BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
July 14, 2003
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:10 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Paul R. McKinley. Charles M. Hughes arrived at 6:15 p.m. Jeffrey A. Stern arrived at 6:30 p.m.
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on July 14, 2003 in the amount of $535,945.04. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,030,600.07.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to collective bargaining and real property negotiations. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:10 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2003 meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the May 21, 2003 meeting.
NATICK DAYS: REQUEST FOR BANNER, CLOSE STREETS
Before the Board was a request from the Natick Days Committee to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of August 29-September 13, 2003. The Board had previously approved a banner for Western Well Mikvah for the period September 2-8, 2003. Mr. Ball advised that he had discussed the dates with the Western Well Mikva and they would be happy to take the period August 25-September 2, 2003. Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini advised that Natick Days would amend their request to September 3-13, 2003.
Mr. Ball moved to approve the request of the Natick Days Committee to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of September 3-13, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved to amend the authorization for the Western Well Mikvah to hang a banner across Main Street to the period August 25-September 2, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Cugini then requested the partial closing of the following streets
on September 13, 2003 from 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. for the Natick Days celebration:
Church Street
Route 135 (East Central Street)
Washington Street
Clarendon Street
Morse Street
Park Street
Common Street
Mr. Hughes asked about Washington Street, and Mr. Cugini explained that the plan was to keep Washington Street open up to the Middlesex Bank where employees park. He added that Common Street would be closed at 1:00 p.m. since the Post Office was open until noon.
When asked by Mr. Stern if this was the same plan as last year, Mr. Cugini advised that it was the same.
NATICK DAYS: REQUEST FOR BANNER, CLOSE STREETS (contd)
Mr. McKinley moved approval with the stipulation that Washington Street would be closed only to the Middlesex Bank drive thru and Common Street closed to Park Street as long as the Post Office was open and after the Post Office closed, closed to Church Street. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Pay-As-You-Throw
George Mainos presented the Board with an outline of his concerns about the pay-as-you-throw program. Topic one was the timing and distribution of materials, the date when they were distributed, and the logistical decision.
Topic two was identified as cost shifting – how other communities have dealt with this issue. He felt PAYT imposed not only a cost but an added inconvenience.
Topic three covered his belief that the program should be passed by referendum. He noted that he only found out about PAYT when his trash was left uncollected and a flyer was left on the sidewalk. The Town should ensure that residents were well informed and distribute materials prior to enactment. Flyers should have been sent out prior rather than the same day.
Mr. Ball inquired if Mr. Mainos was a homeowner or renter, and Mr. Mainos replied that he had owned his home for about three years.
At Mr. Lemnios’ request, Mr. Palmer described the inserts that had gone out in the water bill. He noted that in the three sets of quarterly billing of which the latest would have reached the homes in June, there
was an enclosure explaining the PAYT. Everybody receiving a water and sewer bill would have received notification. Mr. Ball added that in addition to the insert a postcard was mailed to every resident and every trash truck carried signage plus it was advertised extensively in the two newspapers and on cable. The committee went to great lengths to let everyone know.
Mr. Mainos commented that the Town went to the expense of getting flyers together and should have dropped them off at each household prior to PAYT starting.
BETH DONNELLY, METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER: LEONARD MORSE HOSPITAL LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD
Beth Donnelly of the MetroWest Medical Center provided the Board with the Notice of Determination from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health and a list of the Leonard Morse Advisory Board members. She explained that the Advisory Board was established at the time of the sale of the hospital from Columbia to Tenet and some of the members were nominees of the Board of Selectmen. Senior Center Director Diana Ryder had been nominated by the Board two years ago.
Mr. McKinley was confused as to how many the Board was being asked to nominate tonight. Ms. Donnelly advised that the Board was allowed to nominate two and while there was no obligation, the Advisory Board had never turned down a Selectmen’s nominee. She added that the Advisory Board was not at capacity and would accept nominations to expand to 11 members.
INTERVIEW FOR NOMINATION TO LEONARD MORSE HOSPITAL LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD:
a. Mort Levin
Mort Levin stated that he looked at this as a win/win situation. His professional career had been in medical electronics and in that capacity he had visited many hospitals. He knew something about how hospitals worked and maybe he could be of some benefit with that knowledge. He would have to learn a little bit, but it would be no different than the Boards he had served on in the past. He had served
as the president and chairman of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and had been active in the Health Industry Manufacturers Association.
In his cover letter Mr. Levin had indicated that he had some experience with the hospital that was apparently positive, and Mr. McKinley asked
INTERVIEW FOR NOMINATION TO LEONARD MORSE HOSPITAL LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD: (contd)
if he (Mr. Levin) had any particular agenda or areas of interest that had motivated him to become involved with the Advisory Board. Mr. Levin responded that he thought he had some knowledge that would be of help. His other motivation was that he would learn things that he didn’t know before. He had no personal agenda on any of the issues raised.
Mr. McKinley inquired if Mr. Levin would be able to devote the time and energy necessary, and Mr. Levin’s response was, “yes”, adding that he
retired in 1986. He had a consulting business, but closed that in 2000 and was now helping teach science at Marlborough Middle School two afternoons a week.
Mr. Hughes moved to nominate Mort Levin for appointment to the Leonard Morse Hospital Local Advisory Board. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Diana Ryder, whose appointment to the Advisory Board was expiring, expressing an interest in continuing to serve on the local board. Mr. Hughes moved to nominate Diana Ryder to the Leonard Morse Hospital Local Advisory Board. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO INFORMATION SYSTEMS ADVISORY BOARD
a. Roger Beer
In his letter of interest to the Board, Roger Beer had listed a number of committees in which he was interested in serving. Mr. Hughes noted that the Information Systems Advisory Board had been second on Mr. Beer’s list. Mr. Beer explained that he had to list them in some sort of order and there was not a great deal of distance in his preference between 1 and 4.
Mr. Ball inquired as to his technical background, and Mr. Beer responded that he had been in Information Systems and computers since graduating from college. He had worked for IBM and Digital and a couple of software firms. He had installed and maintained system hardware and had installed and maintained software. At this point in time he was a software developer for a software firm. He also noted that when he was in the consulting business he had worked in the public sector and private sector and had worked for the City of Boston and the State as a consultant. In addition he was a part-time instructor at Northeastern University.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Roger Beer to the Information Systems Advisory Board. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
JOHN CONNOLLY: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER BILL
Mr. McKinley recused himself from discussion of this matter.
At the Selectmen’s meeting of May 19, 2003, John Connolly of 6 Allen Street had requested an abatement of interest accrued on his water & sewer bill. Mr. Connolly had had a sewer backup occur and as a result he did not pay his water & sewer bill. The Board had asked for some additional information.
Mr. Ciccariello noticed in the correspondence presented to the Board that Mr. Connolly’s last direct water & sewer bill payment was in December 1997, but Mr. Connolly had indicated that the alleged sewer backup occurred in July 1998. He questioned if some of the interest
charges were the result of Mr. Connolly not paying the bill from December 1997.
