Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes 11/4/02

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

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

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

WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on November 4, 2002 in the amount of $489,508.17. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,945,193.25.

Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation and real property negotiations. 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 7:05 p.m.

GENERAL PETERSON – NATICK LABS

General Craig Peterson introduced himself as the new commander of the Natick Army Labs. He told the Board that from the post’s military contractors to its employees, everyone wanted to be a viable member of the community and stood ready to take their place as a member of the community. They have participated in Natick Days and will do everything in their power to support the Town and in some cases, they will need the Town’s help. He would like to enter into a partnership. Natick was the last active duty in the Northeast and he thought that was important.

General Peterson then introduced John Manning who would be remaining for the rest of the meeting.

The Board welcomed General Peterson to Natick and offered their support in any way they could help.

With amendments as noted, Mr. Ball moved to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2002 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Stern and unanimously voted.

CHABAD CENTER: REQUEST TO USE COMMON

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Chabad Center’s request to use the

Natick Common for the period of November 27-December 10, 2002 to display the menorah.

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

Appearing before the Board was Lynn Kertatos from Creative Catering.

Ms. Kertatos had applied for a one-day beer & wine license for an event at Jordan’s Furniture, 1 Underprice Way, on November 10, 2002 from 6:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m.

Mr. McKinley inquired if this was a fundraiser, and was told by Ms. Kertatos that it was not. It was a private party for Jordan’s Furniture. It would not be open to the public.

Mr. Ball asked if the people who would be serving were TIPS certified. Ms. Kertatos advised that she would be doing the serving and she was Bar Coded.

Mr. Hughes moved approval of granting Lynn Kertatos a one-day wine and malt license for an event at Jordan’s Furniture on November 10, 2002 from 6:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

Robert Raisch told the Board that he was concerned with the Auto Max operation on Route 135. He noted that Auto Max had put up a chain link fence and inserted privacy panels, but they were still operating on more of the property than allowed for a non-conforming use.

Mr. Ciccariello reported that the last time he spoke with Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian and Building Inspector Michael Melchiorri, the Town was taking legal action, but he (Mr. Ciccariello) hadn’t heard anything since.

Mr. Lemnios offered to look into it.

Mr. Raisch added that he had been contacted by a lady who owned property on the opposite side of Auto Max. She has had numerous problems and has contacted the Police. Without authority Auto Max has parked vehicles in her driveway. Mr. McKinley suggested that the woman convey those complaints to Mr. Lemnios.

NATICK CULTURAL COUNCIL: ESTABLISH SPECIAL REVENUE ACCOUNT

Natick Cultural Council Chairman, Cathie Ianno Fournier, explained that the Mass Cultural Council had a 62% budget cut this year. The cut at the local level was 63% and the Natick Arts Council would like the opportunity to raise some money on its own, but they needed approval from the Board to create a separate account to house the funds. The purpose of the funds donated would be to fund cultural activities in the arts, humanities and interpretive sciences, in compliance with the guidelines of the Massachusetts Cultural Council that will benefit the citizens of Natick.

Mr. Lemnios noted that this would be a donation account where people give money for a specific donation and the money can only be spent on

items for which the donation was given. The money does not get co-mingled with the general fund.

Mr. Hughes asked if this would be on the Town’s 04 number, and Mr. Lemnios advised that that was correct.

As to how the money would get out, Mr. Hughes asked if the Arts Council would send an invoice and either the Comptroller or the Finance Director would sign a check. Mr. Lemnios responded that that was correct. Mr. McKinley questioned if the Natick Cultural Council had the authority to decide how to spend those funds, and was told by Mr. Lemnios that it would depend on the donation. If the donation was defined as being for a painter, the funds could only be used for a painter. Ms. Fournier noted that the Arts Council wouldn't solicit funds that way. They would only look for general donations.

Mr. Hughes moved approval of establishing a separate revenue account for the Natick Cultural Council to seek donations. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO CONSTABLE

Robert Raisch stated that he would like to contribute as much to the community as he could and he thought because of his background in dealing with public service, he had gained a lot of people skills. He had never done this type of work before, but was interested in serving the community.

