BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
December 20, 2004
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:15 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 20, 2004 in the amount of $539,935.80. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,504,191.96.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Connolly, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to the acquisition of real property, release of executive session minutes, and compensation of non-union personnel. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:30 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Following a moment of silence for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, a moment of silence was observed in honor of former Natick Bus Coordinator Linda Saulnier.
MINUTES
With correction as noted, Mr. Hughes moved approval of the minutes of the September 7, 2004 meeting. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
ARTHRITIS FOUNDATION: REQUEST TO HOLD FUND RAISING WALK, USE COMMON
The Board was in receipt of a letter from the Arthritis Foundation requesting permission to hold the MetroWest Arthritis Walk in Natick on May 22, 2005. The walk would begin and end at the Natick Common. Memos were received from both Safety Officer Sergeant Robert Davis and Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini recommending approval.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the Arthritis Foundation’s request. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
a. Water & Sewer Hearing
Before recognizing audience member Jeffrey Phillips, Mr. Ciccariello noted that there was a recommendation in the briefing book from the Town Administrator that the Board of Selectmen consider reopening the 2005 water & sewer rate hearing due to some additional information. The recommendation will be made under that agenda item to republish and reopen the hearing for January 24, 2005. He noted that if Mr. Phillips would like to wait, he (Mr. Ciccariello) would be happy to readdress Citizen’s Concerns at that time unless Mr. Phillips wished to speak now.
Jeffrey Phillips noted that last Tuesday after the Fire Study Committee meeting Mr. Ciccariello informed him that the public hearing was closed on the water & sewer rates and a member of the public would not be allowed to discuss that this evening since the public hearing wasn’t re-advertised. Mr. Phillips stated that he spent all day Wednesday talking to people in Town Hall, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Secretary of State’s Office to understand what statute or by-law the Board was using for not continuing the discussion. Apparently there
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
was none. He was told that this was the practice of the Board and if that were so he would recommend that the Board adopt it as a policy and put it in writing. At the last public hearing he was the only one to speak and it was odd for the Board to decide not to continue the discussion and allow the public to comment until it was re-advertised. In his experience during the time a public hearing was going on all members of the public and administration could have back and forth discussion and make responses. When a public hearing was closed, it was closed to everyone including the administration. The Board has an agenda item tonight and will allow the Town Administrator to present new information and not allow the public to speak.
Mr. Phillips continued that based on the information the administration gave the Board this evening and the outline of where that was going in helping the Board work out a decision, they (administration) have concentrated on one particular issue and that was how much capital should be reserved. Mr. Phillips referred to a handout he gave to the Board this evening and noted that there seemed to be some concern as to where he got the information. The information was from the Town report, the Finance Committee recommendations, budget books, the library – a variety of sources that were available to all members of the public. Mr. Phillips noted that he had spent a number of hours looking at this. The Board was talking about a $10-12 million enterprise and when it came before the Finance Committee, the members
were given a one-page sheet and usually told the Board of Selectmen reviewed it and set the rates. Other than that very slim data, there was nothing else and it was impossible to find out how much water usage there was in the different categories and how much was collected. He didn’t see it in the minutes and information presented to the Board of Selectmen. He had difficulty with a hearing on a $12 million enterprise fund with one member of the DPW here and no one was here to answer questions. When he asked questions about the DOR filing, he couldn’t get an answer and then the public hearing commences.
Referring to the material presented to the Board in the briefing book, Mr. Phillips noted that the handout was in response to some comments in the newspaper and the question of infrastructure and whether there was enough money put away. Mr. Phillips highlighted the money earmarked for capital projects and noted that the Town had bonded a lot of capital. There was a lot of money available, but a lot of it was sitting around and that was the kind of financial management issue the Board needs to get on top of. It raised the issue of whether that was the best way and was it in compliance with bonding laws and it raised management issues about asking for new bonding when these projects haven’t been finished first. Statements had been made about the MWRA being uncontrollable and forcing the budget, but
today’s MWRA cost in real dollars was less than six years ago and the rates for Natick have been pretty steady.
Mr. Phillips objected to the Board’s use of a public hearing that didn’t really exist and objected to the fact that statements were made about the budget with no real numbers or real data of whether the revenues being collected match the expenses and the fact that a lot of money was available. At this point in time he didn’t think there was the kind of money available that had been stated. There was a letter from the DOR that retained earnings had been certified but there was a large caveat that it was un-audited. It was his contention that some of the numbers sent were not correct.
Mr. Phillips recommended that before the Board had a public hearing and talked about capital reserves that a professional auditor be hired and go back a few years before the enterprise fund and put it on a sound financial basis and set up a system the way the DOR advised. Last week it was stated that the money was not within other funds in the general fund, but if the Board of Selectmen would like, it could be segregated. The enterprise fund law required that the money be segregated. Those were the kinds of things the Board needed to get a handle on before deciding whether to cut rates or set rates.
CITIZENS CONCERNS (contd)
Mr. Ball inquired if the setting of water & sewer rates required a public hearing under Mass General Laws. Town Counsel John Flynn responded that he couldn’t direct the Board to a statute but his understanding was that it was a procedure by which the Board of Selectmen as Water Commissioners has set the rates. Mr. Ball then inquired if the water & sewer public hearing was advertised and posted appropriately. Ms. Challis believed that it had been. It was published in the newspaper, on the web site and in the Town Clerk’s Office.
Mr. Phillips requested an opportunity to speak, but Mr. Ciccariello saw no reason for Mr. Phillips to respond. Mr. Phillips indicated that he would respond in the newspaper.
b. TCAN – Withdrawal of Request for One-Day Liquor License
Community Preservation Act
Joshua Ostroff reported that a snafu had arisen and TCAN had elected to postpone the New Year’s Eve party for several months. Two weeks prior the Board had approved a one-day liquor license for the party.
Mr. Ostroff then informed the Board that a couple of citizens had come together to begin an independent process to educate the community on the Community Preservation Act. A few of them thought that at this point it may be best handled independently of any Town board keeping it out of direct control of government. He was here tonight to let the Board know they were doing this, and he hoped to come to the Board at a later date and make a presentation. They would be meeting with the Planning Board, etc. and there was a web site.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that one of the Open Space Advisory Committee’s charges was to do a Community Preservation Act study. Mr. Ostroff advised that they would talk to the Open Space Advisory Committee as well.
Mr. McKinley moved to take Item #18 (MetroWest Medical Center Agreement) out of order and asked that MetroWest Chamber of Commerce Director Ted Welte be allowed to speak. He (Mr. McKinley) felt that this was a subject that had endured considerable administrative debate and he thought it was at the 99% level this evening. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Although he would rather follow the order listed, Mr. Connolly said he would go with the Board’s wishes.
METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER AGREEMENT
Mr. McKinley reminded his colleagues that last Monday the Board had met with the Framingham Board of Selectmen to discuss what at the time was thought to be the final draft agreement for the sale of the MetroWest Medical Center to Vanguard Health Services. The two boards voted to approve a slightly modified agreement. Monday afternoon there was a different group that was making minor grammatical adjustments and over the course of Tuesday and Wednesday some other minor changes were made. This was discussed with Christopher Ross, the Framingham Board of Selectmen Chair, and the Framingham Board of Selectmen took up the modified version at their Thursday meeting and voted to approve the agreement as edited subject to Natick approving it tonight.
Mr. McKinley told the Board that he had studied this agreement and found it to be consistent with everything discussed Monday. Rather than adding an addendum for Sections 9 and 17, the position of the two Boards of Selectmen were now incorporated. All the other changes in red line were grammar or spelling. His recommendation was for the Board to follow the Framingham Board of Selectmen’s lead and adopt this version of the agreement and sign it this evening. He noted that he
had discussed it with Mr. Welte, but he had not had an opportunity to discuss it with Town Counsel and Mr. Flynn may have some comments.
Mr. Welte advised that the hope was to present an agreement to the Public Health Council tomorrow morning that would include the
METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER AGREEMENT contd)
signatures of all the parties and with the Natick Board of Selectmen’s vote, that could be done.
Mr. Hughes noted that the Board had signed an agreement last Monday and asked if that had been presented (to the Public Health Council). Mr. Ciccariello advised that it had.
If the Board voted to approve this, Mr. Hughes asked if all the other groups were signing and the Natick Board was the last. Mr. Welte responded that three groups had already signed and Mr. Ross, in deference to the Natick Selectmen, would sign tomorrow. In follow-up Mr. Hughes asked if the Coalition and Jobs for Justice had agreed to sign, and Mr. Welte’s response was, “yes”.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Board wanted to have Town Counsel look it over, and Mr. McKinley explained that the proposed process would be to vote approval and authorize the Chair to sign. Mr. Ross would sign tomorrow morning and the agreement would be hand carried into the hearing. Barring that the agreement already approved and signed would stand.
Mr. Ball concurred with Mr. McKinley’s endorsement, adding that this agreement was in essence the one the Board signed with the incorporation of the addendums to Sections 9 and 17. The other changes were miniscule and had no impact, but he would like Town Counsel to have the opportunity to look it over. He would like to table a vote until later in the evening to give Town Counsel an opportunity to peruse it.
Mr. Ball moved to table. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Phillips called for a point of order questioning why there was no public comment. Mr. Ciccariello explained that it was not a public hearing and he was not accepting public comment.
ACCEPTANCE OF GIFT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Planning Board member Kenneth Soderholm noted that at a Special Town Meeting in December 2002, there was an article aimed toward affordable housing and in particular lots on Route 9 that were not large enough for commercial use. Town Meeting approved an article that allowed a developer to double the density and either have affordable housingor make a donation for affordable housing to the Natick Housing Partnership. Across from Vinny T’s there were two lots where the builder built residences and has given the donation. Mr. Soderholm stated that he thought the article was well served. The developer did a great job and the Town would benefit from the donation.
Mr. McKinley inquired if the Natick Housing Partnership was a private non-profit not affiliated with the Town. Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian advised that it was a private non-profit, but it was affiliated with the Town. Betty Fancy was the chair and it was appointed by the Board of Selectmen. Several years ago the group received funds toward affordable housing and was able to help 15 families who were first-time homebuyers. The Planning Board was looking at property behind Bernardi’s and was looking for Bernardi’s to donate land. That would be coming before the Board of Selectmen for acceptance.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to how the Planning Board told a developer to give a donation to a private corporation, and Mr. Sarkisian responded that the by-law said the developer may build affordable units or give 5% to the Town of Natick for affordable housing purposes. As the money came to the Town, Mr. Hughes questioned how it got to the Natick Housing Partnership. Mr. Sarkisian explained that the Board votes to accept and the Board could vote to hold onto it or gift it to the Natick Housing Partnership.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that there was nothing in the contents of the by-law that said it had to go to the Natick Housing Partnership. He
ACCEPTANCE OF GIFT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (contd)
inquired if when the permit was granted if the decision stipulated that the money went to the Town and not to the Natick Housing Partnership. Mr. Sarkisian advised that it said accepted by the Board of Selectmen and transferred to the Housing Partnership.
Mr. Hughes suggested that the Board accept the gift and ask Town Counsel if there was a way to transfer it to the Natick Housing Partnership. He (Mr. Hughes) wasn’t sure there was.
Mr. Connolly inquired if this had been done before and Mr. Sarkisian replied that it had.
Mr. McKinley noted that the donation of the gift to the Town was not the problem. The problem was that the Board didn’t think it had the authority or at least was uncomfortable claiming the authority of taking $40,000 and giving it to a specific party without review and process. The Board was being asked to take $40,000 and hand it to someone else without any deliberation of whether that was the right thing.
Mr. Ciccariello shared Mr. McKinley’s concern. He believed the Natick Housing Partnership got some funds before and the funds were dispersed to assist people who could not afford a mortgage. The problem with that particular program was that the units that were purchased did not count toward the affordable units in the Town. If the Board were to transfer these funds he would want to be sure they were used for housing that counted (toward the required number of affordable units). That was the purpose of the by-law.
Mr. Sarkisian acknowledged that that was the goal, and the project on Bacon Street was what they were aiming to do. They were hoping it would be a duplex and affordable in perpetuity.
If the Board voted to accept the gift but was not sure of the issue of the Natick Housing Partnership, Mr. Ball inquired if the developer would be able to move forward. Mr. Sarkisian’s response was, “yes”.
Mr. Ball then moved to vote to accept the $40,000 from Edgewater Development and sort out what to do with it at a later date. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes requested information for the next meeting on whether there was a mechanism to get the money to the Natick Housing Partnership if that was what the Board wished to do. Mr. Ciccariello asked that someone from the Natick Housing Partnership attend the meeting.
DONNA JACOBS METROWEST GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: INTRODUCTION
Donna Jacobs introduced herself as the new director of the MetroWest Growth Management Committee and stated that she was trying to meet with all of the Boards of Selectmen, Planning Boards and Community Development Directors of all member communities.
She presented the Board with a brochure on the MetroWest Growth Management Committee and a newly printed map of the public transportation links. 5,000 copies of the map had been printed and were in the process of being distributed. The goal was to update it on a regular basis and get it into everyone’s hands.
In the Board’s packet was a regional impact review at a glance, and Ms. Jacobs told the Board that another impact review had just been completed on the proposed Natick Mall expansion and hopefully draft comments would get submitted to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs by Thursday. She was very pleased to have had Mr. Sarkisian at the table to discuss the Mall’s expansion.
