BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
May 10, 2004
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley, John Connolly. Absent: Jay H. Ball
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on May 10, 2004 in the amount of $1,328,516.98. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $3,311,824.02.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to real property, strategy relative to litigation and approval of executive session minutes. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:00 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
A moment of silence was observed in memory of Police officers Edward Deeley and Henry Hughes and firefighter Buzz Gross.
POLICE OFFICER OF THE YEAR: DETECTIVE JOHN HASWELL
Police Chief Dennis Mannix announced that this year’s Officer of the Year was Detective John Haswell, a seventeen-year veteran of the force.
A citation was read in recognition of Detective Haswell’s distinguished performance as Criminal Investigator in the Natick Police Department from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. The citation acknowledged Detective Haswell’s tenacious investigative skills and his knowledge of computer crime investigative technology as well as his involvement with the Natick youth.
Chief Mannix added that Detective Haswell was a wonderful detective - the kind that sticks with the cases and was a wonderful resource for the department.
A plaque naming him as the 2004 Officer of the Year was presented to Detective Haswell. Detective Haswell thanked all of his co-workers, noting that they couldn’t do the job without each other. He stated
that it was a privilege to receive this honor and thanked everybody involved.
PROCLAMATION: NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
Chief Mannix accepted a proclamation declaring the week of May 9-15, 2004 as Police Week and May 15, 2004 as Peace Officer’s Memorial Day.
Chief Mannix invited everyone to attend the memorial service on May 12 in front of the Police station.
MINUTES
Referring to page 1 of the minutes of January 26, 2004 under the item ‘Montrose School: Application for One Day Liquor License’, Mr. McKinley recalled there being some confusion that night on what was being requested and asked if the Board was comfortable that the minutes reflected the action taken that night.
Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Hughes indicated that they believed it was correct.
MINUTES (contd)
Mr. McKinley moved approval of the minutes of January 26, 2004. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
NATICK ROTARY CLUB: REQUEST TO HOLD ROAD RACE, USE COMMON – TOUR DE NATICK
Mr. Hughes recused himself from discussion and vote on this matter.
The Board was in receipt of a letter from the Natick Rotary Club requesting permission to hold the first annual ‘Tour de Natick’ bike ride to raise money for scholarships for Natick students on Sunday, June 20, 2004. The event would begin and end at the Natick Common and cover a 25-mile ride.
A memo was received from Safety Officer Sergeant Robert Davis recommending approval of the route and a memo from the Recreation Commission recommending approval to use the Common with a $200 user fee.
Mr. McKinley moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes abstained.
RIZZO FOUNDATION & NATICK ROTARY CLUB: REQUEST FOR BANNER
Before the Board was a request from the Rizzo Foundation & Natick Rotary Club to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of August 18, 2004-September 1, 2004 in advertisement of their joint fundraising golf tournament scheduled for September 8, 2004.
Representing the applicant was Peter Burke of the Natick Rotary Club. So as not to interfere with the Natick Days banner, Mr. Burke advised
that the Rizzo Foundation and Rotary Club would be happy to cut their request by a couple of days and accept the dates of August 18-August 29, 2004.
Mr. McKinley moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes abstained.
NATICK DAYS: REQUEST FOR BANNER
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to approve Natick Days Committee’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period August 30-September 8, 2004 in advertisement of the Sixth Annual Natick Days.
APPOINTMENT OF AUXILIARY POLICE
Police Chief Dennis Mannix noted that for the past six months he had been looking to rebuild the auxiliary police and find new members and he was now ready to recommend another group who had gone through the background investigation. He was very pleased that they were willing to do something for the community. Traditionally auxiliary police were used during parades and charity events and were trained to help in the neighborhoods and downtown security. He was very pleased to recommend that the Board appoint this group and have them sworn in by Town Clerk Jane Hladick. This would bring the auxiliary force to 15.
Chief Mannix recommended the appointment of the following individuals:
Adam Carroll
Joel Chase
Mark Clifford
Donald Friswell
Keven Kelley
Richard Ruggiero
Russell Sandow
Peter Slamin
Mark Sterling
Mr. Sterling and Mr. Carroll were not present but all of the other candidates were introduced to the Board.
APPOINTMENT OF AUXILIARY POLICE (contd)
Mr. Hughes moved the appointment of Adam Carroll, Joel Chase, Mark Clifford, Donald Friswell, Keven Kelley, Richard Ruggiero, Russell Sandow, Peter Slamin, Mark Sterling as auxiliary police officers. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
With the exception of Mr. Carroll and Mr. Sterling all were sworn in by Town Clerk Jane Hladick.
RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD REPRESENTATIVES: PRIVATIZATION OF CLEANUP NATICK ARMY LABS
Appearing before the Board was Marco Kaltofan.
