BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
September 2, 2003
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Jeffrey A. Stern at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Jeffrey A. Stern, John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation, real property negotiations, 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.
The open session was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved to approve the minutes of the June 19, 2003 meeting. The motion passed on a 3-0-2 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, and Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Stern and Mr. McKinley abstained.
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to approve the minutes of the June 30, 2003 meeting. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley abstained.
THE CENTER FOR ARTS IN NATICK: REQUEST FOR BANNER
Mr. Stern recused himself and Mr. Ciccariello chaired this item of the agenda.
Before the Board was a request from The Center for Arts in Natick to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of October 21-November 10, 2003 in advertisement of the grand opening scheduled for November 8, 2003.
Mr. Hughes felt that the three-week period being requested seemed like a long period of time, but Mr. McKinley believed that the significance of what TCAN had accomplished was almost immeasurable on the impact of the downtown. It was a once in a lifetime opening.
Mr. McKinley moved to approve the request.
Mr. Ball agreed that three weeks was a long time, and he proposed approving the request with the proviso that if someone else sought the earlier portion of this time period that they would not be precluded
from getting approved. The week leading up to November 8 was the most critical. He seconded Mr. McKinley’s motion to approve with the proviso that two of those weeks were not closed to other applicants. Mr. McKinley agreed to amend his motion, but preferred to only leave one week open to other applicants. Mr. Ball concurred. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Stern had recused himself and did not participate in the vote.
NATICK CENTER ASSOCIATES: REQUEST TO CLOSE MAIN STREET; BANNER
Mr. Stern resumed as Chair.
The Board was in receipt of a letter from the Natick Center Associates requesting permission to display a banner across Main Street advertising the First Light Celebration from November 17-December 6, 2003. Permission was also requested to close Main Street from North Avenue to the intersection of Route 135 from 5:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. on Saturday, December 6, 2003 to allow
NATICK CENTER ASSOCIATES: REQUEST TO CLOSE MAIN STREET; BANNER (contd)
First Light participants to stroll from store to store to enjoy a night of shopping, entertainment and food.
Natick Center Associates Executive Director Steven Greenberg told the Board that this was an event started two years ago. It didn’t occur last year and the Center Associates would like to bring it back.
Mr. McKinley recalled that when this took place two years ago, there was an influx of pedestrians trying to get across. It was hazardous because it was dark and he wanted to make sure that this year the Police were a little more on top of the event so there was a Police officer on duty at that moment. Mr. Lemnios assured the Board that he would arrange to have that taken care of. Mr. Ball advised that this had been discussed with Sergeant Davis. There will be adequate Police presence and there won’t be a repetition of what happened.
Mr. Ciccariello moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
MORSE INSTITUTE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES: ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
Paula Polk, Director of the Morse Institute Library, appeared before the Board to request the Board’s acceptance of a $100,000 donation from an anonymous grant to construct a temperature controlled archives room, and to award the construction contract to J&R Construction, Inc.
Ms. Polk noted that this project (temperature controlled archives room) had been several years in the making. Originally the hope had been to put it on the second floor of the old building, but after meetings with the Building Maintenance Director Corey Lovett, the Fire Department, and the Town Administrator, it was decided that the best place to put it was on a lower level. The project went out to bid, and Mr. Lemnios
has reviewed the paperwork. They had approval from the Fire and Building Departments and with the Board’s acceptance of this gift, she would like to proceed with the construction.
Mr. McKinley inquired if Town Meeting approval was required or if the Board could accept the check and approve the contract. Mr. Lemnios advised that it was within the Board’s authority to accept the check and award the contract.
If the Board accepted the check and awarded the contract, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the contract was under the Board’s jurisdiction regarding any change orders to the construction. Would the Board be approving those change orders before anybody else? The check was for $100,000 and the contract was a little over $93,000. If there were change orders, who had the authority to approve them to assure that it didn’t go over $100,000. Mr. Lemnios responded that the contract would be signed so it could not exceed $100,000. As to the approval of change orders, the Board could delegate authority to the Town Administrator or retain the rights.
Mr. Stern noted that the proposed contract was dated July 16, but he didn’t notice anything that made it valid or expired. Was the price still valid? Ms. Polk advised that she had talked to the low bidder and the price held. The bidder knew that she was waiting until after Labor Day weekend to present it to the Board of Selectmen. She added that the contract would definitely include that it would not exceed $100,000.
If you say that you were not going to pay more than $100,000 and it was expended because of change orders and the room wasn’t finished, Mr. Ball questioned what would happen. Mr. Ciccariello responded that the project stopped and the library didn’t have a finished project. Mr. Lemnios added that that was the case unless additional funds were received.
In follow-up Mr. Ball inquired if that scenario were to take place, would Ms. Polk foresee those additional funds being sought from the Town or generous donor. Ms. Polk responded that the funds would not be sought from the Town. They (library) would go back to the generous donor or there were several alternates. She noted that the contingency came to almost 7% and further noted that a lot of thought went into the plans. If the usefulness of the room were going to be compromised, Ms.
MORSE INSTITUTE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES: ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION (contd)
Polk stated that she would again be before the Board, but she would not be seeking funds from the Town.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the architect would do the construction administration as well. Ms. Polk advised that he would along with Corey Lovett and her. When asked if the fees were excluded from the $100,000, Ms. Polk’s reply was, “yes”, noting that it was bid some time ago. There were donations and no public funds used.
Once the room was constructed, Mr. Stern inquired if there was a budget to outfit it. Ms. Polk’s response was, “yes”.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that if Ms. Polk were going to rely on the alternates, he would like some language that the contractor would give the full amount of the alternate back to the Town. You couldn’t be choosy and had to go by 1,2,3,4,5,6. If going to decide on an alternate, it had to be decided early on. Ms. Polk noted that that (language) could be included in the final sign off. She also advised that there were only 1 or 2 alternates large enough to assist if it went over budget.
Mr. McKinley moved to accept the gift of $100,000 from an anonymous grant to construct a temperature controlled archives room at the library. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley then moved to authorize the Town Administrator to execute the contract with J&R Construction, Inc. with a base bid of $82,980 subject to Mr. Ciccariello’s recommendations made this evening. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
REPORT ON WINNEMAY STREET COMPLAINT
Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian reported on a complaint regarding 3 Winnemay Street. He referred to Local Building Inspector Michael Connolly’s report of August 27, 2003 and noted that he (Mr. Sarkisian) spoke to everyone involved including the owner of the property. A site visit was done and at this time there was no building code violation. The owner was asked if he would cover the windows and has placed plywood over the windows and has said he would have it painted over the next several weeks.