Also in the packet was a newsletter called ‘MetroWest Matters’ that tried to cover the key issues of the past couple of months. She hoped to do the newsletter every other month and focus on the community exchange, which was an important part of the meetings. Another of her initiatives since assuming the role of director was to begin technical
DONNA JACOBS METROWEST GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: INTRODUCTION (contd)
assistance to member communities and it pleased her that she had been able to work with Mr. Sarkisian and Steven Greenberg, Natick Center Associates Director, in putting together a draft HOME plan for Natick. There were several other projects she talked to Mr. Sarkisian about with which she would be glad to help. This was covered by a special assessment paid by member municipalities and if the Board of Selectmen had an area in which it would like some assistance, she would be happy to help. Although traditionally a planner, she was a public official in her hometown so she thought she brought a different skill set to the job than other directors.
As the Selectmen’s designee to the MetroWest Growth Management Committee, Mr. McKinley stated that he was pleased to have the opportunity to formally introduce Ms. Jacobs to Natick. She joined the Committee in September and had extensive planning experience in Framingham and her presence had been immediately felt. Ms. Jacobs has been very proactive in helping the Committee step up and tackle some issues they would like to tackle but hadn’t been able to tackle.s In his opinion Natick had been well served and would be even better served than before.
CONTINUE PUBIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF RULES & REGULATIONS FOR CLUBS HOLDING ALCOHOL LICENSES
Mr. Hughes reported that there had been a lengthy meeting with the ABCC and he understood that the ABCC had agreed that proceeds meant net proceeds. He thought that was the only outstanding issue.
Mr. Ciccariello called attention to the latest version entitled Draft #4. A copy was in the briefing book and had gone out to all of the clubs.
Paul Carew, President and Trustee of the Amvets and Elks, thanked the Board of Selectmen and Town Counsel for going to the ABCC and getting the verbiage changed. That was a big thing holding this back. He noted that he looked through the whole document and Attorney John Locke contacted Mr. Hughes today about requiring permits for each and every function and in turn Mr. Hughes contacted Mr. Flynn.
Town Counsel John Flynn explained that the question raised was addressed by Page 3 Subsection 3. He thought the Board had anticipated this question and included the following provision, “The board may in its discretion grant a permit for more than one function…….” If the Board adopted the regulations as drafted, it would allow them to do what Mr. Carew was asking.
Mr. Ball inquired as to why it was necessary to include Item 4 on Page 2, which gave the Police and the Board of Selectmen access to the permitted premises during hours of operation. Mr. Flynn explained that the reason the Board as the licensing authority and permit granting authority would want to retain the authority was to see that its regulations were being complied with and this language allowed the Board, or through its Police Department, to be sure there was compliance.
Mr. Ball noted that there had been an issue of the ability of a designee of the Board of Selectmen to enter the premises of a club. This didn’t make any reference to the permit process. If there was no function going on, just the day-to-day operation, did this action give the Board of Selectmen and the Police the authority to enter at any time outside the operation of the permitted functions. Mr. Flynn advised that it would as long as it (access) was reasonably related to the function. There were a lot of scenarios that could be related to
the operation that didn’t happen to occur when a function was going on. Mr. McKinley pointed out that this license was for fund raising and functions in addition to their normal license, which already granted the Board the authority Mr. Ball was seeking.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
CONTINUE PUBIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF RULES & REGULATIONS FOR CLUBS HOLDING ALCOHOL LICENSES (contd)
Mr. Hughes then moved to adopt the rules & regulations shown as Draft #4 for granting permits to clubs for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages at Functions or Fundraising Activities Held at Clubs Licensed to Sell Alcoholic Beverages. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello thanked Mr. Carew and the clubs for their input and work.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to a timeframe for issuing the permits, and Ms. Challis described the process. The clubs would make an application, a hearing would be scheduled requiring newspaper notification and abutter notification. If approved by the Board of Selectmen, it would then go to the ABCC for final approval. Mr. McKinley suggested scheduling hearings for the second meeting in January and having the application forms forwarded to all the clubs.
CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN: PETITION FOR CHANGE IN OFFICERS/DIRECTORS
The Board was in receipt of a petition from California Pizza Kitchen, 1245 Worcester Street, for a change in officers & directors. Representing California Pizza Kitchen was Attorney Trish Farnsworth of Lawson & Weitzen,LLP.
Ms. Farnsworth told the Board that California Pizza Kitchen was a publicly traded corporation. The former president and secretary resigned and new individuals were appointed. Now there were co-presidents, Treasurer, Secretary, and two Vice-Presidents.
In the application, Mr. McKinley noted a letter from corporate attorney Jennifer Gallery indicating that the manager of record Jasmine Rowbotham was on maternity leave and, therefore, the licensed manager was not on the premises. Ms. Farnsworth advised that she did not know when the leave started, but she could find out. Mr. McKinley countered that the letter from Ms. Gallery said the name had changed from Lewan to Rowbotham, which was a married name, and that Ms. Rowbotham was currently on maternity leave. The licensed manager was apparently not there.
Ms. Farnsworth conceded that California Pizza Kitchen probably should have told the Board who would be taking over Ms. Rowbotham’s functions. There would be no point in doing a change in manager if she (Ms. Rowbotham) was on leave. Ms. Farnsworth told the Board that she would find out who was responsible now and when Ms. Rowbotham was coming back.
Mr. Hughes felt that Mr. McKinley’s point was well taken. The person on the license, who was responsible, hadn’t been there since November 8, 2004 and now it was almost 6-8 weeks later and nobody informed the Board that the manager wasn’t there. Ms. Farnsworth again offered to find out who was there, but Mr. Hughes didn’t know if that solved the problem. Who was there wasn’t responsible for the license and he was concerned.
Ms. Farnsworth stated that this was news to her and she would find out tomorrow.
Mr. Ball proposed tabling action on this petition until California Pizza Kitchen could get back and let the Board know when the licensed manager left, when she would return, who was minding the store in the interim and the Board could decide what action it should take in response to the fact that California Pizza Kitchen failed to notify the Board that the person whose name was on the license wasn’t there. The Board took this very seriously and he would like to see the Board not act on this petition tonight.
Mr. Ball moved to table. There was no second and no vote taken.
Mr. Ciccariello remembered just renewing these licenses, and Ms. Challis advised that the license was renewed on October 18 and the Police Department had verified the manager.
CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN: PETITION FOR CHANGE IN OFFICERS/DIRECTORS (contd)
To Mr. Ball’s tabling motion, Mr. McKinley noted that this particular matter was a separate issue from whether the licensed manager was on the premises. The issue tonight could be dealt with tonight with no real consequence. Perhaps the Board needed to have a hearing on why the licensee was operating all this time without an approved manager.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested that the Board send a letter to the Chicago attorney advising that California Pizza Kitchen was in violation of the liquor laws and a hearing would be scheduled.
Mr. Ball agreed that these were two separate issues and moved to schedule a hearing for January 10, 2005 on the issue of California Pizza Kitchen not having an approved manager on the premises. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the petition for a change in officers and directors. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Connolly questioned why the Board would want to go ahead with this one knowing there was an existing problem. Mr. Ciccariello explained that this application was for a change in officers and didn’t affect the issue of the manager. Mr. Connolly
stated that he disagreed with the idea of approving this when the Board knew there was something wrong.
