Select Board February 10, 2026

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Wellesley Select Board, February 10th, 2026, in the Giuliani Room at Town Hall. The meeting is being televised live on Comcast Channel 8 and Verizon Channel 40 and will be available for viewing on wellesleymedia.org. Thank you to Wellesley Media for the many hours you put in to cover and rebroadcast our meetings. And I'm sorry I haven't said that all year, but thank you. Here in town hall are select board members, Vice Chair Tom Ulfelder, Secretary Colette O'Frank, Beth Sullivan Woods, Kenny Largess, and myself, Marjorie Freiman. also here our executive director Megan Jopp and assistant executive director Corey Testa joining us this evening our town council Tom Harrington and Ethan Dively thank you both for being here

Thanks also go to Wellesley's Department of Public Works, who are probably out working right now, which worked very hard again over the weekend to clear our streets of snow and to make passage safe for all of us here in town. Our first agenda item is citizen speak, so I'll turn to Corey for that. Thank you.

Our first speaker is Laura Van Zant. If you wouldn't mind coming to the table and just pressing the button on the microphone.

Hi, Laura.

And just state your name and your address for the record. Thank you. Yep.

It's green. Good. So my name is Laura Van Zant. Do I need to say where I live? Crestwood Drive. And I'd like to speak about what is known as the MassBay proposal. I'd like to say thank you to all the members of the select board and the town employees who make these meetings work. And I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak tonight. Our family has lived in Wellesley for over 30 years now. It's amazing to think of that. We moved here as a young couple with a very keen focus, and that was to get a puppy. So our puppy Clara joined us in 1993. and as residents of the other side of Wellesley, our walks focused on the North 40 and occasionally Wellesley College and it was years before we discovered Centennial.

Two dogs later and one house along, we found ourselves on the other side of town and close to what has become a treasured space for me, my children, and our dogs. as well as for the many, many people that I meet there when I'm at Centennial. I've also been fortunate to discover MassBay and everything the college College offers to the community and to the students. I'm an adjunct professor in my third semester there, following a two-decade role as executive director of a nonprofit organization serving Wellesley and 26 other towns. I'm speaking tonight in favor of working collaboratively with the Commonwealth and the Department of Housing and Livable Communities in order to create housing in Wellesley facilitate the sale of land belonging to the state for the benefit of MassBay and to preserve the third space that my family treasures. I believe that all three of these can be accomplished by working together with the state, not at odds.

MassBay is a remarkable resource that I now have the pleasure of seeing up close. The education and the opportunities offered to students, the professionalism and the dedication of the faculty and staff, it's inspiring. I feel enormous pride that this resource is a part of our town. The generosity of the college and the Commonwealth that we have enjoyed for so long, walking in their woods, parking our buses, watching our kids dance and sing on the stage, is completely in character with the institution I've come to know. This opportunity to support the sale of state-owned land that will protect both the tradition of the wooded land and invest in the future of MassBay feels like a good choice. a useful trade-off. As I am now teaching macroeconomics, I need to be able to discuss trade-offs.

creating accessible, affordable, quality housing on five acres of land that is currently a parking lot feels like creating value, producing utility, generating purpose for that land. There will be many questions to be answered once we envision that housing on that land. And that will be important work. So let's get to it.

Thank you. Lesley Hanrahan.

before you start the timer, I just wanted to say thank you to Wellesley Media as well because we were interviewed, Friends of Brookside was interviewed by Wellesley College students and they commented on what a what a wonderful resource it is for them because they watched a lot of your meetings and were able to easily find out information. So I just wanted to pass that along. My name is Leslie Hanrahan of Putney Road. I'm a 40-year resident of Wellesley. And I'd like to begin by noting that there currently is no agreed upon project scope for 40 Oakland Street. ongoing discussions reference 180 or more housing units and preservation of the vast majority of the forest, which I define as 25 to 30 acres.

At the select board meeting on September 16th, Commissioner Bakey stated that the critical project details cannot be known until a developer is selected. As a result, terms such as critical details, around 180 units, and vast majority remain undefined, yet they are central to understanding what is being proposed. recognizing these uncertainties the select board acting as the town's negotiating body with HLC and DCAM submitted 37 detailed questions on January 9th to Ed Augustus. Given the importance of these questions, town residents extend their thanks to the select board for asking them and raising them. I would like to briefly highlight several of these questions and explain why they matter. First, what is the legal basis for designating this parcel as surplus real property? Under the Affordable Homes Act, surplus land is defined as property not needed now and in the foreseeable future.

yet MassBay currently uses 500 of the 650 parking spaces at 40 Oakland Street for student parking as well as school buses and trailhead parking access for Centennial Reservation. A state commissioned parking study concludes that MassBay's current and future parking needs cannot be met solely at 50 Oakland Street and recommends continued use of 135 spaces at 40 Oakland Street. This establishes foreseeable ongoing need at that site. In addition, much of the forested land has been identified by the state as prime forested land, and there's a really nice map that shows this. And it's indistinguishable from Centennial Reservation, which is Article 97 protected. The land has long functioned as conservation land maintained by the town and even MassBay leadership has stated early on it was unaware of its ownership until recently.

The Select Board appropriately asks whether some or all of this land qualifies for Article 97 protection, which would preclude surplus designation. How do the AHA required deed restrictions solely for housing align with permanent forest conservation, continued student parking, and public trailhead access? would these non-housing uses conflict with the AHA requirements that surplus land be disposed of solely for housing purposes? Third, while the AHA sets a minimum density of four units per acre or 180 units, what are the allowable maximum densities? Can municipalities limit density or can the state permit extreme densities such as concentrating 180 units on a small fraction of the site? which is if it was 4.5 acres 40 units per acre or if it were 2.25 acres because you need extra parking that would be 80 units per acre.

Finally, beyond Article 97 and parking needs, are there additional grounds for exempting land from surplus designation? How do wetlands, steep slopes, ledge, and our water protection supply districts and conservation areas Steele, Steele, Steele, Steele. So those are very important things that came out to me from your letter and also from reading the parking study. So I just wanted to publicly state them and have people consider them. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Leslie.

Peter Diana.

Hi, my name is Peter Diana. I live at 9 Berkshire Road where I've resided for 33 years. I'm here to speak about the same topic that the preceding two speakers spoke to. I'm the former chair of the Wellesley Trails Committee, which I headed for, I think, five Six years. And I was the chair at the time that we laid out the trails in Wellesley and marked them and made the initial map of them so that they'd be more accessible to the public. and I remember specifically marking the trails in Centennial Park. and the trails existed, people were using them, but they weren't that accessible because people didn't know about them and there were some bridges required and so forth that the trails committee worked on to complete.

But in laying out those trails and in marking those trails we didn't distinguish between the Centennial Park lands and the adjoining forest land that's owned by the state. And the reason we didn't is because it's all of a piece. It's of a piece for recreational purposes, it's of a piece for environmental purposes, and it's crucial that that land be maintained. that land is essential to that trail system and the trails in Centennial Park are the showpiece of the Wellesley trails that all the towns around us envy so much. and that land is decidedly not surplus. And to think that it is surplus or to allow someone to declare it surplus is wrong and we all should stand against it. Thanks.

That was everyone that signed up in advance.

I pressed this button. It's already on. Okay. Well, I'm here probably on a not pleasant subject. I was hit by a car in a crosswalk Oh, sure, Boyd Hill, B-O-Y-D, a hill like a mountain, live on Washington Street. Previously, I lived in Natick for 18 years. I've worked for 12 Fortune 500 companies. I have two Ivy League degrees. I've been head of a college department and worked in a prestigious museum, et cetera. But I was hit in a crosswalk by the police station walking to Whole Foods. I can't drive right now. I need cataract surgery in both eyes, but miraculously I can see 20-20 somehow. But the bottom line is I think you have a serious issue here. for pedestrians. I mean, it's horrible.

I was just over at the library and walking over here, the Cameron Street crosswalk there right in front of you is not synchronized with the one at the main intersection up here. So when I was trying to cross the crosswalk to come over here, there was a big pickup truck straddling the crosswalk. The light was green at the next intersection. Cars were coming up behind the pickup truck, and I had to weave around them. you know supposedly on a crosswalk sign what have you. Similarly at Whole Foods there's not enough time you can barely and I walk relatively quickly you can barely get to the other side before the number is up and you're toast. In addition, at the library, the crosswalk there, the crosswalk is adjacent literally with the street.

it's brick so it's slidey more than pavement or cement and it tapers down if there's someone on the other side of that crosswalk and I've been on the downside of the crosswalk Carls coming by you come within inches of you. They see that green light where 135 splits off of 16 and they gun it. Clearly, pedestrians here have no value whatsoever. Bizarrely enough, the crosswalks are right at the street instead of being in set a number of feet so that a turning car might have a moment to see you. I'm sensitive to this because 38 years ago in Wakefield, I was hit by a boy who went on the wrong side of a short traffic island to cut off two lanes of traffic coming down from Lake Quantipowit to hook a quick left-hand turn. I, by chance, was in the crosswalk. Eyewitnesses, including an attorney, saw me do at least two somersaults in the air.

I landed head first on the pavement straight down. The ambulance and ER doctors could not figure out why I lived or wasn't permanently crippled. I don't know either. But the bottom line is, is that even though this time I, the person, as I entered the crosswalk by the police station, zoomed up halfway the front of her car, halfway into the crosswalk. I waited for a minute or so to make sure this person saw me. and then I cautiously started going around and as soon as I got to the middle of her car, she just sped up, threw me into the street. If a car had been coming, it would have been history. So I'm just saying that the numbers on these crosswalks are either 20 or 28 at most. Go to any other more civilized town, they're gonna be like 40 or something. There's a boatload of people crossing over to Whole Foods. kind of thing. I see women and children and runners and you name it crossing that street.

It's 20. You cannot hardly get to the other side. When I go from the Brookline Bank or whatever it is to the opposite side, I'm 10 feet or so before the number runs out. So I know supposedly you have a three-minute cutoff or something. So I don't want to importune you, but I'm saying clearly very little consideration is given here for pedestrians. You know, it's like, you know, if you've got an important fancy car you're taken care of. but pedestrians either in the crosswalks and by all means please do something about these two lights the as I say tonight even coming over here you've got that green light there but you've got a crosswalk people are already in that crosswalk. They could care less. It's an obstacle course for them if you're a human being.

Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Thank you for your time. Sorry if I went over.

Okay. No, that's it. OK. Thank you very much. We'll next turn to Megan for the executive director's report.

I'm just going to give a brief update and then turn it over to Corey. So I just wanted to remind folks on the community events calendar, which you can find on the website, there's a number of meet the candidate nights coming up. including Wednesday, Sustainable Wellesley's eighth annual conversation with the candidates. Thursday is the League of Women Voters Meet the Candidates nights. And so, and as part of that, our staff has been trying to populate the community events and spending actually an inordinate amount of time doing that to keep people apprised and so we would encourage non-profits or others who would like to announce their community events if you're you know Churches, other organizations, populate them if you want people to come and and we're happy to share that and because we're digging around for your your events to make sure people know about them and so help us help you promote them and then Corey wanted to give an update on DEI

But before I do that, I would like to let all residents and town staff know that applications for our inaugural class for the Citizens Leadership Academy are now live. They are on the town's website. now under our hot topics page there's a button and you can fill out an online application or you can print out the pdf fill it out by hand and either mail it back to us at town hall or drop it off on the third floor in the Select Board Office. Applications are due by 5 p.m. on Friday, February 27th, and decisions will be made probably by the end of the following week or the Monday following that. I appreciate having the opportunity to briefly update the board and residents on the recent and important work of the DEI task force and to briefly summarize some of the high-level takeaways from the equity audit dialogues we had in October of last year.

So just as a reminder, the DEI task force was created in 2021 following the select board's adoption of an anti-racism and anti-bias statement with the goal of helping make Wellesley a more inclusive and more welcoming community. In 2023, Town Meeting funded a comprehensive equity audit, which was conducted by the Racial Equity Group, included staff trainings, community surveys, Small group and one-on-one interviews and extensive community outreach and public engagement. The audit was completed in early 2025 and produced four large primary recommendations One, maintain a permanent DEI body to provide oversight. Two, expand efforts to attract and retain a more diverse municipal workforce. Three, improve equity monitoring for vendors and contractors. and four, enhance belonging and inclusion for all residents through more representative and accessible community programming and traditions.

Over the past year, the DEI Task Force has focused particularly on that fourth recommendation by partnering with the Wellesley Civil Discourse Initiative to host those community dialogues titled Many Traditions, One Community. over 60 participants, our resident participants participated in facilitated dialogues about what helps people feel connected or excluded from town events and traditions. clear themes emerged, including the importance of visible representation, better communication, and intentional design of inclusive programs. Community events and traditions such as Wellesley Wonderful Weekend, Veterans Parade, and July Jubilation were frequently cited as town-wide opportunities to get together and feel a sense of belonging. who residents also consistently pointed to schools, their own neighborhoods and sports teams or arts and music groups as other community gathering spaces that offer belonging.