Mr. Carew noted that he had a little background in the criminal justice system. He went to Northeastern in the criminal justice program and had worked in the Department of Correction where he transported inmates. He was currently the manager of the Elks. His hours were flexible and this would fit well within his schedule. Mr. Carew further noted that he was familiar with the court system and the attorneys and people in Natick. He had been dealing with the public for quite awhile.

By paper ballot, the Board voted to appoint Paul Carew as constable to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of Douglas Turcotte. The vote was as follows:

Mr. McKinley voted for Mr. Carew

Mr. Stern voted for Mr. Carew

Mr. Ciccariello voted for Mr. Carew

Mr. Ball voted for Mr. Raisch

INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO CONSTABLE (contd)

Mr. Hughes voted for Mr. Carew

GAIL HILL: REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT

Gail Hill of 15 Brookdale Road requested an abatement of her water and sewer bill dated July 29, 2002 due to excess usage caused by a leak in her radiant heating system.

Mr. McKinley explained that normally the Board didn’t abate a bill unless there was a proven overcharge. However, in Ms. Hill’s case, it was the heating system, and the water did not go into the sewer system. The Finance Director Robert Palmer was, therefore, recommending an

abatement of $227.25, which reflects the sewer charge for the excess water used.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Stern, to abate Ms. Hill’s July 29, 2002 bill by $227.25. Unanimously voted.

Ms. Hill noted that the leak covered two billing cycles and the next bill would also have additional charges for high use.

Mr. Hughes moved to authorize Mr. Palmer to use the same formula to make an abatement for Ms. Hill’s next bill presuming it reflects additional water use for the leak. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.

Because of the number of problems with houses that were slabs on grade, Mr. Ciccariello noted that he had previously suggested that a notification be sent to homeowners that if they own a slab on grade that they start looking at their monthly water bills to make sure they (bills) were not running amuck. If the word got out, then possibly the residents will be paying a little more attention and avoid this.

Mr. McKinley proposed having the DPW insert something in the water bills.

REPORT OF ALCOHOL POLICY STUDY GROUP

Presenting the report on behalf of the Alcohol Policy Study Group was the chairman, Milton Gilbert. He pointed out that almost all of the members approved the report given to the Board except for one member who abstained and two members who did not attend most of the meetings.

Mr. Gilbert told the Board that the study group had reached two conclusions that caused them to make recommendations for the Board to consider some changes. It was the study group’s belief that a small part of the population was currently not being served by the restaurants and the lack of service caused them to go out of Town. It could be said that the public good was not being served. The second was that certain restaurants have become known for having a way of operating that was not permitted by the current regulations. With those two observations, the study group developed three recommendations plus some subsidiaries.

He explained that the three main recommendations focus on whether serving of alcohol was incidental to service of food. The use of 20% of gross receipts to be derived from the sale of alcoholic beverages as the standard in Natick for determining whether the serving of liquor was an accommodating and incidental part of a common victualer’s license was believed to be too limiting and should be looked at with the view to changing it. The study group questioned some of the numbers they heard that were as low as 10% or less. They questioned how accurate those numbers were. Plus if the Town was going to draw upscale restaurants, it may be easy to exceed the 20%. The recommendation was to consider raising it above 20% but not above 40%. There was no exact number on which the group agreed.

The second recommendation was that the grant of an all alcohol license to a restaurant having 100 seats or more in the dining room area should

be adequate to allow it to serve liquor in lounges or waiting areas. The present requirement of having 200 seats before allowing such restaurant design has no relationship to the serving of alcohol being an incidental part of a common victualer’s business of serving food. The vote of the study group was 5 in favor, 1 opposed.

The third recommendation was that a grant of an alcohol license to a restaurant having 100 seats or more in the dining room area should be adequate to allow it to serve liquor at a counter or bar, provided that food was ordered before the first drink was served. Such a change would insure that the serving of alcohol remain an incidental part of a common victualer’s business of serving food. The vote of the study group was 5 in favor, 1 opposed.

REPORT OF ALCOHOL POLICY STUDY GROUP (contd)

On the assumption that the Board adopted one or more of the primary recommendations, there were some other items the study group thought the Board may wish to consider adopting:

The serving of beer in pitchers shall not be allowed. The vote was 5 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 abstentions

The glasses or other containers in which alcohol can be served in a restaurant shall not exceed 16 ounces in size. The vote of the ASPG was 3 in favor, 2 opposed, 2 abstentions

Only one drink may be permitted to be served to a customer at a time. The vote of the ASPG was 4 in favor, 3 opposed.