Town Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer’s response was, “yes”. Mr. Palmer noted that the Board had asked him to prepare the amount of interest charges that had been levied as liens on real estate. The first lien went back to any bills issued after December 1997.
Mr. Ball inquired if the Town had received a bill or an invoice for the cleanup activities that took place as a result of the sewer backup. He recalled that in the last discussion with Mr. Connolly, Mr. Connolly
JOHN CONNOLLY: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER BILL (contd)
had not at that time actually submitted a bill to the Town. The Board suggested that he do so.
Mr. Palmer responded that there was a history that dated back several years that showed photographs of the backup. From his (Mr. Palmer’s) perspective it was an insurance claim. There was no damage from the sense of hiring someone to clean it up. The property owner cleaned it up. Mr. Connolly hadn’t paid any bills to be considered for reimbursement nor had he seen an invoice or estimate from Mr. Connolly of what those bills might have been.
Mr. Lemnios noted that he had not seen anything from Mr. Connolly.
If Mr. Connolly were to submit a bill to the Town for his time, efforts, labor, material cost, Mr. Ball inquired if that claim would be forwarded to the insurance company at this point. Mr. Palmer pointed out that the backup occurred five years ago and it was probably past the deadline. Mr. Lemnios added that there was a thirty day time period to make a claim.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that there was reference in the correspondence that according to John Moody, DPW Meter Reader, these bills were estimates since beginning 1995 to present. Notes had been left at the property. Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Connolly had converted to the new meter system as yet.
Mr. Connolly advised that he had not. He had received the letter about 2-l/2-3 weeks ago, but was hoping to resolve this situation first. When asked if it was true that the DPW had not been able to read his meter since 1995, Mr. Connolly advised that the DPW had not been at his house. He had never met Mr. Moody, and he had never seen a water meter guy at his house leaving a note, and his wife said the same thing.
In response to Mr. Ball’s question, Mr. Connolly advised that he never submitted a bill to the Town. As much as he didn’t want to, he did the cleanup. He called the Board of Health and asked to be logged in and spoke to Mr. Sisitsky (DPW Director) on Monday and Mr. Sisitsky said that he (Mr. Connolly) should have called a cleanup crew and the Town would have reimbursed him.
Mr. Connolly recalled that when he spoke with the Board he requested a print out of the principal and interest. He received a call from the Board of Selectmen’s office asking if he had received his copy. He said he hadn’t, but would come in and get one. He picked up a copy in the Selectmen’s office on July 9 and when he got back to work, there was a note under his door with a copy hand delivered. The letter was dated June 26 and he received it July 9.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Connolly to explain why he didn’t pay the December 1997 bill when nothing happened until July 1998. Mr. Connolly said he thought he paid every 4-5 months. He didn’t know if he paid on a monthly basis, but the bills were paid. Whether they were paid promptly or not was a different story.
Mr. Lemnios recalled that the last time Mr. Connolly was before the Board the primary rationale offered (for not paying the bills) was because he had a backup and didn’t think he was being treated equitably by the Town. Mr. Connolly confirmed that as being correct. When Mr. Lemnios pointed out that Mr. Connolly had stopped paying six months before the backup, Mr. Connolly responded that the payments were delinquent but he didn’t stop paying. Mr. Palmer noted that the last payment received was in December 1997 and there were bills issued in
February 1998 and May 1998 that were unpaid. If those two payment cycles were unpaid, Mr. Connolly apologized. From July 1998 on was when he started his protest.
Mr. Hughes called attention to Mr. Palmer’s memo, which explained that because the charges had gone to lien and were on the tax bills, the Board had no authority to do anything prior to Fiscal 2003. Mr. Palmer confirmed that as being correct.
JOHN CONNOLLY: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER BILL (contd)
To Mr. Hughes’ inquiry as to exactly what Mr. Connolly was asking the Board to do, Mr. Connolly responded that he wanted to rant and rave. He didn’t think he was treated fairly and got the run around. He would like to have the liens removed. He noted that some reference had been made to the fact that he should have made a claim, but he didn’t know what caused it and didn’t submit a bill. He could write down what he would like to see come from this and if the Board agreed, put it to rest.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how much Mr. Connolly’s bill would be without the interest charges, and Mr. Palmer responded that the Board had asked for how much interest charges had accrued on unpaid bills. The amounts of $496, $703, etc. (as shown on the documents prepared by Mr. Palmer) have gone to lien and three would have been paid as part of the real estate taxes. The only thing was the current charges of $763.75 and $61.79. Asked if that meant that Mr. Connolly had paid all of the interest charges, Mr. Palmer replied that that was correct. He (Mr. Connolly) paid them on his real estate and he (Mr. Connolly) had paid all of his real estate taxes.
Noting that Mr. Connolly said he took l/2 hour to an hour to take care of the problem, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Board could reduce the principal amount owed. Mr. Palmer thought the Board could probably do that, but felt that the Board would probably want to consider it as a claim and award a damage rather than a reduction of the bill. Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how to go about doing that, and Mr. Hughes responded that the Board could set a value on Mr. Connolly’s claim and agree to award that in terms of his damages. He could collect that by using it as a credit. Mr. Stern added that it would be subject to the appropriate submission of bills, and Mr. Connolly proposed that he put in writing what he would like to see.
Mr. Lemnios told the Board that his advice would be not to entertain claims that were greater than five years old. Mr. Connolly called the Board of Health the day after, and he had the right to file a claim at that point. He (Mr. Lemnios) didn’t think it would be appropriate to go down that path and set that kind of precedent. He understood that Mr. Connolly had an inconvenience, but this was not the right kind of mechanics (to resolve). This occurred five years ago and the Town had not yet received anything even though it was asked that information be forwarded.
Notwithstanding the advice of Mr. Lemnios, Mr. Ball urged Mr. Connolly to submit a bill that said ‘time spent cleaning up’ at ‘x’ an hour, a gallon of bleach, etc. and send that to the Board. The Board may decide that it was five years old and vote no, but he would vote to credit it. While he recognized the validity of what Mr. Lemnios said, Mr. Connolly did not negotiate the maze Town government somewhat presents. It was five years old, but it happened. Mr. Connolly has paid for back water bills one way or another and he (Mr. Ball) would entertain payment of the invoice if it was a reasonable one and use it against existing water bills.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to when the Board could expect something from Mr. Connolly, and Mr. Connolly responded that he would write it this evening and drop it off tomorrow.
Mr. Hughes moved to schedule Mr. Connolly’s request for the meeting of July 28, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
LOOKOUT FARM ADVISORY COMMITTEE: UPDATE
Chairman of the Lookout Farm Advisory Committee Kenneth Soderholm noted that the Board had appointed the Lookout Farm Advisory Committee in February 1999. He chaired the committee for three years, but that appointment has run out. In the first few years the committee had a lot of meetings, but the last meetings were in October and November of 2001. At that time the committee had an itemized list of complaints that were narrowed down and most of them were resolved. Activities at the farm quieted down and nobody wanted to have a meeting.
