BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
May 24, 2004
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley, John Connolly
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on May 24, 2004 in the amount of $1,493,161.93. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $3,920,973.93.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation, and the 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.
MINUTES
With corrections as noted, Mr. Hughes moved approval of the minutes of the February 9, 2004 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly abstained.
WILLIAM MARSTON: LODGE ROAD; BLOCK PARTY
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to approve Bill Marston’s request to close off Lodge Road from both ends on June 6, 2004 from 2:00-7:00 p.m. for a block party.
Mr. Ball reminded the Board that in the past a point used to be made of asking the residents holding the block party to extend an invitation to Lieutenant Mabardy as the community policing coordinator. Even though Lieutenant Mabardy was no longer serving in that function, he (Mr. Ball) suggested that the Board continue to add the invitation to the officer in charge of community policing as an ongoing part of all block party approvals.
BACON FREE LIBRARY: PERMISSION TO CLOSE STREET
The Board unanimously voted to approve the Bacon Free Library’s request to close Mill Lane on June 20, 2004 from 5:00-9:00 p.m. for a concert. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball.
WALNUT HILL SCHOOL: PARADE PERMIT
The Board unanimously voted to approve the Walnut Hill School’s request to process from the School down Walnut Street prior to commencement on the morning of June 4, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Double Pole
Todd Ente of Walnut Street stated that he had received a notification of the public hearing on the extra pole Nstar wanted to put in.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that this was an agenda item and Mr. Ente would be given an opportunity to speak at that time.
Mr. Hughes explained that Citizens Concerns was an opportunity for anybody to speak on those items not on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING: WALNUT STREET: ONE ANCHOR GUY
The Board was in receipt of a memo from DPW Rights & Permits Engineer William DeRosa recommending approval.
Mr. McKinley moved to open the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Todd Ente told the Board that he lived at the intersection of Walnut and Willow Streets. When he received the notification of the pole being placed he was concerned because when he moved into his house there was a double pole and guy wire running through his property and it took a year and a half to have it removed. The utility company said it was the Town’s responsibility and the Town said it was the utility company. This was a street with many older homes. A lot of trees have been removed and the traffic noise has been emphasized and he was concerned with seeing 3-4 extra poles on the other side of Willow Street and all the wires. It was beginning to look like an electric transfer station and he was concerned that this would further make the view from his home and the street look ugly. Anything
the Town could do to prevent this from happening and reduce the wires would be appreciated.
Mr. Ente noted that if this (petition) went through he would like to know the direction in which the guy wire would be pointing. Would it be toward the street or toward his home? There was a house on the corner where Nstar was planning to put a double pole and if the guy wire was going toward the house, it would intrude on the parking and people would be parking in the street. Mr. Ciccariello gave Mr. Ente a copy of the plan and noted that the plan showed the guy wire running parallel to Walnut.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the petition was to put in another guy wire, not another pole. Mr. Ente responded that when he went out to talk to the contractor, it was somebody contracted by the Town and they said they were going to be putting in a second pole, but Mr. Lemnios came out and it was prevented until the hearing.
Mr. Lemnios explained that last week the office got calls from some of the residents saying there was a contractor on Willow Street and it appeared as though the contractor was going to commence work. It was a subcontractor of Nstar who was putting in pole replacements along Willow Street and they were prevented from putting this pole in place until the hearing was held.
Mr. Hughes noted that the pole being put there was a replacement pole and there would be a double pole there for a while. Mr. Lemnios confirmed that as being correct.
Mr. Ball stated that it was his reading that this was a request to put an anchor guy on an existing pole. The question being raised was with double poles. If Nstar chose to put in a double pole, they did not petition the Town. They just did it.
Mr. Hughes questioned what authority the Town had to tell Nstar they couldn’t put in a replacement pole, and Mr. Lemnios explained that he didn’t. The contractor was putting in a double pole along Willow and he asked if the subcontractor knew there was a hearing on this particular pole. He informed him (subcontractor) that he shouldn’t perform work on this particular pole until after tonight’s hearing. Mr. Hughes asked if the contractor was going to put the guy wires in, but Mr. Lemnios responded that he couldn’t say that. He just told the contractor that this pole was the subject of a hearing and he should not proceed to work.
Mr. McKinley noted that currently Nstar was in the process of replacing certain poles and they probably should be encouraged to at least make an effort to replace poles that were old or dangerous. Independent of that was permission to install an anchor wire and whether to do the old pole, new pole or both. To Mr. Ente’s question, Nstar wasn’t asking permission to install an additional pole but a guy wire to an existing
pole and as a by-product maybe install a preliminary pole and remove the wires.
PUBLIC HEARING: WALNUT STREET: ONE ANCHOR GUY (contd)
Mr. Ente responded that removal of the old pole remained to be seen. It took l-l/2 years to remove another one.
Mr. Ball noted that the Board had no leverage on getting Nstar to remove double poles, but suppose the Board said it would approve the installation subject to Nstar hand carrying it through with RCN, Verizon, etc. so that the old pole could be removed within 30 days. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Town had just passed a by-law that gave them days. They could be asked to follow the by-law. Mr. Ball agreed and felt this was a good opportunity to remind Nstar of the 90-day by-law. Mr. Lemnios noted that he would have to check with the Town Clerk’s office on whether the new by-law was approved by the Attorney General.
Mr. Ciccariello asked that Nstar provide an update on the double pole status at the next meeting. He noted that some poles were getting removed although maybe not as quickly as everyone would like.
Mr. Connolly asked Mr. Ente if removal of the old pole within 90 days was OK, and Mr. Ente responded that that was reasonable.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the problem wasn’t necessarily Nstar, but getting the five other utilities to transfer their wires. The utilities often hired contractors and it didn’t happen in 90 days. Mr. Connolly questioned if the Board had any clout, and Mr. Ciccariello responded that the Board had had Nstar come in and provide updates on getting double poles removed.
Mr. McKinley was of the opinion that dragging Nstar in and beating them up was a waste of time. What was needed was representatives from the other utilities as well.