Mr. Kaltofan advised that the Natick Army Labs was a national priority site, which meant that it had proven contamination that might be a risk to public health. There was a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) made up of citizens, regulators, and the armed services that provides input from the community to the Department of Defense on how the cleanup will proceed. It has been very effective over the past eight years. There currently was a draft proposed RAB rule, which would change the way RAB’s were managed and particularly the circumstances under which they were disbanded. There was a limited budget for military services and one way to achieve cost savings has been the introduction of fixed price contracts. Rather than an ongoing basis where everyone got together and decided on treatment technologies, the
Army will let out a single contract and the low bidder will take over and privatize the clean up for this and any other facility that gets such a guaranteed contracted. Once that contract was signed the proposed RAB rule would allow the commander of the facility at the direction of the Undersecretary of Defense to disband the advisory board. Public input would be dramatically limited. The RAB was asking the Board to consider making an official comment to the Department of Defense and ask that whether or not the budget process was going to involve a guaranteed fixed price contract that the Department of Defense continue the RAB for the life of the clean up and allow it to be a voice for the community. Without that language addendum to the proposed RAB rule new contamination may be found on the site but because there was a fixed price contract, we would be in a position of having to sue the insurers for the contractor in order to get a technology change in the
event of new data at the site.
Mr. Kaltofan stated that he would like to see the RAB and the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen get together and make those comments prior to the end of the comment period, which was in approximately 45 days although that hadn’t been fixed so it was a minimum of 45 days.
If the clean up were to be privatized and a previously unknown contaminant was identified, Mr. McKinley asked if that wouldn’t trigger a whole new investigation. Mr. Kaltofan advised that under the current circumstances it would. It would have to be determined to be a new release otherwise it would be considered one of the contingencies of the contract. Mr. McKinley presumed that the contract would include a provision for the contractor to accept any other contamination found, and Mr. Kaltofan replied that that would generally be the case.
Mr. McKinley noted that in his draft letter to the Department of Defense, Mr. Kaltofan requested a modification for the continuation of the RABs and for their future transformation into community advisory boards. Mr. McKinley inquired as to the difference and why that should be done. Mr. Kaltofan explained that a RAB had a specific lifetime and generally adjourned when the record of decision was completed, but the record of the decision process allowed for review every five years to alter the plan if it was found that the plan wasn’t effective or there was new technology. A record of decision could last as long as 25 years
with five year review periods. That was where the community advisory board would have input into the process.
Rather than try to craft some sort of communication to the Department of Defense, Mr. Hughes suggested that a subcommittee meet with the RAB. In his opinion this rule change was a bad idea in terms of having the RAB be dissolved and he would like the Town to make an effort at a well-reasoned response.
RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD REPRESENTATIVES: PRIVATIZATION OF CLEANUP NATICK ARMY LABS (contd)
Mr. Lemnios suggested having Robert Bois the Environmental Compliance Officer sit in on the discussion and Deputy Town Administrator Stephen Lisauskas could work on it from the Administrator’s office.
Mr. Ciccariello asked for volunteers from the Board and Mr. Ball was suggested. Mr. McKinley agreed with what was being proposed but thought the Board should wait to make the appointment final until Mr. Ball was present.
Mr. Ciccariello defined the subcommittee consisting of Mr. Kaltofan, Mr. Lisauskas, Mr. Bois, and a member of the Board of Selectmen to meet and discuss what comments to forward to the Department of Defense.
495/METROWEST CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP PRESENTATION
Chuck Goodrich, Community Newspapers vice-president prefaced the presentation by noting that tonight’s goal was to familiarize the Board with what the 495/MetroWest Corridor Partnership had been doing. He introduced Ted Welte, President of the MetroWest Chamber of Commerce; Tom Hubbard Vice-President of the Mass Technology Collaborative; and Lynn Sand, Chief Executive Officer of the 495/MetroWest Corridor Partnership.
Mr. Goodrich noted that this was truly a partnership between public and private interests in the corridor. Historically there have been separate efforts aimed at getting things done, but it was realized that if this area was going to be heard as a distinct region, it needed to be heard with one voice.
Mr. Welte advised that the region being talked about was 32 municipalities with 539,000 residents, 3 counties, 7 watersheds, 3 regional planning groups and 2 regional transit groups. This unique partnership (495/MetroWest Corridor Partnership) was a balance of representation. The purpose was to promote economic vitality within the 495/MetroWest region. It started out with four goals: political clout, public/private collaboration, central theme/identity/plan, and more resources.
Lynn Sand stated that the reality was that this was a public private partnership and this was the first time she knew of in the country where there was a 50/50 public private representation on any board. Funding was about 90% private and 10% state grant.
Ms. Sand highlighted the economic development and public policy plan beginning with regional identity and noted that it was very much felt
that Route 495 was the thread that bound this area together. It was the second largest only to Boston, but the legislators did not know what anyone was talking about when they talked about the 495 region. It has caught on quickly on Beacon Hill.
