BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
October 18, 2004
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, John Connolly. Absent: Paul R. McKinley
ALSO PRESENT: Deputy Town Administrator Stephen Lisauskas; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on August 9, 2004 in the amount of $1,405,306.63. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $3,124,268.17.
MINUTES
Regarding the minutes of July 12, 2004, Mr. Ball referred to page 7, Special Municipal Employee Designation – Constable and recalled further discussion beyond what was reported in the minutes. He recalled there being a vote. Mr. Ciccariello explained that the discussion and vote to which Mr. Ball was referring had actually taken place at a follow-up meeting.
On page 10, Mr. Ball asked that the explanation of SCADA be included in the minutes. He also recalled requesting additional information on the system that he had not as yet received.
On page 16, Mr. Ball noted that the word, “respectively” should be “respectfully”.
Mr. Ball suggested tabling the approval of the minutes until the corrections were made and so moved. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
DIRECTOR OF VETERANS’ SERVICES: VETERANS’ DAY PARADE
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Director of Veterans’ Services request to hold the annual Veterans Day parade and ceremony on Thursday, November 11, 2004.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to accept the resignation of Ruth Scotch from the Natick Cultural Council.
NATICK RECREATION & PARKS: SPOOKTACULAR CELEBRATION
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the Recreation & Parks Department and Natick Center Associates’ request to close Park Street from 12:30 p.m.-
3:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 30, 2004 for the annual Town-wide Halloween Celebration schedule. Approval was also given to close Adams Court and Court Street on October 30, 2004 from 2:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. for the Halloween parade. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
NATICK SERVICE COUNCIL: REQUEST TO USE COMMON; HANG BANNER
In a letter to the Board the Natick Service Council requested permission to use the Natick Common on November 14, 2004 for their Walk for Natick. The letter also requested permission to hang a banner across Main Street in advertisement of the walk.
In a memo to the Board, Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini recommended approval of the use of the common with payment of the standard $200 user fee for this event.
At Mr. Ball’s suggestion, Mr. Hughes moved to waive the fee and to approve the Natick Service Council hanging a banner across Main Street
NATICK SERVICE COUNCIL: REQUEST TO USE COMMON; HANG BANNER (contd)
for the period of November 8-14, 2004 and the use of the common on November 14, 2004. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
THE CENTER FOR ARTS IN NATICK: REQUEST FOR SIGN
The Board was in receipt of a letter from George Fiske requesting permission for The Center For Arts in Natick (TCAN) to erect a sign at the corner of North Main Street and Summer Street to help locate the Center for those who were unfamiliar with it and would be placed on a pole, which currently exists at that location. The sign would be double sided and fabricated by the DPW to assure that the sign would comply with the design standards established for other Town signs. TCAN would be responsible for reimbursing the DPW for any expenses incurred in its fabrication.
Deborah Paritt noted that she wasn’t specifically present at the meeting to speak to this request but she did publicity for TCAN and it was her committee that requested the sign. There have been a lot of requests for signage from people who do not live in Natick and the sign would allow people to know where the Center was located.
Mr. Ball pointed out that the pole was on Main Street and not North Main Street as was stated in the letter.
Mr. Hughes thought that this particular pole already had a number of signs on it. He thought there was a banner, a street sign, and a sign for a former Selectman. Mr. Hughes wanted to know what the sign would look like and how big it would be.
Mr. Ball moved to table the request for a sign subject to submission by TCAN of the art work on size and graphics. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Web Site
Joshua Ostroff told the Board that he was there to speak about the Town’s web site – something he had been concerned with for over four years. His concern was having a part-time approach to a full-time problem. The problem was sharing information with the citizens and stakeholders and it was being done in a way that didn’t do it service. People should know what’s happening and the web site should have consistent accurate information that was current and people should not have to search to find it, i.e. Town Meeting starts tomorrow and someone would have to search to find that out. One out of ten committees has their minutes, and on the meeting calendar the meetings don’t have agendas.
As the budgets begin to be developed, Mr. Ostroff encouraged the Board to instruct the Town Administrator to make this a budget item and to have accountability. Keeping department information current goes up to the department head level accountability. He saw a problem on a global level and a way had to be found to address the problem whether it was spending a small amount of money for a web master. Mr. Ostroff stated that he meant no disrespect to any individual in any department who was doing their best to make do, but he encouraged the Board to pay close attention to this going forward.
Mr. Ostroff noted that he had thought of bringing an article to Town Meeting, but he got the sense from the Town Administrator that it wouldn’t be necessary because he (Mr. Lemnios) would be taking a more rigorous approach in the future. That may be but he (Mr. Ostroff) wanted the Board to hear from him on the record about the need for quality, accuracy and timeliness of information being posted.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if someone was in charge of this and Mr. Lemnios responded that John MacGilivray, Veterans’ Director, had the responsibility for the web site content – for instance for Town Meeting the Finance Committee book was posted. Mr. Lemnios told the Board that this was an area on which emphasis was being put but it was in part an organizational issue and emphasis was being put on getting it more organized. The department heads have been instructed to develop an
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
annual calendar of events in their department, i.e. leaf collection which would be in a file folder ready to go and be posted. More concentration was being put on the web site. Mr. Lemnios agreed that it (web site) was not being developed as quickly as some would like, but it has come a distance from where it was.
Mr. Ball was stunned by the observation that Town Meeting was not on the calendar. Mr. Lemnios explained that Mr. MacGilivray got whatever was posted with the Town Clerk and he arranges for it to get posted on the web site. Town Meeting itself may not get posted.
Mr. Ostroff noted that there was a meeting on October 7 of the Armory Task Force and he got an e-mail with a flyer attached publicizing the event. He got it one day before the event and there was nothing about it on the main page of the web site. The work being done in managing
the Town was not being properly communicated to the citizens. Taking nothing away from the plans, and he had heard about these plans for many years, Mr. Ostroff felt there should be one individual with expertise and that individual should be accountable. No one should have to nag to get things on the web site that should be there.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO NATICK CULTURAL COUNCIL
a. Kristin DeSimone
Kristin DeSimone stated that she was new to the Natick area and was looking to get involved. She was a State employee of the Department of Revenue, but also an artist and would like to get involved in how the grant process was allocated.
b. Deborah Parritt
Deborah Parritt told the Board that she had an extensive background in marketing, advertising, and communications. She had been working at TCAN heading up the team on publicity and felt that a lot of things could be easily translated to the Cultural Council.
Mr. Ciccariello commented on the impressive resumes of both candidates and thanked them for their interest.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Kristin DeSimone and Deborah Parritt to the Natick Cultural Council. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO INFORMATION SYSTEMS ADVISORY BOARD
a. Marc Elliott
Marc Elliott stated that he had been a resident of Natick for two years and would like to give back to the community. He was the Director of Information Services at a small consulting firm. In the beginning of his career he had been a reporter in the area and had attended many town meetings of various types and kinds. His family had a background in service to the community and he wished to continue that.
Mr. Ball asked if he had experience in web pages, and Mr. Elliott replied that he had a great deal of experience in web pages and would love to tackle it.
Mr. Ball moved to appoint Marc Elliott to the Information Systems Advisory Board. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
CARDOO’S GOURMET CATERERS: REQUEST FOR ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE
Mr. Ciccariello advised that a late request had come in from Cardoo’s Gourmet Caterers for a one day beer & wine license for a fund raiser to be held at Jordan’s furniture on behalf of The Jewish Family Services on November 4, 2004 from 5:00-6:30 p.m.
Mr. Ball explained that this was a fundraiser for a charitable organization. Normally he would agree that the Board shouldn’t take it up because it was not on the agenda, but he would ask that an exception be made.
