Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Paul R. McKinley at 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Paul R. McKinley, Jeffrey A. Stern, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes. John Ciccariello arrived at 7:20 p.m.

ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Groux, Acting Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary;

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on June 3, 2002 in the amount of $484,921.82. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,897,233.47.

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the March 11, 2002 meeting.

POLICE DEPARTMENT: HARTFORD STREET SPEED STUDY

Police Chief Dennis Mannix introduced Sergeant Robert Davis to speak about a traffic safety enforcement program just begun in the Hartford Street area. The Police Department received some funding from the Governor’s Highway Safety Bureau that allows them to focus on one area of Town. Hartford Street was chosen because of the complaints and there was a comprehensive enforcement there last year, which he thought was effective. The Governor’s council thought it was the right way to do it and would like to see additional study. Part of the requirement of the grant was to have community meetings, neighborhood meetings, and public meetings like the Board of Selectmen’s meeting.

Sergeant Davis did a power point presentation of the Speed Watch Program. He explained that the community speed management program was funded by the Governor’s Highway Safety Bureau combining education, engineering, enforcement, and evaluation. The Governor’s council will pay the overtime for enforcement and the purchase of new equipment.

Sergeant Davis noted that the education piece had seven required activities and to meet those requirements he has met with the DPW and Safety Committee, and conducted neighborhood meetings with Hartford Street residents. A presentation to local government officials and obtaining their endorsement of the program was also required. In addition the Police Department will be distributing informational material daily between 7:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m. to people stopped at the red light. Signs indicating this was a speed watch community were sighted, and a citizen radar patrol has been enlisted. Two Hartford Street residents gave permission to post the signs on their property. Plus the speed monitor has been displayed on Hartford Street that allows motorists to see their speed.

Sergeant Davis advised that a project like this was done in 2001 on Oak Street and the results reduced the average speed from 35 mph to 28 mph and increased seat belt usage.

Mr. Ball referred to Sergeant Davis’ mention that the grant will fund overtime enforcement and asked if there were still normal patrols. Sergeant Davis advised that there were still normal patrols, but after the education there will be saturation patrols.

Mr. Ball noted that the speed limit for a street was established on a study of the speeds actually traveled, but suppose everybody goes too fast. Does it (establish speed limit) have to be done on that basis? Sergeant Davis advised that it did not. The 85% rule was a national standard for establishing speed limits. They did it on Hartford Street and that was acceptable to the residents. For Hartford Street depending on the area, the speed runs from 35-37 mph.

POLICE DEPARTMENT: HARTFORD STREET SPEED STUDY (contd)

Chief Mannix added that the speed limit was predicated on what 85% of the people do and if people did 50 mph, there would be crash data to support lowering the limit.

Mr. Hughes noted that the point of the citizens’ radar was to gather information and not to do enforcement. Sergeant Davis confirmed that as being correct, noting that the citizens have no interaction with the motorist.

Mr. Stern asked if there was still enforcement during the education piece, and Sergeant Davis responded that there were still regular patrols on Hartford Street, but the education piece was done on a daily basis either by the distribution of material or using the speed monitor.

Mr. Ball noted that people flash their lights to say there was a cop up ahead and he asked if Sergeant Davis approved or disapproved. Sergeant Davis responded that all the Police want was for people to slow down and if that made them slow down, it worked.

Mr. McKinley commended Chief Mannix and Sergeant Davis for their foresight in pursuing this.

TCAN: WAIVER OF BUILDING PERMIT FEE

Representing TCAN (The Center for Arts in Natick) was Joseph Hurwitz, Chairman of the Board of Directors.

Mr. Stern recused himself and left the table.

Mr. McKinley noted receipt of several letters at the previous meeting regarding TCAN’s request to waive the building fees.

Mr. Hurwitz began with a few points he felt the Board should recognize. Some communities such as Watertown, Newburyport provided facilities for the arts at no cost. Watertown provided $1 million, and the City of Marlboro offered TCAN a facility that was four times the size of this one at no cost. Downtown Framingham was attempting to attract visual and performing arts. Because most of the TCAN Board was Natick residents they turned down Marlboro’s offer. Some people felt that

TCAN got the firehouse at a real bargain, but TCAN bid $90,000 for a building without any redeeming value and there weren’t any other realistic proposals except to tear it down and put parking. Many TCAN contributors felt that TCAN gave the Town a $90,000 contribution.

Mr. Hurwitz continued that TCAN was ready to spend $1.4 million for a downtown jewel that will prove to be an economic asset. It was his understanding that the electrical and plumbing inspectors offered to perform their services without any cost and he understood that the Building Inspector offered to perform his services outside the normal business day and, therefore, there was no cost to the Town. If the Board does not waive the fee, the Town will be collecting a fee for something that was no cost to the Town.

Mr. Hurwitz further pointed out that Natick Center Associates acknowledges and supports TCAN as does the Massachusetts and Natick Historical Commission. TCAN was non-profit deriving funds from contributions.

Mr. Hurwitz noted that the Town was concerned with what happens if TCAN fails, and TCAN was offering an easement on the east side of the building, which gives the Town a priority ownership. The Town expressed a concern about this during the sale, and TCAN was willing to give this easement.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that at the last meeting he (Mr. Ciccariello) had requested an opportunity to talk to the Building Department to get an idea of the fees. Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian confirmed that he had had discussions with the plumbing and electrical inspectors and the Building Inspector as to their ability to perform their duties on the project if the Board waived the fee. The building permit was about $14,000. A 50/50 split was considered but after discussions with some Board members, he would propose a fee of $4,000 which would provide the Town with the fee to cover all the administrative costs such as filling out all the paperwork and doing

TCAN: WAIVER OF BUILDING PERMIT FEE (contd)

the review of the plans. All the other inspections would be performed on all the inspector’s time and not on Town time.