The second piece of the economic development plan was business retention and expansion. Ms. Sand noted that 85% of the job growth would come from businesses already existing in this region. The partnership needed to find out what the businesses were thinking so they (partnership) took on an active role. One critical issue was the retention of the Natick Soldier Systems installation with 2,000 jobs. Housing was also thought to be critical for businesses and the quality of life. One thing that was a strength of the partnership was bringing diverse groups together. At the conference on June 11, a big announcement will be made on the housing efforts.
Ms. Sand identified the goals of the partnership for business retention and expansion to include:
1) Insuring that the 495/MetroWest corridor was the region of choice for companies to stay and expand
2) Create a positive business environment for existing area businesses
3) Measurably reduce the commercial vacancy rates
4) Identify state tools/policies that could benefit the region and its businesses
495/METROWEST CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP PRESENTATION (contd)
5) Aggressively market the region to the following industry clusters: Financial services, Hi-Tech Mfg., Medical Device Mfg., bio-tech and technical services
6) Implement a formal business advocacy program including an annual business call effort, rapid response teams and general support mechanisms for expansions.
The last part of the economic development plan was sustainable development. One of the critical issues was water and Ms. Sand noted that the area was very fortunate to have Congressman McGovern sustain a grant to study water in the 32 communities. Also critical was the issue of transportation and at the June 11 conference an announcement on transportation guidelines for the region will be made.
Tom Hubbard addressed the question of what’s in this for Natick and noted that the state was entering the post big dig era in which the fiscal deck would be re-cut. One uniform theme was that this regionneeds to have a voice as strong as possible. The roots of the organization have been made bigger with much more business and public participation and he hoped Natick would avail itself of the resources.
Mr. McKinley commented that he was trying to understand how to fit this in with MAPC and the MetroWest Growth Management Committee. Ms. Sand responded that MAPC and MetroWest Growth Management were both on the Partnership’s board of directors. The feeling was that it was
critical to bring all of the planners to the plate. MAPC was 101 cities and towns and their focus tends to be more on the cities and Boston. One reason this group came forward was to make sure the region outside Boston was represented and getting their fair share. MAPC was a full player with the Partnership.
Mr. McKinley agreed but stated that he wasn’t sure Ms. Sand had answered the question. In response Ms. Sand used the example of the 495/9 interchange. Many have driven that and have been stuck going to the Cape or to work. She found it very interesting that in the last four rounds of TIPS for the Mass Pike and 495, this interchange was on nobody’s transportation improvement plan. When the question was asked, the answer was ‘that’s their region’. Unless the region was brought forward and everybody moved together, situations like that would continue to happen.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the percentage of funding, and was told by Ms. Sand that 90% was an investment by private companies in the partnership. They were being asked for a three-year commitment. Last year the partnership received a $100,000 grant from the Commonwealth and they were hoping to receive that grant again. It was in the House budget.
In conclusion Ms. Sand stated that Natick was a critical player and they looked forward to having Natick involved.
SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION & PARKS: BAA FUNDS
Superintendent of Recreation & Parks Richard Cugini advised that the Recreation & Parks Commission met on May 3 and was recommending that the $22,500 received from the Boston Athletic Association for the running of the 2004 Boston Marathon be used as follows:
DPW reimbursement of expenses $3,600
Fire Department reimbursement of expenses 2,250
Police Department reimbursement of expenses 2,250
Natick High school tennis court repairs 5,000
Loker Park basketball renovation/expansion 9,400
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. Cugini had discussed the tally sheet prepared by the Comptroller regarding available funds from previous years and if so if he could bring the Board up-to-date. Mr. Cugini advised that from 2003 $4,355 remained and he would like to use that for program supplies for the upcoming summer. The tally sheet showed $772.00 remaining for Shaw Park, $0.42 for Pegan Cove, and some funds for the beach playground and Mr. Cugini explained that they were donations given by groups. The Memorial Beach drainage project
SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION & PARKS: BAA FUNDS (contd)
reflected on the sheet was completed and the remaining funds could be turned back in as was the South Natick skating rink and the beach concession stand.
Mr. Hughes noted that Mr. Cugini came before the Board every year and asked the Board for the use of the BAA funds for particular purposes
and the $4,355 was an accumulation of funds that hadn’t been spent. Mr. Cugini responded that that ($4,355) was the money that wasn’t spent from the portion of the money requested for program supplies.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that some of the listings on the spreadsheet were donations and in the future shouldn’t be reflected as BAA funds and shouldn’t be on the same printout. He also noted one of the items listed was for salaries & wages, and he wasn’t aware that the BAA funds were supporting salaries & wages. Mr. Cugini explained that for the South Natick skating rink project the DPW went in after hours and did the repairs on the asphalt area. He reminded the Board that when the expenditure of funds was approved, he told the Board that he would be using the DPW on an overtime basis.