Mr. Ball felt that the problem was a diffuse one. The Board asked Nstar whose job it was to inform the next utility to make their transfer and Nstar said that they put it up on the web and they had a database people could query, but nobody was really carrying the ball. Even though it was a public utility or a collection of public utilities, the double poles affect the appearance of the Town, and Mr. Ball wondered if the Town were to possess the latest database, if someone who worked for the Town could take on the responsibility of contacting the next guy down. When somebody was responsible, it happened a heck of a lot better.
Mr. Lemnios wasn’t sure if that was feasible but thought it was more complex than it might appear to be. At the last presentation, there were in excess of 300 double poles. There was a hierarchy for the transfer of wires and the system would require Nstar to inform the Town that they had accomplished the transfer and the Town would call the next company. If it was as simple as that, it may be something the Town could pursue, but he wouldn’t want any Town employee to make a determination that it was ready for the next transfer.
Mr. Ciccariello requested that Nstar be scheduled to update the Board and as part of that contact every other utility company and ask that they have someone in attendance.
Mr. McKinley moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ball moved approval. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. No vote was taken as a subsequent tabling motion passed.
Wanting to wait until Nstar came in, Mr. Connolly moved to table. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
In response to Mr. Ente’s request that abutters get noticed as to when Nstar would be appearing, Mr. Ciccariello asked that he provide a list to Ms. Challis.
APPLICATION FOR A TRANSFER OF THE COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE AND COMMON VICTUALER’S ALL ALCOHOL LICENSE FROM HONG KONG DELIGHT CORP. TO HENG TONG, INC. D/B/A ORIENTAL PEARL
Before the Board was an application for the transfer of the common victualer’s license and common victualer’s all alcohol license from Hong Kong Delight Corp. to Heng Tong, Inc. d/b/a Oriental Pearl for premises at 195 West Central Street.
Mr. Hughes recused himself from discussion of the application.
Representing Oriental Pearl was Attorney Yiping Du, and the new owner and manager Yuan Quan Chen.
Mr. McKinley moved to open the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Hughes had recused himself and did not vote.
Mr. Du told the Board that Oriental Pearl was purchasing the assets of the restaurant now owned by Hong Kong Delight at 195 West Central Street and intended to take over the alcohol license. There was no plan to make any changes to the building or the interior layout.
Responding to questions from Mr. McKinley, Mr. Du confirmed that this application was just a transfer of ownership, Oriental Pearl was taking possession of all the assets and equipment, and there would be no overlap between the new and old owners.
Mr. Ball was uncomfortable with lumping the common victualer’s and alcohol license together and moved to approve the transfer of the common victualer’s license held by Hong Kong Delight to Oriental Pearl. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Hughes did not vote.
Asked about his background and if he was TIPS certified, Mr. Chen responded that he started in the restaurant business when he was 17 and he was now 40. His TIPS certification was current and he had provided a copy.
Mr. Ball inquired as to how Mr. Chen would train the other people noting that the staff was required to be trained within 30 days by AIM, TIPS, etc. Mr. Ball asked for assurance that Mr. Chen recognized that that was a requirement and he intended to do it. Mr. Du gave that assurance. Mr. Chen advised that he was not a certified trainer and would send all the staff to the same course he had taken.
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s observation that there were no bar stools, Mr. Du’s reply was, ‘at this time no’.
Referring to Mr. Chen’s certification, Mr. Ball inquired if the organization was as unfamiliar to the other members of the Board as it was to him. American Hotel and Lodging Association wasn’t one on the list and he (Mr. Ball) didn’t know what the curriculum entailed. He noted that he wasn’t suggesting that it wasn’t a fine program but he was a little leery.
Mr. McKinley agreed that the organization was not one of the organizations enumerated in the certification requirements but it may be a worthy organization. A possible solution would be to table the decision to transfer the license to the next meeting and either have the applicant obtain certification from one of the agencies recognized by the Board or the Board could seek a recommendation on the American Hotel and Lodging program and see if it should be added. He agreed that at the moment it didn’t fit the policy.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Chen had attended classes, and Mr. Chen said he did. The classes were in Boston.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that the company from which Mr. Chen had verification of completing an alcohol awareness course was not on the list in the Town’s liquor policy. It was not acceptable and the Board would move the vote on the license to the next hearing and give Mr. Chen an opportunity to get certified by one of the programs listed or
APPLICATION FOR A TRANSFER OF THE COMMON VICTUALER’S LICENSE AND COMMON VICTUALER’S ALL ALCOHOL LICENSE FROM HONG KONG DELIGHT CORP. TO HENG TONG, INC. D/B/A ORIENTAL PEARL (contd)
the Board would have to add the American Hotel and Lodging program to its list and at this point it was unlikely to happen that quickly. Mr. McKinley pointed out that adding this company was a modification of the policy and would require an advertised hearing and that could take months. It would be faster and easier for the applicant to get certified by one of the recognized agencies.
Mr. McKinley moved to table consideration of the transfer of the all alcoholic common victualer’s license held by Hong Kong Delight to Heng Tong, Inc. d/b/a Oriental Pearl until the next meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
GOLF COURSE UPDATE
Mr. Lemnios introduced the discussion by noting that Finance Director Robert Palmer and Comptroller Ruthann Cashman would review the financial update of the golf course; David Baier, Chairman of the Golf Course Oversight Committee would update the Board on activities at the club; Peter Meagher the golf pro would provide an update on the operational issues; and Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini would speak on the operational issues under the Recreation & Parks Department. He noted that under the guidance of Mr. Cugini and Mr. Meagher the course was seeing a positive performance. It was running consistent with the projections and in some cases better
meaning that less was being spent than anticipated when the proposal was put together for the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee in January.
Mr. Palmer advised that the software had been installed and was being used for reconciliation and a database of rounds played. It met the criteria and it was working. Mr. Palmer then advised that the revenues (for the course) were on track. Going back to the plan presented and adopted, the course needed to generate $459,000 and through May $351,564 had been taken in which was 11.8% better than last year. At that time last year the revenue was $314,360. $107,492 was still needed (to make the plan) and it was felt that the revenue projections would just be made.
On the expenditure side, Mr. Palmer noted that the plan adopted had budget $894,056 for expenditures. Through May 2004 expenditures were $726,873. Through the same period last year the expenditures were $869,945. When take into account revenues and expenditures, the course was in a better position of $180,000 from last year.