A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to waive the building fee and charge TCAN a fee of $4,000 to cover the administrative costs for the Community Development and Building Departments. After further discussion the maker and seconder of the motion agreed to condition the fee reduction on TCAN giving the Town a façade easement for the east side of the building between the old firehouse at 12 Summer Street and the Clark Block. Unanimously voted.

In speaking to the motion, Mr. Hughes again pointed out that this was only for Phase I and if there was a Phase II, TCAN would be back. Mr. Hurwitz confirmed that if there were a Phase II, he would be back.

Asked to describe the proposed façade easement, Mr. Hurwitz responded that it was between the firehouse and Stern’s. As to the value, it would give the Town a position in the event TCAN failed. The Town would have an easement and could cause the next buyer grief.

A member of the audience, Robert Raisch asked to comment, but Mr. McKinley declined the request noting that it was not a public hearing.

AMVETS: PETITION FOR CHANGE IN MANAGER

Before the Board was a petition from the Amvets for a change in manager. The proposed new manager, Gary Fisher, stated that he had TIPS training and had been bartending at various places for 15 or more years.

Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Fisher to give a sense of his experience as a manager of a similar type club. Mr. Fisher responded that he had his own cleaning service business. He had no prior experience as a restaurant manager, but he had been training for the past 3-4 months with the previous manager Scott Suttill.

Mr. Stern inquired if Mr. Fisher was planning on doing both the cleaning business and the AMVETS, and Mr. Fisher responded that he was. There was no night work in the cleaning. It was all done in early morning. Asked how much time he expected to spend at the Amvets, Mr. Fisher replied that he was there 7 days a week on an average of 5-6 hours a day.

A motion was made by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Stern, and unanimously voted to approve the Amvets’ change in manager from William S. Suttill to Gary Fisher.

MIDDLESEX SAVINGS BANK: PARKING WAIVER

Representing Middlesex Savings Bank was Bruce Weisberg, the bank’s Facilities Manager.

Mr. Weisberg explained that the bank had an emergency generator on Summer Street that does not meet the state’s noise restriction and the bank was under a cease and desist order from the Board of Health. The only place to relocate the generator that meets the requirements was in the parking garage and that will get it away from the property line. This emergency generator was to keep the computers running (in case of power outage). It was tested once a week and every quarter a tune up was done. One night power was lost and the generator ran for 10 hours and that was what caused the problem.

Mr. McKinley noted that both the Board of Health and Building Inspector were in agreement with the relocation of the generator.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if the existing generator was within its own housing, and Mr. Weisberg advised that it was, but it was close to the resident’s property line. Asked what type of fuel was used, Mr. Weisberg responded that it was natural gas.

Mr. Hughes questioned if this was being done because the generator made noise one weekend and it only ran 142 hours over the last 12 years. Mr. Weisberg confirmed that as being correct.

As to what happens if the Board were to say no to the parking waiver, Mr. Weisberg reiterated that the bank was under a cease and desist order from the Board of Health.

MIDDLESEX SAVINGS BANK: PARKING WAIVER (contd)

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Board of Health had done any sound reading, and Mr. Weisberg advised that it had been done in 1999. He added that at one point the bank talked about acquiring the land, but that fell through.

When asked about the life expectancy of the generator, Mr. Weisberg responded that the generator was about 10 years old, but it didn’t have many hours on it and it had a long life expectancy. He noted that the project to move the generator would cost $150,000.

Mr. Stern asked about the cease and desist order. Mr. Weisberg stated that he had never seen it, but according to Public Health Director Roger Wade it had been issued.

Mr. Hughes suggested tabling further discussion until Mr. Wade could come and explain. Mr. McKinley concurred and commented on the existing parking shortage in the downtown and the fact that the generator only ran for 142 hours total in 10-12 years. While he was sure it was disconcerting to the neighbor, it was not very often.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, and unanimously voted to table to hear from Mr. Wade.

In discussion of the motion, Mr. Hughes requested that the resident who spoke with Mr. Wade also be invited in. Mr. Stern asked that the Board be provided with an exact description of the functions of the emergency generator and whether it relates to any critical systems such as emergency lighting, fire alarm systems. Mr. McKinley requested that the Board be furnished with a copy of the cease and desist order.

Mr. McKinley questioned if measurements had been done, and Mr. Weisberg responded that it was measured in the rear but it sits close to the property on the side. He could build something around it, but because of the size it didn’t make sense. Tocci & Associates said the key was to get it away from the property line so it can meet the state code.

Mr. Ball expressed sympathy toward helping the Bank, but questioned if the Board had any latitude if it was a state regulation. Mr. Weisberg responded that the local Board of Health enforces the code for the state. The Bank had a hearing with the Board of Health and the Board of Health said they needed to go to the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Ball stated that he would like to see the data.

Mr. Stern asked if a parking waiver was granted when the building was constructed. Mr. Weisberg’s response was, ‘no’, noting that parking wasn’t an issue at the time because they were purchasing parking space with the Town.

Mr. Ball prefaced the discussion by noting that the original agreement with Pegasus signed by the Town charged Pegasus with providing public access and local origination programming for the Town. They were to form a 501c3 and tape Board of Selectmen’s meetings, School Committee meetings, Town Meetings and rebroadcast those. They were to train volunteers to teach people how to produce their own shows and provide

education in the schools about television production. All of that they have undertaken with great spirit and energy, but as everyone who has watched Channels 3 or 9 knows, there has been very little broadcasting going on. Part of the reason for asking them to appear was to answer some questions about timing and timetable. When did they expect to have those kinds of things up and running and why did it take longer than anyone conceived.

