquiry as to how far off it was, Ms. White thought it was in the $7,000-20,000 range and probably on the higher end of that. Ms. Finley noted that she had every expectation that waivers would be given where the budget cuts were fairly proportional across departments. She believed the Town could get a waiver to get state aid. The budgeted amounts do not meet the requirement but some revolving funds and expenditures from the Friends of the Library and trust funds have been added.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the cost per hour for the Morse Institute, but Ms. Finley didn’t have that number.
Should the library need to submit a letter to the state, Mr. Ostroff offered that the Board would do what it could to help make sure the waivers were granted. If the Board of Selectmen had a role he would want to act on it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the hours the Morse Institute was currently open and was told by Ms. Finley that it was 10:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. Monday-Thursday; 10:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. Friday & Saturday; 1:00-5:00 p.m. Sunday through the normal year. The summer wasn’t counted.
Mr. Ciccariello asked how many communities had applied for and received a waiver. Ms. Finley reiterated that she believed the library should be able to get a waiver which would allow them to get state aid. The only problem would be that in meeting 90% compliance in the hours, only 87% of the state aid would be received.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested checking the local colleges or high school students and Ms. Finley advised that there were quite a few volunteers already working at the library.
He then inquired as to how many staff were being cut and Ms. White noted that the Young Adult Librarian left and the position was unfilled. The bulk of the reductions was in overtime.
Article 8 – Bacon Free
Representing the Bacon Free Library was the Director Dianne Wallace and the Treasurer/Trustee John Manning.
Ms. Wallace advised that the original request for the Bacon Free was $125,147 and was now $116,974. Mainly, funds were removed from the computer maintenance line and repairs for maintenance of the building which for the most part the trustees handle. The Friends typically support the library every year with a minimum of $3,200. Also reduced were books, periodicals, and supplies. She felt the library could live nicely with this budget. She had hoped to add some hours for a library assistant but thought she could still manage without it. The library operated pretty lean.
Mr. Ciccariello referenced the 20 or so e-mails received concerning the Bacon Free. He noted that one of his thoughts was to review the budgets in terms of looking at the priorities in the community. When the budget situation was where it was today and cuts had to be made, you had to look at priorities. Was it cutting the Fire Department staff vs libraries? It was a difficult decision to make because everybody had their thing. The problem was trying to find alternative sources for funding to provide all of these things. It was good to hear Ms. Wallace thought she could live within her means, but that didn’t help the Morse Institute looking for two more hours and giving up maintenance was a big problem. Police, Fire and DPW have been whacked the hardest and there were times when you had to look at
the priorities. If anybody had some alternative ideas and ways to raise money, he would be happy to listen.
Having watched the presentation with the Finance Committee, Mr. Ostroff commented on how he realized how reliant the library was on community support and volunteer support. Ms. Wallace noted there were regular volunteers that help at story hour and some high school kids that volunteer to shelf books and when there were special events the Friends always man the tables.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the hourly rates were the same for both libraries, but Ms. White pointed out that the employees at the Bacon Free were not part of the collective bargaining unit.
Although he didn’t know if the Board of Selectmen were the best ones to sort it, Mr. Ostroff asked if Ms. Wallace was comfortable sitting down with the Town Administrator and the Morse Institute to see how the hours might dovetail to maximize the coverage. Ms. Wallace’s response was, “absolutely”.
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young informed the Board that funding for Article 7 was requested at $1,737,625. At this time the Finance Committee did not have a recommendation on this budget.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to support favorable action on Article 7 in the amount of $1,737,625. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Speaking to her motion Ms. Gloff encouraged the town administration and representatives of both libraries to continue to work together to look for ways in which they complement each other and look to unduplicate hours per week. She understood the Town could get a waiver but it wasn’t clear the budget would be better in a year and waivers may not be as easy.
Mr. Ostroff remarked that this was nothing to cheer about, but these were tough times.
