BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
October 27, 2003
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley. Absent: Jeffrey A. Stern
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary.
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on October 27, 2003 in the amount of $1,370,614.72. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of
$3,538,089.51.
MINUTES
With corrections as noted, Mr. McKinley moved approval of the minutes of the August 4, 2003 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
POLICE CHIEF: POLICE DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENT
a. 1 Patrol Officer
Lieutenant Nicholas Mabardy appeared on behalf of Police Chief Dennis Mannix to request that the Board conditionally offer employment as a full-time patrol officer in the Natick Police Department to Christian Rodriguez subject to satisfactory results of the physical exam and physical abilities test.
He noted that Mr. Rodriguez had been employed as a full-time police officer with the Miami Dade, Florida Police Department since September 2001. Prior to that he served as a caseworker with the Children’s Home Society and school counselor with Glastonbury, CT High School. Mr. Rodriguez also served with the Natick Police Department as a Public Safety Dispatcher from September 1999 through August 2000. Throughout his time as a dispatcher in Natick, Mr. Rodriguez expressed his interest in serving as a police officer in Natick, the community in which he was raised. In addition to being fluent in Spanish, Mr. Rodriguez brought a very desirable balance of practical experience in dealing with contemporary social issues, enforcement of criminal laws, and excellent customer service skills, observed first-hand during
his tenure as a Natick public safety dispatcher. Mr. Rodriguez had a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Boston College and a Master of Arts in School Counseling from Suffolk University.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the candidate needed to go through the Academy, but Lieutenant Mabardy believed the training Mr. Rodriguez received in
Miami qualified him to be accepted here in Massachusetts. Asked if that was a “no”, Lieutenant Mabardy responded that it was his understanding that all of his training in Miami Dade would be accepted by Massachusetts.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that it was his understanding that this appointment would be filling a vacant position and not adding additional staff.
Mr. Ball commented that in a discussion with Chief Mannix, the Chief mentioned that he would not be here tonight but he spoke about Mr. Rodriguez in extraordinarily complimentary terms. Quoting the Chief, this was probably one of the most qualified young men he ever sought for the Natick Police Department.
Mr. Ball moved, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the appointment of Christian Rodriguez as a patrol officer in the Natick Police Department. Mr. Ball, as the maker of the motion, and Mr. Hughes as the second agreed
to condition the appointment subject to satisfactory results from the required physical examination and successful completion of the physical abilities test.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE YOUTH ADVISORY BOARD;
a. Igor Minevich
Mr. Minevich told the Board that he was interested in serving on the Youth Advisory Board because he worked well with both kids and adults and felt he had a bridge between the two and could make the problems go smoothly. He was a senior at Natick High School.
Mr. Ball inquired if there was anything in particular that Mr. Minevich would like to accomplish or see the Youth Advisory Board accomplish during his tenure. Mr. Minevich responded that he wanted to see the group do well and wanted to get as many things done as possible to make everyone happy.
In his letter to the Board, Mr. Minevich mentioned that he was working at the Courtyard Hotel. When asked what he did at the Courtyard, Mr. Minevich advised that he worked at the front desk. It was pretty much customer service.
Mr. Minevich’s letter also mentioned that two years ago he went to the principal and tried to convince him not to lay off a certain teacher and he also spoke to Dr. Parker about allowing students to continue to wear hats. Mr. McKinley inquired as to what motivated Mr. Minevich to speak with these people and was he successful. Mr. Minevich replied that he didn’t approve of one of the teachers being fired. He was a great teacher who would take the time to explain things. He (Mr. Minevich) spoke to Dr. Parker, but at that point it was too late.
As to the hats, Mr. Minevich noted that kids bring hats to school and worry about them like their car. In his (Mr. Minevich) opinion the
kids focus more on hats than schoolwork, but if they had the hat on their head, it would make them focus on their work.
Mr. McKinley moved to appoint Igor Minevich to the Youth Advisory Board. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
DPW DIRECTOR: AWARD CONTRACT ROUTE 135 SEWER LINES
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky appeared before the Board to request that the contract for Route 135 sewer replacement and miscellaneous work be awarded to the low bidder, Revoli Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $762,656.l0. He advised that the money was appropriated at the 2002 Fall Town Meeting. References had been checked for Revoli Construction and it was felt that they were qualified to do the work
Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau showed a map of the streets to be done going from University Drive to Grant Street to Sherman Street and ending by South Main Street.
