Select Board November 25, 2025

Good evening and welcome to the Wellesley Select Board meeting of November 25th, 2025 on the Zoom platform. Welcome everyone. We are being broadcast live on Comcast 8 and Verizon Channel 40 and on Wellesleymedia.org and it will be available for later viewing on Wellesley Media. Here from the Select Board are Vice Chair Tom Ulfelder, Secretary Colette O'Frank, Beth Sullivan Woods, and Kenny Largess, our Executive Director Megan Jopp, and our Assistant Executive Director Corey Testa. Our first agenda item is Citizen Speak. Corey, I believe you have two names for Citizen Speak.

Yes, our first one is Laura Robert.

Oh, sorry about that. No problem. Okay. Um, oh, hey, I'm so I'm Laura Robert, 10 Greenlawn Ave, precinct D. And I'm here tonight to speak a little bit about MassBay and the desire for and the Select Board to take action. As you know, thousands of residents have spoken and we hope the town will pursue legal action. The state moved forward with a formal land disposition process behind closed doors before seeking any input from Wellesley and formalize this disposition of land before beginning a more reasonable process of engaging the town. in my way of thinking, even the MassBay trustees were left uninformed. So I don't think the process has been reasonable or transparent or consistent with the spirit of the AHA and

hoping there is a strong legal basis for challenging the way the act has been implemented. So that's number one. Residents, of course, are also asking the select board to challenge MassBay's determination that this land is surplus. The forest at 40 Oakland Street is not surplus by any reasonable definition. It is a long established conservation and recreation resource. with a documented history of public use and hundreds of people, including MassBay students, walk those trails every day. So it is clearly needed for current and foreseeable public use and just don't understand how We can't do something there and pursue some sort of a dispute along those lines. Wellesley has the longest and strongest tradition in Massachusetts of valuing trees, open space and environmental stewardship. Yet here we're being positioned

to become the first community in the Commonwealth where DKAM includes a prime intact forest and trail system and no other DKAM project targets anything comparable. We don't want to be the town that sets this precedent, one that would weaken our ability and the ability of other communities statewide to protect forests, air and water quality, wildlife habitat and public health. residents, you know residents and organizations are doing everything possible to raise awareness and express opposition. I think if we could get to every person in the town it would be even more overwhelming than it is. But we need our select board standing with us. So I know we've always had a strong partner, been a strong partner with the Commonwealth, but now we ask that you stand up for Wellesley and if there was ever a moment to assert our rights and defend these values and take legal action, the moment is now. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Laura.

Next up is Wendy Beck von Pikas.

Hi.

Sorry if I mispronounced your name.

Oh, that's fine. It's all of the alphabet. It's fine. Can you hear me? Okay. I would second, of course, everything that Laura much more eloquently just said than I will be. I concur that I would encourage if there's any mechanism to pull the forested acreage out of the surplus land, that would be ideal. And it's not being nimby because none of that is our backyard. That is actually a town treasure. And I support building housing on the area that it makes sense the college I understand needs money we don't want to stop them from getting money but making a wholesale change in the town by essentially doing what we try to avoid and by purchasing the North 40 now is going to potentially happen and

The state seems to be is working across purposes, both trying to get more housing, but also saying that they want to increase biodiversity. So this is throwing the baby out with the bath water as far as I'm concerned. and it's setting a bad precedent statewide if there's no way to stop this kind of land conversion there's plenty of spaces as Weisbaugh said before maybe it's not necessarily state-owned land but there are plenty of spaces that have already been degraded and are not a thriving resource for the town and also, as I've said before, for the animals. No one ever talks about the animals, but that's their home. And every gardener, I'm in a garden club, every gardener I know complains about rabbits you're going to have thousands of rabbits if you don't have the space for their predators and their predators need wildlife corridors foxes coyotes everybody doesn't like them

they're meant to be here and owls and eagles they need places to live and when you start breaking up forested areas then you lose the ability to retain those animals and it becomes no longer nature, it's just a park and this is much more valuable to us than a park. Anyway, I'm also encouraging us to do whatever we possibly can to safeguard the existing force and build where it's already been degraded. Thank you.

Anybody else, Corey?

We had a very late request for Dennis McKay, but I do not see him on Zoom. I did send him the link.

Okay.

I will let you know, Marjorie, if he joins.

Okay, thank you. We are going to move on. Thank you to Laura and Wendy for sharing their comments with us. Our next agenda item is the Executive Director's Report, and I'll turn it over to Megan.

Thanks, Marjorie. I just had a few updates. The first is a reminder that Monday, December 8th, it will be the townwide visioning workshop for the MassBay parcel. of Land located at 40 Oakland Street. That event will go from 630 to 9, but we're encouraging residents to arrive at 6 p.m. so that we can have them sign in and get organized so that we can start right at 630 on the workshop. In addition, next Tuesday, December 2nd, we will have two public hearings that may be of interest to individuals. The first will be the town's tax classification hearing. This is the annual hearing for the select board to determine whether there would be a split tax rate for residential and commercial properties. The town has historically maintained a single tax rate, but this is the time to hear from residents and the public on that matter. The second public hearing we'll have on December 2nd is the Comcast license renewal hearing.

