Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen minutes

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Paul R. McKinley at 6:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Paul R. McKinley, John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes. Absent: Jeffrey A. Stern

ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary;

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on October 21, 2002 in the amount of $502,002.75. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,554,573.44.

Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:00 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.

The open session was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

With corrections as noted, Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2002 meeting.

AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK: REQUEST TO HANG BANNER

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Natick Public Schools request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of November 6-November 21, 2002 for American Education Week.

ANNOUNCE VACANCY: BOARD OF HEALTH

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, and unanimously voted to post the vacancy and conduct joint interviews with the Board of Health on November 18, 2002 to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of Arthur Taddeo.

Mr. McKinley moved to send a letter to Arthur Taddeo expressing the Board’s thanks for his service to the Town. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.

CREATIVE CATERING: APPLICATION FOR ONE DAY BEER & WINE LICENSE: JORDAN’S FURNITURE

Before the Board was an application from Creative Catering for a one day beer & wine license for November 10, 2002 from 6:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m. at Jordan’s Furniture, 1 Underprice Way.

Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the certificate of insurance didn’t specifically list Natick as an additional insured.

As there was no one present representing Creative Catering, Mr. Ball suggested that they be apprised of the insurance and asked to appear before the Board on the application. The other members of the Board agreed.

DIRECTOR OF VETERANS’ SERVICES: VETERANS DAY PARADE

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Director of Veterans’ Services John MacGilivray’s request for a parade permit on November 11, 2002 to parade from Lincoln Square to the Morse Institute Library in observance of Veterans’ Day.

The Peace Abbey – Walk for Peace

Sherborn resident Lewis Randa requested permission for the Walk for Peace to walk though Natick on Wednesday, October 24, 2002 carrying a

CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)

stone remembering all victims of violence. The UN Peace Walk was in cooperation with the Coalition for a Strong United Nations and the United Nations Associate of Greater Boston along with the Association of Montessori Schools and the children of the Montessori School. The walk would begin in Sherborn and end at the State House with representatives of the United Nations. The Montessori School was using it as a fundraiser for the elimination of landmines in Afghanistan.

Mr. Randa apologized for the lateness of the request, but explained that they didn’t think the cart would be complete in time. This morning he learned that it would be ready for the walk, and he had been in touch with people in Sherborn, Brookline, Newton. The walk would go down Route 16 with 20-40 people including children from the Montessori School and parents. He added that the children and staff would be doing the walk with or without the card and if it was just a walk, they wouldn’t need a permit.

Police Chief Dennis Mannix was asked about the safety issues since this was at 9:15 a.m. on a weekday. Safety Officer Robert Davis had indicated that the traffic would be too heavy to have a large number of people on Eliot Street and if the Board were to grant permission, he (Sergeant Davis) would require a car before and after the group because there were no sidewalks. Mr. McKinley asked if Chief Mannix would agree to a permit if there were an escort. Chief Mannix responded that he would not agree at that time because the traffic was too heavy and added that it was difficult to give approval for a parade permit on Route 16. At least two cruisers would be needed – one in front and one in back.

Mr. McKinley inquired as to the cost and was told by Chief Mannix that it would probably be $200.00. He (Chief Mannix) felt that any time this was being done on Route 16, there was a risk, but it would have to be after 10:00 a.m. Today was the first he heard about it and hadn’t talked to any other communities.

Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Randa had received any other approvals (from other communities), and Mr. Randa advised that representatives were meeting with the groups tonight. He noted that he (Mr. Randa) had been participating in the stone walk for over four years. The walk took place in 1999 and continued to Washington, DC. This was a small stretch of the road. If the group paid for the coverage and indemnified the community, he thought it would be an opportunity for Natick to support the effort of peace and landmines. He would pay whatever the cost to have a cruiser present.

When asked about the number of people, Mr. Randa advised that it would be anywhere from 20-40 depending on the weather. Those were the people who would walk anyway and having the cart present would offer them more safety.

Mr. Ball envisioned a caisson carrying a stone moving very slowly and backing up traffic. He questioned if traffic could get around it. Chief Mannix noted that if it were allowed before 10:00 a.m. and backed up traffic, it would create problems for the westbound lane. With two officers, traffic could be moved around it.

Mr. Hughes inquired as to how long it would take to get from Sherborn to Wellesley, and was told by Chief Mannix that it would be more than one hour – probably a minimum of l-l/2 hours.

Mr. Ball asked about the possibility of the time being flexible, and Mr. Randa replied that the walk was to arrive at the State House to be received by members of the U.N. Land Mines staff at 3:30 p.m. The time listed was when the group had to leave in order to get there at 3:30 p.m. Pulling a cart the travel time was 3-l/2-4 hours.

