BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
September 29, 2003
5:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Jeffrey A. Stern at 5:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Jeffrey A. Stern, John Ciccariello, Paul R. McKinley. Charles M. Hughes arrived at 5:30 p.m.; Jay H. Ball arrived at 8:30 p.m.
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on September 29, 2003 in the amount of $1,368,717.83. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,109,863.67.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation and collective bargaining. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 5:10 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was called to order at 7:15 p.m.
MINUTES
With corrections as noted, Mr. Ciccariello moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of July 14, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
REQUEST TO CLOSE MILLBROOK ROAD: BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve the request of Lyman Phillips, Jr. to close a portion of Millbrook Road on October 13, 2003 from 2:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. for a block party.
RECREATION & PARKS DEPARTMENT: SPOOKTACULAR
Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini told the Board that he was working with the Police Department and Natick Center Associates on the parade route. The parade used to be at 1:00 p.m., but it was being backed up.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the request to close Park Street on October 25, 2003 from 12:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m. as part of the Halloween Spooktacular celebration. He further moved approval of holding the Halloween parade through the downtown between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.
on October 25, 2003 including the closure of Adams Court and Court Street. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET LAYOUT ACCEPTANCE
Mr. Hughes moved to open the public hearing on street layout acceptance for Carter Drive and Jacqueline Circle. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Town Engineer Mark Coviello noted that the advertisement in the paper listed the hearing at 7:00 p.m. but the notices sent to the abutters stated 7:30 p.m. As it was only 7:20 p.m. he requested a ten-minute continuance. The Board concurred and proceeded to the next item on the agenda.
DONALD BENEDETTI: REQUEST ABATEMENT OF WATER BILL
Donald Benedetti of 182 Boden Lane appeared before the Board to request an adjustment of his May 1, 2003 water & sewer bill, which was unusually high due to a leak in the water pipes under his slab ranch.
DONALD BENEDETTI: REQUEST ABATEMENT OF WATER BILL (contd)
Mr. Stern asked if Mr. Benedetti had seen the recommendation from Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer, and Mr. Benedetti advised that he had.
It was Mr. Hughes’ recollection that at the last meeting Mr. Ball wanted to see if the Board would adopt a new policy relative to the MWRA charge. Mr. McKinley was not present at that meeting and the Board tabled making a decision. Mr. Ball’s flight had been delayed and he had not as yet arrived. An attempt to call Mr. Ball to see if he would be able to make the meeting was unsuccessful.
Mr. McKinley noted that the idea of abating the MWRA sewer charge had been his and he would be in favor of adopting such a policy. Although he couldn’t speak for Mr. Ball, Mr. Stern felt that Mr. Ball would be in favor since he proposed it at the last meeting. The Board agreed to proceed without Mr. Ball present.
Mr. McKinley moved to abate Mr. Benedetti’s May 1, 2003 water & sewer bill in the amount of $173.65. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
DIMAS, INC. D/B/A DOLPHIN SEAFOOD: MODIFICATION OF LICENSE
Peter Giannocopoulos, owner of the Dolphin Seafood at 12 Washington Street requested a modification of his alcohol license to allow eleven seats in front of his service bar. He noted that he was aware of the philosophy that exists that alcohol was incidental to food and in his nine years of business had kept and followed that philosophy.
Mr. Hughes asked if he was aware of all the rules & regs, and Mr. Giannocopoulos responded, ‘yes’.
Mr. Hughes then asked if Mr. Giannocopoulos would alter the way he did business to insure that the service of alcohol was incidental and the
20% wouldn’t be a problem. Again Mr. Giannocopoulos’ response was, ‘yes’.
In follow-up Mr. Hughes inquired as to what assurance the Board had that Mr. Giannocopoulos would do that because about a year ago there were stools there. Mr. Giannocopoulos explained that he thought a restaurant that size was like a hotel. It was his mistake and when contacted by the Police Chief he immediately removed them. It wasn’t intentional. Mr. Hughes questioned why Mr. Giannocopoulos would think his license would be the same as a hotel. Mr. Giannocopoulos said he couldn’t answer that, but pointed out that it was corrected right away.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if eleven seats would be at the bar on the ground floor and not at the second floor bar. Mr. Giannocopoulos noted that he was only asking for the ground floor. Looking at the diagram of the seating in the lounge, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if it would exceed the 10% limit. A restaurant was permitted to have 10% at the bar and 10% in the lounge. Mr. Giannocopoulos responded that he was licensed for 484 seats and his lounge had 50 seats. It was pointed out that that was two seats over in the lounge and Mr. Giannocopoulos was asked if he would be willing to remove two seats. Mr. Giannocopoulos’ response was, ‘absolutely’.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he wanted it clear that if the Board granted the modification it would be for 48 seats in the lounge and 11 seats at the bar – not the 10% at the bar. Mr. Giannocopoulos indicated that that would be fine.
Mr. McKinley moved approval of modifying the alcohol license held by Dolphin Seafood. After a brief discussion he amended his motion to specify that the modification was for 48 seats in the lounge and 11 seats at the bar. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley noted that this was the first under the new policy and he would suggest that being the first modification that the Board ask the Police Chief to maintain a fairly routine inspection of this and any other premises that come before the Board to make sure it was working
DIMAS, INC. D/B/A DOLPHIN SEAFOOD: MODIFICATION OF LICENSE (contd)
as intended and to avoid any misunderstanding or confusion on the part of a licensee.
Mr. Stern requested that the license list the number of seats and stools being approved.
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET LAYOUT ACCEPTANCE
The public hearing notice for the street layout acceptance of Carter Drive and Jacqueline Circle was read.