Mr. Ciccariello then inquired as to who had jurisdiction over the high school tennis courts, and Mr. Cugini responded that the Schools owned the land but the Recreation Department worked with the Schools. When asked who had control over the use of the courts, Mr. Cugini advised that the permitting was done through the Recreation Department.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if BAA funds had ever been used for School projects, and Mr. Cugini’s response was, “yes” – the high school track, the tennis courts. Things had been done that helped the Schools and the community.
Mr. Connolly complimented Mr. Cugini and Ms. Cashman on the thoroughness of the itemized list.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the expenditure of the $22,500 from the BAA as recommended by the Recreation & Parks Commission and the use of the $4,355 for recreation program supplies. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
(1) REGULAR MEMBER; (1) ASSOCIATE MEMBER
a. Robert Troccolo
Robert Troccolo stated that he had been on the Zoning Board of Appeals for almost twenty years and had served in the capacity of chairman, vice-chairman, and clerk. Currently he was the liaison with the downtown community affairs. He was a registered architect in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and used his technical ability to perform functions on the ZBA and review technical information.
Given that he had been on the ZBA for 20 years, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how Mr. Troccolo saw his role in the future. Mr. Troccolo responded that over the years he tried to get more direction from Town Meeting. They (ZBA) received that with the in-law apartments and affordable housing. The new challenge was 40B and everyone has learned a lot over the past year as to what the state housing court would allow and wouldn’t allow. Everyone realized 40B was here to stay and had to deal with it and be more proactive. In some cases the applicants weren’t as amenable to making changes. He
noted that the last time he met with the Board of Selectmen the Board was adamant about making sure affordable housing was part of an application. Now there was the 15% rule with the HOOP, and the ZBA could use that as a guideline.
Mr. Hughes inquired if Mr. Troccolo was saying that the ZBA might be more inclined to discuss affordable housing when discussing an application for a variance for building more units than permitted on a lot. Mr. Troccolo responded that he thought that was true. In the past advocating for affordable housing had to be balanced by the fact that a developer might come in and want 20 units, but the ZBA thought 15-16 was probably more appropriate for the site and then it became a
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: (contd)
matter of the developer saying that if he was only permitted 15 he couldn’t do affordable housing. Now that there were more guidelines (with HOOP by-law), the ZBA would have a better chance.
Mr. Troccolo had mentioned the required composition of the ZBA, which included having an architect, engineer, contractor and a lawyer. Mr. Connolly inquired if the ZBA had that representation now and Mr. Troccolo advised that they were missing an engineer.
Mr. Hughes moved to reappoint Robert Troccolo as a regular member of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
b. Deborah Nelson
Deborah Nelson requested reappointment as an Associate Member of the ZBA and commented that she was the longest standing associate member having been one for over 14 years. She had lived in the Town for 22 years and was an attorney primarily working with wills and trusts. She noted that she had the perspective of being around the Town and dealing with some of the problems regarding traffic and congestion and hopefully could give more insight into the impact of an application.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how often Ms. Nelson sat on a hearing as an associate. Ms. Nelson noted that technically there was no difference. Everyone on the Board was treated the same and they interchanged without distinction.
Mr. Hughes moved to reappoint Deborah Nelson as an associate member of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
DEL OVO: PARKING WAIVER
Appearing before the Board representing Del Ovo was Joseph Giberson.
Mr. Ciccariello briefly recapped what had transpired at the last meeting and the Board’s request for additional information.
Mr. Giberson advised that the zoning ordinance required one parking space for every three persons. With the present situation they (Del Ovo) had no parking (for the proposed South Main Street restaurant).
The plan before the Board showed what they felt they were capable of having as far as seating and if they utilized this plan, they would need 40 spaces although he anticipated having closer to 100 seats. He added that he had taken into consideration the 10% as far as the bar being available and would be below (for bar seating) the maximum.
Mr. Hughes noted that the plan didn’t show a kitchen and asked if there was more square footage that wasn’t shown. Mr. Giberson advised that there was an addition onto the back of the building that would be the kitchen. Plus there was another space below the building that would house a lot of the refrigeration, employee restrooms and the office. In the entirety there would be about 4,400 square feet.
Mr. McKinley recalled that in the previous discussion some questions were raised about precedent being set and how some potential competitors might feel. He asked if Steven Greenberg, the Natick Center Associates Executive Director had gathered any information. Mr. Greenberg reported that he had talked to a number of people in business about adding a restaurant and they were excited and looked forward to another venue at night. Bakery on the Common was happy to have someone close by.
Assuming that he got the sense that the Board would grant a waiver, Mr. Hughes inquired as to Mr. Giberson’s timeline to be open. Mr. Giberson replied that he hoped to open for the fall – November or December. He added that there was an extensive build out for restaurants with permits, etc., but in speaking with the architect and builders he thought that was a real timeline.
DEL OVO: PARKING WAIVER (contd)
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the number of people Mr. Giberson expected to employ and Mr. Giberson responded that it would be dictated by the business, but thought it would be upwards of 25 employees. Some would be part-time, but he anticipated having 15 full-time including his partner and himself.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello if this was an allowed use, Mr. Giberson advised that it was an allowed use.