The memo approved by the full task force and included in your packets for tonight's meeting was drafted after I consolidated over 100 pages of notes taken from the two dialogues held in October. I then used AI tools and some old-fashioned charting to draw out some key themes to draft the set of proposed recommendations included at the end of the memo for possible next steps that the town can take to build on this important work. based on this excuse me based on this feedback the task force is advancing practical next steps such as creating a centralized welcome and Belonging Hub, expanding multicultural events, improving outreach to newcomers and METCO families, and strengthening policies and training that support inclusive practices. The task force looks forward to working with the select board and town staff to turn these recommendations into meaningful action. My recommendation, which is supported by the task force and staff,

is to keep the current task force in place as is right now and direct us to come back to you in the coming weeks or next month with a set of more concrete proposals and action items. to help the town build on the critical work we have started. Tonight was simply to debrief you on last fall's dialogue, provide you with the memo, and update you on the status of the task force. In closing, I'd like to thank Lisa Olney, a member of the task force, for all of her help with editing the earliest drafts of the memo. Her editor's eye was key. Birdguess and his team at Racial Equity Group for their continued assistance even after the formal audit process was completed, and all of our task force members for their thoughtful and careful review of every draft and the wonderful discussions we have had as this process has unfolded. Thanks.

So, Corey, you'll let us know when you'd like next to put it on the agenda for us to discuss it. Thank you very much for the update. Okay? All right. Our next agenda item is our consent agenda. We have two items under the consent agenda tonight, one to approve an expenditure from the special and the Education Stabilization Fund to pay the school department's vendor, which collects Medicaid reimbursements. . . . . . The second item is to vote an amount to award to Wellesley students from the War Memorial Scholarship Fund. This year there will be three runners in the Boston Marathon raising money for the scholarship fund. each of whom is required to raise $5,000.

Approval of awarding $15,000 from the fund this year to the winning students will help defray the rising cost of college education and will not affect the principal amount of the fund. Megan, has anybody requested that either be removed from the consent agenda? No. OK. Motion, please, Collette.

I have a question. I'm fully supportive of the war memorial. I'm just wondering, is there a number of students that we are including for the $15,000? Is it two or three?

We leave that to Wellesley Education Foundation, and it's contingent upon application. they make the recommendation to us.

I just think it would be nice to give them some guidance that giving to two or three students is good because they'll each get a substantial amount and it will make an impression that it was a scholarship from the town.

OK, we'll pass that along. Thank you, Beth. Great, thank you. Anything else on either of those items? Move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, our next agenda item is a joint meeting with the Human Resources Board and we have members of the board and staff here with us tonight. So I'd like to invite you to join us at the table. Megan, would you like to tee it up or shall I turn it to Tony?

You can, Tony can. Okay. What was I gonna do?

I'm gonna ask you to introduce your board and staff and tell us why you're here.

Happy to do that, happy to do that.

This is Chair Tony Bent.

You need to, Sean, you need to sit. All right, move over one. Okay, okay, we're good. All right, so we have four members of the board. Okay, so let me first convene the meeting of the Human Resources Board on February 10th. Please indicate your presence, Neil. and Julie Moore, and Sean Baker.

Tony, I'm just going to ask you to pull the mic closer to you. People who are watching on TV can't hear if it's not close. Thank you.

All right. So we are convened here. Thanks for this opportunity to talk with you. This is a pretty important piece for us and for all of us in this town relative to the 30.10 bylaw about the the development and approval of policies. Let me just first say that lots of people are involved with this effort and we appreciate all of that. Sean has been taking a lead in the board and will be making some comments in just a minute or two. We have had terrific support from Tom all along the way attending probably four or five of our meetings in the last few months. I appreciated the guidance from Colette O'Frank as well, and of course our staff. We're really having a good time in HRB this year. I wish that for all boards. So, yes?

No, we don't need to convene because it is, but we don't have to convene in terms of that because we're not voting together on anything.

Okay, but let me just finish up by saying that we have had five specific HRB discussions on 30.10 beginning in November. Tom, and Alex have been instrumental in those discussions all along the way. We've obviously been to advisory as well. before this meeting to get their sense of things. And Mark Benjamin has absolutely been spectacular in terms of guiding us in terms of the needs for the advisory board as well. So I think there's a certain level of momentum established through all of the communication that we've been able to do and involvement with all the stakeholders. So let me, I think the first thing and the most important thing is aside from the fact that we have taken two votes on the warrant article and the motion.

because they've been back and forth exchanges about how to improve it in response to all of the conversations that we've had. I think I'd like to turn to one of our super key members who has great expertise and training and we'll make a few comments about how we go forward and then we'll be happy to answer any of your questions as well.

Yes, thank you, Sean Baker, board member. Appreciate all of the support having us. And in addition to Colette, Megan's been instrumental in helping us think about this and move it forward. As well as my fellow board members. So Article 30 proposes to shift ultimate responsibility for developing personnel policies from town meeting to the HR board that would comprise in speaking with Dolores, our HR director, about 155 people out of about 466 budgeted positions. So these are only non-union positions, not subject to collective bargaining agreements. and then the big caveat for this board is that provided that the select board approves the financial component of any personnel policy.

So it's really taking the memorandum of understanding we have in which there's a very close working relationship with Megan and Dolores and it's our anticipation that that working relationship would continue under this structure. the concept of the HRB approving personnel policies has been provided a number of times in the past and there is a background document in your materials that I'm guessing you've seen, but that includes the 2015 Town Government Study Committee, Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor forward, my understanding related to the motion that was not jointly agreed upon, but was supported 12 to nothing by the advisory committee.

And then also a couple of years ago the Collins Center did a consulting report on improving HR practices in town, both at the board level and the department level, and also recommended this change. And in the fall town meeting, the advisory report and the item on the consent agenda approving some personnel policies suggested that considering not bringing certain policies before town meeting was also warranted. In addition to that, we asked Town Council to take a look at peer communities and they advised us and Tom you can comment but not many communities have town meeting approved personnel policies.

excuse me, Tom Harrington, Town Council. That's accurate. The great, great majority have it either at a HR board level or at a select board level or town manager.

So very quickly getting to a summary, we can chat about any comments you might have. the HR board in voting in favor of the motion as Tony mentioned a couple iterations of it believes that this will develop much more frequent and needed policy updates for personnel policies. We do have a backlog that Dolores has been dutifully working on and bringing to town meeting. reduce risk management reduction for the town not having personnel policies timely does increase risk management associated with non-compliance better employee communications of having an updated policy manual, and we'll do quite a bit to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our very busy and very effective HR department.

with that the proposed motion is in your materials it was crafted very carefully with town council to shift that responsibility, make sure that the select board is involved in the financial component of any decisions. There was a minor change last night that was worked through with Delores, Megan, and Alex Rubin. Town Council, they simply took out workers comp from the original motion you had seen because my understanding is because those amounts are really statutory and governed by statute and therefore weren't relevant to have in as one of the financial components in the proposed bylaw. and in addition to that, the one thing we did talk about last night was how will this work and we had a discussion last week

with a number of us here including Town Council to think about the procedure and I'll thank Megan and Colette for proposing a procedure that it's very familiar to them and I think it's suffice it to say our board didn't vote on it pending the meeting tonight but I'd say there was and other broad consensus that were very comfortable with the approach that was proposed. And I don't know, Megan, if you might have any comments on that.

Yeah, so thanks, Sean. The other thing I was going to comment on was what I had relayed to the HR board is the evaluation of modifications and policy and the financial implications of that is something we do working with HR all the time with the select board. largely in union negotiations. So although that's not a public facing discussion item, as we're evaluating modifications in the contract we're simultaneously looking at what the financial impacts of those are. and bringing those to the board. So how we would envision this moving forward is the same way, bringing in the CFO to try and assist both Dolores and I and finance staff as well as HR staff in trying to, based upon the policy, you know, see what the either it could be a new policy and what the financial implications would be or what the implications would be on a modification and then how you generate the calculation for that.

So the procedures that we've laid out which were in the packet are largely based upon one, sort of the general flow of how the board operates, but two, also recognition that We generate that information largely for union settlements and how we would bring that sort of daylight that for discussion items on non-union personnel policies.

So Megan, you're comfortable that I know there were questions about the materiality of a financial implication or financial implications outside of like straight issues like pay and you're comfortable that those can be worked out among you and Delores and the select board.

Yeah, I mean, some of the material questions were regarding things like ADA accommodations or religious accommodations and arguably religious accommodations. We've sort of gone down that path, analyzing that with town council. that's what personal days typically are used to afford religious accommodations but ADA accommodations oftentimes there can be a financial cost to those whether it be you know a good example is if we have a hearing impaired individual if there's a light or something to indicate and a knock on the door, whatever it may be. And so generally, and we have those all the time at the schools largely, we haven't had a lot of that on on the town side, but those just kept absorbed in expenses. It's more those implications, those policies that hit all of the staff. You know, modifications in

would be one, personal time, sick time, those types of benefits. But every policy is a public discussion, and so if there's an unintended cost, that may come out as part of that discussion. So we've tried in the motion, I think the HR board working with town council has tried to capture the majority of the policies that would trigger some type of financial component.

Would any other of your board members like to make any comments? Okay, Julie, Neil.

I'd just like to add one thing because to me it's extremely important given the structure. The fact, of course, is that our director of human resources actually reports directly to the executive director. and they are housed in this building. So that's kind of built into this whole thing going forward, that there's lots of communication on a regular basis, perhaps a daily basis, between Meghan and Dolores. So that speaks to the level of communication that will take place whenever there's a question about the materiality of a policy that's emerging. That would end up coming to you in one way or another and also to us.

Thank you Tony. Are there questions or comments from the board? Beth, go ahead.

Thank you all for coming tonight. So I had a couple questions. One is about the intent. So when I read it, I thought the intent was to avoid risk and make sure that we were compliant with the HR requirements and that we didn't want to have a time gap and a period where we were not compliant. and I but as I've listened to you and as I've read the presentation it seemed to me not necessarily so much about compliance and I think Mr. Harrington just said or somebody, workers' comp is out because it's statutory. So it doesn't have to go through the process. So to me that means if it's a compliance issue, that's kind of off the table. We have to do it, right? So we're talking about discretionary policies. Am I correct on that?

We've had numerous discussions about personnel policies and I've been an employment attorney for over 30 years and I've drafted numerous policies and handbooks over the years. I've analyzed them. I've given advice and counsel on them. So when we talk about personnel policies, we essentially have put them in three buckets. you know some of those mandatory statutory policies like sexual harassment, EEO right those types of things that employers have to have depending on whether they're municipality or public sector, the size of the employer, whatever. Then I put bucket number two, or we put bucket number two, as what is consistent with so-called best practices, also known as standard HR practices. having workplace violence policy, for instance, right? We should have one.

There's not a statute or case law that says that is a must have. and then there's benefits. These are choose to have, right? So paid vacation, PTO, Sick Leave, Bereavement Leave, Workers' Comp, things like that that employers can choose to have. And so it's mostly those that fall in the bucket of there's a financial component, right? if the standard is to give every new hire two weeks of vacation, terrific. We have so many people coming before us at the HR board asking for three weeks or four weeks or a variance and so we're giving them a greater benefit and we really don't want the exceptions to subsume the rule right so we want to make sure that there's a town-wide discussion about what's an appropriate vacation allotment for new employees, for instance. So that's a cost. For instance, if somebody leaves, they get paid their vacation. That's considered wages. So that's something the town would absorb.

And we certainly would want the selectmen and Select Board to be involved in that decision because there's a cost component. With that said, getting back to your question, it is really critically important that policies be legally compliant. And we've been working with outside counsel because, you know, Delores and her staff just don't have the bandwidth to keep up to date on on policies. And every personnel policy should be reviewed by an employment attorney, whether it's our own town council or we hire outside counsel to do that. you know internally it should be reviewed to make sure that it's consistent with what the town expects what the intent is and how it's actually laid out in practice and then of course making sure that it's clear, it's unambiguous and it complies with the law as well as standard practice. So that's why we need outside counsel to review. But having a sexual harassment policy for instance go before

Town Meeting, just as nonsensical. State law and the Mass Commission Against Discrimination regulations put out here's what should be in a policy right and then we adopt it because those regs haven't been updated now let's talk about social media and email and things that are important in 2026 town council town meetings shouldn't really have a voice in that because they're most likely not in a position to review and comment and approve those policies. That's one of the reasons why we think it should, regular policy should be approved between the HR board in conjunction with town council and having a hearing and have those things. So those are the types of compliance issues that can create legal risk and therefore liability if we are not up to date with policies.

and I can't tell you how many times as an attorney I've looked at policies and it doesn't have sexual orientation, for instance, as a legally protected category in an EEO or harassment policy. That's really problematic. when you've got a claim by somebody. So we need to really make sure that our policies are in compliance with the law and best practices. And so the timing aspect is really important. not to go before town meeting twice a year. So that is the main reason why we want to concentrate approval of policies with the HR board who has the experience in conjunction with town council. And when there's a financial component, absolutely turn to the select board. I'm not a budget person and I don't know financial implications. That's why we have advisory. That's why we have you. as select boards. So any policy that we change that is a financial component, there's a lot of checks and balances and hoops to go through.