Ms. Cashman reiterated that in tracking the same two fiscal years for the same period of time, there was an 11.83% increase in revenues overall and a noticed increase in April. For May and June the previous year the revenues were $91,000 and to date the course seems to be exceeding that figure. The expenses were down from the previous fiscal year and she thought that was due in part to changing from a management contract to bringing employees in-house. It seemed to save about $20,000 approximately every month having the employees be Town employees. Overall this year the course was $180,000 to the good. She noted that the rounds of golf had increased by 17.19%.
Taking the numbers, Mr. McKinley saw a trend that looked like it would exceed the business plan presented during the budget process and asked if he could interpret from that that the operation of the golf course would cover all non-debt service costs and return a few dollars against the debt. Regarding the discussion of whether to keep the course open or close it, from the numbers being seen it now looked to him like it was more in the Town’s favor to keep it open.
Mr. Lemnios responded that the proposal in January followed an analysis that presented the scenario that if the expenses could be held consistent with the $894,000 total expenses, the dollar point (for keeping it open) would be the same. Revenues were trending well and he felt OK on hitting the revenue number. One concern was the weather, which was the most significant variable. On the expenditure side less
GOLF COURSE UPDATE (contd)
was being spent. When the team met, and they met frequently, if they saw they weren’t going to hit the revenue, they would decrease the expenses to keep the margin the same at $435,000. The $435,000 represented what it would cost the Town to carry the debt, pay the lease for the course, and some caretaking expenses if the Town were to
close it (golf course). The good news from a financial perspective was that the numbers were trending exactly where everyone wanted them to be on the revenue side and the expenditures were less. Just as important on the operation side there were the right people at the course managing the facility and the right folks looking at the course on a periodic basis on the Oversight Committee. The other key aspect was the system put in place to track the collection of fees and that was performing well.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to how much of the operating expense in terms of labor was variable. Were there part-timers that could stay home if it rained? Mr. Lemnios advised that 33-44% was full time and the balance part-time and there were some variables with the part-time.
Assuming the course opened in March, Mr. Hughes noted that there were 454 rounds more this season than last. He inquired as to how much income was from the increase in rounds vs pre-billing, which paid upfront and wouldn’t have the same cash flow over the course of the year. Ms. Cashman advised that in the rounds of play the season tickets were counted. Mr. Hughes noted that the person who paid for the season ticket paid for income now and how much of the revenue was related to rounds as opposed to pre-paid passes. Mr. Lemnios responded that the season tickets this year counted for just under $32,000 where last year was $19,500. If that difference were taken off, he thought you would see an increase of $20,000 from rounds played from last year.
Mr. McKinley noted that season tickets represented less than 10% of the total revenue. Even if front loaded, it wasn’t a significant change in the revenue going forward. Mr. Lemnios added that it was being handled the same way as last year.
Mr. Connolly found this to be an amazing jump and asked if there were any thoughts as to why it was moving the way it was.
Golf pro Peter Meagher thought that one of the reasons revenue was up was that golf in general was on an up tick. For the past four years golf was losing, but this year it was turning the corner and the economy was better. Aside from that the marketing efforts for Sassamon Trace were better. The greens fees were up $13,000 over last year’s greens fees. Everything was increasing across-the-board. He (Mr. Meagher) was there every day and people were taking this course to heart and he didn’t see that in the past few years. It was a piece of the community that people were starting to support. In addition things were being done to make it more user friendly. They were doing some beautification things that don’t cost a lot of money such as remodeling the rotary to dress it up,
and they were trying to promote more food service. There wasn’t a clubhouse but they got around that by putting
out more tents and they drove around with coolers serving guests with soda and water. People were asking for beer, but they weren’t going there yet. He found that they were running out of parking because they were getting more business.
David Baier, Chairman of the Golf Course Oversight Committee, told the Board that the news was all good and took his hat off to Mr. Meagher and Mr. Cugini for doing a lot of positive things. Mr. Hughes asked about the Friends of the Golf Course and Mr. Baier explained that the Oversight Committee talked about the idea of establishing a Friends of the Golf Course committee as a fund raising arm. The course had some fairly significant capital needs and the committee would like to begin
raising some money for those needs and deal with some beautification that was low cost. Edward Salamoff and Barbara Chinetti agreed to co-chair the Friends and they will step down from the Oversight Committee so two more people will be needed. Mr. Baier felt that it was an exciting opportunity to help put a fund raising arm for Sassamon Trace.
GOLF COURSE UPDATE (contd)
Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Baier saw the Friends group contributing towards reduction of the annual deficit. Mr. Baier replied that it hadn’t gotten that far and a lot of decisions had to be made on how it was set up. The idea was to make improvements in the golf course.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Lemnios about when he would be making the appointments to the Oversight Committee and bringing them to the Board, and Mr. Lemnios responded ‘shortly’.
Mr. Lemnios went on to thank Mr. Cugini and Mr. Meagher along with Mr. Palmer and Ms. Cashman. He also recognized Mr. Baier’s leadership of the Oversight Committee.
Mr. Lemnios noted that for the last several years the course has been under scrutiny. People had to re-adjust expectation levels and that was healthy. It was by no means out of the rough but the elements were in place to continue to perform and if it continued at that level of effort and with the addition of the Friends group, he thought it was a fairly good probability of executing the business model presented to the Board in January. The administration wasn’t popping any champagne corks, but they were happy. It was a good beginning.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how the daily auditing of the receipts was being done at the course and how the money was being transferred. Mr. Palmer advised that it was set up similar to the Schools. Each day receipts were deposited directly to a Town account. The deposit was picked up the following day and verified with the report from the activity report.
Mr. Cugini stated that he was very pleased with how the transition was going and thought the course was very fortunate to have a person like Mr. Meagher. Mr. Meagher has done a great job in trying to figure out
how to serve golfers. Season tickets were jumping up and Mr. Cugini thought that had a lot to do with how the golfers felt. A good job has been done in targeting the market and he thought the marketing plan was working well. Real estate agents were handing out coupons, Val Pac, Super Coupons and some restaurants were involved.
Mr. Cugini also saluted Mr. Meagher on his work with the management company. The course was in very good shape and it was ahead of many courses in the area. He thought the course was starting to build a better base.