Town Engineer Mark Coviello advised that Carter Drive was a cul-de-sac subdivision off Bacon Street and Jacqueline Circle was a cul-de-sac subdivision off Wheeler Lane. Both roads had been completed in conformance with the Planning Board rules and regulations. The
Planning Board recommended acceptance and voted to release the performance bonds.
Mr. Hughes questioned if the release of the performance bond was conditioned upon Town Meeting acceptance. Mr. Coviello explained that the bond was released based on the roads being built in accordance with the rules and specifications.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled there being some problems with drainage on Carter Drive and inquired if there were any more issues. Mr. Coviello noted that the Planning Board required two bonds on a subdivision. The DPW had one for the construction of the road and utilities and the second was with the Board of Health for grading. There had been some problems with the grading of the two lots on Carter Drive, but that was separate from the construction of the roadway and utilities. There was an outstanding bond for Carter Drive with approximately $20,000 withheld on the grading bond to take care of any problems.
If the developer doesn’t perform the work, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who would. Mr. Coviello advised that it would be at the Planning Board’s discretion and they could hire a contractor.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the Town did not accept Carter Drive, if the developer would be responsible for all maintenance until it became an accepted road. Mr. Coviello noted that the Town plows the street and provides service, but if there were a problem with the road, the Town would not be responsible. Mr. Ciccariello then asked if Mr. Coviello thought that the work left to be done on the house lots would require going back and digging up the street. Mr. Coviello’s response was, ‘not at all’. He added that he was out there with the developer and there was no way the construction of the road or utilities would be affected by the work that needs to be done.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the $20,000 was adequate to do what work needs to be done to correct the problem, and Mr. Coviello replied that he didn’t get involved, but Mr. Sarkisian (Community Development Director) thought it was substantially less than $7,000.
Nikos Federicos of 8 Carter Drive told the Board that it was the neighbors’ understanding that there would be a NOT A THROUGH WAY sign and he wondered when it would be installed. Mr. Coviello noted that that was not part of the subdivision requirements, but it could be brought up to the Safety Committee.
Mr. Federicos then asked about the installation of streetlights, and Mr. Coviello responded that streetlights were not required as part of the subdivision, but there was conduit in place. The residents through the Safety Committee can ask the Town to install lights.
Continuing Mr. Federicos inquired as to how the drainage easements would be maintained. If they need to be re-dug and weeded will the town be weeding? Parts were steep slopes and there were no barriers
between the steep areas and the backyards. He had a newborn and it seemed dangerous to have a child out in the yard unsupervised. What was the overall plan to maintain?
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET LAYOUT ACCEPTANCE (contd)
Mr. Coviello explained that Mr. Federicos was talking about the easements along the perimeter that carry the storm water. The drainage swales were in the Town of Natick easement and the Town of Natick will be responsible for maintaining the easement. The work recently done was clearing some silt and vegetation. The swales were heavily vegetated which was a good thing, and the Town will go in as needed if it affects the runoff.
Mr. Stern inquired if the Town had looked at the swales to be sure they met all safety standards for steepness of embankments. Mr. Coviello gave assurance that they were built according to the plan. Mr. Stern reiterated his question as to whether they met safety standards, but Mr. Coviello felt that Mr. Stern would have to tell him what safety standards he was talking about. Mr. Stern referenced OSHA, and Mr. Coviello replied that the slopes were stabilized and in his experience they were safe.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry as to whether the easements were on the property owners’ lots or just abutting each lot line, Mr. Coviello responded that the easement went through the rear lots of 3-4 properties. Asked if the individuals who purchased the properties knew there was an easement, Mr. Coviello stated that that was correct and some have put a fence along the property.
Mr. McKinley noted that the Conservation Commission had some say in the care and maintenance as well. Mr. Coviello agreed, noting that if the DPW had to do maintenance, they would need to notify the Conservation Commission.
Renee Federicos told the Board that behind the house the slope wasn’t too steep, but beside the house it was very steep and truly wasn’t safe. It was very scary if a kid’s ball went down there. There was a lot of rock and if a ball goes down and a child goes down, it wasn’t safe. She questioned if it was their (Mr. & Mrs. Federicos) responsibility to put up a barrier. Two homes put up a cinder block barrier. She confirmed that they knew there would be a drainage easement when they bought the lot, but it wasn’t in and they didn’t see it. Had they seen it they probably wouldn’t have bought it. She would like somebody from the Town to come and see it and give an opinion if it was safe.
Mr. Hughes questioned if this discussion was part of the street acceptance hearing or part of the Board of Health bond for the drainage. Mr. Coviello noted that it was neither. Most of the drainage was built before most of the houses were finished. The back yards were very steep, but whether it was steep or not steep, it was private property.
Mr. McKinley commented that he wasn’t sure any of this had anything to do with the acceptance of Carter Drive. Mr. Ciccariello agreed that the discussion was getting out of the acceptance of the street. He recommended that the owners go back to the Planning Board and discuss the issues with them because they approved the plans including the grading plans.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley moved to accept the layout of Carter Drive as shown on the plan dated August 22, 2003 and sign the layout documents. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley moved to accept the layout of Jacqueline Circle as shown on the plan dated August 22, 2002. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
DPW DIRECTOR:
a. Fall Town Meeting Articles 5 & 6
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky explained that Article 5 dealt with Phase III of the water relining and would do Union, Summer, and Pond Streets.
DPW DIRECTOR: (contd)
This was a $1.7 million project covering 20,000 linear feet in length. The proposal was to issue a 20-year bond.