CARDOO’S GOURMET CATERERS: REQUEST FOR ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE (contd)
Since it had just been submitted today, Mr. Connolly preferred to have it taken up at the end of the meeting. The Board agreed to table until then.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF RULES & REGULATIONS FOR CLUBS HOLDING ALCOHOL LICENSES
Joining the Board for the hearing was Town Counsel John Flynn.
Mr. Ciccariello acknowledged receipt of comments on the draft rules & regs from club managers Paul Carew, James Graham, Edwin Hasgill, and Walter Connery.
Mr. Ciccariello outlined the process. Upon adoption of the rules & regs, the clubs could submit an application for permit to the Board. The Board would hold a public hearing and if approved the application would be forwarded to the ABCC. The permit would not be final until approved by the ABCC.
Previously Town Counsel had been asked to obtain some additional information from the ABCC regarding proceeds. It was Mr. Flynn’s understanding that there were two questions – did the use of the word proceeds apply to the sale of liquor and food or just liquor and did proceeds refer to gross or net proceeds. Mr. Flynn reported that the ABCC general counsel indicated that proceeds only applied to the sale of liquor not food, but applied to all proceeds. The ABCC considers this to be the type of thing whereby expenses and overhead were not part of the liquor revenue. All clubs that have these functions should take that into consideration when they do their planning for the cost of renting the hall and any expenses should come out of the food revenue portion not the liquor side. He (Mr. Flynn) wanted
to double-check that, but the ABCC counsel was out of the office today. Mr. Flynn noted that the question was asked what if the clubs had to buy the liquor and based on the conversations he had in drafting the proposed legislation and after it was drafted that was the ABCC’s expression (all expenses were to come out of the food revenue)
If proceeds pertained only to alcohol but meant the gross proceeds, it was Mr. Ball’s understanding that the amount of money which was paid at a cash bar by the guests was the amount of money required to be given to some charity during that year. Mr. Flynn’s response was, “yes”, adding that the follow-up question was how do they (clubs) pay their expenses and the ABCC said they expected the entities to factor that in when the events were paid for so the overhead was taken care of out of the non-alcohol portion.
Mr. Connolly commented that again he found this embarrassing. Town Counsel sent something Friday afternoon and didn’t send it out to the clubs. Information was mailed to the clubs on October 15 for an October 18 meeting. Mr. Flynn responded that that was not when he submitted the information and pointed out that the information needed to be reviewed internally before sending it out. Mr. Connolly reiterated that information was sent out October 15 for October 18 and
this was the second time it was done. He was at a lack of words and apologized to the clubs.
Mr. Carew noted that he had submitted a memo to the club managers a week ago Saturday and they went over the proposals and put together some of their recommendations and those were the recommendations he submitted tonight. Regarding the ABCC’s stance on proceeds going to charity, Mr. Carew pointed out that the reason the private clubs need these functions was to survive and the reasons had been given at the last meeting. If the clubs had to raise their rental fees to make up the overhead, they would not be able to rent the hall so everything done up to now was useless. To tell the clubs that all alcohol sales would have to go directly to charity without taking out the expenses was ludicrous and he would like Mr. Flynn to readdress this. They were caught with their pants down and they would like the Board to
give them another two weeks to talk to the ABCC. If it went this route (no net proceeds), everyone might as well forget the whole thing.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF RULES & REGULATIONS FOR CLUBS HOLDING ALCOHOL LICENSES (contd)
Mr. Hughes suggested that the Board address the issues raised in the memo from the club.
General Policy
Section 2. ‘Definition of permit’ – would this be covered under their present license? Mr. Flynn advised that it was not covered under the present license. It was a separate permission – that was the way the statute was worded.
Section 5. ‘The requirements of the Chief of Police relative to security precautions at the permitted premises…..’ Mr. Carew’s memo noted that the clubs all have a clause in their contracts, which cover this rule. Mr. Carew explained that that was included as just a general statement.
Section 6. ‘The sponsoring member of the club shall be present throughout the entire function or fundraising activity for which a permit is issued.’ The clubs questioned if a maitre D or Trustee on duty or Steward would cover this member sponsor. They would be members of the clubs.
Mr. Ciccariello felt if they were a member and sponsoring the event that would cover this provision.
Mr. Flynn added that as long as the maitre D, Trustee, or Steward sponsored the event it would be OK.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that there was no requirement that the sponsoring member have a relationship to the event other than writing his name down. Mr. Flynn confirmed that as being correct. Mr. Lemnios further added that there could be multiple sponsors. It was just mandatory that one of those members be present at the event.
Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Flynn could shed any light on what the Legislature had in mind with the issue of sponsorship. He understood the need to have some member of the club as the responsible individual, but why the sponsorship.
Mr. Flynn responded that the Legislature through the Committee of Government Regulations deferred to the ABCC. They weren’t in favor of the legislation but agreed to take a second look. This came from the ABCC. They wanted some accountability. The ABCC was uneasy with this and thought it was opening new ground and thought it was unfair to other licensees. Over time the Town Administrator participated, Representative Linsky was immense, and Mr. Carew told them what it was about but the ABCC was uneasy. In return for the legislation the ABCC wanted some consideration and one important thing was that there be some accountability.
Mr. Ball inquired as to what was the responsibility of a sponsoring member, and Mr. Flynn responded that the sponsoring member was present and requesting the permit. It was similar to a manager of a club or a restaurant. If the sponsor asked for the permission and present during the function, he/she had some exposure if there was a problem and due to the fault of the club. There was a negligent care standard.
Dick Burke of the Italian American Club noted that the cover letter (from the Selectmen) was sent out October 5. Governor Romney signed the legislation on September 3 and Governor Romney’s legislation was attached to the Board’s original letter. To him it seemed simple and he questioned why it was being made so complicated.
Mr. Hughes responded that the rules and regulations allow non-members to attend but the statute required that the event be sponsored by a member and the member be present.
Mr. Burke noted that there were always members of the club there because the bartenders were members so it was a moot question.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF RULES & REGULATIONS FOR CLUBS HOLDING ALCOHOL LICENSES (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the manager could be the sponsor or the bartender could be the sponsor, if the bartender were a member of the club. Somebody who was a present member had to sponsor the event.
Mr. Burke noted that his club had people sign in as guests of members and he understood that with this they wouldn’t have to do that.
Mr. Hughes agreed that that would be the case once the Town passed rules and regulations and if the club applied for and received the permits, but it wasn’t there yet.
Mr. Ciccariello thought that the comments Mr. Carew was raising under ‘Procedures’ was that the draft rules & regs seemed to require a lot of information already given under their original licensing process. He wondered if the Board wanted to require them to re-submit this
information. Mr. Hughes suggested inserting ‘unless already on file with the Board of Selectmen’.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what was meant by b. n/a for all clubs. Procedures II b required the clubs to provide information on the area to which seats or benches were to be securely fastened to the floor forming what were commonly called booths. Mr. Carew advised that some clubs had booths and some didn’t.
Mr. Ball inquired if what was being talked about was a permit issued once a year or a permit per function. Mr. Flynn thought it depended on the situation. A club could have a wedding or retirement arty and the Board might consider it a specific event as opposed to the recurring, i.e. pasta night.
Mr. Ball then asked if there was an application fee every time a club came to the Board and how would the Board know when there was a specific function going on at the Elks and who was the sponsoring member for that function.
Mr. Carew responded that it was on all of their contracts, but Mr. Ball pointed out that that was between the club and the people hiring the hall. Mr. Carew asked if Mr. Ball was asking the clubs to notify the Board of the sponsor of each event. Originally it was said annually but now he was hearing that the Board was asking for a list of each function.