Mr. Walters Young advised that funding for Article 8 was requested at $116,974. The Finance Committee voted 8-3-0 to recommend favorable action.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to recommend favorable action of Article 8 in the amount of $116,974. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. Following some discussion the motion was withdrawn.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was not prepared to vote on this. The Town Administrator had been asked to look at a bunch of things and until he got some feedback he wanted to hold back. He noted that he had handed out a list of possible alternatives and had not received any response. He thought other members were going to prepare a list as well.
Ms. White thought her task would be to follow up on what was suggested under the Morse Institute discussion to find opportunities for collaboration.
Mr. Ostroff believed it was vital to send a signal of support to the Bacon Free and the Board should do everything it could to resolve some of these issues and make sure the institutions were not just surviving but thriving. To suggest otherwise was sending the wrong signal. A facility that supports lifelong learning was a core that we need to promote and $116,000 was probably one of the smallest budgets. His hope was that the Board would support this. The Finance Committee went over the budget in amazing detail and ultimately supported it.
Mr. Connolly noted that he had put together a list of areas to be considered, but this was something the administration should have done. Closing the Bacon Free Library wasn’t one of his main concerns, but everybody has an opinion. Some of the items on Mr. Ciccariello’s list he supported and some of them he didn’t, but he gave the Board a direction in which to go. If the chair wants to table this, he thought the rest of the Board should grant him that. It was easy to say yes to everything, but something had to go. The only alternative was to ask for more fees and taxes and the citizens have been hit hard enough so the Town had to make do.
Ms. White responded that the balanced budget the administration presented reflects the administration’s priorities. The administration has already identified their priority areas. It may not be a priority Mr. Connolly would share, but it reflects the administration’s priorities.
Mr. Connolly countered that the administration was accountable to the Board and he heard from the citizens on what they would like to see and as an elected member it was his responsibility to bring those things forward.
The Board agreed not to take a vote until the next meeting.
Article 11 – Personnel Board
Ms. White distributed a memo from the Chair of the Personnel Board with his Board’s recommendations with respect to the non-union personnel board pay plan. The recommendations were:
No COLA adjustment for non-union employees
A decrease in pay proposed for the golf course
A modest increase in pay proposed for the election workers
The pay plan previously identified the stop step as performance range and that was changed to read ‘maximum’. Otherwise there were no changes in the pay plan from last year.
It was explained that the increase for election workers came about as the result of Town Meeting member Dight Crain and a study of the position in other towns. In addition it now provides for a ½ day rate to give flexibility to the Town Clerk in staffing.
Ms. White advised that this article had not as yet been voted by the Finance Committee. It was scheduled for tomorrow night.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he wouldn’t vote on this article because his wife was an election worker in the fall. She won’t be in the spring but may again at some point in the future.
Ms. Gloff moved to support favorable action on Article 11 as presented in the memo from the Chair of the Personnel Board. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff abstained.
Article 17 – Increase Fees – Collector’s Demand Fee
Ms. White recalled that some questions were raised at the last meeting about how the demand fees worked. She consulted with the Collector and he says the fee was mandated by statute. When he sends out a demand notice that fee was imposed. Subsequent to that notice if a taxpayer contacts the Collector and a payment plan can be developed and the taxpayer stuck to that program, late fees can be avoided.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the estimated revenue if there was an increase from $5.00 to $25.00 and was told that it would be about $75,000.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if this fee had ever been increased and Ms. White advised that it wasn’t permitted until about a year ago when the State allowed towns to increase it to about $30.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that he was torn on this one. The Town should be entitled to get the money but raising it $20 seemed high. He would prefer to see it lower.
Mr. Ostroff pointed out that it was increasing a fine and the Town wanted to get their attention, but not hit them over the head. He suggested a $10 increase.
Ms. Gloff proposed a $15 increase.
Asked how this impacted seniors and veterans, Ms. White advised that it applied to any taxes owed.