In his memo to the Board, Mr. Sisitsky mentioned that Haley & Ward was the Town Consultant and Mr. Ball asked if the Town paid them to provide the opinion. Mr. Sisitsky advised that Haley & Ward was paid as part of their contract to do the design work and bid documents. Mr. Lemnios added that that Haley & Ward also provided resident engineering services to ensure that the contractor conformed to the obligation of the contract.
Mr. Hughes commented on the condition of Sherman Street, and was told by Mr. Perodeau that there was money to pave, but it would be done all at once. When asked by Mr. Hughes if the plan was to pave Sherman Street after this work was done, Mr. Sisitsky’s response was, “yes”.
Mr. Hughes then commented on the disparity between the bids and asked how sure Mr. Sisitsky was about the low bid. Mr. Sisitsky responded that everyone bid on the same set of specifications and they were obligated to meet those costs. To ensure that it gets done, Revoli has provided a performance bond so the Town was protected with that number.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about a payment bond, and Mr. Sisitsky advised that that too had been posted. There was a penalty clause if they don’t do the job within the specified time.
Mr. Ciccariello then inquired as to how close the bid was to Haley & Ward’s estimate. Mr. Sisitsky thought the original estimate was closer to $1 million. Town Meeting appropriated $1,015,000.
DPW DIRECTOR: AWARD CONTRACT ROUTE 135 SEWER LINES (contd)
Mr. Hughes noted that this was not a relining and Mr. Sisitsky confirmed that as being correct. Mr. Sisitsky advised that in some cases the pipes would be enlarged to accommodate the sewer flow. The section by University Drive was very old and that was one section that would have to be enlarged. The project would allow usage to be diverted off Washington Avenue, which had been causing backups further up North Main Street because of the way it went into the MWRA line. It would be a long-range benefit.
Asked if any pumps stations could be eliminated, Mr. Sisitsky’s response was, ‘no’.
Since the bid was under the appropriation, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the unused funds would go back into the general fund. Mr. Sisitsky advised that they would and noted that the appropriation for this project came from excess funds from a previous project.
When asked how long the project would take, Mr. Sisitsky responded 130 days.
Mr. Ball requested a status report of the North Main Street project and Mr. Sisitsky replied that it looked like it would take another week or two. The lining was completed. Bacteria samples were taken and once the clearance was received, the crew would be cut back. He felt it would be 1-2 weeks, but the permanent patching of the road probably wouldn’t be done until the spring.
To Mr. Ciccariello it sounded as though the project would activate before winter and he inquired as to what steps would be taken to notify the residents. Mr. Sisitsky advised that it would be put on the message board saying there was construction on the street.
In follow-up Mr. Ball questioned what it would cost to send a postcard to the abutters to give them a heads up. Mr. Sisitsky didn’t see a problem doing that and Mr. Lemnios said he thought a letter could be sent out on the timeline of the project and where to call.
Mr. Hughes moved to award the Route 135 sewer replacement contract to the low bidder, Revoli Construction in the amount of $762,656.10. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
BUCA RESTAURANTS 3, INC. D/B/A VINNY TESTA’S NATICK: PETITION FOR CHANGE IN MANAGER
Before the Board was a petition from BUCA Restaurants 3, Inc. d/b/a Vinny Testa’s Natick for a change in manger from William Winans, IV to Joshua Rossmeisl.
Responding to questions posed by Mr. Ball, Mr. Rossmeisl stated that he was the current manager and had been there for about four months. The name appearing on the license was William Winans. Mr. Rossmeisl acknowledged his application was four months late.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that under Item 8, Liquor License Renewal, Chief Mannix advised that Vinny Testa’s was one of the license holders that had changed managers.
Mr. Ball inquired as to what prompted the application for the change in manager at this time, and Mr. Rossmeisl replied that once it was
official, he went to the office and it was taken care of at the home office. About two months ago they sent him the application, which he filled out and returned to the home office and was waiting for the date.
Mr. Ball explained that he was trying to find out where the fault lay in this being four months late. He wanted to know if it lay at Mr.
Rossmeisl’s doorstep or corporate headquarters. Mr. Rossmeisl noted that it had been his experience that the license was generally in the company’s name, but it was presented to him that he had to do this.
Looking at his application, Mr. Ball noted that Mr. Rossmeisl was a certified Tips trainer. Mr. Rossmeisl clarified that he was not a trainer with BUCA. With his former corporation he was a trainer, but he was now certified with AIM.
BUCA RESTAURANTS 3, INC. D/B/A VINNY TESTA’S NATICK: PETITION FOR CHANGE IN MANAGER (contd)
Mr. McKinley inquired as to the official date Mr. Rossmeisl became manager and Mr. Rossmeisl responded that he was in the restaurant as of July 13, 2003 but it was not absolutely official at that time. Probably became official two months ago. He agreed that it would be fair to say that it was effective September 1.