Mr. Hughes inquired if there was anything that would prohibit the clubs from applying for a permit for wedding receptions, etc. and give them a permit for a year. Mr. Flynn advised that that was up to the Board. Since an annual permit could be given, Mr. Hughes noted that the clubs would have to come up with the name of the sponsors for all the year and if that changed, the club would have to come back. They could submit a whole bunch of names.
If it were not an annual permit, Mr. Ciccariello was concerned that the clubs would be hit up with a $200 fee each time and he wouldn’t want to see that.
Mr. Ball questioned how the Board would know whom the sponsor was for the wedding taking place on January 3rd.
Mr. Carew responded that sometimes it was a weekly thing. He could give the Board a list of whom he would use or on the annual report the sponsors names could be listed if that would suffice.
As Mr. Hughes read the legislation, the permit application had to have the sponsoring member. When the clubs came in at the beginning of the year, they could list a number of people and make sure each of the events were sponsored by one of those people. He (Mr. Hughes) had no objection to being given those names in the beginning of the year.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF RULES & REGULATIONS FOR CLUBS HOLDING ALCOHOL LICENSES (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello suggested that if it was to change each club could send a memo saying this event was being sponsored by so and so, but Mr. Hughes said, ‘no’. If there was going to be a change the club would have to come back and do it all over so it would be better to keep the list at the beginning as big as it could be.
Mr. Lemnios suggested that the Board might want as part of the annual report to have a listing of the functions and the name of the sponsor who was at the event.
Randy Marcinio commented that the sponsors would be one of the several names on the one permit taken out. He also noted that the clubs kept records of the contract for each function.
Referring back to Mr. Carew’s memo, Mr. Ciccariello questioned how the Board would respond to the comment relating to Section g ‘There are times when donations are made to families and or persons whose name cannot be made public’.
Mr. Flynn quoted from the legislation which only said that the proceeds needed to be given to charitable purposes and how the Board’s rules & regs enforced that was up to the Board.
Mr. Hughes proposed that at the end of the year the clubs send a letter saying they raised $30,000 in proceeds and spent $30,000 on charitable purposes. In his opinion that was enough and if the Board at that time says what was the charitable purpose the club could come up with a list as needed, but they would have to certify that whatever they listed was used for charitable purposes the same was as the restaurants certify alcohol sales.
Mr. Flynn felt that the Board should reserve the right to review and address it (list of charitable donations) if necessary.
G3 of Mr. Carew’s memo asked if the clubs could do reports on a yearly basis signed off by the club manager or the member in charge. Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had talked about doing it on an annual basis and the suggestion was for a November 30 reporting date. Mr. Carew asked if the rules & regs would say it should be done by a CPA or by the club manager and Mr. Hughes advised that it said by a CPA.
Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Hughes was suggesting that an itemized report was not necessary, and Mr. Hughes’ response was, “yes”. The clubs would certify the proceeds and that it went to charity and the Board would reserve the right to request an itemization.
IV Hours of sale and service. The memo asked if the clubs would have to go to the Board of Selectmen for each rental they sign up.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had talked about not doing it on a case-by-case basis, but Mr. Hughes pointed out that it would have to be
on a case-by-case basis if it was going to be rented outside of the club’s normal license. If a club wanted to have a function outside those hours the club would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Flynn added that the outside limit was the license. This permit was within the license and didn’t allow the sale of alcohol beyond the hours that were licensed. Mr. Hughes commented that there was no need for a case-by-case basis as long as the club was renting the hall within the time the license allowed them to operate. If the club wanted to sell outside the hours, and presuming the Board had the authority to do that, the club would have to come back here.
Mr. Lemnios suggested that the Board might want to strike on a case-by-case basis from the rules & regs.
Referring back to Mr. Hughes’ comment, Mr. Ciccariello stated that if the club was allowed to serve until 10:00 p.m. and had a function that would run to midnight, the club had to come and ask for permission.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF RULES & REGULATIONS FOR CLUBS HOLDING ALCOHOL LICENSES (contd)
Mr. Hughes clarified that that would be the case if the rules permitted it.
V. Policy regarding training for dispensers and sellers of alcohol beverages. Mr. Carew’s memo noted that this was all covered under the club license. Mr. Ciccariello agreed and advised that it was just being re-enforced.
Mr. Hughes noted that there was only one issue left – what the ABCC meant with regard to proceeds.
To the question of net vs gross proceeds, Mr. Hasgill pointed out that the clubs already paid taxes on the alcohol and asked that that be raised with the ABCC.
VFW President James Graham told the Board that every time he got a letter he had to go through his Board of Directors. He requested that he receive information by Wednesday for a Monday meeting so he could bring it before his membership.
Mr. Connolly moved that the club managers receive the information by November 1 for the November 8 meeting by certified mail. The mailing to include Draft #3 and any responses from Town Counsel. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Ball thought that it was unreasonable to send something out on Friday. If it was to be a cooperative effort, he thought the clubs needed to be provided with the information they need in a timely manner.
Mr. Ciccariello’s only comment was that hopefully Town Counsel would get all the answers he needed to get and if he didn’t, the Board may have to move the meeting to another date.
Mr. Flynn reiterated that this was new ground for the ABCC and this was the first time they have gone on record supporting something like this.
Mr. Lemnios advised that what could go out to the clubs were the revisions talked about this evening with the exception of the resolution of the ‘net’ issue. If the Board voted those revisions, the draft could go out.
Mr. Hughes moved to send the rules & regs out as drafted with the changes discussed tonight. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
To avoid confusion Mr. Ball suggested writing Draft #3 at the top of the rules & regs being sent out. Mr. Lemnios advised that each page would be labeled.
Mr. Ball then noted that there had been discussion about a permit expiring no later than December 31, but that seemed to have been dropped out. Mr. Hughes pointed out that it was in the statutes. Mr. Flynn advised that if the Board would like that language in, it could be but it was in the statutes.
Mr. Ciccariello raised the issue of the $100 filing fee to go through the permit process and if the Board wanted to charge the fee. He reminded the other members of the Board that the ABCC would hit them with a $200 fee. In his (Mr. Ciccariello’s) opinion the proceeds, however defined, would be for a charitable situation and the clubs were doing their part already. He would waive the fee. Mr. Ball agreed, and Mr. Hughes noted that if the Board didn’t take any action there would be no fee. Mr. Ball requested that the record reflect that the Board discussed it and decided on no fee.
A brief discussion followed on the timing for issuing the permits. Mr. Hughes assumed that the rules & regs would be final on November 8 and as he understood it the legal ad needed to be published ten days prior
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF RULES & REGULATIONS FOR CLUBS HOLDING ALCOHOL LICENSES (contd)
to the hearing. The next meeting would be November 22 and everything had to be taken care of so the license could be issued.
Mr. Lemnios questioned if the permit would only be good until December 31. It could be made to be effective December 1, 2004-December 31, 2005 or the Board could do two permits. He pointed out that the ABCC still had to approve and advised the clubs that the easiest course of action was to plan on a January 1 permit but to be prepared to apply for November 22.