President of the Natick Pegasus Board of Directors Jackie Ladd, told the Board that she thought Pegasus had made a lot of progress although not a lot of programming was on. It had been almost two years since the Board appointed the Pegasus Board, but with that appointment came no support funds. This was a whole new venture and the Pegasus Board forged ahead, but the greatest single problem they encountered was the lack of funds. The funds weren’t passed onto Pegasus until November 2001 and at this point they have worked with three town administrators. Originally they worked with Paul Cohen, but when Fred Conley returned he (Mr. Conley) decided that Town Meeting had to make the appropriation and it stymied their (Pegasus) calendar.

NATICK PEGASUS (contd)

Ms. Ladd continued that they had hoped to bring an executive director on board in August 2001, but because there were no funds, they couldn’t. In October when Town Meeting released the funds, they advertised for an executive director. On January 29, 2002, Geralyn Lemieux came on board which was the anniversary of the signing of the Board’s contract with AT&T. Peter Zawadski also accepted an offer as program director and started at the same time. Most of the equipment in the studio when Pegasus took charge was held together by duct tape.

Pegasus Executive Director Geralyn Lemieux referred to a handout outlining what Pegasus had been doing in the past few months. She noted that anyone who had been to the studio could attest to the fact that it was a futile attempt at a public access station. The Board of Directors and herself decided that it would be a fiscally sound decision to do a site assessment. They found a wonderful location right downtown on the third floor of the Clark Block in a fabulous location including access to the public. As of June 1, 2002, Pegasus was no longer a resident of 249 West Central Street and was now located downtown. To her that was a major break through and a step forward for Pegasus.

Ms. Lemieux continued that after an assessment and cost analysis, the decision was made to make a major capital investment and they were going through the process of getting in capital equipment. She was excited about providing first-rate top-rate digital equipment and this will be the envy of many public access stations in the surrounding area. This will be one of the first to offer a fully digitized media studio.

Ms. Lemieux advised that a part-time production assistant had just been hired. One concern was the provision of taping Town Meetings. The part-time production assistant will be in charge of doing School Committee or Board of Selectmen meetings and Pegasus would be hiring an additional part-timer to supplement. As far as programming, according to the municipal agreement between the Board of Selectmen and Pegasus, Pegasus was contractually bound to produce 25 hours of programming by

February 2003 and they will be producing 25 hours of programming by July 2002, seven months ahead of schedule. Fourteen new shows were being produced and will begin production in July.

Ms. Lemieux continued that the part she was very excited about was the education. An integral part of their duties was to provide resources. Mr. Zawadski will be teaching a television production class at Natick High School and on August 1st a production class will start. The studio’s grand opening was scheduled for July 20th.

Mr. Stern inquired if the new facility was handicapped accessible, and Ms. Lemieux responded that it would be. When asked when that would happen, Ms. Lemieux replied that she believed an elevator was being put in shortly. Right now there was an elevator to the third floor, but it was not very large and needs to be larger.

Mr. Ball asked if the actual broadcast schedule was going to appear on the Natick web site, and Ms. Lemieux’s response was, ‘yes’. She noted that there would be regular programming slots as well as the rebroadcast of the Board of Selectmen’s and School Committee’s meetings and Town Meeting so the public will be trained when to expect to see them. It will appear on the Pegasus web site and community calendar. Asked if the schedule could appear on the Town’s web site, Ms. Lemieux’s response was, ‘sure’.

Ms. Lemieux was asked to outline the 14 shows being produced, and she responded that she was going to be meeting with Deb Sayre to explore a children’s show. Another was an animal adoption show, a veterans show, a yoga show, a holistic health show, a political show, and a quasi news show. The Town Crier was coming back. There was a cooking show, and a senior citizen guide for senior living. It was a full gamut.

Mr. Ball inquired as to when Pegasus expected to begin taping all the Board of Selectmen’s meetings, and Ms. Lemieux responded that it was beginning tonight – June 3rd. For the School Committee it was the same – tonight.

Mr. Ball noted that in years past Town Meeting had been covered by three cameras and asked if Pegasus intended to use the multiple

NATICK PEGASUS (contd)

cameras. Ms. Lemieux replied that Pegasus was not contractually bound to do so, but she would endeavor to do so.

Asked when tonight’s meeting would air, Ms. Lemieux advised that it would be shown tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. Once they got the media server in, they would be re-broadcasting the meetings multiple times. Right now with the equipment they were using they would re-broadcast the Selectmen’s meeting at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow and the School Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday - once for now and in the near future more.

Mr. McKinley questioned why 3:00 p.m. was chosen since most interested people would want to view it in the evening. Ms. Lemieux explained that everything had to be done manually with the playback system they inherited. The media server has not yet arrived. The media server would allow them to program up to 100 hours of programming.

Mr. McKinley commented that he was not sure that re-broadcasting at 3:00 p.m. had very much value and Pegasus may want to re-think the staffing schedule.

In response to an inquiry from Mr. Ball, Ms. Lemieux explained that a lot goes into producing a show. There were usually story-developing meetings and production needs meetings. Those meetings have been ongoing and she estimated that the first show would be aired in July.

Mr. Ball questioned when the Selectmen’s and School Committee’s meeting would be broadcast live, and was told by Ms. Lemieux that as soon as the I-net was operational, they would have the capability of broadcasting (live) – not just RCN, but the I-net being lit. The goal was to be able to do simultaneous live broadcasts. Mr. Ball noted that RCN would meet the June 30th deadline.

