Town of Natick - Board of Selectmen Minutes

Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation and collective bargaining. 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.

Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Stern, moved approval of the Director of Veterans’ Services John MacGillivray’s request to hold a parade from the American Legion Post #107 on West Central Street to the Morse Institute Library as part of the Pearl Harbor Day Remembrance Ceremony on December 7, 2002. Unanimously voted.

Letters of interest had been received from four candidates: Harlee Strauss, Michael Bliss, David Beattie, and B. Whitney Hall, MD. It was noted that Dr. Hall was not present and Mr. McKinley asked if the members of the Board of Health wished to proceed without him available

for an interview. He explained that it was the Board of Selectmen’s practice to not consider an applicant who was not available for the interview. Mr. Breda, Board of Health Chair, indicated that his board was comfortable with proceeding and added that in his letter Dr. Hall had suggested that the interviews proceed.

Dr. Strauss told the Boards that she had a PhD in molecular biology and was a member of the Mass Public Health Association. She had been living in Natick since 1986 and a Town Meeting member for 3-4 years. She had also served as a representative of two different public advisory committees at the Natick Labs. She had a longstanding interest in public health related matters and would like to work on issues related to the environment. She felt there were more problems lurking at the Labs. As part of her professional life she had spent six years on the Science Biology Committee and would like to be part of some of the emergency preparedness planning which she thought was appropriate for the Board of Health.

If the issue of fluoride were to arise in Natick, Mr. Ciccariello asked if Dr. Strauss could have an open mind in discussing the issue of whether it’s positive or negative. Dr. Strauss responded that she had an open mind on the question when she studied it in 1988, and she hasn’t followed the literature too much in the last couple of years. She was a member of the Fluoride Study Committee where they spent 6-8 months looking over the literature. In that time she formed an opinion and she keeps that opinion. Dr. Strauss noted that she didn’t intend to make it an issue here and didn’t see it coming to Town Meeting in the near future.

Mr. Stern asked if Dr. Straus was a member of the Public Health Association as part of her employment or was it personal. Dr. Strauss responded that it was both. She was self-employed and attended national meetings of the APHA. She had done some consulting projects related to Asthma and because the APHA was strong in that area, she attended.

Michael Bliss noted that he was a resident of the Town for almost 20 years and active in Town affairs for most of that time. He had served on the Conservation Commission, Historic District Commission, and most recently was active in the Natick Center Associates helping them organize certain zoning and regulatory changes to advance some of their goals. Mr. Bliss noted that he was a lawyer with a practice in environmental land use law and was familiar with many of the laws and regulations the Board of Health deals with such as Title V. He was interested in being a member of the Board of Health to bring his legal experience and experience as a resident to the Board.

Mr. Stern inquired as to Mr. Bliss’ public health background and experience, and Mr. Bliss responded that he was an environmental lawyer so he dealt with public health laws as they related to the environment and land use. He did not have any specific public health experience.

Ciccariello questioned if Mr. Bliss felt he could have an open mind if that issue arose again. Mr. Bliss responded that at that time he had an open mind. He thought he could represent the Board of Health fairly and effectively, but he didn’t have a particular opinion on fluoride and didn’t have one now. He had an open mind then and had an open mind now. He didn’t have a particular belief about fluoridation.

In his resume Mr. Bliss had listed some of the areas of environmental issues that emphasized his knowledge of wetlands, superfund, etc., and Mr. Breda asked Mr. Bliss to elaborate how that knowledge helped him prepare for this position. Mr. Bliss assumed the Board of Health became involved at times with hazardous waste issues and his knowledge would be of assistance. He had familiarity with Title V and some familiarity with swimming pool regulations. There was considerable overlap between environmental and public health plus the general assistance a lawyer can bring to any government position.

Mr. Hughes asked about Section 401 water quality certification, and Mr. Bliss explained that it was a governmental function the state exercises on federal permits. The federal permit has to be OK’d by the state. The DEP put together an advisory committee to figure out how to do that better. They revamped the program and regulations, and he served on the committee.