Mr. Sarkisian noted that the letter of complaint from Nora Field and Richard Geckle stated that Mr. Connolly did not return telephone calls, but that was not true. Mr. Connolly was here (in Town Hall) after hours on his own time returning telephone calls and reviewing plans. He (Mr. Sarkisian) took issue with the statement that nothing has been done. The Building Department was able to take some enforcement action as far as the piled rubbish, but the Town had no legal authority on the windows and there was no violation at this time. That was probably not the answer the complainants wanted, but that was the only authority the Town had.
INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE LOOKOUT FARM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
a. David Epstein
David Epstein told the Board that he had been on the Lookout Farm Advisory Committee for the past three years and would be happy to serve again. One of the things in the past, in his opinion, was that the Committee didn’t meet as regularly as needed. If there was a problem, the Committee met, but he would suggest that they meet on a regular basis, walk the farm, and hear from the constituents. That way they would be able to see and notice things that may be going on and need
attention. Without regular meetings perhaps things slipped through the cracks. The farm now was much quieter but he thought it was still important to have the liaison between the Town and the farm.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. Epstein wanted to be more proactive for the neighborhood or was he more concerned about what happened overall at the farm. Mr. Epstein’s response was, ‘both’, adding that he was concerned for his neighborhood and then the issue that it was a farm and he would like to see it remain a farm. It was an asset for the state.
Mr. Stern appreciated Mr. Epstein’s suggestion of touring the farm and asked if he thought the owner of the property would be amenable. Mr. Epstein thought it would depend on how it was presented to Mr. Marino -
INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE LOOKOUT FARM ADVISORY COMMITTEE (contd)
if it was said that the Committee was there to talk about ideas as opposed to going out and traipsing around.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to what areas of expertise Mr. Epstein could bring and Mr. Epstein responded that he had lived next to the farm for six years and had the expertise of time. He had a relationship with Mr. Marino and farming knowledge plus he worked for a landscape construction company.
With regard to keeping the rest of the neighbors informed, Mr. McKinley inquired if Mr. Epstein had a process for doing that. Mr. Epstein noted that in the past he had the e-mail addresses for many of the neighbors and if there was something that needed to get out, he has gone around and put out flyers.
b. Charles Emanuelli
Mr. Emanuelli had informed the office that he was not able to attend tonight’s meeting.
c. John Moran
John Moran stated his interest in being appointed to the oversight committee and noted that he had served as the Board of Selectmen’s designee on the first oversight committee in the early 1990’s. He lived on Eliot Street and would assume that 80% of the traffic coming and going to the farm went by his home. He was glad to see the committee brought back and thought it was a perfect opportunity to reach some balance. It was always better to try to fix the roof while the sun was shining and this was a good time to bring the parties together and see the long-term goals of Mr. Marino and the neighbors. The farm was a tremendous resource and had a tremendous amount of potential.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to Mr. Moran’s areas of technical expertise, and Mr. Moran responded that he had some history with it. He had met with Mr. Marino many times, he lived close to the farm, and had the time to devote. He would hate to see something happen that it couldn’t be kept as a functioning farm. As to how he would go about communicating with the neighbors, Mr. Moran noted that everyone had e-mail plus the meetings and telephone calls.
d. Richard Gill
Mr. Gill was not present
e. Frank Magullian
Mr. Magullian told the Board that he strongly supported an advisory committee and he had volunteered because he thought the committee was dying and perhaps dropped completely. In 1990 he was instrumental in getting the committee started when he called John Moran about Mr. Marino’s illegal serving of food at the farm. He brought a cynicism of Mr. Marino’s plans for the future. He did not have any expertise but had lived by the farm for 40+ years. He thought the committee should be active, but he would defer to young people.
To the question of expertise Mr. McKinley commented that it seemed as though Mr. Magullian had history, interest and intelligence. Mr. Magullian responded that he was here and not deferring his offer to serve, but he couldn’t walk around the farm.
Based on his past history, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if Mr. Magullian could be open minded about the process moving forward. Mr. Magullian’s reply was, “no”, adding that he thought it has naïve. He had called the Building Department about a building Mr. Marino put up with no permits and Mr. Marino was going to have a petting zoo right next to the food. In his opinion a leopard didn’t change its spots.
f. James Yannes
Mr. Yannes stated that he had lived on Lookout Farm Road for 16 years and didn’t bring much to the committee except common sense. In his job he had met 3-4 people like Mr. Marino and had a feeling for how you can’t handle people like that but he could appreciate him.
Mr. McKinley questioned if it was Mr. Yannes’ sense that the previous committee had no common sense, but Mr. Yannes said he did not. He was
INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE LOOKOUT FARM ADVISORY COMMITTEE (contd)
delighted with the committee, but he saw the article that there was only one representative and he didn’t want the committee to die. He felt that the abutters were the best group to do it.
Mr. Ball requested that Mr. Yannes elaborate on his comment that he had met 3-4 people like Mr. Marino. Mr. Yannes explained that he meant people who essentially did whatever they want to. You had to admire his (Mr. Marino’s) focus, but you didn’t have to think it was a good deal. He was the kind of guy that just bulled ahead. A lot of progress has been made. The train never materialized and the helicopter rides never materialized. A lot of bad things never happened and that was because people were concerned about it. He would like to keep the farm.
g. Joseph Guidi
Mr. Guidi was not present.
By paper ballot the Board voted to appoint David Epstein, Frank Magullian, Mr. Moran, and James Yannes. The vote was as follows:
Mr. Stern voted for Mr. Epstein, Mr. Moran, Mr. Magullian
Mr. Ciccariello voted for Mr. Epstein, Mr. Moran, Mr. Yannes, Mr. Guidi
Mr. Ball voted for Mr. Epstein, Mr. Moran, Mr. Magullian, Mr. Yannes
Mr. Hughes voted for Mr. Epstein, Mr. Emanuelli, Mr. Moran, Mr. Yannes
Mr. McKinley voted for Mr. Epstein, Mr. Emanuelli, Mr. Moran, Mr. Magullian
Mr. Epstein - 5 votes
Mr. Moran - 5 votes
Mr. Magullian - 3 votes
Mr. Yannes - 3 votes
Mr. Emanuelli - 2 votes
Mr. Guidi - 1 vote
Kenneth Soderholm, Planning Board member and chairman pro tem of the Lookout Farm Advisory Committee reminded the Board that he had asked about the possibility of having some clerical help in terms of minutes. He spoke with Mr. Sarkisian and Ann Greel of Community Development was willing to serve in that role. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Lemnios to make sure to accommodate that request.
Mr. Soderholm noted that the previous Conservation Administrator had a role on the Lookout Farm Advisory Committee. Bob Bois was now filling that role and Mr. Soderholm thought he would be a favorable addition. Mr. Lemnios accepted the appointment on Mr. Bois’ behalf.
Having been asked to be chairman to organize the committee, Mr. Soderholm guessed he would have the first meeting in late October. There were a lot of people on the committee beside the neighbors and it would take time to get everyone together.
NSTAR: UPDATE ON DOUBLE POLES
Representing Nstar was Paul Heanu, manager of the Framingham office.