Stuart Pologe, a member of the Pegasus Board of Directors, stated that live broadcasts would commence on or before the lighting of the I-net. There were some other options in transmitting the programming.

Mr. Ball noted that there was a VHS recorder tacked on so that after the meeting the camera person could hand a VHS copy to the Board for the library. Mr. Zawadski advised that with the new equipment there were a couple of options. There could be a VHS deck setup or there was the option of a DVD copy. It was up to the Board. Mr. McKinley stated that his preference would be the DVD.

Mr. Ciccariello commented that the community calendar seemed to be running quite a bit and a lot of the events were outdated. He inquired as to how often the calendar was updated and how Pegasus reached out to get the source of events. Ms. Lemieux advised that the community calendar was updated twice a week and there shouldn’t be outdated items on it unless it fell between those two days. As to how she reached out, Ms. Lemieux noted that the first two months she was on the job she was actively reaching out to the community. She met with the library, the Police Chief, the Fire Department to get to know people and the Town. She planned to invite the presidents and directors of all non-profits and youth groups to come to an information meeting. The goal was to encourage them to participate with Pegasus either producing shows or help Pegasus get the word out on their programs. For youth sports the goal was to have a lot of Little League and Pop Warner Football televised. There will be a series of grass roots undertakings to reach out to all non-profits and sports to get them involved and educate them on how Pegasus can help let the Town know about them.

In conclusion Mr. McKinley asked if there were any resources by which the Board could facilitate Pegasus’ success. Ms. Lemieux suggested that the Board be a partner in this effort to bring wonderful service to the community. Pegasus can be an integral part of the community and she thought Pegasus and the Board could work hand-in-hand to achieve that goal.

NICHOLAS: STATUS OF LICENSE; NICK’S CAR SHOW

Representing Nicholas’ were the owners and manager, John and Sharon Stournaras.

Mr. Stournaras stated that he understood there was concern regarding the length of time the construction was taking. It just got in full force the last four weeks or so and the reason it was taking so long

NICHOLAS: STATUS OF LICENSE; NICK’S CAR SHOW (contd)

was that they had to stay open during the construction. This was the busy season and it was essential for the contractor to work around the restaurant and that meant doing it in stages. They were, however, progressing and had started to pickup steam. He expected completion to be the middle of September and then they would be able to open the new restaurant.

Mr. McKinley noted that in the letter to the Board, Mr. Stournaras requested permission to re-institute Nick’s car show. Mr. McKinley didn’t recall the Board ordering the car show to stop, but Mr. Stournaras reminded him that as a condition of receiving the alcohol license, they (Nicholas’) were asked to submit a letter stating they would stop the car show. Because it was taking such a long time to complete the building, they would like to continue the show.

Mr. Ciccariello recalled that Nick’s had offered to do that (stop car show) as a condition of granting them a license and the Board agreed that that would be a final condition of the license.

It was Mr. Ball’s recollection that the Board’s rationale for asking Nick’s to stop the car show was that the idea of service of alcohol and vehicles were incompatible. He had no problem re-instituting the car show up until the opening, but not beyond that.

Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. McKinley, moved to permit Nick’s car show to continue until such time as the new restaurant is open. The car shows to cease no later than opening day. Unanimously voted.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: RULES & REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE OF WINE & MALT BEVERAGES IN RESTAURANTS AND FUNCTION ROOMS WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF NOT LESS THAN 50 AND NOT MORE THAN 99

Before the Board as an outline of proposed rules & regulations for wine & malt licenses.

Mr. Groux noted that he had not followed this as closely as the Board and was not sure that the Board felt comfortable with the rules. He didn’t see any need to rush into anything on it.

Mr. Ball suggested that since the Board had voted to form a committee to review the rules & regs, it seemed inappropriate to codify the beer & wine regulations at this time. He proposed tabling it and let the committee work on it.

Mr. McKinley, however, didn’t think that the committee was formed to do that. Mr. Hughes agreed, adding it was not his understanding that the purpose of the committee was to deliver new rules for 50-99 seat licenses. The Board asked Town Counsel to come up with a draft based on the current regs, and the changes made reflect his (Town Counsel’s) attempt to get it consistent for the 50-99 seat beer & wine licenses. It was the Board’s prerogative to set these regulations. He didn’t envision the task force drafting new rules and regs for beer & wine licenses.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: RULES & REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE OF WINE & MALT BEVERAGES IN RESTAURANTS AND FUNCTION ROOMS WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF NOT LESS THAN 50 AND NOT MORE THAN 99 (contd)

Mr. Stern concurred.

Mr. McKinley then questioned if it might make sense to hold on adopting the beer & wine rules until after the task force completes its work. Mr. Hughes pointed out that once the rules & regs were voted, there will be applications for the 50-99 seat licenses. People were waiting to see the rules & regulations, and the task force may not get its work done until the end of the summer. He didn’t have any objection to waiting, but there was special legislation for a particular part of Town to attract new business and that will be put off.

Mr. Stern stated that he would rather not wait for the task force. There was a comprehensive policy crafted after the policy in effect for some time and it can be modified in the future. He knew of at least one business that was waiting for this and although he would like to see some more work on them (rules & regs), he would like to get the rules & regs enacted. He didn’t think the businesses should have to wait until the fall.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: RULES & REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE OF WINE & MALT BEVERAGES IN RESTAURANTS AND FUNCTION ROOMS WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF NOT LESS THAN 50 AND NOT MORE THAN 99 (contd)

Mr. McKinley inquired as to Mr. Stern’s concerns, and Mr. Stern responded that he would like to see these incorporated so that it reads fluidly and have some research of other similar cities and towns to see if there was anything missed.

