BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
November 10, 2003
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Jeffrey A. Stern at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Jeffrey A. Stern, John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley
ALSO PRESENT: Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on November 10, 2003 in the amount of $1,339,535.85. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $4,204,924.95.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the August 18, 2003 meeting.
KIDS CONNECT: REQUEST TO HANG BANNER
The Board was in receipt of a request from Kids Connect to hang a banner across Main Street from early December through December 31, 2003 in advertisement of the Family New Year’s Eve Party held at the high school.
Mr. Hughes questioned if the Board normally permitted banners to be hung that late in the season. Ms. Challis explained that past practice had been not to permit banners for the period of December 1-April 1 because of the weather, but Fire Chief Brien had advised that he had no problem hanging this banner.
Mr. Ball moved approval of Kids Connect’s request to hang a banner for the period of December 8-31, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Given the length of time being requested, Mr. Hughes stated that he would like to have some flexibility and approve this with the understanding that should another organization request some of this time, that their request would be considered.
JOINT INTERVIEW WITH BOARD OF ASSESSORS TO FILL VACANCY:
The death of Steven Adams left a vacancy on the Board of Assessors and the Board was joined by the remaining members of the Board of Assessors Janice D’Angelo and Peter Foundas to interview candidates to fill the vacancy. As Chairman of the Board of Assessors, Ms. D’Angelo called her Board to order.
a. George Potts
When asked why he would like to be appointed and what he brought to the position, Mr. Potts stated that he had been on the Board of Assessors in Wellesley for 3-l/2 years – elected twice, and he thought he had served the Board well. During his term Wellesley did two major reassessments. He had a great deal of background in statistics and data analysis and that was one of the requirements of the modern assessing position. He thought he had the full confidence of the Wellesley Board of Assessors and both the Chairman of that Board and the full-time Assessor in Wellesley had offered to give him recommendations.
Mr. Potts continued that he had a financial background that included being a financial analyst on Wall Street, and he thought he had what it took to augment the current board.
Mr. Hughes inquired if Wellesley did the reval inside or outside. Mr. Potts advised that they had hired an outside firm both times.
In his letter of interest, Mr. Potts had indicated that he had taken the Department of Revenue’s Course 101 in Assessment Administration, Law, Procedures, and Valuation, and Mr. McKinley inquired if that was
required. Ms. D’Angelo explained that the requirement was that all assessors attend the 101 course and if looking for value certification,
JOINT INTERVIEW WITH BOARD OF ASSESSORS TO FILL VACANCY: (contd)
they must complete the workshop. Asked if it was possible that an assessor could be elected or appointed and then complete the requirements, Ms. D’Angelo replied that it was.
Noting that Mr. Potts had said that he had been on the Wellesley Board for 3-l/2 years and had been involved in two reassessments, Ms. D’Angelo questioned if Mr. Potts had actually been talking about trending adjustments. Mr. Potts explained that Wellesley had had a large number of appeals and did adjustments. There were two in which he was involved.
Ms. D’Angelo inquired as to Mr. Potts’ motivation in seeking an appointment and what he would like to achieve. Mr. Potts felt that a lot of inequities creep in and he was more than able to recognize those and remedy them.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if someone on the Board of Assessors had to have a real estate background and if Mr. Potts had any real estate experience. Mr. Potts noted that he had bought and sold a lot of houses. While he thought there should be one or two (on the Board) with a real estate background, in today’s world a knowledge of data analysis and statistical methods was also something that should be on the Board of Assessors. There was not a lot of door-to-door work done by the Board. The Board works with the consultant and makes sure the process was right. There was a lot done with computers.
When asked if there were any other courses that someone should take to be fully versed in methodology and procedures and if he had taken any
others, Mr. Potts replied that the Chairman of the Wellesley Board had written articles and sends them to him to critique. Mr. Potts felt that someone on the Board should read and stay knowledgeable. There were more courses and certainly seminars.
b. Sheila Adams
As to why she was interested in the position, Ms. Adams stated that she was Steven Adams daughter and she wanted to fill his shoes. She had no experience with real estate or assessing. She just knew that the Board valued the properties, set the tax rate, and watched the excise tax.
Mr. McKinley expressed his condolences to Ms. Adams and then asked if she had some other interest in this position. Ms. Adams noted that the family had talked about one of them running for an office, and she thought she could do the job. She didn’t own a home but was a resident and had lived here all of her life and she watched her Dad handle the abatements.
When asked if she considered not owning a home to be a liability, Ms. D’Angelo said no and added that may be it was a more fair way.
Noting her background in payroll and strategic planning, Mr. McKinley inquired as to how competent Ms. Adams considered herself to be in math. Ms. Adams responded that when it came to payroll, the best.
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry, Ms. Adams stated that she was presently employed, but she had several weeks vacation and could use that to take course 101. Ms. D’Angelo noted that the course was offered in the evening and on weekends. It was pretty flexible to allow everyone to attend.
Ms. D’Angelo inquired as to Ms. Adams’ goal on the Board, and Ms. Adams responded that she could offer a fair and balanced process. She knew from watching her Dad when the elderly and disabled would call being kind and caring was important. To her the best quality was being fair and balanced.
Mr. McKinley asked if Ms. D’Angelo and Mr. Foundas had completed Course 101. Mr. Foundas stated that he had just completed 101, and Ms. D’Angelo noted that she completed 101 and a number of others. Some were offered through the DOR and others at Bentley. To be a licensed MAA, you had to
keep current with credits. Asked how difficult it was to be a licensed assessor, Ms. D’Angelo replied that it was time consuming and dedication was needed. Some of the courses could be very difficult.
JOINT INTERVIEW WITH BOARD OF ASSESSORS TO FILL VACANCY: (contd)
Ms. D’Angelo was then asked if Course 101 was an adequate pre-requisite for someone to be functional. She noted that the DOR required an assessor to have a classification workshop, which was one part of the course offered. A new assessor had a year to complete the course. Asked for his thoughts, Mr. Foundas concurred with Ms. D’Angelo. Director of Assessment William Chenard was in the audience and when
asked for his thoughts, Mr. Chenard told the Board that in his opinion 101 was not enough to adequately perform. He added that while he agreed that statistics was important, he also believed an assessor had to have a strong real estate background and understanding of how the market changes worked. A lot was done with computers, but it was important to continue with the education. He noted that Ms. D’Angelo was a certified assessor and had probably taken 30-40 courses. He too had 30-40 courses.