Mr. Heanu recalled that the last time he met with the Board he was asked to make a commitment to a particular number of poles being removed. That number was 25. As of August 19, 2003, 26 poles were removed and at least two more had been removed since then leaving only three poles that all the utilities were off and ready to be removed.
Mr. Stern inquired as to the steps taken by Mr. Heanu to coordinate with the other utilities, and Mr. Heanu responded that he thought the Town was going to contact them all. He was expecting to hear from the Town. At Mr. Stern’s request, Mr. Lemnios agreed to set up a meeting to get the process started.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that there were a lot of poles with the tops cut off and everything moved so what prevented Nstar from removing them. Mr. Heanu explained that if it was a stub pole not everything had been removed. He also noted that an inquiry had been received about a triple pole on Arlington Street. The wires had been removed, but there were still two stub poles. Mr. Ciccariello clarified that he was talking about poles that were cut and about 8-10 feet into the ground.
NSTAR: UPDATE ON DOUBLE POLES (contd)
What prevented Nstar from pulling those? Without having a specific address, Mr. Heanu was unable to respond.
To Mr. Hughes’ comment that going forward the plan was to have the meeting with the Town and have a procedure, Mr. Heanu replied that there was a procedure in place now. If the other companies weren’t updating the database, that was what they (Nstar) worked off of.
Mr. Stern felt that the most critical aspect was the database and how data got added. He hadn’t heard anything that would convince him that Nstar would update the database to be accurate. In his opinion it was grossly outdated.
Mr. Heanu advised that when Nstar set a pole that information got put on the database, but Mr. Stern used the example of Cottage Street. Nstar had 2-3 double poles listed, but he counted 13. He believed the database was suspect and would like to see what steps Nstar was going to take to update it. Mr. Heanu agreed that it would be a problem if the various utilities didn’t update it. Mr. Stern didn’t think Mr. Heanu was talking about the same thing and explained that Nstar set the poles so that information should be in the database. Other utilities had to remove their wires, but Nstar set the poles and yet they don’t appear on the database.
Mr. Heanu stated that he would check on Cottage Street.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
a. MetroWest Growth Management - PAYT
Mr. Stern advised that the Chairman of the Finance Committee had asked to speak to the Board but couldn’t be here until 9:30 p.m. Mr. McKinley noted that several people were here to speak to Pay-As-You-Throw and he encouraged the Chair to allow them to speak rather than waiting for Mr. Foss. Mr. Stern noted that that was the subject that Mr. Foss wished to speak on, but Carol Gloff, Vice-Chair of the Finance Committee advised that Mr. Foss had called her and asked her to be here.
Amy Cotter, Director of the MetroWest Growth Management Committee, spoke on pay-as-you-throw programs. She noted that PAYT enlisted the residents’ help in reducing trash tonnage and spread it more across the community. The experience in Massachusetts where more than 100 communities had PAYT showed that it could reduce tonnage by 10-27%. Because Natick didn’t have recycling service as frequent as trash pickup, she thought a conservative estimate would be 15%. If Natick had 9,000 tons prior to PAYT, assuming a 15% reduction would save 1,350
tons of trash. Natick could save $135,000 in tipping fees. With 2/3 of the saved tonnage going to recycling, there were some costs for recycling, but there were 450 tons that wouldn’t enter the system. PAYT provides residents with greater control over their expenses and greater equity. No segment of the population such as the elderly or low income subsidizes any other.
Mr. Ball noted that from her experience in other towns, there will be a reduction in solid waste substantially greater than the increase in recycling. Mr. Ball inquired as to how Ms. Cotter explained the difference. Ms. Cotter credited it to waste reduction measures. When
people start to pay, they increase their backyard compost, re-use containers or purchase items with less packaging. That was estimated to amount to l/3.
Mr. McKinley inquired if in her experience the benefits of reduction in the waste stream were long-term. Ms. Cotter noted that typically there was a significant immediate decrease and that tends to get magnified over time. People learn to use the system better.
Sanitation Supervisor George Russell noted that the Town had been doing PAYT for two months. Although it was a little early in the program to develop a trend, he saw an increase in recycling and a decrease in trash. July and August were typically lower because it was vacation time and people were away, but he was encouraged by what he saw. A lot more recycling was being done. The DPW had given out almost l,000 bins since PAYT started. The estimated total tonnage of curbside recycling in August 2003 was 240 tons compared to 221 tons in August 2002. He
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES (contd)
felt the message was getting across and people were changing habits, but a couple more months were needed to get a true picture.
Looking at the figures provided by the DPW, Mr. Lemnios noted that comparing July 2002 to July 2003 there was an 18% increase in recycling and a 20-21% decline in rubbish.
With spending a little over $100.00 per ton to get rid of the rubbish, Mr. Hughes noted that the Town had spent $52,000 less than last year in two months.
Mr. McKinley asked Mr. Russell for his opinion as to why the increase in recycling wasn’t nearly as much. Mr. Russell didn’t have an explanation and would like to do some more definitive research although he was sure that people were taking some out of Town.
Ian Bayne had sponsored a Town Meeting article that would require the Town to provide free trash pickup to the residents. Per his request, Mr. Bayne was given the opportunity to address the Board. He stated that he was not here to discuss the $80M plus budget, but was here as a representative of the people who believe that the residents should not have to pay over and above the $3,200 (average tax bill) already spent in taxes to have their garbage taken away. He noted that he was the author of the article that would guarantee trash removal was paid for
out of the $80M budget. There was a lot of back and forth in the newspapers and he thought it would be best to have a dialog in person.
In his letter requesting an appointment with the Board, Mr. Bayne indicated that he had a simple solution to the recent trash tax debacle. Mr. Stern asked about Mr. Bayne’s solution and Mr. Bayne responded that he didn’t have the amount, but free cash could be spent. The residents elect the Board to make those decisions. He added that if the Board had as much focus on this as on how Mr. Marino used his private land, this could be solved.
If the premise was accepted that one way or another people had to pay for trash removal, Mr. McKinley pointed out that taxes would have to be increased. Mr. Bayne felt that people had been thrown a curve ball and the Town had to find a way to take it out of the budget.
Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Bayne realized that free cash was a non-recurring amount. Mr. Bayne stated that he did and noted that he thought the best thing for the Board to do was to get a brainstorm together and figure out how to come up with $1.2 million out of the $80 million budget. With free cash being non-recurrent, Mr. Hughes questioned if it got to a point where free cash was less than l/2 million would Mr. Bayne advocate using all the cash. Mr. Bayne responded that he did not. This year free cash could be used and in subsequent years the Town could figure out how to fund the trash removal from the $80M. He noted that if his kid went to college, he couldn’t say (to his employer) give me more money. The residents elect the Board to make decisions for them, and he was confident that the Board
could come up with a way.