Mr. McKinley asked how Mr. Rossmeisl thought the home office would react to a two-month license suspension for operating without an approved manager. Mr. Rossmeisl said they wouldn’t be too pleased. He offered his apologies.
Mr. Ball felt there were two issues – one to approve the change of manager and he saw no reason not to approve Mr. Rossmeisl. If the Board wanted to take action with respect to the home office, that was a separate matter.
Mr. Ball moved to approve the change in manager from William Winans, IV to Joshua Rossmeisl. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley concurred that there were two issues and that the behavior of the corporate office should be dealt with separately. Perhaps that discussion should be tabled until the discussion of license renewal. Perhaps the Board needed to conduct a public hearing or set a policy for how to deal with this. To him this was not acceptable behavior. He was not being entirely facetious in saying if they were operating for two months without an approved manager that maybe their license should be suspended for two months. In his opinion the breach was a serious one and the Board should come up with some sort of policy and advise all license holder of what it was.
Mr. Ball was ready to move that a public hearing be scheduled, but Mr. Ciccariello preferred to have it brought up under item #8.
SKIPJACK’S: LICENSE MODIFICATION
Representing Lampara, Inc. d/b/a Skipjack’s was the manager, David Maniscalco.
Skipjack’s was requesting a modification of their liquor license pursuant to the changes to the rules and regs made by the Board in July to permit restaurants with full liquor licenses the opportunity to have a bar. Mr. Maniscalco explained that currently Skipjack’s had a sushi bar and they would like to change that to a full service bar/sushi bar. The second part of the request was to move the service bar to a more central location. A floor plan was submitted. He also noted that the only change to the sushi bar would be to have a sushi chef side-by-side with a bartender.
In a letter to the Board, Building Inspector Michael Melchiorri stated that he had no objection to the modification. There were no new seats and no interior changes.
Mr. Ball inquired as to whom was the manager of record and Mr. Maniscalco responded that he was. When asked if he would continue to be, Mr. Maniscalco assured Mr. Ball that he planned to be there for the long haul. He was a small partner.
Mr. Hughes noted that there would be one non-tips certified server and one tips certified server (at the bar), but Mr. Maniscalco advised that the sushi chef didn’t serve alcohol at all.
Mr. McKinley moved to grant a modification of Skipjack’s license to allow a full service bar with 12 stools and permission to relocate the service bar to the furthest end of the current sushi bar. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
UPTOWN GOURMET: ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE
The Board was in receipt of an application from Uptown Gourmet for a one-day liquor license for a fundraiser being held at Jordan Furniture on November 3, 2003 on behalf of the Learning Prep School.
Representing Uptown Gourmet was the owner Debbie Miller.
UPTOWN GOURMET: ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had granted Uptown Gourmet a one-day liquor licenses in the past and asked if there
had been any problems. Ms. Challis responded that to the best of her knowledge there had been no problems.
Mr. McKinley moved to grant Uptown Gourmet a one-day liquor for a fundraiser at Jordan Furniture on November 3, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
RENEWAL OF 2004 LIQUOR LICENSES
In a memo to the Board, Chief Mannix advised that the Police Department had checked the liquor license holders and found that the manager of record for California Pizza Kitchen and Vinny Testa’s was no longer at those establishments. He also advised that notification had been
received from the District Court that someone accused of driving under the influence had named Owen O’Leary’s as where he/she had purchased the alcohol. In addition on one occasion a Natick Police officer stopped an individual suspected of driving under the influence and that individual identified Owen O’Leary’s as where he/she had purchased the alcohol.
The Tax Collector’s office had flagged Natick Wine & Spirits as having an outstanding personal property tax bill that was over a year old.
It was Mr. Hughes’ recollection that during the Amvets alleged liquor license violation hearing, George Souliopolous testified that he was the manager of Agostino’s, and he (Mr. Hughes) would like to be sure that Mr. Souliopolous was Tips or AIM trained. Mr. Hughes asked that the manager of Agostino’s be invited to appear before the Board.
Mr. McKinley suggested that the Board could renew all the liquor licenses with the exception of Agostino’s, California Pizza Kitchen, Natick Wine & Spirits, and Owen O’Leary’s.
Attorney Howard Wayne of Wayne, Richard & Hurwitz told the Board that he represented California Pizza Kitchen and they were in the process of changing the manager. The woman who was now the manager was born in Canada to American parents and they were waiting for proof of citizenship.