Non-alcoholic beer may not be served to minors. The vote of the ASPG was 4 in favor, 3 opposed.

By consensus, the study group reached certain conclusions regarding other issues, as follows:

The study group concluded that the Selectmen should continue to follow the policy of maintaining a fee schedule that was competitive with the fees charged by adjacent communities and other communities of similar size.

The study group concluded that the hours set forth in the state statute were being basically followed and that no need was shown for the existing policy regarding hours of service to be changed.

Mr. Gilbert stated that as a rationale for change, the study group all agreed that there were customers who want to eat quickly and feel that they get better service if they eat at a bar or counter. Right now that was not possible in Natick and those people weren’t being served. The study group felt the difference between 100 and 200 seats raised the significant question of fairness.

Noting that all of the votes were either very close or had some opposition, Mr. Stern asked Mr. Gilbert if he could shed some light on the nature of the opposition. Mr. Gilbert responded that one of Selectmen voted in opposition on some, and there was a former restaurant operator who voted in opposition. He thought the other

opposition was based on individuals’ own rationale. On the major three recommendations the vote was not that close.

Mr. Stern then inquired as to what statute gave the Board the authority to regulate the service of non-alcoholic beverages. Mr. Gilbert advised that he didn’t research that point. The suggestion was made by one of the members who trains and instructs people who operate bars and restaurants and the group accepted his representation that it was something the ASPG could recommend.

On the 20% vs 40%, Mr. Ball noted that the numbers were submitted on an annual basis and he had looked at some of them. None of the ones he looked at were even close to 20% and unless the study group was suggesting that people were cooking the books or fudging the dollars, what was the rationale for above 20%. Mr. Gilbert responded that if the Town was encouraging restaurants serving higher priced food, they would be serving higher priced wines. He noted that he and his wife went to JJ McKay’s,

had two entrees and two drinks and the alcohol was about 40%. Even at moderately priced restaurants it was not difficult, if both partners had a couple of drinks, to get to 40%. It was easy to exceed 20%.

Mr. Ball then asked for an interpretation of the one drink at a time recommendation. If someone had about ¾” of beer in a glass and the waitress asked if he/she would care for another one, did that mean she couldn’t put it down on the table without taking the other away. Mr. Gilbert explained that the intent was one or two courses after the first drink was ordered.

Mr. Ciccariello thanked the study group for their work. He found the report to have some interesting information and some good rationale for why changes should be made.

Regarding the study group’s recommendation for serving liquor in a lounge area, Mr. McKinley inquired as to what the committee felt was the definition of a lounge area. Mr. Gilbert advised that the study group had discussed that it (lounge area) would be apart from the

REPORT OF ALCOHOL POLICY STUDY GROUP (contd)

normal dining area where there could be small tables and people could sit there waiting for a seat. State statute doesn’t require that liquor only be served in the dining room.

Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Gilbert was saying that it would be a space not specifically designed for serving of food but where someone waiting to partake of food could have a drink. Mr. Gilbert agreed that that was the general understanding. When asked if there was an understanding of how long someone could sit there and drink, Mr. Gilbert responded that the study group hadn’t discussed that.

Mr. McKinley then asked how the Board would determine or establish that a lounge was used for people waiting to go into the dining room as opposed to people just wanting to pop a few. Mr. Gilbert stated that he knew that that was happening and the Board may want to have people at least order an appetizer rather than just order drinks.

Mr. Ball echoed Mr. Ciccariello’s thanks to the members of the study group for undertaking this effort. He noted that he had read the

report several times and would like some time to think about it. He moved to table action on any of the items recommended. There was no second offered after Mr. Hughes explained that he didn’t think anyone was proposing action tonight. The Board would need to hold a public hearing. Mr. McKinley concurred, noting that there was a legal process.

Mr. Stern stated that he was in favor of calling a public hearing sooner rather than later to start the process of considering whether the Board wants to change these rules. Mr. Hughes agreed, adding that the whole point was to have a public hearing and the Board owed it to the Town and the committee who did a lot of work.