The town working with special counsel Bill August of August and Epstein has negotiated a successor contract with Comcast. and will be detailing the terms of the contract and taking public comment on the performance of Comcast at that meeting on December 2nd. and then lastly Thursday is Thanksgiving so we wanted to remind folks a couple things one that Town Hall will be closed on Thanksgiving Day for the holiday but will reopen on Friday if you have any business The other thing is Thanksgiving is the peak day nationally for home cooking fires. And folks should certainly check out the W November issue, which you can find online where the fire department issued some safety tips to prevent Home Fires, for all those folks cooking at home. So we certainly are wishing everyone a safe and healthy Thanksgiving and would encourage them to take a look at those fire prevention tips. And that's all I have Marjorie.

Thank you, Megan. Yeah, I just wanted to say the visioning runs from 6.30 to 9.30. Just want to make sure that that was clear on December 8th. Okay, Megan, I will turn it back to you. Our next agenda item is to discuss and vote the 2025-2026 Waterstone at Wellesley affordable rental rates. And I see we have Beth Anderson here with us.

Yes, I want to thank Beth Anderson from joining us from Epic Senior Living. And so Waterstone at Wellesley, annually, the select board must establish the new rent. So the same time last year, the board had this conversation. conversation with Beth. And we look each year at a couple of things. The board received, the public has not received, but we get a compliance report Verifying that the existing tenants continue to comply with the affordability restrictions. I know the board has received a copy of that. I want to thank Beth for her team's work on preparing that. and then in addition, we look at what the HUD increases were year over year and the capability to increase those rents. So in past years, Waterstone has taken a very measured approach in terms of increasing rents. There have been years where

the HUD rents would have allowed for a 10% increase and and most often times Waterstone is maintained in the five to six percent range year over year and this year is really no difference. So last year we did a 5% increase and new would come in at whatever the new rate was. This year is certainly a little bit different where increases were certainly higher than that that could be proposed. And it's a 5% increase on our current residents and those residents that signed up or became tenants last year under the new rent. It's an additional 5% rent for them too and for new residents so that it doesn't go to the full maximum rent that's allowed. Beth, do you want to maybe give a brief overview? And I appreciate all your efforts on this.

Thank you. Thank you, Megan. And thank you, Select Board, for having me tonight. So, yes, Megan did a great job of summarizing here, but as you know, and I've typically put together a presentation, which I, you know, more formal presentation, which I did not do this year because I have met most of you. But just a reminder that we have managed Waterstone at Wellesley since 2012. There are 82 independent living units, 22 of which are affordable, and there are 52 assisted living units or apartments of which seven are affordable. And I would actually call them more moderate than affordable. And just a reminder that this is a moderate income program. and one of the things that I would have had included in the presentation in years past, which I didn't put on the spreadsheet, but I just wanted to make note of it tonight.

is that the maximum income limits for people who are eligible for a one bedroom independent living unit is $105,000. a two bedroom, it's 119,000 and in the independent living, it's 105,000. And then upon recertification, your maximum income can't be more than 140% of the area median income. So that allows you to have a maximum income of $148,000 for a one bedroom, $167,000 for a two bedroom independent living. and then 148 for the assisted living. What we try to do is establish, and this is for new residents only, a minimum income

So whereby people are paying in the independent living approximately 40% of their income towards housing. So that minimum income limit is $80,000 for a one bedroom and $89,000 for a two bedroom and independent living. And then in the assisted living, we allow people to spend much more of their income on up to 80, 89% actually on their rent because the rent also includes so many different services and it includes three meals a day. We're not you know people aren't required to go out and buy food in the independent living that includes one meal a day and a continental breakfast but in the in the assisted living not only does it include the food but it includes care probably more. It says 60 minutes a day in their residency agreement, but really it's more than that.

But it also includes transportation and assistance with the activities of daily living. So we are requesting a 5% increase for current residents. Currently, current residents are at $2,285. and we would like to increase those rents to 2,399. The HUD allowance would allow us to increase the rents to $2,646, but we're trying to keep the increase to $114 a month for current residents. and it would be $125 increase a month for new residents for one bedrooms. And then the two bedroom,

would go from current residents from $2,545 to $2,672 and the street rate would go to $2,940. And in the last column of the spreadsheet, you can see the delta there between the HUD rates. And then for the one bedroom assisted living, we'd go from $61.25 to $64.31. for current residents, and then 6530 for new residents. Our market rate increases will be increasing 6.5% this year. So that's for people who are not on the affordable program. I know that's always a question that you ask and I just confirmed that earlier today. So if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

It's hard. everywhere. It's interesting. We have a very similar program in Lexington. It's a local initiative program that's overseen by the executive office of Housing and Livable Communities, which used to be the Department of Housing and Community Development, but their rents are higher there than they are in Wellesley. Even though they're subject to the same area median income, but but the Department of Housing and Livable Communities approved a higher rate initially there. and it did open, I mean, that building opened in 2022. So we were looking at higher rents anyway. I want to be fair about that. It wasn't, you know, any other reason really.

Questions from the board? Tom?