Mr. McKinley pointed out that in order to get to Route 16 from its origination in Sherborn, the cart would be coming up Route 27. Mr. Randa agreed, but noted that the traffic moved so slowly at that time, they (Peace Walk) wouldn’t be slowing the traffic down.

Mr. Ball moved approval conditioned upon whatever conditions Chief Mannix determined appropriate, fulfilling the insurance requirements and no stipulation on the starting time. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello. After further discussion the motion was amended to prohibit the walk

CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)

from entering Natick until 9:30 a.m. The motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor. Mr. Ciccariello was opposed.

Mr. Ciccariello expressed concern with using two cruisers as part of the Police detail and couldn’t believe it would only cost $200.00. Chief Mannix clarified that the $200.00 was for the detail and didn’t take into consideration the cruiser.

Mr. Ciccariello was also concerned that the Walk didn’t have approval from other communities, but Mr. Ball pointed out that they had to start somewhere.

Mr. Lemnios commented that if the wagon were not part of the Walk, it would be easier, but Chief Mannix noted that there were no sidewalks on Route 16 and everyone would be walking in the traffic lane. Asked if

there was an alternative, Chief Mannix advised that there probably was not.

Mr. Lemnios then inquired as to the plan for weather, and Mr. Randa responded that if there were inclement weather, it would be cancelled.

The issue of time was brought up by Mr. Ciccariello who thought the Chief would prefer to have the Board establish a time. Chief Mannix preferred to have the Walk enter Natick at the latest feasible time, and Mr. McKinley added that he would not support the request unless it was after rush hour.

Planning Board Chairman Kenneth Soderholm pointed out that there were sidewalks once you got to South Natick square. Maybe the Walk could start at the square after rush hour and be on the sidewalk.

A suggestion was made to not allow the Walk to enter Natick until 9:30 a.m. Mr. Randa felt that certain individuals could be put in cabs to get them into the statehouse if need be. If 9:30 a.m. was what the Board felt was best, they wouldn’t be in Natick until 9:30 a.m. Mr. Ball’s motion was amended.

PLANNING BOARD: SPECIAL TOWN MEETING

Planning Board Chairman Kenneth Soderholm requested the Board of Selectmen to call a special town meeting for early December. He noted that in the summer conversations started with the Natick Mall about possibly expanding into the Tech Commons site. They had hoped to be ready with the article by the Fall Town Meeting, but with the amount of work that has gone into creating a by-law that works for them and the Town, it wasn’t possible. He apologized to Town Meeting members for having to call them back to another town meeting, but this was an attractive and important development for the Town. He also thanked everyone who had worked very hard on this.

Before the Board was a proposed schedule of hearings and publication dates leading up to a special on December 3rd. Mr. McKinley asked if that schedule would meet the Planning Board’s requirements, and Mr. Soderholm’s response was, ‘yes’. Mr. McKinley then asked if it would meet the applicant’s requirements, and John McGourty of General Growth Properties advised that it would.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, and unanimously voted to call Special Town Meeting #2 for December 3, 2002 with the warrant to open on November 4, 2002 and close at 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2002.

POLICE CHIEF: SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES

Police Chief Dennis Mannix, Chairman of the Safety Committee, reviewed the Safety Committee’s recommendations of July 2, 2002.

Upland Road/Traffic Problems

The committee had received a letter from Upland Road resident Mark Hagen concerning speed and other traffic problems in the Upland Road area. The possibility of replacing a stop sign at the intersection of Peterson/Upland Road was discussed. Sergeant Davis advised that the stop sign had been knocked down and he

would arrange for its replacement through the DPW. Sergeant Davis recommended placing traffic tubes in the area to measure speed and traffic volume. The committee tabled the issue

POLICE CHIEF: SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES (contd)

relative to speed and traffic volume until the data was available.

Upland Road/Parking Problems

The committee was in receipt of a letter from James Freer of 40 Upland Road regarding a parking problem and obstructed access to his driveway on the dead end street. The committee discussed issues of where the road begins and ends and if it was on an easement. Sergeant Davis is to consult the Town Engineer regarding the roadway, as well as speak to the residents at 59 Upland Road regarding blocking the driveway and the inability of Fire/EMS apparatus to access the driveway. Chief Mannix reported that he believed this issue had been resolved.

Route 30/Wayland-Weston

The committee discussed concerns brought forward by Mark Hagen relative tot he condition of Route 30 between the Wayland/Weston line. Sergeant Davis will consult with the Town Engineer to determine when the roadway is to be repaved.