Mr. McKinley felt that Mr. Connolly’s point was well taken, but the Board was dealing with a corporation that voted to change their directors on September 1, 2004. As a legal matter the directors were already different and the Board was only ratifying its acknowledgement that the corporation had changed their officers.
RICHARD YETMAN: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER/SEWER BILL
Richard Yetman of 61 Glen Street appeared before the Board to request an abatement of a portion of his excessively high water bill. He explained that 30 years ago he put in a water line for a vegetable garden. The line was four feet deep and ran under the driveway. This past spring the line developed a leak, which he did not know about until he received the water bill and figured out where the problem was. He understood that the Town was now putting in something to monitor water usage and notify someone if the normal usage was exceeded. The Water Department said that his usage was consistent with a family of three for all the years they (Yetmans) had been there, and his request was to pay the bill for the normal usage for the second and third period.
Mr. Ciccariello picked up on Mr. Yetman’s mention of two bills, but he had only referenced a bill of $420.10 in his letter. Mr. Yetman advised that there was another bill pending that he was expecting to receive soon. He (Mr. Yetman) noted that after he got the bill he figured out the problem and took care of it. He called the Water Department to make certain and when the came they read the meter and told him the amount of water he had used. This past week Mr. Palmer advised that the next bill was $502.10.
Mr. Hughes inquired if any part of the bill was related to sewer charges. Mr. Yetman advised that it was not. It was all water.
Mr. Ciccariello wasn’t sure the Board could deal with the second bill because it hadn’t been received as of yet and under the policy Mr. Palmer had to review it and discuss it with the Town Administrator. Mr. Yetman stated that that was fine and he could come back another time.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that generally it was the Board’s policy to abate that portion of a bill that was a sewer charge, but none of this was related to the sewer charge. This was all water.
RICHARD YETMAN: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER/SEWER BILL (contd)
In response to questions from Mr. McKinley, Mr. Yetman confirmed that there were no sewer charges involved – just water.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board could deal with this or continue it until Mr. Yetman got the other bill, but he (Mr. Ciccariello) suspected that if it were the same situation, the answer would be the
same. He asked the pleasure of the Board. There was no comment from any member of the Board, and Mr. Ciccariello advised Mr. Yetman that there would be no action taken which meant the bill remained.
NEW ENGLAND SPAS & SUNROOMS: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER/SEWER BILL
Representing New England Spas & Sunrooms of 35 Worcester Road was the President Norm Coburn.
Mr. Coburn appeared before the Board to request an abatement under the sewer portion of his 7/16/04 and 10/15/04 water & sewer bill.
Mr. Hughes noted that in Mr. Palmer’s November 3, 2004 letter to Mr. Coburn, Mr. Palmer indicated that the claim was based on water that was metered for use in a new irrigation system. Mr. Coburn explained that New England Spas did two new water things. One was a waterfall and the other an irrigation system to keep the plantings alive. There was a leak in the irrigation system and a possible leak from the waterfall. He received two high bills and knew he used the water, but it was the sewer part with which he had the problem. The water didn’t go into the sewer system, which Mr. Palmer acknowledged.
If the irrigation water and the waterfall were being metered through the irrigation meter, Mr. Hughes noted that Mr. Coburn wasn’t being charged for sewer. Mr. Coburn advised that New England Spas was remiss in installing a separate irrigation meter. They hired two companies and each thought the other had done that. They (New England Spas) were currently in the works of doing that (installing an irrigation meter) and if they had had it he wouldn’t be here.
Mr. McKinley asked if the bills in question included a sewer charge, and Mr. Palmer responded that they included a sewer charge because the water wasn’t run through an irrigation meter. When asked if there was a reason for recommending denial, Mr. Palmer replied that based on several visits by John Moody of the DPW this was a scenario where anybody with a single meter and using water for irrigation wouldn’t be charged for sewer. It would be similar to a swimming pool where the person didn’t have an irrigation meter and filled their pool twice because of a faulty line.
From what Mr. Palmer said, it was Mr. McKinley’s understanding that this was not so much a leak where the water was not intentionally used. In this case it was intentionally used and the fact that the applicant had not applied for a separate irrigation meter was the applicant’s fault.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the amount of money the Board was being asked to abate. Mr. Palmer didn’t have a copy of one of the bills, but one was $1,174.60 for sewer.
In Mr. Palmer’s November 3rd letter he indicated that on July 28, 2004 the Water Department had an individual go to New England Spas. That individual was not allowed entry into the basement and was told
everything was OK. Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Coburn was aware there was a leak at that point. Mr. Coburn stated that he was not aware of the incident and noted that he had 36 employees. In response to additional questions from Ciccariello, Mr. Coburn advised that he did not know if the individual from the Water Department was there to read the meter or for purposes of the over usage and he did not call to ask because he was not aware anyone had made a visit. Had he (Water Department employee) called and asked to meet, Mr. Coburn said he would have met with him. Mr. Coburn pointed out that according to the bill, the meter was read July 16, 2004.
NEW ENGLAND SPAS & SUNROOMS: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER/SEWER BILL (contd)
Mr. Coburn continued that in looking at the two years’ previous sewer payment, they ran between $57.00 and $102.00 average. The total abatement he was requesting was about $2,000 of sewer fees, which everybody was in complete agreement the water did not go into the sewer.
Mr. Ciccariello responded that he was not ready to take a position on this until he has seen the actual abatement figures from Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Hughes inquired if Mr. Moody went to New England Spas because there was a high reading. Mr. Palmer noted that that was why Mr. Moody went there on July 28th. Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau added that that was what Mr. Moody did before the bills went out. Mr. Moody checked the bills and notified the people getting the high bills.
Mr. Hughes asked if the bills had been paid, and Mr. Coburn advised that the first bill was paid. It wasn’t paid right away. They waited and sent the request to Mr. Palmer and $33.00 in penalties was added. That was paid in full. The most recent bill he just received.
Mr. Hughes stated that he was prepared to table for consideration, but wanted to know when the second bill was due. When told by Mr. Coburn that it was due January 3, Mr. Hughes asked if the interest and penalties could be stopped until the Board’s meeting on January 10. Mr. Palmer advised that if the Board made a decision to abate the bill, the interest and penalties would be adjusted.
Mr. McKinley inquired if New England Spas now had an irrigation meter installed, and Mr. Coburn said, ‘no’. His plumber had elected to hold off until the spring. Asked if he was prepared to commit before the irrigation system was turned on to having an irrigation meter installed, Mr. Coburn’s answer was, ‘on my honor.’
Mr. Coburn added that it was entirely possible that there was another month of this usage yet to come, and he would be happy to accept a favorable decision with the math to be determined. He thought it was reasonable to have a baseline of sewer usage applied to these two bills.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, the Board unanimously voted to table until January 10.
ABDULLA & RADHIA RABI: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER/SEWER BILL
Representing Abdullah & Radii Rabbi in their request for an abatement of their water & sewer bill for property at 123 Bacon Street was Attorney Solomon Feldman.