Mr. Chenard went on to explain that there were two types of Assessors. One was the true professional assessor and one was elected. The elected rely greatly on the professional assessor for his background in assessing. He didn’t know enough about either candidate (to offer an opinion), but he urged whoever was appointed to continue their education so they could play an important role as a member of the Board of Assessors.
By paper ballot, Mr. Potts was appointed to the Board of Assessors to fill the vacancy left by the death of Steven Adams. Mr. Potts received five votes. Ms. Adams received two. The vote was as follows:
Mr. Stern voted for Mr. Potts
Mr. Ciccariello voted for Mr. Potts
Mr. Ball voted for Mr. Potts
Mr. Hughes voted for Mr. Potts
Mr. McKinley voted for Ms. Adams
Ms. D’Angelo voted for Ms. Adams
Mr. Foundas voted for Mr. Potts
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION
a. Seth Levine
Mr. Levine told the Board that he was a resident of Natick for 12 years with three kids and his family had participated in many Natick programs. His qualifications included not only experience with the programs but he had been working with kids for approximately 16 years mostly coaching. He coached basketball, baseball, softball and had coached high school basketball and basketball at the MetroWest YMCA and Natick travel. He sat on the board of Natick Travel Basketball. He had also put together a program with renowned speaker Bob Bigelow and was able to get Natick hockey and baseball along with the basketball to participate. He felt there needed to be a lot of focus on educating parents on youth sports.
Mr. Levine continued that he used to run a pro-am basketball league out of Boston College and was involved from sponsorship to marketing to running the program. He brought experience running organizations and coaching, and he would look to leverage the Town asset and at the same time provide the best opportunity for the Town use those assets. To clarify what he meant, Mr. Levine used the example of the elementary school gyms. Today the gyms were small and in looking back, perhaps something could have been done when they were built. When the new Wilson Middle School was built, he didn’t know if there had been any discussion about the type of floor to put down or size.
Mr. Levine also felt that there were not programs for high school kids and they maybe the biggest ones in need of something to do. Eventually there may be an opportunity to have a high school override and he
thought the Recreation Commission should be involved in determining the recreation space. Perhaps it could be a multi-use facility.
One thing Mr. Levine thought the Recreation Department did really well was running the youth basketball program.
In conclusion Mr. Levine stated that he looked forward to being a part of the committee.
Mr. Ball inquired as to what, if any, shortcomings Mr. Levine saw in the offerings of the Natick Recreation Department, and Mr. Levine responded that the Department didn’t provide things past middle school.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION (contd)
There were high school sports, but if there was a recreation program maybe more kids would play – those who can’t make the team or don’t want the commitment.
Should the Town fall upon a pot of gold, Mr. Ball asked what improvements Mr. Levine would do first to the outdoor facilities of the Town. Mr. Levine replied that he had a pet project in which he would be interested . He felt the girls had been short-changed on the softball side. A beautiful field was built for baseball and three beautiful Little League fields, but there wasn’t a complex for girl’s softball.
Although he recognized that the skate park was not under the jurisdiction of the Recreation Commission but part of the Schools, Mr. Ball asked Mr. Levine to share his thoughts relative to the skate park and how it could be opened. Mr. Levine felt it was a shame that the asset wasn’t being used. It seemed as though somebody needed to monitor the park and downsize the liability issues. He noted the need for community involvement and noted that students at the high school have run the clocks for the Natick basketball league as part of their community service. If there was a pot of gold, the Town could hire someone.
Mr. McKinley noted that a considerable amount of Mr. Levine’s remarks focused on the youth recreation opportunities, but what about the adults? Mr. Levine agreed that the adult programs were very important as well. His experience had been through his wife’s involvement in volleyball and softball. To him it seemed as though the Recreation Department has done a great job when people come forward and want a particular program and they create it.
Mr. McKinley recalled that in the past there had been some informal discussions about a swimming pool. As Mr. Levine hadn’t mentioned it, Mr. McKinley asked if it was on his (Mr. Levine’s) radar screen. Mr. Levine said he would still have to look for the pot of gold, but thought it could be combined with a new Natick High School. One thing he hadn’t seen done that might have to be done was some type of
sponsorship from outside individuals rather than just putting it on the tax dole.
When asked if he had any thoughts on the golf course, Mr. Levine responded that the revenues certainly had to be brought up to the operational budget. That was a no brainer. Although he didn’t think it was practical, it would probably be better to have an 18-hole course rather than a nine. To get people to play, the course needed to be marketed and run programs to bring people to the course.
b. Michael Fair
Michael Fair told the Board that he was a graduate of Natick High School and had Bachelor’s of Science and Master degrees from Springfield College. For over eight summers he had worked with the Recreation Department in the Woodtrail camp as the assistant camp director and had also been involved with the Recreation Department as an assistant coordinator. For one year he worked as the director of Friday Nights special needs program. The Recreation Department touches every age group from toddler to adult and he thought it was important to get as many people involved as possible and that people know about the programs.
Mr. Ball inquired as to what, if any, shortcomings Mr. Fair saw in the current offerings of the Natick Recreation Department. Mr. Fair stressed the need to make sure there were a lot of programs for each age group. The question for the Commission was how to offer more programs and did the residents know about all the programs. Were the programs being publicized and marketed.
Mr. Ball then asked if there were any areas of the Natick Recreation Department that Mr. Fair thought needed to be improved. Mr. Fair noted that Recreation maintained the parks as well, and he would like to see more open space. The Armory on Speen Street was one area explored in the past and that was one area to explore again.
When asked by Mr. Ball for his thoughts on how the skate park might be opened and operated in a safe manner, Mr. Fair replied that he thought
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION (contd)
safety was the number one concern. He would look for volunteers first and if there was enough desire, have someone there from 3:00-6:00 p.m. and run it through the Recreation Department. If there was a limited amount of time initially, he thought it was doable.
