Select Board March 24, 2026

Okay, welcome everybody to the March 24th, 2026 meeting of the Wellesley Select Board held on the remote Zoom platform. Here from the Select Board are Vice Chair Tom Ulfelder, Secretary Coletta Frank, Beth Sullivan Woods, Kenny Largess, and myself, Marjorie Freiman. also here with us are Executive Director Megan Jopp and Assistant Executive Director Corey Testa. Our first agenda item is Citizen Speak, and I just wanted to make a comment about that. The draft regulations from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities is on our agenda and because it's on the agenda, and all comments to the regulations are to be sent directly to HLC. The board will not be accepting public comments tonight to forward to HLC.

Members of the public must send them directly in to eohlcregulationcommentsatmass.gov and include in the subject line comments on 760 CMR 77. Again, all comments directed to the Commonwealth on the public regulations are to be received by the Commonwealth by April 13th. by writing to eohlcregulationcomments at mass.gov and include comments on 760CMR77 in the subject line. The purpose of the agenda item tonight is solely for the Board to raise its own questions on the regulations to be forwarded to Council for their review. We will not be deliberating or discussing

What will be our ultimate comments to the Commonwealth on these regulations? Okay, Corey, I'll turn it over to you, please.

And just to point out that the mass in the mass.gov is M-A-S-S dot gov, not M-A dot gov. It's M-A-S-S. We've had two people sign up. The first one is Karen Sue Taussig.

Wow, that was perfect. That's rare. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Thanks for giving me this chance to speak. My name is Karen Suttasig. I am one of the steering committees of Wellesley Defense Democracy, which is a nonpartisan group standing up for democracy and fighting authoritarianism here in Wellesley. We want to invite all Wellesley residents and our neighbors to our Wellesley No Kings Rally this Saturday, March 28th at Town Hall Green from 11 to 1230. This is one of more than 3,000 such rallies across the country that are being held this Saturday. It's intended as a joyful, nonpartisan, nonviolent event. And I hope to see you all there. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much, Karen Su.

Next up is Tim Fulham.

Hi, good evening. My name is Tim Fulham. I live at 15 Windsor Road, and thank you to the Select Board for the opportunity to speak this evening. I'm here really to set the record straight regarding an unfortunate situation related to the March 3rd town election for select board. In the several weeks following the election, I learned that I had been accused of illegally placing material about select board candidate Mark Charney in mailboxes of Wellesley residents in advance of the election. I do not know who originated this falsehood, but it appears to have been spread widely through the community. So to be clear, I did not play selection related or any other material. in mailboxes of town residents and neither I nor my wife, Lisa, only had any involvement in or knowledge of such activity.

I do not know the extent to which people were relying on images from a Ring Doorbell video for this spurious accusation, but I have viewed the video and can assure you it does not depict me. I can also tell you that during the week preceding the election, when this video was taken, I was either undergoing major surgery at Newton Wellesley Hospital or preparing for it. But in any event, I'm distressed to hear these fabrications about my conduct. As you all may be aware, placing materials without postage in mailboxes is a federal offense. and I also understand that falsely accusing someone of a crime constitutes defamation. I know that elections can be heated and that statements can be made that are later regretted.

I also care deeply about my reputation and my wife Lisa's, and it is important to me to try to put an end to these defamatory accusations before any more damage is done. In addition to appearing this evening, I've also written directly to some who have repeated these accusations and I hope these efforts will put an end to this matter. Thank you again for affording me the opportunity to speak this evening.

Thank you very much, Tim. Corey, is there anyone else who'd like to address the board tonight?

That's everybody.

Okay. Thank you very much. Our next agenda item is the executive director's report.

Thanks, Marjorie. I just had a few updates. At this point, all residents should have received the W Select Board Edition in your mail as a hard copy, and we'd encourage folks to also review that online because it has some excellent links in particular to the town's materials for the annual town meeting, including the town-wide financial plan. and that letter also has just highlights some key things that the annual town meeting will be taking up and the advisory book is online for those individuals who are not town meeting members who would like to see all of the information that's been prepared for town meeting Just as a reminder, town meeting starts next Monday at the high school at 7pm. The other thing I just wanted to alert people to is an ongoing parking ticket scam. The police department and the parking clerk wanted to warn the public about some traffic

ticket scams that have been circulating in the area. People have reported receiving fraudulent message that says notice of hearing or traffic violation. So please pay your bill. We're encouraging people. These are fake messages. Do not scan QR codes or submit any payments. If you have a Town of Wellesley citation and you believe it's been paid for, please contact the police. 781-235-1212. We have had a couple residents. who have been tricked by this scale. The last thing I wanted to give an update, and it's a visual, so I do have some photos I'll share. Let me just share screen real quick, because this is an ongoing matter that is actually fairly, I would argue, distressing. Okay, can everyone see that now? Yes. So these are ongoing destruction of town property that's occurring on the Cotituate Aqueduct.

So just as a reminder, the Cotituate Aqueduct, which is largely known as a crosstown trail, this is a shared resource. and is owned by the Select Board and largely used for passive recreation but is one of the main pedestrian corridors, safe travel through town. and is largely actually ADA accessible because of its compacted gravel surface. So we have received complaints from abutters. We've gone out to the site. We've taken some pictures. This is one photograph here showing some ramps. and the use of logs and material that's been dug up in the area. I'm going to show you another picture in a moment. this now has to be corrected by the Department of Public Works. So this is considered an encroachment as part of our encroachment policy. This is also a violation in terms of the town bylaw with regards to dumping of material.

We need to ask people to cease all unauthorized activity on town land. We would like the material removed. We on the other hand are prepared to remove that. and we are seeking to have the area restored and if the town restores it, keep in mind we're taking resources from other projects to complete this because the SNOT is on our work plan. This is one area that in particular is standing out because it's immediately adjacent to the walking path. And actually what you can't see here is the abutting residential properties have significant grades at a very steep angle that then go down to private property. and it's actually a fairly dangerous condition. Now, if you are a mountain biker, I'm sure this is great. But if you're gonna do that, we prefer you to do it on your property because this is not acceptable. Having gone out there with Cricket Vlass, this is a good picture here.

So here is an image here that Cricket and I took. And what you can't see sort of just off to the side is a tree. So this is now undermined. So the digging to create these ramps has now significantly undermined the tree structure. You can see the roots here that have been impacted. And then to correct this is actually fairly substantial. It's not just filling in the hole because now we're going to put loose compacted dirt and its private property just below this, which will have erosion and sedimentation issues. make no bones about it, this is destruction of town land. And as we continue, as the board continues to receive emails about MassBay and the protection of open space, I really hope that the residents in town who are sending the board these messages are aware of destruction on other open space because we need to preserve what we currently have as well.

And it's very alarming to me that this is being allowed. and we will be sending notice to all abutters. and we will find, I will leave municipal properties if we find the individuals who are doing this to restore this. So I just wanted to, I know the board is aware of this, but certainly DPW, NRC, the select board, find these actions, you know, impactful and that we consider this destruction of town property.

Thank you very much, Megan. We'd also ask that anybody who was aware of ongoing activity please let us know so we can continue to monitor it, whether it be here or in any other location. I certainly hope that activity stops. The last thing we need to be doing is destroying any natural resource that we already have. Our next agenda item is a consent agenda. We have one item on the consent agenda. which is to vote celebration committee signs for Wellesley's wonderful weekend on town property. The requested locations are the same as those approved last year. and unless there are any comments, I'll ask Colette for a motion, please.

So move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Beth?

Aye.

Kenny?

Aye.

Colette? Aye. Tom?

Aye.

And I vote aye as well. All right. Our next agenda item is to discuss and vote general obligation bond approval. and I'll turn that over to Rachel and Megan.

I'm going to have Rachel give a brief overview and presentation, then we're happy to take questions from the board. I did just want to note that Maura O'Connor, the town's treasurer, who typically presents us to the board, it just happens to be on vacation. So Rachel DeRoche, our CFO, is going to take over on that.

Thanks for being here, Rachel. Great. Good evening. Good to be here. Megan, are you able to share the slides?

I will.

Yep. Okay. No rush. No rush. Okay, hold on. I'm on the wrong screen. Hold on one second. Okay, no worries. I can jump right in. So again, we're here tonight to discuss and vote our most recent bond sale. So as Megan is pulling that up, we did a few weeks ago there was a news and announcement that came out so back on March 10th perfect so if you want to go to the second slide Megan Perfect. So a few weeks ago, we had a news and announcement that came out back on March 10th. The town had a bond sale. We received multiple bids. We received nine bids. We'll talk about that a little later. The bond sale was for $12,570,000 for 20-year general obligation bond issue with a net rate of 2.8%. 659%. That included a premium.

Also, we'll talk about the premium in a little bit. And then prior to this bond sale, the town, so town leadership, our executive director our treasure collector town accountant and myself we had our annual rating call with Moody's so we'll also talk about that so Megan if you want to go to the next slide please So our bond rating. So the town continues to maintain a triple A rating status. Again, that is the highest possible rating status. Again, we met with Moody's. We had our annual call. Moody cited the town's cited several key strengths including our robust tax base, favorable location, strong institutional presence, our conservative financial management supported by our formal policies,

and our proactive funding of pension and OPEB liabilities, which continue to contribute to our AAA rating status. if anyone's interested if you go to the town website on the finance department page under finance financial documents under credit rating you'll see the 2026 rating if you're curious to see the full report So something that we should consider when it comes to our reserve policy. So during that rating call, Moody's did flag that nationwide, they're seeing reserves closer to 20 to 25% of revenues. So again, as we know, our reserve policy is to maintain anywhere between 8 and 12%. Currently, we're in that closer to that 15 to 16%. And again, given

all of our other factors, our wealthy tax base, our strong financial planning, our proactive funding of OPEB and pension. Our outlook will continue to be strong to continue that triple A rating. and Hilltop. We spoke to Hilltop for our financial advisors. They didn't really see a reason for concern. However, as you all know, in these upcoming out years, We have the potential for multiple debt exclusions and we need to be aware of our percentage of debt in relation to our potential percentage of reserves. Megan and I were talking about this a little earlier. This could be something that the board would want the policy subcommittee to consider. is this an opportunity to reevaluate that reserve policy in those out years when we are looking to borrow?

would it be more advantageous to maintain a higher percentage of reserves? So, Megan, I don't know if you want to jump in or if there's anything else you wanted to add.