Mr. Hughes asked if this was another phase, and Mr. Sisitsky responded that the feeling was that the Town should continue with another portion of town where there were large water main areas. Phase I was Bacon Street. Phase II was North Main Street. He noted that on North Main Street they were finding a lot more manganese than expected. There was a 10” pipe with a remaining diameter of 2”, and they would like to continue on depending if funds were available.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about past projects - if they came within budget and if any funds were left. Mr. Sisitsky advised that both phase I and II came in under appropriation. Phase II was not as yet finished and on Phase I they were doing the hot topping now. There were probably funds available, but it was a bond issue so the funds would have to be reallocated to make them available. He wasn’t sure of the financial procedure, but there would be funds left.
Mr. Hughes noted that this was an authorization to borrow $1.7 million, but the Town wouldn’t necessarily borrow $1.7M depending on what’s available. Finance Director Robert Palmer noted that the full amount of the authorization (for the others projects) had not been borrowed and would probably never be and the money will be released by Town Meeting. A project would have to be 100% complete before the funds would be released.
Mr. Hughes commented that the money wouldn’t be needed before spring, but Mr. Sisitsky noted that the DPW would like to bid the job in the winter.
Asked if any pipe was being replaced, Mr. Sisitsky advised that there wasn’t. Occasionally a gate valve, but it was basically all cleaning and lining.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to the life expectancy of this treatment and was told by Mr. Sisitsky that it was 50 years.
Mr. Stern asked if there had been any notice of significant pressure drop, and Mr. Sisitsky responded that it was gradual so it wasn’t noticed. The difference would be noticed when the pipes were cleaned.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the impact of the project on the water & sewer rates. Mr. Sisitsky advised that it would be approximately ¾ of a percent on the average bill. For someone paying $100 per year for water, it would add 75 cents.
Mr. McKinley pointed out that the enterprise fund was structured so a certain amount of money was available for maintenance and repairs. Was this exceeding the guidelines? Mr. Sisitsky explained that there were funds for routine maintenance and in the Sewer Division that was usually used to renovate sewer pump stations. This was a major capital project that was not budgeted in the regular capital. It’s a one-time expense that needs to be bonded.
Mr. Hughes moved to support Article 5. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Sisitsky explained that Article 6 would provide chlorine analyzers and injection equipment at the Town Forest and Broads Hill reservoir. The injection equipment would give the DPW the ability to inject chlorine at the reservoir so if the water became contaminated it could be treated. At the present time they did not have that ability. The analyzers would give the DPW an indication when the chlorine dropped.
Mr. Hughes inquired if this would solve the problem of bacteria developing when the water level dropped, and was told by Mr. Sisitsky that it would. Currently the Town didn’t have the ability to treat and had to drain the reservoir and treat it.
DPW DIRECTOR: (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the funding source, and Mr. Sisitsky responded that it would be about $300,000 and the money would come from water & sewer retained earnings. Mr. Ciccariello commented that it would not result in an increase in water & sewer rates and Mr. Sisitsky confirmed that as being correct. Finance Director Robert Palmer added that each year the amount available would be certified. Last year the Board voted to use $800,000 in retained earnings against the rates.
Mr. McKinley stated that he was against this. It seemed like every time you turned around there was some other expense the community had to incur to prepare for some threat and to him this seemed way out there on the edge. It would be worthwhile if the Town had the money, but it never came up under the auspices of the Board of Health or water
quality problems. If the Town had $300,000 in the water surplus, he would rather use that to pay for relining or reduction of the water bills.
Mr. Sisitsky explained that the impetus came from a vulnerability study that was mandated under the Safe Water Drinking Act. Any system that serves more than 3,300 people must do a vulnerability study and this popped out at them. Mr. McKinley responded that he understood but he just wasn’t convinced it was necessary and if the federal government wanted to say it was necessary, let them pay.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he was leaning with Mr. McKinley and asked if there had been any contamination issues with this particular site in the past and what type of security was there now. Mr. Sisitsky didn’t think he should get into the security issue. Regarding contamination issues, Mr. Hughes recalled that because of a drought a bacteria developed and 5 million gallons of water had to be drained because it couldn’t be treated.
Asked if this would prevent that from happening again, Mr. Sisitsky advised that it wouldn’t prevent it from happening, but it could be treated without draining 5 million gallons. Mr. Stern inquired as to the value of 5 million gallons and was told by Mr. Sisitsky that it had nothing to do with the value of the water but someone’s health.
Mr. McKinley suggested that if the Board took any action that it either be silent or ask Town Meeting to refer it back for some further discussion. He would rather have Mr. Sisitsky go in with a unanimous recommendation to refer it back than with a split vote of the Board.
Mr. Stern questioned if there were deadlines for doing this, and Mr. Sisitsky advised that the survey had to be done by next year. When DEP did its annual sanitary survey last spring they pointed this out as a weakness in the system and suggested strongly that the Town do something to correct it and the DPW’s response was to seek funds at the Fall Town Meeting. If it wasn’t done, it was likely to come up again.
When asked how it would work, Mr. Lemnios explained that currently if there was a bacteria reading at that locale beyond a safe limit, someone would be dispatched out there to take the reading and introduce something manually. Under this proposal there was a sensor monitoring water quality and if the reading went below a certain level, not only would it trigger an alarm but it would automatically begin feeding chlorine into the system with no lag time. It was the lag time when talking about terrorism. Losing an hour or two and having contaminated water getting into the system was significant. The probability of that occurring was probably small and the federal government probably should provide it, but it was a risk.
Since the incident occurred 5-6 years ago, Mr. McKinley questioned how many times since then treatment had been required at the reservoir system. Water & Sewer supervisor Jack Perodeau advised that it was 3-4
times a year depending on the year. This summer there wasn’t too much. Mr. Sisitsky pointed out that the only way to do it now was to put up a long extension ladder up to the top of the tank. This would give a much easier and quicker way to put chlorine into the system.