Mr. McKinley asked for Mr. Fair’s thoughts on adult recreation, and Mr. Fair responded that basketball and volleyball had been mentioned and a swim program and tennis league were other possibilities. Mr. McKinley noted that some classic adult recreation was swimming and golf and what would Mr. Fair do about those. Mr. Fair replied that he would look to generate excitement – offer lessons, form teams. As far as the golf, it would be a great way to get people more involved in the course with leagues and lessons.
Were Mr. Fair to be appointed, Mr. McKinley inquired as to his priorities. Mr. Fair listed getting people involved in the golf course though leagues and lessons was his number one priority.
By paper ballot, the Board voted to appoint Seth Levine to fill the vacancy on the Recreation Commission left by the resignation of Larry Rosen. Mr. Levine received 3 votes; Mr. Fair received 2. The vote was as follows:
Mr. Stern voted for Mr. Levine
Mr. Ciccariello voted for Mr. Levine
Mr. Ball voted for Mr. Fair
Mr. Hughes voted for Mr. Levine
Mr. McKinley voted for Mr. Fair
TOWN CLERK: REFERENDUM PETITION
Town Clerk Jane Hladick informed the Board that a certified petition had been brought in with the required number of signatures, and she requested the Board’s consideration of setting December 16, 2003 as the date to hold the referendum election. She noted that there were certain aspects of the Charter that had to be followed, but State statute didn’t allow her to follow that. Waiting for 14-21 days was not possible because of the absentee ballots.
Mr. McKinley interpreted Ms. Hladick to be saying that the Town was bound by state law to call an election within a certain period of time and the Town Clerk had an obligation to make absentee ballots available for a period of time and there was a conflict.
Ms. Hladick noted that the Charter said that the Board of Selectmen shall fix the date of the election no less than 14 days and no more than 21 days, but to print an official ballot she needed 35 days notice from the Board.
In response to several questions from Mr. Ball, Ms. Hladick advised that this would be a single question ballot, all polling places would be open the usual time, and the cost was approximately $10,000.
Mr. Hughes asked if Ms. Hladick anticipated requesting a transfer from the Finance Committee. Ms. Hladick thought that was very possible because there would be a special state election if and when Senator Jacques resigned.
Asked if she were aware of Town Counsel’s opinion on how the ballot question should read, Ms. Hladick replied that she was. It would be the whole article as presented to Town Meeting.
If Ms. Hladick wasn’t able to do it within the timeframe of the Charter because of the state, Mr. Hughes questioned why it wouldn’t be done at
the March election and not an extra election. Ms. Hladick noted that the Charter said there had to a special election.
Mr. Ball questioned if the Attorney General or the Secretary of State had to rule on the wording of the question, but Ms. Hladick advised it was just Town Counsel in a local election.
Mr. McKinley noted that there appeared to be a dispute whether or not the election was legitimate because Town Meeting did not affirmatively or positively decide this question. Town Counsel has said that it
TOWN CLERK: REFERENDUM PETITION (contd)
didn’t matter, but there was a different opinion from the Moderator. He questioned if it would be a problem on the state level and Ms. Hladick replied that she had the same opinion from Town Counsel.
Mr. McKinley expressed some hesitancy in calling a special election and having it thrown out by the Attorney General. Mr. Stern felt that it was worth getting a ruling from the Attorney General, but Ms. Hladick suggested that it would be better to get the ruling from the General Counsel for the Secretary of State’s Office. The Attorney General didn’t usually come into the election process. When asked if she would pursue that or if she preferred having Town Counsel pursue, Ms. Hladick indicated that she would rather have Town Counsel. Mr. Stern requested Mr. Lemnios to call Town Counsel and see if there was a remedy.
If the Secretary of State’s Office were to opine that there should not be such an election and the Board had set a date, Mr. Ball questioned if the Board was committing themselves. Was it a juggernaut that couldn’t be stopped? Ms. Hladick advised that if a different ruling was received, the Town would have paid for the programming and the ballot, but the rule would supercede.
Mr. Stern inquired as to the cost of printing the ballots and was told by Ms. Hladick that the ballot would only have one column so it was not the usual expense. The coding would be less because there was only one question. She did not have a ballpark figure.
Mr. Hughes moved to call a special election on December 16, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Ciccariello noted that he didn’t know if having the motion conditioned upon review by the Secretary of State would help or not, but Mr. Hughes noted that he wasn’t making the motion conditional. He felt the Board should set the date and take the path of asking for the opinion.
Mr. McKinley agreed that the motion should have no qualification, but asked that the conflict between the Town charter and state law be addressed as a possible amendment at the Spring Town Meeting so if and when it arose again there wasn’t this conflict. At the moment the Board was setting a date that was in violation of the Charter.
Mr. Stern pointed out that this was generally in uncharted waters to begin with, and everyone had to take a gulp and deal with developments as they happen.
PUBLIC HEARING: TAXI CAB FARES
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to open the public hearing. Unanimously voted.
Natick Cab and JFK Transportation had submitted a request to have Natick’s rates mirror Framingham. Currently the Natick rate was:
First 5/8th of a mile $ 2.00
Each additional l/8 of a mile .25
Waiting time per hour 20.00
First mile 3.00
Additional mile 2.00
Delivery of packages by taxicabs may be on a flat basis.
The proposed rates were as follows:
First 3/5 of a mile $ 2.50
Each additional l/5 of a mile .50
Waiting time per hour 22.00
First mile 3.50
Allison Paul of Natick Cab told the Board that she and JFK Transportation were looking for a modest increase. If one were to adopt the rate the other would have to adopt it as well. It was something that had to be uniform for them both to be competitive. She noted that last year Framingham increased their rate and she and Mr. Kelley would like to modify their rates to reflect the Framingham rates. It’s been 14 years since Natick made an adjustment in the rate.
PUBLIC HEARING: TAXI CAB FARES (contd)
Ms. Paul assured the Board that a lot of thought had gone into this request because they work a lot with senior citizens. Diana Ryder, Council on Aging Director, had been approached regarding this matter and she has written a letter on behalf of the increase.