Yeah, I mean, I certainly think whether it's a discretionary component from the 12 to 15, we likely as indicated in our advisors would not necessarily recommend us to be over 15%. But in times where we're increasing our debt proportionally, we may want to increase our Financial Reserves. The other component to that, which I know the board just as peripherally discussed, is whether then we had a capital stabilization fund to offset the peak Borrowing Years. And that stabilization fund would count towards our overall reserves. So that in of itself would likely tick up our percentages. So it's sort of those two factors that we'd want to consider you know really probably in 28 and beyond.

Rachel, is the recommendation to keep upwards of 20% a new recommendation for Moody's? Is it situation specific to the current climate we find ourselves in or is this a general? recommendation.

and you know and honestly Marjorie I'm not even sure it was a recommendation more so they were flagging what they're seeing nationwide so when we were speaking you know offline after the call we spoke to Hilltop and they said oftentimes Moody's will have those goalposts and they can move. So again, Moody's isn't necessarily recommending that now we scramble and come up with a new policy to maintain that 20% it's just something to consider when Moody's is going out nationwide they're seeing those higher percentages of reserves so We can now take this information, take this as an opportunity to just reevaluate our policy and what percentage we want to maintain.

I guess the question would be, are they going to start looking for that when they do the bond ratings? You know, they say they're seeing it. What do they think of it? And are they going to start considering a higher rate as more advantageous?

And that's really the question at hand. But again, they're offsetting all of the other factors that they're citing. Again, given our aggressive funding of those pension and OPEB liabilities, they're not seeing that nationwide, but we have that. Our wealthy tax base, that's not necessarily seen nationwide, we have that. and again you know our strong financial planning and our current policies that we have in place so given all of those other factors are kind of offsetting Our reserves aren't in that higher 20% range. They're around that 15, 16%. So it's really offset by all of those other, you know, boxes that we're able to tick.

The only other thing I'd add to that is keep in mind when we look at our reserves, we're specifically looking at the town reserves. When they look at it, they include everything. They include all of the enterprise funds, all of the stabilization funds. So they're taking a holistic look at the town, which then ticks us up percentage based as well. That's a good point, Megan.

Can I ask a question? To what amount? Go ahead, Tom. If you're looking at all those sources, so what does that translate into in terms of percent?

We didn't go into that percentage, but they looked at it from our borrowing capacity as well. So if water and sewer are borrowing, if the MLP is borrowing they're factoring that into our borrowing totals as well. Even though those are being offset by other funds, they're considered part of the overall town's debt. And so we certainly have reserves in all of the accounts. They're itemized actually in the budgets as part of the enterprise funds. We don't call it reserves. I'm forgetting what we call it, Rachel, in the enterprise funds. We have those numbers. We haven't factored it into our percentage.

Marjorie, I was gonna ask a similar question. I was gonna ask a similar question to Tom, but it would be good to know those numbers and to get more detail on where this is going because it seems like a this could be a big issue going forward and um it would be better to not just hear anecdotal evidence, but have an actual conversation with them and say, is this something we should really be thinking hard about? Or is this just another factor because in the 10 other instances the town was in a very different position than Wellesley when it comes to like the OPEB funding, for example, or whatever the other factors are that may be pushing in that direction.

Exactly. How big a criterion is the level of reserves when you consider all of these other positive factors?

Thanks, Kenny. Go ahead, Beth. Oh, Colette has her hand up.

Oh, sorry, Colette, go ahead. Thanks, Marjorie. I think when we did the policy update just recently, a couple years ago, before Cheryl left, we seriously considered should we have 15% as the upper level and at that point we decided not to for a number of reasons but one of the reasons was because we didn't have a structured centralised capital planning process. and so things have changed on our side as well the GFOA certainly encourages 15% and it looks at you know the tax base and our tax base is different we're not sort of heavily dependent on industrial or commercial but it certainly is the GFOA's recommendation that we are not meeting but we are moving towards a more structured and we did say at the time that we should really review that policy every three to five years. So it's coming around. I think it's not a bad thing to put on our work plan and have a discussion about this.

and we have intentionally built our reserves and there's been I think some misunderstanding about whether or not we're quote outside our policy or not. We are not outside our policy. I want to be very clear on that. our policy gives us a latitude to do this but I think it might make sense for us to look at the upper level again.

Go ahead Beth.

So kind of building off of what Colette was saying, I'm wondering if they gave us guidance on reserves based on how the reserves are structured because we have reserves that are flexible and reserves that are designated. And I wonder if that balance makes a difference to them because if they count all of the enterprise funds and all of the other funds that are designated and our proportions are more favorable toward undesignated funds than what they're typically seeing. That might make a difference. The second issue is if there are benchmarks regionally, because there's certainly differences nationally in the economy and in the approaches that different municipalities and counties have. toward their finances?

And the third question is, should we, in the presentation of the town-wide financial plan, at least give Town Meeting, a heads up that we are looking at our reserve levels because there is, given the economic outlook right now, there are some indications that carrying a higher reserve level is advantageous for the town.

Thank you, Beth. That's just what I was going to say, to signal some educational opportunities in the Townwide Financial Plan because people already ask why we're keeping an elevated level of reserves as opposed to using it. and it will be important to be able to explain to residents and town meeting members exactly why a change may have occurred. Go ahead, Tom.

I think as well, this comes back around to the point that Kenny was making. I think before we get too far out, we need to have a conversation. with Moody's to really understand what they were telling us. I mean, one point that I don't agree with is that simply because we have a wealthy tax base that we have the likelihood of approval of overrides. I would make a distinction between our willingness to approve debt exclusions for certain specific projects versus operating overrides. And we're way past the years when operating overrides were a regularly approved occurrence. I also think that we heard from advisory a discussion in at least one meeting about their concern or its concern that we were riding above the 12%.

So I do agree with the idea that this should be woven into our presentation because it's going to affect what guidance we're giving departments, what guidance we're giving other parts of town government and the community generally, if we're saying, for example, at the all board meeting later this spring, Here's what you need to be concerned about. We're not going to be in a position to be doing the one-off projects the way we were. More projects may have to be sent to debt exclusions. so that we have a community-wide sense of whether the project is valuable.

Absolutely. It could very well affect the amount of cash capital that we're comfortable spending in any particular year. Okay, thank you very much. Rachel, would you like to continue?

Yes, perfect. Okay, so next slide. So again, we just wanted to provide an overview of the competitive bids that we received. So again, we received nine. you'll see the bidder's name and then the TIC that is our true interest cost so just of note those top four you'll see how close that two seven eight it's going out or the top three it's going out just one basis point so this really speaks to how close This bid was very competitive given Wellesley had lots of attention because of our AAA rating. I did want to speak to so you'll see this TIC that true interest cost that 27 ultimately once the bids closed Hilltop our financial advisors they take this back and they prepared the final bond structure So where they reflect a premium. So we'll talk about a premium in a minute.

So this true interest cost, which we talked about earlier, that 2.659%. that is the rate that we're receiving over the life of the bond. That is the true cost of the borrowing. So that's what it's actually costing the town. and again we received a premium we're using that premium to resize the bonds and really reduce the borrowing amount. So you may have seen in the individual bond documents at 5% coupon rate. So that's what's printed on the bonds. and again you had to go through you have to you have to sign the board has to sign each of those individual bond documents that is the rate that the market is dictating so that is what the underwriters expect to sell the bonds at

they have to buy 100% of our bonds and restructure to sell to the market so we have that 5% which is that coupon rate and then we have our true interest cost that 2.659% that difference is generated from our premium so just wanted to take a few minutes to kind of talk through what a premium is and how it impacted this borrowing and again walked through this with our financial advisors so just kind of trying to level sets you can understand the difference in these two interest rates that we've presented to you. So when a municipality issues a bond, each bond has a par value. That par value is usually $1,000 per bond. Then there's also a coupon rate, which is the stated interest rate.

so when that coupon rate is higher than the current market interest rates so what investors are willing to pay if they're willing to pay more than that thousand dollars, that par value for the bond, that extra amount over par is our premium. So in this case, the true cost of our borrowing is that 2.659%, which is lower than that coupon rate. That is the rate over the life of the bond. That's what it's actually costing us. so we received a premium and we're using that to reduce our net borrowing so again the full cost of these projects and we'll highlight the projects on the next slide the full cost of those projects was $13.85 million we received a premium of two point excuse me a premium of one point to eight million.

So that reduced the amount that we're actually financing, reduced it down to 12.57 million. So again, it was reducing how much we ultimately need to borrow and that's why we're seeing that TIC, that true interest cost rate being reflected lower. So I hope that helps clarify for folks. So again, what projects are being funded from this borrowing? So the Warren Building HVAC, the western road improvements and that western road improvements those were the construction costs which were approved at the last annual town meeting it was fells to western road or the Weston Line, and then the RDF, Recycling Disposable Facility Admin Building, which was approved at special town meeting.