A motion was made by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to schedule a public hearing for December 2, 2002 to consider public input on the study group’s recommendation. Unanimously voted.

Mr. Hughes requested that in addition to the public notice, that a notice be sent to licenseholders with a copy of the report.

Mr. Gilbert thanked the other members of the study group, noting that they came from a whole range of backgrounds and worked well together.

CONNOLLY BUICK CO., INC. D/B/A HERB CONNOLLY MITSUBISHI

Richard Arnone, Chief Financial Officer, for Connolly Buick Co. appeared before the Board upon the application of Connolly Buick Co., Inc. d/b/a Herb Connolly Mitsubishi for a Class I license to operate a Mitsubishi dealership at 157 West Central Street.

Mr. Arnone noted that the premises was the former Natick Ford.

Mr. Ciccariello inquired if any site or building improvements were being proposed and was told by Mr. Arnone that there would be some signage and that package was being prepared to go before the Town. There were no building improvements per se.

Mr. Hughes moved approval of grant Connolly Buick Co., Inc. d/b/a Herb Connolly Mitsubishi a Class I license to operate a Mitsubishi dealership at 157 West Central Street.

LFNR SUPERVISOR JOHN CUNNIFF: MUNICIPAL ROADWAY VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

LFNR Supervisor John Cunniff advised that the Board of Health had signed off on the Municipal Roadway Vegetation Management Plan and he was now requesting that the Board of Selectmen sign off. Once the Board approved, the plan would go to the state. The state would hold a public hearing, make any recommendations to the plan, and that would be followed by a thirty-day waiting period. After that the Town would have to file a yearly operational plan describing in detail what the Town was doing. All of this was being done to spray for poison ivy. This was the same thing the major utilities have to do every five years.

Mr. Ball inquired if there was anything in the plan that was different from what the Town was doing now. Mr. Cunniff’s response was, ‘no’.

Mr. Stern asked if the Environmental Compliance Officer had looked at the plan. Mr. Cunniff believed so. He had talked to Mr. Bois

LFNR SUPERVISOR JOHN CUNNIFF: MUNICIPAL ROADWAY VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (contd)

(Environmental Compliance Officer), but didn’t know if Mr. Bois had read it.

When asked by Mr. Hughes if the plan would prohibit the Town from using anything but the named herbicides, Mr. Cunniff advised that that was correct. He added that the plan would be constantly updated and if somebody wants to add something, it would be added as part of the plan.

Mr. Ball moved to authorize Mr. McKinley to sign the Municipal Roadway Vegetation Management Plan. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

DISCUSSION OF BUS TASK FORCE REPORT

Mr. Lemnios noted that the Bus Task Force had done an in-depth review of the current transportation services and offered some recommendations for changes. In the interim there has been some discussion with some individuals involved in the transportation industry. A series of eight tasks were identified that could be utilized to analyze routes. Those tasks were as follows:

Review Task Force recommendations

Interview stakeholders to establish a “wish list”

Test the timing of proposed routes; develop possible schedules

Review possible locations for satellite parking lots, as well as routes for commuter service

Investigate possible voucher system and develop guidelines for use as alternative to senior van

Interview existing users of commuter rail stations (origin, destinations, parking locations, etc.)

Provide more detailed analysis of existing ridership

Develop final report to Selectmen, providing more detail on Task Force proposals and dissenting opinions by Task Force members; present at public hearing

Mr. Lemnios noted that he was asking for the ability to go forward and seek those services to further strategize on the task force report.

Mr. McKinley advised that he had participated in the meeting with the consultants. He thought the report received (from the Task Force) was thorough and valuable, but quite complex, and he felt it was the Board’s obligation to follow through and convert their best recommendations into useful services and filter out the ones that were not practical. That was where the list of tasks came from. A lot of schedule data was missing, particularly with commuters. Another question was, were there satellite places where out-of-towners could park and have a bus bring them to downtown.

Mr. Hughes stated that in addition to the eight tasks, he would like to know the impact of any changes the Board made on the current service and the current ridership that was served. For instance, if a route was expanded, what impact did it have on the way it was done and the ridership.