With regard to the renewal, Mr. Wayne was of the opinion that the statute provided for an automatic renewal for the same license or the same premises. He agreed that the manager on the license wasn’t the manager there now. He expected the paperwork for the new manager would be here in a week.
Mr. McKinley interpreted Mr. Wayne to be saying that the renewal should be automatic, but Mr. Wayne conceded that California Pizza Kitchen was not operating without an approved manager and the Board probably should suspend the license. Mr. Wayne responded that he didn’t think the license could be suspended without a hearing.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to how long California Pizza Kitchen had been operating without an approved manager. Mr. Wayne didn’t know, but said he would have the answers shortly.
Mr. Ball stated that it was his understanding that the Board of Selectmen was the licensing authority and the Board was not required to grant a license in the first place. The Board may be required to renew a license under certain circumstances, but the Board had within its
purview the ability to suspend or revoke California Pizza Kitchen’s license. He didn’t see the Board’s job as being rubber stamps.
Mr. Wayne suggested that the Board look at Chapter 138, Section 16A.
a. Package Stores
Mr. McKinley moved to renew all package store licenses for 2004 with the exception of Petur Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Natick Wine & Spirits. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
The Wine network, Inc. d/b/a Leary’s Fine Wines – 6 Worcester Road
Powers Package Store, Inc. – 4 South Avenue
Town Line Liquors, Inc. – 160 East Central Street
Middlesex Liquors d/b/a Kentucky Spirits – 17 Washington Street
RENEWAL OF 2004 LIQUOR LICENSES (contd)
Fannon’s Liquor Store – 212 North Main Street
Westborough Beverage Corp – 1225 Worcester Road.
b. Restaurant All Alcohol
Mr. McKinley moved to renew all restaurant all alcohol licenses for 2004 with the exception of California Pizza Kitchen, and Agostino’s Restaurant. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted. The Board agreed to invite the manager of Agostino’s Restaurant to attend the meeting of November 10, 2003.
Minoga, Inc. d/b/a Oga’s Japanese Cuisine – 915 Worcester Road
Hong Kong Delight Corp. – 195 West Central Street
Natick Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Curry Leaf – 1328 Worcester Road
24 Associates d/b/a 148 On Central – 148 East Central Street
The Deli, Inc. d/b/a Joan & Ed’s Deli – 1298F Worcester Road
Dah-Mee, Inc. – 25 Washington Street
Nicholas’s – 85 East Central Street
Namee Enterprises d/b/a Minado Restaurant – 1282 Worcester Road
Mr. Wayne was asked if he expected to have the petition for the change in manager submitted for the Board to act on at the meeting of November 10, 2003. Mr. Wayne replied that he did. He was also asked to provide the Board with how long it had been since Mr. Mastroianni had left.
c. Restaurant All Alcohol with Lounge/Bar Seating
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following restaurant all alcohol with lounge/bar seating licenses for 2004:
Dimas, Inc. d/b/a Dolphin Seafood – 12 Washington Street
BUCA Restaurants 3, Inc. d/b/a Vinny Testa’s Natick – 801 Worcester Rd
Lampara, Inc. d/b/a Skipjack’s – 1400 Worcester Road
Mr. Ball reminded his colleagues that earlier in the evening the Board had put off discussion of whether or not to schedule a hearing for Vinny Testa’s until this agenda item. Mr. Ball stated that he was reluctant to schedule a hearing at this time.
Mr. McKinley noted that the Board had already approved their new manager and the issue was resolved going forward. Mr. Ciccariello recalled that the issue the Board wanted to talk about was having Vinny Testa’s come before the Board on the issue of why they were so late.
Mr. McKinley thought the Board needed to have a policy in place. Everyone needed to understand the need to keep their license updated.
d. Beer & Wine
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to renew the Beer & Wine license of A.T. Pan Corp. d/b/a Shanghai Tokyo for 2004.
e. Club
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved to renew all club licenses for 2004. As the seconder of the motion, Mr. Hughes conditioned it upon the Police Chief speaking to each club and reminding them of the
rules and regulations. He asked that the Chief put it in writing and leave behind a written clarification. Unanimously voted.
Natick Lodge #1425 of the Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks –
95 Speen Street
The Francesco DeSanctis Lodge #1411 – 37 Washington Avenue
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Natick Post 1274 – 113 West Central Street
E.P. Clark Post #107, American Legion – 13 West Central Street
Amvets Post #79 – Off Superior Drive
f. Innholder’s
Mr. McKinley moved approval of all Innholder’s Licenses for 2004 with the exception of N.H. Hotel Associates, Inc. & Owen O’Leary’s Restaurant and Brew Pub. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes was opposed.