Rachel, are these the full costs of those three projects that we bonded all at once or is there additional bonding to be done?

Good question, so this is the full cost of these projects. And then again, I did wanna highlight, so the full cost of the projects when we put the bonds out to the market was the 13.85, the 13,850,000. However, we had that premium. What Hilltop did when they did that resizing, we took 1.2 of that premium and we reduced the amount that we're going to borrow for RDF which is why our ultimate resizing amount the amount that we're actually borrowing is the $12,500.

And Rachel, could I ask you one other question about the amount of money in the bonding? So in the summary note that we received, it said the remaining two projects associated with this borrowing will be amortized over 10 years. What are those two projects?

Sure. So the Warren building HVAC and the Western Road improvements, those are 10 year. And then the RDF is 20 years.

and is that why the interest rates drop precipitously after the 10th year?

Well, the interest rate is actually lower because we're applying that premium to it. If you look at And again, we can look at this offline. If you look at the actual official statement, you'll see the yield in each given year. but ultimately the reason we're seeing that lower true interest cost is because we're applying 1.2 million of that premium to reduce the amount that we're borrowing for the RDF building.

Great, thank you.

We're getting our full 13.8. We're getting our, because of that premium, we're borrowing the 12 and then we're getting the 1.2 premium. So we're getting our full 13.8 to apply to project costs.

I just wasn't used to seeing the distribution like this on previous bonds, so thank you for that.

And that's a good question. I was just going to say too, I think we've seen it in and some of the more recent borrowings, when there is this premium, we do have that option. And we've generally gone with the option where we would reduce the overall borrowing by that premium. And then again, the premium also covers a nominal issuance costs as well.

.

Thanks, Rachel. This is related to Beth's question. So I understand how the premium works and it reduces the borrowing cost. But how do you come up with the schedule of principal repayment? because it's all, for the first 10 years, it's kind of up and down and then it evens out at 200,000 for the last 10.

Yep, so we are keeping our principal amount level. So it's actually Moody's comes out and they will go through and they'll balance this for us. To answer your question, We always apply level principle to all of them. Thank you, Megan. So the principle is level. You'll see that the interest rates shifting.

but that's based on the tickets that you'll see in the motion language. You can see each year how that is variable.

Yeah, that's essentially my question is you use 2026 and 2027. There's about $130,000 difference in principal repayment each year.

Yeah, so each year, so your first one to three years in borrowing are always going to be, well, it's always going to decline at a rate. But yeah, the ticket borrowing is established by the sale.

Got it.

and Moody's did what I keep talking about restructuring. So we provided our budget. So we have our projections for our debt service. within that rebalancing, they were very happy to say that they were able to structure the total payments over the next five years to be within our budget. So that's actually really good news too, again we make our best guess at our projections of what the potential borrowing rate is going to be so you know we're very very fortunate that it came in a little below target which is great

So this is the market dictating the repayment schedule.

Correct. Yeah, we have to put it out to bid. So yeah, 100% the market dictating.

Thank you.

OK, and then just our final slide is just next step. So again, this evening we'd be asking the board to approve the sale and then the borrowing documents. Those need to be signed no later than tomorrow, March 25th. and then we need to send those hard copies those wet signatures over to bond council no later than the 26th and then we will receive the town will receive our bond proceeds on April 2nd

Wonderful. Thank you, Rachel. Are there any further questions before we have a motion?

Okay, Colette. So move to approve the votes of the board as prepared by Bond Council.

Hold on one second. I got to put it up, Colette, before you read it. Sorry, Megan. I'll wait for you.

and when we're waiting for that, do we need to maybe just remind members to come in and sign tomorrow for Rachel's purposes?

We actually only need three signatures. And I think we started the process. So I believe we have, Megan, I believe we have the signatures that we need.

I think we have four.

I think we're all set. yeah and so tomorrow too after the board votes then we will have Casey the town clerk sign and do the the town seal on the the necessary pages

Okay, great. Thank you.

So before you go ahead, could I just ask because that the format of this vote is different than we've done in the past. So are we a

approving Megan has the answer.

Yeah, no, I just wanted to ask for clarification. Our motion is approving the votes outlined on the screen as opposed to us actually voting. what's on the screen, is that right? That's correct. And that's okay with Bond Council?

Yes, the motion Colette's about to read was drafted by Bond Council.

So we don't have to read through everything the way we used to. Thank you. And I had clarified that with Megan. moved to approve the votes of the board as prepared by bond council to the town and presented to this meeting which votes among other things formally award the bonds to the low bidder determined a competitive sale held on March 10, 2026 and established the terms thereof. The formal terms of the votes prepared by Bond Council to the Town and approved by this motion shall be incorporated in the minutes of this meeting.

Second.

Paulette? Aye.

Beth?

Aye.

Tom?

Aye.

Kenny?

Aye.

I vote aye as well. Thank you very much, Rachel. We appreciate all the detail and the explanations. Thank you. Wonderful result. Okay, our next agenda issue is a public hearing on an all-alcohol license for the Magus Cafe at 300 Washington Street. So I will go ahead and open the public hearing and turn it back over to Megan.

Thanks, Marjorie. So we and Kay Marr is here to answer any questions from the board as well as Chief Whittemore. and so we have received a request to issue an all alcohol license to Magas Cafe at 300 Washington Street. The hours of service have been requested. from 8 AM to 5 PM Monday through Saturday and 10 AM to 5 PM on Sunday. We have not received any Kay has mailed to abutters. We have not received any additional comments. That being said, the staff recommendation would be to have the earliest start time for the service of alcohol to be at 10 a.m. and we're happy to answer questions. I know, and Kay, if there's anything else you want to add to that.

Nothing in particular. I do know that Costas and I believe Stratis are also in the meeting tonight, so they are here to answer questions. I did see them in the Zoom information. The only other things that I would note is that The application has been reviewed by us and it is in good order. It's pending the board vote and board decision on the hours. and I did note in the background regarding our neighboring communities as well as are just a general reminder for the board that we have not adopted chapter 138 from the state.

Okay, Tom, go ahead.

I just want to say it would be my preference that service not start until 11 at least Monday through Saturday and 10 on Sunday. after reading through the material, I think that's consistent with other establishments in town. and I just don't see the need Monday through Friday in particular to begin alcohol service at 10 AM at this particular location or any location.

Thank you. I was about to ask Chief Whittemore, who's here, thank you for joining us, Chief, for your reactions to the request and your recommendation.

First off, just full transparency, I frequently go to the Magas for breakfast with my family, my son most of the time, so I am there quite a bit. Just in my experience throughout the town, especially as we've transitioned over the years from serve alcohol with food to removing that requirement I would be concerned about any alcohol service that would start at 8 a.m. I haven't seen the new redesign of the restaurant. It's all covered up, so I don't know what the landscape is going to be. But I think if you open the door here to the Magus, actually, let me back myself up. so I just don't believe that alcohol service at 8 a.m on that stretch of roadway is something that would contribute to the public safety of the town I think would be a detriment mixing alcohol that early in the morning in my experience working nights I think it's fair to say that

places that open up at 8 a.m. and serve alcohol are generally Ward gets around very quickly and people are coming there for the alcohol more than the food which would of course be a problem and that again is many many years of working the overnight shift and dealing with some issues along those lines so that would be my That's my initial reaction. I think those are my comments that I made. The other... The thing that I just worry about is that it transitions from a cafe to a bar that opens at 8am. I don't want to see that. And I also think if and this is for the board to consider, not really my purview, but I want to say it is if We allow an establishment to serve alcohol at 8 AM. Will that have the other establishments coming back to us and seeking that same 8 AM Allowance. So I really would not like to see that.

I think mixing alcohol at that hour with the commuter hour, especially as Tom said, Monday through Friday is not something that I'm in favor of.

If you mentioned that you were referring specifically to this location, would your opinion be the same anywhere else in town?

it would be yes I just for me you know I think of Washington Street especially in that particular section is obviously incredibly busy till 9 30 10 a.m there's a little bit of a lull between I think 10 and 11 before traffic picks up again but I mean we have enough problems right now just trying to keep that travel lane open on the eastbound side that's you know it's parking but from 730 to 8 it's a travel lane as well or 7 to 8 I can't remember the times off the top of my head it's been a long time so I wrote a ticket down there but uh it's very difficult as it is to to keep that lane open and that is something that we receive a lot of complaints about and I Contractors running into the hardware store and other places, I think it's difficult enough to enforce. I think that would be more difficult. But again, I think any place in town opening at 8 a.m. to serve alcohol is not something I'd be in favor of.

Okay, I just wanted to check on whether your recommendation would be consistent because that would be a little easier to support than, you know, a difference of recommendation depending on the location and town. Mr. Sorrentis, would you like to address the board?

Please, please. Thank you for continuing support. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, may I please ask you to turn your camera on?

Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. Again, first of all, I would like to thank the board for your continued support to this takeover. I did hear the chief's comments about this particular issue. I just want to give a little background. Our intent as new owners is not to really change the character or even to invite unintended customers to the place. The original thought was, and this is subject to this discussion was, We operate for the past five months. The last two months we started March 1st renovations. The things we listen to our customers, again, with keeping the same reputation of the rest and everything else, what some of the things they would like to see in the restaurant and the two things that kept coming up is more variety of coffee because it's hard to see customers walking in with a cup of Starbucks to come and have breakfast and also

People suggested some of the common items such as alcohol type of cocktails that are served like, if you see them, mimosa or some of these type of things that accommodate a brunch type of operation. We don't want to extend it. We proposed a very limited menu. I don't know if you've seen the menu we proposed. It's really a selective few cocktails that are complimented to a breakfast. As I said, branch more operation. That's the only reason we do that, just to give it a minimum. I understand the concerns again as I said but one of the things I want to say is why that window is very critical to us because we have to operate a license liquor license it's an expensive operation and it's very hard to recoup some of the investment we have for training the staff and maintaining is the 50% of our business is between the hours of 7 to 10.

that's a fact and then we don't have a dinner to serve any other time so we consider maybe adding a complimentary during these hours if the board is in disagreement we'll respect that decision but we'll try to see if compromising to attend to five as proposed it will accept that decision but I really want to capture that late morning type of customer would like to have an expanded experience with a breakfast to have one of those cocktails and really not to invite any kind of unintended customers by any means.