Mr. Connolly stated that he was against this. He could hardly pay the $5 never mind more.
The question arose as to when people would know they had the opportunity to come in and meet with the Collector. Since the newsletter went out with the tax bill, Ms. Gloff suggested that maybe something could be put in the newsletter.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to support favorable action for Article 15. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Article 23 – Conveyance of 56 Everett Street to Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Mr. Ciccariello requested that no action be taken on Article 23. Ms. Gloff had a meeting with the Affordable Housing Trust fund and some questions came up. Town Counsel has been asked to do some research on his files. It was Mr. Ciccariello’s recollection that this was a Furcolo lot.
Ms. Gloff advised that the next meeting of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund was April 7.
Article 28, Article 29 – Acceptance of Legislation to Increase Hotel/Motel Tax
Ms. White noted that the Legislature had not as yet accepted legislation for the hotel/motel tax.
Mr. Ostroff added that he spoke with Representative Linsky and his (Rep. Linsky’s) sense was that it was unlikely the Legislature would make any headway before Town Meeting so he would suggest no action. If there was new information he would be glad to bring it back to the Board.
Article 32 – Extend the Term of the Charter and By-Law Review Committee
As a member of the Charter & By-Law Review Committee Ms. Gloff reported that the Committee was making its way through the by-laws and expected to complete the first review prior to Town Meeting. The Committee’s appointment was expected to expire this Town Meeting, but they were not ready to put forth any recommendations until the Fall and were asking for an extension.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to how long of an extension, and Ms. Gloff advised they were asking that it be until Fall at this point. The Committee hoped to complete its work for the warrant for Fall. It was possible they could seek another extension, but it was not intended to be an extended committee.
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action on Article 32.
Restriction of Level 3 Sex Offenders
Mr. Connolly told the Board that he was not as prepared as he would like to be to present this tonight and would like to revisit it at the next meeting. His general thought was to restrict the area where convicted Level III offenders could go.
FISCAL 2009 BUDGET
Ms. White advised there was nothing to report on the Fiscal 2009 budget.
FISCAL 2010 BUDGET
Ms. White noted that at the last Board meeting, yearend revenues for FY08 submitted by the Comptroller and those submitted in the FY 2010 budget for the same period differed. That difference was a result of an inadvertent double counting the revenues generated from the occupancy permit of the Natick Collection. That was corrected.
The General fund available resources for FY 2010 were anticipated to be $102,114,249. Property tax revenues were the largest source of funding for the Town general fund (74%), followed by state aid (11% and estimated receipts (9%). Indirects (payments made from the water/sewer enterprise fund) total (2.5%) followed by the use of one-time sources such as free cash (2%), the stabilization fund (.6%) and overlay surplus (.5%). General Fund accounting was done on a modified accrual basis meaning that revenues were recognized when they become measurable or available (cash basis), while expenditures were accounted for in the accounting period incurred (accrual basis).
The projected revenues for 2010 were as follows:
Prior year levy limit $72,154,997
Proposition 2-1/2% Levy Increase 1,803,875
New Construction Growth 950,000
Debt Exclusion (Wilson Middle School) 918,361
Total Tax Levy $75,827,233
Education
Chapter 70, Charter School,
School Lunch Offset $ 5,863,176
General Government
Lottery, additional assistance,
Police career incentive, meals
Tax, rooms tax, veterans
Benefits, state owned land,
Municipal Medicaid, libraries
Abandoned property, exemptions$ 4,580,652
SBA Reimbursements for existing
Projects $ 916,839
Total State Aid $11,360,667
Estimated Receipts
Motor Vehicle, Hotel Tax,
Payment & interest, PILOT,
Trash fee, ambulance fees,
Rentals, fines/forfeits,
Investment income, licenses $ 9,231,500
Other Local Receipts
Overlay surplus, stabilization
Fund, free cash, intergovernment
Transfer $ 5,857,196
Ms. White noted that like other municipalities in Massachusetts, the Town of Natick was most heavily reliant upon the property tax levy. The increase in the property tax levy of $2,743,238 or 3.8% was based on a 2.5 percent increase plus estimated new growth of $950,000 as permitted by Proposition 2-1/2. This was a lower growth figure than in many previous years.