RENEWAL OF 2004 LIQUOR LICENSES (contd)
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Hughes questioned why not renew Owen O’Leary’s with the caveat that at some point there might be a hearing to determine if there was a violation of the license. Mr. McKinley felt there needed to be a conversation about what’s going on, but agreed that there wasn’t a reason not to renew their license. His concern was that the Natick Police arrested someone who said he/she did his/her drinking at Owen O’Leary’s.
Natick Hotel Associates d/b/a Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza – 1360 Worcester Rd
GSH Lodging, LLC d/b/a Courtyard by Marriott-Natick – 342 Speen Street.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was concerned that the Police did not bring the allegation to the Board. If the officer in charge was that concerned that there was a violation, why wasn’t it brought to the Board.
Mr. Ball wasn’t sure the arrest of an individual and charging him with DUI necessarily implicated the place he said he had the last drink. Mr. Hughes explained that a notice from the District Court happened at disposition of the case. The October 18 incident referred to by the Chief may be totally different, and that case may not be over. He (Mr. Hughes) wasn’t sure if it was one incident or two. The District Court
would not notify Owen O’Leary’s unless the defendant disposed of his case.
Mr. McKinley reiterated that he had no problem renewing the license, he was just concerned. He was in agreement if the Board wanted to hold a public hearing for policy and guidelines to be put in place going forward.
Mr. Ball was in favor of leaving Owen O’Leary’s out at this point. He didn’t know if there was cause for any potential penalties. At the very least he would like to send a message that the Board wouldn’t necessarily let it slide without looking at it and if the approval of the license was held off until a later date so be it.
Mr. Ciccariello felt the same as Mr. Ball and suggested getting Owen O’Leary’s to come to the meeting of November 10th to discuss the situation.
As previously discussed, Mr. Ball suggested that the Board hold hearings on California Pizza Kitchen and Vinny Testa’s for not applying for a change in manager for some unknown period of time and ask Chief Mannix to come in and tell the Board what was going on with Owen
O’Leary’s – was it one or two incidents. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the hearings were to determine whether or not to take any action for something they did in the past. The Board couldn’t hold up their renewal and couldn’t condition the renewal of the license. The Board was not renewing California Pizza Kitchen’s license tonight because they don’t have a manager. Agostino’s wasn’t being renewed tonight because there was a question whether the manager was Tips or Aim certified. With regard to Owen O’Leary’s the Board could hold a hearing as to whether the terms of the license were violated, but the Board couldn’t hold up the renewal of the license.
Mr. McKinley noted that the specific establishments named were on hold for valid reasons – lack of manager, clarification. He thought it was
appropriate to hold their renewal until November 10, but his intent was that November 10 not be a show cause hearing, but to get the additional information as part of going forward with the renewal. Independent of that at some point in the future the Board would hold a public hearing for an amendment to the liquor by-laws that would put in place an administrative process for dealing with these lapses going forward. The Board didn’t have a practice of what to do with a restaurant that didn’t have an approved manager. There was a mechanism in place for a performance violation, but he didn’t think there was a process or understanding with the Police Department that when those incidents occur they were brought to the Board’s attention and the Board could decide whether to bring in those
establishments.
Mr. McKinley reiterated that on November 10 he was looking for information on the four licenses and at that time renew their license and separately schedule a public hearing on what action the Board might want to take going forward to address this.
Mr. Hughes felt the Board already had a mechanism in place to deal with violations of the rules and regulations. If somebody had a manager not
RENEWAL OF 2004 LIQUOR LICENSES (contd)
on the license, the Board could have a show cause hearing and could take whatever action it deemed necessary to correct the behavior and what was done depended on a large part on what the Board did in the past and how egregious the violation. He didn’t know if the Board could set a policy that would define what would be done in every set of circumstances. It was a violation of the rules not to have an approved managed and a violation of the ABCC rules. He didn’t know if the Board needed a public hearing to discuss the policy. He thought Mr. Ball was suggesting a public hearing on whether any of these establishments violated the license in the past year and whether the Board wanted to take any action, but that hearing was not to punish somebody by holding up the license renewal.
Mr. Lemnios noted that there was a zero tolerance policy for an establishment being without an approved manager. If a manager up and quit, the license holder was obligated to put forward a name as soon as possible. Someone who didn’t come for 3-4 months was pushing the envelope and that was the purpose of the hearing. There was very little ambiguity. It was the set of circumstances and how quickly the manager was put in place. If the Board put in place a series of policies that said there was a six-week or four week period, that would be cutting down the Board’s flexibility. The license holders were aware that they had to fill these spots as quickly as practical.