Thank you very much.

I just wanted to note for the board that the board has in the past made an exception for one other licensee that their hours are 10 a.m. to I believe it's 10 p.m. And that is Monday through Sunday. It's the full week.

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Collette. Actually, thank you for having Kay answer the question because I read that in the packet and I'm a little bit... Uncomfortable awarding that request to one institution and not another. I think given what the business operator has said that their menu is pretty tailored to specific cocktails that go with brunch. I'm okay with the 10 a.m. I'm not okay with the 8 a.m., but I think the 10 a.m. is a reasonable compromise. That's all I have to say.

Thank you, Colette. Anybody else? Kenny? You're on mute, Kenny. Yeah.

I was wondering, Chief Whittemore, is there any data that shows the difference between if we were to do it at 10 a.m. or 11 or 12 or is it more just... The location, it's very busy. It just feels that way.

I would say it's anecdotal. I mean, obviously, we don't have any other place to compare to in town. Again, going back from my experience, it is working midnights. I think it's fair to say we all knew where the places that served alcohol early were. And we were very aware of that from our interactions with other people working midnights and the public that we were encountering at that hour. So it was very, very well known to us and at the time I mean this goes back a few years but it was very clear which places and which you know who served at eight who served at nine and who served at ten and that was well known I think that gets out very quickly. And I understand there's a limited menu here. I have reviewed it. I don't know on the restrictions if you limit it just to that menu. I don't know how you do that. But again, it's not my forte. So I would be concerned. about that. But no, there's no hard data that I can point to because I have nothing to compare it to within the town.

And I think it's sort of rare in this area of Metro Boston anyway.

I'm certainly no expert in this and I would definitely take your recommendation as where to go on this.

Thank you, Kenny. Beth?

So I have a question about the hours because Hey, the place that you cited, I don't think they're open in the morning during the week until later in the morning hours. So for me, during... I completely understand the brunch idea on the weekends and that the idea of having celebrations or having different kinds of events on the weekend and wanting to have that flexibility to serve an earlier brunch makes sense to me. During the week, I have to say, I concur more with Tom that 11 seems to be our prevailing hour when operators open and start serving early lunch, late brunch. I could go with 1030. It just 10 seems quite early during the week. to me. I could be convinced.

I don't think we have that availability anywhere else in town right now. And I don't know. I would like more of a hybrid, maybe a little earlier on the weekends and a little later during the week. That would be, I think, this makes more sense to me with the what we've done in other places in town, just for consistency.

So Beth, are you suggesting we change the motion?

Well, I would like to hear from the operator because clearly he has a business to make, but I'm looking I don't believe that so that restaurant cake doesn't open till 1130 in the morning during the week.

So sorry, Beth.

So they may be authorized, but I don't think we have availability anywhere else in town at 10 a.m.

That may be true. I don't know the technical hours that they are open. They did request those hours. They were granted those hours, as the board knows, and just for public consumption. a restaurant may serve based on the hours that are approved it doesn't mean they're required to they can open later they can close earlier but they can't operate outside those hours We saw something similar with Martins when they requested service on Sundays, though currently they don't intend to operate on Sundays, but may wish to in the future or may wish to hold private events. So the hours are approved for service whether the establishment is open. I don't have direct knowledge of, but I trust you on that.

I've tried to go there for breakfast and they don't serve breakfast. So I'm very excited for the Magus to reopen for breakfast. So that's more why I'm familiar with it because there's almost no place to go for breakfast in Wellesley. And I had one other question, Kay, and it was to the... I'm going to mess your name up. So Mr. Costas' idea about the importance that the cost of carrying an alcohol license. Do we ever approve a license for longer hours should he choose to host an event on a Friday night or Saturday night?

So we certainly could. We could amend the hours through the evening should he wish to request that. We could also... In previous years, when I first started, so about nine or 10 years ago, annually, Fells Market would request that they operate on certain days that they were not typically open. that request was typically granted because it was within the hours and within the establishment. So the board could certainly approve hours for future requests to extend the hours later and then again, should he wish to close earlier. Any day of the week, he's certainly welcome to. He just couldn't serve later without that approval, or it could be a one-off, assuming the board has a meeting in time to approve it.

because his location had a full alcohol license for a while, I believe, a bit ago, but they did have I don't believe we had any issues at that location. I think they did. operate some evening hours and some events. So it's just something you might want to consider as you embark. but that's all I have to offer.

Except I'm looking forward to an opening. We do approvals of special requests quite frequently. For me, the operative time is the time of the license because once you grant the time of the license the restaurant has the opportunity to change its hours so that to me is what controls I'm also not comfortable with an 8 o'clock opening, but I would be in favor of supporting the compromise motion. Go ahead, Tom.

I, you know, to me, the way to address the single establishment were the 10 a.m. hours to change that. to 11, particularly in terms of what Beth has just said about they're not opening until later in the morning. I don't think you compound the mistake by feeling that you then have to grant 10 o'clock to other to other establishments. We're at a point where medically the recommendation is that people not be drinking at all. So to me, the idea that you have to be able to offer alcohol with breakfast is just not something I can understand. So I strongly feel that 11 o'clock Monday through Saturday and 10 o'clock on Sunday is more than adequate in what has for a long time been a family restaurant with parents, with young children there for breakfast.

And I just, I simply don't agree with expanded Hours for Alcohol Consumption.

Marjorie, could I just propose a compromise approach? So I do think we should be equitable. If we do have a 10 o'clock license out there, We are halfway through the year by the time the license gets approved. So we could be equitable for six months. And then when we revisit all of our alcohol licenses in January, we will have the information to move forward. It's just another way to kind of bring our differing views together. So approve for now, although I said 10 seems too early to me. Approve the 10 o'clock. So it's consistent. We don't have one operator with an advantage should they choose to open earlier to your point that they have the opportunity to open earlier. So we have a level playing field.

and then we put it on the board's agenda to deliberate on in the fall so that the operators can jointly all come in and weigh in on that morning hour, the chief can give us feedback on how things have been going and what we've seen in the other communities. So that's my compromise approach.

Marjorie, I can't imagine why we would do that when it's one organization that has 10 a.m. and they don't even open until 1030. That to me is not a compromise. It's a mistake.

They have the legal ability to open at 10 and that's really what controls. My response to Beth would be that Your compromise seems to be singling out this particular license for a review that we haven't needed for the- Oh no, all of them. Right, I understand that. But to me, to be equitable, if we have one 10 o'clock, I would be comfortable with offering this 10 o'clock with the understanding that we review all applications on an annual basis anyway. That was my intention. I just wouldn't make any further distinctions among the licensees. Collette.

Yeah, I just want to say I support what you've both outlined there. I think that's reasonable. I'm very uncomfortable saying no to one establishment when we've said yes to another. And I I'd like to have something more than anecdotal I don't know which restaurant we're talking about I don't think we should name them here I don't think we should be going on somebody's experience that went one day for breakfast and it was closed who knows what happened anyway I've said my piece

Okay, unless there's anything else, I'm going to ask Colette for a motion, please. And I'll close the public hearing. Move to close the public hearing.

Second.

Beth? Aye. Tom?

Aye.

Kenny?

Aye.

Colette? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Public hearing now closed. Collette?

So move to approve the all-alcohol license for Moggis Restaurant doing business as Moggis Cafe, 300 Washington Street. and to name Stratis Sarantias as manager in charge of alcohol with the condition that the service of alcohol hours are Sunday through Saturday 10am to 5pm.

Second.

Beth? Aye. Beth? Aye. Kenny?

Aye.

Tom?

No.

And I am aye. And the motion passes at 10 o'clock. Thank you very much Mr. Sorrentis. Thank you Chief Whittemore. We're all in service of the health and safety and welfare of everyone in the community as well as supporting our restaurants and I hope this is an acceptable compromise for everybody. All right, our next agenda item is, yet again, a supplemental request for snow and ice. And I'll turn it back over to Megan.

So DPW Director Dave Cohen is here for the request. Dave, do you want to maybe just give a quick overview?

Sure thing. Thanks, Megan. Thank you all for having us on the agenda this evening. This is the third supplemental authorization for winter maintenance. This third installment request is for $200,000, which will effectively leave us with a zero balance if winter were to end today. and so we're hoping that winter is over at least in any significant way. Any minor things we can just take care of in our operating budget but we think that this should hopefully wrap things up for us. and so this was a recently unusual winter but as I was looking back through some of the history we have had winters like this where we've had this many events and this much accumulation.

And so going forward, I think we'll be ready for anything that comes our way and happy to take any questions that you might have about this request.

Thank you very much, Dave. Are there any questions for Dave? Tom?

Do you, Dave, do you buy salt? Do you stock salt within this budget year? And if so, do you need more than $200 I know there are towns that experienced salt shortages earlier in the winter. And so I just want to make sure that you're able to do the normal things you do to prepare for next year.