DPW DIRECTOR: (contd)
Mr. McKinley inquired as to the impact on the reservoir system when the Springvale capacity was increased. Mr. Perodeau advised that it shouldn’t change. Mr. McKinley questioned if it was conceivable that one or both of the reservoirs may be eliminated, but Mr. Perodeau said, ‘no’, they couldn’t be.
In reading the material submitted, Mr. Ciccariello felt there was a provision to get grants and was that a possibility. Mr. Lemnios noted that the federal government was beginning a process of identifying grants for cities and towns, but he hadn’t seen grants for this in particular. It was true that grants were being given on the federal level, but the amounts for each municipality were fairly small for homeland security.
Mr. Hughes moved to support Article 6. Seconded by Mr. Stern. After further discussion the motion was withdrawn and no vote taken.
In speaking to his motion, Mr. Hughes pointed out that this was the Town’s water supply and for this amount of money the Town would protect its water supply for years in the future. Mr. Stern concurred and noted that he thought it would be shortsighted not to support this article.
Mr. McKinley stated that he was prepared to vote against the motion as he thought the $300,000 could be spent on a lot of things. He was not convinced that this was the best way to spend $300,000 at this time and he didn’t want to communicate a 2-2 vote. Mr. McKinley moved to table until the entire Board could discuss it. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the tabling motion, Mr. Ciccariello noted that he had mixed emotions and would like the opportunity to read a little more before voting to support. He would like to talk to the Town Administrator about seeing if grants were available or some type of reimbursement at a later date.
Mr. Hughes offered to withdraw his motion if the Board wanted to schedule a meeting for October 20 or 21 to have a full Board present.
b. Springvale Treatment Plant: Award Contract
Mr. Sisitsky informed the Board that on September 4, 2003 bids were open for the expansion of the Springvale Treatment Plant. Four bids were received with Methuen Construction the low bidder at $5,155,395.00. The other bidders were R.H. White Construction at $5,298,000.00; Waterline Industries at $5,357,377.00; and Wes Construction at $5,914,896.00.
Mr. Sisitsky told the Board that Methuen’s references were reviewed and there was a good response. They did five water treatment plants including Wellesley where they got a favorable recommendation.
If the Board were to award the contract tonight, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was a standard Town contract or would it go to Town Counsel. Mr. Sisitsky replied that all contracts go to Town Counsel, but there was a boilerplate.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to when Mr. Sisitsky expected to begin, and Mr. Sisitsky responded that he hoped it would get underway early next year. If there were an early spring, it would start by April.
Mr. Sisitsky was then asked if any more piping was required, but Mr. Perodeau advised that it was all done.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the bid document required a performance bond, a time schedule and liquated damages. Mr. Sisitsky advised that he didn’t have a timeframe in there and pointed out that if it were put in, it went both ways. The contractor had to pay a penalty if they were late or a bonus if early. DPW Business Manager noted that 480 days after the contract was signed and notice to proceed issued, there was a penalty of $400 per day.
DPW DIRECTOR: (contd)
Mr. Sisitsky also noted that the Town had been approved for a twenty-year loan at 2% from the state revolving fund, which Mr. Lemnios noted, was a significant grant.
Mr. Sisitsky confirmed as being correct Mr. McKinley’s understanding that the contract would cost $345,000 less than appropriated.
Mr. Ciccariello moved to award the contract for the expansion of the Springvale Treatment Plant to the low bidder Methuen Construction Company in the amount of $5,155,395.00 conditioned upon the review of the contract document by the Town Administrator and Town Counsel. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes was opposed.
INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO REUSE STUDY COMMITTEE EAST CENTRAL STREET NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY
Mr. Stern announced that Nomi Sofer had withdrawn her name from consideration.
a. Debra Sayre
Debra Sayre told the Board that she was interested in the Reuse Committee as she thought the Armory was a wonderful building and this was a good opportunity to explore how it could benefit the community. Any dreams or ideas she had would be based on the number, but she thought it was worth exploring.
Mr. McKinley noted that Ms. Sayre was active in Kids Connect and he wondered if Ms. Sayre was interested in securing the fix for her program. Ms. Sayre responded that she was not, noting that they were fine. In follow-up Mr. McKinley asked if the committee said the best thing to do with this building was to tear it down, would she be OK with that. Ms. Sayre replied that she would be sad. That may be the end result, but she was interested in exploring all the possibilities.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to appoint Debra Sayre to the Armory Reuse Committee.
Mr. Hughes then moved to confirm the appointment of Karen Oakley representing the Council on Aging, John Griffith representing Recreation & Parks, and Jeffrey Phillips representing the Finance Committee. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Benjamin Greenberg had expressed an interest in being appointed to the committee, but missed the interview. Staff was asked to inquire if Mr. Greenberg was still interested.
Mr. Stern requested that the citizens-at-large vacancies be re-posted.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE: GOLDEN II, Inc. d/b/a MANCHU WOK
Representing Golden II, Inc. d/b/a Manchu Wok was Attorney George Theus and SuZhen Zheng, the owner.
Mr. Theus advised that Ms. Zheng took over the operation after the prior operation did not meet the criteria of the corporation. Ms. Zheng has done what was necessary to bring the store into compliance. She was very experienced and owned stores in Danvers and Pennsylvania. In addition she had been a regional director of Manchu Wok.
Mr. Hughes noted that the Articles of Organization were dated August 16, 2003 and questioned if Ms. Zheng was operating in Natick at that time. Mr. Theus advised that she was not. A corporation had been set up, but there were some issues between the franchisee and the Natick Mall. It was a shell corporation until September 1, 2003 when she took over the operation.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of transferring the common victualer’s license held by Ace Lee Corporation d/b/a Manchu Wok to Golden II, Inc.