So that's where we see the relationship there, and that's why the timing and the liability issues are so critical.

Okay. So I understand the statutory and the kind of prudent regulations around harassment, all of those things that are kind of standard operating procedure, right? The things like the class and comp change or things that are Standard increase, like an increase in vacation time. Things that could have a ripple effect on are union negotiations and expectations of compensation across our workforce. That to me is a bigger issue because it is a bigger financial issue. so that one is the one that doesn't quite make sense to me because I think we've built in enough time with two town meetings that if we want to make

a cost change in policy. I think that could go before town meeting. I agree with you. Harassment policies, ADA, accommodations, bereavement, things that they're known, understood practices that every employer should have in place. that I think you're absolutely right that should not have to go to town meeting that is your responsible employer. Things where you're changing the contract of compensation and benefits I see those as a long-term financial impact not just for the 155 individuals

but for all of our union negotiations and that I think town meeting has a right to see because it does have a recurring ripple effect and I think that Town Meeting are responsible members of the community and would weigh it and I assume go along with Good decision, but they would be bought in on the long-term financial impacts of anything. And so I'm going to pick on my favorite HR policy, the one where if you leave the town on July 5th, you receive 100% of your vacation time for the year, your sick time for the year. That's a massive, Financial Impact. And I would think if something like that came up again, town meetings should weigh in on that because it does have

a meaningful impact, particularly at times where we're trying to compensate our staff properly, give them best-in-class benefits, and do all these other things. I think town meeting should have the right to evaluate that and its budget impact and I think I think that those were my questions. I guess my last question is, how many of these policies are we lagging on right now?

We have to refer to Dolores for.

I'm just curious, is it coming up because there's a lot of them?

There's quite a few that we didn't have, so we've been prioritizing those at town meeting. We have some that are incomplete. They have part of the law but drop off for unknown reasons. And then we should evaluate the ones that haven't been updated since 2002 just to make sure. we're still in compliance so it's a little over 30.

Okay so I would think for those I'm fully supportive of those first two categories but I think it would be helpful at town meeting to say This is what we're talking about. It's these things. I am not so supportive of major financial impacts that to me seem like they are planned. and that they would hit on July 1. So it seems like we would have plenty of time to responsibly present it and get buy-in.

OK, Beth, thank you. Tom?

thank you so I just want to make one correction so the class and comp plan is not a policy the class and comp plan has to go to town meeting so that that wouldn't be part of what's being proposed here other board questions or comments

Kenney.

To follow up on Beth's question, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what she just proposed and why go to the select board instead of town meeting for the ones that have financial impacts.

We did chat about this at our meeting last night and I think a conclusion was if something was sufficiently large independently the HR board could Beth come to you basically come to that conclusion say we think this needs to go to town meeting or and and the Select Board could also come to that conclusion as Dolores and Finance and Megan work together and just come back and say we think something should go to town meeting. Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, and our goal here is to work very closely with the select board and make sure everybody's comfortable with the financial implications. and we did ask that of Tom and I think Tom I'll let you speak to the answer to the best question.

right so so I would add nothing precludes the select board from withholding its approval and saying we want to take this to town meeting so there there may be an instance where they bring you a policy and you say you know what We're going to hit pause on this one. We're not going to approve it. We're going to bring it to town meeting and get their sign-off before we give our own sign-off. So I think it's a tool in your bag if you want to use it.

Tom, the other thing I would add is oftentimes, depending upon the cost implications, let's use vacation because that's obviously a higher cost item. you may need an appropriation to meet that objective and so it would be contingent upon a town meeting appropriation. To me, that's very aligned with the union settlement. So when we go forward, we say, okay, we've already negotiated it, and that's approved, and it's contingent upon the appropriation to fund those decisions. which would be here's the personnel cost for COLA but oh, we also modified bereavement, military leave, whatever it may be and here's the estimated cost on that. and so we have to seek that appropriation in order to ratify that contract or policy or what have you.

So I just want to add to that because we had talked about that in sort of preparation and planning meetings about when would the HR board feel like they wanted to go to a time meeting and how could they do that. So we did talk about that. I do also think if we are making changes to policies and it's part of you know if we're going to in a similar way that we took a certain strategy with the union negotiations the last time around we had a pretty significant way up in the town my financial plan to see here's what we're doing on staff here's how we're trying to be a place where we can retain our staff we've had a lot of turnover here's our strategies I think if we are doing policy modifications that have costs, it would be a write-up on the termite financial plan in a similar way that we talk about here are the components of any union contract and here's the cost of it. I would anticipate if it was anything significant like vacation policy, We've been talking about vacation for quite some time.

HR board has really worked on standardizing the policy across town to avoid variances. This is what we're proposing going forward. This was the cost of it. It's baked into this line in the budget. So I see that as how that would be discussed. and as with anything else that we do everything we do has some sort of every big item we do that has some sort of financial impact we talk about it in the time of financial plan and memorialize it in there for posterity also.

other comments and questions? So this is the first time we're discussing this. We're not going to be making any further decisions on it tonight. Go ahead, Beth.

So one of the things I'm struggling with is I don't I don't see the value in not providing that vote to town meeting because it's not funded unless town meeting funds it. and so why wouldn't we tell them it's this and it costs this as opposed to we've increased our budget by this to cover that. To me, I would move forward with the two and leave the cost thing and see how it goes for a little bit and then bring back that next piece when we have a better handle on what we're looking at. It sounds like we have a lot of Every day, I don't mean to minimize them, but we have a lot of critical things that we need to keep moving on. When we do the financial things, they're likely to happen at one of the town meeting junctures anyway because of budget.

So there are two stop gaps in this. Either the HR board themselves can say, we want to take this to town meeting, or the select board can say, we're not comfortable with this. We're going to take it to town meeting. So I think that's our questions for now. We appreciate all the work that you've done. And I understand the impetus for doing this to keep the town compliant. and if there are, let's say, de minimis financial implications, maybe it's not something that needs to go to town meeting. If it's something far more far-reaching, maybe it's something that is, but nothing in this would preclude sending it to town meeting either directly from HR or through the select board. So, okay. Thank you all very much for coming.

Tony, are you going to adjourn? I'm going to adjourn the meeting of the HR board. Thank you.

Thank you all very much. Okay, our next agenda item is with the Council on Aging to discuss and vote the use of Richard Campana for the kitchen dedication ceremony at the Council on Aging and for the St. Patrick's Day celebration. So we have Judy Gertler, the chair of the COA. Thank you for coming, Judy.

You're welcome. OK, I think you have a summary of what the proposed expenditure is going to be from the Campana fund. The expenses associated with the kitchen dedication and naming is $642 for Refreshments, and then $720 for the plaque that we'll be installing. The plaque will be consistent with the other plaques in the Tolles Parsons Center in terms of size. Okay, and I think you've seen the... Yes, we have it all. Thank you very much. Yeah. and then annually we have had a St. Patrick's Day celebration in honor of Mr. Campana. And the expenses for that are a little over $2,000. 2081.

So the total amount that we're asking for from the Campana fund is $3,443.15. Thank you.

Any questions from the board? I think it's wonderful that you're going to have the dedication of the kitchen and to name it in honor of Mr. Campana who made such a generous donation to the town and enabled this programming. Any questions? Okay.

Should we announce that the kitchen dedication is March 6th from 1 to 3?

And we're hoping that someone from the select board will come. and his niece will be participating also. Oh, great. Great. And it's on March 6th because she could only do it on a Friday afternoon. That's an appropriate way to lead into the weekend, I think.

Okay, motion, please, Colette. So move to approve the expenditure of $3,443.15 from the Campana Fund.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you Judy and thank you for submitting all this work and we look forward to the dedication.

You're welcome. And thank you for your approval.

All right. Our next agenda item is to discuss the Annual Town Meeting Article 32, which is a RIO zoning bylaw modification. And we have the planning board here with us to make a presentation. So we have Mark Charney, Chair of the Planning Board, and Tom Taylor, Chair of the Rio Task Force, here to make a presentation.

Hi. Are we going to use the slides that I offered? I think that will make it easier to go through. While we're doing that, Tom Taylor, Vice Chair of Planning and Chair of the RIO Task Force. Thanks for the opportunity to come speak to you tonight. I want to start by saying that the process leading up to tonight is the most interesting sausage making that I think I've ever seen. And I actually think it was a good thing. Secondly, these slides were written a week ago to meet your deadline for document distribution. in the interim on Friday, at least I received on Friday in the planning board

Packett, some important input from Mr. Harrington that I think may change the discussion a little bit. So I'll try and address the remarks that were written a week ago to take that into account. Okay, I'll start with a summary of the scope of the proposed changes. and they are two things. One, to prohibit RIO applicability in certain zoning districts. First being the single residence districts and secondly select other districts. I can tell you those by memory if you're interested, but that's lesser I think the topic for tonight as the second item. and that is to add a development agreement requirement to the project approval section of the Rio bylaw.

Oh, are you the slide master? Thanks, Megan. A little bit about the timing of the Warren article and the motion. So first of all, the Rio Task Force have been in discussion since June. The Rio Task Force is 16 citizens, at least one from every precinct. and citizens who volunteered their time in the interest of helping collaboratively figure it out and make recommendations on Rio, a topic that we've had a lot of discussions in town. plus their liaison to the select board, Kenny. and on December 2nd, the task force voted on the following recommendations and passed those recommendations on a 10 to 2 vote. First, no Rio in single residence districts. Two, no Rio in a few other zoning districts.

And three, a requirement for a development agreement. Now we talked about the word requirement. and the task force was very interested in making that a word in the recommendation. So that's why it says requirement. Those recommendations were to the planning board, and on December 15th, the planning board discussed them and with a three to one vote agreed to support it on the warrant based on the warrant language that was drafted by town councils. Okay, so the heart of I think tonight's discussion is Just for space, I called it an RDA, a Rio Development Agreement.

And the purpose is to propose a solution to a visible chicken and egg problem. We've talked about this at multiple town meetings. So the high level story is the objective is to try and solve a problem the task force and many citizens see as a problem and that namely that a developer's plans at the time of town meeting zoning vote are not set in stone. the recommendation and the motion language which I'll get to it's the next page identified three variables that would be better if locked in at the point of the zoning vote Density, especially if the plan discussed with us is for less than maximum density.

and a commitment that the plans represented prior to town meeting are largely the same as what is built. These are three key elements of what has been put in place by the planning board during the last few Rio discussions at town meeting via a letter of intent. But a letter of intent is nothing more than a letter of intent. So next is the actual language. Hopefully, I don't need to stop and read through that. It was, do you want to? Oh, thanks. So the green is the new text adding this concept of a development agreement. That's the proposed language.

And the text was helpfully drafted by council. Yeah, it's up to you. Okay, fine. Yeah, a couple more slides. It's not much longer. If you could keep going, Megan. So as of last Tuesday, the question boiled down to the costs and the benefits of whether the select board is comfortable with participating in a development agreement as envisioned. I think Mr. Harrington's input makes that thought not as clear and simple as what I thought as of Tuesday. And so I think More discussion and deliberation is probably warranted.

I'm going to speak for me with this comment, not as a part of RIO, not of planning, and say that in light of Mr. Harrington's input, We may be best served not proposing the changes that I just showed you and save that for another day and for another town meeting. but that's for the planning board to decide and with input from the Rio task force. So that was Tom's opinion on that. and I'm personally comfortable with the first recommendation the first part of the of the of the article being even if it's the only one because honestly that probably that covers and surpasses the 80-20 rule of value of change to the Rio bylaw. Again, Tom's opinion.

But I think that's the core change that adds value. So, I was going to say and ask, that's a select board, decide what you want to do, let us know and we'll react accordingly. I think Mr. Harrington's memo implies, if not, Outright says that perhaps the best path is to hold off and not seek to change Section O. And the planning board will certainly take that up at our next meeting. before we complete the zoning public hearing. The implication of doing that is of course that doing it later means that for now the chicken and egg problem remains and that part of the Rio bylaw remains unchanged pending future discussion.

and that's pretty much all I had and willing to hear what you have to say or want to ask about. You want to?