Mr. Feldman told the Board that he was requesting an abatement of the entire sewer portion of the bill covering two quarters from January 2003-June 30, 2003. His client had paid the total of $26,000 for the January-April period when the problem was discovered and that included interest and penalties. It was their advocacy that the water utilized never went down the sewer. It did go through the meter but on information provided by the Board of Health, it never went down the sewer. These were folks who suffered an immense loss and their advocacy was on the part of Nstar who shut them off. Nstar never sent the Rabi’s an electric bill, but claimed that the Rabi’s never paid and shut off their electricity a day or two before a hard cold freeze. The pipes burst and water flooded the
house.
Referring to Mr. Feldman’s comment concerning a claim against Nstar, Mr. Hughes asked if a portion of the claim was for the $26,000 water & sewer bill. Mr. Feldman advised that the claim was for all the damages and the water & sewer bill was an element. Mr. Hughes noted that if the $26,000 was recovered from Nstar the Rabi’s would be made whole. Mr. Feldman agreed that that would be the case if there was a recovery of that element. If an abatement was provided by the Town, the Rabi’s claim would be reduced by that amount.
ABDULLA & RADHIA RABI: REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF WATER/SEWER BILL (contd)
Mr. Ball inquired if the Rabi’s were in residence in the house at any time during the January-June 2003 period. Mr. Feldman advised that they were not. The Rabi’s were residents of Dubais and were not able to come back to the house because of the Patriot Act. To Mr. Ball’s comment that had the leak not occurred, there would have been no water usage, Mr. Feldman’s response was, “correct”.
Since all the water used was because of the leak, it seemed clear to Mr. Ball that to be consistent with past practice, an abatement of the sewer portion was a reasonable thing to request. He moved to abate the sewer portion as requested. Seconded by Mr. McKinley for discussion. After further discussion no vote was taken.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about insurance and if the insurance covered all of the damages including the water & sewer bill. Mr. Feldman advised that it did not, adding that the insurance only covered physical damage to the real estate and personal property but the major element was the mold damage for which there was a $10,000 cap. He was fighting with the insurance company but that was a separate issue.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he wanted some assurance that the individuals did not collect the damages from the insurance company and then ask to abate it. He was hearing that the Rabi’s did not receive any money from insurance for water & sewer bills. Mr. Feldman confirmed that that was the case.
Mr. Ciccariello then inquired as to the amount of the abatement being requested, but Mr. Feldman said he had been unable to determine what portion was sewer and what portion was water. His client never got the bills and all he knew there was the municipal lien certificate. Mr. Palmer advised that assuming there was no consumption the amount would be $14,699.85.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the reason this was not picked up was because it covered two billing periods. Mr. Palmer advised that that was correct.
Mr. Connolly pointed out that since there was a lawsuit it was possible that the Rabi’s could collect twice. Mr. Feldman assured the Board that there was no possibility that his clients could collect twice as they would have to identify their damages.
Mr. McKinley stated that he was going to suggest that he was prepared to vote against the motion on the floor and table until all other settlements, particularly with Nstar, had been closed. Mr. McKinley noted that part of the reason for Mr. Palmer’s denial was that it was so excessive because no one was monitoring the house.
Mr. Feldman confirmed as correct Mr. Lemnios’ statement that the property had been sold and the municipal lien certificate settled. His client had no interest in the property and all of the charges had been paid. Mr. Lemnios pointed out that the sale price of the property could have reflected the bill, but Mr. Feldman advised that it did not.
Mr. Connolly requested a copy of the settlement, and Mr. Feldman agreed to send a copy to the Board.
Mr. Hughes moved to table further discussion until January 10, 2005. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
In response to Mr. Hughes’ request to see the bills and municipal lien certificate, Mr. Feldman replied that he would provide copies of those as well as the settlement statement.
Noting that a visit was made to New England Spas, Mr. Connolly questioned why a visit hadn’t been made to the Glen Street and Bacon Street properties. If it was done as a follow-up, why not on those two. Mr. Ciccariello requested the Town Administrator to provide the Board with the answer.
METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER AGREEMENT
Having had the opportunity to review the agreement presented to the Board of Selectmen, Town Counsel John Flynn reported that he found the agreement to be consistent with the provisions of the agreement the Board voted last Monday and incorporated the changes the Board voted with the Framingham Board of Selectmen. One difference was #17. Last week the two boards contemplated deleting the provision. In this draft (the one before the Board tonight), the provision was intact with a sentence at the end “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Boards of Selectmen of the Towns of Framingham and Natick, not being parties to the Coalition Agreement, do not subscribe to the acknowledgement of this paragraph”. In his opinion that conveyed the sense of what the boards voted last week and was consistent.
Mr. Hughes moved approval and directed the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello signed the agreement.
A recess was called at 8:50 p.m. The meeting was again called to order at 8:55 p.m.
NATICK AUTO CLINIC: RENEWAL OF CLASS II LICENSE
Representing Natick Auto Clinic was Ralph Burns.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that Natick Auto Clinic’s license was up for renewal and some question arose as to whether Natick Auto Clinic was complying with the conditions set forth in the Zoning Board of Appeals decision. He understood that Natick Auto Clinic came before the Planning Board some time ago for an addition and a variance for a setback. The expansion was approved with some conditions but it was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that Natick Auto Clinic never proceeded with that work and the previous Planning Board permit was essentially expired and Natick Auto Clinic was under the original ZBA conditions. He further understood that when Natick Auto Clinic presented their argument to the ZBA they indicated that they would have five used vehicles for sale and 5-10 vehicles on the property for repairs, but
apparently there were occasions when more than that were on the property.
Mr. Burns told the Board that he thought he was there tonight because of the number of cars on the property for sale. The decision a few years ago was only for the expansion, which Natick Auto Clinic never acted on. He acknowledged that the number of cars allowed for sale was five. Sometimes they had less than that and occasionally they have customers that ask him to put their cars up there and some employees park their cars there and mark them for sale. As soon as he got the letter from the Selectmen, he talked to the employees about not marking cars for sale and he removed several vehicles and was paying to have those vehicles stored off site. At times there were other cars that belong to other dealers in for service and he had those removed as well. His intention was to have five cars or less as
stipulated on the license. He noted that the ZBA decision was related to when he
converted from a gas station and the initial request to obtain a Class II license.
Mr. Ciccariello felt that Mr. Burns was saying that since he got the Selectmen’s letter he (Mr. Burns) had addressed the issues and would make sure to comply with this in the future.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to Natick Auto Clinic’s primary business, and Mr. Burns replied that it was an auto repair facility.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that this wasn’t a new issue and had happened a couple of times. Mr. Burns recalled that one previous time he had an employee with about 15 cars. That was about eight years ago and had been addressed immediately upon notification.
Asked if the other cars on the premises were only there to be repaired, Mr. Burns responded that he had cars for service. Sometimes people
NATICK AUTO CLINIC: RENEWAL OF CLASS II LICENSE (contd)
don’t pick them up right away, but he has made signs for the other cars that say ‘not for sale’.