Mr. Ball felt that Mr. Stern struck precisely at the heart of the issue. That was the kind of work the task force should be doing.

Mr. Hughes countered that the task force was not to deal with 50-99 seat licenses, but with the rules & regs for the 100 seat restaurants which was the fundamental on which these (beer & wine regs) were based. If the task force recommends changes to the fundamental rules & regs, the beer & wine will change.

Mr. Ball responded that he would go along with implementing the rules & regs now, but he failed to see the urgency. While he was sure that people were anxious to apply, the Town hasn’t had these before and to him taking some time for the task force to do its job would be the prudent thing to do.

Mr. Hughes pointed out that these were the rules & regs that have been in effect for some time that were tailored to a particular license with particular seating and not much else has changed. With regard to Mr. Stern’s request to look at other towns, Mr. Hughes stated that he was not sure how useful it would be since the rules & regs in Natick were rather unique. What was before the Board was a codification of the Board’s rules & regs tailored for the smaller restaurants with the limited service of alcohol.

Mr. McKinley concurred, but thought it would be helpful to have the proposed rules & regs rewritten in the exact form they were being proposed. He felt it had been debated for well over a year to provide restaurants with 50-99 seats the opportunity to serve beer & wine. In his opinion this has been studied enough and he was ready to vote when

the rules & regs were written in the final format so they could be read and understood.

Mr. Hughes noted that a fee would have to be set.

Mr. McKinley proposed tabling to allow Town Counsel to rewrite the policy into final format, and on the same evening revisit the existing fee schedule and implement a fee for the 50-99 seat restaurants.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, to continue the hearing on the proposed rules & regs to June 17th and ask Town Counsel to provide a clean copy. In addition schedule a hearing to adopt a fee for beer & wine licenses for June 17th. Unanimously voted.

With regard to Mr. Ball’s concern, Mr. Stern clarified that it was his view that the task force will have as part of its charge making suggestions on revising the Town’s by-laws conceptually and the rules & regs that would be promulgated would be up to the Board to do.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND LIQUOR LICENSE RULES & REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN RESTAURANTS AND FUNCTION ROOMS WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF NOT LESS THAN 100 PERSONS – SUSHI BAR DEFINITION

There being no one in the audience wishing to speak, Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

Mr. Stern moved to confirm the amendments to the Town of Natick Rules and Regulations for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages in Restaurants and Function Rooms With a Seating Capacity of Not Less Than 100 Persons voted on March 18, 2002 as follows:

The following words are added at the end of the second sentence of Section I.8: “and in sushi bars permitted under Section III.7 of these Regulations”, so that the second sentence of Section I.8 reads: “The service of food shall be available in cocktail lounges and waiting areas permitted under Section V of these Regulations, and in sushi bars permitted under Section III.7 of these Regulations.”

Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Stern, Mr. Ball voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Hughes were opposed.

Mr. Stern moved to confirm and supplement the amendments to the Town of Natick Rules and Regulations for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages in Restaurants and Function Rooms With a Seating Capacity of Not Less Than 100 Persons voted on March 18, 2002 as follows:

The following four sentences are added at the end of Section III.7: “Alcoholic beverages may be sold and/or served at sushi bars, namely bars, counters or similar facilities within a licensed establishment where seating for patrons is provided and nothing other than sushi is prepared and assembled by a sushi chef and served to and

consumed by patrons, or from where nothing other than sushi is served to and consumed by patrons in other licensed areas of the licensed premises. Seating at licensed sushi bars shall be used in computing whether or not the facility complies with the minimum seating capacity as set forth in Chapter 138, Section 11, sub-division E. Sushi in this context means a Japanese dish of bite-sized cakes of cold boiled rice flavored with rice vinegar and rolled in seaweed with or topped with raw fish, vegetables or egg. However, notwithstanding any other provision of these regulations, alcohol may be served and/or consumed at a sushi bar only in conjunction with and incidental to consumption at said sushi bar of sushi which has been prepared and served at said sushi bar.

As amended, Section III.7 shall read:

“No alcoholic beverages shall be sold and/or served at counters, lobbies or any similar type location notwithstanding the fact that meals or other food service may be available at such locations, nor shall the areas comprising such locations and related seating be used in computing whether or not the facility complies with the minimum seating capacity as set forth in Chapter 138, Section 11, sub-division E. Alcoholic beverages may be sold and/or served at sushi bars, namely bars, counters or similar facilities within a licensed establishment where seating for patrons is provided and nothing other than sushi is prepared and assembled by a sushi chef and served to and consumed by patrons, or from where nothing other than sushi is served to and consumed by patrons in other licensed areas of the licensed premises. Seating at licensed sushi bars shall be used in computing whether or not the facility complies with the minimum seating capacity as set forth in Chapter 138, Section 11, sub-division E. Sushi in this context means a Japanese dish of bite-sized cakes of cold boiled rice flavored with rice vinegar and rolled in seaweed with or topped with raw fish, vegetables or egg. However, notwithstanding any other provision of these regulations, alcohol may be served and/or consumed at a sushi bar only in conjunction with and incidental to consumption at said sushi bar which has been prepared and served at said sushi bar.

Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Stern, Mr. Ball voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Hughes were opposed.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF CABLE LICENSE CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF CABLE LICENSE AT&T COMCAST

Mr. McKinley explained that AT&T was acquiring Comcast but locally Media One was retaining the cable license.

Mr. Ball noted that the most significant question asked was if there would be any changes in the relationship between the Town, Pegasus and the new owners and the answer was, ‘no’. It remains the same. To the question of whether they (AT&T) would get out from under any responsibility, again the answer was, ‘no’.

CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF CABLE LICENSE CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF CABLE LICENSE AT&T COMCAST (contd)

Mr. Hughes moved approval of the license transfer request from AT&T Broadband to AT&T Comcast. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

Robert Raisch inquired as to the status of his complaint of a public nuisance and violation of a non-conforming use on West Central Street.

Mr. Ciccariello reported that last Friday he and Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian met with the owners of the property. Mr. Sarkisian has done a lot of research and has found aerial maps that show the premises 15-20 years ago and the way it was prior to the sale of the property. They (Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Sarkisian) met with the owners and reached an agreement and understanding that the rear parcel was a residentially zoned piece of property and there were to be no vehicles parked on that property. If the owners wish to use it as part of their commercial use, they would have to go before the ZBA for a variance.

Mr. Ciccariello continued that the second parcel abuts the property that was grandfathered and there was storage of vehicles, trucks, and vehicle components. The owners agreed to remove the vehicles from the residential property and clean it up. They also agreed to move the dumpster from the residential property and have some additional screening.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that Auto Max owns additional residential property fronting on West Central Street and fully understands that it cannot be used as a commercial use. On Friday he (Auto Max owners) was starting to remove the vehicles and has rented space at another location. He (Auto Max owner) has given assurance that he will no longer use Cemetery Street as access after 10:00 p.m. and will no longer park on Cemetery Street. At this point Mr. Ciccariello felt that the Auto Max owner should be given an opportunity to clean the lot.

Mr. Raisch referred to Mr. Ciccariello’s statement that Auto Max was being allowed to use the Cemetery Street access to bring vehicles onto the property. Mr. Ciccariello explained that Auto Max agreed not to use it as a driveway during the work day, but the access from West Central Street was very steep and sometimes difficult to get down the hill without bottoming out some of the vehicles being brought in. Hopefully the problem would be resolved in the next two weeks.

Mr. Raisch asked if Mr. Ciccariello had viewed the embankment around the property and saw all the debris. Mr. Ciccariello advised that he had not been able to see that. A lot was now overgrown and difficult to see, but he would be happy to try to get back down there. Mr.

Raisch offered to go along with Mr. Ciccariello, noting that the abutters who live on #7 Cemetery were in their backyard picking up beer bottles. To him it was a classic public nuisance and violated 6-7 Town by-laws.

Mr. McKinley felt that Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Sarkisian had responded to Mr. Raisch’s concern and the Board would wait and see what happened over the next couple of weeks.

56 EVERETT STREET PROPERTY

Mr. McKinley noted that this property was declared surplus and a bid was accepted, but the buyer backed out and the property was now available for re-sale. Town Counsel recommended that the Town obtain an updated appraisal.

Mr. Hughes noted that he had asked Town Counsel and Mr. Sarkisian if this was a buildable lot, and Mr. Sarkisian gave assurance that it was buildable. Mr. Flynn (Town Counsel) hasn’t done the title work to tell if it was a Furcolo lot, and he (Mr. Hughes) recommended that the Town spend the additional money to make sure it was a buildable lot. It would cost less than $1,000 to do the title work.

Mr. Groux advised that he would arrange to have the work done and agreed with getting a new appraisal.

56 EVERETT STREET PROPERTY (contd)

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, and unanimously voted to request Town Counsel to do the title work and make sure 56 Everett Street was a buildable lot.

MUNICIPAL STREETLIGHTING P&S

Mr. Groux noted that the P&S agreement came in via the Town’s consultant, John Shortsleeve, and it was forwarded to Town Counsel for review. Town Counsel has advised that these were standard P&S and license agreements and very difficult to accomplish changes in them. Nevertheless Mr. Flynn marked up both copies and sent them back to him (Mr. Groux) with his proposed changes. Mr. Groux did not recommend the Board taking any action on it tonight, but to be aware that the budget for next year was passed on the assumption of the Town making this purchase.

Mr. Groux further noted that if the Board tried to accomplish changes in the NSTAR agreements, if those changes were minor, the Board had to balance that delay with the money savings in Fiscal 2003. He advised that he would take Mr. Flynn’s mark-ups and send them to Mr. Shortsleeve for review and see if both Mr. Shortsleeve and Mr. Flynn can recommend taking it back to NSTAR. Mr. Groux requested that the Board get back to him with any comments they wished passed along.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there had been any luck in negotiating with NSTAR on the purchase price. Mr. Groux responded that NSTAR had backed off on the insistence on the payment over the 100 underground lines and that reduced the purchase price by $220,000. That was known just before going into Town Meeting. NSTAR didn’t say they agreed with the Town’s interpretation, but in the interest of a good relationship, they would reduce it.

With all due respect to Mr. Flynn and in light of a lot of budget assumptions being based on this, Mr. McKinley felt that a lot of the proposed changes would take 10 years to get anyone to agree to. Practically speaking, he thought Mr. Flynn and Mr. Shortsleeve needed to collaborate and get some closure. He didn’t mind putting it off until June 17th, but not much beyond that.

Mr. Groux proposed that Mr. Flynn and Mr. Shortsleeve get on this and determine whether they should insist on these changes. If so, send them back or otherwise ask the Board to approve. If NSTAR was reluctant, the Board always had the option of signing the agreement and disputing it with the state. He felt if there was going to be a time delay the Board had to be confident that the issue was worth it.

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board voted to table discussion to June 17th.

SPEEN STREET PROPERTY

Mr. Groux felt that the letter from DCAM asking if the Town wished to request a reduction of notification time for disposition of the Speen Street property was misdirected. It didn’t make sense to him that the state would ask the Town for a reduction and he didn’t think a response was necessary. Mr. Groux pointed out that there was a response from Town Counsel indicating that Town Meeting’s approval was required to buy the parcel and that would not be until the end of October. Although he didn’t see the need for the Town to waive the time period for transfer, he didn’t see anything wrong with asking the state to waive it.