Mr. Hughes moved to authorize Mr. Lemnios to engage the consultant at a cost of no more than $9,000. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. After further discussion, the motion was withdrawn.

In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ball stated that he agreed that the report was thorough and complex, but this would be hiring a consultant to provide another opinion, albeit an expert one, on how Natick should spend the funds appropriated for the Neighborhood Bus. He pointed out that these tasks were the same charge the committee had and we would be hiring someone to give the Board recommendations because either the committee couldn’t come to a consensus or the Board can’t figure out how to sort out what to do.

Mr. McKinley agreed, adding that the problem with the report was one recommendation that some form of transportation service be provided from 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. in the evening focusing on commuters. The problem was that no one knew how many commuters there were and where they were coming from and representatives of the elderly expressed a deep concern that the bus would not be available to them during those hours. Nobody knows the answer, and he (Mr. McKinley) was not willing to take it on face value that it was a good idea and tell the bus to run around Town picking up commuters from 7:00-9:00 a.m. without knowing where. Mr. McKinley stated that he was also not willing to take away service from the elderly until he knew how many

DISCUSSION OF BUS TASK FORCE REPORT (contd)

elderly were riding during those times and if there was a viable alternative.

Mr. Ball responded that Town Meeting appropriated a certain amount of money for the operation of the bus and that translates into so many driver hours. The name of this game was how to slice up the pie. How much goes to serve the seniors and the commuters was a delicate game. Regarding the collection of data of how many commuters would be picked up, Mr. Ball said he didn’t know how that could be done unless they were being picked up. Data couldn’t be collected unless they were on the bus.

Mr. McKinley noted that some of the attendees at the meeting represented a professional transportation management organization out of Waltham. The proposal was to have their staff at the rail stations and they would interview people and collect data that way. They (consultants) have done that before.

Mr. Stern inquired as to the source of the $9,000 and was told by Mr. Lemnios that Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian had it allocated within his transportation budget.

Mr. McKinley added that part of the contract would be to review the fee schedule. He has been told that what the Town charged people to ride the bus was a better value than a coke for a nickel. The current use may change depending on the fee structure.

Co-Chairman of the Bus Task Force Kenneth Miller noted that as a transportation expert, he thought that a couple of the eight points didn’t make much sense. No where does satellite parking exist and if the Board was talking about the people he thought the Board was talking about, they have unsuccessfully operated shuttle services throughout

the state. He had a background in forecasting, and forecasting the actual ridership was touchy. As to doing surveys, if people were asked if they would take the bus, they will say sure. Doing surveys and asking people their preference very rarely gets accurate information. People often say they will take it. Mr. Miller further advised that there was a lot of information the Task Force didn’t include but if the Board wished, the Task Force would provide it. The Task Force had ridership and actual boarder counts at every “T” station everyday.

Mr. Miller continued that he thought the characterization of some of the recommendations were not entirely accurate. They didn’t think 7:00-9:00 a.m. commuter service provided less service (for the elderly) but provided better service because it would provide more hours. The recommendation would take the van service and devote a good portion to serving the routes recommended by the Task Force. It was his belief that the bus would be providing better service within the constraints of the existing hours.

Mr. Miller pointed out that the Task Force recommended providing the commuter service as a trial for 3-6 months. Very often that was the only way to find out if the service was reasonable or not. He thought that $9,000 worth of consultant help didn’t provide a lot of help but if the Board was to do it, he would recommend that the consultant do some run cutting. It would make sense to hire a consultant to do some scheduling, but beyond that he thought some of the eight points weren’t worth evaluating.

Mr. McKinley requested Mr. Miller to make the data that was not submitted available and maybe the scope of the contract could be reduced.

Mr. Miller acknowledged that some recommendations needed to be flushed out a little more, but he was not aware of any discussion seeking clarification of anything on the report and they (task force) could have done that if asked.

The two issues Mr. McKinley recalled were conflict between the commuter service and elderly demand, and the other was eliminating one bus in the afternoon so there was only one running. Mr. Miller responded that the recommendation to reduce service between 2:00-4:00 p.m. was based on the ridership. The Task Force had information and used that to try to figure out the best scenario. This was what he did for a living.