In follow-up Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Burns stored cars for any other dealers, and Mr. Burns’ reply was, “no”, noting that he serviced cars for other dealers.
Mr. McKinley moved to renew the Class II license for Natick Auto Clinic for 2005 in accordance with the commitment that Mr. Burns has and will continue with having the maximum of five cars for sale. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
DPW DIRECTOR: AWARD CONTRACTS
a. Catch Basin cleaning
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky advised that the contract for catch basin cleaning was bid on October 17, 2004 and bids were opened on November 2, 2004. Bids were received from three contractors with Truax Corporation the low bidder for the three-year period at $71,545.70. The intention was to have all catch basins in Town cleaned over the three-year period. It was being done in part because of the requirements of the storm water management plan.
Mr. Hughes inquired if l/3 of the Town would be done each year, and Mr. Sisitsky responded that that was the plan.
Looking at the range being the three bids from the low of $71,545.70 to the high of $163,426.00, Mr. Ball asked if there was any explanation for such an enormous spread between the bids. Mr. Sisitsky had none, noting that this was the second time it was bid. The first time it had the contractor take the material away. The feeling was that one company wanted the work more than the others. In follow-up Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Sisitsky had no doubt that Truax fully understood the bid specifications. Mr. Sisitsky indicated that he talked to them (Truax) and they knew the specifications.
Following up on Mr. Sisitsky’s comment that the first bid included taking away the material, Mr. Hughes inquired as to where the material would go. Mr. Sisitsky advised that it would be stored under DEP guidelines at the gravel pit and would be disposed of under a different budget. This (material) was not something that was going to be used at the gravel pit. Asked if the material was subject to testing, Mr. Sisitsky responded that Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois had been in contact with DEP and there was a protocol for disposing and testing.
Regarding being bid the second time, Mr. Ciccariello asked about the cost of the first bid and was told by Mr. Sisitsky that it was so significant that the decision was made to bid it this way. The feeling was that money would be saved doing it this way and the total cost would be less than having one company responsible for cleaning and disposing.
There had been a lot of planning about the gravel pit, and Mr. Hughes questioned what would happen if that were to happen. From all the discussions, it was Mr. Sisitsky’s understanding that the reuse of the gravel pit involved the front half and the DPW’s intention was to put the storage area for this toward the rear. Noting that the storage of the material would be closer to the pond, Mr. Hughes questioned if that put the pond at a higher risk. Mr. Sisitsky gave assurance that it would be far enough away so that it wouldn’t have any impact on the pond and it would be removed on an annual basis. It had been reviewed by DEP.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the methodology for storing the material so it didn’t enter the soil or escape, and Mr. Bois responded that he had talked to the DEP. Initially it was thought that it was in the Town’s best interest to combine cleaning and disposal, but there was a provision that allowed for temporary storage provided it was done in best management practices. The plan was put together for storage on a slab in a shed under cover allowing it to dry out over time. The
DPW DIRECTOR: AWARD CONTRACTS (contd)
practice had been run by DEP and they approved and were complimentary about it. It wasn’t like the Town was going into this blindly. The catch basin materials that were previously presented were tested and removed and showed it was non-hazardous and it was allowed to go to a landfill.
Mr. Ball noted that the stuff being hauled out of a catch basin was street sweepings and recalled some months ago the Town getting approval from DEP to mix street sweepings to be used in reconstructing the gravel pit. He wondered if there was a reason this material (catch basin) couldn’t be mixed in as well. Mr. Bois explained that over time the Town was doing disposal once a year and will be collecting data as it goes along. Hopefully the Town will be able to prove to DEP that a use can be found for the material. The sweepings were approved by DEP to go through a two-year demonstration period to stabilize the hill.
Mr. Connolly inquired if there was a reason why these projects couldn’t be done in-house with the Town’s own people. Mr. Sisitsky’s response was, “no”, but with regard to the catch basins the piece of equipment was very old. It was very expensive and it would be impossible for the DPW to get all of the work done in the three-year period required to do it under the Storm Water Management Plan. The other contract was for cleaning service and the DPW did not have the staff to do that.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about payment and performance bonds, and Mr. Sisitsky indicated that they were required.
Mr. McKinley moved to award the contract for catch basin cleaning to the low bidder, Truax Corporation, for a total of $71,545.70 covering a three-year period. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
b. Cleaning Services Bid
Mr. Sisitsky advised that the invitation to bid for the contract cleaning services was advertised on October 17, 2004 and bids were opened November 4, 2004. Seven bids were received with Clean Link the low bidder for a three-year period. The recommendation was that the contract be awarded to Clean Link.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the bid was for all municipal buildings other than schools, and Mr. Sisitsky’s response was, “yes”. Asked if the Town cleaned the Bacon Free Library, Mr. Sisitsky replied, “no”.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the prevailing wage rates and Mr. Sisitsky advised that the contract was not subject to the prevailing wage. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked about payment and performance bonds and insurance, and Mr. Sisitsky advised that they were required.
It was Mr. Connolly’s understanding that there was custodial staff at each of these buildings, but Mr. Sisitsky explained that there were maintenance people but this contract was strictly for cleaning. Mr. Connolly reiterated that there was at least one custodial/maintenance person at each of these buildings. Mr. Sisitsky acknowledged that that was correct, but noted that they were not there as many hours as was required to do this work.
A member of the audience Jeffrey Phillips inquired as to who was in charge of making sure the winner of the contract respected employment and immigration laws. Since the Town now had a procurement officer was he (procurement officer) signing off as to whether everything was done in proper fashion.
Mr. Lemnios advised that within the contract for cleaning there were provisions that required the contractor to respect all applicable labor laws and those provisions were beefed up. The procurement officer came on board a month ago and this was prior to that, but the DPW and other departments were meeting with the officer and making sure of these
DPW DIRECTOR: AWARD CONTRACTS (contd)
provisions. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the contract had to be reviewed by Town Counsel and signed by the Comptroller’s Office, but Mr. Lemnios noted that Town Counsel signed off as to form and the Comptroller to the availability of funds.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what was being awarded in terms of a contract amount and was told by Mr. Sisitsky that the hourly rate was $11.50 for approximately 8,200 per year. The contract was being awarded on an hourly rate and they were assigned to remain in a budgeted amount. The budget was in the Building Maintenance Department.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if a minimum vs maximum number of hours was established when it was put out to bid. Mr. Sisitsky advised that the number used was approximately 8,200 per year, but it was broken down by hours per building per day per week. When asked about the budget, Mr. Sisitsky responded that it was $96,000. DPW Business Manager John Craig noted that the custodial contract was $125,000 and included washing windows and stripping floors, but Mr. Sisitsky advised that the value of the contract the Board was being asked to approve was $94,000-96,000.