I just want to say that each year this is a difficult agenda item. We truly recognize the impact of inflation on the purchasing power that we all have and perhaps even more so the affordable residents of Waterstone. But I think it's equally important to acknowledge that Waterstone has consistently taken a step to recognize that as well in terms of moderating the potential rate increase. So the fact that I vote to approve these increases does not mean that I don't recognize and support the needs that members of our community have within the Waterstone family. So thank you, Beth, once again for coming to lay out the rate increases and the reasons behind it.

Thank you.

Hill. it's always challenging to see rents go up especially in affordable units but we understand as Tom said that your costs are going up as well and speaking for myself I do appreciate that you haven't increased the rents fully to the available increase to the HUD levels, trying to moderate them a little bit.

other questions or comments Colette? I just second what you and Tom have said and hello Beth it's nice to see you again and I'm going to say the same things I say every year. I really appreciate the approach that's taken here and the fact that you do a really thoughtful job of trying to take increases to moderate your costs, but be respectful of the residents. I'm just curious, are you, back in COVID, there was certainly a lot of pressure, Cost Pressure because of staffing shortages. Are you seeing that again now, given the environment that we're in with trying to hire and retain especially staff who care in these situations?

Well, certainly, I mean, the cost of labor has increased dramatically. We do still see that. And we see in the assisted living side, the most difficult piece to fill are licensed nurses. I mean, licensed nurses can go work anywhere. You have to have a real calling, I think, in order to come work in a senior living community. but that is a piece that we struggle with daily. We've had a very consistent nursing leadership at Waterstone at Wellesley since we opened and that has been really helpful. but I think that some of the pressures around certified nursing assistants during COVID has lessened. We've been able to staff without using agency now. So there has been some change in that.

Thank you.

Okay. If there are no further questions, Beth, thank you very much for coming again. and please extend to your staff and your residents our wishes for a very happy Thanksgiving. And I'll turn to Colette for the motion, please.

Thank you. You too.

moved to approve the 2025-2026 rates as follows. Existing residents before 2024, independent living, one bed unit, $2,399. Existing Residents, Independent Living, 2 Bed Unit, $2,672 Existing Residents, Assisted Living, 1 Bed Unit, $6,431 2024 residents and new residents, independent living, one bed unit, $2,625 2024 residents and new residents, independent living, one bed unit, $2,940 2024 residents and new residents, assisted living, one bed unit, $6,530. Second. Colette? Aye.

Penny?

Aye. Beth? Aye. Tom?

Aye.

And I vote aye as well. Thank you again, Beth. We appreciate your coming. Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you to you as well. Okay, our next agenda item is to discuss the By-law Review Committee. I distributed to the board what I found in a few comparable communities and a new draft of a charge and Sorry, I just have to skip the conservation restriction. So I wanted to bring it back. We have not discussed this in any depth for quite some time. I had a conversation with Casey Cato, the town clerk, about

Thank you so much for joining us. to consider whether we want first of all a standing committee or a periodic committee to review our bylaws for internal inconsistencies or language that may have changed or statutes that may be new, mostly to make everything consistent and subject to applicable law. If there are things that people on the committee or town boards and committees want to raise for consideration, it would come to this committee as well and then to the select board and advisory before it goes on a warrant. advisory after it goes on the warrant.

So I'm looking for comments and feedback on the committee itself, its structure, and its timing.

I'm happy to give some feedback Marjorie. I actually really liked the proposal and I appreciated not only the review of peer communities but also the best practice from Is it DLS? So there was some best practice from our bodies that guide the work that we do. So I thought that was very instructive. I think this is a really important thing for us to do because especially as we've been doing a lot more work on policies lately I have noticed when I do a deep dive on a policy and I'm looking at the bylaws to see well what does the bylaw tell us about this I often notice little things and sometimes bigger things that are inconsistent and I think it would be really helpful to have a process whereby we can put those things in the work queue to be reviewed. I would actually prefer that this committee stands for more than a year

I think there's going to be some a lot of low-hanging fruit some cleanups they'll be easy to tackle there's some submittal we had policy subcommittee today we're looking at a policy where we were questioning you know we're trying to draft a policy based on the language of the bylaw and we're not really sure if the bylaw was written intentionally one way or another and it would give us a place to raise that to a committee that could then say okay you know given these questions that have been raised now that we're doing a really and I would say we've gotten really good at doing policy review now this is our third year we're into a policy subcommittee it's a standing group were getting good at the process. And I think the same thing will happen with this bylaw review committee, that they will get good at the process and will be able to

propose every year some maybe some cleanup that can go on a consent agenda if it's not complex some more engaged items that boards need to consider advisory will have to consider and time meeting can consider so I really think it's a great tool I think it's something we should be doing I think we need to do this work I think it's best practice it's evolving with you know we're becoming just more complex organization over time and We need to update our tools to deal with that. So I like it. I had a couple of questions. I thought the structure was Good, I didn't have any questions really or any objections to the structure. I'd be happy to hear other considerations on that. I don't think I'm entirely set on that but I thought it was a good structure. One of my questions was is it going to be a public I think it's going to be a public meeting with minutes and agendas but also televised so people can watch it. I'd certainly be interested to see what they were doing.

and I'll leave it at that for now. I'd like to hear what other people think, but I didn't really out the box. I thought this was a great concept and I'm very supportive. Thank you. Anyone else?