Mr. Hughes moved to continue the public hearing until November 8, 2004. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
NATICK HOUSING AUTHORITY DIRECTOR: SECTION 8 PROGRAM
Natick Housing Authority Director Edward Santos requested the Board’s approval of the five-year plan for Section 8 housing in Natick. A copy
of the plan had been submitted to the Board along with a letter of explanation on how the Natick Housing Authority administered it. He referred to page 3 of the plan, which contained the mission statement and goals. He also referred to page 8 which had the statement of need to get an idea of the waiting list for the program and to page 18, which listed the preference. The preferences were working families and those unable to work because of age and disability, veterans and veterans’ families and those who live and work in the Natick community.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there were any rules or requirements from the federal government that prevented the Housing Authority from having a preference of Natick citizens first. Mr. Santos advised that there was a provision that if the local preference in any way caused discrimination situations with minorities you couldn’t have a preference, but in Natick’s case it didn’t have a disparaging impact on minorities and Natick could have a local preference.
Mr. Santos agreed with Mr. Hughes that the waiting list was enormous and that list was only for the Section 8 program. He noted that Natick participated in a centralized list and the total list was 38,000. In that list there was a local preference so people who live or work in the Natick community show up on the Natick list.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the 38,000 were Mass residents and Mr. Santos responded that the 38,000 were eligible applicants. In follow-up Mr. Hughes asked if there were 38,000 people on the waiting list in Massachusetts. Mr. Santos replied that there were more than that. Natick belonged to a group of housing authorities that formed a centralized group and that was our list. There were about 40 housing authorities in the group.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to how long someone stayed on the waiting list before getting Section 8. Mr. Santos advised that the Natick Housing Authority had 102 units and no one advanced on the waiting list unless someone went off. The opportunities to get on the program were not that great. As the economy got worse people couldn’t use it (Section 8) as a stepping-stone to purchasing a home, but anyone who had a Natick preference would get the first available units.
Continuing, Mr. Hughes asked if someone had to use Section 8 vouchers in Natick if the vouchers were given to them by the Natick Housing Authority. Mr. Santos’ response was, ‘no’, adding that the federal government has determined that the jurisdiction of each individual authority was the entire state of Massachusetts. It was a program where contracts were signed with landlords. A housing authority couldn’t go to other communities and build housing but it could sign contracts with landlords in other communities.
Asked if the 102 was the limit of Section 8 vouchers the Natick Housing Authority could issue, Mr. Santos replied, ‘yes’.
NATICK HOUSING AUTHORITY DIRECTOR: SECTION 8 PROGRAM (contd)
Mr. Ball requested an explanation of what was meant by a Natick preference and was told by Mr. Santos that it was a family who had an individual who currently worked or lived in the Natick community. They might live out of Natick but work at a business in Natick.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what the Board was being asked to do, and Mr. Santos explained that the Housing Authority had to provide HUD with a blueprint of how they (Housing Authority) ran the program. This was a five-year renewal plan. Natick has been awarded as a high performer in the HUD environment and was able to streamline the actual plan. One of the requirements was to have the Chief Executive Officer and the Board to endorse and sign the plan for submission to HUD.
Mr. Ball stated that he had to admit that he was unable to assimilate all of the stuff and he would abstain, not because he had an objection, but he simply didn’t understand it and it would take more time for him to contemplate.
Mr. Santos noted that these were the vehicles the Housing Authority needed to use to run the program for 102 families. Most of what was in the plan was a template established by HUD.
Mr. Connolly agreed with Mr. Ball that this was pretty intense stuff and asked if the other members had a good grasp. He (Mr. Connolly) was intimidated and overwhelmed by it.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that he did a lot of HUD projects and DHCD fund projects in his business and probably had more knowledge because he was involved. Mr. Hughes indicated that he was comfortable voting for it.
Mr. Santos was asked by when he needed the Board’s approval and he answered that he would need it by November 15. He also pointed out that if the Board approved the plan and then felt it needed modification, it could be modified. Every year the Housing Authority submits a plan that mirrors this plan over the next five years and any changes could be made during that time.
It was noted that the Board had another meeting before November 15 and Mr. Hughes moved to table to the November 8th meeting. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
To Mr. Santos’ comments that 102 units were available, a member of the audience Phil Levine asked if any future development that happens in Natick could be designated as a HUD project. Mr. Santos advised that these were rental assistance certificates and not linked to any development. This (Section 8) was a HUD program started over 20 years ago and continuing today. Mr. Santos noted that HUD has been reducing the amount of money allocated to housing over the last couple of years and was talking about only funding 80%. Right now there was adequate funding, but it would have to be seen how the program progresses.
TREASURER/COLLECTOR: BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES
Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer told the Board that bids were received on October 13, 2004 for bond anticipation notes in the amount of $1,573,000. The purpose of the notes was related to the authorization made by the April Town Meeting for capital equipment and improvement for a fire pumper, packer, dump trucks, safety systems at the schools, boiler replacement at East School. The Town got the highest rating possible on temporary notes and the low bidder was Fleet/Bank of America at a rate of 1.980%.
Mr. Palmer advised that the $1.573 million being borrowed would mature in one year at which time he would probably issue as temporary again but pay down a portion. As compared to March or April the interest rates were rising but still below 2%.
Mr. Hughes commented that the plan was to never have them become permanent bonds. Mr. Palmer confirmed that as correct. This was so small, but maybe if he was doing another issue that included other debt
TREASURER/COLLECTOR: BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES (contd)
(he would include in a permanent bond), but there wasn’t that much out there now so he probably wouldn’t.
With all the items having been authorized by Town Meeting, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the borrowing was for the exact amount of the authorization. Mr. Palmer advised that the boiler replacement was slightly below and only $78,000 was being borrowed. Mr. Ciccariello questioned what would happen to the other $7,000 (between the authorization and the borrowed amount), and Mr. Palmer explained that at some point in time it would come before Town Meeting and Town Meeting would be asked to rescind the authorization.
Mr. Connolly asked if Mr. Lemnios was comfortable with this, and Mr. Lemnios responded that this was consistent with the capital plan that was approved at the April Town Meeting.
Mr. Hughes moved to accept the bid of the low bidder Fleet/Bank American for bond anticipation notes in the amount of $1,573,000 at an interest rate of 1.980%. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that one reason the Town was getting great interest rates was the strong financial position Natick was in right now and he thought that was due to the Town Administrator, Town Meeting, the Finance Committee and everyone’s part.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR WINE & MALT ALCOHOL LICENSE: BARBER BROTHERS FLORISTS, INC.
Appearing on behalf of Barber Brothers was Attorney John Burke, the owners Kenneth and Stephanie Barber, and the manager Judith Petrone.
Mr. Ball moved to open the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Burke stated that Barber Brothers Florists had a café with a special permit to seat 58 and they were looking to add the service of beer & wine for the café. Ms. Petrone had been running the café for the past five years and had 15 years in the food business and was TIPS trained. In addition all of the employees had been TIPS trained. The café hours were Monday-Thursday from 9:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m., Friday & Saturday from 9:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. and on Sunday from 9:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. To be a destination stop depended on unique marketing to compete and the café has been a successful adjunct to the retail.
Mr. Burke referred to a plan and pointed out that the four seating areas were identified by the letters A,B,C, and D. He noted that the seating would never exceed 58 seats. If the outside seating were to be used there would be a corresponding reduction in interior seating so there would never be more than 58 seats. The outside seating would be used during the summer months.
Mr. Ball noted that the application was for Barber Brothers Florists but the sign now said Barber’s. Mr. Burke explained that the official corporate name was Barber Brothers Florists.
Mr. Hughes asked if the hours stated by Mr. Burke were the current hours of the café. Mr. Burke advised that they were not. Currently the hours were 9:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. except holidays to 10:00 p.m. They were proposing to change to add weekend hours to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the ZBA had put specific hours on the special permit and Mr. Burke’s response was, “no”.