The forecasted decrease of $980,340 or (7.9%) in state aid was a factor of the declining economy and as an effect, plummeting state revenues. This state aid amount was reflective of the Governor’s House 1 budget proposal submitted on January 28, 2009. Final state aid figures will not be known until June at the earliest and will be based on the Legislatures adopted budget as signed by the Governor.
The estimated receipts were projected to decrease $1,570,000 or approximately 14.5%. Local receipt estimates were traditionally based on historical averages for each category of receipt. Unfortunately, the downturn within the economy was causing great concern and loss in several critical areas of receipts: a) Motor vehicle excise fees were set to decline significantly as people have curtailed the purchase of new vehicles. As vehicles age, their value and consequently the fees which can be assessed decline. b) investment income was set to decline another 25% in FY 2010 over reduced rates in FY 2009 due directly to the fact that as the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates, the ability to earn money through investing had significantly disappeared. c) licenses/permits are set to decline as permits for new
construction and trades has significantly slowed.
Other local receipts were those revenue items with special characteristics or one-time in nature. These include indirect payments from the water/sewer enterprise fund to the Town and items such as free cash, stabilization fund, and overlay surplus. Other local receipts were set to decline $404,905 or 6.5% in FY 2010 due to a lower available balance of free cash which can be dedicated to operations. On the positive side, it was anticipated that $500,000 of overlay surplus can be released by the Board of Assessors for use in FY 2010.
The Town of Natick also operates two enterprise fund: water/sewer and the Sassamon Trace golf Course. Revenue projected for the water/sewer in FY 2010 was $13,863,444 or a 6.1% change. For the golf course the projected revenue in 2010 was $918,999 or a 8.5% decrease.
Ms. White continued with revisions to the capital plan. As per the requirements of Section 5-7 of the Charter and Article 20, Section 2 of the By-Laws, staff submitted a revised FY2010 capital financial strategy and FY 2010-2015 capital plan. This document was reviewed with department heads and other staff members to its submission.
Subsequently the administration reviewed the updated plan in the context of the capital needs that had previously been designated as high priority – the so-called Tier 1 and Tier 1A projects. A summary of the projects funded in FY 2009, those originally proposed for FY 2010, and the projects currently recommended were shown in the documents presented.
The Tier 1A projects which were originally proposed for funding in FY 2010 but now were not included:
Replace Turnout Gear – Fire Department ($10,000). Originally designed to be part of a multi-year plan; the Fire Department operation budget can accommodate the replacement of 2-3 sets of turnout gear. Given the period of reduction of personnel the Town finds itself in, purchasing new gear was highly unlikely. The intent was that, in future years, adequate funding for turnout gear would be provided in the operating budget.
Replace portable radios – Fire Department ($10,000). With the receipt of a grant the need to replace radios via the capital budget was currently unnecessary.
Streetlight replacement – Public Works ($50,000). Though the need remains for $50,000 worth of resources, the proposed amount of $25,000 would ensure that some amount of streetlight replacement necessary to ensure nighttime safety can be achieved.
Replace trash packer – Public Works ($175,000). This piece of equipment cannot be afforded to be purchased at this time.
Cruiser replacement – Police ($168,900). After conferring with the Public Works Equipment Maintenance Division, the need for replacement cruisers through the end of FY 2010 was 2 rather than the 4-5 originally requested. A revised figure of $75,560 was being requested to ensure that the fleet was maintained in good working order.
Radios – Police ($35,267). After conferring with the Chief of Police, the need for replacement of radios can be stretched over a three year period of time – thus the original request of $35,267 can be reduced to $10,400 in FY 2010.