Mr. Ball asked about changing from l/8 of a mile to l/5 of a mile increments and Ms. Paul explained that the people who set the meters had to do it mathematically. It was the mechanics of the meter. Mr. Ball noted that the meter would ratchet a little different by changing from l/8 to l/5 and he wanted to be sure he understood (what was being requested).
Ms. Paul commented that the cab companies did a lot of local service with the seniors, which would allow no more than a 25-50 cent increase.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about transportation coupons for Natick seniors, and Ms. Paul advised that those would not change. There was a coupon system provided through the Friends of the Senior Center. The coupons were good for $3 and $6 and for most people it covered the cost of most of the rides.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello if consideration would be given to giving a senior citizen discount on cab rates, Ms. Paul responded that when the cabs started to be metered, there was a senior citizen discount, but it was stopped. Most seniors use the coupon so they were getting a discount. If the Town wished to re-institute the senior discount, one
could be adopted. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the seniors were getting a discount when buying the coupons, and Mr. Ciccariello replied that he just wanted to make sure that it stayed in effect.
Mr. McKinley noted that he had looked up the IRS reimbursement rate and at the time these rates were put into effect, it was 17-19 cents per mile and now the IRS reimbursement was approximately 34 cents or approximately a 75% increase. The request was around a 15-20% increase and he would consider this to be a bargain.
Mr. Ball moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ball then moved to adjust the taxi cab rates as follows:
First 3/5th of a mile $2.50
Each additional l/5 of a mile .50
Waiting time per hour 22.00
Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Prior to the vote, Mr. Stern pointed out that the request included a first-mile charge. Mr. Ball responded that that was not part of his motion.
Regarding the fact that the fares had not been adjusted for fourteen years, Mr. Hughes felt that this was something the Board should look at annually. He proposed having it on the agenda each November. Mr.
Stern noted that when the Board looked at fees, generally they were what the Town charged rather than private, but Mr. Hughes countered that the Board regulated these fees and should review them as opposed to languishing for fourteen years. Mr. Stern still thought it was incumbent for vendors to come in and ask for it.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
a. Update Implementation of Neighborhood Bus Policy
Appearing before the Board were Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian and Natick Neighborhood Bus Coordinator Judy Jones.
Mr. Sarkisian reminded the Board that in February 2003 the Neighborhood bus Task Force report was presented and put forth 10 changes in the bus. Since that time Judy Jones was hired as the new Bus Coordinator and Transportation Coordinator and has been on board since September. The positions of coordinator and dispatcher were consolidated.
The federal report was just completed, and Mr. Sarkisian thanked former Bus Coordinator Marcia Kaufman for her assistance.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (contd)
Mr. Sarkisian continued that a new and improved bus schedule had been drafted, but not as yet implemented. The proposed implementation date was the start of January. He felt it was important to have a coordinator on board before implementing the bus schedule.
One problem area was the drivers. Currently there were not enough drivers. The system had to go to a one-bus day and today he found out the van driver was leaving. The problem was that the Town was paying the drivers $10.00 per hour and they must have a CDL license. He discussed this with Mr. Lemnios and Mr. Lemnios said he could start the drivers at a higher pay. He also noted that Ms. Jones had coordinated the driver schedule and completely reduced the overtime.
Ms. Jones and he were working with the DPW to ensure vehicle update. Mr. Sarkisian said he expected to come before the Board in December. Natick Promenade had agreed to give $16,000 for transportation and some vehicles need to be repaired and replaced. He ordered a 14 person bus that would be paid for by TJX, and that would not require drivers to have CDL licenses. That bus could be shared with the Recreation Department.
Mr. Sarkisian further noted that Ms. Jones and he were working regarding the rail link to create Natick’s own TMA. Cognex, Boston Scientific, and Math Works had been asked to give $1,500 per year toward the bus. He was looking at another $5,000 to subsidize the bus and there had been talk about advertising on the bus. Work was being done on designing some space and he was trying to get information back from the MBTA on it. In addition the Mall had expressed interest in subbing out a transportation link during the holiday season and they would be willing to pay a premium. The questions were the hours and pay.
Mr. Sarkisian told the Board that he was not proposing a raise in fares until the new system was on line. It would be a lot for people to take on when the schedule went into effect. They (Mr. Sarkisian and Ms. Jones) would like to have the drivers work in 4-5 hour shifts and the break points in the schedule work out well. Currently seniors were charged 50 cents and adults $1. The fares hadn’t been increased in 5-6 years.
Mr. Sarkisian continued that the rail link was still being provided and doing well. The numbers were steady. Part of the new schedule was the embedded commuter service and that was what would take some marketing. The proposal was to run the bus down Route 27 and people could flag the bus and make the station. Going into the reverse commute and providing an early morning shuttle would take a lot of marketing, but they were going to try it. Ads would be put in the paper.
In conclusion Mr. Sarkisian stated that he would like to go back to the Transportation Task Force and tell them what was being done. He hadn’t reported back to them as of yet.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the task force was still in effect, and Mr. Sarkisian responded that it had not been absolved.
To Mr. Stern’s inquiry as to how the schedule Mr. Sarkisian was proposing related to the schedule of the task force, Mr. Sarkisian
advised that it was the same. The only change was the early schedule train, but it was only in North Natick. A commuter shuttle was proposed for West Natick as well.
Mr. Stern questioned why it had taken so long to implement the task force schedule. Mr. Sarkisian responded that there weren’t enough drivers. He also had to layoff the bus dispatcher so he didn’t have a qualified person to run it and then had to re-advertise the position.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to how difficult it was for someone to get a CDL license and was it something the Town could help someone obtain. Ms. Jones thought the cost may be something with which the Town could help. Mr. Sarkisian agreed that maybe the Town could with the training, but the main problem was paying $10 per hour.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (contd)
Asked if he had looked at removing some seats from the existing buses to bring it down to the 14 seats (and not require a CDL license), Mr. Sarkisian advised that that had not been looked at. He wasn’t sure why it hadn’t been looked at, but the weight of the bus may also be a factor.