Yeah, I mean, this is Mark Charney, Chair of the Planning Board. I would just say that as Tom mentioned, you know, the way we approached this was to go to town council, get the advice on how to word the warrant, the article, and the discussions that we had with Tom and Ethan and other members of Brad and myself. you know we always sort of knew that there were going to be separate paths to go here but we felt like we wanted to push forward with this path because we are responding to the community. From what we've heard from the task force and from other community members, this is a really important issue. And we feel like this is a solution that'll make the and so on and so forth.

you know seeing the memo on Friday you know was a bit surprising in the sense of it we we We hadn't really talked about all of that stuff. And so I think that the opportunity here is to push forward with this because I think it's something that the town really is asking for. So that's where I sit on this.

So Mark, what are you asking us to deliberate on? Going forward with both parts?

Yeah, exactly. the planning board discussed this last night and essentially we're at a point where we need the board, the select board because this is something that you will enter into to be in agreement with this or not.

Okay. Megan, can I ask you to put up the last slide in the packet? Because I want to make an initial comment. Thank you. I want to say, and this is me speaking, that I appreciate all the hard work of all 16 of you over the past 10 months, your 10 meetings, all the work, all the thought, all the conversation. but I think the way this is posed is not a fair way to pose it to the select board because it's not a question of whether we like the idea of an RDA or not. It's a question of whether it might be the best way to solve the problem that you're identifying, number one.

Number two, whether it's the best legal way to solve the problem. So I don't want to disparage any work you're doing, but setting it up this way sets our board up to be the bad guy for saying we don't like this and we're not going to do it. when in fact that's not the proper way to set it up. So I just wanted to say that you can take it down now.

Apologies if that language is a little casual. Okay, yeah, okay.

I mean, our job is to respond to you and to reflect on the history of development agreements that the Select Board has done based on Meagan, and Town Council's legal and planning advice and our experience. And I'm sure you understand that we can't agree to support something that is being presented to us as problematic.

So that's all I wanted to say, and I wanted to turn it over to the board. Tom, you've given a broad brush, but you've been very, very clear that that meeting can't count on anything that they're voting a map change and there is no concrete plan.

So the concept is just simply something that we typically have in a letter of intent. In order to get to town meeting, Our practice has generally been to have a developer explain their proposal so we know what it is that we're potentially changing zoning for. So we sort of require to give us an idea of what you're planning. Otherwise, how can we vote to whether it's a good idea to change the zoning? and so this is only in essence a promise or an acknowledgement that I'm not going to present my idea, have it go to town meeting, and then I'm gonna swap it out. So it's preventing,

it's requiring consistency so that what town meeting sees and votes a zoning change on as a preliminary idea, what turns out in reality is not materially different. I may not be saying it legally correctly.

So it's off, that's why. I appreciate what you're saying. It was just the language because I think it's the representation to the planning board, not the presentation at town meeting. because I think typically planning said, the reason we feel we've brought this to you is we've heard X, Y, and Z, but at that point, I don't think we've had the developer stand up and actually give the road show. on their presentation. It's not, it's just, I just wanted, you don't have to answer it now, just think about it, okay?

Yeah, no, that's fine. Well, I was going to go off into something we haven't talked about.

But the context of this comment is something that you're saying the select board shall consider. in the development agreement. It's what we would consider in negotiating the development agreement. So, yeah.

Thank you, Marjorie. if you could clarify for me if you have recognized based on Harrington and Heap's memo from Friday the lack of viability about moving forward with the development agreement. I'm not sure why we're being asked to opine on that rather than waiting for the planning board and the rare task force to move forward with alternative solutions. But I like you have heard the concern in the community and would suggest that there is a way to address that concern rather than achieving a point of disappointment by not moving forward with the development agreement. You have Once you remove Rio from single-family districts, there are really no other viable locations for Rio to apply.

Town Meeting has shown its absolute lack of appetite for Rios and I think has exercised judgment, sound judgment with regard to proposals before it. you could within the four corners of the warrant expand the zones where it's precluded and basically with this warrant article eliminate Rio altogether which would solve the concern within the community and you could then go back as a planning board and consider what substitution for the existing RIO by-law you would like or you could go back to the Rio Task Force or you could make it part of the comprehensive plan. So I don't think that we need to live with the chicken and egg problem. You can simply, within this warrant article, eliminate Rio,

satisfy the concerns in the community and take this up another way and bring it back either in the fall or next spring or at the conclusion of the comprehensive plan.

Let me just respond to that because one of the things that was discussed multiple times on the Rio Task Force was that point. was to eliminate the Rio altogether. And there was not consensus for that. So we're acting on behalf of the recommendations of the board, of the task force. Going forward, Megan, I think, came to our meeting a week ago and essentially said the same thing. No, I didn't say that.

I can correct what I said pertaining to that, but that was not my argument.

Okay, anyways, my point is that that would be why we wouldn't be doing, we wouldn't be proposing that at this point.

but it's also before the task force was aware of the memorandum from Harrington and Heap and I think one question is to go back to the task force and in light of the inability to go forward with a development agreement would it now prefer to eliminate Rio altogether with the understanding that there's no Rio on the annual town meeting warrant and you can bring this back in a different form for the special town meeting in the fall the annual next spring or do it through the comprehensive plan you have multiple options all some of which required town meeting action where we can satisfy the concerns in the community and alleviate the stress.

I think before I give my full comments, which would start with the Rio should be added to the dustbin of history. That's my view of the whole thing as well. but that's not what we're being asked to consider. The planning board's here asking us do we support adding a development agreement to the Rio by-law. That's the issue in front of us. But I want to talk about the legal issues that have come up. and for people who are listening that haven't seen the memos or anything, I think we need to put out what happened. So planning board asked town council to draft language an amendment to the Rio bylaw that added language about including a development agreement. They did that. on Friday, there was a memo sent that essentially said, that might not work.

and the reason for that was because, and correct me if I'm wrong, if you try to put a speed bump in front of a developer seeking a special permit, that could be problematic because of the supremacy of state law. Is that fair to say? So one option that you have is to change the way that works. instead of making it as a part of an application for a special permit, you make it a condition to issuance of the special permit. and you can put things in there that could be density, conformity with whatever the plan looks like. I'm not here to draft language, but there is a way to do this that includes a development agreement that is a condition.

Tom and I talked about this that could potentially create some issues in my view it doesn't create any more issues than issuing a special permit that's conditioned that has conditions on it, like lower density. We've talked a lot about precedent in a number of documents, how development agreements have worked. I find it hard to believe that we could issue a Rio special permit for 15 units and win a lawsuit that says that was not arbitrary and capricious since precedent shows you've never issued a special permit in a Rio district for less than 24 units per acre. So this goes to the legal issue. municipalities, local governments, federal government all the time take actions on novel issues that they don't necessarily know the answer to.

What Tom and others are saying is we don't know the answer to this question. We're not breaking the law. We don't know because it's a novel issue. And so I think you have to weigh there's uncertainty about it but 61 percent of town meeting said we don't like the current Rio the Rio task force I know I think the vote you said was 10 to 2 but if I recall correctly on the development agreement, it was unanimous.

Well, we didn't actually literally vote on that as a topic, but it probably would have been my estimate.

You have a very wide... diverse viewpoints on housing that was represented on that task force. The planning board voted three to one to include the development agreement as part of this approach. I think this clearly reflects the direction that the town wants to go. So then you weigh it against, okay, what if we're wrong, right? So what if we are wrong? It goes to the Attorney General and the Attorney General says, you know what, I don't actually think that works. Well, then it doesn't work. And you go back to the drawing board and you try to fix it. But it's not like we've broken the law. We're not gonna get fined. Nobody's going to jail. this is a novel issue that we're saying this is the approach that Wellesley wants to take because we want clear We want to know exactly what somebody's building when we allow them to build 24-8 units in a zone that they otherwise don't have the right to do that in.

So that's how I view this whole thing.

So I'd like to respond to that because the Rio task force took a vote before they had this memo in front of them and the planning board has not voted. So you're asking us to give you input before your board has decided what it's going to put forward to town meeting? and I'm not comfortable with the approach you're presenting. I think that the cases Town Council has presented are analogous enough of a roadblock in front of an applicant having the 40A right to apply for a special permit that I would not feel comfortable saying I agree with the requirement of a development agreement before an applicant can apply for a special permit. So that's where I am.

So just for clarification, because I read Megan's memo and town council's memo, and my takeaway is it's murky. but we don't know. It may be just fine, we just don't know because the basis is and tried and that typically the way that zoning works, this is where the non-attorney, I could get myself in trouble, but Tom will rescue me. The way that zoning typically works is that the currency of the deal is density. And because the Rio grants the maximum density, the 24 units, it's hard to put a development agreement on that because you're limiting something that is by right the 24 units so

I'm not opposed to trying out something novel and seeing what happens, but for me there are two other pathways also. There is the pathway that Tom's talking about, take the current Warrant article, which certainly allows for the removal of every single district from the Rio and effectively We will have a Rio on the books but no place to put it which gives the planning board time as you do the comprehensive plan to figure out how should Rio work in Wellesley. where should it work and what should it be and is there a future for Rio because right now I think we've heard loud and clear from the community Rio has too much uncertainty and doesn't fit in its current

The other path, which might be novel also, is to change Add a new warrant article, have a special that opens up the density because your warrant article expressly does not address density. So have a warrant article that opens up that letter N. I think it's N, right? Is it N? Opens up density. Set the density lower. whatever, 17 units an acre, whatever is the prevailing density with the option to get more density with the development agreement. and that to me, those are other pathways. I don't know which is right. I personally think this community has asked us and asked us and they voted to show us.

They want us to solve this and remove the stress. And to me, it doesn't matter that Right now the town doesn't seem like it's going to approve a Rio. I don't think it's fair to have a Rio on the books that causes uncertainty and lack of clarity for the residents. as well as for the developers. So I think we should be doing something and I think we should give you the vote of confidence to go figure it out and get something done.

I mean I think that part of what this is is keeping the process moving forward. and that's kind of what we did we need to get from you is that you know are you willing to endeavor on moving the process forward around these two issues well this issue of the development agreement and I think that's what we're responding to the community. I mean, when we first convened our task force in June, we went around the table and we talked about, we were trying to brainstorm about consensus. The development agreement came up then. from day one. And so it's not like something that hasn't been out there, hasn't been talked about. It's been on everyone's mind. I think it sounds to me like there's a way to do this. And if you agree with that, we can move that forward.

Okay, just a second. There's a whole other world about development agreement that we haven't spoken about yet, and I'm gonna ask Megan to talk about that. just because it's a Rio doesn't necessarily mean it's the right project for a development agreement. So I'm going to ask Megan to share when it has been appropriate and the circumstances under which the select board has felt it appropriate to enter into a development agreement.

So I was going to frame it maybe slightly differently, but I think there's actually more consensus potentially moving forward than you'd think maybe from me. But there's two philosophies in zoning, and the Rio and the historic nature of Rio is actually a terrific example. So at the time where Rio was created in the 90s, because keep in mind, it's been there since the 90s in Lower Falls, there was a significant study done by the planning board to try and project what type of development we want there. In response to litigation, where we had been in litigation with the redevelopment of Grossman's, where they were proposing a stop and shop, which was a high Street, 50,000 square foot commercial, and anticipated high traffic. So they looked at, okay, what are some uses to ameliorate? We're going to decrease the maximum amount of commercial that can be there.

and we're going to put lower intensity uses such as residential into those areas at specific densities which is the residential incentive overlay. you can find that study and analysis and the design guidelines that go with that on the planning board study page. So that is looking at zoning prospectively on bringing the type of developments we want in there, which largely from the 1996 comprehensive plan is how planning proceeded. We did individualized studies, created zoning. Linden Square is a perfect example of that. but what in actuality had is we had the studies but we didn't necessarily have the zoning outside of Rio to match that. So Linden Square, we also did a master plan and said, hey, if this site was ever redeveloped, and at the time the property owner said, were never developing that. And lo and behold, two years after the planning study was done, it was redeveloped.

We then did the development agreement because it was such a significant redevelopment and significant change in use. and tailored zoning. So what I'm hearing is, that's called reactive zoning, right? We got a project before us and we're gonna tailor both the zoning and potentially a development agreement to meet that. So when we modified Rio, so we had existing Rio since the 90s, right? And Waterstone was in fact constructed under that. Now my fear in terms of the discussion of what we're just going to kick it out, there's unintended consequences because there are existing lots zoned free out that aren't developed. Those are on Micah Lane, One Wash. And then we also have those zoned south of the Bristol. So you're grandfathering those provisions. And I'm just saying you need to analyze that and analyze the impact on parcels before you just, well, here's what we want, and you're not anticipating the unintended consequences.