It occurred to him that the committee’s appointments had run out so he sent a letter to the Board of Selectmen and he was here tonight to find out if the Board wanted to keep the committee going.
LOOKOUT FARM ADVISORY COMMITTEE: UPDATE (contd)
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what the farm’s attorney said about continuing the committee, and Mr. Soderholm responded that he (attorney) said the farm would be happy to continue to work with the Town in whatever forum the Board of Selectmen determined appropriate.
Mr. Hughes then asked what the Board could do to help get everybody together for a meeting. Maybe it was time to be proactive rather than wait. It was his understanding that there was some building going on down there without a permit. Mr. Soderholm responded that the committee would have to be reappointed. One neighbor resigned but Mr. Emanuelli and Mr. Mumford were still interested. The farm wasn’t enthusiastic about having a meeting right away so maybe the best thing would be to go through the process and have a meeting in the fall.
Mr. Hughes thought this was a worthwhile endeavor and suggested advertising for neighborhood representatives including those who want to be reappointed and inquire if the other people on the committee would stay the same or if there would be different appointees. It was now July 14 and to shoot for the fall, the process needed to get started now.
Mr. McKinley felt that the committee had been a valuable organization. There seemed to be a lull at the moment, but he did not believe it would hurt to be proactive.
Mr. McKinley moved to post the appropriate notice to solicit for people interested in being appointed or reappointed to the Lookout Farm Advisory Committee. Mr. Hughes seconded with the amendment that the appointments be made at the first meeting in August. After a brief discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
In speaking to Mr. Hughes’ suggestion of the first meeting of August, Mr. McKinley felt that that might be rushing it and he wouldn’t mind putting it off. Mr. Hughes was of the opinion that September 2 was waiting too long. If the appointments weren’t made until then, it would probably be November until a meeting was actually held. Mr. Ciccariello stated that it was his preference to get the committee back as quickly as possible.
Mr. Hughes then moved to reappoint the current members of the committee and ask Mr. Soderholm to be chairman pro tem to call the other members to see if they were still interested and report the vacancies back to the Board. The vacancies would then be advertised. There was no second and the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. McKinley was confused with what was trying to be accomplished. Generally when an advisory committee was set, it remained set until the activity concluded or the committee was reorganized. Mr. Stern pointed
out that in the charge, it was stated that appointment was for a three-year term so the committee had a sunset. Mr. McKinley noted that didn’t imply that the committee had a sunset, just the individual appointments.
Mr. Lemnios suggested that at the next meeting the Board be given a list of whose terms expired and the staff would poll the members interested in being reappointed. Interviews could be held on August 18
and that would get a full committee in place before Labor Day. Mr. Hughes so moved. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. Soderholm told the Board that he anticipated a concern from Irma DeBruyn who had expressed a lot of concern about the meeting minutes. No one wanted to be the secretary, and he could never get anybody to transcribe the minutes. They were on file with the Conservation Commission. There was a problem with staffing and he asked if the Board had any advice as to how to correct that. He would be happy if a staff person could be assigned to this committee.
Mr. Stern responded that it was clearly an issue that the Board would have to look into and address.
Irma DeBruyn of 6 Indian Ridge Road stated that the importance of minutes was extreme. The meetings of the Advisory Committee were
represented by lawyers who were using a very strict legal procedure and giving legal information. Without official minutes it was very hard to
LOOKOUT FARM ADVISORY COMMITTEE: UPDATE (contd)
know exactly what had taken place at those meetings. He felt it would be incumbent that a staff person be appointed and mandated to do it, not as a favor, but as part of their job to act as secretary to this committee.
As to the quiet period, Ms. DeBruyn commented on things she observed and questions she raised. Last year in October she went to Lookout Farm and found a woman walking around the entrance to the parking area. The woman held up a bag and said she spent $40 on the bag of apples because every child was charged $5 to enter. Ms. DeBruyn said she found an irate man who said it cost $70 to buy apples. She recalled that in part of the discussion (of the train), it was said that any cost of the rides would be applied to the cost of the apples. The rides were now being offered not as part of picking the apples. She questioned if the Board of Selectmen had ever issued a license to conduct rides. She spoke to the Board of Selectmen’s secretary and to her (Ms. DeBruyn’s) knowledge that had never
been addressed.
Ms. DeBruyn continued that she spoke to somebody in the Assessors’ or Collectors’ office when she was trying to understand how much land was under the farm APR. She was told that Marino was paying full rate for the full farm and because of that he was released from any agreement with the Town that would limit his activities. This Board (Selectmen) signed an agreement and the Town was actually a party to the agreement of having the APR, and she was concerned when she was told that Marino was changing the agreement. She would like somebody to clarify that for her.
FRANCES FRIEDMAN: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER BILL
Frances Friedman of 21 Hemlock Drive appeared before the Board to request an abatement of her May 5, 2003 water bill. In a memo to the Board, Finance Director Robert Palmer noted that Ms. Friedman complained of being billed for excessive water use. Typically her bill resulted in a minimum bill, but the May 5 charges were based on a consumption of 29 hcf for a bill of $251.50. The meter was replaced, tested, and verified that the reading reflected the actual meter reading. The reading was correct and there did not appear to be any defect in the equipment.
Ms. Friedman advised that she had received a copy of Mr. Palmer’s letter, but the letter said that the meter removed from her home worked perfectly. She was disappointed that there was no mention of the fact that she had informed the Board that she was not at home for two months and didn’t use the water and the DPW confirmed that there were no leaks in the house. She still asked that the Board give her a logical reason for that amount of water usage when no one was home and there were no leaks. She didn’t know if the meter was put in improperly, but she didn’t think the Board could logically tell her where the water came from and where it went when she wasn’t there and there weren’t any leaks. Ms. Friedman noted that she had given the Board a three-year history of water usage and
in 46 years of living in Town she had never
received such an outrageous water bill. It was her firm belief that there was an aberration and the meter did not function properly.
Ms. Friedman continued that no one could tell her that the new meters never fault. The gentleman who came to replace the meter was showing her how it works and it broke in his hand. Nothing works perfectly. She was requesting that she only be required to pay the minimum bill because 99.9% of the time that was all the water she had used in 46 years. Ms. Friedman reiterated her request for a discount of this bill, which was illogical. She could not account for that usage and neither could the Board.
Noting that Ms. Friedman had been away for two months, Mr. Ball inquired if she had gone away for that same period last year. Ms. Friedman advised that she had. In follow-up Mr. Ball inquired if someone checked on her house last year, and again Ms. Friedman’s response was, ‘yes’, adding that it was the same person this year.
