Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Stern, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to potential litigation. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:30 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session. Mr. Ciccariello had not as yet arrived and did not vote on the motion to enter executive session.

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved approval of the Natick Center Associates’ request for all parking at on-street and public off-street meters in Natick Center to be free during the month of December. The free parking to go in effect immediately and remain in place until 8:00 a.m. January 2, 2002. Unanimously voted.

It was specified that the enforcement of the meters’ time limitation remain in effect; i.e. at a two hour meter, there was a two-hour limit on free parking; at a 30 minute meter, there was a 30 minute limitation on free parking. Bags and/or stickers would be at each meter location to inform the public of the policy.

Mr. Giannetti stated that in 1994 he approached the Parks and Recreation commission to see if he could help with Pegan Cove Park – keeping it clean and orderly. He was asked by Recreation if he would be in charge of opening and closing the gate in the morning and at night and did that for a couple of years. When he saw the vacancy in

Mr. Kelley reminded the Board that at the previous interview he had been asked to forward the terms of the contracts between his company and the Recreation Department. The question of conflict of interest had come up. On November 20th he had forwarded a letter and a copy of the contracts. He assured the Board that if appointed to the Commission, the terms of the contract would remain binding and can’t change and to avoid any conflict of interest, he would have to abstain from any voting on transportation.

Mr. Hughes explained that there were two appointments to be made. One was to fill the vacancy left by the death of William Chase and that was a joint appointment with the Board of Selectmen and Recreation Commission, and the other was to fill a vacancy left by an appointed member and that was a Selectmen appointment. He asked if there was any objection to appointing both candidates.

Mr. Hughes introduced the matter by noting that at the last meeting the Board signed a document accepting a donation of 13 acres of land that was not bordered by any streets other than Front Street and a little of Cedar. He was concerned about access since it was landlocked and asked Conservation Commission Chairman George Bain and Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian to explain how the public will have access.

Mr. Sarkisian noted that two years ago there was a 20-lot subdivision filed for this land and today this land was turned over to the Town. It was public land for everyone – not just the residents that abut or residents in the Town. Someone from Boston has the right to walk on the property. Mr. Sarkisian said he wanted to be sure of the property lines and had the property lines staked on Front Street. Unfortunately the stakes have been removed and some others put in, and he was not sure about the accuracy. Front Street extends to the Castle property. It was a private way, but it was open to the public and lends itself as an access point for the Castle property. Mr. Sarkisian noted that he was not talking about vehicles, but about walking. It will take a lot of study and involves not just the neighborhood, but the Open Space Committee. There may be some issues with some alteration of wetlands. Again he emphasized the importance of understanding that public land was for everyone and not just the residents.

As to what the Conservation Commission would do, if it (wetlands violation) was something that offered an obvious and present danger to the integrity of the land, the Conservation Commission would have to go in there and immediately take care of it. He would have the Conservation Administrator take a look and ascertain what’s going on. If the alleged alteration was not threatening the resource but inappropriate, he would have the individuals involved come in for a discussion with the Conservation Commission. The Commission would hear

Mr. Hughes commented that he thought the Conservation Commission took the position that there was a 25 foot no disturb zone and no disturb next to a vernal pool. Mr. Bain advised that the zone was much larger than 25 feet, but if it was something that took place before the by-law, there was very little that the Commission could do. This was a vernal pool that may have been certified prior to the passage of the Wetlands by-law. That state allows someone to build right up to it. Mr. Hughes clarified that that was provided that someone was building on their own land and this looks like it was built across the right-of-way.

Mr. Bain responded that that would be taken into consideration, but he was not aware of what really has gone on down there and hadn’t had a chance to look at it. Once the property lines were marked and it was known that they were the correct property lines, the Commission could look into the vernal pool issue. If something predates the By-law, it was difficult to change. It was something that had to be investigated to know whose property it was, whether there was a vernal pool or a wetland.

Mr. Hughes pointed out that without an access on Front Street, there wasn’t an access. The vernal pool was at the corner of Front Street and Cedar. Mr. Bain advised that there would be access on foot. People were not prevented from walking by a vernal pool. People could walk up Front and take a right onto Cedar.

Mr. Hughes asked for a timeframe for when it would be straightened out. Mr. Sarkisian responded that the survey stakes were already replaced, and Mr. Bain added that the Town had to be sure that what’s in the ground now was accurate. The Conservation Commission was meeting on Thursday and he would raise this issue.