Mr. McKinley felt that the Board should extend its compliments to Mr. Lemnios and all the members of the team and encourage them to keep it up.
Mr. Ciccariello requested an update on the progress with the Conservation Commissions, and Mr. Lemnios advised that Conservation Agent Robert Bois was scheduled to go to the Sherborn Conservation Commission this week. Sherborn has asked for some additional information relative to tests already performed and they were looking at the testing regiment, which was unclearly defined in the order of conditions. They (Sherborn) were saying once per year and Mr. Bois was proposing once every three years. The one issue still being looked at, albeit slow, was the issue of putting the course completely on well water as opposed to treated. The Town was working with the regulatory agencies. He noted that that was not something that was in the plan. At the earliest it would be Fiscal 2006 and as a cost item in
Fiscal 2005.
JAVA JIM’S: MODIFICATION OF ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE
The Board was in receipt of a letter from the owner of Java Jim’s at 22 Main Street seeking an amendment to their entertainment license for
entertainment Monday through Saturday and on Saturday afternoons. The shows would be over by 11:00 p.m. and they intended to close by 12:00.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the hours being requested for Saturdays and was told by Melina Shapiro, the owner of Java Jim’s, that it was up in the air although it would be in the afternoon and after 12:00 p.m.
JAVA JIM’S: MODIFICATION OF ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello assumed it would be noon-11:00 p.m., but Ms. Shapiro said no, it would be 12:00 noon-8:00 p.m.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the hours and days of the current license and Ms. Challis advised that it was Tuesday and Thursday from 8:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.
Clara Prokup, a partner in Java Jim’s clarified that what Java Jim’s had asked for was Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and Saturday afternoon. They were surprised when they got the letter saying it was only Tuesday and Thursday. Having reviewed the DVD, Mr. Ball was able to shed some light. The word Wednesday was never mentioned. Ms.
Shapiro said Tuesday-Thursday and everyone heard Tuesday and Thursday, but in listening very carefully to the DVD the Town was in error and he apologized. Mr. Ball recommended that instead of seeking the license from 8:00-11:00 p.m. that it be made 7:00-11:00 p.m.
Ms. Prokup agreed with Mr. Ball’s suggestion and noted that Java Jim’s was just trying to increase their business and doing it on a slow basis. It was good for the center and for Java Jim’s and they believed in the Town and in their business. They wanted different kinds of groups not just set to one group - maybe some poetry reading or folk singing. It would be paid by donation only.
Mr. Hughes recalled that at the last meeting Java Jim’s was perfectly willing to accept some limitations on the days of the week. Ms. Prokup explained that they had not tried it out yet and didn’t know how successful it would be and was told that the license could be modified.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the actual seating capacity and was told by Ms. Shapiro that it was 52. Howard Frutoff advised that the occupancy capacity was higher per the approved drawings from the Building Department, but the sign posted currently said that only 52 seats were allowed. Mr. Ciccariello asked if Java Jim’s had ever been at the maximum for any of the events, and Mr. Frutoff’s response was, ‘no’.
Mr. Ball inquired if there had been any events on Wednesday. Ms. Prokup responded ‘no’, but Ms. Shapiro said they had been on Tuesday and Wednesday. Mr. Ball questioned if they were on Wednesday even though the Board had misunderstood and issued a letter limiting it to Tuesday and Thursday. Ms. Shapiro said they thought the letter said Tuesday-Thursday. Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what the letter said and was told by Mr. Challis that the letter said Tuesday-Thursday and Saturday. Ms. Shapiro thought they had misinterpreted the letter.
Wanting to be clear, Mr. Ball noted that the Board misunderstood and apparently somebody at Java Jim’s misunderstood the letter. He then noted that in their recent letter mention was made about limited amplification. The Board asked the last time about amplification and the answer was that there wasn’t going to be any because of something to do with the windows. Now it was something different. Ms. Shapiro advised that the area itself was not in the windows. It was to the side. She added that there wouldn’t be any vibrating. Mr. Ball recalled that the last time the window would be a stage, but Ms. Shapiro noted that there wasn’t enough space to have an organ or band. They (Java Jim’s) were new at it and didn’t know if they would be bringing in the
customers.
If there wasn’t room in the front window for a group with 4-5 individuals, Mr. Ciccariello asked if that meant that tables and seats had to be taken out. Ms. Shapiro advised that there would be no interference with the tables, but they would lose some counter tops.
Mr. McKinley inquired if there were any objections from whoever owned the building. Ms. Shapiro responded that they did not. Mr. McKinley then asked Ms. Shapiro what she was specifically applying for and her response was Monday-Friday from 8:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m., but Mr. Ball said 7:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m. and some Saturday afternoons. The last time they asked for 1:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. Mr. Frutoff requested a change in the Saturday to 1:00-8:00 p.m.
JAVA JIM’S: MODIFICATION OF ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE (contd)
Mr. Connolly moved to modify the entertainment license held by Java Jim’s to allow entertainment Monday-Friday from 7:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m. and on Saturday from 1:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. Mr. Ball proposed the restatement that attendance be limited to 52 and the recognition of the use of limited amplification. Mr. Connolly accepted the amendment. Mr. Connolly accepted an additional amendment that the front door was required to be closed if amplification was used. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Before making his second amendment to the motion, Mr. Ball asked if Ms. Shapiro would agree to the requirement that the front door be closed if amplification were used, and Ms. Shapiro responded that that was no problem.
JAMES PILLSBURY: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
Discussion was tabled pending the arrival of James Pillsbury.
RESOLUTION 4
Mr. McKinley reminded the Board that he had originally made a motion to support Resolution 4. Mr. Ball had some concerns and at the previous meeting there was some correspondence from Mr. Ball enumerating his concerns and the Board agreed to hold a decision until Mr. Ball was present.
Mr. Connolly stated that he received a couple of telephone calls and letters on this and if the Board of Selectmen made a stand it would only be the Selectmen’s opinions as citizens. His understanding was that only two people in our state could make this vote. He noted that he was urged by a citizen to leave the constitution as it was. As a citizen he would vote that the amendment to the constitution regarding the flag be done.
