BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
December 22, 2003
6:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley. Absent: Jeffrey A. Stern
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on December 22, 2003 in the amount of $1,409,839.25. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $3,211,439.36.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation and real property negotiations. 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.
MINUTES
Mr. Hughes moved approval of the minutes of the September 29, 2003 meeting with corrections as noted by Mr. Ball. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ball abstained on discussion and votes occurring before 8:30 p.m.
WILLIAM H. HARRIS COMPANY: APPLICATION FOR TRANSIENT VENDOR LICENSE
The Board was in receipt of an application from William H. Harris Company for a transient vendor permit to hold a fur sale at the Crowne Plaza from January 16-18, 2004.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that it had been the Board’s policy for the last two years not to grant permits to outside vendors who were in competition with Natick vendors.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Board did grant the Harris Company a permit two years ago. He asked if they had applied since then and was told by Ms. Challis that they had not.
Mr. McKinley recalled that it was about two years ago when the Board’s sensitivity was raised and although it was not an official policy, the
Board was sensitive to a transient vendor coming in and competing with an established business in Town. It was his personal opinion that the
Board should not allow someone to come in and compete with Town businesses. He would not vote in favor.
Mr. Ball, however, wasn’t aware of any fur garment vendors in Town and couldn’t think of anyone’s business that would be harmed. Mr. McKinley responded that he would be surprised if Lord & Taylor or Macy’s didn’t sell fur coats and added that it didn’t have to be just Natick. It could be the local area.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of granting the William H. Harris Company a transient vendor license to conduct a fur sale at the Crowne Plaza on January 16-18, 2004. Seconded by Mr. Ball. The motion failed on a 2-2-0 vote. Mr. Ball and Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. McKinley were opposed.
B&B LAND CORP: WINTER OAKS ACCEPTANCE OF OPEN SPACE PARCELS (3)
Representing B&B Land Corp was Peter Burke, President.
Mr. Burke stated that this was a continuation of a process that began with the Planning Board approval of a parcel off Winter Street and was consistent with a settlement agreement between the Town, B&B Land Corp, and the Conservation Law Foundation. Mr. Burke showed a diagram of the three parcels of land in question to be accepted by the Town. They were lots #66, 81, and 82 on Land Court Plans. He noted that Lot 66 was primarily wetlands and lots 81 and 82 combined for almost four acres of which probably 70% were wetlands. The Town originally owned and still does own three lots along the road and 2-l/2 years ago the Town purchased other lots and these three lots complete the whole section.
Mr. Hughes inquired if these would be conservation restricted also. Would they be held by the Conservation Commission or the Town of Natick. Mr. Burke advised that it was the Town of Natick.
Mr. McKinley inquired if there had been any discussion with the Planning Board about turning it over to the care of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Ciccariello, who had been a member of the Planning Board, didn’t believe there had been any discussion of that at the time. Mr. McKinley pointed out that a significant amount of the land involved the wetlands.
Having worked on this matter while on the Planning Board, Mr. Ciccariello thanked Mr. Burke for his cooperation. Mr. Burke thanked the Town.
Mr. Hughes moved to accept Lot 66, Lot 81, and Lot 82 along Winter Street. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Burke presented the Board with the deed to the property.
Before the Board was a petition for a change in manager for CSM d/b/a Courtyard by Marriott from Peter D’Angelo to Andrew Wardwell.
Mr. Wardwell told the Board that he recently came back to the Natick Courtyard as the general manager. He had been back since October and the previous manager left about two weeks ago.
Mr. Ball asked about Tips certification and Mr. Wardwell advised that the entire food and beverage staff was Tips certified.
Mr. McKinley moved approval of the change in manager from Peter D’Angelo to Andrew Wardwell. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
BUCA, INC. D/B/A VINNY TESTA’S: MODIFICATION OF LICENSE TO ALLOW FOR BAR STOOLS
Representing Buca, Inc. d/b/a Vinny Testa’s was Bernie Cullin, Division Vice-President and Joshua Rossmeil, general manager.
Mr. Cullin noted that Vinny Testa’s was seeking a modification of the liquor license to allow for 14 bar stools. The seating capacity in the entire restaurant, not including the 14 stools, was 242. The 14 bar stools would not increase the seating capacity already licensed.
Looking at the floor plan, Mr. Hughes questions if some of the seating was lounge seating. Mr. Cullin responded that it could be interpreted as that, but they served a full menu. Mr. Hughes asked about the area designated as café dining, and Mr. Cullin explained that that was not lounge seating. It was a banquet room.