David Beattie distributed copies of his resume and noted that he was a newcomer, only having lived here for 3-4 years. This was his first opportunity to become involved in the community. He was trained in microbiology with an emphasis on infectious disease. For the past several years with his former employer he became involved in safety coordination for the company. He was currently shifting his work more toward hematology, but his interest in infectious disease remained. He was an avid sportsman and had an interest in quality of life. He had no background in fluoridation.

A question arose as to how many votes were needed between the two Boards to make the appointment. Ms. Challis advised that it was a majority of the two Boards combined and in this case it would be five since there were five Selectmen and three members of the Board of Health. Public Health Director Roger Wade disagreed and noted that in the past it had always been a majority of those present and voting which meant four votes would be needed.

Mr. McKinley proposed having the matter reviewed by Town Counsel, and if five votes were needed the Board would have to have Mr. Ball present and that would mean having the candidates return so that they could be interviewed by Mr. Ball. Mr. Ciccariello asked if the candidates came back for a second interview if the individual who did not interview tonight would be precluded. Mr. McKinley felt that Dr. Hall realized that by not being here he was ineligible. Mr. Breda, however, felt that if there was a second shot at it, Dr. Hall should be given an opportunity.

In conclusion Mr. McKinley determined that the appointment would be pending Town Counsel’s decision. If Mr. Flynn (Town Counsel) determined tonight’s vote to be legitimate, Michael Bliss would be the appointee. If not, the candidates would have to be called back on January 6th and go through this again.

Marion Sutcliffe of 60 MacArthur Road told the Board that her water bill was normally around $5.50 per quarter, but her bill in October was almost $1,000. For the past two months she has been working on this and had done everything to straighten it out. She had her cesspool dug out and was told that it was bone dry, and she hired a plumber who checked for leakage. Jack Perodeau from the Water Department sent someone over who said it was the billing and to throw it away. The next day he came back and checked it again and told her that she would hear from someone. She never did so she called the Town and was told that she owed almost $1,000. Everyone was very nice, but they don’t know what was wrong. A new meter was put in on October 16, and a reading was done on November 26 that was normal.

Mr. Lemnios stated that he was aware of Ms. Sutcliffe’s complaint. She had received a bill for $900+ and complained that it was inordinately high. Individuals were dispatched twice from the DPW and no leaks were determined. A new meter was put in and the high usage was dissipated. Mr. Perodeau has advised that meters run slow not fast. The water was used as far as the Town can ascertain. He also noted that the Sutcliffe’s home was unattended for a good part of the time.

When asked to explain the delay in applying for a change in manager, Mr. D’Angelo responded that he was not familiar with the policy of the Town and his predecessor neglected to advise him of the need to change the license. Mr. McKinley pointed out that it was state law. Mr. D’Angelo said he recognized that ignorance was not an excuse, but it was his only explanation.

Mr. McKinley inquired if Mr. D’Angelo was familiar with the Town of Natick regulations regarding the training of all servers and Mr. D’Angelo indicated that he was aware of the policy. Mr. McKinley then asked Mr. D’Angelo if in his past experience there had been any violations of the liquor laws. Mr. D’Angelo’s response was, ‘no’.

Mr. Hughes pointed out that the vote of the corporate board was signed by someone from both GSH Lodging and CSM Investors and inquired as to the relationship. Mr. D’Angelo explained that GSH was the business and CSM was the owner of the property. GSH Lodging was a dba of CSM Investors. Mr. Hughes asked to see the written record get corrected.

Mr. Ciccariello noted that right now the Courtyard by Marriott was in violation of the liquor laws. If the Board voted conditionally to appoint Mr. D’Angelo, would they still be in violation of the liquor laws. Mr. McKinley advised that they would be in violation until the ABCC approved the appointment.

Mr. Ciccariello recommended that a letter be sent to the licenseholder noting the Board’s displeasure that a manager had been in effect since July and the Board just received an application. Mr. Hughes concurred, noting that this was a company that was in the business of holding licenses and operating hotels. This was not acceptable.

Finance Director, Robert Palmer, explained that the rates being established were for 2003 and covered two different fiscal years. Several years ago the Board adopted calendar vs fiscal rates primarily because the fiscal rates fell in a heavy use time and the Board was trying to prorate the bills. In a memo to the Board, Mr. Palmer listed the items showing the greatest increase. They were as follows:

Mr. Palmer advised that the retirement costs were prepared by Segall Associates for the Retirement system. Segall was re-looking at the figures although Mr. Palmer wasn’t sure it would make any difference. This was the retirement cost for employees for which the Town has a liability.