Mr. Sarkisian added that part of the signed agreement stipulated that the Castle’s would have naming rights to the land and the Town would place a memorial at the property. Mr. Hughes inquired as to whom was taking care of the naming, and Mr. Sarkisian responded that he was waiting to hear back from the Castles and he would bring it to the Board.

for the proposed large increase was the advertising. Every year he has to ask the Finance Committee for more money for advertising. The Town spends approximately $15,000 for advertising ZBA hearings. Mr. Sarkisian advised that he was not proposing any increase in building fees, but he was proposing a new fee for a temporary store. That

Mr. Ciccariello felt that the $40.00 listed for demolition on the building fees was quite low and he was concerned that a contractor going in for a renovation project with $80-90,000 worth of work and the fee was only $40.00, the Town would get short-changed money. Mr. Sarkisian felt Mr. Ciccariello had a good point and suggested that maybe the fee could be $40.00 plus $10.00 per thousand.

Mr. Ciccariello stated that he felt a Certificate of Occupancy for $50 was too low. There were cases where a building doesn’t pass, gets a temporary and then the Building Inspector has to go back. Mr. Sarkisian advised that in that case the applicant was charged another $50, but perhaps the fee should be increased to a larger number. There was no re-inspection fee.

While it seemed under principal that the basic structure of the fees should be a fixed number, the analysis of some of the numbers show that it would probably be better to charge on a per visit basis or on a per thousand basis based on the cost of the project. He asked if Mr. Sarkisian could go back and look at the fees again. Mr. Sarkisian agreed that if an inspector was going to a site 2-3 times, there should be other fees. He noted that the fee structure before the Board was based on a MetroWest survey, but he could have the Building Inspector do a survey on his own as to how much time was being spent on some of these inspections, look at the pay rate, and see what it comes out to. Mr. Ball said he would appreciate that being done and asked that the secretarial time be considered as well.

Mr. Sarkisian continued that he was looking for direction as to what to charge for downtown parking and commuter parking. In addition does the Board want the permits to be sold to Natick residents first or to the order of people on the list. Usually they are sold to the customers who have been on the longest and then down the list. Regarding the 70 spaces at the St. Patrick’s lot, Mr. Sarkisian said he felt there could probably be another 6-7 parking spaces if the spaces were created on South Avenue. He also noted that people drive by that lot and say the lot is half-empty, but that was because he didn’t oversell the parking stickers at this location. People were paying a $500.00 premium amount and he thought they should be guaranteed parking.

Mr. Ball noted that the Town was currently paying the Natick Center Associates $30,000 to be part of the public/private partnership with the downtown and he asked if Mr. Sarkisian had consulted the Center Associates on the parking fees. When Mr. Sarkisian advised that he had not, Mr. Ball suggested that he (Mr. Sarkisian) do so before the Board of Selectmen was asked to take any action. The Center Associates has a

concern that was specifically focused on the downtown and it was silly not to take advantage of their concern. Mr. Sarkisian pointed out that this was not a new matter. It comes up every year, and the commuters want to know if this lot will be available and what the cost will be. The stickers were sold on a per year basis and the new permits are to be issued January 1st.

Mr. Hughes inquired if the lease for the St. Pat’s lot had been renewed, and Mr. Sarkisian responded that the lease had not as yet been renewed. Asked if the lease would be renewed, Mr. Sarkisian advised that the Town Administrator was meeting with the new pastor of St. Pat’s this week. Mr. Hughes questioned if the fees should be set before getting the renewal. If the lease weren’t renewed, there would be 70 less spaces. Mr. Sarkisian proposed tabling the matter until the Board’s December 17th meeting, and Mr. Hughes asked if the lease would be ready by then. Mr. Conley replied that he had a meeting scheduled for this week.

A member of the audience Michel Radin told the Board that he had been parking at the St. Patrick’s lot for four years. Last year was the first year for the annual pass, and at that time he was very vocal about preserving the low cost parking. However, having a reserved spot was an improvement for him. He added that he thought a couple more permits could be sold because every day there were 10-20 spots at the peak arrival and return times. It was his hope that the Board would maintain the annual pass. Mr. Radin also complimented Mr. Sarkisian for having done a nice job during the transition.

The Board had previously approved the ZBA retaining Palmer & Dodge as special counsel for the Cloverleaf Apartments comprehensive permit application. At that time the expenditure had been capped at $15,000. Mr. Sarkisian advised that there was a hearing on December 5, 2001 followed by an initial pre-trial conference and after he thought the

ZBA would have an idea of where the case will go. To date $14,500 has been spent, and $500 will get an hour’s worth of counsel before the hearing. Mr. Sarkisian reiterated that the Town will have a better idea of where the case was going after the hearing and Palmer & Dodge will put together a formal proposal after the pre-trial.