Beth?

Oh, I think Kenny put his hand up. I'll let him go.

Oh, sorry. Oh, yeah, I have a... And I'll go next. The top of my screen. Kenny?

Just a few things. So I echo a lot of what Colette just said. Going through those policies, you do see some language where you're not sure which way it was supposed to go, and I think having Dyson, and years later in some instances makes a lot of sense. In the first go around, I think you have to do it comprehensively because if you pull one string, you could unwind something else. So if you do piecemeal, you might lose context of what you just changed I do think so at first I think that's what makes most sense and then having a standing committee to periodically look at you know, specific sections of the bylaws every year or whatever. However, whatever the cadence is makes a lot of sense.

the other thing I would say is it's important I think to have town council involved and I understand that costs money but We're not going to know if something is consistent with current mass law or federal law or something like that. I mean, we may know a one-off. but I think we need somebody that is consistently looking at it and maybe there's just a way to engage them you know per section as we're going through it to say like is there any mass law issue or federal issue to think about here or is this just you know purely town so I think it's a great idea and um I think this is a good framework to start with.

Thank you. Beth? So I thank you for doing this. I think I kind of get where we're going but I don't completely get where we're going and the reason I say that is because I understand the desire to make sure the bylaws stay current. I think that is an admirable, important thing. I think when we first spoke about this, I thought that was the role of town council because someone who follows municipal government and municipal law, I think has a far better sense of that than anyone we might assign to be in charge of the holistic piece. So I did think the town council with the various boards and committees worked

working on keeping our bylaws current. And sometimes it's defensive. We trip into things. So I can see where this might be more proactive. like our sign bylaw which we know is not enforceable and yet we haven't fixed it so I don't know if this would get that fixed or not but we do know we have Issues, and like all these law, which Casey brought to us and we remedied, some of the bullets I thought were responsibilities of advisory and town council with their boards. So kind of the I think they're like the middle three looking at warrant articles. I don't understand the role of another committee to do that when advisory is charged with it. I'm not clear on why that would reside with this group.

It just seems to be adding another layer in that is redundant. I think I might send out to our boards and committees and ask them to look at their bylaws and see if there are concerns that they have because we are different than some other towns where it all bubbles up to one town manager and each where each board is controlled by their bylaws I think we it would help us to know where they're at plannings I believe more proactive then maybe some of the other boards at kind of keeping on top of changes or at least revisiting bylaws at town meeting. So I think that needs a little bit of assessment

and in terms of the composition, I agree with the point the town council should be involved in this. I'm not sure why it's so weighted toward the select board and I'm not, I don't understand why there is no expertise, because I would think this is an area where you need a legal mind and you need people that are experienced in municipal government. to understand the implications of the language. And that's not something I think we can count on just any appointment. And my last thing is, I would think that this would either be appointed by the moderator or it would be appointed by the select board in its entirety.

I think that's a responsibility we would delegate to the chair to do the appointments, particularly when it's pretty heavily loaded toward select board membership. I think we have four are more votes, three or four votes on here out of a committee. And I think those are my major points, okay?

Okay, so first of all, When we did the unified plan, one of the relatively short-term items that boards and committees were supposed to take on was to develop strategic plans. And every board and committee was made aware of that and asked to do it. Boards and committees have a lot of work in their day-to-day work and clearly if a board or committee has something they want to propose or consider for bylaw, absolutely. But I think having a committee that is specifically charged with looking at bylaws will prove much more productive in the short term than leaving it to boards and committees. To Kenny's point about a comprehensive review, the Needham I think it was Needham committee assigned everybody an article or two to look through.

And I would imagine that those would involve contacting the boards or committees and seeing, for example, like we did with encroachment, we contacted Brandon and said, is this the way the bylaw actually works? What changes do you find? What works? What doesn't in enforcement and things like that? You do need the people who are on the ground to help you think through it. But I think we need a dedicated group for whom this is the sole focus. Town Council obviously needs to be involved every time we're gonna take something legal. to town meeting, but I'm not sure they need to sit through every single meeting. When something is in draft, that might be an appropriate time or when the committee has questions. But when the committee is working through a work plan, I'm not sure they need to sit through every meeting

I understand Beth your point about looking at warrant articles that is the purview of advisory and I could see taking that out although I do think because the select board has a lot of responsibility for a lot of what's in the bylaws, it's not inappropriate to have two members of our board uh, I wouldn't mind having two members of the select board as designated by the board as opposed to the chair but I think the membership is reflective of responsibility and ability to move the work forward. Kenny?

So I think there's a huge cost component to this based on how you structure it. I think town council has to be involved eventually to say this works or doesn't work. I don't think town council needs to be the one pouring through it initially and making suggested changes. I feel like that can be done by people here. I do think we need lawyers on this, particularly ones that are more adept. This is their skill set is something to do with, you know, words on a paper. So I think council town council has to be involved, but I wouldn't have them driving the bus because I think that'll get silly expensive.

