BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
December 6, 2004
5:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 5:20 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 December 6, 2004 in the amount of $545,376.76. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,433,423.70.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Connolly, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 5:20 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES
With corrections as noted Mr. Ball moved approval of the minutes of the August 23, 2004 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
ST. PATRICK’S CHURCH: REQUEST TO DISPLAY CRECHE ON COMMON
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve St. Patrick Church’s request to display a Christmas Creche on the Natick Common from December 15, 2004-January 7, 2005.
CHABAD CENTER: REQUEST TO DISPLAY MENORAH ON COMMON
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve the request of the Chabad Center to display a menorah on the Natick Town Common from December 3-17, 2004.
SAM’S CLUB: ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
Chief Mannix informed the Board that The Sam’s Club Foundation, through the generosity of their Safe Neighborhood Heroes Program, had donated $750.00 to the Natick Police Department with a request that the money be used to support the anti-domestic violence efforts of the department.
Chief Mannix expressed appreciation for Sam’s Club’s thoughtfulness and continuing support of the department.
Mr. Hughes moved to accept the $750.00 to support the anti-domestic violence effort of the Police Department. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Budget Process
Giving credit where credit was due but that was somewhat hard to determine based on events of recent past having to do with the budgeting process, Jeffrey Phillips noted that some folks accepted a zero percent increase based on revenue forecasts. Two weeks ago there was a discussion on setting a tax rate and he did not believe the Board gave a good hearing on some of the facts that went into understanding what went into setting a tax rate this year because it was the first year that included the Wilson debt exclusion. He reviewed the minutes of the past 3-4 years on which there was discussion of the debt exclusion for Wilson and how bonding would be done and the votes on bonds. Some of the information given was speculative and incorrect and no one looked back. Today we find ourselves including $1.3
million for debt exclusion because it was thought that money would be raised in the Town to pay for doing a project and now there was a different reality. There was $5-6 million in free cash and $4 million stabilization and bond proceeds that need to be closed out.
There needed to be a discussion and planning on what that money was going to be used for and yet it was felt necessary to ask taxpayers for
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
a debt exclusion. He knew that the tax rate was set, but he hoped the Board would reconsider it and have a full discussion so the Board had credibility with the folks who thought due diligence had been performed. The same thing needed to be done with the high school and it was clearly not necessary to be putting additional amounts for debt exclusion today and in two years it would be about $2 million lower than last year and the debt for Wilson would fit into that.
Mr. Phillips noted that in a few years the debt service would be $2 million more than this year and the Wilson debt would fit into that. When the budget was set for the past 4-5 years, conservative estimates were made and people were asked to take a zero. The Board should try to understand why there ended up being a $5 million budget in free cash. He wasn’t saying that was not a good thing to have, but that knowledge should be used to make better budget decisions.
PRESENTATION: HEART SAFE COMMUNITY PRESENTATION
Appearing before the Board were Deputy Chief Paul Tota and Lieutenant Michael Aries.
Deputy Chief Tota, in charge of emergency medical services, noted that in 2000 the citizens of Natick approved an override to upgrade emergency medical service in Natick. The philosophy was to develop a program in which citizens and visitors would have the highest possibility to survive a sudden cardiac arrest. Through the public/ private cooperation there were now AEDs (automated external defibrillator) situated throughout the Town in cooperation with Natick’s emergency services. In the school system, senior center, library, and recreation AEDs were found ready to respond to cardiac emergencies. This was through private enterprise; i.e. Boston Scientific, Natick Mall. The most recent AED will be placed at Town Hall and that was based on the needs assessment with the large number of meetings
that take place.
A video on sudden cardiac arrest was shown.
John Gardarra, executive director of the Emergency Medical Service Council, was introduced. He presented the HeartSafe Community certificate and congratulated the Town on having been designated as a HeartSafe Community.
David Hiltz, the New England Regional Director of the American Heart Association was introduced next and told the Board that the American Heart Association endorsed the HeartSafe program as a way of saving lives. He felt the Town should be proud of the work that was done (in obtaining the designation).
Robert Shrever was introduced as a cardiac arrest survivor and he shared his story. His event happened on September 14, 2002 while working as a referee at the Wellesley/Newton North football game and he credited someone in the City of Newton for having the wisdom to buy an AED for Newton and become a HeartSafe community. Five percent survive cardiac arrest and Natick has taken a huge giant step forward to make sure that the 5% becomes 10%, 15%. He commended the Town of Natick for following through and doing this.
Deputy Chief Tota described a scenario that occurred locally on March 12, 2004 when Ali Salimi collapsed while shopping at Home Depot. Engine 4 applied the ADE and as a result a pulse was detected and CPR was then performed by the arriving paramedics. Acknowledgement of the Fire Department personnel responding to Mr. Salimi was given to: Firefighter Alberghini, firefighter Saltesca, firefighter Crisafulli, firefighter Wozny, firefighter Sticka and firefighter Glynnis Lee who provided the AED training.
Natick resident Bob Carson presented an AED for the Lilja School and extended his thanks and appreciation to the persons who have dedicated themselves to making this special day. The AED was accepted on behalf of the school by the Nurse Leader Karen Rufo, and Kirk Buschenfeldt the Director of Health and Physical Ed. Mr. Buschenfeldt noted that there were two AEDs at the high school, one at each middle school, and working together there will be one at each school.
Louis Goyette, Director of Emergency Medical Service at DPH, extended congratulations on behalf of the Commissioner to the Town and thanked the Town for continuing to provide quality emergency medical services
PRESENTATION: HEART SAFE COMMUNITY PRESENTATION (contd)
to the people. The public relies on the Town officials to do the right thing and the Town has demonstrated that time and time again by the level of service provided in Natick. This was no inconsequential thing. It takes a village and takes the commitment of the leadership. The American Heart Association, the Fire Department, the people of Natick all were in support and that was an incredible combination of ingredients. Mr. Goyette added that the DPH and its partnership with the American Heart Association on this program had been the best thing he experienced in 20 years. This was what public health was all about – identifying the ways people get sick and injured and taking measures to prevent that from happening.
Mr. Goyette continued that in every population there was always that one special person and Natick was fortunate to have as a resident the person who owns the honor and was attributed for putting this together. Michael Aries has worked on this program unrelentingly. Lieutenant Michael Aries was presented a certificate of appreciation from the DPH.
Mr. Ciccariello extended the thanks of the Board to Lieutenant Aries and the members of the Fire Department noting that they made this happen and deserved an applause.
APPOINTMENT OF POLICE LIEUTENANT AND TWO SERGEANTS
Police Chief Dennis Mannix read the following recommendation into the record: “I respectfully request that the Board of Selectmen appoint Sergeant Brian C. Grassey to the rank of Lieutenant. Appointed a full-time member of the Natick Police Department on March 20, 1989, Sergeant Grassey served as a patrol officer and detective prior to his promotion to Sergeant in June, 1999. Since being promoted, Sergeant Grassey has been assigned as patrol and station supervisor on the evening shift.
Sergeant Grassey is listed first on the Division of Human Resource certified list of candidates. Sergeant Grassey understands and accepts the responsibility of the important role of a command officer within the department and has the requisite administrative skills to complement his experience as patrol officer, detective, and sergeant.
With the promotion of Sergeant Grassey, the department will have two vacancies in the rank of Sergeant. I respectfully request the Board of Selectmen appoint Officers Cara Rossi Cafarelli and Richard Vieira to the rank of sergeant.
Officer Rossi Cafarelli was appointed a full-time, permanent patrol officer in the Natick Police Department in January 1994. Since then, Officer Rossi-Cafarelli has been assigned to the patrol division on the 4-12 (evening shift). Officer Rossi Cafarelli has proven herself a valuable member of the department, cooperating in our community policing outreach programs, including instructing at the department’s citizen police academy, child safety seat installations, and the department honor guard.
Officer Richard Vieira was appointed to the Fairhaven Police Department on October 31, 1988. He was transferred to the Natick Police Department by vote of the Board of Selectmen effective October 20, 1993. Officer Vieira was assigned to the patrol division on the midnight shift (12-8) until the spring of 2004, when he was temporarily reassigned to supervise the department’s records room and assist in overseeing the installation and implementation of the department’s newest management information and computer aided dispatch system. Officer Vieira has been instrumental in the successful implementation of the Information Management Corporation System, displaying a sincere commitment to its successful integration into department operations. During his assignment as supervisor of the records section,
Officer Vieira has demonstrated ability to supervise others and administer an important component of the Natick Police Department.
Officer Vieira has earned a B.S. degree in Criminal Justice while Sergeant Grassey and Officer Rossi Cafarelli have earned degrees in the same discipline. Officer Rossi-Camarillo instructs undergraduates in community policing as an associate professor at Anna Maria College.
Officers Rossi Cafarelli and Vieira are listed first and second, respectively, on the certification for promotion.
Each of these department members has received department commendations and numerous letters of recognition for their service to residents and
APPOINTMENT OF POLICE LIEUTENANT AND TWO SERGEANTS (contd)
businesses throughout this community. I respectfully request your favorable consideration for their promotion.”
Noting that Chief Mannix and the Town Administrator had been involved in a hearing regarding the discipline of Sergeant Grassey, Mr. Hughes inquired if that was resolved. Chief Mannix advised that the appeal had been withdrawn and there was nothing pending. He believed that Sergeant Grassey would be a strong supervisor because of it and everyone had learned a valuable lesson.
Mr. McKinley moved to promote Brian Grassey to Lieutenant. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Cara Rossi Cafarelli as Sergeant. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Richard Vieira as Sergeant. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
All three newly appointed officers were sworn in by Town Clerk Jane Hladick with appointments to be effective Wednesday, December 8, 2004.
Chief Mannix pointed out that Ms. Cafarelli was the first woman to be appointed Sergeant and was among one of the first women to be appointed as a Natick patrolman.
Following a five-minute recess the meeting was again called to order at 8:00 p.m.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF RULES & REGULATIONS FOR CLUBS HOLDING ALCOHOL LICENSES
Mr. Ciccariello acknowledged receipt of a request from the clubs to continue the public hearing.