Mr. Lemnios inquired as to the period Ms. Friedman was away and Ms. Friedman responded that it was February and March. Mr. Lemnios pointed out that this winter had a lot more snow and cold than the previous five years and he questioned if it was possible that the person
FRANCES FRIEDMAN: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER BILL (contd)
checking the house left a faucet running to prevent pipes from freezing. Ms. Friedman’s response was, “no”, adding that that person was in the house almost every single day. This bill was an aberration. Something was wrong.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the February 2003 bill reflected a usage of 8. Previously it was 8-10 and the most recent on May 2003 reflected a usage of 29. Based on what he was looking at if there were no leaks, it could be a meter malfunction. Mr. McKinley stated that he would love to accept that but why would the meter return to working normally. While Ms. Friedman was away a lot of water was used. Ms. Friedman noted that she had requested that the meter be removed, and Mr. McKinley countered that the meter was tested after it was removed. Ms. Friedman felt that that was proof of nothing and repeated her request that the Board look at previous usage. As reasonable people she was asking the Board to discount the bill, accept the minimum payment, and give her a new bill for that payment indicating such and be
done with it.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board normally did not abate the MWRA fees because the Town was stuck paying for it. Mr. Palmer wasn’t sure of what the MWRA portion of Ms. Friedman’s bill had been but it was probably about 50%. Mr. Hughes advised that it had been $133.30. Ms. Friedman noted that the billing people had told her that the minimum would be $35.00 and that included the MWRA and water and sewer charges. She couldn’t believe that the Town had already paid the MWRA that money. Mr. Ciccariello responded that even though Ms. Friedman’s bill had not been resolved, the Town was obligated to pay it.
Ms. Friedman noted that she came to the Board before the bill was due and requested an abatement, which made her question why the Town would pay the MWRA when the matter wasn’t resolved.
No motion was made by any member of the Board, and Mr. Stern explained to Ms. Friedman that the Board would be unable to address her concerns. Ms. Friedman questioned that, and Mr. Stern again explained that the Board had declined to take any action on her request. The bill stood. Ms. Friedman expressed her anger by telling the Board that they were elected to do the business of the people. Mr. Stern firmly responded that the issue was now closed and Ms. Friedman had had ample time to address the Board. Ms. Friedman was welcome to send a letter to the Town Administrator, but the issue was done for the moment.
MARY JULIANI: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER BILL
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Mary Juliani of 2 Curtis Road requesting an abatement of her water & sewer bill due to a leak in her pool.
In a memo to the Board, Mr. Palmer noted that the basis for the requested abatement was that the water used in filling a pool did not discharge into the sewer and, therefore, the sewer charges should be abated. He advised that on October 1, 1996 an adjustment was made that abated the entire sewer and MWRA charges assessed for the three month period prior to 7/10/96. The amount abated at that time totaled $609.21, but that adjustment was allowed prior to the reorganization of the water and sewer billing activities. The current policy did not allow a discount or allowance for water used to fill hot tubs, pools,
or other optional facilities. He requested that the Board review the current policy and formally adopt this as their policy or provide an alternative policy directive.
Mr. Palmer noted that Ms. Juliani had a single meter, which meant that she was paying sewer charges because it was running into a residential meter. She could hire an agent to come in and fill the pool or could install a second irrigation meter and not pay sewer charges.
Mr. McKinley recalled dealing with a similar situation a couple of years ago and when the math was done, the cost of installing a separate meter pretty much wiped out a savings. Mr. Palmer concurred that there
was an expense of bringing in a plumber and some period of time before a savings would be seen.
He noted that this person had indicated that she received a reduction in 1996, but the office was restructured and no longer was anyone
MARY JULIANI: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER BILL (contd)
making a decision on abating those things. When people have had excessive usage for a pool, adjustments have not been made.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that the Board didn’t have a choice on the MWRA. The Town was assessed by the MWRA, and he thought it would be unfair for the Board to waive the MWRA sewer assessment because somebody filled their swimming pool. That would be penalizing all of the ratepayers.
Mr. Hughes wasn’t sure that it was necessarily that simple. The MWRA assessment was a charge based on their costs to recover and the Town’s population. It didn’t have that much to do directly with the water use. The Town takes the charge and spreads it over the user base and if Ms. Juliani hadn’t filled the pool, there wouldn’t be a MWRA charge based on so many 100 cubic feet.
Mr. Palmer added that the MWRA was based in part on use and population. It was required to be collected and assessed on usage. When he did the rate structure, he didn’t take into account that some MWRA charges would be abated. It was not that scientific.
Mr. McKinley commented that he didn’t have a pool, but he would have investigated it before and not after. He felt the Board should table this one. When asked by Mr. Ball to what end, Mr. McKinley’s response was, “no further action”.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the applicant was not present. He would be willing to listen if the applicant wanted to come before the Board. At this point he didn’t see any action required since the applicant was not here.
DOWNTOWN PARKING
In his introduction of the presentation, Mr. Lemnios noted that a working committee was put together of Town staff and the Downtown Center Associates to look at the nature of the parking in the downtown.
Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian would walk the Board through the permit process and parking fees, and Parking Clerk Sebastian Grupposo would talk about a replacement program. Natick Center Associates Director Steven Greenberg would comment relative to the downtown. At the conclusion of the presentation the Board would be asked to adopt the procedures and adopt the change in rates.
Sergeant Robert Davis reported that there were 752 parking spaces in the business district or 787 with the commuter lot. The 752 spaces
were broken down into two hour parking with 290 two-hour parking spaces that were enforced by the enforcement officer. Nobody was allowed to remain at the meter for more than two hours. There were two rows of five-hour parking meters on Pond Street and a series of meters behind the Federal Bank. There were 67 five-hour meters, and feeding of meters was allowed. The Middlesex Avenue garage was for permit parking with 142 spaces. The Police public safety lot had 180 spaces of which 38 were assigned to the Police Department and 24 to the Fire Department for employee parking.
Mr. Sarkisian reviewed the parking procedures for the downtown businesses, commuters, Town employees, senior citizens, and the issuance of a parking permit. He noted that each category of permit was color-coded and permits had to be affixed to the rearview mirror by January 30 of each year. The fee for downtown businesses was $300.00 per permit and for commuters it was $525 for Natick residents and $625 for non-residents. A senior citizen permit allowed for parking at any two-hour meter and after two hours the car must be moved.
Mr. Sarkisian recognized the tremendous job done by Executive Assistant Ann Greel with sending out the renewal notices and answering questions from the public. He also noted that this was the policy that had taken place for a number of years, but never formally adopted by the Board of
Selectmen. The permit fee would be brought back to the Board every two years.
Mr. Lemnios addressed parking meter fees. He noted that there were a series of five-hour meters in Town that served a purpose, but it was recognized that there was an inequity. You pay 25 cents for the first
DOWNTOWN PARKING (contd)
hour and 25 cents for the next four. He was recommending a true 25 cents per hour meter and that was supported by the Downtown Associates. There were a series of meters in Town that were mechanical meters and the trend was to go to solid state.
Mr. Stern inquired as to the cost, and Mr. Lemnios responded that at $125 per unit it was $11,000 to replace the five-hour meters. There were also some two-hour meters that they would like to see replaced for $10,000. There was a hand held reader to change the conditions of the meter from one hour to three hours, but more importantly it gave an inventory control mechanism by giving an exact reading to the number of coins.