Mr. McKinley agreed with Mr. Connolly. He (Mr. McKinley) understood the concerns raised about this and some would characterize it as being over the top, but he didn’t agree with the statement that the Board of Selectmen had no business speaking for the Town. On the contrary. The Board was elected to represent the Town on a wide variety of issues and the Selectmen were the elected representative of the Town. As to whether this was excessive and what the definition of disrespect of the flag was and meant, he would defer to Congress. All the Board was being asked to do was to say there were acceptable boundaries for how the American flag should be treated. It represents certain rights and certain principles for which this country stands. He was in favor of offering the Board’s support to
our Congressmen and hoped the Board
would concur that it was an important symbol and we can trust our representatives in Washington to address many of the issues raised.
Mr. Hughes thought that amending the constitution should be done with the greatest of trepidation. He believed that a judge in a courtroom would decide what may or may not be desecration. Part of what makes this country great was the fact that people were free to express themselves even to the point of disrespecting the flag and nobody was sent to jail or shot or their families weren’t punished. He meant no disrespect to the flag and what some people do to it was offensive to him, but amending the constitution was not the way to do it and he couldn’t vote to support this.
Mr. Ball was opposed to a constitutional amendment. While he respected and loved the flag and flew it proudly in front of his house, the constitution was a document that he revered as the quintessential defining document for this nation and its amendments defined the rights and privileges of citizens of this country and with one exception –
prohibition – no amendment had ever limited the rights of an individual. To change the constitution should be an action approved with the greatest of trepidation. He had nothing but scorn for people who use the flag for protest but he would fight for their right to do it. The small number of people who choose to do what he found so repugnant he didn’t find their actions anywhere near meeting the test that a constitutional amendment demands. He opposed Resolution 4.
RESOLUTION 4 (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he had received a lot of different opinions, and he didn’t feel it was a position the Board should take. It was a position that the Board as individuals should take and he would not support this. He had a concern with what the word desecration meant and to what extent somebody desecrated the flag – was it wearing it on your shoulder, flipping it upside down. As a citizen he found it extremely offensive that anybody would burn or desecrate the flag but that was why there were rights to speak out. He was not going to support a vote of the Board to support the amendment to the constitution.
Stanley Cohen noted that he started this discussion and he would stand by what he said. He thanked Joshua Ostroff for sending him a copy of the letter he (Mr. Ostroff) sent to the Board of Selectmen. In his letter Mr. Ostroff commented on the deplorable condition of the tattered faded flags and his observations were correct. He considered that desecration on the same level as those he spoke about. It was not unheard of to amend an amendment and hopefully Resolution 4 would be a change for the better. No matter what the Board decided he respected the Board’s decision.
Mr. McKinley moved to support Resolution 4. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. The motion failed on a 2-3-0 vote. Mr. McKinley and Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes were opposed.
JAMES PILLSBURY: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
Before the Board was a request from James Pillsbury to broadcast a live television show from the Common on Thursday evenings between now and the some time in August.
Mr. Hughes recused himself from discussion of this matter.
In a memo to the Board, Recreation & Parks Supervisor Richard Cugini advised that the Common was available at that time on Thursdays. Mr. Cugini was present and advised that the Recreation Commission was not meeting until June 7 and would not have a formal recommendation until then.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Pillsbury to explain what he intended to do, and Mr. Pillsbury responded that he had an hour live talk show from Framingham. It had been on for two years and he was about to do the 100th show. There was a set in the Pegasus studio and he had done 6-7 live outside shows in Framingham and would like to do the same in Natick.
Mr. Ball inquired if Mr. Pillsbury’s show carried any disclaimers, and was told by Mr. Pillsbury that it carried a public access disclaimer. Asked if there was a disclaimer that opinions expressed did not reflect anything from the Town, Mr. Pillsbury noted that that was a public access requirement and a disclaimer was provided front and back. Mr. Ball stated that he was favorably disposed with the proviso that there be a disclaimer. Mr. Pillsbury suggested that the Board tune in on Thursday at 7:00 and see what and how the show was done.
Mr. McKinley inquired if the show would be broadcast on Comcast, RCN or both. Mr. Pillsbury explained that it was live on both Comcast and RCN and rebroadcast on both.
Regarding Mr. Pillsbury’s request for the show to continue until some time in August, Mr. McKinley thought that it would be useful to have a finite date for when this ended. Mr. Pillsbury proposed September 15th.
Mr. Ball asked Randy Brewer of Natick Pegasus if the equipment for broadcasting live from the gazebo was in place, purchased, checked out and ready to rock and roll. Mr. Brewer advised that as of tomorrow it would be purchased and in place. As to whether it would be checked out in time for Mr. Pillsbury’s show this Thursday, Mr. Brewer thought the show would be coming from the studio because the station manager was out-of-town delaying it by one week. The equipment was being purchased tomorrow and tested between Tuesday and Wednesday.
JAMES PILLSBURY: REQUEST TO USE COMMON (contd)
Mr. McKinley asked about the need for the Town being named as an additional insured and was told that that would be needed. Mr. Pillsbury offered to sign whatever document he had to in order to relieve the Town. Asked who was producing the show, Mr. Pillsbury responded that he was the producer. When asked if there was a company that carried insurance, Mr. Pillsbury’s reply was, “no”.
Mr. Ball questioned if Mr. Pillsbury was assuming that it would be Pegasus who would sign the indemnification. Mr. Pillsbury responded that he was asked if he would sign something and he had said he would. He (Mr. Pillsbury) was the producer that provided the means by which the show was produced and he was not sure what Pegasus had to do with this. Mr. Ball explained that should someone go up, slip and fall and sue the Town the Town would like to be assured that someone other than the Town was responsible. If not Mr. Pillsbury and not Pegasus, he (Mr. Ball) wasn’t sure who it would be. Mr. Cugini was asked about the insurance requirement and he advised that the group sponsoring the event was asked to provide the insurance.
Since in this case Mr. Pillsbury didn’t carry insurance, Mr. Ciccariello asked if it would fall under Pegasus.
Mr. Ball stated that he would like to table this until the next meeting and in the interim have the Town Administrator contact Pegasus and explain the situation and see if Pegasus carried such insurance and if they do have the Town named as an additional insured.