Arbor Circle/Bacon Street

The committee was in receipt of a letter from Michael and Judith Welch of 48 Bacon Street expressing concerns regarding speed and signage on Arbor Circle. The possibility of a speed survey and signage was discussed. It was determined that this was a Police Department enforcement issue and would be referred to the Area Commander by Sergeant Davis to direct speed patrols in the Arbor Circle and Bacon Street area.

Florence Street/No Parking Sign

The committee was in receipt of a letter from Olivia Blanchette of 28 Florence Street requesting installation of a NO PARKING sign on Florence Street. The committee concluded that additional signs were not warranted. This was an enforcement issue to be referred to the Area Commander of the Police Department.

Purchase of Speen Street Lot Adjacent to Fire Station/Safety Considerations

The committee discussed the town potentially purchasing property adjacent to the West Natick Fire Station. Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian recommended installing a road for fire department access only from the fire station to Sherwood Plaza. The committee concurred if the Town purchased the property installation of a road would benefit Fire Department access.

Mr. McKinley inquired as to the status to this parcel and was told by Mr. Lemnios that there were two state agencies involved. The Fire Department staked out the turning radius and the State will look at the stakes for a possible easement or sale

Boston Scientific/Crosswalk

The committee has received confirmation from Lynn Mattise that Boston Scientific has agreed to move the bush that is obstructing the view of pedestrians using the crosswalk at Route 9/Speen St.

Chief Mannix reported that this had been taken care of.

Angled Parking/Main Street

Mr. Sarkisian requested that the three parallel parking spaces on the east side of Main Street by the Middlesex Savings Bank be changed to angled parking to facilitate additional parking spaces in the downtown area. Sergeant Davis advised that the stipulation from the State indicates that there will be no parking within 100 fee of the intersection of East Central and Main Street. The committee recommended changing the configuration of the parallel parking spaces to metered angled parking spaces. Chief Mannix noted that removing the three parallel spaces would allow for nine angled spaces or a net gain of six parking spaces.

Mr. Hughes moved approval of removing the three parallel parking spaces on the east side of Main Street by the Middlesex Savings Bank and replacing them with nine angled parking spaces. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

POLICE CHIEF: SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES (contd)

Jennings Pond Neighborhood

Lieutenant Mabardy brought forth concerns from residents of the Jennings Pond Neighborhood relative to safety of their children, volume of traffic, and speed. Those concerns will be discussed with Sergeant Davis and DPW Director Charles Sisitsky and proposals will be presented to the residents.

Chief Mannix then reviewed the minutes of the August 27, 2002 Safety Committee meeting.

10 High Street/Parking

The committee discussed a complaint of a commercial vehicle parking on High Street with vehicles in tow blocking the sidewalk. The committee discussed referring the issue to the Police Department for enforcement and Chief Mannix will forward the issue to Area B commander.

Metrowest Medical Center “H” Signs

The committee discussed the request to replace and install new “H” trail signs at 9/27, East Central/Main, and Union/East Central. The committee recommended the installation of one new trail sign at the intersection of the Route 9 off ramp westbound, and the intersection of Route 27 southbound, and a second new sign at the intersection of Route 27 off ramp eastbound to Route 27 southbound, and replace the current trail signs at the intersection of Main Street/East Central St. and Union Street and East Central provided by the MetroWest Medical Center. Chief Mannix advised that the cost would be borne by the MetroWest Medical Center.

Mr. Hughes moved approval of the signs as recommended. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

Washington Street/Handicapped Parking

The committee discussed a request from Joyce Moss of the Natick Center Associates to install a handicapped parking space on the corner of South Ave/Washington St. The committee voted to recommend installation of the handicapped space contingent upon approval from the Commission on Disability. There was a curb cut there to facilitate the handicapped spot.

Mr. Hughes moved approval conditioned upon approval from the Commission on Disability. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

24 Winter Street/Request “Blind Drive” Signs

The committee discussed a request from Jack Beinashowitz of 24 Winter Street for a Blind Drive sign near his property. Sergeant Davis indicated there was no evidence to support that a Blind Drive sign effectively altered behavior of approaching motorists and provided a false sense of security for the residents. The committee did not recommend a Blind Drive sign on Winter Street.

School Address Change/Bennett Hemenway & Wilson Middle Schools

The committee discussed the requested change of addresses of the Bennett Hemenway and Wilson Middle Schools and recommended that the Board of Selectmen hold a public hearing.

Speen Street/Mall Road Traffic Study

The committee was in receipt of a letter from Lisa Faretra of Boston Scientific concerning safety and the traffic lights at Speen St/Mall Road intersection. Sergeant Davis advised the committee that this intersection was under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works and he would forward Ms. Faretra’s concerns to them.