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE: GOLDEN II, Inc. d/b/a MANCHU WOK (contd)
d/b/a Manchu Wok for premises at the Natick Mall, 1245 Worcester Road. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
THOMAS STEEL & ROBERT SHEEHAN: RCN – LICENSE COMPLIANCE
Appearing before the Board were Thomas Steel, Vice President and Regulatory Counsel and Robert Sheehan, Vice President and General Manager.
In terms of responsibility Mr. Sheehan told the Board that he was the one who makes the decision for RCN relative to service delivery and capital investment. The Town was launched in 2001 and almost at the same time service was introduced here, the dynamics of the business have changed dramatically. RCN has been facing a very different business dynamic these past few years and that has forced him to make his investment decisions on a different pro forma. He had to shift his whole philosophy from spending capital on homes he could get to, to spending capital on investment return. That was because of the cash situation and the availability of investment dollars.
Mr. Sheehan noted that in 2001 there were 14,237 addresses in Natick and the RCN network passes 11,803. The difference was the issue now being discussed in terms of completing construction. 2,434 were cold nodes – addresses not passed by the active plant. There were 2,500 addresses that were passed by the active network but RCN was unable to complete the delivery of service for reasons of denial of access to apartment buildings by an owner, denial of easement, and constraint in spending cash. RCN was still growing in Natick. Since April of last year nearly 400 customers were added to the cumulative base.
To make the investment choices, RCN evaluates each request and does a field survey to assess the work that would be required. There were thresholds. If an additional financial investment exceeded $500, a decision was made that RCN would not deliver service to that address without a contribution from the potential customer to bring the cost down to $500. That threshold was used pretty much across-the-board. There were a number of cul-de-sacs where service passes by, but RCN didn’t bring the service into the cul-de-sac. The count for those was 674. The reason for not bringing in service was the underlying cost.
In conclusion Mr. Sheehan stated that he welcomed the opportunity to meet tonight and at any interval to talk about the progress. RCN was very pleased to bring service to Natick. It’s been a good Town for them. The penetration had been extraordinary, but the financial constraints make it difficult for RCN to extend further than what they had done to date.
Mr. Steel noted that RCN had some real considerations that they were dealing with not just in Natick, but in their market. Two weeks ago he outlined the position of the company in a letter to the Board. Considering where RCN was at, he proposed that one alternative the Board might embrace would be to exercise forbearance and agree that when a request came in and finances allowed, they would construct. He didn’t expect that was a route the Board would take and suggested that a second alternative was to consider another extension and try to work with RCN so they could document the addresses they can’t serve and why they can’t.
Mr. Steel continued that last year Natick Village was difficult to service not just because of the underground, but the costly expense of adding wire. A new FCC ruling will help them and if they get the
cooperation of the landlord, RCN would try to move to get the 1,542 (units) ready. He couldn’t promise but he would work toward it. Mr. Steel noted that it was difficult for RCN to build out the entire town when they had a competitor who was ahead of them and the expense of putting it (infrastructure) in was beyond their financial capacity. RCN was in survival mode in terms of cash.
THOMAS STEEL & ROBERT SHEEHAN: RCN – LICENSE COMPLIANCE (contd)
Mr. McKinley asked if the 14,237 addresses were just residences and Mr. Steel responded that there were probably a couple of hundred commercial included.
To Mr. Sheehan’s claim that RCN went by 11,803 homes, Mr. McKinley interpreted that to mean that should one of those addresses want to connect, they could do so by running a wire from the street to the house. Mr. Steel explained that for at least 9,232 they could do that with a telephone call, but another 2,500 were cold pockets requiring a field survey. The cold pockets may be an apartment building or underground. With 9,200 ready to go and another 2,500 requiring additional work, Mr. McKinley noted that that left 2,434. Asked if the 2,434 included the 1,534 at Natick Village, Mr. Steel said it did. Mr. McKinley then noted that there was almost 700 underground and other than those and Natick Village, that would mean that there were only 300 without service. Mr. Steel indicated that that was
correct.
Mr. Hughes commented that he didn’t recall RCN having pulled any permits to install underground anywhere. Mr. Steel acknowledged that it was unlikely that they had. Underground was difficult to do and the cost went up significantly. Mr. Hughes thought the Board had been led to believe that none of the wire installed was underground, and Mr. Steel explained that the only underground was for the I-net. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Hughes regarding the 2,500 homes that RCN passed but couldn’t service, Mr. Steel explained that RCN went by the main street and it was down the cul-de-sac where the underground came in.
Reading from Mr. Steel’s letter to the Board, Mr. Ciccariello noted that it said that Natick Village was beyond RCN’s control. He questioned if RCN had a plan in place right now to deal with that. Mr. Steel responded that it was difficult because in addition to some underground there was inside wiring and the landlord objected. The FCC has now determined that the wiring behind sheetrock was accessible and a competitor such as RCN could access that. In the past that wasn’t true. When the wire comes out of the sheetrock, RCN can now access and save the cost and disruption. RCN has slowly started to implement that in other communities.
Mr. Ciccariello repeated his question as to whether RCN had a plan in effect right now to deal with the 1,542 units at Natick Village. Mr. Sheehan advised that they did not have a plan right now.
If the landlord wouldn’t let RCN in, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if RCN had something in writing saying they wouldn’t be allowed in. Mr. Steel
advised that in some cases they did and in some cases they didn’t, but he could supply that for the Board.