Mr. Pillsbury noted that last year he asked to use the Boston Common to do a show from the gazebo and Boston required $1 million of liability insurance. He called the ACLU and they took care of it. This was free speech. This was a public place and he couldn’t imagine anybody coming up with $1 million. To him much to do was made of this insurance and he couldn’t afford to buy it. He wasn’t sure the Town would ask Katie Couric for insurance and thought the insurance thing was a stretch.
Mr. Connolly didn’t think the insurance was a stretch at all and assured Mr. Pillsbury that Katie Couric or whomever would be asked to provide insurance.
Mr. McKinley questioned if an exception was ever made and Mr. Cugini replied that there hadn’t been. Any group that uses the facility must provide insurance. Mr. Pillsbury noted that he had used the common in Framingham for rallies and interviews and they didn’t ask him for any insurance.
Responding to a series of questions from Mr. Lemnios, Mr. Pillsbury replied that the broadcast were a public domain and anybody could make a copy. Pegasus retained a copy. He was not incorporated, but he had a business license to seek in the future some sponsorships. The company was Home Grown TV Productions. The broadcasts were copy righted but there were no restrictions and anybody could make a copy.
Mr. Ball noted that the Common was public. While he (Mr. Ball) was excited about this, he was concerned with the insurance and moved to table until the next meeting and contact Pegasus. The motion was not seconded and was withdrawn.
Mr. Brewer stated that Pegasus Executive Director Geralyn Lemieux would have to speak to this, but he believed Pegasus’ contract with Natick
required Pegasus to carry such insurance. He noted that the producers sign a waiver holding Pegasus harmless.
Mr. Ball moved positive action on Mr. Pillsbury’s request to use the Common to broadcast a live TV show on Thursday’s subject to receipt from Pegasus of a certificate of insurance showing Natick as an additional insured and approval from the Parks & Recreation Commission. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes had recused himself and did not vote.
JAMES PILLSBURY: REQUEST TO USE COMMON (contd)
Prior to the vote at Mr. Ciccariello’s request, Mr. Lemnios said he would speak to Town Counsel concerning a couple of the conditions being suggested by Recreation & Parks and would like to talk to Mr. Pillsbury regarding his experience in Boston. Mr. Lemnios understood the desire to use the Common but at the same time the Board was concerned with insuring that the Town’s interest was protected relative to liability beyond someone just falling.
Mr. Pillsbury commented that this was not American Bandstand. There would be no more than three guests. There was not a great deal of traffic. He felt this (TV show) could be a real plus for downtown Natick.
Mr. McKinley assured Mr. Pillsbury that everyone wanted to make this happen, but there was a well established policy and the use of the Common required insurance.
ANNOUNCEMENT: AMERICAN RED CROSS BLOOD DRIVE
An announcement was made that the American Red Cross had scheduled a blood drive for May 25, 2004 from 12:00 noon – 6:00 p.m. at the Golf Masters Pro Shop at 218 Speen Street.
SEWER BILLING POLICY
At the Board’s last meeting Mr. Hughes had presented a sewer billing policy and the Board was now in receipt of a letter from Town Counsel regarding the policy, its enforcement, and whether a municipal lien certificate relieved the property owner from paying in accordance with the policy.
Mr. Connolly thanked Mr. Hughes and Deputy Town Administrator Stephen Lisauskas for their explanation. He noted that after the last meeting he still felt uncomfortable. He had noticed there was a lot of fluctuation in the number of units used and knew that the DPW would call if they saw a fluctuation and he had wondered if these individuals had received a call. He had been confused about the units of water used to determine a sewer bill. He would like to do it on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Ball pointed out that the objective was to establish a policy, which would be applied uniformly. Mr. Ciccariello noted that this would be the billing policy not only for the cases standing before the
Board but as it moved forward into the future. Nothing precluded a citizen from petitioning the Board for relief on a sewer bill like they do on a water bill.
If the Board adopted the policy tonight, Mr. McKinley questioned if the policy was going forward or if it was grandfathered just for the next 30 days. Mr. Hughes responded that the policy was for the nine cases the Board knew about now and anyone who came forward on their own within 30 days of getting notice. It would probably be 90 days by the time all the notices got out. Mr. Ciccariello reiterated that it didn’t preclude anybody from sending a letter to the Board asking for consideration. Mr. Hughes clarified that this (policy) was an offer to settle a dispute with regard to back bills. If the offer was rejected (by the known cases), there was no reason to stay with this policy. If the Board had to file a lawsuit, the Town would not be bound by this and the Town could seek whatever it thought
it could recover in a courtroom. He added that the water readings were the readings gathered over the years from those individuals, but the rates in effect then were applied to those water readings to get the bill for the sewer.
Mr. Connolly noted that on a given month it might have been 57 then 62 and then 112 and he didn’t know if that had been taken into consideration. Mr. Hughes thought he had which was why he recommended collection of 75% of what the Town could collect. People said that had they known they would have conserved water.
To Mr. Connolly’s comment that the policy was drafted and reviewed by the Board and no citizens, Mr. Hughes responded that he met with five of the people and received communication from two others. One
SEWER BILLING POLICY (contd)
gentleman said it didn’t matter what the policy was. He hooked up 2-3 years ago and would pay whatever the Town proposed. If you looked at all the numbers, some of these houses received this service in excess of 20 years and if the Town collected everything, it would be double what was being proposed.
In the case of someone present or future covered by this policy who does not get a water bill, Mr. Ball inquired if the Town would have to meter their well and if someone was on a well how would the Town go forward and what would be done about the history. Mr. Hughes explained that the proposal was to take the water usage for the first year they had a meter and use that as an average and go back and bill at the rates in effect at the time.
Assuming the Board adopted the policy, Mr. McKinley inquired if the next step would be that the individual homeowner would be asked to sign an acceptance letter that they agree so the Treasurer’s Office could proceed accordingly. Mr. Hughes responded that that was what he would suggest. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Town Counsel’s opinion advised that the municipal lien certificate only relieved the Town from being able to lien. It didn’t dismiss people from having liability and it didn’t dismiss the liability for people who ran to get a municipal lien certificate since the last meeting.