But development agreements historically have been used twofold. So Bristol and Terraza are good examples. We were in litigation over comprehensive permits trying to actually decrease the 40B. So they were 40Bs, and we're trying to decrease those. And so it was basically a negotiated settlement. and as part of that we applied Rio to get to the densities that they exist today and also created those special permit provisions. Part of that also was at the time, if you developed under the RIO, it didn't automatically trigger inclusionary zoning, so there were some corrective measures in that that we were also trying to capture as part of that particular one. so outside of development agreements have really been a couple ones negotiated get out of litigation and we're going to craft zoning around that or it's wow this is

such an impactful project our existing zoning isn't there we're going to give you a little more development right but we're going to restrict you potentially in your uses Hours of Operation, maybe take financial payments to mitigate the anticipated cost. That's a good example of Linden Square, Sun Life, Druker. Now where I think you could sort of meet in the middle on Rio. So arguably, Rio is a tool. But what I think I'm hearing from the Rio Task Force and others, if we're going to do reactive zoning, we're going to have a sale of land, and we're going to create a project. is to then do basically plan development. So we're gonna create a zone for each project. And as part of that, you could certainly select board main, negotiate a development agreement, and look at density, look at significant municipal impacts, because keep in mind, you gotta go through PSI. We have capital infrastructure negotiation power through PSI.

Under site plan we have architectural, under zoning, that's where you want the density and you could lock in potential design so I'm just saying like what you have here might not be the right answer but I think it's a start for us to study a better way to do it and achieve the goals that you want. and still have the development agreement potential crafted around those densities because so when I think about the special town meeting it wasn't that they didn't like Rio they didn't like the Rio application on those particular properties for those particular projects and so Had we then said, well, OK, well, what do you like on 6 to 10 Washington Court? OK, we want a density of, I'm making this up, 16 units per acre. And here's the project. And we crafted a new zone for that. maybe that would have been successful. So I think it's a little more work on both the front and the back end to do that.

and I think there may want to be some policy. There's zoning that we actually have a planned unit development provision in the zoning bylaw. that we've never really implemented. It's been there since the 70s, but it focuses on 10 acres. Let's look at that. Let's winnow that down to something else. So I think there's a way to bridge the gap. But I just don't think modifying Rio, which had a particular purpose, and we re-implemented that on a few projects, which I actually think work in those locations. So moving forward, I think you can have it all. We just need to approach it a different way.

That's great. Thank you for sharing that. I think we're here to talk about Rio and we're here to talk about this Warren article and the items that we have in it. it's helpful to have that, and it's helpful to have some of these ideas about doing other things with Rio, but this is what we're doing now. In the development agreement, you know the term development agreement I don't know if it's in the Webster's dictionary with a definition, a set definition. I think that we can decide what is in that development agreement and how it works. And so the development agreements that have been done in the past were specifically drafted for specific needs. And I think what we're suggesting is that we have a development agreement for Rios.

so you're asking for feedback on what you're presenting so I have real concerns about the proposed approach that's presented in the proposal and I think I think to be fair to the Rio Task Force and planning, I think there needs to be more time for that task force and the planning board to digest not only Megan's memo to us as part of tonight's packet, but Town Council's letter. I think this is not ready for town meeting right now and I think it would be a disservice to to take a sharp left or right turn on this, whether it's getting rid of Rio completely or doing a special time meeting to do something else with density. that's just moving too fast. I think this is a perfect example of something that's not ready because we haven't really deliberated on this and it's just it's too late at this point to have a meaningful

a conversation to get to a place of consensus really at this point and so when I was preparing for tonight's meeting I wanted to just highlight certain elements of Staff's Memo or Town Council's letter, which I thought was instructive. It was just hard to summarize it. You really need to read and digest the entire packet. and the real task force hasn't seen it. Now, if they had had this feedback right at the outset, sure, they might have said, oh, initially I thought a development agreement was the answer, but having had this piece of information, and that piece of information is not actually fitting what I want to do but those five ideas in either the memo from Megan or Town Council's suggested strategies are interesting and could achieve the goals that we want and we want to pursue them because I think it's not, you know there wasn't the full menu of options available to the task force to really deliberate on all of them so you sure you would hone in on development agreement seems to solve the the question but looking at it more holistically it doesn't

and so I'm just gonna, you know, highlight a few things. I think requesting, and you've seen the detail in Megan's memo, requesting a development agreement imposes a significant burden. on the select board and the developer. I think, I'm sorry, do you want to say something?

You just keep talking about Megan's memo. We haven't seen Megan's memo.

It's in the packet. It's published on Friday. So that's available. No one emailed it to me or Tom. so if I can continue with my comments. And I've heard several times that it's kind of, it's not a big deal, a development agreement, it is. and I think that it's based on addressing a risk that I know the chair of the task force has said it's a perceived risk but perhaps the perceived risk is greater than the real risk. and so I think we really need to think about what we're doing here. I think the planning board could potentially address those issues through conditioning in its own right. And then they can retain their authority rather than ceding that to us. and I think that needs to be explored and discussed at both the task force and the planning board a bit more fully. We've talked a little bit about how the Select Board has traditionally used development agreements and it's a very different manner.

and I'm not convinced at this time that the changing the approach that we've traditionally used is warranted, is legal, it would address the concerns raised and it's the best use of the select board staff, the select board's bandwidth and staff's bandwidth. We have an extensive work plan. It's carefully curated to address broad townwide issues. So we're interested in addressing broad townwide issues. It's not that we don't want work. We certainly do want work. I heard that several times that it's just work. We do plenty of work. In January, I know I heard that several times at several of your meetings that this is just work. And I'd like to finish my comments. In January, I had 53 hours of meetings on my calendar. That's just meetings. It's not meeting prep time. It's not phone calls. is not watching liaison meetings or planning board meetings or real task force meetings, which are not my liaison, but I watch them when I can.

We need to consider the board and the staff capacity and the resources to achieve the town's goals. Is this the best way to achieve the town's goals? And I'm not convinced it is. So I really think it would be helpful for the planning board and the task force to have this extra information. Take a pause. and we think it and what is the best approach to achieving the risks that they see and the town's needs. So that's specific feedback.

I just want to clarify Megan's comment to make sure I heard it properly. So your thinking is we're best served eliminating the Rio now and doing curated having the planning board do curated solutions. Is that correct?

I'm saying leave Rio as it is. It's applied. it's on various zones. I'm not saying to modify that in any way. I'm saying if you want to create zoning for project-based programs that come forward on resale of properties that you should do independent, individualized, tailored zoning to accomplish the goals of those projects

but leave the Rio there. So this is a technical question I don't know the answer to. If you have a Rio on a parcel that allows you 24 units an acre, the curated approach would let you enter into a development agreement for fewer. Why would you do that?

Well, what I'm saying, so.

I'm just, I don't understand.

We have two Rio zones in town. Three. We have three Rio zones. Terraza, four. Terraza, the Bristol to the railroad tracks. Lower Falls, and 194-196 Worcester. Those are the Rio districts, plain and simple. Those are the property zoned Rio. That is it. They are mapped. That is it. So what I'm saying is you would have to go to town meeting to apply a RIO anywhere else. I'm saying the existing properties, they don't need a development agreement. They've had those rights, many of which have had them for 25 years and not proceeded to develop under them. but what I'm saying is as a project comes forward, so as a project comes forward. at 888 Worcester. It's actually a perfect example because it will be a tailored zoning because there's not one likely that

Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, which we actually had already anticipated largely because there's a memory care component and we have to think about how we're going to handle the inclusionary zoning, how you're going to meet that requirement. So we already knew there'd be a development agreement on that particular aspect, similar to Waterstone. But exactly, you're exactly right, Tom, that that would be a tailored zone that we would have a development agreement and a zoning map zoning language and map amendment that would go to town meeting

So my concern is that the community has been very clear with us that having the availability of applying for a RIO on let's assume all those residential ones, that goes to town meeting separately, but all the commercial ones, having that availability, is stressful it's not a clear process for them and they're asking us for more control and input into how much density goes where. If we don't address the Rio, we haven't addressed their concern about a Rio application. I agree with you that curated solutions is an outstanding strategy and those come with development agreements.

I think we should solve the problem of a Rio that can go without a development agreement I get that we think it's always going to get voted down but having lived through a number of them It's not fair to our community to have something there that goes through incredible strain and we have no capacity to work with the residents. and the developer, I knew I knew the word, to come up with a solution that's good for the community. That's just how I feel about it.

Can I just ask a process question? What would preclude the task force or planning board from after having this new information and spending more time with this information and not trying to rush this through an annual town meeting this year, what would preclude them from coming back with maybe a proposal that does that Beth? I mean, you know, that is the question.

It's time for the residents. it's time.

But it was time for the resident, I guess my question is why isn't it not the time for us as staff to have HR policies voted on at ATM but it is time for this? What's the difference?

I don't have an answer for that question, but I think we need to give them clear guidance on where we stand on a development agreement. So I want to make a motion.

Okay, well, what I was going to say was that I think we've heard five different opinions. I think the majority is not comfortable with saying we are going to support a required development agreement in order to apply for a special permit. a minority is willing to try it and see what happens and I'm not sure we need a motion I would like to make a motion okay

I was just making a motion. I know you would, but I was just making a motion. Okay, make your motion. I move that the select board supports the use of a development agreement as a condition to the issuance or effectiveness of any special permit granted under the residential incentive overlay bylaw in order to provide certainty regarding approved projects and further move that the select board directs staff in consultation with town council and the planning board to address the specific implementation details and bylaw change appropriate consistent with Massachusetts Chapter 40A and the zoning adopted by town meeting. Second.

So for clarification, you're saying condition it upon a development agreement for the issuance of a permit, not for the application of a permit.

I didn't say that. I said give them direction no the first part move that the select board supports a development agreement as a condition to yes to the issuance or the effectiveness of any special permit granted under the okay we have a second discussion

I mentioned earlier that I'm acutely aware of the discomfort in the community. We certainly heard that during the two Rio discussions that led to their rejection by town meeting. that's why I brought up the proposal earlier that we simply use this warrant article and expand the zones to which it is applied to eliminate Rio altogether. I object to the use of this article for political theater. It's not appropriate. It doesn't answer the communities concerned. and I don't think it shows the best side of the select board and the planning board in terms of our capacity to arrive at a truly reasonable, appropriate and enforceable solution. I think that Tom started out with comments. that he could sever the two components within the current warrant article.

I appreciate that. I think that might be a preferred solution. But I certainly think that it would be better for the community's anxiety to simply eliminate Rio altogether at this point through the existing warrant article and to ask the planning board to go back and go back through this process, a process, and arrive at a solution that you could bring in the fall, next spring, or arrive at through the comprehensive plan. but eliminating Rio altogether is what would truly eliminate the anxiety and allow us to hear each other as we try to craft a long-term proposal.

I agree that I believe the best solution for this community is to eliminate the Rio. I thought that planning was not asking us or supporting that recommendation, unfortunately. I would like them to support that recommendation. but absent that recommendation, I think we should provide them with clear vision that we support them solving this with the development agreement. That would be my second choice, but that's the only choice we have, so I'm in favor of

Okay, but the way you're saying this is exactly what I objected to about the last slide in the deck, which is you're suggesting that just because some of us might not agree with this, we are not trying to be responsive to town. and that is really uncalled for. We are trying to negotiate with the planning board to work with us and the FRIO task force to make this better for everybody because some of us don't think this is the best way to handle it through Rio. So I wholeheartedly object to that characterization, Beth. We do care, but we think it can be better.

I didn't imply we didn't care.

You said it is incumbent upon us to offer a solution.

I think we should provide the direction to the planning board that we support them looking at how to get a development agreement to work.

We have provided all the support. We don't agree with this direction.

Pardon me. I'm trying to say the reason I support that is because I believe what planning is asking us for not what they started out but where they are now it sounds like is they want direction that if they can figure out a development agreement strategy that they're comfortable with Are we going to support doing a development agreement?

That's not what they're asking us. They're asking us if we would agree for a required development agreement to apply for a special permit. That's what they're asking us. We have Kenny's motion on the table and I'm going to call for a vote. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Aye.

I think my concern is that the motion that we just voted on doesn't solve the problem. I think we have Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Jop, Largess, Sullivan Woods, Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Jop, Largess, Sullivan Woods, Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor We need to go back. What I object to is a motion that encourages running into the same wall when there are different ways to scale that wall and address the community concern. I don't understand why the planning board voted against Article 42. We have Mr. Waldborn in the audience who put a lot of very thoughtful work into that. We've had other opportunities. to deal with this issue that would have been less... less emotional than this has been perhaps.

So I truly think that my objection to the motion that we just voted on is that I don't think it truly addresses the anxiety within the community about what they're going to wake up living next to if we don't address this issue. and I think that eliminating Rios from a single family district is a start, but I think it's important to explore the other piece of their concern which is how do you control the project proposed being the project that's actually built. I appreciate that. I recognize that as an issue. I think there are better ways to do it than through a development agreement that mirror best planning practices.

Are we all commenting here? So I just want to say that the planning board in advance of last year's town meeting talked about the idea of setting up a RIO task force to fix the RIO. it wasn't something that we just you know we we we thought about it we voted on it and we said that that was something that we were going to do and so part of when this Article 42 came to the floor of town meeting was that we let the town know that we were willing to rejigger and rework the Rio. And that's what we did. for the last eight months. That's what 16 people did. They talked about it. They thought about it. they talked to people in their districts about it.