Mr. Hughes moved to award the three-year contract for cleaning service for municipal buildings to the low bidder Clean Link at a rate of $11.50 per hour for year 1, and $11.75 per hour for the second and third years. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
2005 WATER & SEWER RATES
Mr. Hughes stated that he had asked the Town Administrator to provide additional information with regard to the water & sewer rates. The Financial Operations Committee began a study of the proper level of reserves the Town might want to hold.
Mr. Hughes moved to table tonight’s discussion and schedule a new public hearing for January 24, 2005 so all the information could be discussed and vetted for the new rates. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
In seconding the motion Mr. McKinley commented that the work the Financial Operations Committee was doing started a couple of months ago long before this came up. It was somewhat broader than this but it was one of the dimensions flowing into this. He felt it was important to point out to the ratepayers that it meant the rates stayed the same no action was being taken until at least January 24.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Board was going to be in a position to consider what the Deputy Town Administrator was proposing in that time period. To him it seemed almost impossible to do that in that time.
Mr. Hughes responded that he was suggesting that the Board hold a hearing and at that point a decision could be made on the information
presented or a decision could be made that it needed additional study. Mr. McKinley felt that at some point an informed decision needed to be made and he agreed that some additional study was needed which may take several months, but he wanted the Board to get going. Mr. Connolly concurred with Mr. Hughes and Mr. McKinley.
Mr. Ciccariello requested that anybody who had information they would like to submit get it to him as soon as possible.
THE MATHWORKS: TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCE AGREEMENT
Deputy Stephen Lisauskas referenced the two documents before the Board relating to the Tax Incremental Finance Agreement with The MathWorks. This matter was before the Fall Town Meeting and pursuant to the discussion and approval of Town Meeting was the TIF document which was negotiated by Mr. Hughes and Mr. Lemnios and spelled out all the particulars with the TIF from the length of time to the value of the property and the tax increment of 1% for each year of the agreement. The second document was a document drafted at the insistence of Mr.
THE MATHWORKS: TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCE AGREEMENT (contd)
Hughes and Mr. Lemnios, which was the personal property memorandum of understanding. It provided additional protection for the Town. The MathWorks had manufacturer’s status and was exempt from personal property and if they lose that status they would still be exempt under the TIF. This memorandum says if they lose that manufacturer’s status, they would pay personal property taxes.
Mr. Lisauskas advised that there were no substantive changes from the draft received two weeks ago.
Mr. Lemnios cited the role Mr. Hughes played as being invaluable in the negotiation bringing not only his legal expertise but many years of service on the Finance Committee. The agreement could not have been accomplished without Mr. Hughes.
Noting that this agreement was authorized by Town Meeting in October 2004, Mr. Ciccariello asked for verification that there were no changes from what was presented to Town Meeting, i.e. the number of jobs or the percentage of exemption. Mr. Lisauskas gave assurance that the substantive element remained unchanged and noted that this agreement was vetted by the Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, Assessors and each had an opportunity to comment. It was substantially the same as presented to Town Meeting with maybe some minor verbiage changes. Asked if any feedback had been received, Mr. Lisauskas responded that he had received some feedback and any recommendations received were incorporated.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board sign the Tax Increment Financing Agreement between the Town and The MathWorks, Inc. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes then moved that the Board sign the Memorandum of Understanding regarding personal property taxes between the Town and The MathWorks, Inc. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
LICENSE RENEWAL
a. Bagelmania, Wholesale Auto Services
The Board was in receipt of notification from the Treasurer/Collector’s office advising that Bagelmania and Wholesale Auto Services were now current with all taxes and fees.
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to renew Bagelmania’s common victualer’s license for 2005 and Wholesale Auto Services Class II license for 2005 conditioned upon submission of a surety bond.
b. King Wok
Ms. Challis advised that the Treasurer/Collector’s Office had not received payment of the outstanding taxes.
Mr. Hughes moved to renew King Wok’s 2005 Common Victualer’s license conditioned upon the taxes being paid by December 31, 2004. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. As maker and seconder of the motion Mr. Hughes and Mr. McKinley accepted an amendment that the Natick Police Department be apprised if the license was not renewed by December 31. Unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Ball inquired as to what happened if King Wok paid on January 2. Mr. McKinley was of the opinion that if the license wasn’t renewed by December 31, it was suspended and the Board hadn’t granted the authority to renew the license after December 31st.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that last year the Board voted to approve the license and if the taxes weren’t paid or the paperwork submitted by December 31, then the licenseholder was given a notice saying they had “x” days to do so and they would have to pay a penalty. In this scenario, if King Wok didn’t meet its obligation for taxes and license renewal, the license was suspended and they would have to re-apply for a new license.
LICENSE RENEWAL (contd)
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the licenseholders had been getting notices since some time in October about the procedure. If they couldn’t get it in here by December 31, their license wasn’t renewed and should not be operating.
Mr. Ball asked if the maker of the motion would accept an amendment that the Natick Police Department be apprised. Otherwise they would just open up on January 1st. Mr. Lemnios noted that the date would have to be December 30 because Town Hall was closed December 31. It would mean that King Wok could serve food through December 31 midnight and could not open on January 1, 2005 or face enforcement. The next opportunity to come before the Board and rectify the situation would be January 10.
c. One Forty-Eight On Central
Mr. Ciccariello reminded the Board that the issue with One Forty-Eight on Central was relative to the CPA statements submitted for the renewal of the alcohol license. The statements indicated that alcohol sales at
the restaurant were 28%, which exceeded the 20% guideline. One Forty-Eight on Central had been asked to submit some information relative to that.
Looking at the wine list and the menu, Mr. Ball was convinced that the statement made by Mr. Maxwell that the service of alcohol was still incidental to the service of food was true. The 20% limit was established as a ground rule and to him (Mr. Ball) it was abundantly clear that it was still a restaurant, not a bar.
Mr. Hughes agreed that the 20% was a standard by which the Board may judge whether the service of alcohol was incidental. It wasn’t so easy for him to say it wasn’t a bar because he was concerned about setting a precedent. It did appear from the menu and the wine list that Mr. Maxwell would always be over the 20%. He too was convinced that this was not a bar and the service of alcohol was still incidental to the service of food, but he didn’t want to set a precedent and he didn’t want it to be that easy to have an exception to a rule that has been around as long as he could remember.
Mr. McKinley didn’t believe this was setting a precedent but making a reasonable judgment. He understood Mr. Hughes’ concern but if it came up again he would suggest that the Board do the same thing and request further information to make a judgment. The average cost of a bottle of wine exceeds just about every item on the menu. If someone came in with an average bottle of wine at $8-10 and the percentage was that high, it would be a problem.
Mr. McKinley moved to renew the license for 2005. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was at the same point as Mr. Hughes. The Board had to be fair and reasonable, but moving forward he didn’t want to see this jump any higher. He thought that it should be conveyed that the Board was watching and had a concern and didn’t want Mr. Maxwell back here next year at 34%.