Mr. McKinley moved to adopt the policy dated May 6, 2004 including the opinion of Town Counsel dated May 21, 2004. Mr. Hughes seconded and offered the amendment that if the policy wasn’t accepted, then the Board would take whatever steps were necessary to recover the liability. Mr. McKinley stated that he would accept an addendum that the policy would be offered to people with a 30-day window of acceptance from when it first came to their attention. He didn’t accept any motion of what the Board would do or wouldn’t do if the policy wasn’t accepted by the people involved. The Board would have to decide whether to sue or what to do at that time (after the 30 days). He wasn’t proposing any action. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes,
Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Referring to the matrix of goals & objectives, Mr. McKinley advised that it was a partially revised list based on the suggestions made at the last discussion. The principal changes involved the period of time being revised to operate from January 2004 through June 2005 to capture the annual review for the Town Administrator and capture Fiscal 2005 in its entirety. There were a number of things on the previous list, which were dropped because they were done or reorganized. The Senior Center and Armory had been grouped together. A couple of projects had been assigned to Mr. Stern (former Selectman) and the Board would have to decide what to do with those. A significant number of projects were assigned to Mr. Ciccariello and few, if any, were assigned to the rest of the Board and he (Mr. McKinley) thought
that needed to be adjusted.
Mr. McKinley suggested that for tonight’s meeting the Board only review the list and make sure it was accurate, complete, and assigned to the right persons and he would then make the amendments. Not only did it define the Board’s expectations but it set the goals the Board had set for Mr. Lemnios and Mr. Lemnios deserved to know what was expected of him.
Mr. Lemnios suggested changing the gravel pit description to continue gravel pit rehab project since the rehab had begun.
Mr. Hughes asked about putting Cloverleaf Mall under 40B projects. He also noted that the Natick Mall was under Planning issues and it had a retail and residential component. Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Hughes was suggesting that Cloverleaf be added to major projects and the Natick Mall moved to projects. Mr. Hughes responded that in conjunction with expansion there was the issue of whether the Zoning by-law would be amended with regard to FAR payments and their use. He understood that the issue before the Planning Board was a FAR of $6.2 million without
GOALS & OBJECTIVES (contd)
regard to any credit for improvements and the residential area could have an additional $4 million. The Town Administrator proposed an amendment to the FAR and would be suggesting a joint committee of the Finance Committee, Conservation Commission, ZBA, Open Space and Board of Selectmen to get a resolution to that. The plan for the Natick Mall was to go forward with the retail and that may give time to deal with
the issue. Mr. McKinley agreed and indicated that he would add the Natick Mall to major projects.
In conformance with Mr. Lemnios’ employment contract, Mr. Ball suggested changing the date for completion of the Town Administrator’s performance evaluation to December 1st.
Mr. Ciccariello requested an update of the new water meter installation and Mr. Lemnios advised that an update was scheduled for the June 7 meeting.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the implementation of emergency planning and was told by Mr. Lemnios that it was in place. An update would be given to the Board the second meeting in June.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s comment that the issue of Town vehicles had been resolved, Mr. Lemnios responded that some elements were in collective bargaining. It could come off the list if the Board were satisfied. The Board agreed to take it off.
Mr. Lemnios proposed the creation of a fifth category of update issues. That would help with planning and give an idea of things to put on as the agenda was set.
Mr. McKinley suggested, and the Board agreed, to move Sassamon Trace golf course to periodic updates.
Mr. McKinley noted that the neighborhood bus service had been on the list for a long-time. Mr. Lemnios felt that that could be moved to an update item, commenting that the bus went to a fixed route system. Mr. Hughes pointed out that that happened on January 1 and when the Board last spoke with Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian, the Board was to get a report after 90 days. Mr. Lemnios said he would schedule an update.
Mr. McKinley asked about removing the two Sassamon Trace capital items (maintenance building and clubhouse). Mr. Lemnios advised that those were put on l-l/2 years ago prior to the adoption of the business plan, which delayed the improvements out to Fiscal 2007 and 2008. He suggested that the Board may want to keep those in pending. Mr. McKinley preferred that things on the list be active and there be the intention to do something with at the moment.
Mr. McKinley then asked if the South Main Street 40B project was assigned to Mr. Ciccariello, and Mr. Ciccariello replied that he had been involved.
Mr. Hughes requested a report on the second part of the housing overlay, which went north on Route 27 to Lake Street and back to Washington Avenue.
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s query about elder tax relief, Mr. Lemnios explained that the genesis of that was the Council on Aging. Last fall they came before the Finance Committee and put forward some language relative to enhanced elder tax relief beyond what was
currently stated. Mr. Connolly volunteered to be the Board member assigned to this issue.
LEONARD MORSE GRANTS PANEL VACANCIES
Mr. Hughes moved to post the vacancy on the Leonard Morse Grants Panel left by the resignation of John Merritt. Letters of interest to be due June 21. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
HOME RULE PETITION – CLUB LICENSES – UPDATE
Mr. Lemnios informed the Board that Town Counsel had been working with counsel from the ABCC and they had come up with language relative to the home rule petition. The primary addition would be the requirement for clubs to come in and request a permit for a fund raising activity to be held at the licensed premises. This puts in place a method that would allow the clubs to seek a permit for charitable functions as well as non-charitable functions. Any proceeds raised could only be used for the club’s charitable purposes.
Mr. Ball inquired as to how the proviso for the profits would be audited. He questioned if there was any way to ensure that happening. Mr. Hughes suggested that the clubs could be asked to provide an accounting of what it was used for.
Noting all the markups on the draft before the Board, Mr. McKinley updated the Board on what had been happening. He advised that he had reviewed a draft a week ago with Mr. Lemnios and Town Counsel John Flynn and at that time it was suggested that every time a club wanted to hold a function they had to come in and get a permit. Mr. Flynn was directed to go back to the ABCC and revise their language so that a permit could have a period of time that ran parallel with the license. As of yet he had not heard back from the ABCC that they have accepted this change. At some point Town Counsel and the ABCC will agree and the Board should take a vote before it goes to the State Representatives and say go make it happen.
EVERETT STREET PROPERTY
Mr. Lemnios informed the Board that five prospective bidders picked up the bid packets for 56 Everett Street but there were no return bids submitted. The deadline was May 14, 2004.
Mr. Hughes moved to list the property with a real estate broker. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ball questioned how the broker would be chosen and Mr. Lemnios advised that quotations would be sought. Mr. McKinley suggested setting the rate at 4% and offering it to every licensed real estate broker in the Town.