School Committee Chairperson Peg Broekel inquired as to the status of the crossing guard posts before the opening of school. Chief Mannix informed the committee that the crossing guard post at Bowden Lane/Hartford Street was moved to Mill/Pond Street. The crossing guard post at the Lilja School, Oak Street was removed. The crossing guard post at Farrant Road was moved to Speen/Naughtingham St.

POLICE CHIEF: SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES (contd)

Downtown Crosswalk/School Zone High Visibility

The committee discussed uniformity of all crosswalks in the downtown area. Also discussed was uniformity and high visibility of crosswalks in all school zones. Chief Mannix to discuss this with Mr. Sisitsky.

Summer Street/Parking

A concern was brought to the committee regarding parking on the northside of Summer Street and trucks getting stuck. Chief Mannix referred to Sergeant Davis for investigation. Chief Mannix reported that after investigation the recommendation was to remove the parking space on the north side of Summer Street immediately adjacent to Main Street.

Mr. Ball moved approval of the removal of the parking space on the north side of Summer Street immediately adjacent to Main Street. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.

The principal of the Natick High School wrote to the committee regarding the flow of traffic entering and exiting the Natick High School parking lot. The issue was referred to Sgt. Davis to discuss with Dr. Parker.

Skateboards By-Law Proposal

Ms. Broekel inquired as to what the proposed perimeter of restrictions were in the Skateboard Bylaw proposal for the downtown area. Chief Mannix advised that he has agreed with the Finance Committee that the new article was outside the scope of the original article. He apologized for not getting back to the Board with his intention of what he was bringing before Town Meeting. He added that he continues to get complaints from residents, Town Hall employees, and business owners.

POLICE CHIEF: SOUTH AVENUE/DEWEY STREET RECOMMENDATION

Chief Mannix noted that there was a problem with traffic that goes down South Avenue and then realize when they are on Dewey Street that they don’t have access to Route 135. It’s been a longstanding problem and there have been many discussions with Ernest Stone. The signage the way it was placed now was east of Hayes Street and by the time people see the sign, they have to take a U-Turn anyway.

Chief Mannix recommended the placement of a high visibility sign about 100 feet west of Hayes Street on the south side of South Avenue. The sign would read ‘Access to Route 135 Via Hayes Street Only’. He would further recommend that the signs beyond Hayes Street be removed. However, many people who end up on Dewey were people visiting the businesses on South Avenue and they instinctively take a left turn. There was no way to stop that short of putting signs that say right turn only and he was concerned that if it were too restrictive, the businesses would lose business.

Dewey Street resident Ernest Stone was pleased that the Chief brought up the fact that the signs were of no use where they were. His suggestion was an overhead sign on the pole across from Casey’s Diner with something like “Dead End Open To Residents and Businesses” and then “Exit Going Up Hayes Street”. He felt that people wouldn’t see anything on a post and if it was hanging off the telephone pole, it could be seen. As far as cost, it seemed to him that the DPW could fabricate a bracket very easily.

Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Stone found the Safety Committee’s recommendation acceptable as a step in the right direction. Mr. Stern felt it was fine, if people can see it. It was a dangerous street and the sign needed to be very visible to be recognized.

Mr. Ball asked about the size of the sign being recommended by the Chief, and Chief Mannix responded that it should be at least 2 ft by 2 ft. He added that the sign had been discussed many times. While he could appreciate interest in an overhead sign, he (Chief Mannix)

believed a high visibility sign at least 100 feet before Hayes Street would be effective. The biggest traffic was Casey’s and to have it overhead, the sign would have to be on a pole right at Casey’s and that would create more of a problem. Most of the problem was people leaving

POLICE CHIEF: SOUTH AVENUE/DEWEY STREET RECOMMENDATION (contd)

the businesses beyond Hayes Street, and he didn’t know how to eliminate that.

Mr. Hughes moved to place the sign as recommended by Chief Mannix and monitor it for ninety (90) days and see how it was working. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

Mr. McKinley requested Chief Mannix to report back in ninety days.

APPLICATION FOR HAWKER’S & PEDLER’S LICENSE: MICHAEL VAN AUKEN FOR HOPES WORLDWIDE

Ms. Challis advised that Mr. Van Auken had called the office and withdrew his application.

PUBLIC HEARING: 2003 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES

Mr. Hughes inquired as to the last time the liquor license fees were changed, and Ms. Challis advised that the last change was about 5-6 years before and the only change made at that time was in the innholders.

In the briefing book was a survey of the liquor license fees of surrounding towns.