Mr. Hughes noted that from the discussion with the ABCC the ABCC had come around to allow for net proceeds. He (Mr. Hughes) had been late in getting to speak with the attorneys for the clubs and didn’t speak to him (attorney) until after Mr. Carew requested the continuation. Mr. Hughes believed everything would be set by the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: VERIZON NEW ENGLAND: WEST CENTRAL STREET BY WASHINGTON AVENUE 134 FEET OF CONDUIT; WEST CENTRAL STREET BY CEMETERY ST. 15 FEET OF CONDUIT
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Representing Verizon was Right of Way Manager Christopher Parella.
Mr. Parella reminded the Board that at the last meeting he presented some material to see if Verizon would have an opportunity to do some
work prior to tonight’s hearing. Since that meeting the work has been done under the watchful eye of the Town and state representatives.
Maureen Berube, owner of the property at Cemetery and West Central, told the Board that Mr. Parella had filled them in on the work to be done and they were satisfied.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the petition for two locations of underground conduit – West Central Street by Cemetery and West Central Street by Washington Avenue. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES
Finance Director Robert Palmer began by noting that he had prepared two memos – one on the recommendation of 2005 utility rates and the other on excess bonds and retained earnings.
Mr. Palmer reviewed the utility rate information first noting that what was being recommended was a zero increase in water & sewer rates for calendar 2005. That was consistent with what was done last year. He noted that what was being reported on finances in the information he provided to the Board ran on a fiscal basis, but the rates were set on a calendar basis because they were being done at a non-peak time so
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
there was no impact on how the rates were set to someone using more or less water during the summer. Fortunately for the last few years the Town avoided any type of water ban so there was a very good income level from the water & sewer enterprise. The earnings have exceeded expectations slightly. To fully fund the rates, Mr. Palmer stated that he was looking to use $600,000 in retained earnings and that would cover any budget expenses during the 2005 period. He was estimating that total budget expenses for that period could be $11.9 million with $11.3 million from revenues and $600,000 from retained earnings.
Attachment A laid out the revenues and expenditures in the water & sewer enterprise fund for FY03 and FY04. It showed the revenue generated from user charges and Mr. Palmer pointed out that the amount was slightly lower in FY04 than FY03, which meant that the Town generated slightly less revenue – a little in excess of $200,000.
Mr. Palmer continued that when the Town first looked at establishing an enterprise fund, the intent was to have direct user charges and direct earnings equal the expenditures during the year and any revenue that came in from liens, service charges, interest on late bills, etc. would be used for capital purposes and become retained earnings.
Mr. Palmer explained the reference to Mass debt assistance. When the Springvale treatment plant was authorized, the state gave the Town an assist on the debt service and operation for the treatment plant. 2007 would be the last year that the Town would see that $198,000 from the state.
Mr. Palmer noted that the total revenue generated from the operation of the enterprise fund was $11,618,445.72 in FY03 and $11,465,954.21 in FY04. The items in caption (Attachment A) were related to outstanding items that predate the enterprise fund or the retained earnings the Board authorized and Town Meeting voted for rate stabilization last year. Given that, there was a total of $12,128,337. The actual expenditures came in below budget at $11,739,001.16 with an excess of $1,389,336.05, but part of that was the retained earnings voted last year. Mr. Palmer noted that last year a $200,000 reserve fund was established, but there was no call to use it so none of that was spent. He further noted that there was a higher cost anticipated for the water treatment plant Phase II concerning debt service. The Town didn’t control the debt service on that entity. It was controlled by the Mass Pollution Abatement Trust. The debt didn’t get issued until FY05 so it wasn’t seen in FY04.
When the money was not expended it flowed into retained earnings.
Mr. Palmer advised that Attachment B was a copy of what the Board would sign – the A2 – for setting the tax rates in FY05. That showed the retained earnings that have been used. It also showed the revenue necessary to fund the enterprise for FY05, the indirect costs of $2,005,683, that there was no deficit and that it was a profitable enterprise.
Attachment C listed the direct costs to the enterprise fund. Those direct costs included the operating budget for the Water & Sewer Division, the MWRA, utility billing, the retirement costs of those employees and the health insurance and other employee benefits, the debt for water & sewer which was $1,896,829, and the reserve of $200,000 which was not used last year. The indirect costs of $2,005,683 was primarily in the area of DPW allocation for things such as building maintenance, engineering services, highway maintenance, and a small allocation for public safety. One-third of the DPW administration was charged to the enterprise, Building Maintenance 12-l/2%, Engineering 2/3, Equipment Maintenance 40% and Highway 4%. 2% of public safety, 7-l/2% of Town administration and assessing, 5% of the debt
of the municipal complex for departments there to support the enterprise and utility billing were charged to the enterprise. Water & sewer was also a big user of the property insurance for the physical plant in terms of facilities. Mr. Palmer advised that he used the same percentages as he had used in 2004. He noted that the percentage allocations were not done on a ticket basis.
They were done purely on allocation based on a reasonable estimate of the contributions of those entities.
Mr. Ball commented that in calendar 2005 the expectation was that $1.9 million would be spent on water & sewer. The Town expected to collect $1.3 million and fund the difference of $600,000 from retained earnings. What were the retained earnings from which the $600,000 was being taken
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
to pay for the shortfall. Mr. Palmer referred to his second memo that contained a chart showing the retained earnings from 2000-2004. At the end of FY04 the retained earnings were $4,835,051.65.
Mr. Ball noted that the reason for retained earnings and why the Board should be comfortable leaving an amount of that size in retained
earnings was that we expect to be paying for water & sewer projects out of the fund. Mr. Palmer responded that right now on the books was
$3,752,000 worth of projects with un-issued debt. What he was suggesting was to take a combination of excess proceeds from prior projects that the DPW had now completed and a portion of retained earnings and never borrow that money and save the cost of borrowing. If $600,000 (of retained earnings) were taken for this year’s rates, there would still be $4.2 million. Following the recommendation in his second memo there would still be $1.5-1.6 million in retained earnings.
Mr. Hughes noted that six months between now and June 30 was what Town Meeting passed for a budget with regard to water & sewer. Mr. Palmer indicated that that was correct, adding that part of this was the budget for FY05, which Town Meeting already adopted. The second half was an estimate for the first half of FY06, which would go to Town Meeting in April.
Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Palmer was not recommending any changes in the steps with regard to the rates, and Mr. Palmer’s response was, “no”. Mr. Palmer stated that he had some things with the way the billing was done and how the bills themselves were presented, but not in the rate structure itself. The elderly discount and irrigation rates were still in there and would remain the same.
Referring back to Mr. Palmer’s comment about the fact that part of the reason there was so much in retained earnings was that for the last couple of years there hadn’t been water bans, Mr. McKinley noted that when the enterprise fund was set up part of the intent of retained earnings in addition to funding capital projects was to buffer the ratepayer from wild changes in the rates as a consequence of that (water bans). As Springvale came on line, Mr. McKinley asked if it was likely that the Town would never see another water ban in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Palmer believed that the only type of water ban that might be seen would be a voluntary water ban. His understanding was that the treatment plant would eliminate the need for mandatory types of water bans. The reason he indicated the three years was because the last time there was a mandatory water ban it knocked off nearly $1 million from the revenue that year. It (water ban) had a dramatic impact. He was comfortable moving forward this way knowing that it was already past the point where there would be a water ban at least in FY05. If anything happened it would be in FY06 and that could be adjusted, but he thought Mr. McKinley was right that there should be no need for a water ban with Springvale coming on line in the spring.
Assuming the worst case that next year the Charles River’s level fell and the State shut down Elm Bank and the Town had to rely completely on Springvale, Mr. McKinley asked if Mr. Palmer was confident that the combination of the Springvale water capacity and the remaining retained earnings would protect the ratepayer from an unusual increase. Mr. Palmer replied that not only would there still be $1.5 million in retained earnings but if the reserve fund being put in was not used and anything not used in the water & sewer budget would flow back into retained earnings.
Mr. Connolly noted that the revenue for FY04 was $12 million and the estimate for FY05 was almost $12 million and, therefore, a rate
increase wasn’t being requested, but with the amount of retained earnings was it possible and was there a way to kick that back so that rates could be reduced.
Mr. Palmer responded that the Board could, noting that it was a choice for how the Board wished to use those dollars. The money was the ratepayers and needs to go back to the ratepayer. What he was recommending, and it was the Board’s call not his, was to use the retained earnings in place of debt that was known to be coming on along with excess from proceeds in sales because the DPW was able to bring several of their projects in under budget. That would avoid $3,752,000 worth of debt and the interest charges related to that debt which was
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
nearly $1.5 million. His recommendation was to use it for capital, which impacts the rates because there wouldn’t be a rate increase because of new debt being added to the budget. The history of retained earnings showed that even going back to FY00 there was $2.6 million in surplus at that time. $1.2 million was used for capital projects reducing retained earnings to $1,491,000. The amounts since then expended for capital projects have gone down dramatically. Mr. Palmer reiterated that he was saying to use the retained earnings for capital projects which would reduce it to a reasonable amount and hopefully the retained earnings would start to grow a little bit as time went on. In the meantime they (retained earnings) could be used for that capital call and avoid those interest charges.
Mr. Connolly noted that in FY01 the appropriation for (water & sewer) capital was over $2 million. That was a pretty big nut and he questioned why it was so high. Mr. Palmer thought that some of the relining projects were funded from a combination of borrowed debt and surplus funds.
Mr. Connolly then noted that the Lake Shore sewer was one of the projects that came in way under budget. He questioned if the Town was overestimating them as a buffer zone or if it was a matter of mathematics. He didn’t understand why there was a surplus on almost every single one of the projects listed (in Mr. Palmer’s memo). Mr. Palmer explained that the DPW went to their engineering consultants to do cost estimates and then went to Town Meeting to get authorization for borrowing. At the time the money was borrowed, it was borrowed based upon those estimates. When the project was completed if there were excess proceeds from that project that money had to be declared surplus and the money had to be applied to a project of similar type. In one case on water relining there was a
substantial savings because the DPW bid the process while one of the phases was going on and avoided the mobilization charges. That saved a considerable amount of money. While he preferred that Jack Perodeau, Water & Sewer Supervisor, speak to some of the ways the projects were done, he (Mr. Palmer) believed that through the DPW’s ingenuity and work they saved the Town close to $1 million.