I also, you know, when When there are changes in state or municipal law, town council often does let us know. But there are other things that change in town practice that town council might not be as familiar with on a day to day basis, like what bylaws are we enforcing? What aren't we enforcing? How is the town practice changed with respect to bylaws that I wouldn't expect town council to be as familiar with as people who are on the ground in town every day. Tom?

I think Kenny just made an important point that I was going to make as well. I think that Our legal bill would be three times the size if it was Town Council's job to review all of the bylaws. But I do think that Town Council, when there is a a final draft ought to be an arbiter about whether it's appropriate and legal and meets the requirements of that particular bylaw. I would not eliminate, excuse me, the ability of this committee, excuse me, Review, Warren articles that are going to town meeting. I think quite frankly, the town meeting benefits significantly from any prior filter that looks to accuracy and efficacy I don't see that encroaching on their responsibility in the least.

It's just making sure that what goes before them to take their time to review is in the best form that it can be. And particularly if it's within the purview of this committee, I think that's strongly advisable. I couldn't agree more with your point, Marjorie, that boards and committees have an enormous amount of substantive work that they are doing. I think they would accept a request to review bylaws and it just wouldn't get done not for any negative reasons, but just because there's always something more important than a bylaw change unless it is perhaps out of compliance with state statute. that they need to be doing. So I really like this proposal and where it's gone from its first draft. I think this is really been sharpened. I think it is a functional, logical committee to have in town.

and I think it would be very very helpful when I think in an analogous way of human resources and their frustration with being able to get at policy changes before the next town meeting where it's months that we're out of compliance with state or federal law. I think this kind of a committee is what will highlight and engage with bylaw changes that need to be identified and change. to be more effective and to be in compliance with statutes or federal requirements. So I'm very supportive of that. And I think it's also important there are numerous checks and balances on the work that they would be doing whether it is town council looking at it whether it's advisory reviewing and providing an opinion and ultimately town meeting action.

So there's no short-circuiting the approval process and the review of the proposed changes that this committee would be making.

Thank you, Tom. Colette? Yeah, I just wanted to touch on something. But when I read that the committee was going to look at what articles are proposed, I assumed it was a different kind of review from what advisory is doing that they were looking at it in terms of well you know at this point that committee's hopefully knee-deep in the entire body of the bylaw and they're thinking about it from that perspective as well as you know whatever else experience they bring to it whereas advisory is looking at the article itself you know somewhat in isolation and so I think I think they're slightly different reviews and maybe we just need to clarify that in the wording to say you know this is what this committee is doing and So you can distinguish it from what advisory does. I don't think we need to explain what advisory does, but I think maybe just being clearer about it by reviewing warrant articles that may help.

Well, one way that could be explained is to uphold the internal consistency and all the other work that the committee is doing. because if they're deeply steeped in the bylaws, they might pick up something that advisory wouldn't pick up that relates to compliance or language or as Kenny said, all the cross-references. that there are in the bylaws. You don't wanna change one thing without making sure you're not making unintended changes to other sections.

and there's certainly some style that you get into and Kenny and I are definitely doing that now it's like okay we you can't use if you're using this type of phrasing here you want to use that type of phrasing elsewhere and so I think that would that would be something we might pick up Kenny? You're muted, Kenny. Sorry. Go ahead, Kenny.

I read that provision, that bullet as being a final kind of set of eyes to make sure it is consistent and it's not impacting in a way that we didn't think about other bylaws. And like you said, the fact that there's a committee that's hearing all of this makes it much more likely that we don't miss that so I mean the second prong of this is recommend revisions for clarity and consistency that's what I viewed that bullet as

Good. Thank you. Beth? So are we, I just, this is a clarification. So when we say bylaws, are we talking about both the broader town bylaws as well as the planning and zoning bylaws? Not zoning, no, just town bylaws. Just town bylaws, okay, thank you. And my second question is, I think, Tom brought up workload and workload of various boards. I think our board's fairly busy. And do we feel like we have the bandwidth to have both of our senior staff? assigned to this committee? Or would one be sufficient? It just seems like a lot of staffing.

given all of the senior level things we have going on.

We do have executive director or designee. Maybe the board doesn't want to mandate that both of our senior staff be at every meeting. Other people have feelings about this?

Yeah, I mean, I think I'd say what we've learned, and I'm using the policy subcommittee as analogous here. In the very first year, it was a lot of work because we're trying to figure it out. And it was actually really helpful to have both Megan and Corey there because they both... bring different skill sets to it. But now we're cooking and we're moving faster. It's not nearly the lift that it is for everything because we're more skilled at it. from time to time you know either Megan or Corey can't make it occasionally very occasionally but I think it's up to them to decide and Megan to decide you know I I I I can't come to this or I can't spare Corey for this. He's busy. I think they need to figure that out, to be honest. I don't always know their workload. I'm sure they do.

I think too that this has been in the making for some time. And to the best of my knowledge, Megan has not expressed a concern about Herb projected concern or her ability to appoint a designee. I think this is the appropriate way to start. There's always the ability to make a change down the line once this is in practice.

I also envision that the committee itself would be the ones doing the actual work on the bylaw and Corey and Megan would be advising on town practice that they're familiar with, history, other things that they know about, maybe contacting staff in some cases, but not doing the bulk of the work.