Parking Clerk and Hearing Officer Sebastian Grupposo explained that on Pond Street there were 59 five-hour meters that will be replaced with the new meters described by Mr. Lemnios. At the Summer Street lot there were a total of 24 five-hour meters to be replaced by the new meters. That was all of the five-hour meters in the Town.
Mr. Grupposo continued that the new two hour meters were free option meters that can give 5, 10, 15 minutes of extra time. The hope was to give 10 minutes. In 10 minutes people can run in and pick up something. Those meters were located on Main Street and South Main Street. On the easterly side from Citizens Bank to the Common will be the new two-hour free option meters. On the westerly side on Main Street from the Federal Bank to the Clark Block will be the two-hour free option meters. The work would be done in three phases, possibly two.
Mr. Grupposo noted that in 1998 the Town had the opportunity to pick up the old meters for nothing from Wellesley and Milton. When MMA was running the operation, they fixed the meters. The meters being taken off (in the replacement program) will now be used to fix the old ones. 1998 was the last expenditure of parts. Mr. Grupposo thought getting these new meters would save a lot of problems.
Mr. Stern inquired as to why the replacement was being done in phases, and was told by Mr. Grupposo that it was money. Mr. Stern pointed out that the plan was to do it in the same fiscal year, and Mr. Lemnios explained that money was set aside for the first phase and a small appropriation was available for phase II. The first phase was the
five-hour meters and the two-hour meters mentioned by Mr. Grupposo.
The option meters allow someone to pull up to a store, press the button, and receive 10 minutes on the meter. The feeling was that that was a business friendly meter. There had been talk about sprinkling them (option meters) around, but it was felt that there would be complaints from businesses and would add to confusion. The goal was to make it uniform. The meters beside Town Hall would not need to be replaced as they were fairly new. They were looking to replace the meters that get a lot of use and situated primarily in front of businesses.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Ball, Mr. Lemnios noted that the meters next to Town Hall were in good shape. A premium of $20 per meter was paid to have the 10-minute option meters and the thought was that it would be best served to have them in front of all the downtown businesses.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the free service was provided to the handicapped spaces in the Town Hall parking lot, and was told by Mr. Grupposo that all handicapped spaces were free of meters.
For the meters that were proposed to be installed, Mr. Stern inquired if there was more than one company that can make the meters. Mr.
Lemnios advised that there were several and it would be a competitive bid. It has not gone out to bid, but the documents have been prepared.
Natick Center Associates Director Steven Greenberg thanked the Police Department, Town Hall, Parking Enforcement, and Community Development for working through this. He thought it would make a big difference in how some things worked downtown.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. Grupposo found there was a lot of abuse of individuals using handicapped spaces, and Mr. Grupposo advised that he used to get a lot of people parking at the hospital. Anyone who had
DOWNTOWN PARKING (contd)
a placard and forgot to put it up, he would excuse, but he wouldn’t excuse anyone who did not have a placard.
Mr. Hughes moved to change the five-hour meters to a true 25 cents per hour by charging 25 cents for hours 3,4,5. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes then moved to adopt the parking procedures as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley questioned if somebody was working on a master plan to increase downtown parking. Mr. Lemnios noted that the Downtown Associates, Steve Wolf, himself, Mr. Sarkisian, and Mr. Grupposo were working on that. The next phase was to begin looking in earnest at potential solutions down the road.
Mr. Lemnios thanked Ann Greel, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Grupposo, Sergeant Davis, Mr. Sisitsky, the Downtown Associates, Steve Wolf, and Steve Greenberg for putting this together.
TREASURER/COLLECTOR: BOND REFINANCING
Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer noted that he had had a query from the Board about doing a refinancing on bonds. The bond rates were very low and he recommended refinancing some old debt. He was looking for authorization for the Treasurer to solicit proposals for bond refunding.
Mr. Palmer explained that bond refinancing was not like refinancing a home. The preliminary analysis indicated a savings of maybe $200,000 although that was a conservative estimate. He would come back to the Board with the exact savings and the cost involved, but he felt it was at a point where it would be worthwhile to do the refinancing. He added that any savings on the Brown School would have to be shared with the State.
To Mr. Hughes’ comment that bonds from 1997 couldn’t be refinanced before 2007, Mr. Palmer responded that they couldn’t be paid off. Asked if that money would be borrowed and put in the stabilization fund, Mr. Palmer advised that it would be borrowed and invested and the money earned would offset the current debt. In 2007 the bonds would be paid off.
Mr. Stern inquired as to the principal to be refinanced, and was told by Mr. Palmer that it would be $11,145,000.
Mr. Hughes moved to adopt the following motion as drafted by bond counsel. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted:
That, in order to reduce interest costs, the Treasurer is authorized to provide for the sale and issuance of bonds under G.L. c.44 §21A, to refund all or any portion of the remaining principal of and redemption premium and interest on the Town’s Municipal Purpose Loan of 1992 Bonds dated August 1, 1992, the Town’s Municipal Purpose Loan of 1994 Bonds dated October 1, 1994, the Town’s Municipal Purpose Loan of 1996 Bonds dated August 1, 1996, and the Town’s Municipal Purpose Loan of 1997 Bonds dated May 15, 1997; and that for this purpose the Treasurer is authorized to provide for the preparation and distribution of a Preliminary Official Statement; provided, however, that no bonds shall be issued under this vote unless and until the final interest rates and other terms of the refunding bonds are approved by
this board.
Mr. Lemnios recognized Mr. Palmer’s efforts on this issue.
TOWN ENGINEER: STORM WATER PLAN
Town Engineer Mark Coviello advised that the Town was required by EPA to prepare a storm water master plan. This was a five-year plan that
utilized six minimum control measures (MCM). Those six were as follows:
1)Public Education and Outreach; 2) Public Participation/Involvement; 3) Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination; 4) Construction Site Runoff Control; 5) Post-Construction Runoff Control; 6) Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping.
For each of the MCM the Town must specify Best Management Practices (BMP) or tasks that must be completed to comply with the program. The Town has developed a storm water master plan that will be used as
TOWN ENGINEER: STORM WATER PLAN (contd)
supporting documentation to the permit application. The master plan detailed the program requirements, current activities being completed by the Town, and proposed BMP’s.
Mr. Coviello noted that the Town hired Beta Group, Mike McNally, to prepare the master plan and the Town was obligated to file a notice of intent by July 31, 2003. The Board of Selectmen was being asked to authorize the Town Administrator to file the notice of intent and being asked to establish a storm water committee to guide the implementation of the plan. The recommended composition of the committee should include the Town Administrator, Environmental Compliance Officer, Community Development Director, Board of Health Director, Director of Public Works.
In response to a comment from Mr. Hughes, Mr. Coviello noted that many of the components were already being done. Natick was ahead of the curve in many of the things being done.