On a motion by Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Board unanimously voted to approve a modification of Buca, Inc. d/b/a Vinny Testa’s liquor license to permit 14 bar stools.
STEVEN GARTRELL: HOME CONSORTIIUM
Steven Gartrell, administrator of the West Metro HOME Consortium, told the Board that he was not there as an advocate for the Consortium
STEVEN GARTRELL: HOME CONSORTIIUM (contd)
although as a resident he hoped the Selectmen would avail the Town to it. He thought that unfortunately this was a limited opportunity to join.
Mr. Gartrell explained that the home program was enacted in 1992. Only the largest cities were eligible, but the law allowed communities to join together and receive funding. Funding could be used to develop affordable housing, acquisition and conversion or it could provide funding for homeowner assistance and rental assistance. Funds could be used for soft (engineering, architectural) and hard (acquisition, construction) costs. In 1992 the consortium had four members. Four more members were added and there has been a request from a number of communities to join. This year the consortium received 1.7 million. The consortium was governed by a council that met quarterly.
Mr. Gartrell continued that some of the requirements for adding new members were that they must be contiguous with other members or new members. Framingham, Wellesley, Lexington, Natick, and Sudbury have expressed an interest. Many current members believe the consortium has expanded too fast and after this round there was likely to be a moratorium for five years. Framingham was so anxious to join that they talked Sudbury into joining so they would be contiguous.
With respect to the advantages, Mr. Gartrell noted that it provided reliable annual funding. The program has been popular over the years with Congress. Funding has been received over most of the past 11 years and it was proposed for funding this year. It also made a statement that the community was committed to affordable housing and provided additional discretionary funds under EO-418. It could be used to leverage other project funding. Another advantage was that the consortium provided an exchange of ideas and there was the possibility of sharing resources, project or administration costs with other members. Mr. Gartrell also noted that HUD looked at the consortium as a whole and if the consortium met the restrictions, the individual communities met the restrictions.
In order for a community to gain entry, the HOME council must vote to admit the community. The next meeting was January 8, 2004 so the Board must decide if it wished to apply for membership in time for that January 8th vote. Subsequent to that there would need to be a formal resolution from the Board. The Board would have to sign a mutual cooperation agreement and would have to commit to some level of administrative capability either on staff or through a consultant to do some of the things necessary. The Town would also have to do a housing plan. It was his understanding that the Town was already working on such a plan and it would have to meet the requirements of the program. The Town would have to have someone on staff to administer the funding and provide assistance. There was a
consultant for the consortium as a whole and the consultant could work with the Town’s consultant or staff person.
Mr. Gartrell referred to a table showing the current members and how much each community was getting and an estimate for each prospective member. A close corollary was found between rental units and dollars. Natick had 3,700 rental units in the community and the percentage in poverty was 8.48% or the equivalent of 26%. It was projected that the Town would receive about $98,000. Lincoln only got about $10,000 and they still believed it was a valuable thing to be a member.
Mr. Gartrell reviewed the requirements. The Town would have to have administrative capacity but would be allowed to use up to 7% of the grant to hire a consultant. The Town would have to contribute 3% to the consortium for administration. HUD required a commitment of funds within two years and expended within five years. The Town would have to meet CHDO requirements, which was 15% of the allocation, but this was a case where the consortium as a whole could meet CHDO requirements. The Town would not have to use any specific CHDO and
could form one itself if so inclined, but the CHDO would get 15% of the allocation and if the consortium got the 15% the Town would not have to (provide 15%). The Town would have to meet the 25% match requirements.
STEVEN GARTRELL: HOME CONSORTIUM (contd)
Mr. Gartrell clarified that that did not mean Town funds. The Town could use inkind donations, i.e giving land. If a bank gave a discount rate, that counted as a match. The Town receives Mass rental vouchers and the Town could work with the Housing Authority and count those as a match. Currently the consortium had five times the match needed so Natick would not need to have a match the first few years.
In defining the issues Mr. Gartrell cited the administrative complexity but pointed out that although it was a complex program to administer, there was a consultant. Other issues were the commitment, expenditure, CHDO and match requirements. As to potential costs, Mr. Gartrell advised that at this point no community in the consortium had allocated funds that they hadn’t wanted to allocate for a specific project, and he expected that to continue. There were the costs of administrative time whether it was staff or consultant to develop a housing plan, work with developers to ID and develop projects, develop/monitor agreements, track budgets and review requisitions, and attend council meetings.