Mr. Sarkisian explained that the chairman of the Natick Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee, A. Richard Miller, asked that he be sent all correspondence from various boards on all applications filed with the various boards. Since the Selectmen appoint the Bicycle Committee, Mr. Sarkisian said he felt it was the Board’s authority to ask the Community Development Boards to take care of the Bicycle Committee’s request.

Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Selectmen can’t tell the Planning Board to send anybody anything. It was noted that the Selectmen could, however, make such a request. Mr. Sarkisian explained that the Bicycle Committee wants to be involved in the site plan review process. Mr. Hughes suggested that notices of anything relating to the bike trail be sent to the committee, but Mr. Ball was not sure there was a clear definition of what the Bike Committee may have their eye on. While he supported Mr. Miller and the Committee’s efforts, Mr. Ball thought the appropriate thing was for the committee to pay attention to the posting of the Planning Board, ZBA, Conservation Commission and determine whether or not the deliberation on a particular property was something in which they were interested.

f. Mr. Sarkisian advised that at the last Safety Committee meeting the idea of putting back 6-7 angle spaces on Main Street near the corner of Route 135 was discussed. Right now there were three parallel spaces. In 1986 the Town signed an agreement with the State to adhere to the parking plan, but Sergeant Davis called the State and was told that if the Safety Committee supported the angle parking, they would go along. Mr. Sarkisian told the Board that he would like to see it done for the holidays.

Ward Eisenhauer, an engineer with Modern Continental, was introduced and explained that the original sewer began down by Pleasant Street. There was an existing sewer line and Lookout Farm proposed to tie in by bringing the line up Pleasant Street to the driveway at Lookout Farm, up their driveway, and back to the main building at the red barn structure. Lookout Farm applied for a sewer extension permit from DEP. The permit was obtained and installed in accordance with plans. That was in 1992. The farm had had septic problems with a number of dwellings and that was the purpose for applying and constructing the sewer line.

Mr. Eisenhauer stated that after the line was constructed, the farm was approached by the owner of a lot on Pegan Lane, Susan Wornick, who wanted to tie into the sewer line. The farm allowed her to do that and extended the sewer up from the red barn across the fields just outside her property. Subsequent to that Ms. Wornick allowed her neighbor, Mr. Grunow and Tim Brown to tie into the manhole.

Mr. Ritzenberg noted that one question raised by the neighbors was whether the farm had appropriate DEP extension permits. 314CMR707 provides that any sewer extension permit can be utilized for any other dwellings or structures owned by the same property owner. The various extensions within Lookout Farm did not require additional permits from DEP. They may have required permits from DPW in Natick, and he (Mr. Ritzenberg) was not sure whether permits had been issued. In terms of DEP as long as it doesn’t exceed the approved volume of about 4,500 gpd, additional sewers on Lookout Farm were allowed. When Ms. Wornick asked the farm to extend the line to her property, perhaps the interaction could have been better documented that she was going to obtain the permits if any were required. Lookout Farm did not obtain a DEP extension which was required. It was his understanding that Ms. Wornick was metered and paying for the use.

Mr. Eisenhauer continued that from there (pavilion), the sewer line was extended to a residence purchased by Lookout Farm from Mr. O’Neil. That was the extent of the sewer network at the farm. Mr. Eisenhauer noted that he met with the Engineering Department on Thursday and showed them the same exact plan as presented tonight and asked them (Engineering) what they would require from the farm to get their approval for what was installed. Engineering requested that the farm do a video survey, provide the DPW with an accurate plan of the entire system, and provide

Mr. Ritzenberg further noted that there was some dispute with the Department of Agriculture as to whether it was permissible to take or give an easement over APR land. He saw nothing in the APR that restricted putting a utility in APR land. Lookout Farm would be happy to give an easement to the Town or neighbors for the purpose of protecting their rights to use these sewers. Lookout Farm was happy to give that Mr. Balk as well. They just didn’t want to be called lawless.

Mr. Hughes asked if it were Mr. Ritzenberg’s position that it doesn’t violate the DEP permit for the farm to extend the sewer to the property it (farm) has bought. Mr. Ritzenberg indicated that that was correct until they passed the threshold for the gallons per day. He added that the sewer regulations were a little unclear. The permit issued and signed off by Town officials say the sewer will be used for the office, warehouse, and farm stand generating domestic sewer only. There was a distinction between industrial and domestic. The farm has a domestic permit and that would be the only caveat to his statement that everything on the farm was legal.