Mr. McKinley believed that the reason Mr. Giberson was before the Board was to get a sense of whether the Board was inclined to grant a parking waiver if an application was filed and he thought the Board had an obligation to give an informational opinion that was not binding. He pointed out that Mr. Giberson ran the risk of coming back in 6-9 months and have somebody else sitting here (on the Board) with a different view. Mr. McKinley continued that having heard the discussion tonight and before and the comments of Mr. Greenberg and having spoken with two other restaurant owners, he was of the opinion that this was a reasonable waiver to grant and would be inclined to do so.
Mr. Connolly stated that he would echo Mr. McKinley’s comments. He didn’t see any reason not to grant the waiver. He (Mr. Connolly) knew the building and everything said was true.
Mr. Hughes agreed that it was a reasonable use for the building. As to the decision on the waiver he would need to see the final plans and see what the applicant did, but he would be inclined (to grant the waiver).
Mr. Ciccariello expressed the opinion that another restaurant downtown was a great opportunity for the community and he would support it pending submission of the documents. He thought this was a great use for that building directly across from the Common. In conclusion Mr. Ciccariello encouraged Mr. Giberson to move forward and thought that he (Mr. Giberson) could leave knowing there appeared to be favorable discussion.
RESOLUTION 4: PROHIBITION OF DESCRATION OF THE FLAG
Without Mr. Ball present, Mr. McKinley proposed tabling until the next meeting. Mr. Ball had strong feelings about this matter and he (Mr. McKinley) thought it would be appropriate to allow him to participate.
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to table discussion until the next meeting.
Having been asked to query Senators Kennedy and Kerry’s office, Mr. McKinley reported that he sent an e-mail, but hadn’t heard anything back.
SEWER BILLING POLICY
Mr. Hughes reviewed his memo to the Board regarding properties receiving sewer service and not being billed. The investigation of town records discovered that there were nine properties in town that have been receiving sewer service for some period of time and not being billed for the service. Deputy Town Administrator Stephen Lisauskas sent notice to the owners of each of the affected properties and offered all of them an opportunity to meet concerning the issue.
In his memo Mr. Hughes advised that he met with some members of the affected properties along with Mr. Lisauskas. No consensus was developed from the property owners as to how to deal with the billing for sewer service they had received but not billed, but it was his understanding that the affected properties were now being billed for the service. His recommendation was as follows:
1. That the Town calculate based on prior water usage, together with the applicable rates then in effect, the amount of money owed for sewer services by the current owner of the property, back for a period not exceeding six years. Mr. Hughes noted there may be a problem with the statute of limitations but he was confident that the six years would be upheld.
SEWER BILLING POLICY (contd)
2. That the Town shall bill the current owner of the property in an amount equal to 75% of the sewer charges so calculated.
3. Provided that the current owner of the property consents to the Town having the right to place a lien on the property should the amount
due be unpaid, then the Town will agree that the current property owner may pay the amount due in equal quarterly installments for the same number of years going forward which were used to compute the amount due. No interest or penalties would be charged on the amount not previously billed. The total amount outstanding would be due and payable on the transfer of ownership of the property.
4. If the current owner will not consent to the Town having a right to place a lien on the property should the amount due be unpaid, then the current owner shall be billed for the entire amount calculated for un-billed sewer services and said amount shall be due and payable in 30 days.
5. A letter shall be sent with the next water bill to each user detailing the Town’s proposal regarding calculation and payment of un-billed sewer charges. The letter shall inform the user that if the user is receiving sewer service and is not being billed then the user has 30 days to so inform the Town and have the opportunity to be treated the same as the property owners we have already discovered. After the expiration of thirty days, if the Town discovers that a property owner is receiving sewer service and is not being billed then the town will collect payment in full without discount or limitation of time.
6. Due to the fact that the Town failed to bill for these charges, the Town may not charge interest or penalties for the un-billed service.
7. The town and its various departments shall continue to investigate whether other properties are receiving sewer service without being billed. Any such property discovered shall be brought to the immediate attention of the Board of Selectmen.
Regarding the letters to other individuals saying this was the Town’s new policy and if they believed they might be in a similar circumstance and didn’t step forward during the grace period the rate would be the full 100%, Mr. McKinley asked if that could also include the 14% interest. Mr. Hughes didn’t think the Town could bill back interest and penalties for a bill it didn’t send out. Mr. McKinley then asked about a lien, and Mr. Hughes advised that a lien might not be available for some who received a municipal lien certificate, but that didn’t relieve the person from paying for it. The alternative would be to sue.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if it was being suggested that the back sewer bills would be at the rate that was in effect at the time of usage. Mr. Hughes noted that the Town had the water usage for everyone but one. There was one individual who didn’t have a back reading because he had well water. The suggestion was to put on a meter to see the use for the next one or two years and go back and set it.