Mr. Gartrell outlined the schedule for becoming a new member. There was the January 8, 2004 council meeting at which the council would vote on adding new members; March 1 the consortium notified HUD which members it would be adding; April-May members execute the mutual cooperation agreement; June 30 the mutual cooperation agreement went to HUD; July 1, 2005 funding for new members.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to the downside – why the Board wouldn’t want to do it. Mr. Gartrell responded that the worst case would be that the Town couldn’t find a project to fund. There was no cost to the community. Natick would be a member for a minimum of three years and then could opt out. Money could be stockpiled if the Town wanted to work on a particular project. The downside was staff cost and administrative cost. $7,000 would probably get adequate consultant time since he knew the Town’s staff was burdened at this time. Lincoln, Bedford and others had hired consultants and they appeared to be satisfied with the way the process was working.
As Mr. Gartrell had been the chair of the Open Space Advisory Committee, Mr. McKinley asked if there were lots in Natick that might be prime targets for affordable housing. Mr. Gartrell replied that there were potentially some sites – some more developable for housing. He thought the direction the Town was going was in developing overlay districts and that was a more likely way to go. Natick was pretty well built out.
Mr. McKinley then inquired if the funding allowed the Town to give incentives for a private developer to build affordable housing. Mr. Gartrell’s response was, ‘yes’, adding that the developer would have to meet the HOME requirements for the specific units but it was possible.
Noting that if the overlay district were developed downtown water and sewer would be needed, Mr. Hughes asked if the funds would cover those costs. Mr. Gartrell advised that the funds could not be used for water & sewer. This was exclusively for housing development not infrastructure.
When asked who administered the money, Mr. Gartrell responded that it depended on the towns. In larger towns it was usually Community Development or the Planning Board. In smaller towns it was the consultant. If the Town got $100,000, Mr. Hughes inquired as to who decided which project got the funding. Mr. Gartrell noted that it was the local chief executive. It was the Board of Selectmen who decided the use of funds.
Mr. Ball asked if the money was required to be held in escrow. Mr. Gartrell explained that it was federal money and HUD never allowed money out of its hands until it was spent. It sat in a letter of credit with HUD. There was a two-year requirement, but if there were a danger of losing those funds the consortium would capture the funds and reallocate.
STEVEN GARTRELL: HOME CONSORTIUM (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello thought the program sounded similar to the Small Cities and asked if it would allow the Town to use some funds if there was a resident who needed a handicapped ramp and qualified under affordable. Mr. Gartrell’s response was, ‘yes’, adding that housing rehab was eligible although most of the communities preferred to use it for first-time homebuyer assistance.
Mr. Lemnios noted that he had asked Mr. Gartrell to come tonight and introduce the Board to the program. If the Board were inclined, it would be on the agenda for January 5.
In terms of the January 8 meeting, Mr. Gartrell noted that if the Board could give an indication of its intent tonight that Natick would like to be considered, that would give the Town agenda time on January 8 for someone from the Town to present the request. It would require someone to attend the council meeting and the council would be looking for some level of commitment from the Town in pursuing the funding and administrating it.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Housing Partnership would qualify and was told by Mr. Gartrell that they would. The Town would retain control but the Housing Partnership could represent the Town at council meetings. The head of the Lincoln Housing Partnership attended.
Mr. McKinley thought this was something the Board should move forward on and express its interest this evening. It could be discussed further at the meeting of January 5, but it sounded like a good program.
Mr. Ciccariello agreed. He knew of other communities that had done this successfully through Small Cities grants for showers, handicapped ramps, etc.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board indicate its intent to join the consortium. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
SUNDAY PACKAGE STORE OPENING
Mr. Lemnios advised that recently the State legislature passed a provision in the MGL that allowed package stores to stay open on Sundays year round. Town Counsel did some legal research and came back with an opinion that if package stores desired to stay open after the holiday season, they would have to come in as individual requests.
Natick Wine & Spirits owner Peter Turlo told the Board that the purpose of getting this before the Board was that this was the last meeting before the end of December. It wasn’t clear, but he believed the package stores would have to close January 4 and that was the beginning of football season.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to the possibility of extending the Sunday holiday opening to include January 4, but Ms. Challis advised that that couldn’t be done. The holiday time period was specific.