The decision was made to invite the four establishments whose licenses had not been renewed to the meeting of November 10th – Natick Wine & Spirits, Agostino’s, California Pizza Kitchen, and Owen O’Leary’s. Discussion of scheduling any show cause hearing would be held until Mr. Stern’s return.
PACKAGE STORE SUNDAY OPENING
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved to allow package stores to open on Sundays for the period of the Sunday preceding Thanksgiving to New Years Day. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved to set the Sunday hours from noon to 11:00 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion failed on a 1-3-0 vote. Mr. Hughes
voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. McKinley were opposed.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. McKinley stated that he would be much more comfortable with 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Ciccariello agreed with Mr. McKinley and added that noon to 8:00 p.m. was enough time for someone to remind themselves they had to go buy a six pack or bottle of wine.
Mr. Ball also agreed with 8:00 p.m., noting that he was not a fan of the Sunday opening and he too thought 8:00 p.m. was plenty late.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Board had allowed the 11:00 p.m. maximum for at least the last three years. The last time the Board discussed less than the maximum was four years ago. He felt that license holders should be able to run their business the same as any other legal business.
Mr. McKinley moved to set the Sunday hours from noon to 8:00 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
APPOINTMENT TO RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION
Mr. Ciccariello explained that at the last meeting Seth Levine was interviewed for appointment to the Recreation & Parks Commission, but an error in posting was discovered and now there was a second individual interested in the appointment – Michael Fair.
Mr. McKinley noted that he was not in attendance when Mr. Levine was interviewed.
Michael Fair told the Board that he had been involved with the Natick Recreation Department for 15 years and he had an interest in this opening. He had respect for the Department and what it did for the Town and he would like to contribute some of his past experience.
APPOINTMENT TO RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION (contd)
Although he didn’t wish to inconvenience both candidates, Mr. Hughes noted that Mr. Stern wasn’t here tonight to interview Mr. Fair and Mr. McKinley wasn’t here to interview Mr. Levine, and he (Mr. Hughes) wasn’t sure it was fair to either candidate to take a vote where there were only 3 members who interviewed both candidates. He wasn’t sure it served the Recreation Commission well that only three members of the Board got to decide who the next member would be.
Mr. Ciccariello concurred that it would probably be best to hold until the whole Board could interview both. Both candidates had outstanding resumes.
Mr. Fair indicated that either November 10 or November 24 were fine with him.
TOWN MEETING MOTION: BUS & TRASH FEE
Mr. Ciccariello noted that before the Board was a motion made at Town Meeting to take funds from free cash and refund a portion of the trash fee and bus fee. This was an amendment to Article 1, which was presented by a Town Meeting member who unfortunately was not available to come before the Board to discuss this matter and would not be available at Tuesday’s Town Meeting.
Mr. Lemnios explained that the amendment related to fees collected in FY03. At Town Meeting on October 21 a budget overview was provided taking into consideration free cash usage for FY04 and setting aside some for FY05 with a balance of $1.4 million available for unseen circumstances and carry over to FY06. If that $1.4 million were
allocated out of free cash, there would be a diminishment of FY06 funds or emergency funds.
Mr. Lemnios continued that there was another issue relative to this amendment. It may be outside the scope of Article 1 which speaks of altering or changing the FY04 budget and this relates to FY03. The
immediate impact of this item would be to deplete free cash by those dollars. The timing would be onerous to the day-to-day FY04 operation, but it would also leave question marks hanging over the Town if it went forward. Mr. Lemnios noted that he had a conversation with the maker of the motion in the hope that the maker had a change of heart and would run this through the normal budget process which would be to allow the motion to be heard by the Finance Committee and the Finance Committee would make a recommendation at Spring Town Meeting. That was the process employed whenever there were significant fiscal matters. In April the Town would be in a position to understand what state aid would be coming to the community in FY05. If it were positive, it would only mean a six-month delay. The motion was for
$200,000 for bus fees and $300,000 for trash collection fee refunds.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that Town meeting could not direct the School Committee to use the $200,000 for bus fee refunds. Mr. Lemnios advised that the funds would go back into the School FY04 budget and Town Meeting could comment on how they thought those funds should be expended, but Town Meeting couldn’t direct. On the municipal side the funds would go into the general fund and be used for the purpose intended.
Mr. Hughes asked if the Treasurer/Collector had collected the bus fees in addition to the trash fees, and Mr. Lemnios explained that the bus fee was part of a revolving fund. The fees were turned over to the Treasurer/Collector, but payment was made through the School Department through their process.