Mr. Ball interpreted what Mr. Burke was saying was that there were currently 58 seats. The café physically had more than 58 but through closing and opening only 58 would be used at any one time. He wondered if there was a reason for not applying for an increase in seating.
Mr. Burke responded that the plan was to at some point apply to increase the number of seats. When Barber Brothers obtained the special permit the maximum was 58, but since that time Barber’s
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR WINE & MALT ALCOHOL LICENSE: BARBER BROTHERS FLORISTS, INC. (contd)
increased the retail space by converting existing storage and they could increase the number to 65. The plan was to apply to the ZBA.
Burning Tree Road resident Phil Levine wanted to make sure that one doesn’t come to this café to drink. He found the café to be attractive and had no concern with the people running it, but he was concerned with people coming and just drinking beer. He assumed that beer would not be served unless it was served with food as well as the number of drinks one could have at the time it was served would be limited.
Mr. Hughes noted that Barber Brothers would be subject to all the rules and regulations that any beer & wine license would be subject to including the 80%/20% (ratio of food to alcohol) guideline.
Mr. Burke noted that Barber’s had primarily women shoppers and the café was an accessory use to the other retail. It was not in their interest to see that anything like that (Mr. Levine’s concern) happened.
Currently Barber’s had outdoor seating during the summer months and Mr. Ciccariello wanted to be sure there had been no complaints. Mr. Burke stated that they had had none.
Asked if there were any plans on having a bar, Mr. Burke advised that there were none.
The owner of the building next to Barber Brothers, Jamie Parlan, told the Board that Barber Brothers had been great neighbors and he was in full support of the application.
Attorney Richard Glaser stated that he worked and lived in that area and would support the petition. He thought it would be nice to be able to have a glass of wine or a beer and he would like to see West Natick continue to grow and become important. He and his wife were in favor.
Surrey Lane resident Patrick Moynihan stated that Barber Brothers had been a terrific neighbor both from a corporate and a neighborhood sense. They have run a first-class operation from day one and had done a great job expanding that operation. He (Mr. Moynihan) was here to support their petition.
Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Levine felt that the issues he raised were adequately answered. Mr. Levine responded that he wanted to substantiate that the Board had rules & regs regarding alcohol being served. He didn’t want individuals to come primarily to drink as well as making it a hang out, but he had no qualms with the way it’s being run. In his opinion Barber Brothers was an asset.
Mr. Ball assured Mr. Levine that there were rules and regulations and chief among them was that you must be served a meal. He thought Mr. Levine’s fears of it being a watering hole were pretty unfounded.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Hughes moved to grant Barber Brothers Florists a wine & malt license for premises at 215 West Central Street. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: PEARLMAN ASSOCIATES LLC – SAM’S CLUB: ABOVE-GROUND STORAGE OF FLAMMABLE MATERIAL
Representing Sam’s Club was Attorney John Delaney of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Door.
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Connolly, moved to open the public hearing. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Delaney noted that MGL 148 section 13 stipulated that if you had a certain quantity of combustible materials, it had to have a license and if you had just under that quantity, you needed to have a permit.
PUBLIC HEARING: PEARLMAN ASSOCIATES LLC – SAM’S CLUB: ABOVE-GROUND STORAGE OF FLAMMABLE MATERIAL (contd)
Sam’s Club has in its stores in the motor oil department many more gallons than authorized under just a permit. All Wal-Marts were within the permit vs license but Sam’s Club needs a license. There was nothing different going on at the store than has been there for a number years. They were just trying to perfect their legal position and have a proper authorized license.
Mr. Delaney continued that the Town’s Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois had sent the Board a memo, which discussed his visit to the store. He (Mr. Delaney) thought the problem (raised in Mr. Bois’ memo) had been solved. The previous owner, Pace Store, had a site plan condition and it was found in Sam’s Club’s files and turned over to the Environmental Compliance Officer this evening. There was a requirement that Sam’s had to remove sediment from the catch basins at least once a year and the store manager was arranging to have a contractor perform that service annually. A copy of those annual cleaning operations will be sent to the Town as requested by Mr. Bois.
Mr. Delaney stated that all abutters had been notified of tonight’s hearing.
Mr. Hughes asked about the oil/grit separator mentioned in the covenant and Mr. Delaney responded that that was a condition of the original occupant of the building, which was an auto business. This store didn’t have that function and there was no requirement for the separator. In follow-up Mr. Hughes asked if there was any objection to having Mr. Bois look at it now to see if the conditions had been met. Mr. Delaney didn’t think that was an issue. Mr. Bois noted that he took the requirements of the original special permit and that had the oil separator. He (Mr. Bois) could make a site visit when Sam’s did the clean out.
In response to Mr. Hughes’ inquiry, Mr. Bois advised that the as built plans had been submitted.
Mr. Ciccariello stated his understanding that Sam’s Club was here because the Fire Marshall changed the capacity and Sam’s exceeded it. Mr. Delaney clarified that the State Fire Marshall had loosen the requirements on what required a license vs permit, but because of the quantities, Sam’s Club still required a license and should have applied a long time ago.
Asked if the application had been reviewed by the Natick Fire Department, Mr. Delaney advised that it had been reviewed and signed by the Fire Chief.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of granting a permit to Pearlman Associates-Natick LLC for the above-ground storage of the following flammable material at Sam’s Club, 1225 Worcester Street:
Inert Gases 2400 lbs – Freon 134a
OHH Gases 2400 lbs – Freon 134a
Flammable Gas 8 lbs – butane lighters
LPG 200 lbs –seasonable item–l lb propane cylinders
F.L. Class 1-B 250 gal – automotive chemical, fragrances
C.L. Class II 1744 gal – janitorial, automotive chemicals
C.L. Class III-A 84 gal
C.L. Class III-B 34673 gal – motor oils, greases, antifreeze
Cooking oil
OX. Class 1 – Solids 5120 lbs – seasonal pool chemicals
CORR. Acids – Liquid 631 gal – battery electrolyte in batteries,
Janitorial
CORR. Acids – solid 3000 gal – seasonal pool chemicals
CORR. Bases – liquid 1268 gal – janitorial, automotive chemicals
OHH-Target Organ Toxin 4011 gal
Irritant Liquids 7252 gal
PUBLIC HEARING: PEARLMAN ASSOCIATES LLC – SAM’S CLUB: ABOVE-GROUND STORAGE OF FLAMMABLE MATERIAL (contd)
Irritant Solids 8120 lbs
Aerosol Level I 7891 lbs – janitorial chemicals
Aerosol Level II 2052 lbs – health & beauty items
Aerosol Level III 1308 lbs - automotive chemicals like WD-40
U.R. Class 1 Solid 5120 lbs – seasonal pool chemicals
W.R. Class 1 Liquid 397 gal – battery electrolyte in auto batteries
W.R. Class 1 Solid 5120 lbs – seasonal pool chemicals
Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
WESTBOROUGH BEVERAGE CORP.: PETITION FOR CHANGE IN MANAGER AND CORPORATE OFFICERS & DIRECTORS
Appearing on behalf of Westborough Beverage Corp. d/b/a Sam’s Club was the new manager Ken Fensin.
Mr. Fensin told the Board that Westborough Beverage Corp. had a manager change. Mark Buckley, former manager, was still based out of the Natick club but spent less than 50% of his time there, and he (Mr. Fensin) was assigned to Natick. Originally it was Mr. Fensin’s understanding that as long as Mr. Buckley was based out of there it was OK for his name to be on the license and he learned later that it was not.
When asked how long he had been the manager, Mr. Fensin advised that he had been there since May – five months.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the status of Mr. Buckley, and Mr. Fensin explained that Mr. Buckley oversaw 6 or 7 clubs in a marketing capacity, but he (Mr. Buckley) was not involved in the day-to-day operation.