Mr. McKinley asked about the requirements for a hearing and Ms. Challis responded that a public hearing was not required. It just had to be an agenda item. It was a local licensing authority approval and did not require ABCC approval.
Referring to Mr. Turlo’s letter, Mr. McKinley questioned if the letter was a request to open on Sundays. Mr. Ciccariello interpreted it to be Mr. Turlo asking for consideration on the matter. Mr. McKinley agreed, but asked if it was specific to Natick Wine & Spirits. Mr. Hughes asked if the other license holders understood that Mr. Turlo was there tonight on their behalf.
Mr. Turlo responded that he had called the majority of the license holders to ask where they were at and he got the impression that they saw it (Sunday opening) as inevitable. The majority would just as soon be closed on Sundays but his feeling was that the majority of the Towns would approve the Sunday opening.
SUNDAY PACKAGE STORE OPENING (contd)
A provision of the statute provided that the Board could allow package stores to be open on Sundays but limit sales to six days a week and require them to be closed on another day. If Mr. Turlo could only be open six days, Mr. Ball inquired as to which day he would close. Mr. Turlo thought Tuesday would probably be the best. If he could only be open six days a week, that would be the day he would pick.
Mr. Ball noted that his wife worked for Filenes and Filenes was open seven days a week. Some days they opened at 7:00 a.m. and closed some nights at midnight. He had a strong opposition to stores being open
seven days a week – not on religious grounds, but the people who work in the establishments were folks with other lives and deserve some days in which work wasn’t part of it. He would be supportive of backing any day the package stores wanted to close, but he was not supportive of the seven-day opening. He was reluctant to add to the tidal wave. He was disposed to vote OK for a Sunday opening but only if another day was picked.
Mr. Turlo explained that he was not saying that he was going to open seven days and require employees to work seven days. He planned to work on Sundays and would be off Saturday. People would work the same and the rest covered by part-timers.
Mr. McKinley moved to grant Natick Wine & Spirits permission to open on Sundays effective January 4, 2004 and reserve the right to reconsider that permission when the Board had an opportunity to discuss it more fully with the other package stores with Mr. Stern present. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. No vote was taken on the motion following additional discussion and the passage of a subsequent motion.
In seconding the motion, Mr. Hughes inquired if the maker of the motion was suggesting seven days a week. Mr. McKinley responded that he was empathetic to Mr. Ball and if he (Mr. McKinley) had his druthers he would re-enact the Blue Laws. He did not object to a six-day limit if that could be done legally, but he would like to hear what the package store owners had to say and he would like to hear what Mr. Stern had to say.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that his preference would be to have Mr. Stern present to discuss the matter. He was probably leaning with Mr. Ball with respect to not granting anything beyond what the Board had granted. Mr. Hughes asked if Mr. Ciccariello was saying that he was inclined not to grant (Natick Wine & Spirits request for Sunday opening) because the Board only granted the holiday period and wouldn’t do it without Mr. Stern being present. Mr. Ciccariello responded that that was correct.
Mr. Ball questioned if the motion allowed only Natick Wine & Spirits to be open on all Sundays hereafter or was it specifically just for January 4. Mr. McKinley explained that the motion granted Natick Wine & Spirits permission to be open on all Sundays but reserved the right to undo that permission when the Board could get into it in a little more depth. It was a specific request for January 4. Tonight was the only night for the Board to consider an opening on January 4, but the Board could reconsider it on January 5, 2004.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello if he would consider changing the motion to the specific January 4 date, Mr. McKinley responded that he had no problem.
Mr. Hughes questioned if the Board could do that, and Mr. Turlo responded that he thought the administration was allowed to do that.
Mr. Turlo added that 6 vs 7 days was hard for him to understand. He cited the confusion to the public by saying that the store would be open on Sunday but closed on Tuesday and that was difficult for him to deal with. If he were allowed to be open on January 4, he would want to be back before the Board on January 5.
SUNDAY PACKAGE STORE OPENING (contd)
Mr. McKinley noted that the licensing authority had the option of limiting it to six days and on January 5 Mr. Turlo would have to decide which was more important – did he want to open on Sundays. His thinking was that on January 5 the Board would discuss and condition any approval with whatever adjustments or modifications they thought were important.
Mr. Hughes stated that he was not inclined to agree with Mr. Ball.