Responding to a series of questions from Mr. McKinley, Mr. Bayne stated that he didn’t know the number of Finance Committee members and didn’t know the number of people on the Pay-As-You-Throw Committee. When asked how many Town Meeting members there were, Mr. Bayne questioned where Mr. McKinley was going. Mr. McKinley responded by asking if Mr. Bayne knew how many qualified people looked at this. There were 100’s of people who spent months looking at the budget line-by-line item. He suggested that if Mr. Bayne thought they overlooked something, perhaps
he (Mr. Bayne) should submit an application for the Finance Committee or run for Town Meeting because ultimately Town Meeting was the elected body that made the final spending decision of the Town. The Board of Selectmen did not.
Mr. Bayne’s reply was, “I have confidence in all of you”, and he thought the Board could get this done. He urged the Board to roll up their sleeves and maybe get people on the Lookout Farm Committee involved. You were told in the Army to never accept anything less than the right thing to do, and he didn’t think anybody representing the
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES (contd)
residents should have the attitude that they cannot do what needs to be done. A new tax was not the solution.
Mr. Stern noted that there were several hundred dedicated people working on problems such as this and he disagreed that people weren’t working on it. The Board was not focused strictly on Fiscal 2004, but looking beyond to Fiscal 2005 & 2006. The Board was trying to make sure that there was a sound financial plan, which would allow the Town to get by without laying off people or having an override. The Board didn’t look with blinders at a single issue, but looked at the whole picture.
Mr. Bayne inquired as to the number of Town employees and was told by Mr. McKinley that there were 416. Mr. Bayne commented that many governors were looking at eliminating positions. He wasn’t saying that was Natick’s problem, but he suggested maybe looking at what’s going on
in Town. There may be people more essential than others. $80 million was a lot of money. He knew people were working on this and he would be willing to help. He thought the Board could get the job done and find the money in the budget.
Mr. Ball questioned Mr. Bayne on his comment about the Board resigning en masse, but Mr. Bayne stated that he didn’t say that. He (Mr. Bayne) clarified that he said if you couldn’t find a way to find the $1.2 million out of the $80+ million budget, that you all should find people who could get the job done, but he had faith in the Board and thought it could get the job done.
Mr. McKinley stated that he would invite Mr. Bayne to serve the Town, rather than as a gadfly, in a constructive fashion. He asked if Mr. Bayne had any background that may be useful to the Finance Committee. Mr. Bayne replied that he never served on a Finance Committee.
Asked what he did, Mr. Bayne advised that he ran a home appraisal company, noting that he was bottom line results oriented. He thought it was productive to have a debate and have it on the ballot and if people say yes, the Town would have to find a way. If we can beat the Germans, we can balance the budget and take the trash out.
Mr. Lemnios thanked Mr. Bayne for raising the issue. The first question was where was the person during the process and was the person willing to be involved, and he (Mr. Lemnios) wasn’t sure he heard that commitment. The Town could fund trash removal without charging, but the question was what other programs and what other services would be stopped to do that. Of the $80 million, close to $30 million was committed to debt and expenses that couldn’t be avoided. The debt was
for a variety of improvements the community voted for. $32 million was dedicated to education and a good portion of that was dictated by the state. The community has no choice of the amounts it must fund. The balance was primarily consumed by four departments – Police, Fire, DPW, and library. The balance after that was a total of $5 million. Even if there were no more Building Inspector, Health Inspectors, there would be little left over.
Mr. Lemnios admonished Mr. Bayne for coming here to cheerlead and simply saying that he (Mr. Bayne) thought the Board could do it. He (Mr. Lemnios) was not going to participate and devote his time when someone wouldn’t give anything more specific than I think you can do it. Was Mr. Bayne advocating the closing of the library, reducing the Fire Department, eliminating Recreation or what services did he want to give up. The cost of the program (trash pickup) was $2 million and PAYT will generate $1.2 million so the Town was already subsidizing it.
When Mr. Lemnios noted that the article called for universal, which meant that Mr. Bayne wanted to pick up every single resident including condos, Natick Mall, Mr. Bayne responded that they were inhabitants.
Again Mr. Lemnios inquired as to what Mr. Bayne would want to diminish, and Mr. Bayne responded that this was a representative democracy. The citizens elect people who can accomplish what they need them to do after setting guidelines. He (Mr. Bayne) was asking the administration to come up with a plan. If his help was needed, Mr. Bayne said he
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES (contd)
would be happy to help but with the wealth of experience (already involved) he felt it could be done.
Mr. Bayne commented on the Board setting the $30 million in debt and now the Town can’t pick up the garbage, and Mr. Stern responded that that was a decision that was done prior to this Board. Mr. Stern also noted that it was the Board’s job to steer the Town through unprecedented hard times. The local government was the whipping boys for the state. When the state had problems, they leave it up to the local authorities to figure out the funding of unfunded mandates. In his (Mr. Stern’s) opinion the Board, the Town Administrator, and Town Meeting had done a tremendous job of navigating these waters.
PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC & VERIZON NEW ENGLAND, INC.: WINTER STREET, ONE POLE, ONE ANCHOR GUY
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
In a memo to the Board, DPW Rights & Permits Engineer William DeRosa advised that the DPW had no objection to the petition to install one pole and anchor guy (pole #263/23x) on Winter Street. The work was necessary to provide electric service to a new six-lot subdivision (Jennison Circle).
James Flanignon of 49A Winter Street, an abutter to the proposed pole, noted that he spoke with Nstar last Friday. His main concern was whether any trees were going to be cut. He also noted that although this was public property, from the map it looked liked his front yard.
Winter Street was an historic street and if possible he would request that the pole be put up without cutting any trees.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was a telephone pole across from Mr. Flanignon, and Mr. Flanignon responded yes. If there was already a pole across the street, Mr. Ciccariello raised the possibility of
running underground across the street and that could be done by the person doing the six-lot subdivision. Mr. Flanignon liked the idea of running the wire under Winter Street, but reiterated his wish that if a pole needed to be put up on his side of the street that there be no cutting of trees.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he believed Winter Street was a scenic road. Mr. McKinley stated that he would have proposed the Board approving the petition subject to Nstar not removing any trees even though he wasn’t sure the Board could impose that requirement, but being a scenic road was a different set of requirements. Mr. Ciccariello suggested not approving the petition until it was known exactly what Nstar was going to do.
Mr. Hughes moved to continue the public hearing and have Nstar provide the Board with the details of the kind of work they were going to do and find out if Planning Board approval was needed. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Following a five-minute recess, the meeting was again called to order at 8:50 p.m.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION
Theresa Capobianco, Counsel for E.P. Clark Post #107, and David DeLuca counsel representing the Town were both present.