James Freer of 40 Upland Road told the Board that he purchased the property in 1996. It was built in 1985 and his was the third family to live there. At the time of the closing there were two lien certificates – both the buyer and seller received a clear lien statement saying there was no water and sewer charges outstanding. After doing an investigation he found there were at least six lien certificates issued. In June 2003 he refinanced and again he received a municipal lien certificate. His home never had a water meter. Seven times the Town had an opportunity to review the records of this address and received money to produce lien certificates and it appeared as though they were nothing more than rubber stamped documents. He had purchased a home supplied by well water and it did not seem
out of the question that it did not have a water meter. In June 2003 when
SEWER BILLING POLICY (contd)
applying for a building permit he was told that he should have a water meter and it was installed.
Mr. Freer continued that he could only rely on the legal document supplied by the Town on the status of any municipal services. His attorney has advised that a lien certificate was a mandatory document needed for the purchase of real estate. It was recorded with the state along with other documents required for home purchase and used as a basis for title insurance. As of 1988 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a registered lien certificate becomes a discharge of all water, sewer and property taxes unless state on the certificate. Due to that fact the Board had no legal right to try to collect any fees prior to June 2003 when he last got a lien certificate.
Mr. Freer further continued that this was not a new problem. Some time in early 2001 two Town employees knowingly received services at a reduced rate. After some political wrangling by the Town Administrator, the Deputy Town Administrator and the Board of Selectmen the suspensions were negated and withheld payroll returned and new meters installed. Board members were quoted as saying there was common knowledge that Sarkis (Sarkisian, Community Development Director) and Fred Conley (former Town Administrator) were good friends. There was no question that Mr. Sarkisian was a valued employee. He (Mr. Freer) was not an employee but a resident and a taxpayer and he would expect that everyone would be treated the same as these Town employees. The Town had the opportunity to audit at the time (of issuing a
certificate) to be sure he was being billed and again when he refinanced and received another certificate. He was here today because of a lack of understanding of people processing these legal documents. If someone had taken the time or had the knowledge he wouldn’t be standing here tonight. He believed the course of action was that he pay for sewer charges as of the last certificate in June 2003.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello if he was on a well and still on a well, Mr. Freer responded, “yes”, to both questions. Asked if he were ever on septic, Mr. Freer’s reply was, “no”. Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the water meter was installed in June 2003, but Mr. Freer said no. It was about three months ago but he was paying a maximum estimate since that time.
In response to a series of questions from Mr. McKinley, Mr. Freer acknowledged that when he purchased the house in 1996 he knew the house had sewer. As to why he didn’t raise the issue knowing that since that time (purchase of the house) he had been benefiting from the use of Town sewer, Mr. Freer replied that it was never an issue. He had a well, never had a meter, and there was never a question. He knew that people with Town sewer had to pay for the service, but it didn’t occur to him that he was benefiting from the service and not paying his fair share.
Mr. McKinley noted that Mr. Freer had referenced that his lawyer had advised that because he (Mr. Freer) had a lien certificate the Town had no legal claim for back services, but it was Mr. McKinley’s understanding that all the lien certificate said was that according to the Town’s records there were no outstanding balances which would have been accurate if a sewer bill had never been sent. Asked if there was any disagreement on that point, Mr. Freer said there was. There was a lien certificate registered with the State and it was his understanding that when a certificate was registered it became a discharge.
Mr. Connolly told Mr. Freer that he appreciated his honesty. Mr. Connolly questioned how the situation with the Town employee was dealt with, and Mr. Ciccariello advised that it was done between the Town Administrator and the individual. Mr. Freer commented that the bottom line was nothing. Mr. Hughes noted that personnel matters should be talked about in executive session and if talking about a person’s personnel records, that person had a right to be heard and it should be in executive session.
SEWER BILLING POLICY (contd)
Mr. Connolly replied that he was learning the procedure and there was a taxpayer with a question. The taxpayer paid that employee’s salary and he (Mr. Connolly) thought the taxpayer raised an interesting point. If this should only be spoken of in executive session Mr. Connolly said he apologized, but as a taxpayer he thought Mr. Freer had the right to have the question answered.
Mr. McKinley asked Mr. Hughes if it was true that if a lien certificate was registered the obligation was discharged. Mr. Hughes didn’t know what Mr. Freer meant by registered. Mr. Freer noted that it was the document for refinancing that became registered in Cambridge. Mr. Hughes thought that Mr. Freer was referring to it being recorded and a lien certificate could be recorded. Mr. McKinley questioned if there was case law that says it was discharged, and Mr. Hughes advised that the statutes say that a lien can be placed on the property but it doesn’t relieve the person who has received the service from paying for it.