Mr. Palmer advised that when he closed out Fiscal 2002 the Town had generated $9.8 million in water & sewer revenue and in tracking exactly where we want to be, it was just over $10 million. There was a very small revenue deficit and the rates established now would make up the difference as Fiscal 2003 was closed out. The rates were determined by looking into the existing rates, the revenue generated, and where it should be to be fully funded. The Town would need approximately $11.3 million to be self-supporting for all water & sewer operations. If these rates were adopted, about $11.2 million would be generated and the $100,000 deficit would be made up supplementing with retained earnings. If debt for the treatment plant was greater than $106,000, the retained earnings would have to supplement that as well. That meant that the supplement could come up to $400,000-450,000.

Mr. Palmer continued that if the rates in tonight’s handout were adopted, it would mean a 10.34% increase for the minimum user, a 10.86% increase for the low user, a 11.67% for the typical user, and a 12.4% increase for the high user. That would fully fund the $11.3 million. He pointed out that the bulk of the increase was in water and primarily in retirement costs and debt.

Mr. Ciccariello asked about retained earnings, and Mr. Palmer responded that there was approximately $1.5 million in what were surplus funds prior to the enterprise fund, but as much as $400,000 could be used to offset these proposed rates. $100,000 would definitely be used and another $300,000 would be used if the treatment plant had to be amortized. If there were a revenue deficit when the books were closed, that would come from retained earnings.

Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the possibility of using retained earnings in calculating the rates, and Mr. Palmer responded that $100,000 had been specifically earmarked, but that didn’t taken into account the shortfall of $180,000 and if debt costs for the water

When asked by Mr. Ciccariello what expenses would come out of the enterprise fund, Mr. Palmer advised that it would be salaries & wages, fringe costs, retirement, some allocated costs. Direct costs would be salaries for Water & Sewer personnel, Collector for billing personnel, debt related to water & sewer, fringe costs for employees of the Water & Sewer Department, retirement, health insurance. Allocated costs would be a piece of DPW Administration, Engineering, those supporting water & sewer allocations, part of his (Mr. Palmer’s) salary, and a piece of the Comptroller’s salary. He noted that it included debt for anything issued, but didn’t include anything that was funded and not issued.

Mr. Ciccariello recalled that when capital improvements were proposed to Town Meeting, the answer had been that the money was there and would come out of water & sewer rates. What he was hearing now was that perhaps not all the money was there and when it was not there, the rates go up to fund the improvements. Mr. Palmer noted that there had been several projects in the area of sewer and some water that had been funded directly from water & sewer surplus that did not impact the rates. For the relining and treatment plant projects, it was known that the funds would have to be borrowed and there was talk about that debt having to be raised in the rates and the Town would try to phase it in over a number of years.

Mr. McKinley noted that this whole discussion of an enterprise fund had been going on for many years and one of the goals was not only to cover its own operating cost, but there would be a portion of the rate every year would provide for required maintenance. Things like the unexpected relining of the pipes with the black water problem were not considered to be routine maintenance.

If the Board wanted to reduce the rates, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the maximum amount Mr. Palmer would recommend coming out of retained earnings. Mr. Palmer replied that he hadn’t discussed it with the Town Administrator, but his interpretation at this time if the assumption was made that there wasn’t a revenue deficit and assumed the debt for the water treatment plant would have to be amortized, it wouldn’t be prudent to use more than $600,000. That would drop retained earnings to $500,000. He thought the retained earnings should be between 10-15% or $1.1-1.8 million. However, he also understood the need to mitigate rate increases.

Mr. Lemnios commented that using an additional $600,000 or a total of $700,000 in retained earnings would be a l-l/2 point drop. The rationale for keeping a high amount of retained earnings was for emergencies but Mr. Lemnios acknowledged that there was some latitude.