Mr. Stern began by stating that he believed the testimony was finished. Ms. Capobianco agreed, but she did not want to preclude Floyd Corliss from testifying on any of the documents presented tonight. It was Mr. DeLuca’s memory that the hearing remained open to receive additional evidence on a couple of issues that were unresolved from the last hearing. One issue was to receive the hours worked by Kimberly MacDonald. Mr. DeLuca told the Board that he had subpoenaed the keeper of the records from the Sherborn Inn and he was here tonight. The hearing was also kept open for evidence on the various forms of membership testified to at the hearing.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION (contd)
Biran Corbley identified himself as the general manager of the Sherborn Inn. He had been employed at the Sherborn Inn for two years, was the keeper of the hours worked by employees, recognized Kim MacDonald as an employee of the Sherborn Inn and had in his possession the records of the hours Ms. MacDonald worked on May 20, 2003. Mr. Corbley presented the list of records and explained that it was in military time.
Responding to a series of questions from Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Corbley testified that Ms. MacDonald punched in at 4:06 p.m. and punched out at 10:57 p.m. Her job included no duties or responsibilities after punching out, all paperwork was done before punching out, she punched
out on her way out the door. There was nothing important in the list of information he had had- just wages.
Ms. Capobianco had no questions for the witness.
Mr. DeLuca offered the time sheets as an exhibit and stated that that was all of the evidence he would have to offer.
In her submission of the information requested by the Board, Ms. Capobianco clarified that she had agreed to provide the information not for purposes of submitting or providing a new charge, but for edification to learn how the American Legion operated. Ms. Capobianco presented the following:
1. Articles of Organization and the last two years worth of annual reports. One of the purposes was the right to apply for a license to sell alcoholic beverages.
2. Application for original charter submitted to national for Post 107 submitted in 1919 and a supplemental charter submitted in 1963.
3. A brief overview of the organization of the American Legion in the form of a chart and a simplified statement of the organization of the American Legion itself.
4. Sons of American Legion for squadron charter submitted 1936 and approved 1937. It established Post 107 as a valid wing of the Legion.
5. Mr. Corliss put together an overview of what the Sons of the American Legion were about, their by-laws, national constitution, the history of the sons, and an overview of the charter of the Sons of the American Legion Post 107
6. 4-54 and 4-55 of the Officers Guide and ceremonies.
Ms. Capobianco commented that she was giving the Board this because she knew no one would read the book. Mr. Hughes requested that she skip the comments and then make a closing statement. Ms. Capobianco countered that she was attempting to inform the Board where she got this document, but Mr. Stern noted that informing was one thing and she should skip the comments.
7. The auxiliary application for charter submitted in 1921 for Post #107. A copy of page 1 of the unit handbook of the auxiliary on the birth and purpose of the auxiliary.
8. A suggested united constitution and by-laws taken from the handbook that includes the auxiliary as well.
With respect to the final breed of members, more specifically the baseball booster members, Ms. Capobianco told the Board that she tried to get information. The American Legion just had a national convention and nobody was in any office the entire week. She just got the information at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. As a member of the bar Ms. Capobianco said she felt obligated to bring forth any evidence that would clarify the situation. The baseball booster was not a recognized
membership. No charter was available. To be recognized at the state and national level you need to receive a charter. Post 107 set up the baseball boosters to support the local baseball team. All the funds went directly to support that team. She had no idea and no one could tell her how long that was in effect; however, this generation of Legion members was just picking up where their fathers left off. The
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION (contd)
American Legion was a veteran’s organization, non-profit. The money goes to Veterans Affairs and scholarships at the high school. They were just as surprised as she was to learn that baseball boosters were not recognized.
Ms. Capobianco continued that Mr. Hasgill, the American Legion manager, had begun recalling memberships of the baseball boosters and refunding dues. He was pulling back their key cards and optimally he would have
all memberships recanted by the end of this week. He understood the need to rectify the situation. Ms. Capobianco maintained that the American Legion still did not admit to having done anything wrong. They believed it to be a valid membership and had no reason until 2:00 p.m. this afternoon to believe otherwise. They (baseball boosters) will be withdrawn from the membership.
Ms. Capobianco noted that this (discovery) impacted the proceeding before the Board. One of the two charges presented was that alcohol was served to a non-member. The Board was presented with the membership roles for the Auxiliary, the Post members, the Sons of the American Legion members, and the baseball boosters. Mr. Souliopolos appeared on the baseball membership and he testified that he was in the Legion on May 21 and consumed alcoholic beverages. Unknowingly and unintentionally there was a transgression. The individuals who run the post today were following through on the advice of their forefathers. They were not in any way trying to scheme a different membership that might not be allowed. As of today they were rectifying that.
Because of the single transgression of the license, Ms. Capobianco told the Board that she was authorized by the American Legion to indicate that there was one single violation where Mr. Souliopolos, who was a baseball booster, was served alcoholic beverages on May 21, 2003. It was done unintentionally and unknowingly because as far as Post 107 knew, he (Mr. Souliopolos) was a valid member. The American Legion Post 107 was prepared to accept a sanction and they were taking corrective measures to make sure it didn’t happen again.
Now that the evidence had come to light, Ms. Capobianco noted that she was obligated to bring it forward to the Board without admitting any liability or responsibility because they still believed that they had a valid membership in place. She suggested that any sanction be limited to that which the Board had done in the past or less and she would suggest that it not exceed one day. It was unintentional and unknown and the Legion took steps immediately. Again Ms. Capobianco emphasized that the Post believed those memberships (baseball) were valid and she brought it to the attention of the American Legion as soon as it became
available. She got the information today and the Board was getting it today.
Ms. Capobianco continued that the Legion had no prior offenses. They were non-profit and relied on their canteen to support scholarships and veterans’ activities. With respect to that one single charge, Ms. Capobianco stated that she wished to present the evidence and that request.
Mr. DeLuca asked that it be clarified for the record whether or not it was a stipulation - an admission was an agreement of a violation as indicated by counsel that there was service to a non-member on May 21-22, 2003. Ms. Capobianco responded that she believed that that was exactly what she just said.
To Ms. Capobianco’s comment that the Legion had started notifying members today, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what method was being used. Mr. Hasgill advised that it was mostly all verbal this afternoon. There will be a formal letter requesting the return of their card and an explanation given.
Mr. Stern inquired as to the number of people in that classification (baseball booster), and was told by the Mr. Hasgill that there were 38-40. Of those 20 were active and the other half had let their dues lapse and had not been renewed. As a follow-up Mr. Stern questioned if there was a method of lock out of someone’s key card whose membership
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION (contd)
had lapsed. Mr. Hasgill advised that the cards were changed yearly and the person wouldn’t get a new one.
Mr. Stern then inquired as to how long the baseball booster membership had existed, but Mr. Hasgill had no idea and added that it was long before he came.
Asked if there was anyone who recalled when baseball boosters became members, Marty Grady, past commander, noted that the charter started in 1919. He went to the library and looked at copies of their minutes. According to the records they had social members back to 1919. He further noted that the by-laws had to be updated as the current by-laws didn’t accept anyone after Viet Nam. Because they were a veteran’s organization they would normally serve anyone in uniform. They had soldiers come back to the post after Memorial Day and have a keg of beer. It was tough to card a soldier but they want to make sure someone was 21 before being served. The baseball team cost over $6,000. 65% of baseball players played American Legion baseball.