Natick Center Associates Director Steven Greenberg understood the issue, but also understood that this was an issue for developing the downtown and attracting upscale restaurants. Fine wines were part of the package and he would ask the Board of Selectmen to look at this favorably this year. He would not want to have a message sent that Natick had a problem with fine dining and fine wines.
56 EVERETT STREET
Deputy Town Administrator Stephen Lisauskas noted that there was a residential piece of property of .51 acres surplused by the Board of Selectmen some time ago. An attempt was made to sell the property on three occasions. The Town departments do not currently have a use for it nor do they project a future use for the property. In 2000 it had an assessed value of $175,000 and most recently in November 2003 it was assessed at $325,000. In February 2004 and May 2004 the property was
56 EVERETT STREET (contd)
offered, but no bids were received. No one was interested in it at $325,000. The MGL provides for the sale of property below the appraised value, but notice must be posted in the Central Register. The Town would need to publish the fact that property was being sold below the assessed value and why.
Mr. Lisauskas suggested a price of $250,000 noting that the Town could go out for $300,000, then $275,000 and keep scaling down.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of authorizing the sale at $250,000. Seconded by Mr. Ball. After further discussion no vote was taken.
To Mr. Ball it seemed as though the Town hired an expert firm and now had an appraisal that was not matching up with the market place, and he would very much like to hear why the appraiser thought that might be the case. In the future he would like to have a better feel for how much confidence to have in an appraisal.
Mr. Hughes noted that this was a l/2 acre lot in South Natick and all that being equal and nothing else, he knew that it was not a bad (price), but there were some wet areas on the property, which made the footprint of the house that could be built somewhat limited. Why the appraiser didn’t find that was a separate question.
As this was considered to be a Furcolo lot, Mr. Ciccariello said he had been perplexed over why there had been no bidders. This was the first time he heard about wetlands, and he was not prepared to vote this until he had a better sense of why the appraiser felt this was worth $350,000. He would rather have the answer before trying to sell it. The Town wasn’t desperate to sell it and he would rather have some assurance that the Town was getting top dollar before putting it on the market. Then the question was where would the money go.
Mr. Hughes advised that the money would go into the surplus property account and could be used only for capital. Mr. Ciccariello asked about affordable housing, but Mr. Hughes thought that that might be a stretch.
Mr. Lisauskas agreed that there was not a rush to sell this property. It was surplused in 2000 and there were attempts to sell in the past. It was listed with a real estate agent and was advertised in the paper. The limitation seemed to be on the market end. Two appraisals were done – one in 2001 for $175,000 and the most recent in 2003 for $325,000.
Mr. Hughes asked about the history and Ms. Challis explained that Town Meeting set the figure of $225,000. A bid came in at $235,000, but the bidder backed out.
Mr. Lisauskas stated that he would see if he could get the appraiser to come in.
Mr. Ciccariello moved to table. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
In speaking to the tabling motion, Mr. McKinley inquired as to the rationale for tabling. The Board wasn’t saying to sell it for $250,000 – just lower the minimum price and if the Town can get $275,000-300,000, then go for it. What’s the alternative of sitting on it for a while? Regardless of what the appraiser says, nobody in the marketplace was interested at $350,000.
Mr. Hughes proposed doing both and if the bids came back at $250,000-275,000, the Board didn’t have to accept it. Mr. Ciccariello responded that he was not prepared to accept a low bid at $250,000 based on what saleable lots have been selling for in Natick.
Since there was no great rush to sell it, Mr. Ball suggested that the Board hear from the Board of Assessors.
PARKING GARAGE FEES
Mr. Lemnios reminded the Board that at the last meeting the fees for the commuter lot at St. Patrick’s were set at $550 for residents and $650 for non-residents.
The recommendation being made tonight was to keep the same annual rate at the Middlesex garage for 2005.
When asked why he was recommending maintaining the same rate, Mr. Lemnios responded that the Town was providing the same facility in a diminished condition. He added that there was no difficulty selling the parking stickers and the Board of Selectmen and other groups have been seeking a long-term solution for parking downtown.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the actual dollars generated in permit fees for this facility, what it was costing to operate, and if there were any funds left over if some remedial maintenance repairs could be done. Mr. Lemnios advised that the Town had set aside $10,000 per year in remedial repairs and was prepared to increase it to $25,000 in 2005. He would have to get the exact revenue stream from the Comptroller, but the rates would cover the $25,000 and the repairs must be done.
Mr. Ball inquired if the Town oversold the permits and was told by Mr. Lemnios that for this particular facility the Town did not. The nature of the parking was servicing several downtown businesses and their employees show up regularly. The commuter lot could be oversold because some people were buying a space to ensure they had a space when needed.
Mr. Hughes moved to keep the 2005 parking permit rates for the Middlesex garage the same as 2004. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry as to the number of permits sold for the Middlesex garage, Mr. Lemnios advised that there were 186 parking spots and 120 or so permits were sold. Some spots were left open for public use during the day.
Mr. Connolly asked if there was a waiting list, and Mr. Lemnios advised that there was a waiting list but it was not broken down into resident and non-resident. This facility primarily serves the banks and downtown businesses. St. Patrick’s was for commuters and in that lot the distinction was made between resident and non-resident.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. District Improvement Financing
Mr. Hughes stated that he was interested in the District Improvement Financing and would like to get it on the next agenda and get it moving forward. It may provide a way for the Town to invest in an infrastructure in a parking garage.
b. Natick Cab Complaint
The Board was in receipt of a letter from Ann Karnofsky complaining that the Natick Cab required a minimum charge to use a credit card. Ms. Karnofsky alleged that that was in violation of the agreement between the cab company and the credit card company. She had contacted the Attorney General’s Office and was referred to the Board as the licensing authority.
Mr. Ball wanted to know if Ms. Karnofsky’s allegations were accurate and if they were he would request that Mr. Lemnios investigate with the cab company and see if this was their policy. If it were true, it did not seem appropriate and he would want to invite the cab companies to come in to find out what it was all about.
c. Naming Neighborhood Bus
A moment of silence had been observed in memory of Linda Saulnier who was the first coordinator of the neighborhood bus. Mr. Ball recalled that Ms. Saulnier had done her job with skill, unfailing good humor and a fine sensitivity to her budget, and with sensitivity of the drivers and the needs of the public. He suggested that the Board think about
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
naming one of the buses in Linda’s memory and thought there was precedent. Ms. Saulnier never learned to drive and was, therefore, highly motivated to make the bus system work. He thought she would smile at the idea that she would still be riding around Town but wouldn’t have to pay a fare.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Ball to put something together for the Board to look at and it would be put on the agenda.
d. MMA Delegation of Vote
Mr. McKinley noted that the first weekend in January was the MMA show and each municipality had one vote granted to the Board of Selectmen Chair, but the Chair may delegate an alternative member. If it was not Mr. Ciccariello’s intention to attend the conference, Mr. McKinley
asked that the Board vote to direct Mr. Ciccariello to authorize him (Mr. McKinley) to cast a vote.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that he would probably be going this year.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
______________________________
Charles M. Hughes, Clerk
| 