Mr. Hughes noted that 18 months ago there was a discussion of a number of areas where storm water problems had developed such as in Wethersfield and Middle Street. When asked to address some of those issues, Mr. Coviello advised that those issues were separate from this
plan. Preliminary designs had been done for the five areas and the DPW would work out a schedule with the Town Administrator to do capital improvements.
Mr. Ball inquired as to where the acceptance of street sweepings for the gravel pit closure stood. Mr. Coviello thought that was close to being approved, but the Town was waiting for input from DEP.
Mr. Ball stated that he wasn’t sure of the relationship between the storm water plan and impaired water bodies. Lake Cochituate was listed and the goal was to improve water quality. He questioned if the presence of milfoil was an impairment. Mr. McNally replied that the items listed on the plan were part of the impaired water bodies identified by DEP. It struck Mr. Ball that if the treatment of milfoil required putting chemicals into the lake at least the existence of milfoil should be acknowledged as a component of the problem.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that Jennings Pond was on the impaired list, but the Town just did a remake of Jennings Pond. Was there still a problem? Mr. Coviello noted that Jennings Pond was still on the list from the state. The plan was to address discharges to water bodies, streams and wetlands. The Town will be required to do testing, but ultimately there may be a limit to what can discharge into the body. Mr. McKinley pointed out that this was a storm water treatment plan and should not be confused with the water quality issues.
Mr. Hughes moved to instruct the Town Administrator to sign the notice of intent for the storm water treatment plant master plan and to establish the storm water management committee as recommended. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley questioned the need for the Town Administrator to be on the committee, but Mr. Lemnios told the Board that he would like to be part of it.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR:
a. Affordable Housing
Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian reported that the Planning Board had been very active in recent months in holding meetings on affordable housing. They have been meeting not only with
the residents but with the Natick Center Associates, DHCD, Edward Santos the Natick Housing Authority Director and people on the Natick Housing Partnership group. A lot of information had been gathered toward a housing plan. There were only two housing plans submitted to DHCD, and he hoped to have one submitted this fall but it didn’t look like it would happen.
Mr. Sarkisian reviewed the handout submitted. The packet included Natick’s affordable housing history. He noted that Natick was one of the first communities to have a housing commission in place. MAPC gave
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: (contd)
the Board a build out analysis. The goal of 40B was for every Town to be at 10%. Natick was at 5.05%. Several changes have occurred in the
40B law including a change in the way rental units were counted. Also under the new law, bedrooms can be counted. The Brandon School has 16 bedrooms in the facility and those units would count toward affordable housing. There was still a question on Section 8 housing. The Town had 150 units, which don’t count, and Mr. Sarkisian thought the Governor was looking to revise it so that Section 8 would count.
Mr. Sarkisian continued that the Town needed to have an affordable housing plan in place and the Board’s help was needed. This (affordable housing) was on the agenda of every Planning Board meeting. Mr. Sarkisian referred to a map showing the creation of a housing overlay option plan in an area in Town where people would like to see affordable housing. He noted that it was something that was happening right now with the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Referring to a map, Mr. Sarkisian highlighted the area along North Main Street back toward the center as one of the areas for the proposed housing overlay. He noted that a lot of redevelopment was currently happening along North Main Street by approval from the ZBA, but when they appear before the ZBA it gets into a game of how many units. The ZBA was in a difficult situation where they were presented with a plan they would like to see reconfigured, but had no legal authority to require units. Some zoning could be put
into place to have some control over it. Right now a proposal for Dewey Street should be submitted within the next couple of weeks, Arena Auto was talking to Mass Housing Corp on South Avenue, and there was some discussion of property next to the
Sons of Italy on Washington Avenue. Tonight the ZBA was voting on another housing project along Mechanic Street.
Mr. Sarkisian showed a master plan of what housing would look like under the plan. For the draft by-law one question was how many units. If the Town was ever going to get ahead of the game, the percentage of affordable had to be increased beyond 10%. One of the state’s goals for affordable housing was that it be near transportation and the possibility of using industrial buildings for affordable housing.
In conclusion, Mr. Sarkisian stated that he was almost positive that there would not be an article for the Fall Town Meeting, but the goal was to have something for the Spring Town Meeting. The goal was to work toward being Executive 418 compliant.
Mr. McKinley noted that he and Planning Board member Kenneth Soderholm went to a meeting last week where the topic was quality of life in Massachusetts. At the meeting there was a discussion that people can’t afford to live here any more. Many of the solutions didn’t solve the problem and much of what was being proposed here didn’t either. His (Mr. McKinley) son and daughter don’t live in Natick because they can’t afford to. This (overlay plan) was talking about backing up to the
railroad tracks, but that was not what people were looking for. The Town needs to look at places like Wethersfield or Eisenhower Ave where after World War II small homes were sold that were affordable. If the community was serious about providing housing for people growing up in this Town who want to stay or people who want to join the community,
the Town needs to look at serious rezoning in some parts that were limited to one acre. There was a need to provide incentive to developers to build small attractive affordable housing.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that some development on Main Street required ZBA approvals. In accordance with the by-law the developer can only build two units and the ZBA was granting them a variance to build 8 units. Mr. Ciccariello questioned if Mr. Sarkisian was suggesting that the ZBA
did not have the right to set a condition that if there was a variance for eight units, some be required for affordable housing units. Mr. Sarkisian advised that unless there was a zoning change the ZBA didn’t have the legal authority to say they would give a developer six units, but two of those six would have to be affordable. Mr. Ciccariello questioned why the ZBA was then giving a variance to allow a developer to build 8 units on a lot that allowed two units. Mr. Sarkisian noted that it was a matter of redevelopment and seeing some of those old buildings come down and be redeveloped. He also thought that in meeting with abutters, they also wanted it to happen. It put the ZBA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: (contd)
in a difficult position which was the reason a plan was needed and zoning in place for mandatory affordable housing.
Mr. Hughes didn’t see why this article couldn’t go before the Fall Town Meeting. Otherwise there will be a year of hearings before the ZBA where there would be no control because this wasn’t in place. Mr. Sarkisian noted that the warrant closed August 22, which didn’t give a lot of time to put something together. He would need the Board’s help to make it happen that fast. This was a Planning Board, Historic District, abutters, business owners, ZBA, Natick Center Associates, Board of Selectmen issue.
If only two units were allowed on a lot on Main Street, Mr. Ciccariello asked why the ZBA couldn’t deny a request for 8 units and tell the applicant to build two units. Mr. Sarkisian advised that the ZBA could, and Mr. Ciccariello followed-up by asking why the ZBA was then just allowing more units to be built when the Town wasn’t benefiting. Mr. Sarkisian pointed out that there wasn’t one child living in those townhouses. There were all commuters going into Boston. He reiterated that the ZBA was in a difficult position because they don’t have the tools they need to make the requirements being suggested. The developers would say they can’t give a unit up. The Planning Board asked Bernard to give land for affording housing and that will be coming before the Board of Selectmen
soon. The Town will get the lot and have it transferred to the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he had spoken to Mr. Sarkisian several times about how many small lots the Town owned of 5,000-12,000 square feet that were not considered buildable that the Board could put an RFP out
to get affordable housing. He thought that spoke to what Mr. McKinley was talking about. Mr. Sarkisian felt that just that one suggestion could be an agenda item for one meeting and the list could be produced by the Open Space Advisory Committee. Mr. Hughes thought the list existed from when the committee was looking at selling property for
Wilson and there were not a lot of lots the Town owned that could be used. The Board was working on one lot on Everett Street.