Mr. Groux also noted that a letter from the state indicates that the Town would need an appraisal on the property, and Town Counsel says that can be as simple as an appraisal from the Assessors. The Town will have to advertise that it was acquiring the property and once acquired the Town has to advertise that it has been acquired.

Mr. Ball called attention to the May 3rd letter from DCAM that says the property would be transferred subject to the conditions listed and one of those conditions was that access to the highway was prohibited. The purpose of acquiring this property was to give the Fire Department access to Route 9, and he wanted to be sure that the Town would not be precluded from using the property for what it wants.

Mr. McKinley moved that the Board sign the notification waiver. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.

LIQUOR LICENSE STUDY GROUP

Mr. Ball moved reconsideration of the vote taken on the composition of the liquor license study group. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

Speaking to his motion, Mr. Ball noted that a letter was sent to Arthur Fair, President of the Natick Center Associates, requesting the Center Associates to propose a representative for the committee and the representative they proposed was Joyce Moss who was not a resident of Natick. For the Board to subsequently vote to have the composition of the committee limited to residents of Natick says the Board doesn’t

want the individual they proposed and ignores the fact that that individual has a degree in municipal planning and a better feel for interaction between business and liquor licenses than other members do. Somebody has to represent a point of view of how these changes affect the businesses and to exclude both Ms. Moss and licenseholders seemed to be doing a disservice to a segment of the Town.

Mr. Ball moved to change the requirements for the Natick Center Associates to someone who was not a licenseholder. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello. The motion failed on a 2-3-0 vote. Mr. Stern and Mr. Ball voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Hughes were opposed.

In speaking to Mr. Ball’s motion, Mr. Hughes stated that he was opposed. This was a task force to review whether Natick residents want to change the current rules and regulations of how alcohol was sold in the Town. The meetings will be public and people can come and tell the study group how they feel, but this appointment should be a Natick resident. He felt that a downtown business owner, the Chief enforcement officer, the Community Development Director and a couple of residents were who should be on the committee.

Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the Police Chief was not a Natick resident and he didn’t think having a downtown representative who was not a resident would impact her ability to perform on the committee.

Mr. Stern stated that his primary concern was that Natick Center Associates has the opportunity to be heard. He thought that Ms. Moss being invited to make public comments at meetings was giving them (Center Associates) that opportunity. He could see precedent for both sides and was mindful of the prior committee that he and Mr. Ball served on regarding rules & regs and that didn’t have members of the business community. His concern was that two citizens-at-large didn’t adequately represent a cross section of Natick and the Board would have to encourage as much public input as possible, but he could live with Ms. Moss on the committee.

Mr. McKinley stated that he too could see both sides, but was more on the same page with Mr. Hughes. The committee will be meeting in public and there was no reason why Ms. Moss or any other interested party couldn’t attend and offer thoughts and comments. The study committee has no authority other to come back with a set of recommendations for the Board to consider. He had a long conversation with Ms. Moss and understood where she was coming from, but her role was still considerable in this process and would be welcome. Just because she wasn’t a voting member didn’t diminish her ability to represent her constituency. The Board knew how touchy the service of alcohol was in Natick and the policy that results has to meet the wishes of the residents of Natick. He didn’t have much trouble envisioning what the licenseholders want. He wanted to know what the residents want and what’s acceptable to them. He was inclined to agree with Mr. Hughes.

Mr. Ball responded that he had great difficulty imaging how the committee would function differently if Ms. Moss’ address were Natick instead of Newton. He wondered if the Natick Center Associates would opt not to participate and if they do not, what would be the impact on

the committee and its goals. If the liquor regulations were going to be revised to reflect the desires of the citizens of 2002, this committee was not going to do it by itself. It would have to survey a lot of people and whether Ms. Moss lives in Natick or Newton, that surveying will take place. He saw her residency as a non-issue and he thought not putting her on would do a disservice to the Town and would be slapping the Natick Center Associates in the face. He thought it was wrong.

LIQUOR LICENSE STUDY GROUP (contd)

Mr. Hughes countered that he didn’t think it was wrong, and explained that he was trying to get a committee together that had no interest one way or another. Ms. Moss has an interest in changing the rules for licenseholders and he pointed out that in some ways the 50-99-seat beer & wine was because Ms. Moss asked for that to be done.

Mr. McKinley added that this was not meant to be disparaging to Ms. Moss but ultimately any changes in the policy have to reflect the views of Natick. He thought there was a little over re-action to the fact that Ms. Moss can’t sit on the committee because she was not a Natick resident.

If Natick Center Associates decides they don’t have an interest in this by not having a resident serve on the committee, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Board would be in favor of adding another citizen-at-large. Mr. Hughes responded that he would be in favor, but he knew of two members of Natick Center Associates who would serve. Mr. Ciccariello noted that he wanted Natick Center Associates to be involved, but if they were going to bow out on the fact that the Board was not going to allow Ms. Moss to represent them, he would like to see another citizen-at-large appointed.

Mr. McKinley noted that there were letters from three individuals who expressed interested in the two citizens-at-large vacancies. In view of Mr. Ciccariello’s request, Mr. Hughes moved the appointment of all three – Milton Gilbert, Jon Beekman, Mike Marcantonio. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.

In speaking to the motion, Mr. Ball pointed out that it might be precipitous since Natick Center Associates may have another name. Mr. McKinley responded that it was not uncommon to expand a committee when there were good applicants. Mr. Ball questioned if that meant that the committee was being increased by one, and Mr. McKinley advised that that was correct.