Mark Rosen of 35 Whittier Road stated that he received a lien certificate when he refinanced his house in May 2003 and got the same thing as Mr. Freer that there was nothing outstanding and it was recorded. From what he understood that was as far back as the Town could go if the Town was going to charge someone.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that a legal opinion would be sought from Town Counsel. He then asked Mr. Rosen a number of questions to which Mr. Rosen responded that he purchased the house in 1991, he was on Town water and he was on Town sewer. Mr. Rosen noted that he was given the bill from the prior owner and he was going by what the prior owner was paying and that was what he was paying. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the bill did not reflect any sewer charges, and Mr. Rosen said he showed Mr. Hughes a bill on the old billing system. It was difficult to read the line items and he (Mr. Rosen) was going by the bottom line which was a total and that was what he was paying.
Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Rosen did or did not know he had Town sewer services, and Mr. Rosen’s reply was, “yes, I did”. Mr. McKinley understood Mr. Rosen’s remarks to mean that because of the confusion of the bills it was not readily obvious that he (Mr. Rosen) was or was not paying for sewer. Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Rosen was comfortable with that and Mr. Rosen responded that that was what he was being charged and he was paying. Mr. McKinley then asked if Mr. Rosen now felt that he had an obligation to pay for the service received. In response Mr. Rosen stated that at this point he didn’t think it should go back six years if it was going back at all, and if it was going back it shouldn’t be prior to the lien certificate. He noted that he brought this to the Town. The Town didn’t bring it to him and he had been paying since May 2003.
Michael DeGeorge of 66 Wellesley Road Extension stated that he had originally purchased the house in 1991 under the thoughts that he was on sewer. Several years later he contacted the Town to find out and was informed that he was on septic. In the meantime he also refinanced in 1993 or 1994 and has several times received lien certificates. In 1993 or 1994 he was told he was on septic. In June 2003 he applied for a building permit and it was determined that he was on sewer. Mr. DeGeorge felt that he made every attempt to find out if he was on septic or sewer and got bad information from the Town and now the Town was going back six years.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. DeGeorge had been receiving sewer bills since he got the building permit. Mr. DeGeorge advised that he had been receiving bills since June 2003.
Mr. Connolly noted that every one of these people had been issued a clean lien certificate and questioned if there was somebody in the Town who would make that call to issue a clean certificate. Mr. Lemnios explained that it simply meant that there were no outstanding bills with the Town. When refinancing or selling property, you needed to seek a certificate and it meant that the owner was current with any
SEWER BILLING POLICY (contd)
bills issued by the Town, but if no bill was ever issued it would never show up so there was no way of knowing if it was current or not.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the number of individuals and was told by Mr. Hughes that there were nine. Mr. Hughes added that everyone was invited to meet with Mr. Lisauskas and him and they met with 5. One
called and one sent an e-mail. The other was a woman who only owned the house for a year and another individual on Bacon Street who didn’t respond.
Jeanne Kriger of 69A Bacon Street noted that when she spoke with Mr. Lisauskas he mentioned that some people had tied in illegally and some had permits and were never billed. They were all being treated the same way and it didn’t seem right. Mr. Hughes clarified that it wasn’t the current owner of the property (who tied in illegally). Ms. Kriger continued that she had been busy with three kids and her ex-husband was paying the bills. She just recently started being billed for sewer.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested that the Board could establish a policy or could hold individual hearings.
With regard to scheduling individual hearings, Mr. McKinley felt that if the Board was not consistent in how it resolved the issues, perhaps the people would feel that the Board was being more inequitable than they already thought. While there were circumstances where the Board may want to treat one differently than the other, he thought a policy needed to be established that was consistent and defensible. He thought what Mr. Hughes was proposing seemed reasonable. It said that the Town wouldn’t go back more than six years from today and several people have indicated that they have been receiving bills for a year. It also proposed to discount the calculated amount to 75%, which he thought, was reasonable and it was a way of the Town saying it shared some responsibility.
To Mr. McKinley this was a reasonable settlement. He understood that some people may not be happy but he was not happy about the fact that some people have been benefiting from a Town service without paying for it and that was not fair to everybody else. He thought this was a favorable solution and he would jump at the chance to pay 75% of the past six year’s sewer bill.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the 75% bill for the past six years would go on their quarterly bills. Mr. Hughes responded that that would have been his thought. The mechanics would be left to Mr. Palmer (Treasurer/Collector), but he thought it would be a separate line on the water bill.
Mr. Ciccariello agreed that there were a lot of different circumstances, but those individuals received the service no matter whose responsibility it was (for them not getting a bill). The individuals knew they were on sewer and what was being proposed was not unreasonable. He was ready to support this policy, but would like a final opinion from Town Counsel that there weren’t any legal problems with what was being proposed.
Mr. Connolly didn’t like the policy at all. He felt that these people were saying that there was as much of an onus on the Town as on them. It was money the Town didn’t have to begin with and didn’t have now.
Something about it didn’t feel right. He appreciated everybody’s honesty.