Regarding Lake Shore Road, Mr. Connolly noted that $430,000 was asked for and there was a surplus of $200,000. That area paid betterments charges and was the $430,000 the total and then betterments on top of that. Did it actually cost more than $430,000. Mr. Palmer explained
that the betterments would be predicated on the actual cost of the project not on the borrowing itself. If $300,000 was borrowed and the project was $200,000 the betterment would only be charged on the net amount of the cost to complete the project. The amount in betterment
would roughly be 75% of the cost. Mr. Connolly noted that Lake Shore Road cost $232,000 and the individuals were assessed 75% of the $232,000 and not the $430,000. Mr. Palmer replied that that was correct.
Responding to questions from Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Palmer advised the direct user charges were solely water & sewer bills, and the interest was related to penalties that were related to utility liens or somebody who paid late. The calculation for the Mass Debt Assistance was formulaic through the Legislature. Natick petitioned through then Senator Cheryl Jacques to get some relief, and the Legislature granted the Town close to $2 million broken into 10 payments over 10 years starting in FY97 or FY98. The assistance helped to reduce the rates because it was applied to the principal of the bonds.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about sewer entrance fees noting that it was zero under FY04. Mr. Palmer explained that it was a one-time classification of the sewer entrance fees that had been classified as a receipt reserve and put into retained earnings. He referred to his memo and pointed out that in FY03 that same amount was flowing into retained earnings. When it was water & sewer surplus those receipts were set aside as receipt reserves. Now that it was an enterprise, that didn’t need to be done and it could be part of the regular earnings for the enterprise.
Under capital outlay was general fund with an asterisk, and Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what that was. Mr. Palmer explained that those were pre-enterprise funds appropriated before the enterprise was created. That flows through the enterprise. That corresponds to the same amount of capital outlay in the general fund. It was a cost to water & sewer originally funded prior to the enterprise fund. It was appropriated by Town Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
Continuing, Mr. Ciccariello asked about indirect charges debt service, pointing out that Mr. Palmer had no debt service listed for FY04. Mr. Lemnios responded that the $1.597 million was debt created before the enterprise fund was created and that flowed into the enterprise. In FY04 it was seen as direct debt service for $1,531,031 which was the $1.597 million with a reduction in the principal costs.
Asked if that was the same for employee benefits as there were no amounts for FY04, Mr. Palmer responded that that was because now instead of being an indirect charge it was now a direct charge.
Mr. Ciccariello referred to Attachment C and noted that the Department of Revenue permitted towns to allocate a percentage of all their different departments into the enterprise fund. Mr. Palmer clarified that it was permitted for the ones providing service. In response to follow-up questions, Mr. Palmer advised that the DOR didn’t stipulate the percentage, and the Town could create its own percentage. He further responded that it was correct that under utility billing Collector the 100% was for the two people who do the billing. Asked if
that was all the two people did, Mr. Palmer responded that that was the way it was allocated. Mr. Ciccariello stated that that was not what he asked. There was a charge of $88,598 and he wanted to know if utility billing was all they did. Mr. Palmer acknowledged that the people would do other things but staff in that office that were being paid out
of general government that was not allocated to this budget do work for the water & sewer.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was any way to better define what that cost was rather than doing it by a percentage, and Mr. Palmer’s response was whatever the Board suggested. He pointed out that there was no percentage charged on the other non-supervisory staff in the Collector’s Office – just the two employees who were working primarily for water & sewer were charged to the enterprise.
Under expenses Mr. Ciccariello noted that there was a $200,000 figure for reserves and Mr. Palmer had said that it was not used. Mr. Palmer clarified that he had said it was not used in FY04. That was the reserve for if there was an unforeseen expense like the collapse of a line. The DPW would have to come to the Board of Selectmen for a release of that money, but it was appropriated for reserve purposes. If it wasn’t used in 2004, Mr. Ciccariello questioned why it was carried over into 2005 as an expense. Mr. Palmer explained that it was a budgeted expense. It’s there and available and if it wasn’t used, it flowed back into retained earnings. Mr. Lemnios compared it to the reserve fund under the auspices of the Finance Committee. If there were some
significant need or a water break, the Water & Sewer Department would come to the Board of Selectmen and ask for a release of those funds. It wasn’t used last year and was being budgeted as an expense for FY05.
Regarding the percentage allocation, Mr. Ciccariello didn’t understand how 12-l/2% of Community Development’s budget got allocated to water & sewer. He didn’t see how Community Development participated in any of the water & sewer activities. Mr. Palmer felt that there were some aspects of Community Development activity that interacted with water & sewer, but if the Board wished to alter any of the percentages it could. The 12-l/2% was nothing more than roughly the percentage that water & sewer represented in comparison to the entire budget.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the percentages were based on the overall budget vs the water & sewer budget and Mr. Palmer advised that they were in many cases and the Community Development 12-l/2% was exactly that.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the municipal complex debt service. Mr. Palmer advised that all of the different departments as well as the
utility billing function itself were located in these facilities so 5% of the debt service was being charged to the enterprise fund.
With regard to the use of excess proceeds and retained earnings, Mr. Palmer noted that the DPW already received Town Meeting authorization for Phase III and Phase IV of the water relining for debt totaling $3.4 million. There was also a sewer extension project for Clubhouse Lane for $352,000 or $3.752 million worth of authorized un-issued debt that
will likely be issued in the next construction season four to five months from now. Based on a review of capital projects that the DPW
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
had completed which were itemized in Attachment A, $989,616.86 could be recouped in surplus funds from already authorized issued debt and $90,000 that was paid to the Town from the MWRA as mitigation for Leach Lane. He suggested that the combination of those two items be applied
to these projects, which would reduce the amount needed to be borrowed. In light of the retained earnings balance, Mr. Palmer also recommended an additional use of $2,670,383.12 of retained earnings so the Town would never have to borrow that (Phase III, Phase IV, Clubhouse) and pay for those costs directly. If that were done it would close out 8 projects in the amount of $1,079,616.84 and leave $1,562,668.54 in retained earnings. Mr. Palmer referenced the summary of savings in interest charges should that be done, noting that it would save $1.450 million over 20 years which would reduce rates and the ratepayers would not have to pay interest charges on top of the capital projects themselves.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the interest rates being paid now, and Mr. Palmer advised that if it were bonded now, it would be roughly 4.5%, but the rates were going up. He used an estimate of 5%.
Mr. Connolly commented that it was his understanding that the enterprise fund was to be self-sufficient an if there was an excess in money, he would like to see it go back to the ratepayer – not just keeping the rates the same, but reducing the rates.
Mr. McKinley responded that the point was to protect the ratepayer from wild cycles, but Mr. Connolly countered that there was an excess of over $4 million. Mr. McKinley agreed and pointed out that Mr. Palmer was recommending that $2.6 million be used for capital projects and in the process save $1.5 million in interest fees. The other $600,000 was being used to keep the current water and sewer rates the same. Mr. McKinley noted that what Mr. Connolly was recommending left $1.5 million in retained earnings and asked if Mr. Connolly was suggesting that that be spent too. Mr. Connolly responded that the enterprise fund wasn’t a for-profit thing so how did it come up with almost $4 million. He inquired as to how long the enterprise fund had been in existence and when told three years, Mr. Connolly
remarked that in three years almost $5 million was accumulated in so called profit. He was looking at it and saying maybe the ratepayer was charged too much because it accumulated so much.
Mr. Lemnios thought Mr. Connolly raised a good point. One perspective would be that over that three-year period the rates could have been lower and in that case the retained earnings the fund had now wouldn’t have been accumulated. In his opinion that was a valid critique of the enterprise system. The question was what to do going forward. There were several ways to get it back to the ratepayer. One method would be to reduce rates, which was one thing Mr. Connolly was proposing and that was an option the Board could consider. Another option was if there were some capital projects pending, and there were some projects pending, some retained earnings could be taken and instead of borrowing the money pay cash for it and the ratepayer wouldn’t pay interest. The proposal being put forward
was to take a portion of the retained earnings to keep the rates stable and use a second portion of the
retained earnings to pay cash for capital projects that have been authorized. The Board had a choice – do you want to pay cash or do you want to borrow it. If the money were borrowed, financing costs would be incurred. The argument could be made that instead of borrowing for 20 years, borrow for 10, but anytime you borrowed there were financing costs.
Mr. Lemnios continued that even doing that (using money for projects) there was still $1.5 million left in retained earnings and the question was were the rates set in such a way that they were still generating too much retained earnings to justify the rate structure. That was a valid point to be looked at over time. Mr. Lemnios noted that looking
at the single variable (in the enterprise fund), it was the appropriation to capital. In Fiscal 2001 it was $2.1 million, in FY02 it was $864,000 and then it dropped to $139,000 and $108,000. When the capital diminished the retained earnings balance increased dramatically. The question going forward was what did the Board reasonably expect to happen to capital projects over the next 5-6 years and how would they be financed and that would enter into the discussion of how the Board wants to set rates over time. He would think that one goal the Board would want to have would be to have a rate structure that had some stability to it. You wouldn’t want to have rates drop dramatically one year and then have to be increased the following. You
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
would also probably want to avoid the rate scenario where rates were constantly being increased as well. The fact that the enterprise fund was relatively new meant some time would be needed to figure out the rate structure over time.
Mr. Lemnios noted that there were also the expense items Mr. Ciccariello raised. Were the allocations set the way the Board wanted? As everyone worked their way through these various issues, what was trying to be done was to create a stability in the rate structure and if cash could be paid for projects, let’s pay cash for projects and avoid the financing charges.
Going back to Fiscal 2001, Mr. Connolly noted that there was over $2 million in capital which was huge compared to everything else, and he would like to see the history of what that charge was all about. Two weeks ago the Board voted to raise the rates and while he knew that was a different entity as a good will gesture, where there was this extra money that the ratepayer paid, the thought of kicking it back wasn’t a bad idea.