Mr. Ciccariello commented that he didn’t want to waste $7,000-$9,000 if the Board was not going to get something back that was going to give

DISCUSSION OF BUS TASK FORCE REPORT (contd)

more information so the Board could make a viable decision. Perhaps the Board should get more input from the task force before pursing this. The Task Force was asked to make a presentation and unfortunately the time was limited and the Board gets 10-15 minutes on a study that took quite a bit of time to do. Perhaps the Board needs to hear from them a little more before moving in that direction (hiring a consultant).

Task Force member Robert Raisch told the Board that he operated one of the buses and visually saw the ridership. He disagreed with the final report and he felt the recommendations had two flaws. The Town was

trying to operate a bus service and a dial-a-ride. He felt with some time put into the effort of revising the scheduling and doing away with the request system and making it a fixed schedule, it could be a commuter as well as a senior population service. There was a van operation that was totally wasteful as operated and that needs a strong review.

Mr. Raisch noted that the other detriment to the recommendations was that the trial commuter service would be limited to two small areas of Town, and he didn’t think that would work. He felt that what was in place with a little tweaking and adjusting of schedule and better utilization of the van would be the way to go.

At this point Mr. Hughes withdrew his motion, stating that he would like to see the backup data before doing anything. Mr. McKinley concurred, adding that there were conflicting recommendations and he was no closer to knowing what was the right thing to do other than knowing the Board had to do something. Again Mr. McKinley requested that Mr. Miller make the backup data available, and the Board could then reconsider where to go from there.

Mary Ellen Suidit noted that she was an employee of Math Works and appreciated the recommendation for supporting the commuters. She reminded the Board of the benefit that Natick draws from the employees and the commuter service was a nice thing that the Town gives back to the employees in Town. She was, however, concerned about a study that was three months long. Math Works listed this benefit on their web site for recruiting. Just because the room wasn’t full of people who

support the commuter bus, she didn’t want the Board to think that it wasn’t appreciated.

Mr. Ciccariello recalled that he had mentioned this before, but the Planning Board was given a certain amount of funds when the Math Works development was done and he spoke to Mr. Sarkisian about approaching the Planning Board about going back to the development team to see if they would be willing to release some of those funds for this purpose. He proposed setting up a meeting with Math Works.

METROWEST HEALTH, INC.

The Board had been advised that MetroWest Health, Inc. had to make a decision on whether or not to sell their 20.9% interest in the MetroWest Medical Center to Tenet. That decision had to be made by April 30, 2003.

Mr. Hughes thought the Board should weigh in, in terms of what the Board wanted MetroWest Health, Inc. to do. It was his understanding that MetroWest Health, Inc. was still holding onto funds to clear up any debts that were supposed to be turned over and that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Nobody has followed that up with the Attorney General’s Office.

Mr. Ball noted that MetroWest Health, Inc. was the owner of 21% of the hospital and their purpose in life was to be a conduit for public input to the hospital. This Board has never been contacted by MetroWest Health, Inc. and in his memory he couldn’t recall any public seminars. He had some real concern that MetroWest Health, Inc. didn’t represent

the public in the way they were supposed to, and he suggested that Mr. Lemnios accompanied by 1-2 members of the Board visit with the MetroWest Medical Center CEO and discuss with Mr. Clement (MWMC CEO) what input, if any, Tenet has received from MetroWest Health, Inc. In his opinion that would go a long way toward the Board taking a position. Mr. Ball volunteered to attend the meeting with Mr. Clement.

Mr. Hughes noted that in addition to the 20%, MetroWest Health, Inc. withheld funds to cover liabilities that they never turned over to the Foundation.

METROWEST HEALTH, INC. (contd)

If MetroWest Health, Inc. were to sell to Tenet, Mr. McKinley raised the question of what they (MetroWest Health, Inc.) intended to do with the money. Do they remain a 501(c)3 or dole that money out. In addition to the missing funds, the question was what becomes of the money from the sale.

Mr. Hughes clarified that he wouldn’t want to characterize the funds as missing, but MetroWest Health, Inc. held them to cover unknown liabilities and that was 5-6 years ago. He assumed that the funds from the sale would be turned over to the Foundation, but that may be a faulty assumption.