The proposed spending for Tier 1A projects in FY10 was $153,560. That would fund:
Streetlight replacement $25,000
Cruiser replacement $75,560
Radios $10,400
Fire hose replacement $25,000
Firearms $17,600
For Tier 1 projects after consultation with the Superintendent of Schools, Ms. White advised that all planned capital projects for the Natick Public Schools for FY 2010 have been deferred. The only school related capital project seeking funding was design money for a new High School.
The sidewalk tractor replacement scheduled for FY 2010 was also being deferred until FY 2011.
The purchase of the sidewalk tractor approved at the Spring 2008 Annual Town Meeting had been deferred but, given the performance of this equipment over the current winter season, the purchase of the authorized sidewalk track will proceed prior to next winter. The administration was also prepared to purchase the authorized Voter Reader Machines when the opportunity presented itself. Repairs may be required to proceed with the South Natick Dam if mandated by the state office of Dam Safety. The borrowing costs associated with these projects within the FY 2010 budget would be only the interest payments; the first principle payment would not be incurred until FY 2011.
As part of the documents submitted was a revised capital plan. Ms. White pointed out that costs for Article 33 Natick High School project – partial architectural services and Article 34 Community/Senior Center Project – architectural services have not been determined at this time, but the projects have been added to the capital plan.
Unfortunately, economic necessity was forcing staff to recommend a significantly reduced capital plan for FY 2010 than in the last several years. The administration hoped that strides made over the last few years could see us through until such time that the fiscal health of the Town and the Commonwealth improved to allow for adequate capital investment. The capital will be revisited for the Fall Town Meeting.
The plan included the financing strategy for the capital projects being funded. As necessity dictates, this may change in advance of the Spring 2009 Annual Town Meeting. Also included in the packet was the original Tier 1A and Tier 1 spreadsheet with a status update on each project.
Ms. White pointed out that the firehose replacement for $25,000 and firearms for $17,600 were new items. The firearms would be a multiple year.
Ms. White stressed that yet again the capital needs were not being adequately funded. It would be revisited in the Fall and with any luck they could whittle away some more.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if an increase was expected in the Chapter 90 funds. Ms. White noted that she hadn’t heard anything, but the Town had a lot of projects in the stimulus package.
If repairs had to be done for the South Natick Dam, Mr. Ciccariello asked if there was a cost estimate and engineering report. Ms. White advised that that had not as yet been received.
Mr. Connolly presented the Board with his list of areas to be considered:
- DPW Assistant – he had a meeting tomorrow with the Town Administrator
- DPW Water & Sewer had no cuts and he thought that was something to think about
- Library hours – that had been covered
- Furlough – unpaid leave of a week or two for everyone
- Procurement Officer and DPW Business Manager seem to be similar
- Assistant to the Community Development Director. Fees were being raised because construction was down, but there was a new hire
- Zero raises for everyone or pay cuts
- School/Town split for trash bags
Ms. White stated that she would go over the list tomorrow when she meets with Mr. Connolly.
Ms. Gloff noted that she went through the budgets, used Mr. Ciccariello’s list, and organized her suggestions into possible additions and possible reductions. Some weren’t doable
- Filling the Human Resources Director position was important
- Consideration being given to having ½ the number of crossing guards and there being a discussion with the School Department on looking at the options
- The Council on Aging Volunteer Resource Coordinator was being cut. It looked like the l/2 time person was being cut from .4 to .3. As a volunteer driver, Ms. Gloff noted that she was getting a lot of calls to drive people and she couldn’t figure out how that would be managed with further reduction.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the cost for the Volunteer Resource Coordinator and Mr. Walters Young responded that there was a vacant position that was being reduced from 19.5 hours to 12 hours. The reduction was %6,000-8,000 leaving $8,000.