If the point was to make sure it was refunded to people paying the bus fee, the mechanism may be to appropriate to the Treasurer/Collector to be refunded to everyone who paid the bus fee and then the issue of how the School Committee would expend the money wouldn’t be an issue. Mr. Lemnios felt that if Town Meeting indicated to the School Committee and they wanted a certain action to occur, he would think that the School Committee would be under a moral obligation to see that that action did occur.
TOWN MEETING MOTION: BUS & TRASH FEE (contd)
Mr. Hughes recalled that in the discussion about raising a trash fee, there had been a lot of discussion about raising additional money to cover any fees charged for transportation and spread it out over the Town, but the Board was told by the School Committee that if that was done, they would not reduce the bus fee from their budget, but spend it on some other education purposes. When the $1.5 million trash fee was voted, $1.2 million went to the Schools, $80,000 to Police, $50,000 for Fire overtime, $9,000 for recycling, and $50,000 to administer the billing. That decision was based on information the Board had at that
time. The Board was loath to raise fees to generate funds and the fact that there was $4.5 million in free cash spoke well of the planning the Town had gone through. The Town had not generated $5 million in free cash in one fiscal year. It was $1.5 million from last year.
Now there was a plan in place to fund two fiscal years with all of the current free cash which would be zeroed out if the Town didn’t generate any free cash in this fiscal year or next. To do this (proposed refunds) could almost guarantee an override in Fiscal 2006. Mr. Hughes noted that he would love to be able to give money back but it was not really found money. The Town had been planning well to have saved this money so we don’t have to go to the Town for an override. To him this (proposed refunds) was not a good policy.
Mr. Lemnios understood that people were shocked with the amount of free cash at the conclusion of Fiscal 2002, but the cycling had to be remembered. The budget preparation for Fiscal 2003 began November 12 of 2001, but free cash certification wasn’t submitted until September – a full 5-6 months after the conclusion of Town Meeting. To him the sense that there wasn’t a need to go through that process (before voting on this motion) wasn’t an accurate reflection of what it took. The revenue flow to a city or town was not an equal l/12 installment. While working on trying to put in place the predicators, he thought it was important to recognize that the administration was trying to take a
2-3 year look at the budget cycle which had not been done in the past. Waiting to April (to deal with this motion) had no impact other than when people received it (refund), but it gave the administration the opportunity to see what would happen with state aid and see if it was still reasonable to support the projections put forth.
Mr. Lemnios continued that he understood the impetus for the article and why people would be interested in having this discussion. He thought it was a valid discussion. He agreed that if the Town were raising funds and dollars beyond the needs, the Town shouldn’t hold onto those dollars, but people shouldn’t lose site of the fact that everyone was still very much in the middle of a state fiscal meltdown. Natick has done very well relative to its service. Wayland, Wellesley, Needham, Framingham have put together an operational override. He felt
that the administration needs to demonstrate to the public that an override was the absolute last resort to maintain services. While he thought the maker of the motion had made some valid points, it was the timing and implementation of it. This was not the normal process for this type of thing.
Mr. McKinley agreed with Mr. Lemnios. This was a noble gesture and the maker should be commended for having thought of it, but this was not found money. The Board’s direction, and Mr. Lemnios’ strategy, was to develop a budget process to allow the Town to get through the next couple of years with minimal disruption of service. Taking $500,000 out of free cash now meant going into the next fiscal year $500,000 in the hole. The State was predicting a potential $2 billion shortfall and that would impact state aid further. He would be much more
comfortable discussing the worth of a refund to the taxpayers within next year’s budget process. State aid expectations would be part of the equation and if state aid was a little over expectation, he would prefer to discuss a return in the form of a tax reduction rather than a refund. A refund was a noble gesture, but it was a little like the Bush tax cut. Everybody got a small check and don’t remember what they did with it. If someone said to the taxpayers would you prefer a check for $25-30 or not raise your taxes next year, he thought the preference would be not to raise taxes.
TOWN MEETING MOTION: BUS & TRASH FEE (contd)
Mr. McKinley stated that he felt strongly that the Board should ask Town Meeting to refer the motion back to the Board of Selectmen or the Finance Committee for consideration in the context of the preparation of next year’s budget. The Board’s strategy was to get through the next few years, maintain the level of service and to the extent possible avoid an operational override. Now was not the time to be messing around with the apple cart. By waiting to Spring the Town would be in a position to make a much better informed decision. Mr. McKinley asked that the Board vote to request Town Meeting to refer the motion back but also ask the Board of Selectmen to acknowledge the nobleness of the gesture.