Mr. McKinley questioned if in Mr. Connolly’s opinion because the Town didn’t catch it, these individuals shouldn’t have to pay anything. Mr. Connolly’s response was “not necessarily” but if the Town was going to say bad citizen because someone didn’t call the Town, what’s good for one was good for another and there was an inconsistency here. Mr. McKinley cited the example of being at the store and buying a TV for $1,000 but the clerk charged $100 and asked if Mr. Connolly would go back and give them $900. Mr. Connolly replied that he would but to him
SEWER BILLING POLICY (contd)
it was a different scenario. It was the Town and it was the citizens that pay the salaries of the Town employees and they (individuals who were not billed for sewer) were owed a certain amount of respect and the same consideration that others have gotten. Mr. McKinley countered that he paid all of his sewer bills and did that make him worthy of less respect. Mr. Connolly clarified that he didn’t say that, and Mr. McKinley noted that he (Mr. McKinley) was trying to understand how Mr. Connolly defined respect.
In conclusion Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was willing to support the policy but he was not prepared to vote until there was a clear understanding from Town Counsel. He asked that further discussion be moved to the next meeting.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES: POLICY ISSUES
Looking at the list of goals & objectives, Mr. Ciccariello noted that some of the items had actually come to some resolution and didn’t belong on the list. He suggested having Mr. Lemnios take the list and indicate which was completed and which should be moved forward to the next year. The Board should also start thinking about objectives for Fiscal 2005 and he asked each member of the Board to start listing goals & objectives for the coming year.
Having been designated as the unofficial keeper of the Board’s goals & objectives, Mr. McKinley proposed a little different approach. He suggested setting aside 15 minutes of the next Board of Selectmen’s meeting and going through the list before starting to add any goals and objectives.
Mr. Hughes liked both ideas, and felt that Mr. Ball should be present for the discussion. Mr. Connolly agreed.
MPO ELECTION
Mr. Ciccariello reminded his colleagues that the Board had voted to nominate Framingham as the MPO representative and was now being asked to vote for Framingham in the election. Although not required, the Board could also vote for Everett as the city representative.
Mr. McKinley moved to direct the Chairman to cast a ballot to support the Town of Framingham as the MetroWest MPO member. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Letter of Appreciation from the Town of Wayland
A letter was received from the Town of Wayland thanking the Natick Fire Department for their assistance with a large house fire. Mr. McKinley suggested sending a one-sentence letter to Wayland saying thank you. Mr. Hughes asked that the letter from Wayland be sent to the Fire Department.
b. West Suburban Arena
Mr. McKinley called attention to the notes from last week’s meeting of the West Suburban Arena steering committee. He had not attended, but thought they had done a thorough job in documenting what was going on and it appeared as though the rink was pretty much on course, on plan and on schedule. He was down there and things seemed to be working smoothly.
c. Skate Park
Having received a letter from two ten year olds regarding the skate park, Mr. Hughes inquired if there was any word on the legislation to exempt liability.
Mr. Lemnios was not aware of any change in the release of liability. The School Committee had placed a series of conditions on the reopening of the skate park which could not be met because it would require staffing.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
Mr. Hughes asked that Mr. Lemnios respond to the individuals suggesting that their concerns might be better directed to the School Committee and direct their correspondence to the Schools.
d. Financials and Golf Course Revenue/Expenditures
In view of the discussion at Town Meeting, Mr. Hughes inquired as to when the first financials and golf course revenue and expenditures may be ready.
Mr. Lemnios advised that for the next meeting he would have the financials through April 30, 2004 and the revenue and expenditure report through the end of March.
e. Golf Course Oversight Committee
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if all members of the Oversight Committee were in place. Mr. Lemnios responded that two members Barbara Chinetti and Edward Salamoff were moving on to form a friends group and he would be getting their resignation. The friends group was a group that was very similar to those for the library and the senior center and would promote the golf course, organize tournaments, etc. Mr. Lemnios noted that he had approached a member of the Finance Committee who just finished her term to consider one of the open seats and he would advertise the other openings.
f. Personnel Board
Mr. Hughes asked about the timeframe for advertising and posting the Personnel Board vacancies, and Mr. Lemnios advised that they had been
posted last week. The close date for submitting applications is May 21.
g. Home Rule Petition – Club Licenses
Mr. McKinley noted that he had been closely following the club license home rule petition and as of a week ago Friday it appeared to have cleared the ABCC. The draft was resubmitted back to Town Counsel and if Town Counsel OK’d it, it would move to the Legislature.
h. Auto Max Complaint
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s request for an update on where the complaint about the former Auto Max site stood, Mr. Lemnios responded that he did some preliminary research. The Building Department and Board of Health would be involved and the Police Department would be involved with the issue of junk vehicles.
i. Boston Athletic Association Contribution
Mr. Ciccariello requested that a letter of thanks be sent to the BAA for increasing their contribution to the Town for the running of the Boston Marathon.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
___________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