Mr. Ciccariello moved to increase the fees as follows:

Restaurant all alcoholic from $1,750 to $2,000

Restaurant with a lounge from $2,300 to $2,500

Restaurant beer & wine from $1,200 to $1,500

Package stores from $1,750 to $2,000

Club from $350 to $500

No change in innholders stays at $3,850

One Day from $10 to $25

Application Fee from $100 to $250

Filing Fee for Change in Condition from $50 to $100

To be effective January 1, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. After some discussion the motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley was opposed.

Speaking to his motion, Mr. Ciccariello stated that he believed the proposed fees were in line with other communities. He explained that the reason he was not recommending an increase in the innholders was because these facilities were experiencing more difficulty in filling their hotel rooms and the innholder fees were actually in line with other adjacent communities and in fact in some cases higher.

Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Ciccariello had calculated the total additional income to the Town these increases would bring, and Mr. Ciccariello responded that it would be around $5,000.

David Buckley from the Crowne Plaza spoke on behalf of both the Crowne Plaza and the Hampton Inn and confirmed that they were having difficulty filling the rooms and would welcome no increase in the fee.

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.

Mr. McKinley expressed the opinion that although the recommendation seemed reasonable, he would probably vote against it for the same argument that now was an inappropriate time to raise the innholder. Restaurants weren’t doing that well either and the amount of revenue to the Town wasn’t worth worrying about. He thought the time to contemplate this wasn’t until the economy turned around.

Mr. Hughes noted that the argument that it was not a lot of money was made every time the Board considered the fees. Fees haven’t been raised in over five years and what was being proposed would amount to a 2% increase. He thought Mr. Ciccariello’s recommendation was reasonable and he would vote for it.

Mr. Ball pointed out that the beer & wine license fee would be going from $1,200 to $1,500, but the Board hadn’t even issued one at $1,200. There was one pending.

ELLEN SALSBURY: REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT

Ellen Salsbury of 8 Terrane Avenue told the Board that in early spring she noted a leak in one of their toilets and replaced the faulty mechanism. She thought it was taken care of until someone from the Water Department came to their house about their overuse of water. The color tablet test that was suggested revealed that the fixed toilet was still leaking to some extent. There was a problem with the chain. It was corrected and the color test following the adjustment reflected that there was no further leakage.

Ms. Salsbury assured the Board that she was very aware of their water usage and tried very hard to keep it reasonable. She does not water her lawn and tries to minimize usage when operating appliances that consume water as well as limiting shower time.

She requested consideration for an adjustment of the water bill dated June 17, 2002, noting that the repair was made in good faith and she thought the problem was fixed. She now planned to test the toilets with the color test on a monthly basis to make certain they were operating at full efficiency.

In a memo to the Board, Finance Director Robert Palmer pointed out that the requested adjustment was for a toilet leak that was discharged directly into the sewer system. In light of that and based on prior discussions and actions of the Board, this excess would not warrant an adjustment.

Mr. Ball expressed regret but noted that the Board’s policy was not to abate water bills, sewage bills and MWRA charges if the water was used and goes down the drain. While he would like to be able to do something for Ms. Salsbury, given the history of the votes of the Board, he didn’t think they could. Mr. Ciccariello expressed similar sentiments, as did Mr. McKinley.

MARY BROWN: REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT

Mary Brown of 1 West Street appeared before the Board regarding the over charges on her water and sewer bills for 1995, 1996 and 1997. She read a letter signed by Public Works Business Manager John Craig and former Town Administrator Frederick C. Conley dated December 8, 1999 recommending the approval of the following abatements on her water & sewer bills:

Ms. Brown stated that at no time was she told that she personally had to file for the abatement, or do anything further. She was under the impression that the December 8, 1999 letter signed by Mr. Craig and approved by Mr. Conley would in fact accomplish that. She was told on numerous occasions that it had been taken care of by Mr. Conley, Mr. Palmer, and former Deputy Town Administrator Paul Cohen.

Ms. Brown stated that on September 30, 2002 she was shocked to see her name and this amount appear in the Middlesex News with the Town wanting to take her property, especially since she never received any notice of such action. She was told that a letter was sent in April, which she never received. It was not sent certified. She hoped the Board could find a way to resolve this matter.

Ms. Brown continued that in 1991, 1992, 1993 their water bills were extremely high and they paid all of those. The DPW told them that they were probably due a refund on 1992, 1993, and 1994. When her husband passed away in 1994, she was still pursuing that. In 1995, 1996, 1999 at no time did anybody come and say she had to come and request the abatement. They had done tests in the bathroom to make sure nothing was coming through and it was confirmed that there was no leak when a new meter was put in. All the bills were estimated bills.