And that's certainly how we do it on the Policy Subcommittee. I mean, I may ask Megan to help me find a document, but it's me that's doing the research or Kenny that's doing the research. And we're doing all the legwork and we're bringing materials for review. but it is really helpful to have the tenure and the history that Megan brings and also the legal and Corey's very helpful in trying to help me find words that express what I'm trying to get to in a pretty clear manner. I agree I think that's important to define and if you need to say that in the document maybe we should so that members understand that this is that that's their role on the board is to do the work

Yeah, I just know we talk about our staff being pulled in a lot of directions and we have a lot of big initiatives. and so with this it seems to me our staff collaborates quite well together but to require two staff on this committee could be Asking too much is a standing requirement. Doesn't say you can't pull someone in or have two at one meeting or another. I just wanted to call it out because it does come up with us.

Okay, so I'm not hearing broad consensus about making changes. I think there's a little more clarity and explanation that can be put in it. And I will also go back and look at some of the some other of the bylaw committee's minutes because there is information about how they set a work plan and how they set out responsibilities that may help the board review it. but I don't hear consensus to make other substantive changes. So what I would propose is that I bring new information to the board and maybe we review it one more time and then decide to set the committee. Is there anything else the board would like me to look at?

Marjorie, for me, if you could look at expertise areas and skill sets that are important because this seems to be more of a background. If you have certain backgrounds, you'd add a lot more value at the start as opposed to the ramp up over time.

Well, in everything I saw, there was no specific background requirement similar to PPC. You know, it didn't say a lawyer, an architect, an engineer, there was nothing like that. And the composition of the committees were very comparable to what I've proposed. I think we will depend on some contact with staff. and maybe board members as to how the bylaws are working in their particular board or committee and that can act as some of our expertise. But there's no major area requirements for experience of professional work that I've seen. Okay, so I will take that as a directive to bring some more specific information to the board. And thank you everybody for your comments and input.

Our next agenda item is administrative matters. Corey circulated two sets of minutes this afternoon. So Corey, you want to look at the 16th first.

please hold. Can everyone see that? I'll zoom in. So we added the vote there, which was an oversight. I would say, hold on. So this is the first, I would say, substantive question that came in. so this reflects Marjorie the I rewatched this portion of the meeting this does reflect what you stated but which is a

I would say an accurate summary missing a few steps. So the MassBay trustees had to vote the motion that was proposed by Dr. Padel to designate the land surplus, at which point HLC, under which DCAM exists, HLC and ANF work with DCAM to sell the property under the state's surplus land designation.

Right, thank you. Technically, the trustees vote to approve or disapprove the decision of the president. that the land should be designated as surplus. So whether it should be disposed is, I see what you're saying and that's fine.

you're covered by saying with the collaboration of the secretary. I think collaboration is totally fine.

Okay, thank you. Marjorie, can I ask a question? I thought that the law was that the trustees could not disapprove. I thought they didn't have to vote it. It was that they couldn't disapprove of the president's decision.

they have the right to disavow it they have the right within 60 days to disavow the decision right but they don't vote in the affirmative they have the right to

to take it off the surplus.

They don't actively vote to put it on surplus. They have the ability to stop it, but they don't vote in the affirmative, right?

No, they decide whether to disavow the president's decision, which they did not do.

Right, which is, I think, a little different than Corey's note, isn't it? Well, it's not in the minutes. That was Corey's explanation to me. Okay, great. Okay, thank you.

All right, let's ignore that. So this was changed suggested to change it from mandate to an action. I rewatched it. Marjorie did say, but is a mandate from the Commonwealth.

Yep. So that should be rejected and go back?

Yep, that's what you said. I think it should go back.

Yes, it 100% was. I watched it today.

Yes. On line 173, there's another mandate. Line 174 now.

So this was authorizing DCAM to facilitate, but this was a mandate from the Commonwealth. Yeah, I watched that like four hours ago. it was fun this one no this was the exhaustive list that was listed by Marjorie

Okay. I know we raised MBTA compliance. I just didn't remember.

It was discussed, but it's not in that list.

Okay. Just FYI, these minutes in particular, when I review the minutes, staff gives me the transcript. this one in particular I read the transcript and read the minutes and I'm pretty confident that what's in here is what was said yeah and you know sometimes the transcript it's it's hard yes it definitely is they're not

I was not suggesting that it wasn't a correct recap of the transcript. It was just I didn't remember. I remembered it at once.

So here I just kind of, this was confusing because Eric kind of, Eric Russell, answered two questions in one, both of which were regarding Article 97, but he then referred to the EOEEA review that we formally sent a letter to the Secretary for. So he said he does not believe that Article 97 here applies just because it abuts Article 97 land. and that we cannot unilaterally declare it as article 97 land but they do believe that we did request an environmental review at which point Marjorie She clarified that her earlier remarks were about the environmental review requested of EOEEA separate from Article 97.

Okay, so change it back, Corey. I'd forgotten that it was a compound answer to two questions.

Okay, so that's what I think I did here, but I'll make sure before we finalize it that that's what it says.

Okay.