Mr. Hughes asked about the extra sewage from the Brown, Grunow, and Wornick residences – did it count toward the 4,500 gpd. Mr. Ritzenberg advised that it would count toward the 4,500 gpd and if the extra sewage pushed the farm over the limit, the line would have to change or apply for modification. While he didn’t know exactly, Mr. Eisenhauer felt that it was probably close to the limit.

If the Wornick sewer were to break, it was either Ms. Wornick or Lookout Farm who would have to fix it. In view of that Mr. Hughes questioned why the Town would want to take the sewer line. Mr. Sisitsky responded that he had no idea, and added that he was not looking to take the easements. In 1992 he said he didn’t want the easement.

install the sewer across the property and the DPW said they wanted nothing to do with this sewer system. It took him by surprise that the Town viewed this as not wanting to get involved in anything that was put under the Lookout Farm sewer permits. They were tying their system into Natick on Pleasant Street and he thought the DPW would want to inspect the sewer lines to be sure what was being put in was appropriate. He (Mr. Ciccariello) was in shock to find out that the Town was aware this was going in. In the past the indication was that nobody knew the sewer line was going in.

Mr. Ball inquired as to what Lookout Farm was seeking from the DPW at this point, and Mr. Eisenhauer responded that the farm wanted to be sure that the DPW was satisfied that the sewers had been installed properly. Mr. Ball commented that the sewer lines were installed without a permit from the Town and after the fact, the farm comes to the Town and says bless this. Mr. Ritzenberg pointed out that there were permits granted for some of the lines, but not all of these sewers were cleared and signed off by the Town.

Wanting to keep the record straight, Mr. Sisitsky explained that the main reason the DPW was not interested in this was because the sewers were on private property and the DPW didn’t want to assume responsibility for maintaining sewers on private property. The Board set the policy this past fall that the DPW was no longer responsible for sewers on private property. Having an easement across the farm would be a big burden for the DPW if they had to maintain those sewers. He didn’t want the Town to be involved. He noted that the DPW had to sign off on a certificate of occupancy when the sewer was extended. They (DPW) were not totally oblivious. Their main concern was not assuming responsibility for maintaining the sewer. The DPW didn’t want an easement when Ms. Wornick made her deal because they didn’t want to maintain it.

Mr. Coviello noted that the first segment from Pleasant Street to the Wornick property now serves three homes and has potential for servicing more. That was done before his tenure. The other sewer work that meandered through the farm to pickup their (farm) out buildings that goes from the Wornick’s to U-Pick was done without any knowledge of the DPW. The DPW didn’t know about it, but found out about it and inspected it a little. Another extension from the U-Pick pavilion to the cider mill – the DPW had no knowledge of that work until there was a request for a certificate of occupancy for the cider mill. He was asking for Modern Continental to retest.

In response to Mr. Hughes comment that Mr. Coviello’s request was to get assurances that the sewer was working and not to take it over. Mr. Coviello concurred that he was not doing it to take it over. He had a concern for the line that serves the Wornick’s, Brown’s, and potentially the Balk’s because it was a main line and can be extended further. He had a concern about who was responsible for the maintenance of it should there be a problem.

Mr. Stern requested a summary of the number of permits that would have been required, the dollar value of each, and then subtract what’s been issued to know what the Town is owed at this point. Mr. Hughes requested that Mr. Coviello provide the Board with that information by the meeting of December 17th.

In follow-up Mr. Hughes questioned if DEP contemplated Lookout Farm taking the permit and connecting properties not owned by the farm. Mr. Ritzenberg responded that the extension to the Wornick and Grunow properties requires additional DEP permits. The DEP permit allows the Farm to extend (the sewer line) as long as it is going to the Farm’s own property and not over the gallon limit. What wasn’t done, whether it was the Farm’s responsibility or Wornick’s, was to get the additional necessary DEP permits. That was something that was easily resolved. He (Mr. Ritzenberg) regretted that it happened without the permits and he couldn’t say who was to have gotten it done. The point was that this was one of the issues that remains on the list of issues (from the neighbors), but on the other hand what does the Farm do with the one additional homeowner who wants to get hooked up. His suggestion would be for the Farm to sign any required request for DEP permits and see if there were any other outstanding permit fees and attempt to negotiate with homeowners who share the private sewer so that everybody knows their rights.

Mr. Stern inquired if the Farm was pursuing the private hook ups gratuitously. Mr. Ritizenberg advised that the Farm was not charging for use of the sewer. He thought the agreement with Mr. Balk was for Mr. Balk to pay the cost of doing the work, but this was not a money-making activity for the Farm. Mr. Eisenhauer added that that was the same arrangement with the Wornicks and Browns. They paid for the time and materials.