To address Mr. Connolly’s concerns, Mr. Ball noted that in the case of the water and sewer system there were pipes in the Town that were 100 years old which one day would fail and if the Town were smart it would probably replace them before they did fail. Replacement of water and sewer pipes and equipment was a fact of life and these were multi million dollar projects. Not keeping the cash reserve to pay for these things as they came up while saying as a good will gesture let’s return the money to the ratepayer was a short-term strategy. As a ratepayer Mr. Ball said he would be delighted to see his water rates go down but if next year a project was discovered that had to be undertaken entirely by borrowing because there weren’t any funds stashed away to pay for it, not only would his rates go up but
would go up more than they would have because there weren’t funds to pay for it. The
philosophy was one of short-term vs long-term. It was not a matter of sitting on money that really belonged to the ratepayer.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Phase III (water relining) was approved last year for $1.7 million. As early as this year Town Meeting approved another $1.7 million plus the sewer extension, which was another $352,000. The reality was that the Town had $1.079 million in surplus
and he wondered why Town Meeting was asked to approve $1.7 million instead of taking into account that the fund already had $1.080 million. Mr. Ball found that to be a fair question and one he would like answered.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that the other part was that there was another list on Attachment C of five projects with current balances. He had no idea when they were started, no idea when they were anticipated to be completed, what the present expenditure had been on these, and whether they would actually have a surplus.
Mr. Palmer explained the process noting that once the project was estimated and the DPW moved forward the money was borrowed. Attachment A had a notation on the ones that were declared surplus. Final payment had not been made on the first three listed. The project had to be completed and the DPW had to certify that there were no more expenditures before it could be surplused. There were some small projects listed i.e. Rockwood, Union that were issued in 1999 and he supposed they could have been freed up sooner. He talked to the DPW and the DPW was willing to declare all the projects listed as complete and his (Mr. Palmer’s) recommendation was to go to Town Meeting and get their approval to use the funds.
If these projects have been completed for some time, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what took so long to get them closed out so these funds were available. Did the Town have to borrow 100% of the appropriation or could it bond on an as needed basis. $1.4 million was borrowed for North Main Street and then it was found out that there was a surplus and the Town was paying interest on the full amount of the bond. If the full amount of the bond hadn’t been borrowed, the Town wouldn’t be paying that interest and would be paying interest only on whatever the amount of the bond. The reality was that the Town was losing money.
Mr. McKinley felt that there were two questions. Mr. Ciccariello was right and that was a good example of a situation where the Town puts itself into a debt situation where in fact there was money available
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
under retained earnings. The flip side was what was being recommended tonight was to take advantage of as much of the retained earnings as possible to pay for capital projects and do exactly what Mr. Ciccariello was arguing in favor of which everyone agreed was the right thing to do. From his (Mr. McKinley) point of view the Board was sitting here for the third year in a row not having raised rates. He could remember years dreading to come in here because the Board was looking at 10-12% increases, which was part of why setting up the enterprise fund came about. The Board realized it had to get control over the water & sewer funds and buffer the ratepayer from the increases from the MWRA and the capital projects. The point about to the extent possible using retained earnings and avoiding the debt
cost was exactly right. Whether the Board wanted to dip into some of the
retained earnings balance or tuck it away for a future capital project or emergency was a question to be asked, but the system was working.
A member of the audience Jeffrey Phillips raised a point of order. His understanding of a public hearing was that the Board would receive information, ask questions and open it up to the general public before the Board began to debate the merits of whether to increase the rates
or not and in that way no one established a position before they had an opportunity to hear there might be some alternative viewpoints. He asked that the Board respect that. Mr. Ciccariello assured Mr. Phillips that he would and noted that he hadn’t opened it to the public yet because he believed the Board was still asking a lot of questions regarding this material.
Mr. Ciccariello referred to Attachment C on the current projects and asked if there was any sense for when some of those projects would be done or if any of them were done now.
Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau advised that the I&I was an ongoing project. The water meter replacement he hoped would be done by July. So far over 11,000 meters had been changed out of a little over 12,000 to do. They were getting much harder now. Asked if he had a sense of what the balance might look like at the end (of the water meter replacement), Mr. Perodeau estimated that it would be at least $600,000, but he was just guessing.
Mr. Perodeau continued that the East Central Street project was done and he was looking at some change orders now. The contractor was asking for $75,000 in change orders and he (Mr. Perodeau) was refusing to pay them. He didn’t believe the contractor deserved it, but he wouldn’t be able to turn that money in until that was finalized.
With respect to the Springvale Treatment Plant, Mr. Perodeau hoped that that would be done this May. That was the target. He had no idea of how much (money) would be left.
Mr. Perodeau advised that Lake Shore Road was old money that was re-appropriated at Town Meeting for any necessary costs of the water treatment plant that the State wouldn’t pay. To date they hadn’t used a penny. When asked how long it had been since that money was turned over to the DPW, Mr. Perodeau believed that it was turned over when the water treatment plant was bid two years ago.
Regarding the excess in the enterprise fund, Mr. Connolly noted that he got the same discussion that that was what free cash and the stabilization fund were and if the excess in the enterprise fund was added, it was almost $16 million. That was a lot of money and he didn’t think the suggestion of kicking some of it back to the ratepayer was bad.
The floor was opened for comments from the public, and Jeffrey Phillips thanked Mr. Ciccariello as he (Mr. Phillips) thought it was due to some of his (Mr. Phillips’) questions that some of the information came forward and was in the Board’s packet. Mr. Phillips began his comments by noting that on May 21, 2001 the Board of Selectmen had a meeting in which a contract was awarded for Leach Lane in the amount of $138,955
and a bond was issued for $240,000. $47,534 from surplus proceeds and $90,000 from MWRA mitigation and the job closed out at $137,000. Throughout the history of some of the authorizations there have been many items that if you went back and looked at the Selectmen’s minutes, bonds that were issued were far in excess of the cost of the projects.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
Mr. Phillips continued that while there may be some good reasons for trying to anticipate any and all types of problems, the fact of the matter was that the jobs get closed out. This one (Leach Lane) was authorized in May 2001 and it was about five months away from being four years for a $137,000 job that took until now to get closed out. In the meantime this as well as the other projects that were closed out in the amount of $1 million that were bonded have been costing the ratepayers $50,000. On December 3, 2001 at the 2002 water & sewer rate hearing there was a 5-l/2% rate increase for water & sewer and a 6-l/2% increase for MWRA assessment. At that time Mr. Palmer said that the Board had asked the administration to make sure the water & sewer was self-supporting and was generating some
revenue for small improvements. He also said it was time, due to a discussion that had taken place, that the Town comply with GASB 34 and establish an enterprise fund.
Mr. Phillips noted that on 2/25/02 it was mentioned that the fund would be self-supporting. A couple of weeks later there was a discussion regarding the enterprise fund. The Department of Revenue and the Moody’s advisor said an enterprise fund should be created. In December 2003 at the water & sewer rate hearing there was a discussion of the use of $500,000 in retained money and the use of $800,000 from monies from the year before leaving $700,000 for capital projects. It was said there was a small surplus and this was not a profit center.
Mr. Phillips told the Board that he didn’t wish to be pedantic, but held up a document that was easily attainable from a download from the DOR Division of Local Services about enterprise funds. He had highlighted certain things to see if the Town was actually fulfilling what the DOR said the Town should be fulfilling. Under MGL 44, Section 53F ½ it said that an enterprise fund was to provide information to ensure performance, analyze the impact of financial decisions, determine the cost of providing a service and identify any subsidy from the General Fund for providing service. The advantage of enterprise fund accounting was to determine the cost of the service, provide useful management information, and retain investment income and surplus. It went on and discussed a whole bunch of things of
what went into revenues. Revenues were made up of charges and fees by those who use the service. Among those in this case were the water & sewer rates and also investment income.
Mr. Phillips directed the Board’s attention to the sheets in front of them and asked where the statement of investment income and interest from the money from retained earnings could be found on those sheets. Since June there was $4.8 million and prior to that there were millions. That money has been collecting interest somewhere and that income was supposed to be on the statement. There were other revenues that was included in all other receipts such as state funding and grants and the example given (in the literature) was from the Water Pollution Abatement Trust and Sewer Relief funding, money from apportioned and un-apportioned betterments and special assessments
relating to the enterprise fund and judging by the numbers he had seen he did not locate those numbers on the submitted A2 schedule of accounts. It may be there under something else, but they do not seem to show up.
Mr. Phillips continued that under costs it said that all costs of operating the enterprise must be identified and the Board had a discussion this evening about direct costs, indirect costs, employee benefits, borrowing, capital expenditures, emergency reserves and then it gets into more esoteric stuff such as depreciation of fixed assets that would be happening if a GASB 34 accounting system was set up. Mr. Phillips explained that there were three types of enterprise budgets and there were forms given and actual mock examples to be used when
going before Town Meeting. One was a balanced budget self-sufficient in which revenues equal costs. In this case the revenues estimated would cover the estimated cost of the service. The second scenario was for a budget surplus where the revenues were greater than the costs. In that case the difference between estimated revenues and costs should be appropriated to the enterprise budgeting surplus, which meant that the Town actually takes an action to appropriate them. They just don’t show up. They were supposed to be appropriated and the Town was supposed to recognize them (surplus revenues) and supposed to say in the accounting that the money was being appropriated. The budget surplus was available for any enterprise expenditure and was subject to the appropriation process. At year
end the balance of the budget surplus would close to retained earnings.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
The third was a budget deficit. That was when you knew you wouldn’t have enough money from rates to cover the cost and would have to put in a subsidy. An example was given in the material from the DOR for a budget surplus and it said to ensure the funding was used to support the enterprise service the community was required to appropriate the surplus fund into a budget surplus or reduce those estimated revenues. Mr. Phillips stated that he was not a lawyer but he thought everyone knew about the Emerson case vs Boston which was the classic case of talking about charging fees for services in excess of what needed to be generated for capital funds. Even though there was an enterprise fund to deal with those things the Board still had some responsibility not to prepare a capital fund for the possibility
that some day in the future the Town may have an earthquake and all the water treatment plants may stop.