Mr. Grady further noted that if you look at any organization you would find something, but you should look at what these organizations were doing for the Town. The Natick schools were always looking for money, Little League, Boys State. The membership was dropping off and expenses were going up. The country was losing 1,800 WWII veterans per day. The Legion wants to renovate the building and look like the rest of the Town, but if the membership goes down and expenses go up, it was
tough (to say no) when somebody said they would like to help with the baseball team. If they made a donation, it was tough to say they couldn’t come to the club, but if that was what it had to be. To him it was a witch-hunt. The post has had the Sons and the Auxiliary for a long time, and he didn’t think there was any organization in the Town
that was run any different than the Legion. This year they again won the Community Service award out of 77 posts.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the amount of money that would be lost from losing the baseball members, and Mr. Hasgill replied that it was $25.00 per person.
If the Board would permit, Ms. Capobianco stated that there was a veteran who would like to address the Board. Mr. Stern inquired as to the nature of the comments, and Ms. Capobianco responded that she
didn’t know as yet. He had information regarding the booster membership. Mr. Stern asked if the Board had any further questions about the baseball membership, and Mr. Hughes indicated that he would be interested in hearing from the individual if he knew how long the post had baseball memberships. Mr. Stern agreed to hear from him but pointed out that it would not be sworn in testimony.
Stanley Cohen stated that he had been a member for 46 years and there were boosters at that time.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
In closing Mr. DeLuca stated the standard of this hearing was MGL Chapter 30A. The standard of proof was one of preponderance of evidence whether it was sufficient to prove there was a violation. He explained that his efforts had been to bring forward whatever relevant evidence existed from witnesses present at the scene as well as any documents. There was a copy of the Police report from Sergeant Lauzon and Officer Salis. Sergeant Lauzon’s initial purpose was to investigate a person sleeping in a motor vehicle. He (Sergeant Lauzon) investigated and spoke with Steven Stoddard who, by his own omission and proof of a failed breathalyzer, was intoxicated. Mr. Stoddard’s statement at that time was that he was recently at the American Legion. His testimony was that he had been there on two
occasions, but left by 10:30 p.m. and fell asleep. Two other witnesses interviewed at the scene, Mr. Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald, both agreed they were intoxicated or, better stated, voluntarily agreed not to operate their motor vehicle.
Ms. Capobianco objected to a mischaracterization of the evidence.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION (contd)
Mr. DeLuca noted that they testified that they had voluntarily handed off their keys and there was testimony from the Police officers on the degree of intoxication. The Police officer tried to get the attention of the people inside the club. There was further testimony about the presence of surveillance. There was no opportunity for Police to go
into the building and conduct further investigation. It was left to the substantial evidence of the presence of people that had consumed alcoholic beverages in excess of their license. People were there at 2:00 a.m. far in excess of their 1:00 a.m. closing time. Whether it was found from that that the service of a person after the stated license time (did occur) was within the determination of the Board. It was on record the agreement as to Mr. Souliopolos being served at some point in the evening and served in violation of Chapter 138 that only
members be served. It was at the discretion of the Board to determine whether a violation occurred and whether to impose any sanctions.
Ms. Capobianco began her closing by stating that she had spent a lot of time listening to evidence. Because of the request for information she was sent out to learn more about the American Legion and that lead up to resolving one of the charges. With respect to the charge that the
American Legion served alcohol after 1:00 a.m., she did not believe that evidence was presented by Mr. DeLuca for those accusations and she did not believe that he got his law right either. There was (a standard) for circumstantial evidence that a reasonable person might accept to support a conclusion, but she did not believe that Sergeant Lauzon’s testimony met that criteria nor did Officer Salis.
With respect to service after 1:00 a.m., Sergeant Lauzon presented that he was suspicious when he found an unusual amount of cars and later it was found out that there were four. He found someone sleeping in his car and that was not a crime. Sergeant Lauzon checked on his (Mr. Stoddard’s) safety, took the keys and permitted Mr. Stoddard to sleep and not charge him with any crime. Mr. Stoddard was given his keys in the morning. Mr. Stoddard testified that he drank at the American Legion and left by 10:30 p.m. and all the witnesses testified that Mr. Stoddard left by 10:30 p.m. When Ms. MacDonald showed up, Mr. Stoddard was gone. Mr. Stoddard testified that he left at 10:30 p.m. and when he was sleeping in his car he heard knocking. It was Sergeant Lauzon and he (Mr. Stoddard) remembered some
people leaving. It was not reasonable for the Board to infer that there was drinking after 1:00 a.m. and Sergeant Lauzon testified that he was not here to tell the Board that Mr. Stoddard was in the American Legion drinking after 1:00 a.m.
Ms. Capobianco continued that Sergeant Lauzon tried to gain entrance, but the American Legion was a private building and he must have a search warrant or probable cause. He (Sergeant Lauzon) had no right of access. The individuals inside could not hear him and that didn’t mean they were committing a crime. The individuals testified that from the backdoor there was an area that was relatively large and it was reasonable that they didn’t hear. If the four individuals were cleaning it was reasonable to understand and believe that they could not hear him. Sergeant Lauzon testified that he did not see anyone drinking after 1:00 a.m. only his observation that he heard noise on the inside. There was a stakeout and people were stopped in the alley. Mr. Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald were
stopped, but the other two women weren’t stopped. Officer Salis detained them (Mr. Souliopolos and Ms.
MacDonald) and interrogated them, but no breathalyzer nor field sobriety test. Those events occurred at 2:30 a.m. The report wasn’t written until after 6:00 a.m., and Sergeant Lauzon took no notes. He worked from his memory. He (Sergeant Lauzon) indicated that Ms. MacDonald showed up at 1:00 a.m. She did not. She showed up at 11:00 p.m. He indicated that Ms. Crone bartended, but she was never a bartender. He interrogated them in the alley for a short while and Mr. Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald walked off to Agostino’s for something to eat.
Ms. Capobianco noted that the Board had indicated that they were suspicious of their reasons for doing that (walking off to Agostino’s), and the Board questioned the level of intoxication. Ms. MacDonald didn’t want to drive because the Police were around. There was no evidence that Ms. MacDonald was intoxicated. She was a little paranoid
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION (contd)
of the Police pulling her over which was reasonable. Mr. Souliopolos as the co-owner of Agostino’s walked over to avoid any actions of the Police. There was no evidence of what their blood alcohol was, and the Board cannot infer. The Board does not know their demeanor and did not see them. The Board can only rely on observations of others and testimony. The testimony was that they had a few drinks, but no evidence that they had anything after 1:00 a.m. The reason the individuals were in the building after 1:00 a.m. was to clean the bar area, and the bathrooms. The regular cleaner was out of Town on a golfing trip. The three stayed behind to give Ms. Thistle help, and because they were good samaritans they should not be penalized.