Mr. Connolly questioned if the $8,000 being taken from the Selectmen’s budget from the Natick Center Associates could be put into the Council on Aging for that position. Ms. White noted that the Finance committee was managing the process. When a savings was identified in one department, they weren’t putting it in another but keeping a list of areas to evaluate. She believed the Volunteer Resource Coordinator was on the FinCom’s list. If it was truly from the vacant position, Ms. Gloff thought that maybe it wasn’t such a big deal. Mr. Walters Young advised that the Finance Committee had not as yet voted.
Continuing, Ms. Gloff reviewed her list of possible reductions:
- Eliminate curbside yard waste. If people were being charged a fee to take yard waste to the recycling center, she couldn’t see picking it up for nothing. There seemed to be a disconnect.
- One thing that had been discussed several times was the deletion of the MetroWest Growth Management membership. She believed in the MWGM and thought it was important.
- Zero non-COLA. Ms. Gloff inquired if the savings from the zero non-COLA had been factored in. Ms. White advised that they had not. There was about $119,000-120,000 out there that was reflected in the budget but would not be spent. She (Ms. White) didn’t envision applying the savings toward this and that. Rather she envisioned that as an opportunity to create free cash.
Ms. Gloff believed that if any unions took a non-COLA, that would go to their departments. Ms. White confirmed that to be correct.
- Sharing the Animal Control Officer with another Town. Ms. White advised there had been ongoing discussions
- The DPW energy budget – maybe some brainstorming to see if there was anything that could be done to further limit the increase
- Streetlighting – Was the savings from the new contract factored in? Ms. White responded that it had not been, but she thought the savings were modest.
10.It was Ms. Gloff’s understanding that the general foreman and working foreman were positions in the contract. Ms. White noted that the administration had looked at that and the general foreman was required by the contract and the working foreman was not.
11. Ms. Gloff noted that a few people had asked her what the part-time Clinical Social Worker did
12. Status of the funding for the farm. In response to Ms. Gloff’s request for an update, Ms. White told the Board that she had a meeting last week of the Chair of the School Committee, School Business Manager, the Chair of the Conservation Commission, Farm Director, Chair of the Farm Board, and Town Counsel and there was a very favorable response by everybody involved. Who needs to make what vote to make a recommendation to Town Meeting was identified. The only question that remained was specifically what costs would best fit the mission for spending under the Conservation Fund. This appeared to be moving forward very well.
13. Decrease in the breadth of programs offered by the Recreation Department. Ms. Gloff inquired if any consideration had been given to decreasing the number of programs offered.
14. Natick Center Associates funding. Ms. Gloff didn’t recall seeing a letter from the Natick Center Associates. Ms. White wasn’t sure it ever got into the packets. She would make sure a copy was distributed.
15. Fee increases. Asked if the increase in fees had been factored in, Ms. White said, “no”. Her goal was that it be undesignated. The objective was just because there was an increase in revenues didn’t mean it was available for spending. She thought it was essential to look forward to Fiscal 2011 and beyond for adequate free cash reserves.
16. The elimination of 1 executive assistant in the DPW. Ms. Gloff didn’t understand the reference on Mr. Ciccariello’s list and he explained that that had already been done.
Mr. Ciccariello added that the painter position was being eliminated. In Fiscal 2009 the emphasis was on how important it was to hire a painter because it would save a lot of money and now that person was being eliminated. Ms. White advised that there was no plan to do any painting.
Ms. Gloff asked about the reimbursement for veterans’ services if it was reimbursable. Ms. White advised that it was reimbursable and noted that possibly for next year’s budget a number higher than $50,000 would be used.
With regard to the suggestion that a building inspector be deleted, Ms. Gloff stated that she couldn’t address that, but she would suggest strongly not to delete a Housing Planner. She has been dealing with the Housing Planner on a number of things the Affordable Housing Trust was required to do and the Community Development Director didn’t have the time.
Mr. Ostroff presented his ideas.