At the close of FY04 the enterprise fund had $4.8 million and since that time we have now run another l/2 fiscal year and we could very well be running ahead again and have more of a surplus. Enterprise funds were supposed to be so the Town could make sound financial decisions and treat the ratepayers fairly. In his opinion if the Board went ahead with its plan, it brought up a couple of problems. In Schedule A2 Attachment B, there may be a place, but he didn’t recognize where it said investment income. There was nothing in that line and for the life of him he hadn’t been able to find out where it was ever declared what the retained earnings were and in fact there weren’t any retained earnings unless they have been certified by the Bureau of Accounts. From the sheets given to the Board it
didn’t appear clear to him that that had ever been done. If it hasn’t been done, then retained earnings couldn’t be used and if it hasn’t been done in the
past it was no different than if free cash was used that hasn’t been certified. It was the same thing and it even said so in the enterprise fund guidelines.
To the matter of taking the money and spending it down, Mr. Phillips pointed out that it wasn’t the Town’s money. It belonged to the people who have been paying the money and the Board had to establish what it thought was a fair amount of money to have because it was not the Town’s money. There was all this talk about it being a tough time and wanting to give people a break, but he didn’t think it was giving people a break just by saying we aren’t going to raise your rates. Giving them a break was to give them back some of the money that has been accumulated. The Town was in a good position now and credit should be taken for doing something successfully in creating an enterprise fund and taking control of the costs. The Water Department has done a great job of providing
service and bringing in these contracts at a certain price.
$4.8 million in retained earnings probably wasn’t needed and the $1 million the Board now wanted to use couldn’t be used anyway until Town Meeting released the appropriation. Mr. Phillips felt that this was a good exercise in a lot of ways because he thought it needed to be talked about whether it made a lot of sense to bond projects that hadn’t been completed. That was why the municipal complex and the schools weren’t bonded. BANS were used. There may be a good reason why BANS weren’t used – maybe the projects were too small. He didn’t know a lot about it but he knew that maybe one thing that could be done if there was a couple of million dollars in retained earnings was to use those to start paying for a project and then bond it when the amount was known. What the Board was being asked to do was to go back to a vote that happened on October 21, 2003 Article 5 Fall Town Meeting in which there was a vote to borrow $1.7 million for the multi-phase
plan to remove deposit from pipes. Mr. Phillips wasn’t sure why that amount of money was bonded more than a year ago and why it was important to go to Town Meeting again on October 9, 2004 and ask for another $1.7 million for the fourth phase when the first phase hadn’t been started.
If Town Meeting were asked to release a bond appropriation and use the retained earnings to pay for those things to save some interest, Mr. Phillips questioned what that would do. That would reduce the debt service approximately $70,000 a year. If the rates weren’t adjusted and everything else left the same, it would just generate more surplus because the enterprise fund won’t be paying for that debt service. He questioned why at this time the Board would want to tie up $3.4 million by spending money that was taken from people who deserved some of it back. Interest rates were going up and 3-4 years down the line, the
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
money we had today would be spent and the interest rates would be higher and some capital project came up, the Town would have to borrow money because there wouldn’t be the retained earnings. Then capital projects will be paid for at a higher interest rates.
Mr. Phillips asked that the Board consider this and excuse the fact that it was he at the podium pointing this out. There was $4.8 million in retained earnings that the ratepayers have paid and there was at least $1 million right now from bond proceeds. That was $5.8 million
and there was probably at least another $1/2 million that’s been generated in surplus this year and he thought the ratepayers deserved to have some cut in their rates so next year the Town wouldn’t end up with $1.4 million and maybe only end up with $600,000. Before the
Board made any plans for it, Mr. Phillips hoped the Board would ask whether this money had been certified by the DOR and he hoped the Board would make a decision that was a much more sound business decision. This would not be a good business decision and would not be a good decision for the ratepayers and no matter how much the Board wanted to prepare for tremulous possibilities in the future, the fact of the matter was that the Board really needed to look at whether or not the Town was following the guidelines for an enterprise fund and if it was not the enterprise fund should either be closed out or an understanding established of what it was.
Mr. Phillips stated that he would finish up with a statement of some questions that needed to be asked. Where was the investment income from the monies that have been set aside. Does the enterprise fund actually have all the monies that have been collected under water & sewer from betterments and any other costs being charged for water & sewer service.
Mr. Phillips’ recommendation wasn’t obvious to Mr. McKinley and he asked if Mr. Phillips was saying that interest rates were going up and they were currently attractive so perhaps the Town should continue to be funding capital projects by borrowing now to take advantage of the lower interest rates.
Mr. Phillips responded that his overall recommendation was that the Board figure out exactly how much money it felt it could comfortably cut the rate instead of having $1 plus million surplus coming in. The other recommendation was the idea of taking the retained earnings and using them to go back and un-appropriate the bond authorization was not a good business decision. Right now that $3.4 million could be borrowed, and that was considering that the $1.7 million for each of those projects was generally close to the cost of the project and that was another question – why was the Town borrowing more money when the first project hadn’t been started. Was it possible to borrow money in anticipation of the close out of the job when the exact cost was known? His recommendation was that retained
earnings not be taken down to pay off bonds for a savings of $70,000 in interest cost. If that were done just to lower the debt service, later on when some other project came up and the money wasn’t there, most likely it would have to be borrowed at a higher interest rate. The Board had to look at this in a 10-20 year timeframe.
Mr. McKinley summarized that Mr. Phillips was suggesting that the Board not pay cash for these projects and continue to borrow for them. That would leave a considerable amount of additional retained earnings because it wasn’t going to be spent on capital and Mr. Phillips was
further recommending that that be used in the form of a rate reduction. Mr. Phillips’ response was, “yes”.
When asked how he would distribute that rate reduction, Mr. Phillips replied just cut the rates. Asked if it would be one time as $4.8 million could be a 30% rate cut this year, Mr. Phillips responded that
he was not saying to empty out the kitty. He was saying the Board needed to do something to cut down the cash flow and at a better time than now when the Board wasn’t fraught with water & sewer rate hearings, the Board should come up with a plan for retained earnings.
There was enough of a comfort zone right now to get a little closer to having a cash flow situation where this excess didn’t keep getting built up.
If Mr. Phillips were sitting here setting the rates, Mr. McKinley inquired if Mr. Phillips would use some of the current retained earnings to hold the rates flat or not. Mr. Phillips’ reply was,
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
“yes”. In follow-up Mr. McKinley inquired if Mr. Phillips would use more of the retained earnings to not only hold the rates flat but to actually reduce them. Mr. Phillips answered that he would if that was necessary, adding that the Board had to do a better job of analyzing to find out why so much surplus was being generated each year. That was the same question he asked before on the free cash situation. Didn’t anybody want to know why the Town keeps ending up with $1-1/2-$2 million in surplus each year? Retained earnings could be used but without touching retained earnings at all the fund was running a surplus.
If some of the retained earnings weren’t used to cover the budget for this year’s water & sewer, Mr. McKinley noted that the Board would have to raise the rates. Mr. Phillips pointed out that the Board was using $600,000 the same as before and would end up with a cash flow situation. If the same thing kept being used it just became part of the operation.
Mr. McKinley commented that it would seem reasonable to at least do that (use $600,000) tonight and go forward and figure out what to do with the balance. Mr. Phillips agreed, noting that that was if the Board could do it. He reminded the Board that retained earnings couldn’t be touched unless they had been certified and that had to be figured out first.
Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau advised that the reason the water relining project was not bid was that shortly after Town Meeting last year the Natick Mall came in with all their plans and their plans called for digging up Speen Street. A hold was put on it so the whole thing could be bid together because it would probably be a better price. Phase III and IV will be bid together. It wasn’t more than a week after Town Meeting that the Natick Mall came in and explained what they wanted to do and the sewer line will have to be replaced all the way down Speen Street because it was undersized. The Mall will dig the road up and repave and it will be a good time to get the water done all at once.
Mr. Ciccariello requested someone to address the issue of certification of retained earnings, and Mr. Lemnios responded that he would have to talk to the Comptroller. Certification was pending relative to free cash as well as other certification, but he would verify with Ms. Cashman the status of the retained earnings certification.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the investment income – if the funds were in a bank account earning interest and were the retained earnings
earning interest. Mr. Palmer explained that any deposits that were made – not just retained earnings, but any cash on hand should be in an interest bearing account. If Ms. Cashman had not credited any of the interest income to the enterprise, it would have to be calculated and
allocated out from the general fund and allocated to the enterprise fund. It would have to be done as an allocation. It was separate accounting but not in separate accounts.
Being that it was an enterprise, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if it couldn’t be set up as a separate account. Mr. Palmer advised that it could. He thought doing it this way was probably a hold over from when it (enterprise fund) was set up. To Mr. Ciccariello’s comment that some cleanup needed to be done, Mr. Palmer responded that he thought
Mr. Ciccariello was saying that he (Mr. Ciccariello) would prefer to see the enterprise fund separated out. Mr. Ciccariello voiced the opinion that if there was going to be an enterprise fund he would think it would be best to keep a separate account and that way there was no miss-appropriation of dollars. He stressed that he was not saying someone was doing that, but there would be a better control of the accounts and auditing on a monthly basis. Mr. Palmer suspected that the solution would be sub-accounts.
Mr. Phillips noted that quite frequently bond authorizations were issued and just recently one was done for Wilson Middle School and other projects at the same time to take advantage of the rates and the Town was able to account for those in the different accounts they belong in. The money has been sitting there and getting 1-1/2-2% interest, but it didn’t mean it had to be sitting in its own passbook account.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 WATER & SEWER RATES (contd)
Mr. Ball moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello calculated that there was in excess of $5.9 million and even if $600,000 was taken as it was last year and the substitute funding for projects was used, that left $1.6 million plus $200,000 in the reserve under expenses bringing it up to $1.8 million. Comparing that to the budget of $11-12 million, that was pretty close to 12%. From his point of view that was a lot of money.