Mr. Ball questioned if the Board were now voting permission for Natick Wine & Spirits and not the others to open on one Sunday, January 4. He questioned if that was fair and equitable to the other establishments or should the Board say that any other establishment that cared to be open on January 4 could and advise them all that on January 5, 2004 there would be a discussion on this.
Mr. McKinley thought Mr. Ball’s suggestion was the equitable thing to do and asked if that could be done. Mr. Lemnios thought the safest course might be on January 5 to make a determination whether the Board wanted to grant a Sunday permit to any license holder who applied between now and January 5. Mr. Turlo was a competitor of the other six establishments, and maybe the safest would be to forgo one Sunday and take it up on the 5th when all license holders were notified that the Board would take it up. He noted that the Board wasn’t sure Mr. Turlo’s letter would suffice and pass Town Counsel muster for being a suitable application for a Sunday opening permit.
Mr. Hughes felt that the Board could still grant all package stores a permit and it would be up to them whether they wanted to use it, but Mr. Lemnios advised that only the ones that made an application (could be granted the permit). Mr. Hughes countered that the Board could grant every liquor store license holder a permit to be open. That didn’t mean they had to apply. It was Mr. Lemnios’ belief that Town Counsel said that each license holder had to make an application, but Mr. Hughes read it as each needing an individual permit.
Mr. McKinley understood what Mr. Lemnios was saying. The safest thing was to do nothing and come back on January 5. The problem was that of the seven establishments six weren’t here and they were aware the legislation had passed and the temporary permit expired January 1st. One of the seven took it upon himself to write the letter and come tonight. He thought Mr. Ball was proposing that the Board make the Sunday permit available for all seven package stores for January 4 and take it up again on January 5. That way it was not a disadvantage for the other six who weren’t here because they didn’t do their homework or didn’t think about it. He hesitated to do nothing until January 5
because one person did show the motivation to come and show why the January 4 date was important for his business.
Mr. Turlo was hopeful that by January 5 other towns would deliberate on this question. He felt that it might take a few more weeks before it was perfected and there would be a better feel for what he thought was a domino effect because competitively all the store owners knew they would have to open.
Mr. Hughes moved to grant a Sunday opening permit to all package stores for the hours of noon to 8:00 p.m. on January 4, 2004. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
At Mr. Hughes’ request the Board agreed to direct the administration to send a letter to each license holder informing them of the vote and letting them know that if they wished to continue to be open on Sundays, they would need to be here on January 5 at which time the Board would discuss the matter of Sunday permits. Mr. Ball noted that he would be interested in hearing from each of the seven license holders as to whether they would accept the six-day week. He asked that the letter apprise them of that possibility. Mr. McKinley suggested that the letter should make it clear that the license holders would need to submit something in writing prior to January 5 that they were making application.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had to appoint someone from the Historical Commission and someone from the downtown business organization to serve on the Design Review Board that was established by Fall Town Meeting. The only action tonight was to notify those organizations to present the Board with some names of people interested in being on this committee.
Mr. Hughes questioned if the expectation was that the Historical Commission and Natick Center Associates would each submit one name and then the Board would be limited to that one individual and didn’t get to deliberate. That wouldn’t end up as an appointment of the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Lemnios noted that the position Town Meeting approved limited the candidate pool from which the Board had to choose.
Mr. McKinley noted that there were seven members on the Historical Commission, but Natick Center Associates was fairly large. The language said ‘who serves on a downtown business organization’, and did that mean on their board. Mr. Ball was a Natick Center Associates member but not on their board. The definition was unclear.
Mr. Lemnios’ interpretation was that it would be someone on their executive board and pointed out that the Executive Director didn’t serve on the board. He suggested that the Board could ask Natick Center Associates to submit multiple names.
Mr. McKinley proposed that the Board send a letter to everyone on the Historical Commission and ask anyone who was interested to submit a letter to the Board. For the Natick Center Associates it was a little trickier. If the language meant specifically it had to be a member of the board, they would probably want to decide which member of their board represented their interest so in effect maybe they were being asked to pick a member. Mr. Ball suggested just asking Natick Center Associates who they would like and let them decide if it should be a member of their board. Mr. McKinley indicated he was OK with that.
LICENSE RENEWAL - 2004
a. Common Victualer’s Licenses
The Board was in receipt of notification from the Collector’s Office that King Wok’s tax account was now current.