Yeah, great question. And we're comfortable with what we have. We have about three quarters of a shed full right now. this request will allow us to basically maintain what we started the season with which was about that same amount So we don't have a full shed, but because we do have the relatively new salt shed, we feel like we have plenty of salt to make it through the season. You might have heard that there were some shortages this year and we had some delays some long delays in getting salt. But because we had the salt shed in our stockpiles, we were able to make it through without a problem. So we're not looking for additional money to fill the shed at this point. That would be another, call it $150,000. We'll see how things go at the beginning of the next season, decide if we want to fill it at that time. But this effectively replenishes what we used this year.

Thank you, Dave. And thank you for the question, Tom. Okay, Colette, may you have a motion, please?

Move to approve the winter supplemental request of $200,000 and to authorize the modification of Article 7, Motion 1 to $1,100,000. Second. Emi?

Aye.

Colette? Aye. Tom? Aye. Beth? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Thank you very much, Dave, for coming.

Thank you all. Have a great night.

Thanks, you too. Okay, moving on. Our next agenda item, and I want to note that we are one minute early, is to discuss and vote the senior property tax deferral limit pending the governor's signing of H-4143. and I'll turn it back to Megan.

So I'm gonna give a brief update and then I'm gonna turn it up to Corey with some additional information. So the governor has in fact signed our special legislation. So it's enacted. and so in speaking to the Assessors. They have received some applications that they've held back pending, you know, that were right on the cusp and they've held those back. The deadline for filing is April 1st. So should the board approve this motion tonight, we would have five or six days or so for people to get any revised applications and the applications on hold would in fact be submitted. and so in speaking to the assessors the 2024 tax year rate was established for 72,000 for a single taxpayer, 91 for head of household and 109 for married couples. So they always look at the 2024 tax filings. That being said,

So Michael DiArtenzio, who filed the amendment on the motion at town meeting, did contact Corey with a suggested revised motion or in consideration for the board. So Corey, do you want to maybe just touch on that?

Yeah, absolutely. So two quick things. Number one, the tax year 2025 Threshold, the top number is 112,000, not 109. That was based on old data. So if we do want to go to the max as set by DOR, my recommendation would be to amend the motion to either say $112,000 or if we want to avoid having to set this every year as I believe was the intent originally of Michaels. motion to amend, not the Board of Assessors when they came to us, but when it was amended by town meeting. I have language where it could tie to the maximum set by the DOR commissioner every year and it's just automatically updated for example obviously over the last year it went from 109,000 for tax year 24 to 112,000 for tax year 25

say it goes to $115,000 or $116,000 for tax year 26, we would either have to go back to the board in the fall or winter or this with other language, we can just tie it to that setting by DOR. up to the board, but I've got motion language on both ready to go.

Well, there was one other criteria. Sorry, I'm just trying to pull it up from Michael that so under the circuit breaker language, it has provisions for single filing jointly or married. And there is the opportunity to just eliminate marriage as a requirement. and so that it would just bring it to the top end of the tax year. So it would be the 112, if I'm not mistaken. I just can't find that, Corey, in the email.

Yeah, and I do think that that was the argument made to support the motion to amend a town meeting if the town meeting supported. So I guess I would say if we want to be the most responsive to town meeting, it would likely be by tying it to the maximum number identified by the Department of Revenue Commissioner instead of setting it annually.

So just to be clear, what we have in our packet are three separate income levels for a single tax Payer, a head of household, or married couples filing jointly. And your suggestion, according to Michael's recommendation, might be to tie all three levels directly to the DOR commissioners maximum automatically.

Right. So for those applying for property tax deferral under this MGL, basically, regardless of marital status, you can have income, annual income up to, well, for last tax year, $112,000 because that's what it was set by. And again, regardless of... your marital status, which is in the language.

Okay, I understand. Kenny?

So just a question about, so we can set it at whatever the highest level is per state guidance. leave it there and if for some reason it doesn't make sense anymore we could come back and revisit this and bring it down. 100%. I support it at the highest level possible.

But well, let me just ask, doesn't DOR set it for each of the three current categories as listed? Or do they just set the high end?

both both are both are true they set the individual but they also have the maximum so some special acts that have authorized towns to do this have it tied per filing type. Some, like Arlington, for which we modeled ours after and that Michael modeled his amendment after, ties, regardless of marital status, anyone over the age of 65 up to $112,000 of income for tax year 25 is eligible to apply for the program. So we have the flexibility to decide that. But I think setting it as the maximum rate is more in line with what Michael's motion to amend was last year.

Because the language Tom reads shall not exceed the amount the special act for married persons jointly, regardless of the taxpayer's marital status. So we did have that provision in the special act.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Married couples, couples filing a joint return, regardless of marital status, you might expect to have a higher income then a single taxpayer. So there's one for a single taxpayer, one for head of household and one for joint filing regardless of marital status. So not everybody would qualify for the 112.

Michael's arguing that they would. It would be a flat rate.

that's what we're deciding now if you want to move forward with what you pointed out which are the three levels or if we want to say based on what the motion to amend was at last annual town meeting do we want it everybody regardless of their filing status to be eligible to up to that income limit.

Isn't that a disadvantage for couples filing jointly?

Can I just jump in here? You can only get one Tacks. Relief. Discount per piece of property. No, I understand that. We're talking about a household being eligible, whether it's a one-person household, a married household with two filers, or... one household being eligible to get a discount on the taxes. So it's not as if two spouses both file separately, can both file for the the discount on the property tax, right? You'd get only one person per household is going to get the rebate, right? Correct.

So I'm in favor of setting it the maximum available per household, whether they are single or married or married filing separately.

So just this is more a comment for the people who are listening that may not be following this that closely. We're talking about a tax deferral. We're not talking about, you know, like a tax credit or something. People pay property tax when the land is subsequently disposed of and it accrues interest during that time. So the town is just delaying income and collecting interest on it.

Not foregoing the income, deferring it. Colette?

Is there any chance Megan or Corey can we bring up either the motion language or the special act language just so we can see if this is if we're doing the intent of what special town meeting voted I'm fine with it I just want to confirm that it is and it sounds like you know Cody you're saying that it is but we're doing this a little bit on the fly so if there's any chance you can bring that up that'd be helpful yep

Could I build on Colette's point? Is it possible that we could actually see this and then vote on it? is there a reason we can't vote?

Yes, because applications for the program for tax year 25 are due April 1st. So we weren't even sure if this year's resident pool was going to be able to access this because we didn't know when the governor was going to sign it. She signed it at the end of the day last Thursday or Friday morning. We were notified Friday morning. So we threw it right on the agenda to make sure that we could at least set it with some time in between now and April 1st so people that are eligible can pull together an application and reach out to the assessor's office.

But let's look at it and see if we're comfortable voting.

Why isn't this penalizing the married couple filing?

That's what I asked.

That's what I'm uncomfortable with, is that the single taxpayer and the head of household enjoy a significant bomb.

That's right. It may well be, Tom, but if that was what was passed at town meeting, we may have to follow what was passed at town meeting.

Oh, well, that I agree with.

Yeah. I don't have the language that was passed. at the legislature yet, but this is the language that was passed at town meeting.

and the last clause says regardless of the taxpayer's marital status. I think that's maybe a little bit ambiguous, I'll leave it to the lawyers, but to me that says everybody has the upper limit whether you're single, married or head of household.

So I actually am less clear now on my assumption being correct. Is it possible that you could be a married couple each filing separately and each file for tax deferrals? No, you were right the first time. Is that possible? I was right the first time.

Okay. As I read this, it says that the maximum qualifying gross receipts amount shall not exceed the income limit determined by the commissioner of revenue for the purposes of married people, regardless of the marital status. That says to me that whatever the top is, is the top that anybody can get. it doesn't necessarily mean that everybody gets that top level. I mean, I'm concerned that married couples would be penalized if it's the same for everybody, but reading the language, I'm not sure that that's what that says.

Don't forget that when the assessors brought this to us, they had the income limit of $103,000, I believe. And that was, I think, for everybody, regardless of marital status as well. So the idea was to bring to capture more residents that could qualify for the program. They wanted us to set it at 103 and then return to the board in future years to raise it. Michael came in and argued that that's not very efficient. We might as well tie it to what the DOR commissioner sets. And that's what that language was then amended with.

Right. I understand that. And I'm... totally supportive of capturing as many people as possible who could qualify for the deferral. But it seems that collapsing the three levels does penalize the filing joint people, regardless of their marital status.

And I don't think that that was discussed at Tang Meeting. I don't remember that discussion. I wonder if it's more conservative to pass it with the three different limits. and then go back to town council and have a bit more of a discussion and if we need to correct it correct it but it's going to be past the filing date but I mean the law just got signed we're trying to implement it as fast as we can but in a thoughtful and conservative manner.

Can I ask, it seems to me if we do that, what we're doing is we're penalizing the single household taxpayer, the household where there's one adult paying the taxes and trying to stay in town.

Well, not necessarily because the reason the limits are set differently is because when you have two people earning, you earn more typically. Exactly. Right.

Yeah, I would be more comfortable staying with the three levels, but setting it automatically to what is determined to be the number annually. There's always an opportunity, excuse me, to come back in the fall to special town meeting if there needs to be clarification or an additional vote by town meeting, which I don't think would be a problem if it's a matter of correcting intent.

I don't think you need to correct this. I think it would just need you'd need to revote the whatever you want to do.

Another way to do it would be to set the limit at the maximum set by the DOR commissioner, including any lesser limits for other than people filing jointly. or whatever limits the commissioner sets for any- Wouldn't that be the circuit breaker income limits? Yeah. That way we capture whatever the commissioner sets for any group of people at the maximum that the commissioner sets.

Okay, so do you want me to give this a motion to try then? So move to set the senior property tax deferral income limits at the level established by the Department of Revenue, including limits set by the Commissioner.

is that that's a total motion.