Mr. Ciccariello continued that the other issue he had was that he always felt that if the Board/administration went to Town Meeting to vote in favor of a project if that project came in under budget, there was an obligation to give that money back to the people in the community. It seemed like every time a new project ended up with a balance somehow that balance dwindled after the project was completed and some of the projects never get closed out. That was why he asked for a lot of this documentation. He was concerned that there were a lot of projects that just kind of sit and sit and never get closed out and all the money eventually gets eaten up. In his (Mr. Ciccariello) opinion the Board should not only do the $600,000 but reduce the rates and reduce the retained earnings to somewhere around 7%.
Mr. Hughes noted that the $1 million in the bonds couldn’t be used to reduce the rates. It either had to be used for similar projects or not used at all and that portion of the bond be paid back. He inquired if
Mr. Ciccariello was suggesting that the Board use the $600,000 and the $4 million additional to reduce the rates.
Mr. Ciccariello responded that he was suggesting that the Board use the $600,000 and bring the retained earnings down to about $1 million. Asked by Mr. Hughes if he was suggesting that the other $2.6 million be used not to borrow money to do the capital projects, Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was not suggesting that right now because he didn’t know the answer right now and didn’t think the Board had to vote on that right now.
To Mr. Hughes’ comment that Mr. Ciccariello had indicated that he (Mr. Ciccariello) wanted to move retained earnings down to $1 million, Mr. Ciccariello responded that if $600,000 and $2.6 million were used, there would still be retained earnings of $1.562 and he was suggesting that that $1.562 million be brought down to $1 million so there would actually be $1.1 million given back in rate reduction and that didn’t disturb the $2.6 million. It left it where it was for the time being. Looking at it historically, Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the Town had never spent that kind of money on an emergency project. All the major capital projects were being funded through Town Meeting.
Mr. Connolly suggested having the Finance Director refine the rates before the Board voted. Mr. Ciccariello saw no problem with doing that, but asked Mr. Palmer by what date the rates had to be set. Mr. Palmer responded it was recommended to be a level rate and now the Board was proposing a reduction so there were no problems. He did not anticipate that the Board would necessarily adopt the rates tonight. The rates wouldn’t be applied until January.
Mr. Ball pointed out that applied $562,000 of retained earnings to reduce the estimated revenues translated to just about a 5% reduction in the rates.
If it were the wish of the Board, Mr. Ciccariello assumed that Mr. Palmer could recalculate the rates and bring it back at the next meeting.
Mr. Hughes moved to table setting the rates until the next meeting. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes stated that he would like to see the print out from Mr. Palmer and would also like a copy of other things with regard to the bonds. Mr. McKinley wanted to see some of the technical questions answered.
CHAIRMAN LOOKOUT FARM ADVISORY COMMITTEE: UPDATE
a. Membership
Given the recent death of Les Marino, Chairman of the Lookout Farm Advisory Committee Ken Soderholm thought this was an appropriate time
CHAIRMAN LOOKOUT FARM ADVISORY COMMITTEE: UPDATE (contd)
to give an update on the Farm and ask the Board’s support of the Committee’s recommendation of an APR change the Farm had requested.
Mr. Soderholm noted that Marino was the owner of Modern Continental and one of the largest contractors on the Big Dig. Over the past few years the company had been in severe financial straights and the company was
basically being dissolved. It had been reported that Modern Continental was merging with Jay Cashman, but that was not exactly true. Modern Continental will cease to exist and Cashman will acquire
the assets. Lookout Farm was partly owned by Modern Continental and partly by Mr. Marino individually. Mr. Marino was going to retire from the company and as part of the retirement he would end up with the farm as an asset. There was an agreement in principal but it never got signed and that left the ownership of the farm in a legal limbo. The sense of the family was that they still wanted to see the farm continue or somebody they appoint run it and at this time it’s Peter Grela. With Mr. Grela’s involvement Mr. Soderholm thought Mr. Marino had actually seen a better way to operate the farm and by all accounts Mr. Marino was doing that and coming into the Building Department before jumping in and starting projects and he was reaching out to neighbors.
Mr. Soderholm continued that he (Mr. Soderholm) thought it might have worked out if Mr. Marino continued to live and had control of the farm. The intent of the family was that Mr. Grela continue to run the farm, but he (Mr. Soderholm) couldn’t say if that would happen.
With respect to the APR amendment, Mr. Soderholm noted that the Farm had been doing a lot more wholesale and found that to be more profitable than u-pick. The Farm was storing the fruit on refrigerated trucks and had a lot of complaints because of the trucks. The Farm was proposing to build a storage facility on farmland that was under the APR. The land was now a parking lot so it wasn’t taking any land from farming. The Advisory Committee had a meeting and the Department of Agriculture was there to explain some of the APR restrictions and the Advisory Committee voted unanimously to support that project and they were going before the Department of Agriculture in January and needed a letter from the Board of Selectmen on whether the Board supports it.
Mr. McKinley inquired if the Advisory Committee had adequate access to legal advice to monitor the situation at the Farm at it went through probate. Mr. Soderholm advised that Town Counsel was at the last meeting and added that Mr. Grela had been incredibly forthright over the past few years about the Farm.
To Mr. Hughes’ query as to whether the whole farm was in probate, Mr. Soderholm responded that it was a mixed bag. There were 180 contiguous acres with 106 of that in APR that was put in place in 1980. It was a restriction that was brought by the State to the Town and it was in perpetuity. In 1980 the cost was $206,000 of which the Town paid $20,000. That was permanently protected. Mr. Soderholm commented that it was an incredible investment and noted that Erica Ball had been one of the signers.
Mr. Hughes noted that there were subdivision restrictions on the other 80 and some easements, and Mr. Soderholm replied that a lot of the
residential zoned land bought by Mr. Marino was put into agriculture production. That was at the most risk now with the bonding companies. Most of those parcels had various deed restrictions preventing them from being subdivided. There were a lot of restrictions and that was the good news.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the Board’s letter of support for the APR amendment, and Ms. Challis explained that there was a process to be followed which began with the Conservation Commission giving the Board
a recommendation. Mr. Ciccariello asked that Mr. Soderholm pursue getting the APR recommendation and process started.
In conclusion Mr. Soderholm told the Board that it was going to be a new situation at the Farm and he thought the Town would need to ask itself how much it wanted to see that farm survive.
a. Membership
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Susan Shea requesting appointment to the Lookout Farm Advisory Committee representing the Glen Street neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN LOOKOUT FARM ADVISORY COMMITTEE: UPDATE (contd)
The Board had received a list of the current members, and Mr. Soderholm noted that unless one of the neighborhood representatives resigned, there weren’t any openings. At the last meeting all four representatives were present.
TCAN: ONE-DAY LIQUOR LICENSE
Appearing on behalf of The Center for Arts in Natick was Joshua Ostroff.
Mr. Ostroff thanked the Board for granting the one-day liquor license for TCAN’s November 19, 2004 event and noted that that was requested partly to provide an amenity many patrons requested and partly for revenue. They (TCAN) had a lot of good feedback and $400-500 in revenue. It was well received and it was something TCAN hoped to do in the future. The Board was allowed to give TCAN a number of special permits and he assured the Board that TCAN would always adhere to the law. TCAN was planning a New Year’s Eve party and he was before the Board tonight to request a one-day license. They would be hiring a caterer to serve beer, wine and champagne.
Noting that the request was for 9:00 p.m.-1:00 a.m., Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. Ostroff would consider 9:00 p.m.-12:30 a.m. Mr. Ostroff indicated that that would be acceptable.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of granting The Center for Arts in Natick a one day liquor license for December 31, 2004-January 1, 2005 from 9:00 p.m.-12:30 a.m. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
OPEN ROAD MOTORCARS, INC.: APPLICATION FOR CLASS II LICENSE
Before the Board was an application from Open Road Motorcars, Inc. for a Class II license for premises at 217 West Central Street. Representing Open Road Motorcars, Inc., were the owners Scott Morrisey and David Schultz and their attorney Richard Glaser.
Mr. Connolly recused himself, left the table, and did not participate in the discussion or vote on this matter.
Mr. Glaser told the Board that his clients were involved in the inter-net and had people coming to them looking to buy specific high volume motor vehicles and these gentlemen knew how to wind through the process. They would go to the auction, look for a specific vehicle and
seek out an individual who was looking for such a specific vehicle. People buying these motor vehicles knew exactly what they wanted and
Mr. Morrisey and Mr. Schultz have grown a business doing inter-net motor vehicle sales.
Mr. Glaser noted that the limited commercial district permits a salesroom and storage of motor vehicles and that fits with this type of motor vehicle sales. This was a permitted use for this location.
Mr. Glaser advised that Mr. Morrissey graduated from college in 1996 and has been running Open Road Motor Cars with Mr. Schultz for two years. Out of all the motor vehicles they have sold they have had zero
come back. 60-70% were on consignment and remain in the owner’s home. They (Open Road) had entities willing to repair the vehicles in compliance with the statute. Mr. Glaser emphasized that this would be no used car lot and the repairs were all being done in general by the dealership. This was located in the glassed facility at ACME and there would be about eight inside spaces.
In conclusion Mr. Glaser reiterated that he believed the business fit in the Limited Commercial District and sit in the upgrading of West Natick.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that in his recommendation to the Board, Building Inspector Michael Melchiorri advised that the applicant’s letter of intent agreed that there would be no outside parking other than along the rear. Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how many vehicles and Mr. Glaser responded that there was space for eight inside and probably eight vehicles outside the shop maximum, possibly ten. There would be no showing of vehicles (outside), just employees.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there would be a problem putting a restriction on the number of vehicles outside, and Mr. Glaser replied
OPEN ROAD MOTORCARS, INC.: APPLICATION FOR CLASS II LICENSE (contd)
that he didn’t know if a couple of extra cars would be coming in and wasn’t sure how it would work.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked if there would be any advertisement on the vehicles outside and Mr. Glaser gave assurance that there would absolutely be no advertisement outside and there would be no showing of vehicles outside the sales room.
Mr. Hughes moved to grant Open Road Motorcars, Inc. a Class II license for premises at 217 West Central Street. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 4-0-0. Mr. Connolly had recused himself and did not vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion.
DISCUSSION OF BOARD’S POSITION ON SALE OF METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER
Mr. Connolly returned to the table.