Okay. So here, and Beth, this is to your question about adding in addresses. I have the addresses for all these residents, but our minutes policy does state that we only put it in when the resident states it in their introduction of themselves. So that's why I believe Colette only put in addresses for the few people and I'll bold these.

I went through the transcript on those to be explicit on that one.

So, for example, like earlier today, like Wendy and

Yeah, a lot of states did address, but one didn't.

Do you think we should go, in our citizen speak, should request that people identify their resident, just so where they are. We've kind of moved away from a sign-in sheet which I think would help with this spelling of people's names and also with some of the kind of consistency.

Say like, if you feel comfortable sharing, would you please provide your address?

Yes, I've abbreviated the citizen speak introduction, but I will add that back in. Thank you.

Okay. So for now, Beth, are you okay with just the people that identify?

I'm fine. I just think it's odd to have some people say other people.

I'm actually just moderately concerned that we identify some addresses and not others. We're getting into issues like MassBay and DKAM where there are strong feelings. I think we need to affirmatively ask people to provide their name and address. I think it ought to be all or none.

I don't think people always think about the impact of their comments and the reaction and the board way way way back in the day the board used to just ask for your street not your number but just your street name good point

My thing was consistency. So some residents to be listed with their exact address and others to have no attribution seems not acceptable. as appropriate. And I think it is because we've moved away from sign-ins or helping the residents understand the expectation.

So maybe to Tom's point for this one, we remove street addresses since it's inconsistent. And moving forward, Marjorie can amend her introductory remark.

and ask for people's street not necessarily the number actually I would suggest that we take the number out because sometimes it is helpful to know the street because some people are direct about us I would just take out the number um

I'll do that throughout. Okay. And then what's this called?

Sorry.

So this was a comment regarding lower density housing. So this was when Leslie came, she joined us virtually for this meeting and had, I think, four or five slides where she showed different kinds of possible developments on that site and she did she did talk about different depending on how the 45 acre site was carved out between protected land and developable land. She talked about lower density, higher density and all that. So the suggested edit was, replace lower density housing in the sentence with dense housing, which both terms were used multiple times throughout Leslie's remarks. but I think what the commenter, the board member was getting at was what I added here.

So if you could look at that and see if that addresses that concern.

that addresses my concern, Corey, because it didn't make sense the other way.

It was too vague without that, I believe.

Corey, you have an extra word there because it would require more of the forested acreage to meet the statutorily required. So accomplish the is either the goal of the statute and meet the statutorily required or just take out accomplish the. There you go.

You could tell I spent a lot of years writing mass general law because I made it more confusing. and then this is I think the last substantive edit suggested.

and that was me. I didn't think, I thought we started, I didn't think it was ultimately, I thought we agreed that we needed to protect the town's interests regardless of how maybe we didn't agree on the approach. I thought we all were aligned on protecting the town's interests.

Colette, do you remember? I'm fine with that change. I mean, I think that's right. We had differences on approach, but I think we all wanted to protect the interests.

So you're okay with deleting that work?

Yep.

Yes. I will. except that and that was the last really I mean the rest are just very ministerial on that one and I'll very quickly just to because I actually didn't look through these until recently, Marjorie, I think these were your comments. So here, this is the 1028 minutes. Wellesley's affordable housing numbers are calculated. This was regarding the 10%.

We're not seeing, I've just got a blank screen. Yeah.

Oh, sorry.

Although I will say I did look through them. I didn't have any questions on these ones.

There were two comments that after I sent you all the edits, I forgot to include. Do you see this now?

Yes.

Okay, I think Marjorie asked a comment here that the 10% SHI was not necessarily reflective of actual housing. Judy stated 10% under. So if you want me to include more detail, happy to add Judy's statement there.

Judy made that statement very strongly. I think she wanted to clarify the difference. I would suggest putting it in. It's just a statement of what she said.

Is that okay?

Yes. Is there a typo on 135? Clarified. You're pretty good though, Tori. That was pretty fast.

A long day. And then there was one final, this is the last one. Was there an expansion of this point? It's a little vague regarding... to 29,000 residents and using existing structures for housing. This was something that Tom had spoken more about. And he just had questions about whether or not we should make blanket statements generally about something like this because he just said in his experience talking with residents and other boards and committees that it wasn't you know a fait accompli that existing structures should be converted from single family to multifamily and that we should be careful in the executive summary to make such blanket statements. That was what that was alluding to.

I think it's fair to say the survey data did indicate some support for redevelopment. My recollection was that Tom was concerned that it might not be extrapolatable, if that's a word. to any level of concern across 29,000 people. Is that correct, Tom?

Yeah, I think we have a tendency to take an isolated survey response which is maybe a few hundred people and suggest that it is supported by 29,000. I think we have to be careful and it doesn't matter to me whether it's a whether from the technical survey, you know, the process of doing survey work, that it's a significant response. It's still only 100, you know, a few hundred.

So Tom, did you want something more like the results need to be considered with caution as they may not represent the town's overall population?

No, I don't know that that quite does it. I think just noting that I'm questioning the statistical or mathematical validity based on the small response.

Maybe we just add a comma after 29,000 residents noting that there was a small survey response.

noting that there was a limited survey response or whatever number we actually had because I think we had it in front of us.