Yep, that's kind of what Marjorie identified there.

Could we say set them at the income limit at the level or levels established by the commissioner?

well let me give that a try so and I'm not going to specify a year I'm just going to say this and okay so move to set senior property tax deferral income limit at the level established by the Department of Revenue including income limits at levels set by the commissioner.

Second.

Collette? Aye. Beth?

I'm not sure what we're, I guess aye.

Tom?

Aye.

Kenny?

Aye.

And I vote aye as well. Okay. If we could get a clarification on exactly what that means, that might be helpful so that we could explain it to people. I find that language a little bit ambiguous. Corey, I understand exactly what you're saying, but it just It doesn't seem quite right to me.

I just asked Marjorie, did we approve the levels that are in the packet or did we approve the 112,000? What did we approve just now?

The commissioner approved 112, so that's what we approved.

Got it, thank you. So that's the 2024 rate. So the way the assessors look at it, so for tax year 26, they look back at obviously the 24 records, right? The argument is, but the rate for 25, because people are filing 25 now, so that would impact your out year. is the one that they set. So arguably Michael was saying like that's already been set so that's the highest you should be using. So I think the assessors likely would still use the 109 for the 24 tax rate, but we've already set the 25 tax rate for the subsequent year.

Is it helpful if I share on screen what we just voted? Because I think what we just voted means it moves as the commissioner sets them.

Yeah, I'm good.

I just wasn't sure.

So the maximum set by the commissioner. for any level or levels. Yeah. Okay. All right. Let's move on. Our next agenda item is to discuss select board questions and comments on EOHLC surplus land regulations. My intent with this agenda item was for us to surface our questions to Forward to Council. we are going to have to have at least one and maybe two meetings with council in time to prepare our comments to be sent to HLC and we will have ample time to discuss with council those questions the time right now the issue right now is for us to record our questions to be sent to council so I know I think Colette has sent in her questions but let's go through the regulations and call out our questions and let's start with the definitions.

Marjorie could I ask you to clarify the process by which we're going to get to um feedback to the state. Because the beginning introduction that you gave that residents were not to provide us input. I'm going to say just for myself, I would find it helpful to hear from the community how they view the regulations and what they want us as their representatives to focus on and think about before we give feedback. So that would be helpful for me. Are we getting input from anybody else besides Council as we approach this process?

The directions from HLC were for every member of the public to send their comments directly to HLC.

For formal input, like we're not to forward Mr. Smith's comments, but to edify our thinking. residents, they can't tell us not to listen to our community.

We're going to have another discussion about it. Tonight is for us to surface our questions. The question is going to be how many meetings we want with council before the letter with our comments is finalized. And we're going to have to do it in an accelerated. Go ahead. and we're going to have to do it in an accelerated manner because we have less than two and a half weeks and we're going to need to go through at least two iterations of the letter. So we're going to have to talk about scheduling meetings.

Okay. I would like input from the residents if they wish to give it from the other boards and committees who approve projects coming into this town, should they wish to give it to us. And I would like input from our neighboring Towns who also have state land to understand what ideas they have so that we can be We can cast the net in terms of our thinking as wide as possible to give clear feedback to the state because in a compressed timeline, more brains thinking about it is better.

Well, I'm not sure that's entirely realistic to open ourselves up to take comments from any neighboring community and anybody else who wants to comment. The idea is for people to send their comments directly to the state. We will have an opportunity for our community to comment to us, but that's not our purpose tonight.

So I would agree with Beth that having community input from both the boards and the citizens would be helpful. With respect to neighboring communities, I think it would be interesting for staff to go out and ask, how are you viewing this? And what are you hearing? Or what are your thoughts? But I don't think a group... kind of meeting about this with Wayland or anything or, you know, whoever is, it's not going to, I don't think that would work.

Just keep in mind, we're heading into town meeting next week and we're going to be in town meeting for at least two weeks. and we need to be reasonable for what we're asking our staff to do. And we're also talking about additional legal costs. which is going to be presented to town meeting. I assume every one of us still supports our unanimous decision to expand our legal services to cover everything we need to do to cover all our bases. for town meeting. Collette?

I do agree with that, but I think this is an incredibly important issue. to the town. And I do think we need to be focusing our attention and resources on this issue because the regulations have a lot more granularity than the statute itself. And essentially, this is how it's going to operate more so than the statute. So I think it's very important.

So I think that we can ask residents to write to us. I think that's probably the most efficient way to capture that feedback and we have had a lot of written feedback. I think we're in a different position than many residents because we're knee deep in this and we've had legal counsel, we had executive session. We've done a lot to teach ourselves about the AHA, the situation we're dealing with and what the regulations might mean to us. and so some of the comments we've had recently from residents and not meaning any disrespect are basically saying I don't know how to interpret this. and so that's our job I think we're elected and asked to do that work on their behalf and we're going to have to leverage town council which I fully support you know that that I think it's our job to raise questions and do that work on behalf of the town, certainly to hear their feedback.

and welcome feedback from other boards. But I really think that we're on an accelerated timeline here and people should send us their feedback and writing so that we have time to read it, digest it, and then work that into how we discuss that with town councils.

Beth? So do we know is MMA the legal group or is there some other group in the state that is taking a look at this type of regulation because I know we have seen guidance from the trade association and I'm not a lawyer. I really wish we had heard from counsel to walk us through what we should be concerned about and not, as opposed to us giving them feedback and then them coming back to us. But given that we're in this order, I would like to know that we're collecting from as many different smart areas, how to think about the long-term implications of what's here.

Beth, I understand. I've heard you. Megan, did you want to say something?

Yeah, just with regards to other communities. So certainly Corey and I have been in contact with the Norfolk managers and following anything MMA is having on this. Keep in mind, many communities are looking at this. just overarching, right? Similar to any set of regulations that we get to comment on. Those communities that are currently affected, like Wellesley, we obviously take a deeper dive. Until you have a particular parcel to look at it, they'll have overarching questions. But when I've talked to many of the communities, a ton of which have Commonwealth land, they just haven't been approached yet so they're they're really not they're they're like well what are you doing you know um they're not I don't want to say they're not paying attention, but it's less impactful to them because they don't have a project, which would then focus your overall commentary on thinking about what a particular project on a particular site may look like. And so we're going to get more general broad brush.

This isn't This isn't clear. What do you mean by this? To find this better from some of the commentary from the abutting communities would be my best guess based on existing and ongoing communications with many of the managers.

All right, so in the meantime, let's surface our own questions and forward those to council and let them get started on responding to our questions and incorporating our comments. into what we're going to send to the Commonwealth. Let's start with the definitions. My first question under land disposition agreement would be, we know of an instance in which the agreement between the commissioner and the developer was not consistent with the development agreement. And I'd like to know what provisions there are that those two agreements must be consistent so that one doesn't contradict or override the development agreement which impacts the rights of the town and know how the municipality is protected.

Other questions on the definitions?

So I had some, some of them have been answered already but the one that's still open is residential development type. It's not clear whether or not that includes or precludes a trailer park. I think that should be clear. The re-use restriction definition notes that there could be a condition in the conveyance regarding affordability, design standards and conservation restrictions. but it's not clear to me how they carry with the land forever. So I think it needs to be clear whether or not it's in perpetuity. It doesn't specify that. The other question I had was Actually my other questions were answered. So that's what I have in definitions that's unanswered at this point.

and just to be clear on that, Collette had asked me questions particular to zoning and how this may be relating to it that I had responded to, not questions answered by the Commonwealth or town council.

I'm not sure if it's helpful to other board members to circulate my questions and your answers, Megan. I just got the answers just before the meeting because I only sent the questions in this afternoon. but it may be helpful to other board members to see the questions and the answers.

My question under reuse restriction is whether that means the commissioner can determine other acceptable uses of the property other than housing. It's not clear what the state can say is an acceptable use.

The other one on reuse restrictions that Collette had also raised. So under state law, typical land use restrictions are 30 years, which are subject to renewal, unless it's dictated that this particular through a development agreement or other mechanism, that those would be in perpetuity. And so that is a good question. I said, to me, it does not say that and that it would be 30 years. But to me, that's a specific legal question that we should put forward.

Go ahead Beth, you want to raise a couple questions? I would. So under, it's a combination of lot area open space and open space coverage. I think we should provide some pushback is maybe the technical term for this on the inclusion of several of the spaces as part of what I would call the denominator in calculating the unit count such as spaces that are article 97-ish or fall in that network of Wetland, let's pick on wetlands, waterways, forested ways, wildlife preserves, things that are

are not going to have development on them. I think that that is an area ripe for us to think about.

In terms of lot area coverage?

In terms of lot area coverage that exemptions should be recognized within here. if we're giving them feedback, I think one of the primary things that has been a focus for us is that not everything should count as a denominator. And I think this is our opportunity to identify areas where we believe there should be exemptions to lot area. And the way they break it out in open space, they pretty much say everything counts regardless of how protected, how natural, and DeBellable, well it is, under municipal regulations. I think we should call out particular municipal regulations that are important to us, like affordability and stormwater. I don't think those should be subject to negotiation in the development agreement.

They are things that are important to the community, important enough that we voted regulations on them. Reuse restrictions, I would like to see an option for the municipality. So we have been through projects that have not succeeded. And instead of going out to you know the another buyer and through the process again I think there should be a right of first refusal for the municipality. so I think I just didn't understand site plan review where it says shall not provide discretionary review or authority I I guess that means we would need to enact regulations rather quickly.

Well, I think what it says is the review has to be clear and objective and not arbitrary or discretionary.

Okay. Okay, so some of these may be legal terms of art that I'm not as familiar with.