Regarding the 674 underground addresses, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what made it so different today than it was before. When RCN decided to come to Natick, they were going to provide service to all the residents and RCN knew they had to go underground. Why wasn’t it cost prohibitive then?
Mr. Steel responded that in 1998 RCN began construction in the suburbs and in 2000 they were granted the license in Natick. They spent a great deal of money and that was how the system was valued to Wall Street, but that dynamic changed. The dot.com’s fell to the floor and Wall Street wanted to see revenue generated. No more was it how much you spent, but every dollar amount spent had to produce revenue. That change occurred midstream while building Natick.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the contract required that the RCN system must be available to all residents. Mr. Steel replied that he was aware of that and had been reminded of that last year. He added that if RCN were forced to build out the entire Town and the other 5-6 suburban towns, they would be out of business.
Again referring to Mr. Steel’s letter to the Board, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what easements and utility issues were still outstanding
THOMAS STEEL & ROBERT SHEEHAN: RCN – LICENSE COMPLIANCE (contd)
that prevents RCN from completing that portion. Mr. Steel offered to provide the Board with a list of private easements. He added that since January 58 citizens called for service who were bumped off the service-ready available list to field survey. Some of those had apartment issues and some had easement issues. Fifteen out of the 58 got served.
Mr. Stern stated that he had a problem with RCN’s position of walking away from the 700 residents that required underground. The Board was being asked to give its blessing for RCN to walk away and he had a problem with that. Mr. Steel preferred to look at it as not so much a walk away from 700, but that RCN had built past 11,000 and that was a major step to bring competition to the Town. He also reminded the Board of the benefits RCN brought to the Town such as the I-net, public access, and being a good corporate citizen. He told the Board that RCN would love to build out the entire town and their intention was to build out the entire town. They were not saying they would never build it out.
While the 85% of the residents who were serviced were grateful, Mr. Stern noted that it was the Board’s job to look to the interest of those who weren’t served and RCN promised to serve. Mr. Steel felt that the change in circumstances had to be recognized. RCN was the last competitor standing. They were still here and intend to stay here and expand here as much as they could in a cost efficient way, but they needed the Board’s support. If Natick and other communities try to force RCN to adhere to the contract, there will not be competition.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to when the Board would see the list of 2,500 residences that RCN went by and can’t service. He noted his understanding that RCN planned to deal with the 1,542 residences at Natick Village.
Mr. Sheehan didn’t want to see the discussion end on this note. With respect to giving the Board information about the 2,500 residences, Mr. Sheehan stated that he could provide that information and give the Board a date for when he could do that. The same with the easements. With respect to the large development which represents a large portion of what was un-built, he suggested that RCN take another look at that development with some of their partners and see if they could package that one and some others into a project that would be appealing, provided that it met RCN’s financial requirements. On a one-by-one basis it was difficult to overcome the threshold and difficult to get a contribution from individual subscribers. Perhaps they could start packaging projects for a contractor to see if
that could drive the cost down. He felt that he could give the Board that information within 30 days.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the contract extension lapsed October 10. Mr. Sheehan felt that it would take 30 days to get that information, but added that this had been discussed today and he thought he could energize the examination in order to get back to the Board.
Mr. Hughes requested that the information include the cost of getting into the Natick Village condos as opposed to the apartment complexes owned by one owner. Mr. Sheehan agreed to provide that information. Mr. Hughes then asked about the cost issues with the 2,500 that can’t be served, and Mr. Sheehan agreed to provide information that could make it clearer.
Mr. Hughes stated that he would like to see that before 30 days, but Mr. Sheehan felt that that amount of time would be needed. He could get back to the Board within one week to say how much more quickly he could have the information.
Mr. Lemnios inquired as to the cost to build out the system so far and was told by Mr. Sheehan that it was about $6 million and to go to the 100% would be between $2-4 million. Mr. Lemnios then asked about anticipated revenue per drop, and Mr. Sheehan responded that the residents who subscribe, subscribe to multiple services and usually the bill was about $125 per month.
THOMAS STEEL & ROBERT SHEEHAN: RCN – LICENSE COMPLIANCE (contd)
When asked how many customers, Mr. Sheehan replied that there were about 2,600. Noting that that represented about 25% of the potential hookups, Mr. McKinley questioned if there had been any aggressive marketing. Mr. Sheehan noted that the marketing was pretty aggressive and it had to be because they were in a different ballgame. In follow-up Mr. Hughes asked about projected penetration, and Mr. Sheehan replied that there would be different answers from different people. He thought about 27-28%. The model called for them to be at 30% and he
tried to put plans in place within their financial constraints to get to 40%. In some towns they were at 40%. Mr. Hughes asked if the failure to access multi-unit dwellings was one of the reasons RCN was not at that penetration, and Mr. Sheehan acknowledged that that clearly contributed, but added that the cost of bringing services to some multi-dwelling units could be pretty excessive. Up until the change in the law, RCN was looking at not only bringing cable underground but wiring the entire building. In addition they had to overcome the concerns of the landlord for disfiguring the building and knew they had to spend a lot of money to duplicate a network that was already in the building. With this (FCC) ruling the fog has cleared a bit and RCN was trying to take legal advantage, but he was still
operating in a tight cash constrained capital program. Mr. McKinley asked if the same ruling applied to underground wiring in a subdivision. Mr. Sheehan advised that it did not.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if RCN kept track of any new subdivision being built so they could get their lines in advance of the roadways. Mr. Sheehan responded that RCN tried to work with Planning Boards to put conduit in. When asked if that had been done in Natick, Mr. Sheehan’s response was, “not that I am aware of”.