Mr. Ball questioned why it took five months for the Board to be apprised. It seemed to take forever for some corporations to get around to following the rules and it boggled his mind why something so simple was so complicated.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that this wasn’t the first time Sam’s had come to the Board at a late date.
Mr. Fensin’s explanation was that it was a verbal communication issue. It was his understanding that as long as Mr. Buckley was a resident of Massachusetts, Sam’s Club didn’t have to do this. He apologized.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had received a copy of Mr. Fensin’s AIM (Alcohol Intervention Method) certificate.
Referring to the application, Mr. Ciccariello noted that Mr. Fensin was on the premises 60 hours a week. Mr. Fensin indicated that that was correct – that he was there at least 60 hours.
Mr. Ball wondered if there was any point to the Board sending a letter to the corporate headquarters explaining the Board’s unhappiness. He asked if Mr. Fensin thought there would be any positive benefit. Mr. Fensin responded that the contact would be Diane Gray in the licensing department and he was sure there would be some benefit.
Mr. Ball moved to send a letter indicating the Board’s displeasure with learning about the manager changes five months after it took place and any future violation could result in a hearing regarding the status of their license. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello expressed concern that had there been a liquor license issue at Sam’s, it would have been a serious issue. Fortunately there were no liquor violations or the consequences would have been different.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the change in manager from Mark Buckley to Ken Fensin. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes then moved approval of the change in officers & directors as requested. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES FOR 2005
The Collector’s office had notified the Board that two of the license holders had delinquent taxes/fees in excess of one year – Nicholas’ and Curry Leaf.
Ms. Challis advised that Curry Leaf had made a payment arrangement with the Treasurer/Collector and that Nicholas’ had made payment and was no longer delinquent.
The Board was in receipt of an investigation done by the Police Department, which showed all license holders in compliance with the exception of one where there was a question on the manager.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Police Department’s report included a request that the Board review the alcohol policy regarding last call and when patrons must be off the premises. This would help the Police
with enforcement. Mr. Hughes proposed that the Board set a time for a public hearing and send notice to the various license holders. Mr. Ball volunteered to draft some language to amend the rules & regs and suggested scheduling a hearing for November 22.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that a letter had been sent to Yuan Quan Chen at Oriental Pearl about concerns with the manager being on site. In the application there was an indication that the manager would be there 40 hours a week, but it seemed like the manager had been non-existent. Mr. Chen and the owner of Oriental Pearl, Ruwoen Gao, were present and Mr. Ciccariello asked them to provide an explanation.
Mr. Chen stated that he was the manager since Oriental Pearl took over the restaurant 3-4 months ago before the liquor license arrived. They renovated and cleaned it up and began by just serving food. They tried to build up the business and it was going up a little, but it still was not what they expected. The liquor license arrived and it helped with growing the business, but they were still building the business to become profitable and it was still not there. Ms. Challis tried to reach him, but he wasn’t there during the day because there wasn’t much business. He was there at nighttime before the liquor license came. For when he (Mr. Chen) was not there, he hired a manager and that manager was being TIPS trained.
Responding to Mr. Ciccariello’s questions, Mr. Chen advised that before Oriental Pearl got the liquor license he was there. They started serving liquor in July and since July he had been there mostly at night, less than 40 hours a week. Since July there have been some changes with the assistant manager. The assistant left and he now had Helen and Eddie. Ms. Challis confirmed that the Board had received TIPS training certificates for Helen and Eddie.
Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Chen understood why the Board required a manager to be on premises. It had to do with responsibility for the service of alcohol. One of the conditions of the license granted to Oriental Pearl was that Mr. Chen would be the manager and that he would be there at least a certain number of hours during the week. Mr. Chen was asked if he understood that that condition of the license had been violated. Mr. Chen responded that he understood that now. Mr. Ball emphasized that he wanted to be sure that Mr. Chen understood that his (Mr. Chen’s) not being there and having someone else who was TIPS certified did not meet the requirement of the license. What has gone on up to now cannot continue. If someone else was performing the job 40 hours a week or more and not Mr. Chen, then
the Board needed to know who that individual was and that person’s name needed to be on the license. Mr. Ball inquired if Mr. Chen was planning from this point on to have his (Mr. Chen’s) name on the license or if he wanted someone else’s name on the license.
Mr. Chen raised the possibility of putting an assistant’s name on the license if he could not be there for 40 hours. Mr. Ball responded that in his experience there had not been more than one name listed as the
responsible individual. There needed to be one individual. Oriental Pearl could change names, but would need to apply for a change of manager so the Board would know who that manager was. Mr. Ball thought
RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES FOR 2005 (contd)
that Mr. Chen seemed a little uncertain, but if the license was to continue to be in force everyone needed to know who the manager was and that needed to be resolved.
Mr. Chen replied that he understood.
Mr. Ciccariello stressed that if Oriental Pearl wanted to change managers they would need to file an application with the Board sooner rather than later. If there were going to be a change in manager, he would like to have that application and the new individual before the Board on November 8.
Mr. Ball pointed out that this was the manager for purposes of service of alcohol and didn’t have to be the manager of all the operation.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that the Board would see Oriental Pearl back here on November 8 if there was going to be a change in manager and if not Mr. Chen would be held to the requirements of the license.
Mr. Chen replied that he would like to discuss it.
Mr. Hughes moved the renewal of the following alcohol licenses for 2005 with the condition that the renewal application and all required paperwork must be submitted to the Selectmen’s Office during the month of November. The paperwork includes alcohol training certification for employees and in the case of a restaurant the CPA statement on percentage of alcohol sales, submission of the 2005 liquor license fee, and payment or an arrangement to pay any outstanding taxes or charges that are more than one-year delinquent. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. Mr. Ball offered an amendment to table renewal of Oriental Pearl’s license until November 8, citing that he was not comfortable with renewing their license until the issue of the manager was resolved. Mr. Hughes as the maker and Mr. Connolly as the seconder of the
motion accepted the amendment. The motion passed by unanimous vote:
PACKAGE STORES
The Wine Network, Inc.
d/b/a Leary’s Fine Wines 6 Worcester Road Michael Caccavelli, Mgr.
Powers Package Store, Inc. 4 South Avenue Mary Ann Powers, Mgr.
Town Line Liquors, Inc. 160 East Central St. Anthony R. Franciose,Mgr.
Petur Enterprises, Inc. 7 Watson Street Peter Turlo, Mgr.
d/b/a Natick Wine & Spirits
Middlesex Liquors 17 Washington St. Ercole Ubaldino, Mgr.
d/b/a Kentucky Spirits
Fannon’s Liquor Store 212 North Main St. Robert C. Allen, Mgr.
Westborough Beverage Corp. 1225 Worcester Rd. Ken Fensin, Mgr.
RESTAURANT ALL ALCOHOL
Minoga, Inc.
d/b/a Oga’s Japanese Cuisine 915 Worcester Rd. Benny Li, Mgr.
Natick Restaurants, Inc.
dba Curry Leaf 1328 Worcester Road Vinod Kapoor, Mgr.
24 Associates
d/b/a 148 On Central 148 East Central St. Mitchell Maxwell, Mgr.
The Deli, Inc.
d/b/a Joan & Ed’s Deli 1298F. Worcester Rd. Edward Sanderson,Mgr.
California Pizza Kitchen 1245 Worcester Rd. Jasmine Lewan, Mgr.
Dah-Mee, Inc. 25 Washington St. Young H. Lee, Mgr.