Under the housing overlay plan being talked about, Mr. Lemnios inquired as to the total number of units. Referring to the map, Mr. Sarkisian noted that the zoning in the orange section permitted higher building but once it got into the downtown, it got into parking issues. It was difficult to give a number without going through the zoning and doing a masking plan. There would be at least 150-200 units downtown.
Mr. Stern commented that what was presented tonight was an initiative he applauded. He felt that it was important for the Town to encourage growth and control growth in a responsible manner. He supported what Mr. Sarkisian was working on and would like to see it continue to be developed in a more comprehensive manner.
Mr. Ball asked about the income levels and was told by Mr. Sarkisian that the median family income in the state was $80,800. To be eligible for affordable housing a single person could make up to $43,850, 2 people $50,100, 3 people $56,400, 4 people $62,650, 5 people $67,657.
b. Route 135
Mr. Sarkisian informed the Board that a preconstruction meeting for the Route 135 project was scheduled for tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. The contractor, engineer and site foreman had been invited and would re-familiarize everyone with the project and hear from the businesses. The plan was to start at the Framingham town line and work toward Kendall Lane. The work would be done in phases and he didn’t see them
coming into the downtown until after the Marathon although there could be some utility work. Next week they will place signage. There were also a lot of erosion control measures that have to take place.
Mr. Sarkisian reminded the Board that this project initiated from a conservation project to link the downtown, Pegan Cove, and train station. That same year he (Mr. Sarkisian) got a call from Mass Highway asking the Town to take over the road. The project involved some landscaping around the Wilson Shoe Repair Shop, the reconstruction of Middlesex Path, some granite curbing on a piece of Middlesex Avenue,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: (contd)
a new bus stop on the Common, ornamental lights, a new signal at Hayes & Clarendon, and trees. It was a $3.5 million project with 2½ construction seasons to complete. The contractor was required to keep the road open and can only work from 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
Mr. Sarkisian continued that this was not a full depth construction like Framingham. The only place where the pavement would be taken off was in the historic district. This was a maintenance project except in the core of the downtown. The underground lighting has been approved, but he didn’t want the light poles to come down until the new ones went up.
Mr. Hughes asked if the construction would impact the 100-year-old sewer connections, and Mr. Sarkisian responded that Jack Perodeau,
Water & Sewer Supervisor and DPW Director Charles Sisitsky were ahead of the game and a major portion of the sewer in the area had been completed and rehabbed.
c. Speen Street Property: West Natick Fire Station
Mr. Sarkisian recalled that in May 2002, the Board received a letter from DCAM asking if the Town would be interested in acquiring 1.09 acres adjacent to the West Natick fire station. The administration came up with the thought of that land providing fire access to the Sherwood Plaza. The plan now before the Board was done by General
Growth Properties. Mr. Sarkisian noted that he had met with them (General Growth) before and identified this as a place the Town would like to see improvements. When Mr. Lemnios came on board he asked that he (Mr. Sarkisian) get a price for owning and for having an easement. DCAM had an appraisal done and the final number came to $32,500 for both fee and interest. For the same price, it made sense to own the property.
Mr. Sarkisian noted that currently there was $40,000 available for Speen Street improvements from Pace. DCAM was asking the Board to take a vote on acquiring the property and placing an article on the warrant for Fall Town Meeting.
Mr. Hughes moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to who had control over the $32,500 and Mr. Sarkisian advised that it was under the Planning Board’s control. Mr. McKinley noted that the Board was recommending that the Planning Board spring the $32,500 to buy the site but the Board couldn’t tell them. Mr. Stern noted that money would also be needed for the appropriate acquisition fees and legal costs. Mr. Lemnios advised that there was money to process the legal requirements.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to why it was going to Town Meeting, and Mr. Lemnios advised that it was because of land acquisition. Mr. Hughes wasn’t sure and requested that Mr. Lemnios check on it.
Mr. Stern asked if Mr. Sarkisian had seen the appraisal, and Mr. Sarkisian advised that he had not. He just had a letter.
Noting that the land was acquired by eminent domain, Mr. Ball inquired if there was any idea of the cost of the land at that time, but Mr. Sarkisian didn’t know. If the state took the land by eminent domain for public purposes and now those purposes don’t exist, Mr. Hughes asked that Mr. Lemnios check with Town Counsel to make sure the state didn’t have to offer it back to whomever they took it from.
Mr. Ball recalled another piece of property that was offered by DCAM at the intersection of Speen and Hartford that was acquired by the state, and the state offered it to the Town first. He didn’t think the original owner was in the loop.
Mr. Lemnios congratulated Mr. Sarkisian on pinning DCAM down to a commitment. This property will provide a valuable mechanism to service the businesses and people in the area.
d. Building Fees – Permit Process
Mr. Sarkisian noted that he had been asked to survey other towns to see what they do as far as verifying the cost of permits. A lot of
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: (contd)
communities use the factor between $100-150 per foot. Some communities such as Marlborough use the Marshall & Swift publication. Franklin applies a method where they take typical homes and give an average. Framingham uses the calculation method based on first floor, second floor and give factors for each one. No one size fits all.
Mr. Sarkisian advised that he sat down with the inspectors and they will ask people to correct an estimate. He was recommending that all construction projects should require that the amount shown on an application she certified by an architect before and after for commercial projects. For residential new construction the recommendation was to require a copy of the contract if and only if the inspectors do not agree with the number provided on the permit and the values would be based on square footage - $25 basement, $60 first floor, $60 second floor, $25 deck, $25 garage. For alterations the same thing would apply – if the building inspectors do not agree and the applicant refuses to make a change, then the only fair way was to require a copy of the contract.
Mr. Hughes thanked Mr. Sarkisian for responding to some of his concerns. It appeared as though for residential a contract would only
be required as a last resort, and the building inspectors were confident that they would be able to address any discrepancy.
Mr. Hughes moved to adopt the proposals as stated in Mr. Sarkisian’s July 9, 2003 memo. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
MODIFICATION OF RESTAURANT ALL ALCOHOLIC LICENSE RULES & REGS
For the Board’s review, Town Counsel John Flynn had prepared a draft of proposed rules & regs for restaurants with a seating capacity of not less than 100 persons.
Mr. Ball called attention to page 2, #4 and suggested dropping the word ‘for’. The other members of the Board disagreed.