Mr. Stern inquired as to the current situation with receivables and was told by Mr. Palmer that the water & sewer receivables were fine. There had been a large activity on collection and the receivables dropped by $600,000-700,000. He also noted that there had been a change in the policy in terms of the amount of time bills were allowed to be delinquent before going to lien. It was cut back from 12 months to six

Mr. Stern stated that he understood the need to increase the treatment plant size, but asked if Mr. Palmer could give him a little history as to why it wasn’t sized for full capacity in the beginning. Mr. Palmer responded that he could give the history for why the decision was made to increase it. After all the issues to license and develop Elm Bank, it was determined that if there was an alternative to increase capacity as opposed to developing a new site, it should be explored. When the treatment plant was built, the water that could get to the plant was being treated. There was work done that allowed wells on the other side of Route 9 to be treated, but the plant didn’t have the capacity.

Mr. Stern questioned if money had been set aside for repairs and replacement in the plant. Mr. Palmer advised that $200,000 had been set aside for different maintenance, and if there was an issue at the treatment plant that would be the line item that would be looked at. The expansion brings the plant a little up-to-date. Long-term he thought some money should be set aside for maintenance, but going back five years water & sewer was heavily subsidized by the tax rate and at some point in time we should look at not just addressing debt but over a period of years, $5 million should be built up to re-address the physical plant.

In response to an inquiry from Mr. Hughes on the retirement cost increase, Mr. Palmer noted that when he looked at the enterprise fund for the year he used a percentage of salaries to determine the cost of benefits. The Retirement Board through their consultant prepared an analysis of the actual contribution and the portion that was truly related to Water & Sewer was roughly $700,000.

Referring to the handout, Mr. Hughes asked if the revenue variance was Mr. Palmer’s projection for this calendar year’s deficit. Mr. Palmer responded that it could be as much as $180,000, but added that if the rates were adopted as presented, that could be eradicated in the remaining billing for January-July. If the present rates were continued, it would be a couple of hundred thousand short.

In follow-up Mr. Hughes noted that last year the Board set rates for January 1, 2002- December 31, 2002. During that year the Town sold water and sewer and collected bills. Was there a deficit or retained earnings? Mr. Palmer replied that he didn’t know since the year wasn’t finished, but he was comfortable that it would be close to the estimate. He explained that he was trying to relate what the revenues should be to what were the known costs. Mr. McKinley interpreted Mr. Palmer to be saying that at the end of Fiscal 2002 which included six months of calendar 2002, the enterprise fund had a small deficit. Mr. Palmer advised that that was correct.

Mr. Hughes said he read that the Governor cut aid and was that projected in the proposed rates in terms of what can be expected in July 1, 2003. If the cut was similar in nature to what was being proposed, Mr. Palmer felt that the rates would cover it. He noted that the MWRA rates over the last couple of years for sewer had not been ballooning. It’s been in water and that didn’t concern Natick.

Regarding the dramatic increase in retirement, Mr. McKinley said he understood the explanation of the analysis that was done and the recommendation for going from $200,000-700,000 out of the enterprise fund. On the other hand, he felt the Board should see a $500,000 reduction in contribution from the Town’s operating budget. Mr. Palmer replied that that was correct.

Mr. McKinley noted that the jump in debt service was primarily due to the treatment plant and pipe relining and Mr. Palmer had alluded that the debt cost would ramp up and then stabilize. He inquired as to how much Mr. Palmer expected it to jump again next year and when could the consumer expect it to stabilize. Mr. Palmer responded that he expected all debt would be from the rates and nothing from retained earnings after the next three years.

Mr. Stern asked about the increase in operation of the treatment plant when it came on line and what that would do to the incremental rate. Mr. Palmer couldn’t answer that, but agreed that it was something with which to be concerned. He noted that when the next phase was opened, the plant would probably have to be staffed for two shifts minimum and maybe three.

Mr. McKinley highlighted the subsidiary recommendations from the Study Group: Serving of beer in pitchers shall not be allowed, the glasses or other containers in which alcohol can be served in a restaurant not exceed 16 ounces in size, only one drink may be permitted to be served to a customer at a time, non-alcoholic beer may not be served to minors, the Board of 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.