Namee Enterprises
d/b/a Minado Restaurant 1282 Worcester St. Eric Kim, Mgr
RESTAURANT ALL ALCOHOL WITH LOUNGE/BAR SEATING
Dimas, Inc. d/b/a Dolphin Seafood 12 Washington St. Peter Giannocopoulos, Mgr
BUCA Restaurants 3, Inc.
d/b/a Vinny Testa’s Natick 801 Worcester Rd. Joshua Rossmeisl, Mgr.
Lampara, Inc. d/b/a Skipjack’s 1400 Worcester Rd. Peter G. Dowd, Mgr
Angelo & Garif, Inc. 25 Washington St. Eftihia Souliopouls, Mg.
d//b/a Agostino’s Restaurant
Nicholas’s 85 East Central St Sharon Stournaras,Mg
BEER & WINE
A.T. Pan Corp. d/b/a Shanghai Tokyo 54 East Central St. Yun G. Pan, Mgr.
CLUB
Natick Lodge #1425 of the Benevolent &95 Speen St. Paul E. Carew, Mgr.
Protective Order of Elks
The Francesco DeSanctis Lodge #1411 37 Washington Ave. Gloria Cullati, Mgr.
Veterans of Foreign Wars,
Natick Post 1274 113 West Central St. James T. Graham, Mgr.
E.P.Clark Post #107, American Legion 13 West Central St. Edwin Hasgill, Mgr.
Amvets Post 79 Off Superior Drive Walter Connery, Mgr.
INNHOLDER
Natick Hotel Associates d/b/a Holiday 1360 Worcester Rd. David V. Shamoian, Mgr.
Inn Crowne Plaza
N.H.Hotel Associates, Inc. & Owen 319 Speen St. Kevin Gill, Mgr.
O’Leary’s, Inc. d/b/a Owen O’Leary’s
Restaurant and Brew Pub
GSH Lodging, LLC d/b/a Courtyard by 342 Speen St. Andrew Wardwell, Mgr.
Marriott-Natick
Mr. Ball complimented the Police Department on their report.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
Article 9 – Commission on Disability – Increase Handicapped Fines
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ball stated he agreed with increasing the fines from $100 to $200, but didn’t understand what access aisle violations were. Mr. Ciccariello explained that it was parking on the stripes.
Article 1 – Omnibus
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board support the Town Administrator’s recommendations with regard to Article 1. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
In a memo dated October 5, 2004 addressed to Town Meeting Members, Mr. Lemnios showed an increase of $2,114,991 in revenue and recommendation expenditures of $2,114.991. The expenditures were broken down as follows:
$42,860 – Police Department vacation and sick leave buy back due to 3 retirements
$30,000 – one Public Works engineering position to replace position
moved to GIS department
$4,500 - DPW LFNR budget for garden maintenance at various public
squares.
$44,014 – Morse Library to increase part-time staff hours
$18,000 – Community Development Office for temporary office staff to
provide clerical assistance while a member of the staff was
out on medical leave
$9,068 - Allocated for a settlement with the employees of the Park &
Recreation union. Three-year contract (FY05-FY07)
$33,800 – Property Insurance increase to reflect actual policy costs
$923,882 –Debt Line Item increase. The largest portion of this
increase $701,027 due to the permanent bonding of the Wilson
Middle School project. The expenditure was offset by
increasing the Debt-exclusion revenue amount. In addition
there was approximately $222,000 increase as a result of
retiring debt early as discussed at the Spring budget
sessions and in conjunction with refinancing certain items
to lower interest rates
$778,454 –Capital line item due primarily to the addition of
engineering design for the five drainage areas that were
chronic flooding areas that need to be addressed.
$9,500 – for guardrail at Dug Pond to protect against weed infestation
$24,000 – for purchase of new Neighborhood Bus. The $24,000 is Town’s
match for federal grant
$306,251- Increase in state and county assessments
$33,881 – Cherry Sheet Off-sets increase for racial equity, school
lunch and library programs
$72,007 – A decrease in snow removal supplement as a result of
receiving reimbursement from the State for the first major
Snowstorm of last winter.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES (contd)
Article 2 – Stabilization
Mr. Lemnios advised that there would be a $167,000 reduction for one of the engineering projects. A 2/3 vote would be required.
Mr. Hughes moved to support Article 2. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Article 4 – Morse Institute Library – Additional Staffing
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to support Article 4.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if this was for one year or if it would continue from year-to-year.
Mr. Lemnios advised that it would show up within the FY06 budget and the impact would be approximately $96,000. All were under 20 hours and would get a pro-rated benefit in some cases, but would not accrue sick leave, vacation, or health benefits. This would add four staff members.
Article 5 – Capital Equipment
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board support Article 5. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Article 6 – Capital Improvement
Mr. Hughes noted that the funding for this article was mostly the engineering cost for the five drainage areas and construction costs for two – South Avenue and Westlake Road. He moved that the Board support Article 6. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the various individuals who had come before the Board had been sent the scheduling. Mr. Lemnios advised that the individuals were aware that this was going forward including the citizens who signed the Westlake petition.
Article 10 – Dug Pond Boat Landing
Mr. Lemnios advised that no action was being sought on Article 10 as it had already been included in the capital item.
Article 11 – Relining of Water Mains – Speen Street: Sherborn-Framingham
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to support Article 11.
Article 12 – Removal of Inflow and Infiltration from Sewer System
Mr. Lemnios noted the Town had a low interest loan through the MWRA for 55% and 45% was an outright grant from the MWRA.
The Board unanimously voted to support Article 12 on a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Connolly.
Article 13 – Clubhouse Lane and Saddlebrook Road: Sewer System
Mr. Lemnios reminded the Board that a study was done that showed the most feasible and cost effective approach would be through a low-pressure flow. The individual who initiated the petition last year was uneasy with that estimate and came back to the Board with a request that the Board authorize a study of the cost of a traditional gravity. That was completed and it was determined that it was at least 3-4 times more times expensive. The neighborhood met and voted to go forward
with the low pressure system recognizing that it would be subject to betterment. The cost was approximately $380,000. The Town’s share was 25%, which fell under water & sewer rates and represented 81¢ per year for the current users. Of the 18 homes affected, ten voted for it and seven were against and one who had not made his intention known.
Mr. Hughes recalled there being a problem a number of years ago where the bills got sent out based on an estimate and it turned out the project cost 25% more and he wanted to be sure it was done correctly this time.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES (contd)
Mr. Lemnios gave assurance that the Town would not send a bill out until the cost was known.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that he was not 100% convinced of this one and wouldn’t vote one way or the other. The person who made the big push to do this doesn’t even live there any more.
Mr. Ball inquired as to the average cost to the 18 homeowners and was told by Mr. Lemnios that it was probably $35,000-40,000 and that was all explained to the homeowners. Mr. Ball noted that there was nothing the Board could do about it but feel bad for the seven who voted against this and would still have to pay for it. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Town Meeting still had to approve it and if the seven could convince Town Meeting not to do it, it wouldn’t go forward.
Article 19 – Tax Increment Finance – The MathWorks
Mr. Hughes reported that he and Mr. Lemnios met with The MathWorks and came to an agreement for going forward with the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) under the same presentation MathWorks made to the Board. Some language was added relative to the state law changes on personal property.
Mr. Ball moved that the Board support Article 19. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly expressed his appreciation to Mr. Hughes for his (Mr. Hughes) hard work.
Article 20 – Acquisition of National Guard Armory: East Central Street
Mr. Hughes noted that there was no change because the Town wouldn’t know the price to bid until the study was completed.