It wasn't something that we just, I mean, Tom has been working like so hard on this to get a group of people with different ideas together to do this. you know the first one is an only time that we had a select board member there other than Kenny the liaison and and the executive director was last Tuesday in the final hours when this was all coming together. So I just want to say that we've responded to the community what's embodied in this. I mean, even on Monday night's planning board meeting, some of our members were like, yeah, we just need to find out what the site board wants to do. Do you want to do it or not do it? You guys can watch the video. That's what we talked about. So I apologize if you think that this is political theater or however you describe it. This is just getting the work done for the town and responding to what people want to do.

and maybe I'm naive about that maybe that's not how things work but in my view all that time is something

Mark, the select board has been waiting for results of the task force's recommendation to the planning board. It was not Megan's meeting to control. You have a planning director who has been at your meetings for 10 months. It was not her job to come up with a recommendation. It was not my job to come up with a recommendation. Nobody asked the select board for input or participation for 10 months. and it wasn't until Tom filed the motion that we had language that we could respond to. So it's not the select board's fault. It's not our job to do the task force's work. We would have been happy, we've been following it all along, We would have been happy to participate, but we were never asked. So just keep that in mind. And I think we're finished here.

I was just going to say Jim Roberti has asked to speak. He is on. Of course, let him go.

What's the rule on that, Tom? The issue is this open meeting law violation. So before the meeting started, Tom asked to recall.

with less than a quorum, so that's all.

No, no, we have a quorum here in the room.

the planning board is here with a quorum in the room but have not deliberated.

Correct.

So that's okay. So my advice to Jim would be to avoid deliberations. That's the best we can do.

and it's a select board meeting so I'm going to recognize Jim.

Thank you, Marjorie. Thank you, Select Board, for letting me speak on this matter. And I promise not to deliberate and run us afoul of the OML. but I guess I'm old enough to know that before 1980, there were true liberals out there who actually had a different view of how government should operate. and one of those examples was the seatbelt law in Massachusetts. The people were getting killed left, right, and center, but nobody wanted to wear a seat belt. So Governor Dukakis decided, well, he basically thought, and he was right, that we needed to wear seat belts, and we still have a seat belt law. but I still know people my age who don't wear seatbelts and some of them have gotten hurt or killed.

So there's a theory of government that the people that are elected, like the select board and the playing board, actually have a certain set of expertise. that is, I'm sorry Beth, I'm sorry Kenny, a little bit above where the town meeting is on these separate issues. a little bit above even the voter. And you know when you're talking, Wellesley, about the voter and who speaks up, we only have 20% of the people voting. We have 80% who don't vote. We only have 9,000 people who look at What's Up Wellesley and only $10,000 or $12,000. I mean, 10,000 or 12,000 people who look at Facebook and all the swells of the report. So... I think what got me off on the wrong foot on this whole process in the beginning was, and this is something we should really think about is, is the tail here wagging the dog?

Is the town meeting who are good people and make general decisions, but in no way experts in anything, mostly generalists. And we have different boards, because I would never go into DPW and say how to plow the street. I'd smash the truck up. so I don't go there and what happened here is the The task force became the leader, okay? And Tom and Marc became sort of the scribes, really. and the facilitators. But we got no leadership out of it, and I'm being very generous. I'm not trying to insult anybody. I don't think we got any knowledge from this board, and I mean technical knowledge. that actually would lead us in a direction where Megan has now and Tom Harrington has now as to what to do. If we had relied on the experts, Tom and Megan in the beginning,

and Eric because he didn't really have a role he was just a scribe for Tom really he didn't speak at all and I love Eric and I miss him but he didn't participate So we have a situation where there were people that had political agendas, there were people that support housing on it, people that didn't support housing on it, and we kind of got nowhere, okay? And then Mark and Tom keep talking about what the town meeting said was best for the town as far as density. But that's only a small fraction of the fraction who vote. It's only 250 people. And they all have their own political agenda. And it might be there in that group that more are anti-housing than pro-housing. I don't know. it's a feeling I might have you know because I've been an advocate for housing for at least 20 years I started out with Ellen Gibbs and she gave me my first chance to talk about this so we now I wanted to have a

A consultant helped us, but we got so burned up with Judy Barrett and we didn't like consultants and all the naysayers said, oh, she was, you know, that didn't work out. We never want another consultant again. but we've always operated in Wellesley with consultants. We wouldn't build a building for the schools without a consultant. We wouldn't say, you know what, Elmer, we're going to go down there with our shovel and hammer and we're going to build this thing. same thing with DPW we don't tell them what to do we don't tell the library what books to order we don't tell the COA what programs to run and we we shouldn't be telling the planning board how to run its business and so we already have a real bylaw that's in effect so you know the way I see it is is town meeting if it doesn't like what we do and we're trying to follow Mass General Laws Chapter 48, Section 9, which is about special permits. We have to read the bylaw as written. but they don't trust us actually.

That's this whole bit about the development agreement. They see a presentation. Most gentlemen and gentlewomen, when they receive a letter of intent, they think that it's going to be honored. I don't remember any letters of intent in the last 12 years that I've been involved that have been dishonored. but there's this desperation within not even Wellesley but the whole country that we don't trust anybody. So they immediately don't want us to have the control post town meeting to actually rule on the special permit which we did in all the other three or four different situations and they didn't blow up but we've let neighbors that have an opinion or a decision override what they think the planning board should do. And it's kind of embarrassing to me to talk to people about it. I've been involved in zoning 40 years. and now there's somebody that's read a bylaw once, thinks they understand it. It just doesn't work that way.

And then what angered me about this process is I asked Tom and Mark many, many times to get a written opinion from town council. And they hemmed and hawed and stalled and really never did it. Now, if you look at this memo that was written by Mr. Harrington. It was written to Mark. It wasn't written to the select board. Megan obviously had to write her own memo at the last minute, and she did a wonderful job. The task force has not done any memos. It doesn't have a report. I asked Eric ten times, I want a 55-page report with pictures and numbers and graphs. they simply don't have the competence to do it. Just admit it. So now we're in a situation where everybody's going sideways and pointing fingers.

okay implying that town you know mark applied earlier town council didn't uh tell me we shouldn't do this early enough it's my understanding mark that you were told and you never told me or the other members of the board that there was a lot more risk than you wanted because you were you wanted this so badly you wanted to prove everybody else wrong that you now got ourselves in a real mess and then last night I asked Tom if he tied the part a to part b meaning did he tie the first part eliminating it from uh residential zones from uh to the acceptance of this development agreement idea with the select board. And one of them, I guarantee you, I'm going to watch all weekend back what he said. from the first meeting to the last. And I know that's in there that said, well, if we don't get the selectmen's buy-in, I think this whole thing doesn't work.

But now they're so desperate, they want to put the first thing in. And as Megan said, it's like... We haven't done a master plan. We haven't done anything. You know, Colette's going to laugh now. I agree with her 100% because she said it just is not ripe, any of it. and it's an embarrassment to bring back to town, meaning it could be a three ring circus. and you know I don't want to be disrespectful to anybody but I think we need more rigor I think we need more more advanced thinking and planning I think we need Megan, quite frankly, at this point to join into this thing. And I don't know if she has the bandwidth of the time. But, you know, in closing, I don't want the tail wagging the dog. The uninformed trying to control the formed, the informed. You know, it's just, Wellesley can do better than this. We've always done better than this. We have a guy like Gohmert in town, okay?

That guy's informed. you know we need people more people like that involved in this process not just people shooting their mouths off or wanting to kill it and not wanting to kill it but not really having any planning experience you know and I work well with Mr. Welborn all during this process and I would say he is an exception to the rule because he really didn't want to do this Slapdash thing just eliminated from residential. And he was the very guy that brought the process back before. But he's evolved. And we all need to evolve. You know, and I've had enough time. I've taken the floor. But those are my comments.

Thank you very much Jim. Anybody else? Okay. All right, so I think you have our feedback.

Thank you. Thank you.

and the Capital Planning Committee and turn it over to the Policy Subcommittee.

Okay, if I take this. Okay, I just want to remind those watching where we are in the process. So the select board added the development of a time-wide capital planning committee to its work plan in June 2025. following rising concerns over planned capital debt exclusions as highlighted in last year's Townwide Financial Plan which was presented to the Annual Town Meeting in March 2025. The Policy Subcommittee led the development of the draft proposal, and the Select Board has taken the proposal up for discussions three times to date, September 30th, October 28th, and November 18th. The prior draft was circulated to department heads and boards to seek feedback across town. so in the packet tonight is the detailed feedback from that what we're calling the roadshow where I visited school committee, natural resources commission, the climate action committee, the board of public works

the Community Preservation Committee and the Permanent Building Committee. I met informally with the Municipal Light Board and then I shared feedback from the Board of Library Trustees whose January meeting conflicted with the Select Board meeting. So from the detailed feedback, I wanted to highlight a few suggested changes, some areas the board needs to still discuss, and then open up for questions and comments. So some highlighted changes I'd like to get board feedback on is consideration of an increase in the level at which projects are taken up by the committee. We've discussed a change from a potential change from $1 million to $2 million. And in discussion with staff, principally the FMD director, this seems like a reasonable amount and the committee does have flexibility to include more complex projects if necessary.

I also included a listing or an appendix with a listing of strategic plans now why I included that was we had several comments you know during the discussions about how this would work with our strategic plans and how staff could access the strategic plans in a way that wasn't overly burdensome. I think if you stacked up all the strategic plans in town it would be just about as tall as me. So what I did with the strategic plans and I noted in the appendix that I compiled that using artificial intelligence I used the same program and the same questions with each of our strategic plans to say give me a high level summary of these strategic plans and also let me know where in those strategic plans might I find direction on capital expenditure. And so that was conducted by artificial intelligence. I did a review of my own to the extent that I could to make sure that that was reasonable.

There are certainly some plans much more familiar with than others and it did seem to do a reasonable job with that but we did disclose that that's using AI but it should make those strategic plans which we spent a lot of money developing and they are tools for staff for boards and for the public more accessible I think to this committee as it does its work. There is a question about whether or not the strategic housing plan should be included in there so I'll come back to that. there is also a point of discussion I'd like to bring up tonight is whether the citizen member and their experience should be more focused in construction ideally construction finance and that was a comment we received from the permanent building committee who highlighted the fact that there's a lot of finance experience on the proposed committee and maybe some more construction and construction finance experience would be beneficial given the way that construction costs are escalating.

and someone with their finger on the pulse of that industry could be really helpful. We still have to discuss membership. The policy subcommittee did not come to consensus on membership. and the board has not either. And we decided to table that until we'd had some roadshow feedback and we need to discuss that again. A previous discussions just as a reminder had focused on inclusion of the Natural Resources Commission and potentially the Board of Library Trustees. I will summarize that the feedback on the roadshow the NRC didn't feel that this was an area of specialty for the commission nor a good investment and good investment of their own their time at the board level or their staff's time because we did offer having the NRC director as ex-official. The board of library trustees indicated a desire to be a voting member. They did not take up the discussion of the library director being an ex-official member. So those are the topics I think we have to discuss tonight.

I certainly have my own feelings on those topics and I'm happy to share them or take feedback from board members and then continue discussions. So just to highlight again, I think there's four main items, although any other questions are welcome. It's the moving from a million to two million, and strategic plans, particularly the strategic housing plan. How should we address that? Citizen member experience being more focused in construction and the membership, the voting membership of the committee. So that's where we are. I mean, I'll take direction. I'm happy to share my thoughts or to open up for discussions.

Go ahead, Tom. Maybe give a little context of the $1 million to $2 million and how that came up.

Sure. So basically, the questions that we got, one or two people on the roadshow kind of said to us, Is a million dollars too small? Should you up that so we're really focusing on the bigger projects? And there was also a question about, particularly from the NRC, some of our projects are maybe approaching a million dollars, but they're not particularly complex. and so you know did they really benefit from the evaluation of this committee it was always the intention and there was wording in there that basically said that the committee the committee could decided to waive the detailed review by the committee. I think the proponent might still have to prepare the evaluation form so we could do that. but the whole process could be waived and that language is already in there but we certainly made it more clear and then increasing it from one million to two million would certainly help with that. and talking with the facilities management director, he was reluctant to go higher than that at this point.

It's something we probably need to re-evaluate, I would say, every three to five years because costs increase and that million dollars, you can't stick that in the ground forever. Is that covered?

Yeah. Kenny, did you want to make any comments?