So just on that one, Beth, site plan under state law, site plan can be conditioned. It cannot... denied project-based site plan. And so it really is, can you create a specific condition, my read on it, can you create a specific condition that can actually be carried out?

Okay. Megan, who's our zoning administrator?

The site plan would be administered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The interpretation of zoning is administered by the building inspector. Okay. And who determines sound principles under site plan review? arguably both the zoning bylaw as well as the conditions in the draft of the site plan review conditions. Okay. They would review those.

Other questions on definitions? Do you want me to keep going on definitions or do you want somebody else to take a crack and then I can pick up under? Oh, actually, maybe that's it for definitions. I guess the residential development or surplus property, 77.03. Do you consider that part of the definition? No, that's it. Okay, then I'm good.

Okay, so under 77031B, It says a municipality may enforce the terms of a development agreement provided that the development agreement does not conflict with the terms of the conveyance. What if a developer in the town wanted to negotiate the development agreement first? Is that never permissible?

I think under the terms of the conveyance, they would require you, it would be similar to when we did the 40R. Development, member EOHLC had to approve the development agreement. That's what I would envision based on that language.

So we could negotiate the development agreement and they then have to approve it within the terms of the conveyance. Correct.

That's how I would envision it based upon what occurred with the 40R. Okay. It was essentially like a tri-party review. It's sort of like you negotiate and then EOHLC signs off on it.

which is kind of what happened in Lancaster, right? There was a development agreement between the municipality and the developer which was not honored when all was said and done. and the municipality didn't get what it thought it was going to get in the development agreement. That's my concern.

Kenny? So your question brought up kind of I think what's a fundamental question or point here is I think it makes a lot of sense for us to have a conversation with so that we have a common understanding of what we're looking at. It's very hard for us to each one of read this, especially because there's no guidance on the guidance. Um, and say what I it's hard for me to say what my comments or questions are other than say this is what I'm reading is everybody understanding it the same way for example and I'm pretty confident in this this one but the way I read this is we cannot impose less a requirement that allows them to build a developer to build less than four units per acre. and we also cannot impose a cap.

And so that's like a fundamental point that I think we should have common understanding because it's hard to comment because once you pull one string, something else goes. And so I'll lay out the questions that I have, but it's really confirming. but I really think it's very important that we have a conversation with council so that we are level setting what the understanding is and what we're commenting on.

Agreed.

I have some comments under the regulations and interpretation if you want to take a few then Marjorie I had a question about whether we'll need to promulgate regulations and it seems like we will need to do that and that's going to be the job of the ZBA but we need to assist on that. Excuse me, where are you? I'm at 77.031. Okay. and then I wanted to understand what the hierarchy or life of the conditions were between a conveyance with conditions. Is that forever? The question that I've asked before, is it forever or is there a term on that that needs to be clearer? The other question I had is So I think that it doesn't seem to me like it's a good strategy for the state not to require minimum 10% affordable restriction.

I think we need to give them that feedback because state action could push the municipalities. out of compliance with their own goals and we should have their help in staying in compliance or at least not degrading our SHI status or inventory. I understand that they feel that affordability is a barrier to housing but they're asking us to do two different things so I think we need to give that feedback so that's that's that for that section I have on the next section I have some more comments but I wanted to

Before you go on to the next section, it's my recollection that the secretary said they were going to honor our inclusionary zoning requirements.

Right, but that's not clear here.

Right, no, and it's not in the statute either. Okay, anything else? I'm sorry.

That is my point. It actually says the opposite.

Right, exactly. It's not in there. He said they would honor them, but there's nothing in writing that guarantees that.

And just as a reminder, the MBTA communities provisions, they also did not require affordability restrictions in those communities that had affordability restrictions greater than 10%. We did have to file an economic feasibility study. to conclude that you could in fact build housing with a 20% affordability, which we have provided to the Commonwealth and we're approved for that under MBTA communities, which would bolster us in this case, but to everyone's point, it does not expressly state that.

I think we need to push back on this one hard because this is a lever that they can use to say, look, we could throw you out of compliance. Right. And so you should include greater than four units per acre. And we'll agree to impose a affordability requirement in there. But absent that, we could get thrown right out of compliance intentionally.

Right, that's right. Maybe the feedback is that we asked for the inclusion rezoning with the market test, just like Megan said for MBTA communities. So that's reasonable.

I'd like to raise a sort of a companion point to Kenny's. You know, I went through these. I certainly have things that where I have comments and questions, but my overall point is I am very concerned about being drawn into a detailed response to regulations when we don't even have answers to our questions raised in the January 9th letter. essentially what the state has done is ignored their agreement to answer those questions and they've now started a clock running which is promulgation of these regulations with a date certain and after that they can just slip into the next step with its 30-day deadline. and we're off and running. What I don't appreciate is the sense from the Commonwealth that

they didn't really mean it when they said we could ask questions if they were good questions, if they were difficult questions, if they were questions that when to the heart of the issues that I think multiple communities are going to be looking at if they are faced with this kind of a proposal. So to me, the larger concern is how to say, wait just a minute. You haven't even answered our questions, which would allow us to be better informed in addressing these regulations. I find it very difficult to go through these in a particularly meaningful way on behalf of the community. if we don't have the context for the answers to those questions.

Now that they've been promulgated, Tom, I agree with you that it's time for us to contact the Commonwealth and tell them that We don't understand why we don't have answers to our questions because we were expecting that they were going to tell us when they were going to promulgate the regulations. while they answered our questions so we would be better positioned to respond to the regulations and set our next steps. And in fact, they didn't do that. I think we needed to wait for the regulations in order to say that but now that we have them I think it's incumbent upon us to go back to them and say are we getting answers or not and when are we going to get them because we need to position the town in the best way to respond to whatever happens next and they're not giving us any advance notice of what's happening. Beth?

So I concur with the point about inclusionary zoning. I just don't know if it goes here or in the definitions. I would like to see the capacity for the municipality to regulate the size of the units and I'm I'm confused about the development agreement and the conveyance document. It appeared to me that we couldn't go further then the state had gone in the conveyance document. So I looked at it more as a way to give us the capacity to enforce the conveyance document. And for that reason, I wonder if there's a way to include in this document the negotiation of a development agreement with the state before an RFP is put out and if that could be

included in the regulations that the municipality and the state will negotiate a development agreement. They may not like it, but I think everything that's outlined here would indicate you need to get ahead of the conveyance document. And I don't know how else to do that.

How could we enter into a development agreement with someone who's not the developer?

because it's attached to the document, the bid documents that you're bidding. And part of your agreement when you answer the RFP is that you will enter into the development agreement as attached. When you bid a state contract, often there's a you agree to X, Y, Z, P, and Q, and you can negotiate a little bit, but you have already signed off that you're in alignment on what's in the documents. that goes out for the bid. So that's how it works in the private sector, even with state agencies.

Except what the town might want might depend on the developer and what the developer proposes. proposes a response to in the RFP. I'm just afraid that doesn't give us enough protection to set the terms of the development agreement in advance.

maybe set the basic terms and leave open the capacity based on what they come back with to renegotiate. But I think you need to get ahead of the bid or you're always playing defense.

We already asked them if we could participate in the formulation of the RFP and we don't have an answer on that either.

So I view this as higher level. This isn't just about MassBay. This is about any time. We have other state lands. So if we can get something as a policy, that works across all projects. That to me would be what we should be looking at here. Are we up to 77.04 yet or no?

Yes, yes. Okay.

Let's move on to 77.04. 04, number two. The way I read this, it means that everything built has to be suitable for families with children. And that obviates the capacity to do age restricted, which is what we were told. was permissible within these kinds of AHA projects. So I find this I see it says to encourage a diversity.

We were told specifically. that it would not exclude types of senior housing. But that's a good point we want to make clear. It says encourage, not require.

yeah it just depends on how you read the sentence Marjorie so I read it a few times I'm not really sure but I think it has the possibility to be problematic yes I agree and then Under B sub 1, a municipality may not impose more than the minimum requirements. That seems problematic to me because we know there are several instances where as a community we have higher than minimum requirements. I'm going to go with grease traps as exhibit one. So I think that If in the definitions you comport with municipal regulations, this is in conflict with definitions from a non-lawyer point of view. And in site plan review,

can you'll see a theme here can the conveyance document require that the developer enter into a regular into a development agreement. That's what I would like to know if we could get that included. and I will stop there because I think that brings us up to 77.05 so we can come back to that when others have weighed in.

Okay, thank you. So in 77043, it talks about building health safety utilities. What does it mean? I know Title V relates to Sewage and that kind of water that's not on a public system. But what does it mean for the developer's requirement to provide utilities like water? I mean, can we not require that, basic utilities?

You have to require that. That undersite plan, you'd have to bring in new services. There's none present.

Okay. And to Beth's point, any additional We can't require any additional I'd like to know what our codes or bylaws or regulations would require that they're telling us we can't require.

Yeah, some of them just on thought, some of them with the health department in particular, just thinking about some of the codes they have. We have very strict criteria with regards to the installation of pools, in particular multifamily properties, as a for instance. That's one that instantly came to mind. for me. The other thing could be with regards to refuse trash because we have an RDF. So is it, depending upon the hauling regulations, in particular from either DPW or through the health department. Some of its pest management requirements when you have multifamily housing that the Health Department has. To Beth's point, this isn't commercial in any way, but, you know, If you ended up having a 55 plus senior community, if you were going to have a dinner service or something, then we have explicit requirements pertaining to grease traps, things of that nature.

It's hard to imagine that we couldn't require of them what we would require of every other residential unit or development in town. Okay, I'm curious, Megan, whether anything under site plan review in that paragraph would impair our typical site plan review or limit the scope of our typical review?