Peter Giannocopoulos, owner of the Dolphin Restaurant, requested that the Board accept the recommendations as stated. He felt in voting for these changes there would be more customers in Natick. The By-law would continue to encourage that liquor was incidental to food and it was something he took very seriously.

Mr. McKinley then asked Mr. Giannocopoulos as a restaurant owner what was the effect of a waiting area to the overall revenue stream of a restaurant business. Mr. Giannocopoulos advised that it (lounge) definitely improved the business because it gave clients the whole experience. He noted that he had invested lots of money to get the benefit of those rules. He felt going to 100 seats changed the dynamics, but it was not up to him to be negative in that area.

Regarding the recommendation that any establishment with 100 seats or more may serve liquor at a bar or counter providing it remains incidental to the service of food, Mr. McKinley questioned what was the definition of food. Could it be a bowl of corn chips? Mr. Giannocopoulos stated that he believed the definition of food was substantial food. He couldn’t make the definition of food, but he knew what food meant in his place. He liked the rule that the same time you order a drink, you order food.

Jeff Senior, owner of Skipjack’s, stated that he had operated and owned restaurants for 16 years and experienced many different municipalities. He read the Study Group’s report and agreed with a lot of it although he disagreed with some as well. In his opinion the committee did an excellent job in drafting the proposed changes.

Mr. Senior shared his comments on the recommendations. From past experience operating a restaurant and not a bar, 40% was too high for the percentage of alcohol to food. 30% was more than adequate and if someone was doing more than 30%, it was not a restaurant. It was a bar. As to the lounge, Mr. Senior noted that he had over 200 seats and a sushi counter and he thought allowing restaurants with 100 seats to have a lounge was an excellent idea.

Regarding the service of alcohol at a counter, Mr. Senior believed that it would enhance existing restaurants and attract further restaurants to Natick. He disagreed with the idea of having to order food before receiving a drink. If someone was waiting to meet someone and sat down at the bar, he couldn’t receive a drink unless he ordered food, but if he sat in the lounge, he could have a drink while waiting for a guest to join him. That was very hard to enforce and put undue pressure on the licenseholder and the Police.

If the Board wanted to allow the service of alcohol at a bar or counter incidental to food, but there was no requirement to order food, Mr. McKinley asked Mr. Senior how the Board would make that work. Mr. Senior noted that each restaurant submits their actual sales in food and beverage and the Board would be able to see if a restaurant exceeds its quota. That would be a way to monitor if it was a restaurant serving food or a restaurant serving alcohol.

Mr. Ciccariello questioned if it were possible to monitor the number of drinks an individual received at a counter or bar if no food was being served. Mr. Senior felt that it was and added that the liquor laws had changed dramatically. Multiple and discounted drink were no longer a factor.

George Gizelis from Agostino’s Restaurant found the report encouraging and felt it would help them to compete with the surrounding neighbors. When asked by Mr. McKinley for his definition of food, Mr. Gizelis responded that he would consider it an appetizer of $5.00 or more. Asked if meant something from the menu and no snack food, Mr. Gizelis’ response was, ‘yes’.

Sebastian Grupposo stated that he lived here when Natick was considered the sin city of the north. In 1970 there were four ballot questions – bars, innholders, package stores, wine & beer and the only ones that passed were innholder’s and package store. Wine & beer and bars were thrown out. The ballot questions were put up again and the innkeepers passed, bars were thrown out, and the clubs stayed in.

In 1980 restaurants with 100 seats were allowed and then one restaurant came in with 200 seats and the Board modified the liquor license to give them a lounge. Now he heard bars and sushi bars and he didn’t want to go back to what it was prior to 1970. In the newspapers Massachusetts was given a D- on drunk drivers. He urged the Board to keep things the way they were and forget about lounges. It was not broken and he hoped the Board used their common sense and protected the citizens.

A member of the Alcohol Policy Study Group, Larry Wolozin noted that the demographics had changed over the years. He was a customer that didn’t spend a lot of time or money eating or drinking in Natick because of the atmosphere. Mr. Wolozin noted that in his case the bar service was the type of atmosphere he enjoyed in the evening. If it was just the two of them, he preferred to dine at the bar. There were folks that might be more interested in getting in and out more quickly.