Irma DeBruyn noted that the residents often have to deal with restrictions on the use of water. She questioned if she was hearing that the Town doesn’t know exactly how much was being used by the farm and all the people tied into it. Mr. Ritzenberg noted that water was different than the sewer. The water was all metered.

Pegan Lane resident Steven Wardwell questioned if the private hook ups would preclude the Town from going down Pegan Lane. There were other residents who were not hooked up. Mr. Sisitsky replied that there was nothing to prevent the Town from putting in a sewer line, but there were no plans to do so. It has never been discussed.

To Mr. Hughes it seemed that before the Farm added anybody to their sewer line, the Farm needed to know whether it was over the limit and needed to know who was going to get the DEP permits for hook up. Mr. Ritzenberg responded that in terms of procedure he didn’t know the extent to which the Board of Selectmen wanted to be involved and whether this was an issue that will hold up the Balks or continue to be a problem for the farm.

Mr. Hughes explained that the problem has been that the Farm does something and tells the Town about it after the fact. The Board was trying to have that not happen again. He suggested that someone from the Farm go to the Collector’s office and see how much water was being used and that would tell how many gallons per day were being used for sewage. Then add the use by the private property owners and that would tell whether Mr. Balk could be added.

Mr. Ritzenberg stated that he would report back to Mr. Coviello with the inspection information and Mr. Coviello can decide what information goes to the Board. He then asked if the Board wanted to see the Farm again on this issue (sewer line), but Mr. Hughes felt that that would depend on what Mr. Coviello found.

Mr. Ritzenberg referred to the second issue – the question of APR approval for the renovation at the farm stand. He noted that Lookout Farm had been before the Advisory Committee, Conservation Commission, and State Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture agreed with the Farm that no APR amendment was required. The Conservation Commission voted to recommend approval of this renovation, which was changing the greenhouse to a bakery and not taking any APR land out of use, provided the Farm could demonstrate compliance with

the 50% rule. The 50% rule was in the MGL and provides an exemption from local zoning for agricultural use. The exemption requires that during June, July, August, and September or during the harvest season of the primary crop that the majority of products for sale have been produced by the owner or lessee of the land. There was very little available that interprets that language, and the Advisory Committee has asked the Department of Agriculture and maybe Town counsel to weigh in on what it means.

as a close second. This year the harvest began August 8 and concluded October 15. During that period the sales of agriculture produced at the farm as opposed to non-agricultural were about 63%. Mr. Ritzenberg noted that he was saying ‘about’ because the Farm did not have final numbers. There was a draft number, and he could provide backup at a

In response to an inquiry from Mr. Hughes, Mr. Ritzenberg clarified that during the period August 8-October 15, 2001, 63% of the total products sold at the farm were produced by the Farm or the owner. When asked if that meant produce was trucked in from another location, Mr. Ritzenberg responded that there was some produce from Modern Continental’s farm in Berlin and that was allowed under the statute. That provision was put in (into the statute) so farms with more than one property could bring their produce from one property to another. If the Berlin produce were taken out, the number would still top the 50%.

Mr. Ball inquired as to the method of measuring the 63% - was it dollar value or volume. Mr. Ritzenberg advised that the 63% was based on dollars. It was difficult to do a volume because the Farm sold a bag of apples and a case of olive oil, but he was working with the accountants to develop an appropriate method of measuring volume. Mr. Ritzenberg distributed a rough draft of a volume analysis, but told the Board that he was not entirely comfortable with the math which was why it was still a draft.

Mr. Stern noted that Mr. Ritzenberg’s analysis used the term Farm and farmstand when describing the dollar value sold and was there a distinction between the two. He questioned if Mr. Ritzenberg should be using gross sales from the farm including U-Pick or just the farmstand. Mr. Ritzenberg advised that the statute says count the facility. If you start counting each facility separately and had trouble making the number at one facility, you could move apples from one farmstand to another and that doesn’t make sense. That was not the intent of the statute.

Mr. DeLuca replied that he was surprised and concerned about Mr. Ritzenberg’s representation of the language of the statute. His (Mr. DeLuca’s) reading was that that (bringing produce from another premises) would not be an allowed practice in terms of figuring the amount of produce to be sold on a seasonable basis. Mr. DeLuca read an excerpt of the statute that concluded ‘on the land the facility is located on’, and noted that what was being discussed was the location of the farm in Natick and a reasonable interpretation was that that was the facility. He (Mr. DeLuca) had some concern about the use of other facilities as a feeder to Natick to support the gross volume numbers.