The only thing I would say about the strategic housing plan because this was my point was the other plans that are attached are I'm gonna use the same words, but strategic plans. The strategic housing plan when we went through the whole process was more described as a toolkit for doing things that may be in a strategic plan. It wasn't actually a strategic plan. And we talked about renaming it because of that. So my point was, I don't think it should be in there for people to be leaning on. the one piece of it that may be relevant is the affordable housing trust but I don't know that that needs to come into I don't think that fits in here so

and so and you had raised that in the meeting and I said I would kind of think about it and I think maybe one thing we could do is we could expand the description to make it clear that it's not a set of strategic housing goals or housing targets but it's a set of tools that the town can employ should they choose to do so and there are aspects like you mentioned about the affordable housing trust with its work with we might want to make the committee aware of that and the other aspect is the CPC has some money for Affordable Housing, which may come into play with some projects we're looking at. So just to make committee members aware that it's there, and maybe the descriptor needs to change to make it clear that it's tools that we can leverage and here's the places that might be appropriate but it's not this is not a housing production plan this is not you know so I would hate to spend that money not We're all aware of it because we've lived through it, but in three years' time, five years' time, maybe not.

I thought that might help with that.

the only thing I would say about that is I don't mind a general description this is my fear with a strategic housing plan is like you said three years from now people don't remember the discussion now it's a strategic housing plan people looking to that to guide decisions when it comes to capital planning So if we were to say, very high level, it's a toolkit, and here are relevant sections, like the Affordable Housing Trust or funding through the CPC, that I would be okay with.

because I think that would be quite an easy change. I'd be happy to do that.

Could you speak to the role of CPC funded projects because that it wasn't clear to me how that intersected with the the plan so that if a Project is funded in full or has the majority funding is CPC funded. I would imagine that's a different and so I could actually see the... I don't know if you answered the question about the million to two million but I'm wondering if it should be higher because really what we're talking about are those big lumpy capital projects that need to be organized in a responsible way to smooth out the debt. It seems to me that one to two could just kind of...

there are things that I feel like they're handled responsibly now and brought forward by the proponents and get ordered in the plan, but the big lumpy ones. are more where I would like to see the focus and that's part of why with CPC, you know, let's say it's, we'll pick on Morrison's Pond, right? I'm going to make up numbers. They're not real, Tom. Okay. So let's say it's a $10 million and eight of it is CPC money. I would think it's outside of this process. That's what I would think because it's not impacting our capital position in the same way.

and one of the reasons I'm asking this question is because I've struggled a lot with what the problem is we're trying to solve and lining up the composition of the committee with the problem we're trying to solve. if we're trying to solve meeting the town's capital needs and being respectful of what the different departments see their needs as, I see how this committee works. if we're trying to solve how does the financial lumpiness get laid out or how does the construction synergies happen I'm not sure the composition of the voters the voting members is correct and I think that's I thought a lot about what I'm struggling with on this and I think it's At the end of the day, what do we want them to do?

I trust that Joe lays these things out and he moves them. Roof is fine, push it out, this is good. I feel like we have professional expertise that guides select board decisions on that. Getting buy in across the different departments on why projects may be coming and going and puts and takes and collaborating, I can see where this would be helpful in that. So I feel like I, does that make sense?

I was going to say, you've asked a lot of questions. No, it doesn't. I mean, what's the question? I'm trying to parse out the question.

The question is, what is the big problem that this committee is supposed to solve? like what do we want their expertise to lean into solving?

I mean capital planning. I mean so the issue we're dealing with is that we're facing multiple projects that are outside I would say the capacity of this town's staff to complete, the boards to process, the taxpayer to pay for and we don't have a process to resolve that.

Right, so we don't have... Can I just add one thing on the CPC, which I think, to answer Beth's question on CPC, MOPO, regardless of pricing, is actually an excellent... excellent example on why you need this. So MOPO, although CPC, it has to go through this process because what ultimately happened on that is they went to PPC and FMD said we can't do this we're building two new schools we have town hall we need to kick it out but CPC funded the initial feasibility study which essentially had to be redone because it didn't have the expertise of our master planners, which are FMD. And so laying this out is, it's not just that the CPC may have the money to fund it at the time, but you do have to take into account the bandwidth in connection with the other projects in the pipeline. And I'm just not leaving FMD in that because DPW has a substantial

capital workload as well, because we're not just factoring in buildings, so we have vertical and horizontal construction that plays a role into both of these. some of which occupy substantial time from DPW or FMD or engineering or even NRC if we're doing the dredging or pond management as an example. So when we look at, and you'll see this in your first draft on the 10-wide financial plan shortly, But when you really align those debt exclusions, how it's been aligned now, because once you just get it on FMD, it's a four-year window to construction, or four to five-year window to construction. So now we have it lined up. for a four-year period, every special and every annual town meeting, we have a debt exclusion. that is not financially going to be, that's not gonna pass, right?

That's just, it's a huge economic hit. So what this really does is say, okay, hold the presses. We have all this work. How can we fit it in from a staff standpoint but then also in a streamlined way to achieve those goals? And by the way, if it fails, what are we going to do? Because that's the other thing our capital planning to date doesn't really take into account. And when you have this many number of significant capital projects coming forward, you just know something's failing. So you need to be prepared for the backup plan. Collette's been using her analogy. I'm going to have her give it. But I think it's the best way to sort of say why we need this. So I'll turn it to you to give this.

I mean when what I've been saying in conversation recently is that so say all the appliances in my house are starting to go or breaking and they're at the end of the useful life but my dryer breaks first and I only have a thousand dollars and I fix my dryer and the next week my fridge breaks and I can't afford a fridge. And if I had thought about it in a more holistic way, I may have decided to plan differently for my capital expenditure, fix my fridge, maybe live without the dryer for a little while or whatever the choices were. but right now we're making decisions in isolation and we're asking time meeting to make decisions in isolation without the sort of the holistic picture so that you say okay if you do go forward with this then be aware that these are all the other things that are in the pipeline and also if we do this prioritization, here's our priority, here's why we prioritize it in this fashion, here's why we move things around.

and I think it gives people a much better perspective in making the decisions and also I think we need this work to be done so that we can come to some consensus about There's too much on the table. What can we do as an alternative? What are operational alternatives to these capital projects? what can be put off how can things be parsed out into smaller pieces and we need to be able to start socializing to the town okay we do have this you know we at and I've been seeing the partner to this is a master plan for facilities. We're doing one for fire. We're doing one for DPW. We're in talks with schools to do a master plan. We need that master planning before we can start prioritizing.

and then we can start socializing to the town we've got we've got these four five six major projects they're going to hit in these ranges it's going to be roughly this cost for you so people can make decisions about any debt exclusions in the bigger picture because we haven't done that

So I'm not asking you if we need a capital plan. We clearly need a capital plan. We have a form of capital plan. This brings it to the next level. So I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you what our expectation is of the members of the committee. What expertise we are expecting them to bring to bear. Are we expecting them to collaborate on their needs across the town to prioritize the different needs that get surfaced? Are we asking them to do something else? They're not the financial people.

Well, let me try and answer it. I mean, I think I understand your question. That's my question. So, I mean, what we're looking for, remember that there's a lot of work that's going to be done with staff. Staff are the experts in this, so there's a lot of work that staff are going to do to bring this plan forward which I think in and of itself will be a really beneficial process it's not that it doesn't happen right now but it's not happening for the period that we're looking for and we are looking at this with master planning and a slightly different eye on it. So staff are doing a lot of work. The expertise for the committee members, I think it's, You have to look at it as why are we standing this committee up? This committee is helping us, is helping advise us to make our decision. and so the main players in this committee need to have, I think, some capital experience. We have a lot of capital experience because it's our job to capital plan. Board of Public Works has a lot of capital experience because that's a big part of what they do.

School Committee has a lot of capital experience because they're always at PBC. I went back to the agendas that are available online back to 2014. They're always at PBC. They are conversant. They are not capital experts. but they are conversant with what is happening, our capital process, what PBC does and the needs of the town. And I think it's 75% of capital projects are coming from schools. they have a huge share of the square for Dijon Town and I think part of this process is also to get us all at the table to start hearing each other to say yes here are all the needs we can't do them all how are we going to make this work We are going to have to come together a little bit here.

I think there's something else too, which is the context of having them all together and all being evaluated by standardized criteria. because departments and boards put forward projects that they evaluate according to their own criteria and their own needs and their own vision. but having it all together with agreed upon criteria for the town as a whole is a very, it's a huge move forward and it's important. So I'm just going to ask you to hold...

I'll just run one thing by you. So the framework that I've been thinking about is that really we have a subcommittee of staff with a... a board that is overseeing that work of staff to then bring it forward to us so that we're not I think part of what the struggle is when you think about it is The board members don't necessarily have the expertise to do a lot of what we're asking for, but we want their more global thinking about what all the piece parts mean. and that makes sense to me. Does that make sense to you?

I don't understand what you mean by a board.

So we're taking board members and making them a committee. They are a board. but they have a staff that is doing all the heavy lifting and bringing to them the elements of a recommendation that they will then sort out as a board to bring to us. I think that's what we're doing.

It's a committee. I think that's essentially what we're recommending here. Staff are doing all the work to bring it to a committee to make a recommendation to us for us to make our decision.

So I'd like to respond to your questions. I agree that the dollar amount for projects should be increased. If the people discussing it think $2 million is the right amount, that's right. Joe was talking today about a rubber floor that's a couple million dollars so you can spend a little a million dollars really quickly and if you think two million is the right number and NRC feels you don't want to go above $2 million, that's fine with me. I liked your idea of categorizing the strategic housing plan a slightly different way than other strategic plans, because Kenny is right, it is a toolkit. It's not the same, but it could have implications for capital requests. So I would like to see it included but delineated in a slightly different way.

I like the idea of construction finance experience because people know how long a feasibility study takes to put together, how much time you're going to need for design, how much time between design and construction. and coupling that with the financial expertise and the subject matter expertise of the people on the committee I think would be very helpful. In terms of membership, I remain firm in my belief that the library is an owner of a relatively small amount of square footage in town, and that having them sit on the committee whenever they have a project on the horizon in process is sufficient and that the major property owners

should be the ones making the decision, having the percentage of representation on the committee to make those decisions. And library will sit there anytime they have a project coming up. So I think that, and I agree, CPC is not completely different because it's still taxpayer money. And I think it needs to be considered in the context of

Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor I think we have to be very careful. I mean I've said this before about the unified plan. I am not retrospectively a big fan about how that process was managed. I think that we ended up with sort of two people from everything, and so they were able to approach it in a very siloed fashion. And I've always had concerns about what the outcome was of that plan. now Megan you have said it but it's all we have and we have to follow it until we're told not to until we have a new one I do understand that in terms of of the position that you're in.

But we had a very specific discussion with the strategic housing plan about how it really wasn't useful until we had a new comprehensive plan. that it was really a toolkit for how we operationalize the far more specific and helpful information that we had in a comprehensive plan. So how do you build something in an area where the comprehensive plan said we should build it? And that that's what the community is really looking for. So I think in general, taking that philosophy to any of the plans that we're attaching to this. I think we have to be thoughtful and careful about how we're using those particular plans. I want to go back. I happen to be at the PBC meeting where you gave the presentation. And in terms of the construction, what I actually heard was a bit of a discussion about

either someone in construction or construction finance and it was after there had been a discussion about what the actual bandwidth was for FMD to serve on this committee recognizing that they were necessary. and I found that a very interesting discussion because those are two different, I found myself thinking about the benefit of a Tom Gomet on this committee in terms of looking realistically at how how these projects are actually built, are we being realistic in our assessment, is the grading accurate in terms of what we would include and take under consideration. So I wasn't sure the way you were discussing it whether it was construction slash finance or knowledge of finance in construction.

I think what it was was construction or construction finance. And I think Susie's point was we've got lots of finance expertise on the committee. CFO's there, Megan's there, we're there. she thought there should be more construction experience and she sent me following that she sent me a spreadsheet of construction projects that happened you know over the past I don't know 10-15 years and the growth is exponential in the cost and she's saying having your finger on the pulse of that continued growth could be really helpful in terms of realism.

I think that's true. I mean, I think Morses Pond is a good example. In fact, when we had a MOPOBAC meeting to go over the final draft report, and they were showing the numbers and the number they were using for the original project was the old number and I made the point that you really have to inflate that accurately according to construction because town meeting is going to have the wrong impression. about what the actual delta was if you were to expend the design funds and move forward with the project. And it didn't adequately show or support the value of the additional feasibility study that was done. Can I assume that when you did the research about other towns,

My memory is that you arrived at the recommendations for the membership based on a large number of samples that you had looked at. and can I assume that you knew where there had been problems in other towns, where things hadn't worked and how they solved them?

So the former is true, the latter is not. And I went back actually today, and I still have it up. I looked at 100 towns and I went back to data check I only saw mention of the library in two towns and one was principally because from my reading of the way that the committee was set up and what they were doing is because they were looking at cash capital as well as some modest big capital projects. So in that case it made sense because they were specifically talking about some cash capital purchases at the library. The other town who had the library represented was the library director was ex-officio. I saw no towns with NRC. I saw one town with a CPC liaison.