Mr. Sarkisian had mentioned that the Town was in the process of forming its own TMA and Mr. McKinley asked if the funds were from the resident businesses that were previously paying to the regional TMA and were now paying to the Town. Mr. Sarkisian advised that there was only one. MathWorks didn’t want to pay the TMA and wanted to pay the Town. Boston Scientific was interested as was Cognex. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. McKinley, Mr. Sarkisian advised that the Town was not receiving any services from the regional TMA. The regional was receiving services from the Town. The Town has continued the shuttle bus because of interest from the businesses and the people and the businesses were willing to pay double what someone paid to take the neighborhood bus. Boston Scientific had a
lot of summer students living in Boston that use the service and they (Boston Scientific) were interested in helping the Town continue.
Recalling a discussion in April about signage so people would know where the stops were, Mr. Ball inquired as to how long before Mr. Sarkisian would feel confident that the schedule had been fine tuned and was satisfied enough to put the signage in place. Mr. Sarkisian agreed that people didn’t know where the stops were, and noted that he had mentioned to the DPW about putting together signs. He thought it was important for Ms. Jones and him to go meet with the people at Stop & Shop, Building 19, etc. and when the signs were placed to be sure they were appropriately placed. He hoped to have this done this spring.
CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN: PETITON FOR CHANGE IN MANAGER
Representing California Pizza Kitchen were Attorney Howard Wayne, and the proposed new manager Jasmine Lewan.
Mr. Wayne introduced Ms. Lewan as the current manager of California Pizza Kitchen in Natick. He noted that she had worked for the company in various management positions since 1993 and transferred to Natick in August and had been the manager since. She was here tonight seeking the Board’s approval of her appointment as manager. Mr. Wayne explained that part of the delay in filing was the difficult time in getting her birth certificate. Ms. Lewan was born in Canada when her mother was visiting. Ms. Lewan was Tips certified.
Mr. Ball questioned if her Tips training was current, and Ms. Lewan replied that she did the training approximately 10 years ago, but she had also had training through California Pizza Kitchen. Her Tips certification was not current. When asked if she planned to renew it, Ms. Lewan stated that she could. Where she had worked before, she was not required to be Tips certified, but it was something she could do as soon as possible. Ms. Lewan presented the Board with a copy of the California Pizza Kitchen alcohol awareness program.
Mr. Stern asked if she was familiar with the Natick rules and regs for the service of alcohol, and Ms. Lewan told the Board that she was. When asked if she was aware that she was required to have Tips, AIM training, Ms. Lewan stated that she was under the impression that California Pizza Kitchen could have their own training. Ms. Challis confirmed that a company could have their own training if it was approved by the Board of Selectmen, but to date the Board had not approved any plans.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the petition to appoint Jasmine Lewan as the California Pizza Kitchen manager. The approval included the requirement that Ms. Lewan be certified within 30 days per the rules and regulations for any server of alcohol. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Ball stated that he was disturbed by the fact that the company’s policy had not been approved by the Board of Selectmen and had not been seen by the Board until this moment. He was
CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN: PETITON FOR CHANGE IN MANAGER (contd)
uncomfortable with voting for the change in manager when he hadn’t even looked at the training.
Mr. Hughes noted that the regulations called for someone to be trained in 30 days. Mr. Stern pointed out that the regulations said server, not manager, but Mr. McKinley wasn’t sure that distinction could be made.
It was Mr. McKinley suggestion that if the change in manager were approved, maybe prior to submitting it to the ABCC, the Board review the program and see if it was consistent to the Board’s intent. He too was uncomfortable with giving carte blanche approval of California Pizza Kitchen’s program.
Mr. Hughes clarified that his motion for approval was for Ms. Lewan to comply with the Town regulations and become Tips certified within 30
days. He questioned if other servers at California Pizza Kitchen were Tips certified and not California Pizza Kitchen trained.
Mr. Wayne assured the Board that Ms. Lewan would be Tips certified within 30 days. In follow-up Mr. Hughes asked about providing evidence that all servers were Tips or trained under an approved program. Again Mr. Wayne gave assurance that that would be provided.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that at the last meeting the Board did not vote to renew California Pizza Kitchen’s license, and Mr. Hughes explained that that was because they (CPK) did not have an approved manager in place.
RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES
With the tax issue having been resolved, Mr. Ball moved to renew the package store license held by Petur Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Natick Wine & Spirits for 2004. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to renew the all alcohol common victualer’s license held by California Pizza Kitchen for 2004 conditioned upon receipt prior to November 30, 2003 of confirmation that all servers were Tips or AIM certified. The California Pizza Kitchen corporate training would not be accepted.
At the previous meeting the Board had tabled the renewal of Agostino’s liquor license and invited George Souliopolous from Agostino’s to
attend tonight’s meeting to respond to a question that had arisen. Mr. Hughes explained that at a prior proceeding, Mr. Souliopolous had testified that he was the manager of Agostino’s and he indicated that he did not have any training in the service of alcohol.
Mr. Souliopolous told the Board that he should have been more specific. He was the kitchen manager. Eftihia Souliopoulos was the actual manager of the restaurant. He had no involvement in the service of alcohol.
Mr. Hughes moved to renew the all alcohol common victualer’s license held by Agostino’s Restaurant for 2004. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
In a memo to the Board, Chief Mannix reported that he had received a notice from the court that someone charged with a DUI had identified Owen O’Leary’s as the place where he had been served alcohol. The report also mentioned an instance of a Natick Police officer stopping someone suspected of driving under the influence who identified Owen O’Leary’s as where he had purchased alcohol. The question at the last meeting was whether these were two incidents or one incident.
Chief Mannix advised that they were two incidents – one in May and one in October. The October incident was still pending.
The manager of Owen O’Leary’s, Kevin Gill was present and Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what steps he had taken to avoid some of the comments in Chief Mannix’s report. Mr. Gill responded that he believed Owen O’Leary’s was extremely responsible in the service of alcohol and
RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES (contd)
did numerous amounts of things to prevent over intoxication. He was not aware of the October 24 incident. He personally trained everyone and was conducting a training session tonight. He had not seen Chief Mannix’s memo.
Asked if all of his servers were Tips or AIM certified, Mr. Gill responded that all but three and they would be tonight.