Mr. Ball pointed out that MetroWest Health, Inc. could re-incarnate itself as a parallel foundation. It was not clear that the money would automatically get turned over to the foundation. That needs to be discussed and addressed.

Mr. McKinley suggested that the Board schedule a meeting with representatives of each Board of Selectmen from other affected towns to

see if there was mutual consensus on the concerns. The strategy being proposed by MetroWest Health, Inc. was scheduling a series of meetings with different groups in different towns and it would be hard to know if there was any consensus.

Mr. Hughes raised the possibility of inviting Roger Peloquin, President of MetroWest Health, Inc. to one of the Board’s meetings and ask him some questions. Mr. McKinley, however, felt that it may be more gainful to invite Mr. Peloquin to a meeting where the Board of Selectmen of all surrounding towns were in the room.

Mr. Ball had no objection to Mr. McKinley’s suggestion and although he was not sure it would be practical, he thought it would be useful. Mr. Hughes agreed with setting up a meeting with other Boards, Mr. Peloquin, and other members of MetroWest Health, Inc., but felt it should be kept small. Mr. Hughes also asked that Mr. Lemnios contact Martin Cohen, Director of the Hospital Foundation, to see how much money had been kept for liability and whether any had been turned over.

Mr. McKinley indicated that he and Mr. Lemnios would work on setting up the meeting.

Mr. Ball still wanted to pursue his suggestion of meeting with Mr. Clement, and moved that Mr. Lemnios along with two Board members meet with Mr. Clement to determine what, if any, interaction there had been between the hospital and MetroWest Health, Inc. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.

PACKAGE STORE SUNDAY OPENING

Mr. Hughes moved to allow package stores to open on the Sunday before Thanksgiving and each Sunday thereafter until New Year’s Day from 12:00 noon to 11:00 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.

SPECIAL TOWN MEETING

Mr. Lemnios reported that the Planning Board had been working diligently for the last several months developing a zoning article relative to the mall. The article would be placed on the warrant, and he believed there were a few other Planning Board articles that would be submitted as well.

Mr. McKinley reminded everyone that out of respect to Town Meeting, Board had given an indication of its desire to minimize the number of articles to appear. He encouraged people considering to file an article that if the article was not truly significant and can be put off until April, that they do so.

Mr. Lemnios then advised that there was an issue relative to finances. During the Fall Town Meeting there was a discussion of free cash and what the balance would be and that was the discussion relative to a variety of articles. At Town Meeting the best estimate was between $1.4-1.6 million. The Comptroller filed for free cash certification on October 24, 2002 an amount that was significantly different than that number. The amount filed was $4.3 million. With that change he thought it would be appropriate, and other members of the Finance Committee felt it may be appropriate, to give Town Meeting the opportunity to look at the first six financial articles to see if any Town Meeting members would like to propose any changes. Internally there were no proposals. He advised that the calculations were not complete at the beginning of Town Meeting.

SPECIAL TOWN MEETING (contd)

If the articles went forward, Mr. Lemnios stressed the need for caution in how the numbers were looked at. As the Fiscal 2004 budget was being developed the use of a piece of that free cash was being factored in, but no where near the balance because he assumed the balance would need to be used over several years. He cautioned against people looking at that number in a vacuum and looking at it as found money. Going into Fiscal 2004 and 2005, that balance would need to be used to keep service levels where they were now.

Comptroller Ruthann Cashman explained that the reason the $1.4-1.6 million was stated at Town Meeting was because she was just beginning to close the books. That was the amount generated by estimated receipts, tax titles, etc. The last amounts to get factored in were the closed appropriations. This year she took a hard line with departments that wanted to encumber money and ended up closing $1.8 million. The next phase was looking at outstanding property taxes and they were significantly lower than in the past and that was about $400,000-500,000. All of that factored into coming out with $4.3 million.

Finance Director Robert Palmer further explained that the turn backs this year were $652,000 higher than last year, there was a $320,000 reduction in real estate receivables, and $60,000 more in receivables for Police details. That was $1,032,000. Fund balances were where it should be at 8-3/4% and free cash has averaged out at $3.4M. This was

a pleasant position given what was facing the Town over the next three years.