Mr. McKinley recused himself and Mr. Stern became the Chair for discussion of this item.

Mr. Stern noted that the Board had received two proposals for auditing services – one from Tofias and one from Powers & Sullivan. Presentations were made and the Board needs to make a decision prior to the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. Groux was asked for his recommendation and responded that he had reviewed the proposals and it was his recommendation that the Town consider awarding the audit to Powers & Sullivan. This was based

primarily on the experience Powers & Sullivan have in municipal auditing and the large number of municipalities they were currently auditing. The firms had been asked to comment on Gasb34 which was the new accounting system for cities and towns, and Powers & Sullivan was much stronger in that area. The Commonwealth selected Powers & Sullivan to prepare a manual for distribution to municipalities with respect to Gasb34. Natick will be making that conversion in the next 2-3 years.

Mr. Groux continued that the one area in which Tofias was more attractive was price, but he recommended that the Board not pick an audit firm based on price. The price difference over 3 years was approximately $24,000. Powers & Sullivan was about $150,000 over three years and Tofias was about $126,000. He didn’t think the overall difference over three years was significant. Tofias has done the audit for the past two years and the firm they acquired did it before that.

Frank Foss noted that as Finance Committee Chair he had been asked to be involved in the review. He covered a number of communities in the Commonwealth (in his job with AT&T) and reached out to a few of the town administrators on the proposals and the administrators spoke very highly of both firms. He would echo the Acting Town Administrator’s choice and added that in talking to a person at the state, Powers & Sullivan did have great interaction in Gasb34 and for that he would recommend them.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that in their proposal Powers & Sullivan had expressed that they were willing to negotiate a final fee. Although

AUDITING SERVICES (contd)

they estimated their fee at $150,000, Mr. Groux could go back and do a final sit down. He felt Powers & Sullivan should be willing to come down since they were the experts in Gasb34, they shouldn’t have to spend the extra hours. He felt Powers & Sullivan was the stronger (of the two firms) because they were experts in Gasb34.

A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to retain the services of Powers & Sullivan to provide auditing services for Fiscal 2002, Fiscal 2003, and Fiscal 2004. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley had recused himself and did not vote.

Mr. Hughes had seconded the motion with the proviso that the Town Administrator negotiate the final fee for those services. Mr. Groux recommended that the Board make the award independent of the negotiation and direct him to see if Powers & Sullivan was willing to negotiate a fee. Mr. Hughes concurred.

LEONARD MORSE GRANTS PANEL: NOMINATIONS

Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, moved to nominate Jane Lenarsky and Marijane Norris Geary for re-appointment to the Leonard Morse Grants Panel. Unanimously voted.

TOWN ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTMENT: DISCUSSION

Mr. McKinley noted that no action was required tonight other than to prepare for discussion on June 17th at which time the Board hoped to make a decision.

Mr. Hughes thanked the Screening Committee for the work they did in getting candidates. He thought the Board had been presented with an extremely difficult choice. All the candidates had interviewed well and came across well.

Mr. Ball agreed with Mr. Hughes. He noted that there had been a discussion about having one-on-one interviews between now and June 17th and in order not to have to set up 15 different meetings, he wondered if the Board could meet the candidates in pairs. There was no objection raised to the suggestion, but Mr. McKinley stated that he preferred to meet one-on-one.

Mr. McKinley noted that he had discussed with Ms. Evans, Chairman of the Screening Committee, whether there should be a set of criteria that each Board member could use to help coalesce his judgment. She was going to discuss that with the consultant and get back to him. The Screening Committee avoided using one because their position was that frequently when there was a set of criteria it forces you to limit yourself to those criterion and you miss something that might be valuable. She wasn’t sure if at the Board level that rule still applied. He asked if the Board would like Ms. Evans and him to work on developing a list of criteria or keep it more subjective and intuitive.

Mr. Stern responded that he preferred to keep it more subjective and use the skills he had honed over the last 25 years in hiring people. Mr. Hughes concurred. Mr. Ciccariello was of the opinion that a point system was inappropriate for this position. Mr. McKinley stated that that had been his instinct as well, but felt he had to offer it.

Mr. Hughes stated that if the Board can make a decision on June 17th, a decision should be made, and he wouldn’t want to have to hold up the process waiting for something to be developed. He didn’t think it was in the Town’s best interest to delay.

Mr. McKinley noted that he too thought it was very important to make the decision on June 17th, but if there were extenuating circumstances he would hope to have the courage to put it off if necessary, but it should be in everyone’s minds that on June 17th the Board will select a new town administrator. He encouraged all the Board members to make arrangements to meet with the individual candidates.

Mr. McKinley then noted that the members had avoided discussing it with each other, but he had no problems having a one-on-one discussion with any member over the next two weeks. He asked if the other members were comfortable discussing it amongst themselves. Mr. Ball responded that he was not. Mr. Hughes responded that he was not.

TOWN ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTMENT: DISCUSSION (contd)

Mr. Ciccariello asked about input from any department heads, and Mr. Groux advised that he didn’t believe all three candidates had met department heads and he knew of only one candidate who made the effort to meet them. Mr. Ciccariello recommended that each candidate talk to the department heads.

Mr. Stern noted that he had started the process and had appointments starting tomorrow to meet with the candidates. There were some nervous

candidates who do not want to do anything to upset the apple cart. They were waiting for the Board to come to them.

Mr. Groux noted that he would have sought out department heads prior to his interview. Once he had been interviewed, he would be reluctant to do that until he heard from the Board.

Mr. Ball suggested that the Board dispense with the idea of having the other candidates meet with the department heads.