Ms. Brown stated that she assumed things were all taken care of particularly with Mr. Palmer being the Finance Director Treasurer/Collector since he sat in on those discussions as did Mr. Cohen. The length of time had nothing to do with her. She had been in here trying to get this corrected all this time. She noted that when the former Treasurer was leaving, he told her that nothing was taken off. Mr. Conley said it was and she asked Mr. Conley to look into it.

MARY BROWN: REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT (contd)

Mr. Palmer then informed her that nothing could be done because abatements had to be done within the year.

Mr. McKinley assured Ms. Brown that the board wanted to do whatever it could to resolve this very confusing issue, but he didn’t think the Board of Selectmen had any authority to do anything about it because it had gone to lien.

Ms. Brown responded that it was not her fault. How could she (file an abatement) when everyone agreed she didn’t use the water and no one told her it wasn’t taken care of. She assumed with all the titles Mr. Palmer had that somebody could do it.

Mr. Hughes referenced a letter from Town Counsel that seemed to say that the Board had authority to do something and he would like an explanation.

Mr. Lemnios noted that Ms. Brown came in a couple of weeks ago and started going through her problem. There was a memo to the Board of Selectmen from Mr. Cohen, although there was no recollection of it being given to the Board, that outlined the options available. The Department of Revenue was contacted and they (DOR) indicated that the application the Assessors would need to make may not be something the Assessors could make. Town Counsel was asked to look at the options, and this evening he faxed over the letter which says in his opinion the Town would not be able to obtain authority from the Commissioner of Revenue to abate the charges under Chapter 58, Section 8 of the Massachusetts General Laws. That process was available only for taxes, assessments, rates or charges for a period not to exceed the three fiscal years preceding the application to the Commissioner of Revenue. It was Town Counsel’s opinion that if the Town determined that some or all of the subject water and sewer charges were assessed in error, the Town had the authority to reassess those charges to the property owner. That authority was conferred by Chapter 59, Section 77 of the MGL.

Because Town Counsel’s letter was just received tonight at 6:00 p.m., Mr. Lemnios said he hadn’t had a chance to discuss this with Mr. Flynn, but he would do that tomorrow. There appears to be a mechanism (to adjust) if the Town was in agreement that there were overcharges, and he (Mr. Lemnios) would think that Mr. Craig’s and Mr. Conley’s letter indicated there were problems, and he would like an opportunity to explore those with Mr. Flynn and report back to the Board at the next meeting to identify which entity plays a role.

Mr. Palmer had prepared a spreadsheet of charges owed by Ms. Brown on her real estate bill and advised that it took care of all outstanding issues. Mr. Hughes suggested that Ms. Brown receive a copy of this spreadsheet before the next meeting.

Ms. Brown commented that there was a memo from Mr. Cohen and nobody in the Selectmen’s office had a record of it. In his letter he (Mr. Cohen) referred to a talk with Town Counsel and notes and she had never seen any of it.

From Ms. Brown’s statement, it was Mr. Ball’s understanding that all of her bills from 1991-1997 were estimated. Mr. Palmer contends that 1991 and 1992 were actual and 1993-1997 were estimated. He asked Ms. Brown to explain why in four years she was never able to find a time when she could let a meter reader into her house. Ms. Brown responded that they (meter readers) would just put down cards.

Mr. Ball questioned if Ms. Brown was suggesting that no attempt had been made to read her meter, and Ms. Brown’s response was they weren’t home sometimes. They both worked. It seemed to Mr. Ball that over four years, Ms. Brown could have made arrangements.

To Ms. Brown’s statement that reading the newspaper on September 30 was her first notice of this action and that she didn’t receive the letter in April, Mr. Ball pointed out that the Board had a copy of the April

letter. Ms. Brown explained that she went downstairs (to the Collector’s Office) and asked for one.

Mr. Ball then noted that a lot of time had been spent talking about whether the Board had any authority to make adjustments, but he was asking on what basis were they looking to adjust. Was the contention

MARY BROWN: REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT (contd)

that the water wasn’t used? Ms. Brown’s reply was, ‘absolutely’. She firmly stated that she had not used the water. She was not home all the time and she didn’t think anybody would have used that amount.

Asked if she was not contesting the meter reading, Ms. Brown responded that going through what she was going through with her husband and being told it (water bill) was being taken care of she did not. Nobody disputed that she didn’t use the water.

Mr. McKinley felt that Mr. Ball made an important point that there were two issues – the Board’s authority to abate and whether there were grounds to abate it in the first place. He felt Mr. Ball’s point was worth consideration. Assuming the issue as to under what authority the bills can be abated was cleared up, the Board had to resolve the issue of whether there’s anything to abate.