Mr. Ritzenberg countered that if the Legislature had intended that, they could have said produced on the land where the facility is located and not produced by the owner of the land where the facility is located. As to the numbers from Berlin, about $150,000 from Berlin was sold on the Natick farm. If Berlin was not counted and Lookout Farm falls a point or two below the 50%, Mr. Ritzenberg didn’t think that caused the Farm to be in violation of the statute. He felt the farm was in compliance with the 50% rule and entitled to the building permit.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to when the Board could see more than a draft of the numbers. He added that this was fine for this year, but questioned where it had been before this. The APR has been there since 1980. Mr. Ritzenberg responded that the last time he was called upon to crunch these numbers was in 1982. He pointed out that there was nothing in the statutes or the APR statute that talks about accounting practices or procedures or how often someone has to prove they were in compliance with the exception.

Mr. Hughes noted that the 50% rule was not really the APR. It was for the farm not to have to comply with the zoning so why shouldn’t the farm have to get these numbers to the Board every year. Mr. Ritzenberg responded that no one had asked the Farm to do that. When asked if there were any objections to doing it, Mr. Ritzenberg replied that he

didn’t think there should be. He added that in two weeks he would have a revised version of this spreadsheet for the Board and hopefully would have the volume calculated as well as the dollars. He would consult with Mr. Marino, owner of Lookout Farm, and get his (Mr. Marino’s) agreement to present a report at the end of the harvest season.

Attorney for the Lookout Farm neighbors John Burke, felt that when accounting for product, each facility should be clearly identified. This was a zoning exemption that permits a retail sale store. It was not about the farm in total. It was about the farmstand. He felt each area had to be looked. There were two farmstands and each one has to meet the test – not what the total crop was sold for. To him it was not clear what Mr. Ritzenberg’s numbers represent and that needs to be addressed as well as what produce comes from off site.

Lookout Farm neighbor Mary Bragg noted that about six years ago she went through the farmstand with members of the Board of Selectmen and there was hardly anything for sale that had been produced at the farm. There were avocados, lemons. She couldn’t find anything except maybe cooked chicken and it was no different today.

Mr. Hughes requested Mr. Ritzenberg to ask his client if there was any objection to breaking out the figures for sales of product at the farmstand vs the farm. Mr. Ritzenberg replied that there was a volume for the farmstand and Lookout Farm has started creating a volume for other portions of the farm. However, the accounting and inventory system didn’t identify product going in and out with as much specificity as he would like.

Mr. DeLuca explained that generally specific amusements are required to be licensed and the fee issue was used as a reliable guide to what’s an amusement. He noted that he had previously presented the Board with a memo that provided a definition of what’s an amusement. It was worthy to note that certain activities that could be characterized as amusements may further the agriculture purposes of the property. For instance if there was a hayride for which a fee was charged, but the hayride was in support of the U-Pick activities, it was possible to characterize that as something in support of agriculture as opposed to something purely for amusement. If it were for amusement, a license would be required. He felt that it was up to the Board and the applicant to make the distinction between what was agriculturally based and purely an amusement activity. The former does not require a license, but the latter does.

Mr. Ritzenberg noted that there were several different categories at the Farm. There was the train, stagecoach rides, pony rides, the Clydesdales. The Clydesdales, hayride and train serve agricultural purposes. They move people around. The stagecoach, pony rides and hayrides were events which attract customers, especially children to the farm during the U-Pick. It was traditional in New England to include hayrides and even musicians were customary and accessory to

Mr. Ritzenberg continued that the train, although it can amuse people, was not an entertainment. People ride from place to place for the purpose of picking fruit. He understood there was some use of the train this fall for Halloween that did not involve the sale of produce at Lookout Farm and that might be characterized as something for which an entertainment license might be needed. The stagecoach and pony rides have always been considered minor activities and for that reason no application was made for an entertainment license.

To Mr. Ritzenberg’s contention that the train was in support of the U-Pick, Mr. Ball asked if the train was shut down when the U-Pick shuts down. How much of the year does it run? Mr. Ritzenberg replied that it was his belief that other than an occasional run for Halloween, etc., it doesn’t operate at all outside U-Pick. The farm occasionally makes use of it to move things around.

Mr. Wardwell noted that if the Farm only uses two months worth of sales data, wouldn’t that mean that the train was not used for agricultural purposes the other 10 months. Mr. Ritzenberg explained that the statute says the harvest season of the primary crop raised on the land and that was apples. The Farm also has peaches, strawberries and the train was used for those other activities.