He then noted that section 7 stated that the names and addresses of each individual referred to in the preceding sentence shall be submitted to the Board of Selectmen and Chief of Police. This was not enforced, and Mr. Ball suggested that if it was something the Board
wanted to have happen, it should be enforced. This was one that was honored more in the breach than the observance.
Mr. Ball referred to Section II, #1. Frequently the Board gets plans not drawn to scale by a registered architect or engineer. If the Board
really wanted to keep that requirement, it would have to be more stringently enforced.
Regarding Section II, #2, Mr. Ball noted that the Board voted on several occasions to grant a license to something that wasn’t built as yet, but #2 said that the Board shall not act on any application, except to deny the issuance of the license applied for, in instances where the restaurant or function room in question requires additional construction in order to comply with the minimum seating capacity requirements. Mr. McKinley clarified that the Board approved licenses conditioned upon a plan presented. This section implied that the plan was insufficient and required addition work. It indicated that the application was deficient in the first place.
Mr. Ball then referred to Section IV, Hours of Sale and proposed that the word secular be replaced by Monday through Saturday. Secular was non-religious and it was not just Sunday that was non-secular.
Continuing, Mr. Ball pointed out that Section V, 1b basically said that the total number of seats in a lounge was not to exceed 10% of the seating capacity. In the section on bars and counters, the same wording was used. As written, Mr. Ball asked if the document allowed 10% for a lounge and another 10% for a bar or seating at the bar. Mr. Stern felt that that corresponded with the discussion of a week ago, and Mr. Ball recalled the answer being, ‘yes’.
Referring to Section V, 1c Mr. Ciccariello questioned if it was the intent not to allow stools. Vinny Testa’s has a bar and a waiting area
MODIFICATION OF RESTAURANT ALL ALCOHOLIC LICENSE RULES & REGS (contd)
with high tables and high stools. Mr. Hughes noted that the Dolphin had the bar in the waiting area and the rules & regs as written would require a restaurant to have separate areas. He wasn’t sure that was what the Board intended. Mr. Stern suggested eliminating 1c.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to the difference between a cocktail lounge and a bar, and Mr. Ciccariello responded that when this was last discussed, the Board felt it wanted some control. The Board may not want to allow a bar and a counter (in a particular restaurant), but may allow a lounge. Mr. Hughes noted that the current rules call for lounges and waiting areas. Mr. McKinley agreed and added that he was just trying to figure out if this was in the wrong place. Mr. Hughes explained that the Board had discussed wanting cocktail lounges and bars/counters in two separate parts of the rules so the Board could control either or both. Mr. McKinley pointed out that the way it was written a waiting area could serve as a cocktail lounge, but they can’t have a stool at a bar. Mr. Stern reiterated his
suggestion of eliminating 1c.
Looking at the hours of sale, Mr. Hughes noted that Section IV, #2 said ‘The hours during which the sale and service of all alcoholic beverages may be made in a public dining area are further limited to the hours during which the dining room was open and food service was available. In no event shall the sale and service of alcoholic beverages be
permitted outside the hours set forth in IV-1, above. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, alcoholic beverages may be sold and served to patrons in a public dining area, to whom a meal has been served, for up to one hour after the kitchen closes. It was his understanding that that language was going to be put into Sections V and VII. Mr. Stern concurred with making the language the same in all three sections.
Mr. Hughes moved to direct Town Counsel to incorporate the changes discussed tonight into the rules & regs and submit a final document for the Board to vote on at the meeting of July 28th. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes raised the issue of revisiting whether the addition of the bar required an additional fee. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Stern favored having such a discussion and requested that it be on the agenda for a future meeting. Mr. Ball felt that it would be helpful to have a recommendation from the Town Administrator or the Alcohol Policy Committee as to what other towns might do in that regard. Mr. Hughes, however, advised that the Alcohol Policy Committee did not do any research on fees.
CLUB LICENSE LEGISLATION: UPDATE
Mr. Lemnios reported that he had contacted Representative Linsky relative to the club license legislation, and Town Counsel was contacting the attorney for the ABCC.
Mr. Stern requested that the item be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
AWARD CONTRACT: SKATING RINK LEASE – FMC
Before the Board was a lease with Facility Management Corporation that Mr. Lemnios advised conformed to the RFP and was ready for the Board’s execution. Mr. Lemnios advised that FMC was ready to assume operation of the facility this week.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Town Counsel had reviewed the lease, and was told by Mr. Lemnios that Town Counsel had drafted it.
Mr. Hughes noted that he had requested a number of changes and thanked Mr. Lemnios for having those incorporated into the lease. He then pointed out that Article 7, Payment Bond had no amount.
Mr. Hughes also noted that under Article 14, Defaults, he had requested that it be a default if FMC recorded this lease. Mr. Lemnios responded that he spoke to Town Counsel about it and would check with Town Counsel on those two items. He proposed that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign on behalf of the Board.
AWARD CONTRACT: SKATING RINK LEASE – FMC (contd)
Mr. McKinley felt that it was important to proceed and those two items were easy things to fix. He moved that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the lease with Facility Management Corporation for the
West Suburban Arena. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted. The term of the lease was July 15, 2003-June 30, 2011.
MILITARY PAY SUPPLEMENT – EXTENSION
Mr. Lemnios reminded the Board that a pay differential had been granted to employees serving in the armed forces in the Middle East. There was one employee in the Fire Department who was still on active duty and the Board was being asked to renew the differential for six months. The employee would be paid the difference between his pay per year and military pay plus his family would be able to participate in health insurance benefits the same as every other employee.
Mr. Hughes moved to extend the military pay supplement, retroactive to the date the initial approval expired, for another six-month period –
from March 2003 to December 2003. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Lemnios noted that the Legislature had not as yet put in place a requirement that cities and towns provide this benefit. Natick as well as many other communities was doing this and in his estimation it was the right thing to do. He thought the Town should be proud.
FALL TOWN MEETING
Mr. Stern announced that the warrant for the October 21, 2003 Fall Town Meeting closed on August 22, 2003.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. South Avenue Signage
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Ernest Stone about signage on South Avenue. Mr. Ball thought the signage had been discussed and erected, but apparently it had not been. Mr. Lemnios was asked to check into the status.
b. Pay-As-You-Throw Complaint
Mr. Ball called attention to a letter in correspondence relative to pay-as-you-throw. Mr. Stern felt that the gentleman brought up an interesting point in requesting larger bags, and anything the Town could do to make it more convenient was something that should be considered.
Mr. Hughes commented that a couple of people indicated their concerns and displeasure, but in general the response has been phenomenal. There appeared to be less trash and more recycling, and he thought the program was working and getting the response the Board wanted.
Mr. Lemnios added that he was hearing from the DPW that there was a fabulous participation rate. They (DPW) were seeing increased recycling and trash pickup was going smoother than anticipated.
Mr. Lemnios was asked to respond to the letter.
c. Glen Street
Mr. Stern stated that he had received an e-mail regarding the condition of Glen Street and the response received from the DPW. He thought the response was less than satisfactory and not the kind of public relations the Board wanted to foster.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
_____________________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