- He would like to explore further the concept of employees having a day without pay and the funds realized staying within the department. He would like to find out the legality and how it might be introduced.
- Mr. Ostroff noted he was meeting with the Information Systems Advisory Board. The idea of using volunteers hadn’t been well managed over the past few years and he wanted to see if the Board would be comfortable with a place on the web site for a form.
Ms. Gloff had no problem having the form on the web site but there was also a need to distribute it outside the web site as well.
- Mr. Ostroff advised that he was continuing to talk to organizations about funding for the MetroWest Growth Management Committee.
- Development of advertising sponsorship. If the Board was interested he would make a presentation in a couple of weeks.
- Mr. Ostroff wanted to find out how well the different programs for tax exemptions were utilized and what must be done to expand.
- Mr. Ostroff raised the possibility of the $250 for the perambulation of the bounds being eliminated from the budget.
- He suggested looking into opportunities to provide service to the Housing Authority in a way that may save both organizations money.
- He too wanted to look at procurement sharing or pickup some other services.
VOTE TO MAKE A LAYOUT OF COTTAGE STREET
Ms. White explained that the original layout accepted at the Fall 2007 Town Meeting had some survey discrepancies. The survey was revised and now accurately reflects the existing conditions/layout of Cottage Street. To ensure that this layout was the official layout, it had to be re-accepted at Town Meeting. There was no cost to the Town except potentially some recording fees.
Ms. Gloff moved that the Board intended to make a new layout of Cottage Street. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
A lot of individuals living on Cottage Street complained about the original layout and Mr. Ciccariello questioned how they would be informed of what the Town was doing. Ms. White noted there would be a public hearing that includes notice to the residents.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to who was paying for the re-survey and was told by Ms. White that the original survey was a subcontract of the Engineering Department BETA and they were stepping up and paying for the new survey.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to schedule a public hearing for the acceptance of the new layout of Cottage Street.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Mr. Ostroff told the Board that he would like to take this up on March 23. Feelers had been sent out to business organizations who may promote it to members. Maybe through the newsletter more people could be attracted. Applicants could be requested no later than mid April with interviews on April 21.
BOSTON ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION: BOSTON MARATHON
Ms. White recommended that the Board issue the permit being requested for the running of the Boston Marathon through Natick on April 20, 2009. She, along with the Town Administrators of Ashland, Wellesley, and Framingham met with the BAA last week. They had a good meeting and the BAA acknowledged that the emphasis was on the beginning and end of the route and they would look at the communities in the middle. The contribution has been increased to $29,000. The Administrators were looking forward to working with the BAA in the future to enhance the collaboration.
Mr. Connolly moved to accept the recommendation of the Town Administrator and grant the permit. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
In her memo to the Board, Ms. White proposed that the additional proceeds be considered as a contribution to Natick Center in the event projects came forward. The cables from which the banners were hung need to be repaired and the money wasn’t in hand. She proposed using the extra contribution to fund the repair of the cables.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
Mr. Ostroff thanked the members of the Board that went to the transportation forum meeting of the Governor.
Mr. Connolly requested an update on the Town Hall boilers for an upcoming meeting.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he had the same question. He saw a bunch of people walking around the other day and thought the Board was going to discuss it before it went out on the street.
Mr. Connolly noted that a Town Meeting member had approached him and asked if Town Meeting had forced the Board to raise the water rates. He (Mr. Connolly) would like to know the information being presented to Town Meeting before it was presented. He would also like the same thing with the property tax.
Ms. White advised that the Chair had been working with staff and was putting together a three part effort for a future agenda. It will include an update on the subcommittee, the water & sewer budget, the water & sewer capital, and the potential impact on rates. That will give the Board a heads up on what the rates will look like.
The property tax was different. Under Proposition 2-1/2 the overall tax increase allowed was 2-1/2% and the Town would be doing that. She added that it was pretty much impossible to have the budget go up 2-1/2%.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
_______________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