Mr. Wolozin felt that the committee was a job well done. When he was a small restaurateur, he would have loved to have had the input in his Town. He also felt that the 20% figure was fiction. He thought it should be somewhere between 20% and 40% because it was possible that that was something that could happen in today’s spending. Wine and cordial prices have changed. The history of Natick was known and everyone knew what they didn’t want to happen in Natick, but a couple of amendments along the lines suggested by the committee would be beneficial to the businesses and to the populace.

A member of the audience Jamie McGee pointed out that the only beverage the Study Group placed a size restriction on was beer, but many higher priced beers were being served in 22 ounce bottles. He disagreed with putting a separate regulation on beer unless the gourmet beers being served today were not restricted. As to the idea of a waiting area, he felt that a waiting area was just as important for a smaller restaurant as for a larger restaurant. If a fifty person restaurant wanted to devote a section to a waiting area, he saw no reason why not.

Mr. Grupposo noted that in 1980 the Town voted that you could have a drink at your table if the restaurant had 100 seats. To have a waiting area, would that take away from the 100 seats? Mr. McKinley advised that the waiting area would be in addition to the 100 seats.

If Town Meeting voted to create an all alcohol license and allowed restaurants with 100 seats to serve at the tables, Mr. Ciccariello questioned whether the Board could change that policy. Mr. Hughes responded that the Board could not decrease the 100 seats. Mr. McKinley questioned what was voted by the Town and whether the Board could grant a lounge, and Mr. Hughes responded that the Town voted to allow all alcohol licenses in any restaurant with 100 seats.

Mr. Hughes requested that Town Counsel provide the Board with an opinion as to whether the Board had the authority to permit a lounge in restaurants where the seating was in excess of 100, but less than 200. He also requested that Mr. Flynn (Town Counsel) come up with some drafts. He commented that if he was going to consider serving alcohol at a bar or counter, he was not willing to consider food being somebody putting out a free bowl of pretzels. Mr. McKinley agreed that the definition of food needed to be clarified and felt the suggestion of having something on the menu was a good one.

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following Common Victualer’s licenses for 2003. Because of tax delinquencies Ellie’s Deli, Honey Dew Donut, 85 East Central Street LLC (Nick’s), Village Tea Shoppe were not renewed.

Mr. Ciccariello commented that from the list of overdue accounts supplied by the Assistant Treasurer/Collector, Central Auto Parts’ outstanding balance seemed to be running up and he would like to put a flag on it, monitor it, and if not paid by February 1st see what action the Board could take.

If the Board did that, Mr. Stern cautioned that the Board would need to do that for everybody. He didn’t think it could be done for one and not another. Mr. Hughes proposed that the Collector advise the Board of any outstanding taxes/fees (over a year old) the first of every month. Mr. McKinley agreed that the Board could set a policy where once a month all the licenseholders were reviewed to see if there were any overdue accounts. Mr. Stern suggested quarterly.

Firefighter Michael Quilty requested an exemption from the provisions of Article 41, Section 4 of the Natick Town by-Laws in order that he could work as a private snow plowing contractor for the Department of Public Works in addition to his full-time primary employment with the Fire Department.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Quilty had submitted a bid or was he just called. Mr. Quilty advised that there was a contract and he provided the proper insurance. The price paid depended upon your equipment. He just got the paperwork from the DPW and supplied the insurance and was not aware of a bid. The DPW set the rate.

If Mr. Quilty were injured while plowing snow, Mr. Stern presumed that Mr. Quilty’s insurance would cover him, but how would that impact his (Mr. Quilty’s) disability status as a firefighter. Mr. Quilty responded that it would be the same as any other time he was injured working for himself. He would use sick time.

Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Quilty carried both public liability and worker’s compensation insurance, but Mr. Quilty advised that he didn’t need worker’s comp because he was a sole employee. Mr. Ciccariello commented that he thought if the Town hired somebody without worker’s compensation they could take legal action to seek damages from the Town or the person whom employs them. He felt this was something that needed to be looked into.

Mr. Lemnios noted that firefighters and police officers were covered under 111F which was similar to worker’s comp but designed to cover injured on duty. There were many police and firefighters who do special duty. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that that was working for somebody else, but in this case Mr. Quilty would be working for the Town of Natick.