Mr. Ball reported that he was not ready (to proceed with a discussion). He had e-mailed or hand delivered what he thought was the last version, but there was a meeting today at noon at which additional changes were made to the agreement and he would suggest that the Board just skip over this item and have a joint meeting with the Framingham Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Hughes inquired if there was any chance that the Board would see the document before meeting with Framingham on Thursday. Mr. Ball felt there was a chance that a clean copy could be produced of what was done today and then Vanguard would take their licks. He pointed out that there were at least five different groups all of whom were trying to come to an agreement on a single document, which represents an agreement of their desires. If that could be done it would be presented to the Public Health Council, which would suggest to the DPH that this was what the folks wanted and let’s make these conditions of the sale. If they couldn’t come up with such a document, it became very much less certain what conditions would be put on the sale.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what actions the Board was ready to take as a Board if it couldn’t agree with all the other groups. Mr. Ball noted that the Board already agreed on one simple document and that was a stepping-stone on which the Board still stood. If this wasn’t resolved he thought that that was the position.
Mr. McKinley stated that he spoke with Joan Gorga, the DPH hearing officer. She was in receipt of the Board’s November 30, 2004 letter and understood the issue. In conversations with her she said the goal of having all parties agree on one document was beneficial and made her life much simpler. She needed the document a week ahead of time and the real deadline was probably December 12-December 14. At best the Board would only have next Monday to discuss it any further with this Board and this Thursday with the Framingham Board of Selectmen. He wasn’t terribly optimistic that the document would converge in a week. One course of action was to say that this was what the Board agreed to (A list of objectives) and that was it.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board didn’t have a meeting scheduled for next Monday and asked if Mr. McKinley was suggesting that a meeting be scheduled. Mr. McKinley advised that he was and Mr. Hughes moved to post a meeting for Monday, December 13, 2004, 7:00 p.m. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
ST. PATRICK’S LEASE
Mr. Connolly recused himself from the discussion and vote of this agenda item.
For many years the Town had leased the parking lot from St. Patrick’s Church for 72 parking spaces to provide commuter parking for a fee. The current lease expired as of December 31, 2004 and Mr. Lemnios proposed a three-year renewal from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007. The cost of the lease for the first year would be $42,000, the second $44,000 and the third $46,000. Currently the Town charged $550 for residents and $650 for non-residents for an annual parking permit.
Mr. Lemnios noted that the Town would be responsible for the same items as it was currently – administration, insurance, maintenance, snow removal and general cleaning. Parking fees would not have to be increased the first year, but may have to be increased for years two
ST. PATRICK’S LEASE (contd)
and three. Mr. Lemnios referred to a breakdown of costs which estimated a deficit of $645.00 the first year, $2,645 the second, and $4,645 the third.
Mr. McKinley moved approval of entering into the three-year lease with St. Patrick’s Church as presented. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. The motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. Connolly had recused himself and did not vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ball was opposed.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Ball stated that he objected last year and would object this year to Article IV Section 6 of the lease: “Notwithstanding anything in this Lease to the contrary, it is agreed and understood by the parties hereto that Tenant’s use of the Premises shall at all times be consistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as enunciated by the Holy Father and the Bishops in communion with him. In this regard the parties hereto shall rely upon and defer to the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston.” Mr. Ball clarified that it had nothing to do with religion but he thought when the Town entered into a lease the Board would not be agreeing that the use should be consistent with the teaching of any particular religion.
Mr. Lemnios noted that the issue had been raised last year and he had talked to the representatives of the church. This was not a negotiable item. This stemmed from the Church having leased property to a group they thought was going to be doing one thing and turned out to be doing things that were violating their beliefs. In this case the Town was leasing purely for parking.
Mr. Ball felt that this was subject to the interpretation of St. Patrick’s and if someone parked with a Planned Parenthood sticker that could be seen as a violation and he was not willing to put the Town in that position. He knew that parking was needed and would love to see St. Patrick’s get the revenue, but he was opposed.
Noting that the Town wasn’t making any money and the fees may have to be raised in years 2 and 3, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if St. Patrick’s was willing to do a one-year lease. Mr. Lemnios stated that that could be explored, but the issue (raised by Mr. Ball) wasn’t the term. It was the language. Assuming that someone with the wrong bumper sticker parked in the lot, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Church could terminate the lease. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Town of Natick was the tenant and the Town wasn’t in violation. He added that the Town had leased this piece of property for years and it had not been a problem. Mr. Ciccariello still felt that if the Church didn’t like it (someone with the wrong bumper sticker) they could terminate the lease and the Town would
have to return the money to the individuals, but Mr. McKinley found it hard to believe that the Church would forego $45,000 a year.
QUATERLY UPDATES FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, DEPARTMENTS
In order to be familiar with the workings of the various boards and committees and to keep updated on what was happening in the various Town Departments, Mr. Connolly suggested that the Board receive regular reports from the different committees, etc.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested that Mr. Connolly look at the list of boards, committees and come up with a list a of the boards he would like to hear from and invite in.
LICENSE RENEWAL FOR 2005
a. Innholder
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to renew the following innholder’s licenses for 2005. Unanimously voted.
Natick Hotel Associates dba N.H.Hotel Associates, Inc. &
Owen O’Leary’s, Inc. dba Owen O’Leary’s Restaurant &
Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Brew Pub
1360 Worcester Road 319 Speen Street
GSH Lodging, LLC dba Courtyard
by Marriott-Natick
342 Speen Street
b. Common Victualer’s
Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, moved to approve the following common victualer’s licenses for 2005. Unanimously voted. Not included in renewal were licenses for Bagelmania and King Wok
Agostino’s Restaurant Aladdin’s Café
23 Washington Street Boston Blaze LLC, dba
Natick Mall
1245 Worcester Street
Au Bon Pain Bakery On the Common
1245 Worcester Road Ranz, Inc. dba
(Raymond Anzick)
9 South Main Street
Barber Brothers Florist,Inc. Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream
215 West Central Street Shama, Inc. Shama Nannapaneni
Restriction: Maximum 58 seats 1265 Worcester Road, Suite 4
Hour Restriction
Boston Chowda Care, Inc. California Pizza Kitchen,
1245 Worcester Road Natick Mall
Natick Mall 1245-1321 Worcester Road
Cajun Café & Grill Casey’s Diner
Natick Mall South Avenue
1245 Worcester St.
Central Street Grill Chuck E. Cheese, CEC
Adinaldo Andrade CEC Entertainment
150 East Central Street 801 Worcester Street
*Hour Restriction
Clever Monk, Mattison Corporate Chefs (Cognex)
Enterprises, Inc. dba 1 Vision Drive
Thomas Rosetti
57 Eliot Street
Corrado’s Sub Sandwiches Curry Leaf
7 Middlesex Avenue Natick Restaurants, Inc. dba
1328 Worcester Road
Dah Mee Restaurant DeliMax, Inc.
Soon Young Lee Stephen Stelmach
25 Washington Street Luiz Pereira Ferraz
6A Wethersfield Road
Delops, Inc. dba D’Angelo’s Delops, Inc. dba D’Angelo’s
Sandwich Shop Sandwich Shop
381 Worcester Street Natick Mall
1245 Worcester St.
Dolphin Seafood Restaurant Dunkin Donuts
Dimas, Inc. dba East Central Street Donuts dba
7 South Ave. 50-52 East Central Street
Dunkin Donuts Marval, Inc. dba Dunkin Donuts
NatDun, LLC 249 North Main Street
1362 Worcester St
*24 Hours
Edmund Tocci Flamers, Inc., BFR Enterprises,Inc
3 Union Street Natick Mall
1245 Worcester Street
Franny’s Place, BW Corp.dba Franco’s Ristorante-Pizzeria
17 Watson Place Tano’s, Inc. dba
*Hour Restriction Francisco Bruno
218 Speen Street
*Restriction: Hours
No delivery service
Friendly’s Ice Cream Corp. George’s Pizza
Natick Mall G. (George) Kalfas Inc. dba
1245 Worcester Road 41 South Main Street
b. Common Victualer’s (contd)
Gloria Jean’s Gourmet Coffee Haagan Dazs, 5th Avenue Ice Cream
RMF Java Co. dba of New Jersey, Inc.
Natick Mall Natick Mall
1245 Worcester St. 1245 Worcester St.
Honey Dew Donuts Java Jim’s, dba Melina Shapiro
179 West Central St. 22 Main Street
Joan & Ed’s Deli Johnny Rockets,Rt.9 Rockets,Inc dba
The Deli, Inc. dba Natick Mall
1298F Worcester Road 1245 Worcester Road
Jordan’s Furniture Jordan’s Furniture
Jorwest LLC dba Imax Theatre Concession Stand
1 Underprice Way 1 Underprice Way
Kelly’s Roast Beef Kimberly Ornstein
2 Underprice Way Legends Frozen Yogurt & Ice Cream
251 West Central Street
*16 Seat Restriction
Liberty’s Ice Cream Parlor Liberty’s Pizza
Ionnis Bouris Athanasios Kotsias
2B Mill Street 2D Mill Street
McDonald’s of Natick McDonald’s Corporation
290 Worcester St. Natick Mall
1245 Worcester Street
Manchu Wok Mandarin Café
Golden II, Inc. dba Yong He Lin
Natick Mall 5 Wethersfield Road
1245 Worcester Road
Maria’s Sub Sandwich Shop,Inc Minado Restaurant
(Paralia,Inc. dba) (Namee Enterprise,Inc. dba)
189 Worcester Road 1282 Worcester Street
Morrison Management Specialists, Natick Dairy Queen, Inc.
Inc. MetroWest Medical Center 323 North Main Street
Employee Cafeteria Food &
Nutrition Services
67 Union Street
Natick Pizza Palace Natick Recreation & Parks
58 East Central Street Sassamon Trace Golf Course
233 South Main Street
Natick Sports Club Nick’s Ice Cream
Racquest Club dba 85 East Central St.