I think where our largely through our design review board where we have advisory design criteria that are oftentimes implemented by the zoning board of appeals to enhance appearance, landscape design, things of that nature. That's what I question whether that's something that they may and largely it's unclear whether it's you would go through the process to me it's unclear you would go through the process you would condition a particular site and issue a decision and then HLC would say that's not clear strike or whether it would be When we think about comprehensive permits, so the permit that the Zoning Board of Appeals issues pertaining to multifamily housing for 40B, what happens is if they issue conditions that the developer

finds to have economic harm, you can go to the Housing Appeals Committee. So I'm curious if HLC deems themselves to be sort of the, well, you can't do that. you know the developer doesn't want to do that so okay yep we agree you don't have to do that that's not clear like that's because it makes it economically infeasible because it makes it economically infeasible yeah okay Beth so

I think this is under site plan, Megan, but I'm not sure. Is there a way to insert in here the cost, the infrastructure and transportation costs impacts on the municipality will be borne by the developer. And that's one piece. And the second piece is, is there a way to insert into this document that the state will facilitate Agency cooperation in addressing impacts like transportation, because we know should something happen on Oakland Street that we would like support on Route 9 or changing an entrance into Mass Bay. And I think if the state's going to dictate so many

rules and regulations they need or they should be partnering with the town and facilitating a proper implementation. yeah we asked them instead of having us now exactly as opposed to us cleaning it up afterwards yeah yes so that I think having that be the responsibility of UHLC to be Traffic Cop on facilitation would be a good thing to see implemented here.

Okay, anything?

Go ahead, Clint. Are we on to 7705 now? Yes. Okay. So my question here is, I'm not sure how effective density can be defined as a number of units that can be built according to municipal regulations, which I would think would include wetlands and things like that. when the effective density calculation in 77051 specifically states the calculation is made without any exclusions including open bodies of water and rights of way. So I just don't get that. And so I think that we need to talk about that more with town council. and then 77051B. I don't think that's reasonable or advisable. I think it could end up with a large, mostly undevelopable lot forcing through extremely dense development and a very small section of the lot. So I think we got to talk about that with town council and see how we give our feedback on that. That's what I have on that.

Okay, anything else for now, Beth? On 77052, I am unclear on how to read this. I'm assuming that it means that ADUs shall not be allowed on property developed under the surplus regulations. But I am not certain if it says that AHAs are supplemental to minimum density. So I...

Well, I think what they're saying is the minimum effective density of four units per acre doesn't include ADUs, that you have to have at least four, but you could also have ADUs.

That's what's not clear to me. So I believe that we should recommend that you cannot have ADUs if you are meeting the minimum effective density If we had, let's imagine worst case, and on a five acre lot, we have 180 units, and then you're allowed to have 80 ewes.

Yeah, that doesn't work there because it's multifamily. But keep in mind, these regulations are for the Commonwealth, not just Wellesley. So that would be if we had 180, if it was a subdivision that was created and we were placing single family housing units, you cannot preclude ADUs. Here in a multifamily, you wouldn't have an ADU because it's a multifamily structure. An ADU would be an accessory dwelling unit to a single family residential or potentially a two family residential. So it's sort of finite in its application.

Why can't we preclude ADUs in multifamily settings if they are attempting to preclude our regulations?

override our regulations with regards to single family units based upon state law. That's an existing state law. That would be my feedback.

I would like to preclude ADUs from multifamily structures because you're adding a lot more density in a multifamily setting.

Okay, additional comments? That's a good start. If we have any other, keep in mind, we're going to be sending these to Council. probably tomorrow and they're going to start working on responses to the questions and a first draft of our comments which will obviously have to be edited and expanded depending on other input that we have or anybody else has.

Marjorie, is town council separately than our feedback? Have they drafted a point of view on these regulations or are they working just off our guidance.

No, they're working on separate questions and comments that would not, you know, sort of universal and Wellesley specific.

Right.

Thank you.

Kenny, did you have a question?

Here's some things that I'd like to confirm, many of which I think I know the answer to, but I think it's important that we confirm it. In terms of density, we must allow four units an acre unless we agree in the conveyance otherwise. We have no ability to impose a maximum density. you calculate how many units can be built on the parcel using the entire from a design perspective we do not control design therefore we have no control over what this building or buildings will look like We've already talked about the bylaw, you know, overriding environmental parking. We don't control site plan review is very limited. Inclusionary Zoning, we have no say over that necessarily.

So those are kind of the core things that I'd like confirmed. But I would also like them to know, I'd like council to advise on where they see the most likely legal challenges to these to the regulations. And I think specifically it is unclear that they have the ability to override environmental, local environmental regulations. The statute itself does not give them the authority to do so. Also second would be the entire lot density. The statute simply says four units an acre. It doesn't define any methodology. And it's unclear whether or not they actually have the right in the regulations to define the entire lot area in the way they do. and also whether or not they have the ability to eliminate density caps at all.

So, you know, that's kind of a high level of my thoughts, but I would like to know where they think this is most susceptible to a legal challenge.

The other question about wetlands is the difference or the interplay between local regulations and bylaws and state laws. I mean, do our wetlands are our regulations broader than the state protections or do we get the protection we would expect from our own bylaws? from the state bylaws on wetlands. They're telling us our local ones don't apply, but state ones still do. So what protection does that give us for wetlands?

We ran into this with the Morse's Pond Project where they use state wetlands regulatory guidelines and not local and the local were more restrictive.

And they can do that. Okay.

Beth? Yeah, this one's... I don't know quite how to approach it, but if the municipality... turns land over to the state for state usage that benefits the municipality. So let's imagine the current land that is being proposed at town meeting to be turned over for The water, the MWRA water. If at some point MWRA decides they didn't need it or there was a better spot or there's a new technology and they abandon it. this policy should include or somewhere there should be a revision of that land to municipal control. Because we could get in a situation where you turn over land in good faith for a project that is mutually beneficial.

But then that land then comes back and that land is again in a protected area. And I would hate to see us doing something for the public good that then we have no control over again. and I don't know, perhaps we could ask council how that works but we're on the precipice of authorizing that at town meeting and it seems to me to have a potential pitfall given all these regulations and the imbalance in development control.

Anything else for the moment? Okay, thank you very much, everybody. That's a lot to slog through. Let's move on to annual town meeting preparation.

Megan? Yes, I just wanted to provide some quick updates. I provided the board the updated sources and uses that's also been posted online. Initially, I was thinking we were going to have to modify Article 8, Motion 2. We do not. So that's all set. You did just modify Article 7, Motion 1, which that's all set. We've already provided that to town meeting. and so we also just put this on just in case there was anything the board wanted to discuss. At this point I don't think there's anything outstanding but happy to take questions or comments from the board.

Anything? Anybody? Okay, I think we're in good shape to proceed on Monday to town meeting. Obviously, the prep session is Thursday night. Everybody should have gotten the agenda for it. It's somewhat limited, heavy DPW. So select board is not front and center for this town meeting. Our next agenda item is to discuss and vote the minutes of the moderators meeting. Were there any comments? Yeah, okay. They were very straightforward. Thank you very much for those.

Collette? Move to approve the minutes of March 19, 2026. Second. Kenny?

I abstain. I wasn't there.

Tom?

Aye.

Collette? Aye. Beth? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Okay. On to the chair's report. We did not meet with advisory or school committee today. If board members have not seen the March 10th school committee meeting where they discussed the school facilities master plan, I would recommend you watch it at about the one hour, 45 minute mark. I expect that they will be voting tonight on whether to move forward with requesting funding for a consultant to help to design the school facilities master plan and designate someone on the committee to draft a charge. and work with Joe on the RFP. Those two items are not being voted tonight, but will be voted at a later date. Clearly, the Select Board continues to receive emails about Mouse Bay.

and the latest information for those people who are still writing to us about the forest directly from the Secretary is that the Commonwealth did not intend to have housing built on at least most of the forested area. As you know, Secretary Augustus stepped down on February 27th and has been replaced by Juana Matias, a former HUD Regional Administrator. We haven't heard anything since then and our detailed letter, as we've been discussing before, sent to the Commonwealth on January 9th remains open and without responses. the board will determine the form and timing of possible public input and other next steps hopefully upon receipt and review of the Commonwealth's responses.

But in any event, we'll have to determine our next steps if we don't think we're going to hear from them in very short order. and that's really all I have at the moment. So our next agenda item is an executive session. I request a motion to enter into executive session to conduct strategy with respect to bargaining with the Wellesley Firefighters and Library Associations and to discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation with Albany Road Wellesley LLC, as I declare having such discussions in open session may be detrimental to the town.

So move to enter executive session under Mass General Law, Chapter 30A, Subsection 21A. Exemption No. 3, to discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation with Albany Road Wellesley LLC and Mass General Law Chapter 30A, Subsection 14. 21A3 to conduct strategy with respect to bargaining with the Wellesley firefighters, IAFF Local 1795. Wellesley Free Library Staff Association and Wellesley Free Library Supervisor Association as the chair has declared that having such discussions in open session is detrimental to the town and to invite Megan Jopp, Corey Testa, Tom Harrington, Dolores Hamilton, Steve Mortorelli and Jamie Jergensen to join. Is there anyone else I should invite to join, Megan?

No, and as a matter of fact, Jamie won't be attending tonight, so we can strike her.

Okay. Following the close of executive session, the board will return to open session for the sole purpose of adjourning the meeting.

Second.

Paulette? Aye. Beth?

Aye.

Kenny?

Aye.

Tom?

Aye.

And I vote aye as well. We are now in executive session.