Ms. Brown noted that when Mr. Craig and Mr. Conley figured out the water bills, they figured out what she would have paid and this was the overcharge.

Mr. Hughes suggested asking Mr. Craig to attend the next meeting and explain the investigation he did.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that it would appear that Mr. Craig and Mr. Conley were both in agreement and concurred that the abatement was approved. Whether it went to the Board of Selectmen, he didn’t know and whether Mr. Conley had the authority to do that, he had no idea. The fact was that the business manager of the DPW with a copy to DPW Director Charles Sisitsky signed off and the Town Administrator signed off on the abatement. Somewhere after signing off in 1999 everything got dropped and fell through the cracks including the letter to Mr. Chenard. He wasn’t sure there was any discussion of whether she was entitled to an abatement since he thought it had already been said by the DPW Business Manager and Town Administrator that she was entitled.

Mr. McKinley felt that that was why it would be good to have Mr. Craig join the Board and explain. Mr. Conley did not have the authority to approve the abatement and he (Mr. McKinley) couldn’t explain that.

Mr. Lemnios clarified that the letter from Mr. Conley and Mr. Craig was to the Assessors recommending that abatements be approved. They were not issuing the abatement – just recommending action. He further noted that on the printout with the amount due summary, the water/sewer charges for 1995 was a reflection of what the charges would be based on the recommendations of Mr. Craig and Mr. Conley. The actual billing for 1995 was $1,906 and Mr. Conley and Mr. Craig recommended that the actual bill for 1995 be $124.64 per year.

Mr. McKinley inquired as to who judged the $124.64 as the reasonable amount, and Mr. Palmer responded that the memo from Mr. Craig and Mr.

Conley as well as the memo from Mr. Cohen had the $124 which was the minimum billing.

Mr. McKinley then inquired if the legal notice that had Ms. Brown so concerned was for outstanding water/sewer bills or taxes. Mr. Palmer explained that once water & sewer was added to the tax bill, it was considered part of the taxes. The Town was required to give notice of delinquency and intent to advertise. There was quite a bit of time between the notice and the advertisement.

If the Board concurred with the abatement, Mr. McKinley questioned if the abatement would resolve the matter of the proposed taking. Mr. Palmer advised that when the bills were paid many were paid late and there was outstanding interest. The outstanding interest was still outstanding. The $1,800 shown on the spreadsheet represents all outstanding charges.

Noting that that didn’t answer his question, Mr. McKinley rephrased his question. The abatement recommended was about $4,900 and was that the same $4,900 as the taking. Mr. Palmer’s response was, ‘no’. He noted that the outstanding interest was not listed in the advertisement, just the outstanding principal. What he (Mr. Palmer) gave the Board was co-mingled with interest.

MARY BROWN: REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT (contd)

In addition to having Mr. Craig explain why he signed the letter, Mr. Ball said he would like to have an explanation from Mr. Chenard as to why no action was taken.

Ms. Brown noted that she had told Mr. Conley that the interest was accruing and Mr. Conley said he realized that it was the Town’s mistake and don’t worry. She didn’t know where all the records went.

Mr. McKinley mentioned water & sewer bills for 1998, 1999, 2000, and Ms. Brown responded that she didn’t understand why they were on the spreadsheet because everything was paid.

Mr. Lemnios advised that he had been working on this for the past week and a half and would continue to unravel it. He also advised that further action on Ms. Brown’s property had been suspended until there was a resolution. Ms. Brown acknowledged that she had received a letter to that effect.

Mr. McKinley requested that Mr. Lemnios research the authority issue and establish clearly what the Town believed remained outstanding and to make sure Ms. Brown had a copy of that so she can agree or provide evidence with cancelled checks.

Peter Burke of B&B Land Corporation requested that the Board sign an Assent agreement in order to relocate Jennison Circle, the Winter Oaks Subdivision roadway, and relocate utility easements.

Mr. Lemnios advised that Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian was in the process of preparing a memo, but had not as yet received an additional piece of information he was looking for and would request that it be held off.

Mr. Burke explained that the B&B had filed a subdivision plan of Winter Oaks with the Land Court, and when the modified plan was approved, the original had to be cancelled. He was asking that the Board sign the assent to waive the notice requirements so they can file the modified plan.