Mr. Palmer noted that several years ago the Board asked the administration to make sure water & sewer services were self-supporting and generate some revenue in order to do some small improvements. He felt it was now at that point. The revenue for improvements was primarily in the form of water & sewer liens that get reserved for water & sewer purposes.

Mr. Hughes commented that one argument against not doing an enterprise fund was that it would require the Town to amortize the entire $100 million infrastructure. However, going to an enterprise fund, there could be a breakout of the other budgets; i.e. some portion of Equipment Maintenance, Engineering. Mr. Palmer advised that that (breakout of departments) was being done now in calculating the amount needed, but with an enterprise fund he could indicate .5 of a position or show a percentage of those departments that were ancillary to Water & Sewer.

Mr. Hughes asked if people could pay their water bills on a monthly vs quarterly basis, and Mr. Palmer responded that he thought with the changes in the metering system, there could be monthly bills. Rather than doing that because of the added cost, he would prefer to have an estimate where people could pay and enter into a payment plan.

Discount Program: Persons receiving the elderly Discount will not be charged for the first seven (7) billings in a quarter. The rate for all other usage will be discounted by 25%. To qualify for the Elderly Discount a person must be qualified to receive an elderly tax exemption on their real estate taxes. For anyone receiving the elderly exemption on their real estate taxes, the discount is automatically applied to the utility billing account.

Mr. Ball asked if Mr. O’Brien had had TIPS training, and Mr. O’Brien responded that on December 13, AIM would be doing a complete seminar at Sam’s. Asked if he was aware of the Board’s training policy, Mr. O’Brien advised that he was, noting that that was why they were having a seminar. He was also looking into him taking the TIPS program so that he can get certified and do the training.

Mr. Bissonnette noted that he had been told that in the past the Board has charged a $7.00 per foot annual fee. This petition involved 30 feet or a $210.00 fee. MCI did not like the annual fee and if the Board would allow, Mr. Bissonnette said he would like to come forward with a proposal for a one-time payment of $2,000.

A motion as made to conditionally approve MCImetro Access Transmission Services, LLC’s petition to place approximately 30 feet of underground cable from the corner of Dewey and East Central Street easterly to a Verizon manhole on East Central Street subject to a memorandum of agreement being drawn up and signed. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

Philip Levine described an incident he had had involving a broken parking meter. He received a ticket for having parked at a broken meter and on the ticket it said to report defective meters to the Police Department. When he tried to do that, he was told that the Police don’t handle it and to go to the Collector’s Office. The Collector’s Office said there was one person who comes in on Wednesdays

discussion. It was originally named Pegan Cove Park upon its creation and a neighborhood group that wants to memorialize someone decided to take that sign away. DEM said, ‘no’, but the neighborhood group nonetheless had a vote from the Selectmen saying ‘yes’ take away the sign Pegan Cove Park. He would like to do what he could to see if there was something the neighbors would like to memorialize without taking back the Pegan Cove Park name. He would suggest a trail or something else, but he urged the Board not to take away an existing name.

Mr. Palmer pointed out that the revenues have not changed since the November report. The revenues allowed under Proposition 2-l/2 were just slightly under $3 million. Calculation of new construction growth was problematic. Growth was driven by the economy and he felt a l-l/4% increase was a reasonable figure to be used as an estimate. He hoped to see more starts on the commercial side, but that wasn’t being seen right now.

Mr. Palmer referred to the list of possible cuts and noted that it was a draft. The needed cuts would be discussed at the department heads meeting tomorrow. It looked like the schools would need to reduce $800,000 and the Town side $428,000. The overall cut was $1.2 million and that was broken out between the schools and Town departments. It would affect the large departments such as Police, fire, DPW and probably 8-10 positions would have to be eliminated to close the gap.

Mr. Ball pointed out that out of the $1.2 Million the Schools were being asked to pick up 2/3 of the deficit, and again Mr. Palmer noted that the Schools were only being asked to pick up their proportionate share of the health insurance cost and the loss of $275,000 from Chapter 70 aid that was in the School budget.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the possibility of exploring other health insurance providers, and Mr. Palmer advised that that could be done at any time. Some communities have opted to go to a single provider. Natick was in a consortium and has received a favorable rate. Mr. Palmer pointed out that a change in health insurance would be subject to collective bargaining.