Grace. Can I give the actual number? I can find the actual number and just put it in. Okay.

Can I go back for a moment to the comment above to Ms. Barrett? Let me just tell you what makes me uncomfortable about that statement, even though I recognize that it's what Judy said. I'm not sure that people agree with that. I mean, the way it's stated there, it makes it sound like it's fact. I just don't know that, you know, I disagree with the... I don't know quite what the word is, it isn't tone, but the way in which she expressed that, it was minimizing the accomplishment of reaching 10%, which is in fact the statutory requirement.

so I think the distinction there Tom was what she was trying to say is just through policy outside of state law how you calculate that is potentially up for debate because we reached the 10% number based upon the inclusion of market rate numbers from rental units, not 10% straight affordable.

I mean, I don't want to make too much out of it, but that comment at the time bothered me a bit because I felt it was incomplete in its context.

Tom, what about adding something here instead, which may not be fully indicative?

Well, I think Judy was speaking from her research. I think Judy was speaking from her research and the housing market study that she did for the WHDC. noting that there are categories of people for whom housing is a pressing need. I don't think she pulled this out of a general context. There was a context in which she said it.

and I think there had been a number of resident comments to exactly this point so she's addressing that. I think that I would prefer to stick with what she said in the meeting rather than us adding our colour afterwards. I'm fine with the amendment as it's shown.

I actually think we should take out the edit and just let it stand. The concern was raised and it covers that the concern was raised about what's in the report. We don't have to litigate the report in the minutes.

We're not relitigating. We're just transcribing what the consultant said in the meeting. Okay.

Well, but how often do we do that?

Well, in this one, Tom, I was trying to be careful that because it's such an important subject that we did touch on a lot of the important matters that were raised because I see this as... being somewhat referential and if you go back to the minutes of the meeting when it was first presented we similarly had detail same reason I actually put a lot of detail in legal counsel's question and answers on MassBay because I go back to these all the time to say okay well what did we say well I want to see the detail I don't want to go back and listen to the meeting

Would it be better if on line 37 it says it may not be an actual measurement of housing need?

Sorry.

Yeah, I'm more comfortable with that.

As opposed to is not, say may not be an actual measurement of housing need.

And I do understand the point that Colette just made. I apologize. I don't mean to make too much of this. I think that clarification, I'm more comfortable with that clarification.

And again, I rewatched this a few times to make sure that I was capturing what Judy said. that was the last substantive and only substantive part and Beth I got your Woodward and Woodworth edits

Yeah, I was like, who's this person?

Miss Woodworth, yeah. Yes. At least it didn't say Woolworth, like we were reporting company people.

I think that was it. Yep, that's it.

Okay.

May we please have a motion? Move to approve the minutes of October 16 and October 28, 2025 as amended.

Second.

Millette? Aye.

Tom? Aye. Kenny?

Aye.

Beth? Aye. I vote aye as well. Our next agenda item is to discuss and vote the December cultural lighting events. Thank you, Megan, for a summary of what we expect. Are there comments or questions?

I'm just curious, where did the need to write this summary come from?

I believe it was from last year's conversation about the holidays and our concern that everything be in accordance with law about celebrating the holidays with town councils. I'm not sure we need to vote it every year if it's substantially the same.

Yeah, I think last year was the first time we voted it just because we'd spent so much time updating our policy. I agree, Marjorie, I don't think we need to vote this.

Is the new menorah here?

We have, we got the new menorah last year. So the menorah is, last year was a new year for the menorah. Just while we're talking about the items. So the crescent, they were able, remember I was looking, shopping for a new one. So, couldn't find one they are they have rehabbed it for this year next year we're going to send it to be completely refurbished so we'll actually use the same structure but they'll because the metal's good and they'll recreate it and I told them we'd pay for that So DPW, the park department, is working with someone who can refurbish it after this holiday season.

Well, that's good because then we keep it appropriate height as opposed to replacing it with something that's not quite as appropriate. Right. So can we just come to consensus on approving the outline for these cultural events? Yes. OK. Without the need for a vote. OK. Our next agenda item is a chair's report. I don't have a chair's report. Tom and I did not meet with advisory or planning or the moderator or school committee yet this week. So I will hold that until next week. and our next agenda item is an executive session. So I request a motion that the board vote to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing potential litigation with the Commonwealth regarding the disposition

of Surplus MassBay Community College Land, as I declare that having such discussions in open session would have a detrimental effect on the tent.

Can I just clarify, am I using the Commonwealth or MassBay Community College potential litigation with which party? Previously we've said MassBay Community College.

it doesn't really matter. You can use either.

It's all the commonwealth. It's all the commonwealth. I'm going to follow up Marjorie said then. So move to enter executive session under Mass General Law Chapter 30A, Subsection 21A, Exception Number 3 to discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation with the Commonwealth. and to invite the executive director, Megan Jopp, and the assistant executive director, Corey Testa, to join as the chair has declared that having such discussions in open session would have a detrimental effect on the town's bargaining position. Following the adjournment of executive session, the board will return to open session for the sole purpose of adjourning the meeting.

Second.

Beth? Aye. Kenny? Aye. Collette? Aye. Tom?

Aye.

And I vote aye.