Ms. Capobianco noted that Sergeant Lauzon had a suspicion but no evidence to support his suspicion. He testified only that people were around. Mr. Stoddard left the American Legion at 10:30 p.m., and the four individuals left in the building at 1:00 a.m. were all to clean the bar. There was no evidence they were there drinking. The Board needs to find on the charge of alcohol served after 1:00 a.m. that there was insufficient evidence. She assumed since Mr. DeLuca did not attempt to address the third charge brought up at the last meeting that it was not being brought forward. If it was being brought forward, she believed the evidence today showed that the Auxiliary and Sons of the Legion were valid charters within the organization. They were lawful members. She noted that she had already
addressed the baseball membership.
Mr. Stern inquired as to the pleasure of the Board, and Mr. Ciccariello responded that he appreciated the fact that the American Legion had disclosed that baseball sponsors were not legally members and brought it to the Board’s attention as soon as they found that out. Usually he was looking to give someone the harshest of suspensions when it came to liquor violations. When he looked at what was presented and the officer’s report and some conflicts in the report, particularly the time factor of Ms. MacDonald’s arrival of 1:00 a.m. and her testimony of having arrived before then, and the issue of the bar staff being correct, he had some concern. This Board did not take on this alleged violation as a witch-hunt. There was a lot of controversy about club
licenses over the past months that had nothing to do with this alleged violation. This was not a witch-hunt on his part. He was somewhat disturbed that at least one person walked out of the American Legion intoxicated and possibly two others may have done that also although there was no test to prove that. It was disturbing because the bartender was supposed to be trained and supposed to know if someone was intoxicated or not. That bothered him and told him the responsible bartender was perhaps not paying attention or doing their job and perhaps needs better training. To him that was the most disturbing part.
To the fact that non-members were served, Mr. Ciccariello thought it was obvious tonight that the American Legion was not aware that the
baseball boosters were not eligible members and they took steps to rectify that immediately. He didn’t feel he had heard enough evidence
that told him there was drinking going on after hours. Testimony was heard from several witnesses under oath. If he were going to offer any suspension, it would be solely for the fact that baseball members who were not legally members were served alcohol.
Mr. Hughes stated that he joined Mr. Ciccariello. He noted that he took his responsibility very seriously with regard to being the licensing authority and took some umbrage being told this was a witch-hunt. The Board was presented with an allegation from the Natick Police Department and it was the Board’s responsibility to hold a hearing and determine whether there was a violation. He didn’t find the testimony of the people at the club to be believable, but he didn’t find evidence from the Police that they found the service of alcohol after 1:00 a.m. With regard to the violation of service to the baseball member, he found that it was unintentional and it should be noted that the Legion stipulated to a violation. He was not in favor of imposing a penalty at this point.
Mr. McKinley noted that his thoughts were similar to Mr. Hughes. He too believed there was insufficient evidence or facts to prove drinking
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION (contd)
after 1:00 a.m. The Board may have arrived at the baseball membership, but the Legion has already stipulated that they concede that point. The thing that worried him the most was the point that Mr. Ciccariello made. There was an individual found by the Police sleeping peacefully 3-l/2 hours after everyone agreed he left the Post with a .21 (alcohol level). That spoke volumes about who the Post was serving. The issue was not whether everyone was a member, but whether everyone leaving that premises (was not intoxicated). There was an offer from the American Legion through their counsel to accept the membership issue and in general there was a lack of sufficient facts to conclude there was drinking after 1:00 a.m. The one fact, and although it was not part of this hearing, there was an individual who
everyone agreed left at 10:30 p.m. and 3-l/2 hours later had a blood alcohol of .21. He was not willing to let this go with a warning.
Two weeks ago the Board gave a restaurant a one-day suspension, and while that was a potentially dangerous situation, at least no one left
the establishment endangering the public. He didn’t think the Board should harm the American Legion any more than it had to as the American Legion was a good organization, but he did think the Board had to be consistent with its policy and keep others on notice that the Board took it seriously. He was open to discussion on how much (of a suspension), but he couldn’t dismiss just because it was an honest mistake.
Mr. Ball stated that he concurred most closely with Mr. McKinley. He acknowledged the good work the American Legion did, but that was not the issue. The issue first and foremost was whether there was any evidence of the service of alcohol after 1:00 a.m. and he found no compelling evidence. He found compelling evidence that at least one individual and possibly three left the American Legion intoxicated and that laid squarely at the American Legion’s feet. The levels of Mr.
Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald were not known because no measure was done, but Mr. Stoddard after many hours after he left had a blood alcohol level of .212, and by Mr. Stoddard’s own testimony he did not consume any additional alcohol after he left the Legion. While the service to Mr. Souliopolos as a baseball booster member was assumed to be a valid membership, it was by the American Legion’s own counsel’s admission something that should not have been done, and he would support some disciplinary action. He thought there had to be a suspension involved.
When asked by Mr. Stern on what charge he would propose a suspension, Mr. Ball’s response was the service to a non-member – a member whose membership was not legitimate. As to the charge of service after 1:00 a.m., Mr. Ball said he found no compelling evidence there had been service after 1:00 a.m.
Mr. Stern concurred with the comments of his fellow Board members, and he too recognized the good the American Legion has done. He noted that he had issues with some of the credibility of some of the testimony but found those issues were not substantial enough that he would be moved to find for the Town on that. With regard to the service of a non-member, Mr. Stern agreed that the violation had been admitted to and that a sanction was in order for that (violation).
To Mr. Hughes it sounded like two of his colleagues wanted to punish the American Legion for acts that weren’t part of this hearing – that being service of alcohol to someone who was intoxicated and he didn’t think there was a proper basis for a decision to punish the violation in this hearing. If the Board wanted to punish the unknowing and unintentional violation to a non-member, he was willing to discuss it, but he didn’t think there was a proper basis of any punishment whether Mr. Stoddard was served more alcohol than he should have been. He thought there was a clear indication that someone needs to be retrained. Clearly Mr. Stoddard was served enough alcohol at the American Legion to get to a .21, but that was not part of the violation hearing being heard today.
Mr. Hughes moved to find the burden had not been met on the charge of serving alcohol in violation of the hours permitted by the license and
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION (contd)
to find that no violation had occurred. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved to accept the stipulation that there was a violation of serving alcohol to a non-member. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley moved to impose a one-day suspension on the American Legion for the service of alcohol to a non-member. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ball, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Hughes were opposed.
Speaking to his motion, Mr. McKinley felt that a one-day suspension was consistent with what the Board had established as a minimum and was consistent with what the Board did two weeks ago.