Through a series of questions, Mr. Ball ascertained that RCN’s penetration represented 27% and if they were able to service everybody, the expected penetration would be 30%. He explained that he was trying to get a feel for how egregious this failure to provide service to everyone was and the number of people who might be discomforted by not being able to get it, and the answer was about 750.
Mr. McKinley wasn’t sure what was going to be accomplished tonight other than an offer to study what might be possible at what costs, and he suggested that arrangements be made for Mr. Steel and Mr. Sheehan to schedule a meeting with Mr. Lemnios. There was no dispute that RCN was in violation of the terms of their license, and no dispute that there was only so much they could do in the economic climate.
Mr. Stern asked about Brookline and Lexington – if there had been any contract extensions. Mr. Steel stated that in Brookline RCN was in a long process of promising to build to homes at $500 or less. In Lexington there were about 800 homes (not serviced) and they (Lexington) hadn’t done anything. The same in Burlington and Needham. Framingham raised the issue and there has been forbearance and there hasn’t been a quid pro quo for forbearance.
Mr. Ball inquired as to the number of people living in an apartment complex that RCN currently cannot service but maybe because of the change in law will be able to service. Mr. Steel advised that there were 1,500. Mr. Ball noted that that was a substantial chunk and if that were resolved, it would be a big step toward compliance. Having previously said that it was possible, Mr. Ball asked Mr. Sheehan to be more explicit about pursuing that issue. Mr. Sheehan stressed the use of the word possible. He suggested that RCN come back with a proposal
that may be in the middle of where they were today, but they would need some time to assess that. He offered to let the Board know in one week the exact date for when he would have it.
Mr. Lemnios identified the items of information being requested: l) evidence from the landlords that refused entrance into the multi-dwelling unit; 2) easement issue list; 3) list of 2,500 homes passed but can’t be serviced – an explanation as to why and the cost; 4) a specific plan for Natick Village with the cost. If he were going to meet with RCN, Mr. Lemnios suggested that the Cable Advisory Committee
THOMAS STEEL & ROBERT SHEEHAN: RCN – LICENSE COMPLIANCE (contd)
be brought in as well as any member of the Board of Selectmen who would like to take part.
Once those meeting have taken place, Mr. Lemnios said he would provide the Board with a summation of the options. Mr. McKinley urged that Mr. Lemnios and the Board be open minded about what’s possible.
Since the Board just scheduled a meeting for October 20, Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Sheehan could have the information by then. An update was tentatively scheduled for the 20th.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Mr. Hughes reported that he had attended both the Planning Board and Finance Committee hearings regarding Article 22 – the housing overlay option plan. It was his belief that the Planning Board would vote for referral and the Finance Committee would do so as well. He suggested that one of the members of the Board make a presentation at Town Meeting as well as Mr. Sarkisian (Community Development Director) so there could be some discussion at Town Meeting. Mr. Hughes volunteered.
Mr. Stern noted that he had attended the same meeting and was there when Article 21 (Design Review Board) was discussed. He found out that night that as presently envisioned the Design Review Board would only apply to developers in a mixed used district and not apply to residential housing. The way it was envisioned would have the Town with a hodge podge and he (Mr. Stern) didn’t know what would be accomplished.
Mr. Hughes noted that he had suggested that the make up of the Design Review Board be changed as he thought the restrictions on the appointment power of the Board of Selectmen were much too restrictive. It limited the Board’s selection to one member of two groups and no others. He didn’t know what happened with his suggestion.
Mr. Stern requested that Mr. Sarkisian be invited to attend the next Selectmen’s meeting to discuss the article.
Mr. McKinley stated that he objected to the Design Review article. His initial reaction was that other towns had tried things like this. It (Design Review) was a board with no authority, but quite a bit of power because they give a recommendation and most SPGA pretty much accept the
recommendation as gospel. Just because you didn’t like the way a building looked, didn’t mean it was a bad design.
Article 19 – Authorization to Purchase State Surplus Land – Speen St.
Mr. Hughes moved to support Article 19 with the understanding that the Planning Board would supply the funding for the acquisition. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Article 20 – Acquisition of Land – Morency Street
Mr. McKinley moved to support Article 20. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
In making the motion Mr. McKinley stated that it was his understanding that the officials in Framingham would ask to refer the article back. The Framingham Town Meeting was October 7, 2003, but it was not unusual for Framingham to have a Town Meeting in November or December.
Mr. Hughes thought the Board unanimously supported the idea behind Article 20, but voting this would mean ending up with this wording and he didn’t know if the Town would be asked to do more. He questioned if this article would cover the proposed agreement with the four-lot subdivision. Mr. Lemnios advised that it would, adding that the four lot subdivision was a matter of right.
Mr. Ciccariello was interested in preserving Morency Street as open space and his suggestion would be to obtain the approval to grant a conservation restriction if and when the time came.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES (contd)
Mr. Stern inquired as to where the restriction came into play, but Mr. Lemnios advised that there wouldn’t be a restriction. He believed that Framingham was going to propose that there be four market rate lots and they would take the profits and re-invest them back into Framingham and Natick would have 13 acres of property with the conservation restriction on it. The practicality of creating two affordable units in Natick had no benefit to Framingham. He further advised that the Finance Committee had held on this article to see what Framingham did.
Mr. Lemnios reported that the Finance Committee had voted favorable action on Article 13 (Home rule petition club licenses) and voted referral on Article 25 (Home rule petition – baby safe haven).
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board reconsider its support of Article 25. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley was opposed.
When asked what concerns were raised at the Finance Committee hearing, Mr. Hughes listed the following: whether a private entity could be required to participate; could the Town provide immunity from prosecution; it seemed to the Finance Committee that this was an issue to be handled at the state level; was there any legal liability incurred by the Town; would the immunity provided by this apply in the
case where a child dropped off had been abused. He understood the reasoning behind the sponsors, but considering the number of questions, he wasn’t sure he was prepared to go forward with recommending it to Town Meeting.