Mr. Lemnios advised that the task force had not come to the conclusion whether it made sense for the Town to bid on the property. There was a sense that the Town would be requesting DCAM to delay the auction.
Article 22 – Acceptance of Streets: Libby Road, Samuel Path, Marie Path, Katie Path, Portion of Pheasant Hollow Road
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board support the acceptance of Libby Road only. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Article 23 – Charter Amendment: Referendum Procedure
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he didn’t have a problem with following the correct procedures to follow the General Laws, but in the second part of the article, there could be a Board of Selectmen that decided it didn’t like someone’s petition and delay putting it before the voters.
Mr. Ball moved that the Board not take any action relative to Article 23. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello. The motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hughes was opposed.
Article 24 – Amend Town By-Laws: Use of Recreational Conveyances
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board support Article 24. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Article 25 – Amend Zoning By-Laws: New HOOP II District
Mr. Hughes moved to support Article 25. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
In discussion of the motion Mr. Connolly inquired if in the future it was possible that there would be no more auto shops on South Avenue. Mr. Ciccariello explained that the HOOP was an overlay. Someone who owned property who had an automotive shop had an opportunity to develop housing on the property, but it had to be affordable. It could, however, remain an automotive shop or any other currently zoned use.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES (contd)
Article 26 – Citizen Petition: Town Meeting Handbook
Mr. Ball inquired as to what action Town Meeting would take and Mr. Hughes responded that this was a handbook that was prepared for Town Meeting in the hopes that it would be informational in explaining Finance Committee recommendations, how the budget worked. That was all it was meant to be.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that some indication had been made that there was some language in the handbook that said the Board of Selectmen made the final decision on financial matters and expenditures, but he didn’t see that in the handbook.
Article 28 – Conservation Commission Wetlands Revolving Fund
Mr. Hughes moved to support Article 28. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
MOTIVA ENTERPRISES: REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO 226 & 228 NORTH MAIN STREET – SHELL SERVICE STATION
The Board was in receipt of a request from Sovereign Consulting on behalf of Motiva Enterprises LLC for permission to access 226 & 228 North Main Street in order to collect groundwater samples from existing monitoring wells for on-going investigation activities required by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Motiva was performing an environmental subsurface investigation for Motiva at the Shell service station located at 225 North Main Street.
In an e-mail to the Board, Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois indicated that he had reviewed the request and had no objection. Town Counsel had drafted an authorization.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of authorizing Motiva Enterprises to collect groundwater samples from existing monitoring wells at 226 & 228 North Main Street. Seconded by Mr. Ball for discussion. Unanimously voted.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ball questioned if the Board wanted a copy of the results. If so,a #2 should be added to the authorization making such a request. As the maker of the motion Mr. Hughes suggested that Mr. Bois be asked if it was necessary for the Town to receive a copy and if Mr. Bois felt it was necessary, add that provision to the authorization. If it was not necessary the authorization would go out as is.
CARDOOS: ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE
Mr. Hughes moved approval of Cardoos Gourmet Caterers on behalf of Jewish Family Services’ request for a one day beer & wine license on November 4, 2004 for an event to be held at Jordan Furniture Imax Theatre from 5:00 p.m.-6:30 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. MetroWest Medical Center - Sale
Mr. Ball reported that he and Mr. McKinley met with Framingham Selectwoman Ginger Esty as a subcommittee charged with putting together a list of conditions relating to the sale of the hospital that the two boards would jointly like DPH to apply to the sale of the hospital to Vanguard. From the forums held they came up with an A list which they thought was appropriate for the joint boards to recommend and a B list of things they thought were inappropriate and should be left out. The subcommittee recommended the A list and hopefully the Board would vote to approve the following:
1. Maintain both hospitals as full-service acute care hospitals
Continue all existing services at both campuses
Commit to continuing specialized services offered at Natick
campus including psychiatric, emergency and medical/surgical services
Do not allow MetroWest’s hospitals to become transfer
stations to Boston teaching hospitals
Maintain blood donor lab at Framingham campus
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
2. Commit to ongoing capital investment at both hospitals
Capital investment is required to compete with Boston
teaching hospitals and other strong regional hospitals
MetroWest must keep pace with advances in medical technologies
Commit to the completion of the Emergency Department expansion
In Framingham
3. Provide clear commitment to continue community benefits at current levels
“free” care – subject to definition and means criteria
non-English interpreter services
Transportation between campuses
4. Continue local governance with community representation
Governing Board
Community Advisory Boards
5. Support and develop MetroWest’s culture of Physician Private Practice
6. Maintain “Private For Profit” status
Mr. Ball noted that the subcommittee was requesting the Board to support those six points although #6 would be left out since it was a moot issue. The Framingham Board of Selectmen had not voted on these as of yet.
Mr. Ball moved to support the A list of objectives as presented. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly thanked Mr. Ball for his hard work.
b. DPW Truck Traffic – West Street/Oakland Street
Mr. Ball referenced a letter received that inferred that the Board of Selectmen had voted not to allow truck traffic on certain streets all of which seemed to have such truck traffic. He asked Ms. Challis to research the minutes to see what the Board voted – to see if the Board voted not to allow truck traffic and if that traffic was taking place, the Board might want to reaffirm, override, or otherwise take action. It was an issue the Board would hear more of at the next meeting.
c. Charles River Day Care
Mr. Ciccariello called attention to the letters in correspondence concerning the Tobin School. Mr. Lemnios noted that the letters were unsolicited letters, which he suspected the owners were asking to be sent.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s recollection that the Building Inspectors were to do some additional research and come back to the Board, but no one had come back.
Mr. Lemnios advised that the owner of the property had split it into two separate lots and came in under the Dover amendment for the development of the new site so there were two independent parking requirements. The ZBA placed what parking requirements they could place, but there was nothing in the by-laws that stated parking requirements for that use. Local Inspector Michael Connolly did a survey and that was how they came up with permits. Their attorney felt that was not reasonable and there was no basis for the Town to do that because there was no by-law. A speed study was being done and the Town
was looking to have its traffic engineers look at that area because there were line of sight questions.
d. Senior Citizen Information Day
Mr. Connolly informed the Board that he had been working with Senior Center Director Diana Ryder and Mr. Lemnios on the Senior Citizen Information Day and was hoping to get the Board’s blessing for the Day to be sponsored by the Board of Selectmen and Council on Aging. The idea of the Senior Citizen Information Day was to provide seniors with information on what was available. He hoped to get the flyer out in
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
the mail and published in the Senior Citizen Newsletter. Mr. Connolly offered his apologies for not giving the Board much time.
Noting that the flyer said the Information Day would be held at the Fire station, Mr. Ciccariello assumed that Mr. Connolly had spoken with the Fire Department. Mr. Lemnios explained that it would be similar to the health fair utilizing the bays with tables set up. It worked well for a fair setting and the Police training room would be used for the speakers. It was fully handicapped accessible.
Mr. Ciccariello thought it sounded great.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board sponsor the Senior Citizen Information Day as proposed by Mr. Connolly. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly advised that the goal was to make it as little cost to the Town as possible. The Council on Aging has made a contribution and he could contribute a little from his campaign fund for printing. Volunteers were doing the flyers and distributing them. Mr. Lemnios offered to have some of the printing done at Town Hall.
e. Quarterly Update
Mr. Connolly inquired if the Board would support receiving quarterly updates from the various boards and committees. He noted that he had mentioned it to Mr. Ciccariello, and Mr. Ciccariello said the Board used to have something similar with the department heads.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that some of the boards the Selectmen could request to come in, but couldn’t require elected boards to come.
Mr. Hughes suggested that it be discussed at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
_____________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