Longfellow Sports Club
203 Oak Street
The Grillin Great at Olymbos Oga’s Japanese Cuisine
Pizza Minoga, Inc. dba
Fotios Mpouris-Foti Corp. 915 Worcester Street
179 West Central St.
One Forty-Eight on Central Oriental Pearl, Heng Tong, Inc.dba
24 Associates, LLC dba Yuan Chen
Mitchell Maxwell 195 West Central Street
149 East Central St.
Papa Gino’s, Inc. Park Street Ice Cream Shoppe
292 Worcester Street 14 Park Street
Performing Arts Center Pieces, Ltd., Inc.
14 Summer Street John Bertin
160 West Central Street
*Hour Restriction
Pizza Hut of America #611042 Pizza Market
1274 Worcester Street Latifa Bassou
Sherwood Plaza 5 South Main Street
b. Common Victualer’s (contd)
Pizza Peddler & Deli Pizza Plus
Dba Beleco, Inc. Y.S.A., Inc. (Maged Amin,
Petro Belezos Yasser Lawendi, Kamil Saied)
127 West Central Street 16 North Main Street
*Restriction:Limited to 16 seats
Russ’s Main Street Lunch Sam’s Club
Costas Vasiloupoulas 1225 Worcester Street
45 Main Street
Sarku Japan, Sbarro
SJ Natick Food,Inc. dba Natick Mall
1245 Worcester Street 1245 Worcester Road
Shangai Tokyo Cuisine Skipjack’s
A.T.Pan Corporation, dba Lampara, Inc. dba
54 East Central Street 1400 Worcester Road
Sherwood Plaza
Starbucks Coffee Company Subway, Softcare Solutions dba
1346 Worcester Road 251 West Central Street
Sherwood Plaza *Maximum 16 seats
The Tea Stop Theo’s Pizza,
Nancy Watson,Roberta Stack Tsitos Enterprises, Inc.
One South Avenue 231 North Main Street
Three Lucky Stars Uptown Gourmet
G.M Huang, Inc. dba Olson Meat & Seafood Co.Inc. dba
179 West Central Street 3 Apple Hill (Math Works)
*Hour Restriction
Vinny Testa’s Ristorante Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers
BUCA Restaurants 3, Inc. 303 West Central Street
Natick Executive Park
801 Worcester Road
Wendy’s Old Fashioned West Suburban Arena
Hamburgers of NY, Inc Facility Management Corporation
355 Worcester Road 35 Windsor Avenue
c. Class I
On a motion by Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following Class I licenses for 2005:
Bernardi’s, Inc. Bernardi’s, Inc.
dba Bernardi’s Honda dba Bernardi’s Audi
960 Worcester Street 521 Worcester Street
Bernardi’s, Inc. Brigham Gill
Dba Bernardi’s Volkswagon 817 Worcester Road
960 Worcester Street
Connolly Buick Co., Inc. Foreign Motors West
Dba Herb Connolly Mitsubishi John Monahan
157 West Central Street 253 North Main Street
Natick Saturn, Inc. Natick Subaru, Inc.
Dba Saturn of Natick 948 Worcester Road
1000 Worcester Road
Nissan of Natick, Inc. Quality Emergency Vehicles, Inc.
Dba Nissan of Natick Richard Willis
671 Worcester Road 85 South Avenue
d. Class II
It was noted that Natick Auto Clinic’s Class II license limited the number of vehicles that could be displayed on the premises to five, but the number stored there exceeded that. Mr. Hughes moved to renew the following Class II licenses for 2005 excluding Natick Auto Clinic and to invite Natick Auto Clinic to attend the next meeting. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Advantage Automotive Auto Wholesalers
Michael A. Frasca dba 135 West Central Street
11 Middlesex Avenue
Restriction: Maximum 3
Cars for sale stored on
Property at one time
Bernardi’s, Inc. Central Auto Parts
910 Worcester Road 327 West Central Street
*Maximum of 4 cars on display
Charles Street Auto Body Classic Auto Sales, Inc.
Harold Cohen David M. Wolfson
20 South Avenue 135 West Central Street
Coach & Carriage Don Crawford
Joseph Gagliardi 1 Lakeview Gardens, Apt. 413
55 Middlesex Avenue Kansas Street
*Wholesale only, no cars stored on premises
E & M Auto Consulting European Performance Locators
Eugene Bushmelov David E. Maynard, President
23 Centre Street 15A Cochituate Street
Restriction: Wholesale only Restriction 4 cars
No cars sold or stored on
Premises
Glidden Auto Sales Graham’s Garage
William Glidden Richard Graham
124 East Central Street 134 East Central Street
Gassiraro Auto John J. Ingemi
Ed Gassiraro dba 26 Bacon Street
10 Rear Cochituate Street Restriction: Wholesale only,
no cars sold or stored on the premises
International Auto Works, Inc. MPL Auto Sales
Joseph Gagliardi Lentini, Michael
45 Summer Street 72A Oakland Street
Restriction: No cars *Wholesale only. No cars to be
sold on premises sol or repaired on premises.
Storage of 1 car approved
Natick Citgo Nissan of Natick dba
George Matukas Nissan of Natick Used
East Central Street Clearance Outlet
119 Worcester Street
Olympic Rental Riders Repair
dba Tom Pratts Auto Care Center Richard Knights
1 Homeward Road 6 Leach Lane
*Restriction to 2 cars
e. Class III
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously
voted to renew the following Class III licenses for 2005:
Central Auto Parts of Natick,Inc. Sansossio Auto Body
327 West Central Street 13 Cochituate Street
*Maximum of 4 cars on display
f. Automatic Amusement Device Licenses
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following automatic amusement device licenses for 2005:
Aladdin’s Castle, Inc. American Legion
Natick Mall 13 West Central Street
1245 Worcester Road
Amvets Golf on the Village Green
Prime Parkway 315 Worcester Street
Kiddie Koncepts, Inc. Natick VFW
Steven Edelstein West Central Street
Natick Mall
1245 Worcester Street
f. Automatic Amusement Device Licenses (contd)
NH Hotel Associates & Owen O’Leary’s CEC Entertainment
Dba Owen O’Leary’s Restaurant dba Chuck E. Cheese
Restaurant & Brew Pub 801 Worcester Road
319 Speen Street
g. Daily Entertainment & Sunday Entertainment
The Board unanimously voted to renew the following Daily and Sunday entertainment licenses for 2005. The vote was taken on a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes.
Natick Hotel Associates NH Hotel Associates & Owen
Dba Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza O’Leary’s Restaurant & Brew Pub
1360 Worcester Street 319 Speen Street
American Legion Java Jim’s
13 West Central Street 22 Main Street
*Restrictions: Performances
limited to Monday-Friday
between the hours of 7:00 pm –
11:00 pm and on Saturdays between
the hours of 1:00 pm to 8:00 pm
Occupancy maximum 52. Front door
Must be closed if amplification is used.
The Center for Arts in Natick Jordan Furniture
14 Summer Street Imax Movie Theatre
1 Underprice Way
Lampara, Inc. dba Skipjack’s Dimas Corp.
1400 Worcester Street dba Dolphin
12 Washington Street
Sunday Entertainment Licenses
Aladdin’s Castle Chuck E. Cheese
Natick Mall CEC Entertainment dba
1245 Worcester Road 801 Worcester Street
A & C Associates Kiddie Koncepts
Golf on the Village Green Natick Mall
315 Worcester Street 1245 Worcester Street
Natick Hotel Associates NH Hotel Associates
Dba Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza dba Owen O’Leary’s, Inc
1360 Worcester Street Owen O’Leary’s Restaurant &Brew Pub
*Restriction 319 Speen Street
Papa Gino’s The Center for Arts in Natick
291 Worcester Street 14 Summer Street
ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
The Board announced that the Annual Town Meeting would be held on April 12, 2005 and the warrant would close February 11, 2005.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the Community Development Department was going to expand the HOOP to include the properties along Washington Avenue and North Main Street.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. West Street, Oakland Street Area – DPW Truck Traffic
Mr. Ball recalled having a discussion about a prohibition of DPW truck traffic in the West Street, Oakland Street area. Ms. Challis did some research and apparently there were some promises made that there would be a prohibition regarding truck traffic. He (Mr. Ball) would like to add a discussion of this to a future agenda.
b. Sherman Street
Mr. Hughes complimented Town Engineer Mark Coviello for the work done on Sherman Street.
c. One Forty-Eight on Central – Liquor License
In submission of their liquor license renewal, One Forty-Eight on Central included a statement from their accountant that showed they had exceeded the liquor rules & regs 20% guideline of alcohol sales vs food sales. To Mr. Hughes’ inquiry as to what the Board was going to do, Mr. Ciccariello responded that this was their (One Forty-Eight on Central) first year in
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
business, and he thought it was better if the Board got some information first and then see if the Board felt it was necessary to bring them in.
Mr. Ball inquired if the Board was going to suggest that One Forty-Eight lower its liquor prices. If this was the profile of the restaurant and it violates the 20% rule, what were the Board’s options? Mr. Hughes pointed out that the rules & regs said “ If from its review of such financial statements and/or other relevant factors, it is the determination of the Board of Selectmen that the service of alcohol has become other than incidental to the service of food in a restaurant, the Board may deny the renewal of the license”.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board could tell them they had to get down to the 20%. Mr. McKinley added that the policy said the 20% was a guideline. He suggested that the Board request a copy of the restaurant’s menu and wine service. They may be serving very expensive wines, and the Board may decide that it was more than 20% but still incidental to the service of food.
d. Town Common
Mr. McKinley told the Board that he had had the pleasure of participating in the tree lighting ceremony on the Common and on Sunday he picked up the Boston Globe and read about towns requiring religious symbols to be withdrawn from public land. He was pleased with what was done in Natick. He also noted that there was a debate going on as to whether a Christmas tree was a religious or secular symbol and suggested that in future years the Board ask the Recreation Commission to present the Board with a request to put up a Christmas tree so the Board could say that that was approved as well (as the crèche and menorah).
Mr. Ball inquired if that would extend to the Christmas tree in the front lobby of Town Hall, but Mr. McKinley wouldn’t specify. He explained that he was just trying to be sure everyone had an equal opportunity.
e. West Street Speed
Mr. Connolly brought up the issue of speeding vehicles on West Street, and Mr. Ciccariello requested that the Police Department be asked if they had any record of speeding violations.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
_____________________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