Mr. Hughes moved to renew King Wok’s Common Victualer’s license for 2004. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Having been informed by the Collector’s office that Pizza Peddler no longer had any tax delinquencies, Mr. Hughes moved to renew Pizza Peddler’s common victualer’s license for 2004.
Ms. Challis explained that three quarters of outstanding water & sewer bills for DeliMax had been liened to the property owner. Mr. Hughes asked if that meant that DeliMax no longer had a bill that was a year old, and Ms. Challis responded that that was correct.
As they were really not a year in arrears at this point, Mr. Hughes suggested that the Board could renew the license and put it back on the agenda for March 31 and suspend it at that time if they were one year in arrears.
Mr. Ciccariello found the license renewal to be questionable since DeliMax hadn’t paid. Mr. Hughes responded that he too was not in favor of renewing the license, but on paper DeliMax was not more than one year in arrears.
Mr. Ball moved to renew DeliMax’s common victualer’s license for 2004. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
c. Class II, III
The Board was in receipt of notification from the Collector’s Office that Central Auto Parts was current in their tax account.
LICENSE RENEWAL – 2004 (contd)
Mr. Hughes moved to renew the Class II and Class III licenses for Central Auto Parts for 2004. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
d. Entertainment
Mr. Hughes moved to renew Loew’s Theatre’s entertainment and automatic amusement device licenses for 2004. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Loew’s had $12,000 in outstanding water & sewer bills that were not a year delinquent, but since Lowe’s would be closing their operation the end of January/February, the question raised at the last meeting was if there was some way the Town could ensure collecting this payment. There was also a question as to Loew’s Chapter 11 status.
Town Counsel advised that the Board could not hold the license renewal for tax delinquency. Mr. Hughes requested that Town Counsel be directed to protect the Town’s rights and interest in the bankruptcy proceeding to ensure that the Town got paid.
MILITARY PAY
Mr. Lemnios noted that there was one employee still on reserve status in Iraq. Periodically the Board had extended the provision to allow the differential between his Town pay and military pay and allow him to retain his Town health insurance status. He (Mr. Lemnios) recommended that it be extended by another six months and revisited June 30.
Mr. Hughes so moved. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
FINANCIAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Mr. Lemnios reported that the Finance Committee Chair had appointed Lynn Mattice and Gail Kaprielian as the two Finance Committee representatives to the Financial Operations Committee. With those appointments the full membership was now constituted and a meeting of the committee would be in early January.
Mr. McKinley noted that ultimately the work needed to be done by Spring Town Meeting and ideally with enough time before for the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee to consider recommendations which meant that it pretty much had to be done in January and February. As it moved into January, the Finance Committee would be meeting Tuesday and Thursday and the Board of Selectmen met on Monday. That only left Wednesday. He proposed scheduling a meeting for every Wednesday beginning January 7 and take it from there.
Mr. Hughes’ nomination of Mr. McKinley as chairman pro tem was accepted by the other members of the Board and by Mr. McKinley.
ARMORY RE-USE COMMITTEE SITE VISIT
Mr. Lemnios advised that the Armory Re-Use Committee had been meeting regularly and there was a site visit scheduled for certain members of the committee to assess the building along with the Building Department. They would then produce a report for the full committee as to the physical condition of the building.
Mr. Lemnios also noted that there were several user groups that use the gym space for indoor badminton, soccer. The National Guard offered the ability for those groups to continue to use the facility through March 31 conditioned upon the Town entering into a three-month memorandum of understanding at a monthly rental of $2,500. The Town would recover the cost of rental and other expenses from the user groups.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of entering into a three-month memorandum of understanding with the National Guard to allow the user groups to continue to use the Armory for three months conditioned on all costs being borne by the user groups. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. MetroWest Daily News
This being his last evening covering Natick, the Board thanked Jon Brodkin for his service to the Town and wished him well.
b. Walking Trails
Mr. Hughes was concerned about the letter regarding Town trails being marked across private property and asked Mr. Lemnios to be sure that it got fixed.
c. MetroWest Health Care Foundation
Mr. Ciccariello called attention to correspondence from the MetroWest Health Care Foundation advising that the Foundation had granted $312,255 to different groups in Natick.
d. Referendum Question
Mr. Hughes thanked everyone who voted last Tuesday. He thought people understood the issue and the vote showed the commitment of the residents. He was extremely pleased.
e. Happy Holidays
On behalf of the Board Mr. Ciccariello wished everyone a happy holiday season.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
________________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