Mr. Ball referred to a memo dated November 30th describing the proposed new hardware. He noted that there would be a new meter in every home and in the case of homes with irrigation meters, there would be two meters. He further noted that Mr. Palmer has indicated that once the system was fully installed and operational, it will reduce the need for two-meter readers to one. The new basic water meter was still the same kind of thing as now but they were interrogated and can be read via a truck passing by the house. The meters will go in residences and small commercial properties. The big commercial users will be left as is.

Mr. Ball advised that three bids were received in response to the RFP, and he had been informed by Mr. Palmer that one bid was defective. The range of the bids was somewhere between $1.4 million-$1.9 million for the meters, transmitters and stuff in the truck. The billing software was also changing, and the new software will flag apparent zero-usage and excessive usage.

The recommendation was that the contract be awarded to the second bidder, Ti-Sales, Inc. because the Badger bid did not meet the specification. Mr. Sisitsky knew the Board had received a letter from Badger making their case for why they should be awarded the bid, but Badger proposed to use a meter that does not have a dual port which was

specified. Thus, their system would require two transmitters for installations that have a second meter for irrigation purposes and the specifications clearly stated that the Town wanted a system that would require only one transmitter even if there were two separate meters. Plus Badger did not indicate that they would provide the extra transmitters that their system requires nor did they include the extra costs in their bid and thus the bid submitted by Badger was not accurate and did not reflect the true cost of the project.

In addition the Badger system requires the radio transmitter to be mounted inside the building near the meter. The Ti-Sales system allows installation of the units outside and that insures better reception for reading the meters and allows the Town to change the batteries without having to enter the building. Badger claims their transmitter could be installed outside but that type of installation would require the

Mr. Sisitsky continued that the specifications also required that the transmitters provide a tamper-proof system for storing the readings. With the T-Sales system, if there were an interruption in the physical connection between the meter and the transmitters, the transmitters would collect the lost data once the connection was restored. The Badger system would not collect the data from the meter during the period of disconnection and the usage would go unrecorded.

If Badger had included the additional number of transmitters which corresponds to the number of irrigation meters, Mr. Ball inquired as to what their bid would have been. Mr. Sisitsky estimated that it would have been another $70,000-80,000 and they probably would have still be the low bid. Mr. Sisitsky added that another advantage of a single transmitter was that if a person wants to add an irrigation meter, it was just a matter of hooking it up. There were 2,000-3,000 homes with irrigation meters.

Mr. Hughes asked about installation, and Mr. Sisitsky replied that the Board had asked to have that as an alternate. Ti-Sales will provide installation for between $700,000-$1 million over three years. Mr. Sisitsky reminded the Board that when the policy was changed for maintaining water & sewer lines on private property, he promised that by freeing up the crews, those crews would be available for installation of water meters. Doing it in-house over the next three years will save ratepayers over $700,000.

Mr. Stern inquired as to how wholesale battery replacement would be handled in 10 years, and where would the Town stand in 10 years with dead batteries and meters that need to be replaced. Mr. Palmer responded that meter replacement could probably go out 20 years and battery replacement could be done on a uniform basis beginning in year 5 or 6 and stagger them.

Mr. Ball noted that there was a gentleman who lives on Scarsdale Road who has been trying for six months to get Boston Edison to move 3 guy wires off his lawn. Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian has tried to help and is always told it was being looked into. Mr. Ball suggested tabling the petition and inviting a Boston Edison representative to the next meeting to address this issue.

David Bissonnette explained that this was the second MCI Worldcom petition. This petition involved the placement of fiber optic on the overhead utility poles from Mall Road, onto Speen Street and terminating at the Natick/Framingham town line. The lines were needed to service TJX Company. There was about 1,500 feet of line and the work should be done in a day.

Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Bissonnette had talked to the former Deputy Town Administrator about this in terms of an agreement. Mr. Bissonnette advised that he had talked to Mr. Cohen who apprised him of the recurring fees that had been set. Mr. Bissonnette said his response to Mr. Cohen was that this had never been a requirement to use the poles. MCI had a major run down Route 27 a few years ago and in return did the sidewalks. No fees were initiated.

renewal at the December 17th meeting and would like to see them current. A letter would be sent to all licenseholders with outstanding taxes or fees in excess of one year advising them that their license would not be renewed until they were current. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, and unanimously voted.

Mr. Hughes advised that it had been brought to his attention that there were some additional automatic amusement devices being operated at the Natick Mall. Ms. Challis explained that devices were put in the food court without applying for a license. This was brought to the Office’s attention by the Building Inspector Michael Melchiorri and he has a meeting scheduled with the Natick Mall manager to discuss this and other problems. The owner of the devices has been notified that he needs to apply for a license.