Finance Committee member Rick Jennett reported that he heard this evening that the School Committee voted to allow town Meeting to take a vote on the motion without offering their (School Committee) one way or another.
Finance Committee member Linda Sussman thought the Town needed to work to maintain a fiscal plan and flexibility at this point in time. She was reluctant to add money to the School budget without a full commitment on their part of what they would do with it. She would rather see the money used for future tax reduction.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that two years ago everyone was in a difficult situation and there wasn’t a Town Administrator. When the budget crisis started, a lot of people stepped to the plate – the Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee, School Committee and the new Town Administrator. Everyone worked very hard and for the first time a bunch of different boards worked and prepared a balanced budget where a lot of effort was needed not to cut any services. There were a lot of different meetings with different departments to keep the budget in line. That was accomplished and a planning process was put together
where for the first time the Town Administrator was able to present the Finance Committee with what he considered a real budget with some real backup data to substantiate the dollars and the plan.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that the Board instituted a trash fee and indicated at that time that they would look at pay-as-you-throw and that has been a major success with a major reduction in tonnage disposal. Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was not a big proponent of fees and also not a proponent of an override and if going with an override, he wanted to be able to go to the taxpayers and say the
administration had done everything possible to watch the money being spent. If the Board had to go for an override, he felt that the public needed to clearly understand why it had to be done and a decision can be made whether to cutback on services or support an override. Last
year was a difficult winter and a lot of money was spent on snow removal. There were some capital issues at the high school with the boiler system. Between the potential of another nasty winter and the boiler, giving up these funds, there would not be enough available.
Like Mr. McKinley and Mr. Lemnios, Mr. Ciccariello also noted that there was a process in place and he too felt the process should continue. He would love to be able to return these dollars to the taxpayers, but he thought there was a process to it. It had worked for the last two years and worked very well. Most of the Town Meeting members now were more involved in the budget process than ever in the past and history has told us that the Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee, and School Committee need to be presented with realistic numbers so they can make real decisions.
A motion was made by Mr. McKinley to request Town Meeting to refer the matter to the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee for consideration as part of the budget preparation for Fiscal 2005. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
MEETING WITH LEGISLATORS
The Board was reminded that the annual meeting with the State legislators was scheduled for November 24, 2003.
As to topics for discussion, Mr. Ciccariello raised the issue of license renewal. Currently the statute restricts the Board from acting
MEETING WITH LEGISLATORS (contd)
on a renewal application unless taxes were delinquent in excess of one year. He would like to see the municipalities have the ability to collect these funds a lot quicker.
Senator Jacques’ office had suggested scheduling a meeting with DCAM and the National Guard for that same evening to talk about the National Guard Armory. Mr. Hughes supported having such a meeting as he preferred to have some discussion on it rather than reading about it in the newspaper.
Noting that the paper said the state had a $2 billion shortfall, Mr. Hughes wanted to hear from the legislators what that meant in terms of state aid – 2%, 5%, 10%.
Mr. Hughes was also interested in the time line of the home rule petition for club licenses and asked about the possibility of receiving periodic updates.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the status of other pending home rule petitions, and Mr. Lemnios advised that a hearing was held last week on the Wellesley sewer tie in and the ability of Natick to place liens on property in Wellesley.
Mr. McKinley stated that he would like to explore what’s happening with Special Ed reimbursement. Supposedly that was dealt with a year ago.
Mr. McKinley also noted that historically the Board had always invited the School Committee to join the meeting with the legislators and he hoped that an invitation would be extended to them this year as well.
In addition Mr. McKinley wished to discuss a redesign of the percentage of contributions an employee made to his total benefit package. It would save the state money and set a precedent to allow the Towns to move to a more equitable position as well. Compared to private industry most municipalities were out of whack. One way to gain control over rising insurance was to change the formula.
Mr. Ball stated that he had interest in the Baby Safe Haven legislation and would like to understand why it can’t be and why it hasn’t been passed.
Mr. Ciccariello requested that an invitation be extended to the Finance Committee as well to attend the meeting on the 24th.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Armory Re-Use Committee
Mr. Ciccariello called attention to letters from two individuals interested in serving on the Armory Re-use Committee that were received after the committee had already been appointed. He asked that a letter be sent to both saying that the selection had already been made, but the Board hoped that they would continue to be interested. Mr. Hughes suggested notifying the two individuals of the first meeting and they want to attend.
b. Natick Arts Council
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Joseph Stone tendering his resignation from the Arts Council. The request was made to post the vacancy.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
_________________________ Jay. H. Ball, Clerk
| 