Mr. Ball questioned if that was Mr. Hughes’ position notwithstanding that the Board voted to sponsor the article. Mr. Hughes indicated that it was. Mr. Ciccariello thought that the Board’s vote was more emotional, but agreed that some valid concerns were raised.
Mr. Ball pointed out that this was legislation that was supported and championed by Senator Jacques and it was his understanding that from Senator Jacques’ research into this, the myriad of potential legal problems were not reasons for this legislation not to pass at the state level, but given the reluctance at the state level, she supported this article.
Mr. McKinley reminded the Board that when the proponents came before the Selectmen, many concerns were identified such as the legal ability to force the hospital to participate and whether there were any collective bargaining issues. He didn’t feel that the Board should sit here and claim naiveté and that the bill wasn’t right. The concept was powerful and he would like to find a way to support it even if it wasn’t a tenable article as written. Rather than just referring it back, he preferred to have it referred back to the Board with the direction that it be forwarded to the state legislators accompanied by a recording of the Town Meeting vote whether they were in favor of it in principal with the specifics to be worked out later at the state level or local level. He didn’t want to
withdraw the Board’s support of the article and he would like Town Meeting to have a chance to discuss it and give a direction.
Mr. Hughes suggested that the Board have Mr. Lemnios look into whether the Board could sponsor a resolution instead of an action on the article and then take that position at the meeting of October 20. That may be more appropriate.
Mr. Ball stated that he was in favor of communicating the Board’s support for this concept. The point of the proponents was that because of the inertia in the legislature this bill was for towns to take action on a town-by-town basis and offer this kind of protection. The idea was to get this established now. If the legislature gets its act together, he was in favor of getting it withdrawn locally, but he didn’t think simply communicating to the Town’s legislators that this was a good idea moved the problem forward. In his opinion the Board shouldn’t abandon support of this in favor of that.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES (contd)
While he agreed with Mr. Ball, Mr. McKinley pointed out that the article was probably not legal. He wasn’t looking to abandon it, but looking for a way to get as much support as possible. He also questioned what the Attorney General would do and if the AG would find it beyond the scope of the Town’s authority.
Mr. Ball pointed out that the wording was identical to language used successfully by other towns.
Mr. Hughes noted that he spoke with Town Counsel and he thought a couple of towns passed it. He (Town Counsel) was aware of no legislative action that allowed the home rule to be approved.
If the fate of the home rule petition was to be hung up in the legislature, so be it, but Mr. Ball said he would like to see Natick take proactive steps in this area and if the language was faulty, the Attorney General would advise the Town, but for the Board not to support it was a mistake.
Mr. Ball moved to support Article 25. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. Mr. McKinley then withdrew his second and no vote was taken.
Mr. Hughes moved to table to October 20 and ask Town Counsel about the resolution. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
JOSEPH MARON – REQUEST ABATEMENT OF WATER BILL
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted a total abatement of $353.40 for water & sewer charges incurred by Mrs. Joseph Maron of 19 Sylvester Road as the result of an outside faucet leak.
STEPHANE CROCHER – REQUEST ABATEMENT OF WATER BILL
Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer explained that when the final read was done for Stephane Crocher, formerly of 3 Stonebridge Circle, the water bill reflected a large increase in consumption. At the prior meeting the Board asked that he determine via census how many residents were at the property. There were three.
Mr. Palmer noted that he had provided the Board with an historical history of the readings. This particular property owner took possession after July 29, 1999, and the Water Department indicated that they had read the inside meter at that time and it was in fact in sync with the outside meter. He had recommended going back and pro-rating the bill according to rates in effect, but that was already done.
When asked if it was the opinion of the Water Department that there was nothing wrong with the meters, Mr. Palmer responded that that was their indication. Mr. Palmer noted that that would average out to almost 40 hcf, which was high for three people. Looking at the historical readings, Mr. Palmer thought they were a little low, but if adding everything back in, the readings appeared to be a little high.
The Board took no action, and Mr. Palmer was asked to notify the Crocher’s attorney that no action was taken.
BOARD OF SELECTMEN REPRESENTATIVE – RINK OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Mr. Lemnios reminded the Board that when the rink was put out to bid, the RFP contained a Rink Oversight Committee to review the capital
investment being made and other issues. The committee consists of the Recreation Director, the Building Commissioner, the Town Administrator, the Finance Director, and a member of the Board of Selectmen although there could be more than one representative from the Board.
Mr. McKinley was volunteered as the Board’s representative and he accepted.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Mr. Lemnios proposed holding off discussion of goals & objectives until the October 20th meeting.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES (contd)
Mr. McKinley raised the issue of a performance review for Mr. Lemnios. Mr. Stern felt that the Board should use the goals and objectives to start that off. Mr. McKinley agreed, but thought it may be worth considering the process and who was going to do it. Historically it fell to the Vice-Chairman. Mr. Ciccariello recalled that this had been discussed before, and he was going to talk to David Baier to see if the MMA had a copy of what other towns used.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Financial Excellence Award
Mr. McKinley called attention to an article in the MMA Beacon on Westwood wining the Sixth Annual Award for Financial Excellence, and proposed that that be a goal for the Town of Natick.
b. Town Vehicle
The Board was in receipt of a letter dated September 24, 2003 from a concerned citizen. The citizen wrote that while driving behind a Town vehicle, the driver threw a lighted cigarette out the window. Mr. Stern pointed out that there was a non-smoking policy in vehicles, and asked that Mr. Lemnios notify everyone of the policy.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
_______________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