Mr. McKinley noted that some of the $4.3M was the result of a more aggressive policy in collecting taxes and freeing up old appropriations, and asked if it was fair to say that some of it was a one-time windfall. Mr. Palmer responded that he would say that it was (one-time windfall).

Mr. Hughes inquired if the $1.8M in turn backs were from operating budgets or capital projects and was told by Mr. Palmer that there were both.

Mr. Ciccariello commented that although he was happy the money was found, he was taken aback that it took until October 24 to find all this money lying around, and what was going on in the various departments disturbed him.

Mr. Lemnios clarified that the money was not lying around or not accounted for. The closing required information from all the departments and this was the latest in many years that the Town submitted a certification of free cash. In prior years that has been submitted well in advance of Fall Town Meeting. Mr. Lemnios told the Board that he was as upset as the Board and was upset that a number was stated at Town Meeting that turned out to be inaccurate. He was sorry that occurred but upon looking into why that was the case, the big issue was getting financial information provided in a timely fashion so the Comptroller can close the books in a timely fashion. As a result he has put in a tracking method where the staff has to provide information to the Comptroller in a form that will prevent this from happening. He was not comfortable with what happened, but it was important to identify the issue and let the public and Town Meeting know the number and give Town Meeting the opportunity to readdress the

budget issues presented to them in the fall and give some confidence that going forward there would not be the same problem. On the night of Town Meeting, that was the best number available at that time.

2003 GOALS & OBJECTIVES

Discussion was tabled for two weeks pending receipt of some information.

UPDATE BUDGET PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. Palmer advised that no date had been set for the next meeting of the subcommittee.

SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS

Open Space Committee

Mr. McKinley noted that the Open Space Advisory Committee was currently serving at the pleasure of the Board and they would like to be made permanent. There were a couple of issues such as does the Board want a permanent open space committee as opposed to a committee that was formed periodically when there were open space issues to be dealt with

SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)

and if the Board wants a permanent committee, what was the best mechanism for doing that: a) The Board could decide to appoint the committee permanently which probably should require a change in the By-Laws and would require some thought of what the composition and makeup should be

or whether they have a budget. b) Would the committee function better if they were a subcommittee of the Conservation Commission or a task force under the Conservation Commission. Related to that was whether the Board wanted to do anything with the Special Town Meeting. The Open Space Advisory Committee was currently serving a temporary extension to January 6, 2003.

Based on Town Counsel’s letter, Mr. Hughes noted that it appeared that the scenario of changing the by-laws was an action of Town Meeting. If that route wasn’t taken, it really wasn’t permanent because the next group of Selectmen could decide they do not want to have an open space committee. Making it a subcommittee of the Conservation Commission seemed very complicated. It seemed as though the Board’s choice was to either continue it as ad hoc or ask Town Meeting and he (Mr. Hughes) was not prepared to go before the December 3rd Town Meeting and do that. Mr. Hughes said he would prefer to have more input including input from Town Counsel. He, however, had no objection to continuing or extending the committee for as long as necessary.

Mr. McKinley concurred and noted that he would like to hear from the Conservation Commission.

Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would probably support going to Town Meeting and let Town Meeting decide if they would prefer this to be a permanent committee. He felt the committee had done some good work and had great ideas. He would not be thrilled about putting them under the Conservation Commission or Planning Board, but he would support going to Spring Town Meeting and extending their appointments until that time.

Mr. Stern stated that he too had no problem in extending the term for as long as it took. He would like to see the Open Space Advisory Committee become a standing committee, and didn’t see it being a subsidiary committee of the Conservation Commission.

A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, and unanimously voted to extend the Open Space Advisory Committee’s terms to June 30, 2003.

Michael Caccavale, a member of the Open Space Advisory Committee, noted that the committee was recommended in the Open Space plan and the Conservation Commission and Planning Board supported its creation.

Mr. Hughes noted that the indication was that the work on Route 135 may start next spring. Some surrounding Towns had difficulty with the local businesses, and he suggested that the Town make sure that everybody on the route knows what’s going on – both the businesses and the residents on the route.

Mr. McKinley agreed, adding that the Ashland Board of Selectmen said they wished they had gotten the business owners and general contractor together before the beginning.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m.

_______________________________

John Ciccariello, Clerk