On the matter of the date for the suspension, Mr. Hughes moved that other than setting a deadline by which the suspension should be served, that the date be left up to the American Legion. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello. The motion failed on a 2-3-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ball, Mr. McKinley were opposed.
Mr. McKinley moved that the one day suspension be served on a Wednesday between now and the end of the calendar year. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ball, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Hughes were opposed.
With respect to the date the Legion chose to serve the suspension, Ms. Capobianco asked if Mr. Stern would like her to notify the Board. Mr. Stern advised that he would and then asked if the American Legion would accept the sanction or would file an appeal. Since the Legion offered to take a one-day suspension, Ms. Capobianco stated that they would agree to accept although they certainly would have preferred to pick the day they closed their doors. Any day was substantial because it was their sole source of income.
PUBLIC HEARING: LIQUOR LICENSE FEES – BARS, COUNTERS
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing. The purpose of the hearing was to determine what, if any, fee to establish for restaurants serving alcohol at a bar, counter, waiting area, cocktail lounge.
The manager of Vinny Testa’s inquired as to what they had to do to move forward with putting in bar stools. Mr. Stern explained that tonight’s hearing was on fees and he should contact the office to find out the procedure.
There being no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. McKinley moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes noted that he didn’t think there was a fee for this type of license at the moment. There was a fee for a restaurant all alcoholic and a separate fee for a restaurant with a waiting area. In proposing this hearing, Mr. Hughes explained that he wasn’t suggesting that the Board should create a separate fee or increase the existing fee, but the Board should decide if it should apply to restaurants with bars/stools. In his opinion the fee for a bar should be the same as a waiting area.
Asked if he was proposing to keep the fee at $2,500 for a restaurant with a bar, waiting area, or a lounge, Mr. Hughes replied that he was.
Mr. Hughes moved to set the fee for a restaurant with an all alcohol license with a waiting area, bar, counter, or lounge at $2,500. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE: BEN & JERRY’S ICE CREAM
Before the Board was an application for the transfer of the common victualer’s license held by the Dobbins Group d/b/a Ben & Jerry’s Ice
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE: BEN & JERRY’S ICE CREAM (contd)
Cream for premises at 1265 Worcester Road to Shama, Inc. d/b/a Ben & Jerry’s.
Representing Shama, Inc. was the President Shama Nannapaneni and her attorney Jonathan Meindersma
Mr. Meindersma noted that Ms. Nannapaneni had received a letter from the Board that alarmed her. It informed her that the common vcitualer’s license for the business she had bought in the spring was not automatically transferred. She has now applied for the transfer.
Mr. Ball inquired if the operation of the store was going to be different. Ms. Nannapaneni advised that there was nothing different. The operation was the same as before.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the transfer of the common victualer’s license formerly held by the Dobbins Group to Shama, Inc. d/b/a Ben & Jerry’s for premises at 1265 Worcester Road. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
NSTAR GRANT OF LOCATON: GLEN STREET CONDUIT – RECONSIDERATION
At the meeting of April 7, 2003, the Board approved a petition from Nstar for a grant of location for conduit on Glen Street that would provide service to a new subdivision. The Board’s approval was conditioned upon Nstar installing a parallel conduit for the Town’s use. Nstar was concerned with setting a precedent and had declined to accept this condition. They were requesting the Board’s reconsideration.
Mr. Ball recalled having asked for a parallel conduit. At the time it seemed innocuous, but there appeared to be a somewhat negative reaction from Nstar and he would have no problem backing away from this request. The possibility of the Town making use of this conduit would be small.
Mr. Ball moved to remove the requirement for a parallel conduit from the petition for conduit on Glen Street approved on April 7, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
BUDGET PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Lemnios reported that the Budget Planning Subcommittee met Mid-July to begin the process of looking at the Fiscal 2005 budget. It (FY05 budget) was in the very preliminary stages, but one big question mark was what the State would do relative to state aid and it was much too early in their (state) process to be thinking about FY05. They were still mapping out FY04.
Mr. Stern noted that this item would be on each agenda between now and Fall Town Meeting if there was anything any member of the Board would like to discuss.
At Mr. Hughes’ request, Mr. Stern agreed to ask the School Committee what position they were going to take with regard to Article 18 (School
Bus Fee Policy). Mr. Lemnios didn’t believe the School Committee had had any formal discussions on the article.
It seemed to Mr. Hughes that an article was not needed to accomplish what the petitioners were seeking under Article 16 (Clubhouse Lane, Saddle Brook Road sewer) and he suggested that Mr. Lemnios speak to the sponsors. If enough people wanted it, the Town should be able to respond to the residents.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. RCN Payment
Mr. Ball called attention to correspondence from RCN relative to a $14,000 check they were re-issuing because the finance department didn’t know what to do with it. Mr. Ball noted that in the agreement with Natick Pegasus, the Town agreed to pay Pegasus 100% of the money received from RCN and the money doesn’t go through the hands of the Town as opposed to Comcast. He asked that the Town Administrator follow-up to be sure that the Town didn’t sit on a $14,000 check for a
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
year. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Lemnios to make sure that the money hadn’t already been sent to Pegasus.
b. Water Bill – Stephen Crocher
In correspondence there was a letter written on behalf of Stephan Crocher regarding his final water bill. Since Mr. Crocher was unable to appear, Mr. Ball wondered how the facts might be determined. Mr. Lemnios was asked to look into it.
c. Wellesley Sewer License
Wellesley resident Harris Footer had submitted a request to tie into Natick sewer. Mr. Ball noted that the last time the Board received such a request, it was an agenda item. Since this was essentially the same thing, he was a little confused.
Mr. Hughes suggested that the Board follow the same procedure as before.
d. Mass Producer Take Back Bill
Mr. Ball recalled that some time ago the Board voted to encourage the State Legislature to support and vote out favorably a bill that would require computer and monitor manufacturers to take back their products when they were no longer useable. The Board voted to support the bill and sent a letter to our Reps and Senators, but apparently the bill was stalled in committee. The request was for the Board to nudge the legislature to report this out of committee.
Mr. Ball moved that the Board send a letter to the Town’s reps and Representative Greene urging them to get this bill reported out favorably. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
e. RCN – License Compliance
Mr. McKinley reminded the Board that the extension granted to RCN to comply with their license would be expiring soon and it may be appropriate to invite Mr. Steel in. Perhaps a letter should be sent to Mr. Steel reminding him that the extension was about to end and the penalties would begin to accrue. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the
penalties wouldn’t start automatically. There were all kinds of hurdles to jump through.
Mr. Stern agreed that Mr. Steel should be invited in and noted that he had already looked to schedule him (Mr. Steel) for the meeting of September 29, 2003.
Mr. Ball stated that he would like to start the process of jumping through those hoops and would like Mr. Lemnios to review the appropriate sections of the contract to find out what steps need to be taken and for the Board to be prepared to take those steps so Mr. Steel could be told that the Board was prepared.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
____________________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