In a memo to the Board Town Counsel John Flynn recommended that the Board’s vote and any contract or work authorization include the following language: Michael Quilty shall provide services under this Agreement as an independent contract with the town of Natick and Michael Quilty and his employees shall not be entitled to receive any benefits of employment with the Town of Natick, including without limitation, salary, overtime, vacation pay, holiday pay, health insurance, life insurance, pension or deferred compensation. With those terms and conditions, Mr. Hughes moved to approve Michael Quilty’s request for exemption from the provisions of Article 41, Section 4 of the Town of Natick By-Laws to permit him to work as a private snow plowing contractor for the Department of Public Works in addition to his full time primary employment with the Fire Department of the Town of Natick. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.

Mr. Hughes then noted that the Board hadn’t taken a position because they didn’t understand what the article was going to do. Planning Board Chairman Kenneth Soderholm explained that the article would provide another option for development of large parcels. It would increase land available for open space and affordable housing. The Planning Board’s feeling about all four of the articles on the warrant was that everyone thought that government was always taking away rights and privileges. All of these articles were giving opportunities, but with the caveat that it was a win for the Town.

Mr. McKinley noted that the unamended article made reference to amenities of the swimming pool, but the use was limited to residents of the cluster development. He inquired if that language was still in there, and Mr. Soderholm’s response was, ‘yes’. Mr. McKinley pointed out that that would mean that the high school swim team would not be able to use the facility, and again Mr. Soderholm’s response was, ‘yes’.

Mr. Hughes requested an explanation of Article 2, and Mr. Soderholm advised that there were some small parcels on Route 9 zoned residential but to rezone to commercial would push it so far back to the residences that it would be onerous. The Planning Board would encourage doubling what was now allowed (for residential) to encourage use. There was an affordable component to it or a cash payment.

Mr. McKinley questioned if through this regulation the Town was forcing an applicant to pay a private entity. Mr. Soderholm noted that the Natick Housing Corporation was a non-profit group. This (cash payment) had been done before and all of these were voluntary things if the developer chose to take advantage. Although he felt the Natick Housing Corp was a good organization, he questioned why them vs the Natick Housing Authority. Mr. Soderholm noted that the Housing Corp focused on affordable housing.

Former Planning Board member Milton Gilbert believed that the Board of Selectmen appointed the Board of the Natick Housing Corporation. He also believed that the Town couldn’t create a fund unless it was created by statute. The only fund already established was the conservation fund. Mr. McKinley noted that Town Meeting had just re-listed all of the appointments, and the Natick Housing Corp was not included.

In discussion of the motion, Mr. McKinley inquired if the proponent on South Main Street had had the opportunity to review Article 4. Mr. Soderholm did not know, and Mr. McKinley pointed out that the Board could be taking a position on an article that the proponent may oppose. Mr. Soderholm noted that the article was not changing the underlying zoning. The proponent was allowed to do everything he could by right and could take advantage of this. He added that the Planning Board was convinced that this was a positive tool for smart growth.

On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board approved the following meeting schedule for the first half of 2003: January 6, January 13, January 27, February 10, February 24, March 10, March 26, April 7, April 21, May 5, May 19, June 2, June 16, June 30.

Mr. Hughes stated that he had recently read comments in the newspaper from a couple of the heads of bargaining units that the Town has been spending foolishly and on the benefits the Town affords its employees. He would like to think that it was posturing for the upcoming negotiations. It was a difficult economic time and people were taking less in their wages to continue their employment. He was upset by these comments in these difficult times.

Mr. Lemnios advised that he had put in numerous calls to the hospital CEO trying to set up a meeting. He had hoped to have that meeting in advance of setting up the large group meeting, but he thought he would move forward on trying to get the group meeting going since he was not sure he would be able to get the small meeting set in any timely manner.

Mr. McKinley noted that part of the discussion involved Boards of Selectmen from other communities. As it gets into January and February everybody will be up to their eyeballs in budgets, and one possibility would be to invite each Board to appoint or nominate a representative. The other option would be to have the MetroWest Growth Management Committee do most of the footwork.