Mr. Ball inquired if Mr. Gill was aware that Owen O’Leary’s had been named as the place where a defendant had his last drink. Mr. Gill responded that he was aware of the time in May because he received the same notification from the state. When asked what action he might take to determine who the service might have been, Mr. Gill advised that the only action he could take was to contact the individual and ask who served him. In the 4-5 times it happened over the eight years he has been here, it was his experience that the people didn’t want to talk to him. He didn’t even know if the guy had been at Owen O’Leary’s.
Chief Mannix told the Board that his dealing with Owen O’Leary’s had been positive, and he didn’t want to dissuade them from calling the Police if there was a problem. It was difficult to tell who may have served someone and the state they were in. Owen O’Leary’s has been cooperative.
Mr. McKinley inquired if in the past 12 months there were any other establishments that were named after a driver was stopped. Chief Mannix advised that he hadn’t received any. He added that Lieutenant Morgan went to all the establishments, went over the rules, and made sure there weren’t any managers who shouldn’t be managers.
Mr. Hughes moved to renew the all alcohol innholder’s license held by N.H.Hotel Associates, Inc. & Owen O’Leary’s, Inc. d/b/a Owen O’Leary’s
Restaurant and Brew Pub for 2004. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
RCN: LICENSE COMPLIANCE UPDATE
Appearing before the Board were Thomas Steel, RCN Vice-President and Regulatory Counsel, and John Aldridge, Director of Engineering and Construction.
Mr. Steel reported that since the last meeting RCN had done a considerable amount of research and spent a lot time costing out construction to multiple dwelling units, apartments and underground. They met with Mr. Lemnios, Hank Szretter the Chairman of the Cable Advisory Board, and Mr. Ball. When they last met with the Board, they were looking at reaching 1542 units that constituted Natick Village and the surrounding apartments. Because of the underground costs to reach these buildings, they were cost prohibitive at this time. Using the ruling issued by the FCC, he believed
some 400-500 small apartments could be worked on and brought to service capacity within the next few months. He had also begun to contact the
Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian to see if in the new subdivisions there may be conduit that RCN could use.
In conclusion Mr. Steel stated that the plan was to look at serving small apartment buildings and continue to respond to residents who request service and service as many as they could. He would report to the Board on a monthly basis.
Mr. Hughes asked about Mr. Steel’s comment that RCN couldn’t get Natick Village because of the underground conduit. Mr. Aldridge explained that to get to Natick Village required underground and those units were in excess of $l/2 million to do the digging. There was no aerial plant at all. All of the utilities were underground and digging up the street was very expensive.
Asked about the possibility of sharing conduit, Mr. Aldridge responded that to his knowledge there wasn’t any. If there was spare conduit, he was willing to work with anyone in the Town to try to get their (RCN’s) plant into those buildings.
Mr. Hughes then inquired as to where the 400-500 small apartments were located, and was told by Mr. Aldridge that it was all aerial. He added
RCN: LICENSE COMPLIANCE UPDATE (contd)
that he was in the process of reviewing all of them from a feasibility standpoint and once it looked feasible, RCN would contact the landlord to get an access agreement. They were located on Church Street,East Central, Summer Street, Washington, Worcester, North Main.
Noting that there was another 400-500 multiple dwelling units that could be offered service within the next 2-3 months, Mr. Ball questioned why that hadn’t been done already. He recalled being told that RCN couldn’t go any further because everything was underground, but these weren’t. Mr. Steel explained that with the FCC ruling RCN could now approach the landlord and say they weren’t going to fish behind his walls and not disrupt his property.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the outcome of the meeting, and Mr. Ball responded that overall the feeling of the Board was that there had to be some forward motion – some plan of action. The Board was losing patience and it was the Board’s job to ensure that contracts provided the service required in the contract and a breach of contract was an option that could be pursued. The Board wanted to hear some concrete plans of what was going to happen and how many people were going to get served or a breach of contract would be considered.
If RCN did the 400-500, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how many units would be left. Mr. Steel responded that the biggest was Natick Village and that was 1,542.
Having lived on a cul-de-sac with underground, Mr. Hughes inquired as to how many of those locations would still not be serviced after the 400-500
and Natick Village. Mr. Steel advised that there were over 2,000 in the underground cul-de-sac areas. He provided the following breakdown: 1542 Natick Village, 500 multiple dwelling units – aerial, 500 multiple dwelling units – underground, 2,193 cul-de-sac underground. Mr. Steel noted that there were about 5,000 that were not service ready out of 14,000.
Speaking as one who was classified as a cold node, Mr. Stern questioned if in either Natick or in Massachusetts RCN had worked out any conduit sharing agreement whether it be private or municipal. Mr. Steel’s
response was, “no”. In follow-up Mr. Stern asked about sharing the fire alarm conduit, and Mr. Steel’s response was that it would be terrific adding that RCN was very amenable to sharing.
When asked about what initiative he had taken, Mr. Steel advised that he tried to contact the Planning Board on new construction. Comcast and Verizon were anxious to help and Nstar can’t put co-axial. Mr. Ball asked the possibility of converting the co-axial to fiber, but Mr. Aldridge noted that it would be very expensive. It was also a case of how large
the conduit was. Sometimes it was possible and RCN had looked at it on certain occasions, but it hadn’t come up in Natick.
Mr. McKinley commented that he was sympathetic to RCN and less inclined to deal with them dramatically. The purpose of a second cable license was to bring some competition. Some 60-70% of the residents have a choice and having that choice went a long way toward making Comcast more honest. He (Mr. McKinley) too was a cold node and at the moment it was just a fact of life. In his opinion this was a problem with no simple solution, but through either fiber, a change in the rules by the FCC allowing shared ownership on existing cable, or through wireless technology, the problem would go away. There was a vested interest in the industry to come up with these solutions, and he thought the Board should keep it in perspective and remind themselves (the Board) that the goal was to bring some competition into the Town
and that had been done. The goal was to make it available to all residents but he (Mr. McKinley) cautioned against getting impractical.
In follow-up to a previous statement, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how many times Mr. Steel had contacted the Natick Planning Board, and Mr. Steel responded that he hadn’t. One of his staff persons had contacted Mr. Sarkisian. He agreed that for a new subdivision, RCN could take advantage of the ground being open and bring in their service.