Mr. Hughes also raised the possibility of having an auction and setting a minimum starting price.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there had been any feedback as to why bids were not submitted. Mr. Lemnios responded that he was going to be in contact with one of the bidders.
RAB SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to appoint Mr. Ball as the Board’s representative on the subcommittee to draft comments on the proposed new RAB rule to be sent to the Department of Defense.
ARMORY RE-USE STUDY COMMITTEE COMPOSITION
The Board was in receipt of a letter from the Finance Committee Chair Frank Foss requesting that Jeffrey Phillips be permitted to continue representing the Finance Committee on the Armory Re-Use Committee even though Mr. Phillips was no longer on the Finance Committee.
Mr. Hughes moved to change the composition of the Armory Re-Use Study Committee to a member or designee of the Finance Committee. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello,
Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ball was opposed.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. McKinley inquired if the Finance Committee had voted that Mr. Phillips continue to be their representative. Mr. Foss explained that generally the appointment was made by the Chair and consummated by the members. It was his wish to reappoint Mr. Phillips.
ARMORY RE-USE STUDY COMMITTEE COMPOSITION (contd)
Mr. Ball accepted that under normal situations it may be the Chairman’s prerogative, but under this unusual circumstance he would be more comfortable knowing the majority of the Finance Committee concurred with the Chair.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the Board was voting on changing the wording for the composition and not voting on Mr. Phillips appointment. Mr. Ball, however, felt that the specific issue was Mr. Phillips and he wanted to be sure the other members of the Finance Committee felt the same way.
Mr. Foss reiterated that normally the Chair made the appointments. He would list them and the members say yea or nay and if there were any issues the Chair went back and reconsidered. If the Board was saying that the Finance Committee should have the majority approval of this appointment, that was not the general practice.
Mr. Ball found this to be a situation where the tail was wagging the dog. The Finance Committee appointment was an individual who was no longer a member of the Finance Committee and he was uncomfortable with this. Mr. Foss noted that there had been other committees that have
been constituted with a member or appointee of the Finance, i.e. the Wilson Building Committee. It was a practice that has happened.
FIRE STUDY COMMITTEE COMPOSITION
Mr. Hughes noted that at the initial meeting of the Fire Study Committee a question arose whether a member of the Deputy Chiefs union should also be a member of the committee. His (Mr. Hughes) thought was that the Chief was there to represent the management of the Fire Department and the Deputies were part of that management.
Mr. Ciccariello thought that the Deputies had indicated that their preference would be to have a member (on the committee).
Mr. Lemnios felt that the purpose of having the Chief was the management component and the Deputies were clearly management. They may have an association but it was a different setup relative to the firefighters union.
It was Mr. McKinley’s understanding that the committee’s job was to oversee the process of selecting a firm that would conduct this comprehensive study. Mr. Hughes confirmed that as being correct. Mr. McKinley asked if it were a fair statement that whatever the recommendation the conditions and conclusions were not likely to be changed one way or another by having a deputy on this group. Mr. Hughes didn’t know, but added that the complication was that at the meeting the committee agreed on the RFP and it was out. They were trying to get it done before the fiscal year ends.
Mr. Ball noted that the major job of the committee was to get the RFP out, but before the final report was available there was interaction with this consultant although he wasn’t sure to what degree. It struck him that weighting the composition of the committee with more folks from the Fire Department might affect that interaction and he was predisposed not to support another member on this committee.
Mr. McKinley concurred and noted that if there was going to be interaction with the consultant, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Ball may be coming back with drafts for the Board’s input and was there any reason to think that the Chief couldn’t meet with his deputies just as a representative from the Deputies union would go back to his union. Was
it necessary to have the Deputy Chiefs at the table as long as the Chief kept them informed.
Mr. Lemnios told the Board that he would talk to the Chief and make sure that the deputies were aware of the meeting and invite the administrative deputy to be a resource for the committee.
FIRE STUDY COMMITTEE COMPOSITION (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the meetings were public and anyone could attend. The committee was off and running and he would say just move forward.
Mr. Hughes announced that the committee was going to take a tour of the center and satellite stations on June 5.
MEETING SCHEDULE
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to approve the following meeting schedule: July 12, July 26, August 9, August 23, September 7, September 20, October 4, October 18, November 8, November 22, December 6, December 20, 2004.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Entertainment Licenses
Mr. Connolly referenced the letter the Board sent to all license holders concerning entertainment licenses. He noted that he had received the fax and was under the understanding that Town Counsel had been asked to draft a letter and it was approved but he didn’t know that it would automatically be mailed out. The fees for this represent a big huge change for people who have licenses.
Mr. Connolly questioned if the Board should hold a hearing, but Mr. McKinley noted that this was a Mass General Law. The Board just hadn’t enforced it as strictly as it should have been. Mr. Connolly asked if the Board was remiss because it didn’t have that law and Mr. McKinley clarified that it was remiss because it wasn’t enforced. Mr. Connolly then asked if the Board had to enforce it, and Mr. McKinley responded that the law was the law and now that it was brought to the Board’s attention, it had to be enforced. Mr. Connolly commented that he felt for the people who had a TV and now need a license.
Mr. Ciccariello reinforced that it was the Board’s responsibility to enforce the MGL. Somebody brought this to the Board’s attention and it was checked with legal counsel. This letter informs the license holders what the law states.
Mr. Ball felt that the Board would be deluged with a lot of unhappy donut shop owners and pointed out that it didn’t say that the Board had to charge the same fee to the guy with the TV as to the guy with a band playing. It was within the discretion of the Board to create two levels of fees.
Mr. Hughes moved to schedule a hearing on the entertainment license fees for June 21, 2004. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. Lemnios advised that a notice of the fee hearing would be mailed with the letter to the license holders.
b. Rededication of Hunnewell Town Forest
Mr. Ball and Mr. Hughes spoke of how nice the rededication ceremony for the Hunnewell Town Forest had been. Mr. Hughes thanked Tilly & Salvy’s for sending the hot water for the tea service.
c. Auto Max Complaint
Mr. Ciccariello asked that a copy of the Building Inspector’s memo concerning the Auto Max complaint be forward to Robert Raisch.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
__________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