Mr. Hughes moved approval contingent upon the Board receiving a favorable memo from the Community Development Director. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

EARLY RETIREMENT BILL

Mr. Lemnios provided the Board with two lists - one of employees by seniority absent names and the department they work in, and the other a resorting of the list into the highest percentage that would get to 80% or as close as possible with the five years. He recalled that in a previous discussion there was a spreadsheet showing a certain number of general government, public works and school employees under Group 1 and the impact of not replacing the DPW, but replacing school and public safety employees. The Board could look at replacing all employees who take advantage of the early retirement, but no doubt there was an immediate and long-term cost to the community.

Mr. Lemnios advised that the second scenario was developed to see if there was a situation where there could be a breakeven point, but the staff was not successful in developing a long-term breakeven scenario. There could be savings in Fiscal 2004 but over the life, the early retirement would generate a cost and that was the dilemma many cities and towns have faced. Of the 351 communities only 15% have chosen to adopt. He didn’t believe that any that had adopted the bill had put a limitation per group. The Board could put a limitation on groups, but if you said there could be four from Group 1, then what about the 5th person.

Russ Sombaret from DPW Engineering noted that he had sent the Board and Mr. Lemnios a letter indicating his opinion for why the Town should accept such a liability. If attrition was done, he believed it could be feasible. If 4,3,2 individuals were taken from Group 1 and cut by attrition, it would save money for the Town. He also believed that if the Town was in such a deficit that layoffs were being contemplated for the near future, he couldn’t see the sense of keeping 2,3,4 people who were getting five weeks vacation and paying in 5% (to the retirement system) and then laying off 2,3,4 people who were getting less money

EARLY RETIREMENT BILL (contd)

and paying in more to the retirement system. The people who would be eligible for early out were paying 5%. People who would be laid off were paying 11%. To him it didn’t seem to sit well to have four people who want to leave and were being held back and have four people who want to stay be let go.

Fire Department Lieutenant Ted VanTassel pointed out that people with more seniority don’t need as many years.

Mr. Lemnios continued that even if the five positions indicated were not replaced for 21 years, it (early retirement) would still be generating a cost of $1 million to the Town. In the event the positions were replaced anywhere in that 21-year schedule, it would cost the Town.

Regarding Mr. Lemnios’ mention of cutting the number of people eligible, Lieutenant VanTassel stated that he would be on the bubble and didn’t really care. There was an early retirement about 10 years ago and the teachers had it recently. Some Town employees haven’t had the opportunity. Some people will retire in the next year or two whether this goes through or not. The Board could limit it to a certain number of people, and he didn’t think the guys would be insulted by it. He felt giving them something the guys would be happy.

School secretary Elaine White requested a copy of the seniority list.

DPW employee John Slamin noted that the DPW and general government would take the hit. He had nothing against anybody going out early, but if anyone thought they (DPW) could do it without any more people, there would be a major problem.

Mr. McKinley asked if it were Mr. Slamin’s assumption that if four people took early retirement from the DPW, those four would have to be replaced. Mr. Slamin’s response was, ‘I would think so’.

Mr. Sombaret reminded the Board that the last time this was discussed, DPW Director Charles Sisitsky was present and he was asked whether he could take a hit and lose four positions and he (Mr. Sisitsky) agreed. Mr. McKinley noted that Mr. Sisitsky had qualified that by saying not forever. Maybe Mr. Sisitsky could survive for a year or two, but he would have to put them back.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that there were people on the list who could actually retire, but would not retire at 80%. Mr. Lemnios concurred, noting that if someone had a certain number of years but was not old enough, he/she would retire at less than 80%.

Mr. McKinley felt an interesting point had been made that even though at this moment of time it didn’t appear financially attractive to do (accept early retirement), if the Town found itself in a position where layoffs were unavoidable, was there a way for the Town to structure an incentive for early retirement. Why layoff young people when some older employees would like to retire.

Mr. Lemnios responded that the early retirement bill was passed by the Legislature. He was not aware of any Town that had done a home rule petition for itself and thought it unlikely. If there were layoffs in Fiscal 04, and his goal was not to have it occur although it may occur, the question would be whether to exchange a long-term financial obligation for a short-term problem. It was not a question of whether the employees were deserving. It was a question of does the Town assume additional long-term financial burden to dodge a short-term problem. Assuming a long-term financial obligation for a short-term problem was not prudent financial management and his (Mr. Lemnios’) obligation as a Town Administrator was to try to practice prudent financial management for the community. They have gotten it down to the most likely candidates, looked at the seniority lists and they (Mr. Lemnios and Retirement Board) cannot come up with a scenario besides no replacement where it was long-term financially good for the Town.

Mr. McKinley asked that Mr. Lemnios investigate what it would require for the Town to have an incentive plan.

Mr. McKinley then noted that the Board had the option of accepting the early retirement bill until November 1st. He expressed his apologies,

EARLY RETIREMENT BILL (contd)