RCN: LICENSE COMPLIANCE UPDATE (contd)
In response to Mr. Ball’s statement that the Board was looking for RCN to show that they had exhausted every reasonable avenue of approach, Mr. Aldridge gave assurance that RCN was still actively looking at the entire cold node areas of the Town to see if it could be pulled back and activate the aerial. They were looking to almost redesign the whole area. The goal was to bring on customers.
The Board requested that Mr. Steel come back to a meeting in ninety days to report on the progress with these apartments.
METROWEST HEALTH, INC. & METROWEST HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION AGREEMENT
Mr. McKinley reported that MetroWest Health, Inc. and the MetroWest Health Care Foundation had reached a tentative agreement as mediated by the Attorney General’s Office. MetroWest Health, Inc. unanimously voted to approve the agreement. The MetroWest Health Care Foundation also voted to approve it and pending due diligence, he (Mr. McKinley) believed it would go through. He was pleased to see this resolved through mediation without going to court.
Mr. Ball questioned if the Foundation becoming a supporting organization would have any impact on the grants panel. Mr. McKinley advised that it would have no effect on the Framingham or Natick Grants Panel. Becoming a supporting organization would mean that the Foundation would no longer be paying an excise tax on any profits made on their investments and would be a little more subject to public scrutiny.
Mr. Ball then questioned if the Foundation had become a public charity if they would have had to raise funds from the public and would have competed with other charitable organizations. Again Mr. McKinley’s response was, “no”. A supporting organization and public charity could be used inter-changeably. They were really the same thing. There had been a discussion that a certain kind of public charity had to raise a certain portion from the public, but the Foundation was an endowment and that didn’t apply. If the Foundation were to attempt to raise money, it would trigger that, but it didn’t apply now.
Mr. Stern inquired if there was any sense for how long it would take to conclude the merger, and was told by Mr. McKinley that the timetable to perform due diligence was 60 days or less. The target for both organizations to complete was the end of the year. MetroWest Health, Inc. dissolves on December 31 and both parties were trying to avoid transferring the assets of MetroWest Health, Inc. into a trustee until it was transferred to the Foundation. Both parties had a vested interest in getting this resolved.
Mr. Ball noted that in his letter, Martin Cohen Executive Director of the Foundation, mentioned that MetroWest Health, Inc.’s assets included the nursing home. Mr. McKinley explained it was a different organization. There were two nursing homes and MetroWest Health, Inc. was the managing organization, but they were now being managed by their own separate board. MetroWest Health, Inc. goes away.
DISCUSSION ON REFERENDUM
Mr. Stern noted that the Board had received communication from Town Counsel answering questions about what elected officials could and could not do with regard to speaking on the referendum question.
Mr. Hughes wanted to be sure that Mr. Flynn’s opinion got to the Town’s policy makers and employees.
No. 5 in the opinion indicated that elected officials could not prepare information or conduct a study to aid proponents or opponents of a ballot question or to influence the vote on a ballot question, but No. 4
indicated that elected officials could conduct an objective analysis on the impact of the ballot question, and No. 6 said elected officials could speak at a meeting regarding the ballot question. Mr. Ball expressed some confusion as to why #5 was no and #4 & 6 were yes, and requested a clarification from Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Ciccariello believed that #4 allowed the Town Administrator working with the Finance Committee to look at what happened to the financial plan. Mr. Stern agreed and added that he would like to see if there was any
DISCUSSION ON REFERENDUM (contd)
support for requesting the Finance Committee to hold hearings on this to gauge what the financial impact would be and lay it out for the Board and the public.
Mr. Ball supported the Finance Committee holding hearings but felt that the financial impact presumed what actions the Board might take. There was a cart and a horse, and he was not sure which came first. To him it wasn’t clear that the Finance Committee could do what they were being asked to do until the Board provided them with one possible scenario.
Mr. Stern noted that the FinCom had the number for the cost now and the true cost and they could tell the Board what it would cost if there was no pay-as-you-throw program and if there was some variation of it, it would be somewhere in between.
Not to presume the intent of the proponent, but if pay-as-you-throw was rolled back, Mr. Hughes pointed out that the cost to pickup curbside trash was known and the question would be what it would cost to provide service for 2,000 householders where there was no service now. He didn’t know if the Board needed the Finance Committee to do that. He thought Mr. Lemnios could generate that.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that some developers received approvals from the Planning Board under special conditions such as taking care of snow plowing and trash pickup. Recently the Town had a court decision on one of those and he questioned how that would affect this vote. Did previous conditions by a Town board still remain in effect or did it disappear.
Mr. McKinley was willing to bet that if Town Counsel were asked, he would say that it still held and the proponent would say that it didn’t and the Town would just have to go to court. To him there was a potential additional cost associated with this. Not only was it (referendum question) forcing the entire cost back onto the tax rate, but the
additional cost of having to pickup at multi families that weren’t currently eligible, or the cost of going back to court.
Mr. Stern proposed taking the cost impact and preparing a pro forma across the budget and see the impact to understand how increased costs would impact every department within the budget.
Paul Connolly clarified that he was addressing the Board as a citizen, not as the Town Moderator. He noted that the referendum was whether or not the Town would accept a new by-law and if by chance the Town accepted it,
the estimate from the Town Clerk was that it would take 30 days to prepare the paperwork to go the Attorney General and the Attorney General had 90 days to reply. That meant that there were 120 days before the Town found out if the Attorney General rejected or approved and the Town wouldn’t know if there was a new by-law until 120 days after the vote.
Mr. Connolly continued that the other thing that was important was that it was not exactly clear what the by-law would require the Town to do. He had done some research and there was a section in the General Laws 53 18A which allowed Town Meeting or the Board of Selectmen to put non-binding questions on the Town election ballot and it might be helpful to find out at that time at no additional cost what it was the Town was thinking about. The citizens might like to pay for trash through the tax levy or do it as a pay-as-you-throw. This was a technique the Board could use, but the Town probably wouldn’t know if the by-law was approved until after March.
Tonight the Board was faced with a difficult situation of the Charter saying that within 10 days of the filing of a petition the Board had to call a special election in no less than 14 nor more than 21 days and the Board was not able to obey the by-law. The Board did the ten days, but didn’t do the 14-21 days because another restriction that had to be followed was the election laws so the Board did essentially something it guessed was better. The non-binding questions didn’t have this time limit and if the Board considered reversing and reconsidering the vote taken tonight, he thought the Board would be within its rights to put it on the March ballot because it couldn’t follow this timetable.
DISCUSSION ON REFERENDUM (contd)
Mr. Stern noted that the Board had an opinion from Town Counsel dated November 6, 2003 which addressed Mr. Connolly’s point about additional questions on the ballot and Town Counsel specified that it couldn’t be done.
Mr. Ball noted that the suggestion was to put a non-binding referendum on the March election ballot, not a special election. If the public were asked what services they wanted to give up, he (Mr. Ball) thought the answers would be fairly predictable depending on what segment of the population responded. It was a difficult sampling question and in the last analysis, that responsibility fell on the shoulders of the Town Administrator, Board of Selectmen, and Finance Committee.
Mr. Stern requested that the referendum question be on each agenda until the election.
LICENSE RENEWAL PROCEDURE
Mr. Hughes reminded the Board that this came up about a year ago and the question was whether to add a second level of penalty when a letter had to be hand delivered to a license holder who failed to renew.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Town Counsel had recommended that the Board stipulate a period of time within which all license holders have to renew or otherwise have to file a new license. He thought the Board should do
both – add an additional $100 fine and stipulate a date by which the paperwork had to be returned or shut them down.
Mr. McKinley pointed out that the goal was to get people to do what they were supposed to do. He thought the $100 was an added incentive, but he didn’t think anything further was needed. If they didn’t renew and ignored the Police officer handing them a letter, they were shut down.
Mr. Ciccariello responded that Town Counsel had recommended informing the license holder that if they didn’t do the renewal by the second date, it was no longer a renewal process. It would be a complete license application and they would have to go through the entire application process.
Mr. McKinley questioned if Town Counsel was suggesting that the $50 now being charged when the renewal wasn’t done by December 31 be increased to $100 or was he suggesting an additional $100. Mr. Hughes explained that the policy of the Board was that any license that was not renewed by December 31 would have a $50 late charge added. After January 11, a police officer would hand deliver a letter. Town Counsel was saying that if an officer were sent, the Board could add an additional fee. Mr. Ciccariello was suggesting a drop-dead date or the license would be revoked.
Mr. Hughes moved to add an additional $100 fee for all licenses not renewed by January 11. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes then moved to revoke any license not renewed within seven days from January 11. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion was amended to five business days in response to Mr. McKinley’s assertion that seven days was too generous and he would prefer to have a fixed number of business days. The motion failed on a 2-3-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Hughes voted in favor. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ball, Mr. McKinley were opposed.
It was Mr. McKinley’s feeling that five business days was still too generous. Mr. McKinley moved to revoke any licenses not renewed within three business days after January 11. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Ball stated that he felt there were people who would not do what they were supposed to do until they were limited or hit in the pocketbook. If someone didn’t understand that message within 30 seconds of the arrival of the Police Officer, there was something wrong. He thought three days was plenty of time.
FINANCIAL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES
Mr. Stern noted that before the Board were two policy proposals – one proposed by Mr. Ball and one by himself and Mr. Lemnios.
FINANCIAL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES (contd)
Mr. Hughes suggested putting off discussion until the Town Administrator was present. Mr. Stern agreed. Mr. McKinley requested
that the Chairman of the Finance Committee be invited along with any other FinCom members who wished to attend.
COUNCIL ON AGING EMPLOYEE EXEMPTION
In a memo to the Board, Senior Center Director Diana Ryder, requested an exemption under Article 41, Section 4 of the Town By-laws for Deborah Finkelstein. Ms. Finkelstein was currently employed as the stage manager for the Recreation Department Drama Workshop and the Council on Aging wished to hire her as the Council on Aging drama coach.
Mr. Ball moved approval of granting Ms. Finkelstein an exemption to Article 41, Section of the Natick Town By-Laws. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
FALL TOWN MEETING: CLUB LICENSE, BABY SAFE HAVEN
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to request the Legislators to file the two home rule petitions passed by Fall Town Meeting – one on the club alcohol licenses and one for Baby Safe Haven.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Hiring Deputy Town Administrator
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he had read some articles in the newspaper relative to the Town Administrator hiring a Deputy Town Administrator and felt that the public should clearly understand that when the Board decided to bring Mr. Lemnios on board the understanding was that he
(Mr. Lemnios) should have a deputy. It was at Mr. Lemnios’ suggestion that a deputy was not hired at that time because of the finances. That put a tremendous burden on Mr. Lemnios to accommodate the work and resolve a lot of issues that a lot of folks were not aware of. Mr. Lemnios quickly stepped to the plate to take care of a lot of problems that were left from not having a Town Administrator for a long period.
Mr. Ciccariello felt that Mr. Lemnios should be commended for those actions. For a long period of time Mr. Lemnios was under crisis management and acted accordingly and he (Mr. Ciccariello) thought Mr. Lemnios did a tremendous job.
Mr. Stern agreed.
b. Property Tax – Water/Sewer Billing
Mr. Ball noted that there was a segment of the Town that always got their real estate and water/sewer bills the same month. That produced a cash flow crunch. He spoke with Mr. Palmer and Mr. Lemnios and it was possible to alleviate the problem by intentionally sending the water bills out late so those folks would have another 2-4 weeks to pay without violating the law. He proposed having Mr. Palmer come up with a written procedure for alleviating this problem.
Intentionally sending bills out late made Mr. McKinley nervous and suggested that instead maybe Mr. Palmer could investigate sending water
bills out for two months in the quarter and the tax bills in the third month.
c. Pegan Cove Park
Mr. McKinley reported that he was recently informed that the Act changing the name of Pegan Cove Park to the Tony Anniballi Memorial Park at Pegan Cove passed both the House and the Senate and was signed by the Governor today. Tomorrow as part of the Veterans’ Day services, Representative Linsky and Senator Jacques would be presenting the citation to the family.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
______________________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