I looked at the kind of reports they produced and some of the feedback in the reports but there was nothing to say you know we had a bad experience with the structure or whatever but the structure was generally speaking who has the purse strings established a committee. So if it's a town with a FinCom, it may be the FinCom that establishes it. If it's a town with a strong town manager, the town manager may establish it. but the makeup was generally speaking, you know, select board members or FinCon members with DPW and schools. Schools are always represented. DPW is always representative. This is best practice. If we're going to get into membership, if you're thinking about, let me finish your questions, Tom.

Well, I think, you know, thinking about membership, I can understand if we were in Boston, if we were in Cambridge, if we were in a municipality that had a significant physical structural commitment to library services, I think that would be different, but I think that in Wellesley the total square footage is sufficiently small with sufficiently infrequent major renovations that I just don't... I would support the current membership. I'm not sure I think. But I do think in communities where there is a much larger physical structural presence, that's a different matter. in part because of the sheer frequency of projects that are being done in those communities in library facilities.

Did you want to say something?

Just on the construction versus Construction Finance. Are we thinking like a developer? When we say construction, what do we mean? General contractor?

I'm actually going to ask Megan to chip in here.

So, Joe reminded me of some of our great candidates that we had for the school building committee and raised a name for us to consider. but largely they're construction executives so someone who handles the the cost estimating as well as understanding supply chain and increases so we had CEOs of various construction companies. So we had a representative from Gilbane. I forget where Jubin was from, Shawmut. He was Shawmut Construction. And then we had another, so we had,

so that type of level so not necessarily local developers think bigger so commercial development I think that makes a lot of sense just because they're gonna they're gonna have the best sense of what things really cost

they were, I will just add to that. If you look back at any of the school building committee documents or meeting, their input was so valuable in particular when we were starting to do the cost estimating. And so you get these numbers and you're like, Okay, what does this mean? And they go through, well, here's why this is up, here's why this is up, and break it down. So not just for those people in the room, but... Keep in mind, this is going to be a public discussion, so someone like that who can break that down. Steve Gagosian, not Steve Gohmatt, Tom Gohmatt does that very well for PBC. and it would be interesting to hear if he had recommendations given his former work and current work connections.

You know, I think there's another piece to this, too, in the process. I saw your reaction to the cost of a rubber floor. a million dollars and it is incredibly frustrating to hear the cost as a result of the public procurement laws and the Pacheco law My favorite example is what the line item was for an architect for redoing the slate on the Sprague roof. and I said it was about $738,000 at the time to add nothing to the project. I could get three guys out there starting with Jerry Sprague to give me an estimate in an afternoon to re-slate that roof. And yet we have to follow these laws. And so I think to understand what the incredible inflationary impact is of these laws on procurement and construction, is I think going to be an important part of the process.

So Colette, just to answer your questions, I am comfortable moving that dollar amount up just because of what we see on the capital plan. I don't know if $2 million is the right number or if it's a little bit more. Based on this discussion, I think CPC should be ex officio because I think they should have visibility and an understanding of how the town is prioritizing projects because they are planning how to support projects that are important to the town. So I think having them be ex officio would be a valuable synergy. I definitely support

Well, that's something we've never discussed.

I know, but I'm telling you based on this discussion. I do believe having someone with construction expertise is very valuable. I believe it is... valuable to have someone from the library on there I don't think it detracts and if we're thinking about the town's priorities why not so those are my answers

with the CPC to remember. The essential value of CPC is that they fund the orphan projects, the one-offs. They're really not involved in the prioritization of principal capital projects that a municipality is looking at. I don't think you'd find that they felt this was a good use of their time either.

The only thing I'd bring up on that though is land purchases.

So I think what might be helpful is that CPC, and I'm going back to, if you look at the PBC's by-law, The PPC's bylaw is kind of where we drew the language for this proposal because the PPC does this. There are various projects that they'll have different proponents on. and the CPC I think would be invited to the table anytime there was a project that they were involved with which wouldn't be that often but it would be sometimes and we actually specifically talked about land purchases when I went to their board meeting so that you would bring them to the table as a member, but a non-voting member. So they'd be involved with the conversation, they can participate as much as they want,

their voice is heard but you're not burdening them with being a member of the committee so I think that's an appropriate way to bring them to the table and we did discuss that with them and that was something that they seemed comfortable with

Right, I was proposing ex officio not voting. So I think that we're not that far away on that.

but the way I think we've structured this is staff are ex-official members so Megan, Rachel, Joel they're ex-official, they're doing a lot of the work for this, I don't want to mix it up CPC would be a non-boarding member whenever they have a project they'd be invited to participate as an onboarding member and that's how it's kind of structured and I think you know to your question on the library like you know they should be there it doesn't distract why not I do think it does distract and I think there are some reasons why not and it's not particular to the library but it's you know when you're considering the voting membership go back to first principles what is the issue we're addressing, which we've talked about, and that this is a standing committee to assist us in our responsibilities for capital budget preparation. And this committee is making recommendations for us.

I keep going back to the Government Financial Officers Association's guidance on this subject is a big part of the challenge. is deciding how to allocate the budget between competing interests. That's exactly what we're trying to decide here. Usually the competing interests seek to gain as much as possible from the budget for themselves. and when everybody does this, the budget becomes overburdened. That's where we are. By having all voices at the table, we're at risk of just advocating and not planning. That's my concern. and we've looked at best practice and what we see in other municipalities, I've already talked about that, it's not common. and the library has 5% of the square footage of the building space and it just doesn't make sense to me to have them have

and I feel like I'm talking about them, but to have the board of library trustees having the same vote as school committee who has 75% of the capital projects, it just doesn't make sense. I just don't think it's a good practice. and I do feel and we talked about a little bit that capital planning experience does exist at the select board at school committee at the Board of Public Works and it was really It was really displayed to me most starkly in the questions that the Board of Public Works asked me. They asked me capital planning questions, really good capital planning questions. They were thinking about it from a capital planning perspective.

that was not the questions and feedback we got from the board of library trustees it's just you asked for feedback that is my perspective so I'm not I understand I'm just saying for me I would definitely include them. So if you're looking for feedback, I think I would include them. They are a landowning board. They are elected by the community and they do have projects and they do have capital expertise.

I also don't want a back and forth, but I'm just saying that I just went last in giving my feedback. I wasn't particularly a back and forth. and actually the library doesn't really have, they have one project coming forward that's HVAC systems which we really need FMD's experience on.

So Colette, you'll take this feedback and incorporate it and is your plan to bring it back at our next meeting on the 24th? Yep. Okay, so we will vote on it, plan to vote on it at our next meeting on the 24th. Thank you both very much. I know this is a huge amount of work. And thank you Megan and Corey also for helping them work on this.

One last thing. This committee and its role with regard to furthering and others. I think that sustainability issues has become a major consideration and I think that my all they're asking is that they be part of the grading system to evaluate the extent to which the projects are achieving the goals the town meetings set and using responsible sustainability construction techniques. So I just want to be sure that we really have considered and are reflecting the key components that the Climate Action Committee and others are really looking for.

Yeah, it's in the rubric and also I would say one of the things that they were really interested in is recommending that proponents meet with the sustainability director at the beginning of each phase so that they can get the sustainability director's feedback at the beginning of each phase. And it's in the recommendations.

I think they fundamentally see this as the best way to get in the loop.

Right. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Okay.

Did you want a brief update on the work plan that's on the agenda? I've got one sentence. Okay, one sentence. Yes, you can have one sentence. Just for anyone who's watching, the work plan has been updated for the current status of items and after the discussion at our retreat. So that's really the big change to the work plan. Thank you. They're done.

And you're plowing through the work plan, so thank you both very much. . Always a lot going on in policy subcommittee. Okay. So our next agenda item is an FY27 budget update and I see our CFO Rachel DeRoche is here, so we'll invite her to join us at the table. And I'll turn it over to Megan.

I'm going to give a brief update. I know the board's received this, but publicly on where we're at with the budget and health insurance. and then Rachel is going to walk you through we're not completely finished with it yet the school allocated breakdown but we wanted to give you a high level sort of We have just sent it to the school committee for their, excuse me, school administration for their sort of double check on that. So I'll turn that over to Rachel in a moment. So the Westenberg Health Group vote is Thursday. However, the steering committee is putting forward only one proposal for their consideration. and so it is excellent news coming out where on average it's about 8.5% year over year. As part of that, heading in literally

that day we got an update in terms of our trust balance so we were focusing last year we used we had anticipated using about three million dollars of the trust balance to bring us down from that projected 6.95% or so to where we ultimately ended up at 3.97 last year. And so it was a real concern that our balance wouldn't have rebounded. that being said as this board knows we had been having the working to have a prescription PBRIX to do a to work on our Prescription Drug Rebates, and so that came back higher than initially anticipated, and our claims, although running hot, through the end of last year have somewhat slowed. So as we started the rating, position, we were over.

We were at 12.26% of our reserves. So their balance reserve rate is the same as Wellesley's, the 8% to 12%. and so given the formulary has changed where Blue Cross Blue Shield and Harvard Pilgrim will not be covering GLP-1s, we did look at if we were going to do a separate rider which is essentially cost prohibitive. that some of that volatility is decreased. So we sort of negotiated trying to maintain about a 10.3% reserve so we have flexibility to give ourselves midpoint before falling off the range. So with that, and similar to what we did last year, we continue to look at the higher cost. So Blue Cross is more affordable than Harvard Pilgrim. and so basing basically Harvard Pilgrim oftentimes excuse me Blue Cross oftentimes subsidizes Harvard Pilgrim. that we have bifurcated the rates.

And so Blue Cross Blue Shield will be at 7.5% for this year and it'll be 9.5% for Harvard Pilgrim. I did just look at our health, obviously we costed this out, but we actually only have about 55 enrollees in any of the Harvard Pilgrim health plans. a lot of those people are generally so we've seen for transition and that we would expect transition again this year there are certainly a number of long-standing Harvard Pilgrim where it's either a doctor issue or it's the PPO where which is significantly and there may be really expensive but there may be a reason they're on that. The other news is we've been Wellesley certainly has been pushing for this and we had it with Harvard Pilgrim but we are also approving a college rider so that's been a real concern for our employees as and I'm sure you guys all know when if your kids go to College out of State.

You want to make sure that they're covered by your health plan. And Harvard Pilgrim had that. But it wasn't great for Blue Cross Blue Shield. And oftentimes, parents were forced to, our employees, like a plan at the college or within the state that their child was living. So Blue Cross Blue Shield has also negotiated a rider for us for our out-of-state collegiate students, which that's a real win for West Suburban Health Group as part of that. So the good news is we're, Rachel and I have been here saying we're going to need a million dollars for health insurance. We are down to $576,000, a little over that, but to close the budget gap. Nope, nope. So the vote is Thursday. And so we really went back and forth because obviously the steering committee, they show us a host of different

options that you could proceed on. And so after our vote, we decided we are only putting this option because it really is we feel the most economical to all of the communities. Needham does have a higher proportion of Harvard Pilgrim, but maybe that just transitions. I will say three members of the West Suburban Health Group include Wellesley, Natick, and Shrewsbury. And they are all predominantly Blue Cross Blue Shield communities. And so, you know, that certainly played a factor I think into that determination but for Wellesley it's a significant win not just for us in terms of closing the budget but really for the employees too because they pay a substantial share of this cost and to try and keep that down as low as possible.

at a time when many communities similar to last year are paying exorbitant increases between really in that 12% to 14% range. And a part of me is like, well, when's the shoe going to drop? I really think it's been managed well and that's because we've similar to Wellesley with our generation of free cash conservative budgeting has sort of created the engine. And so we were very comfortable dropping to that 10% range. And I think it's really a significant win for us in terms of the budget.

Megan, that's great news, especially since we started out at 14, 14 and a half. Thank you for all your work with the steering committee. Do you think the PBIRX recouping of the prescription money will continue to flow the way it has this year?

So they always tell us that the first sort of half of the year as you sort of gin it up is really where you're going to experience the most turn back and then you tend to stabilize. because people tend to remain on the same prescriptions, less transition, and so it tends to be fairly consistent where we had gains We had significant gains this year because previously they would really try and do rebates sort of one time annually towards the end of the year. or on some of the Medicare rebates at sort of like calendar year end and fiscal year end. So now to do it on a monthly basis has been much more effective. We actually partnered with, it's a cost, We pay Blue Cross Blue Shield and Harvard Pilgrim to bifurcate these, but the economic return has been substantial for the group.

Well, it's better cash flow, too, if you're doing it on monthly as opposed to semiannually.

It is. And so it actually hurt us initially at the start of the year in terms of the cash flow, just until we caught up on the prescription. So now we're caught up. and it's been very effective but this year likely would be the most significant gains on it and then it will essentially remain flat unless there's been a significant change in the drug market.

So this is great news, Megan. The student rider, I understand the student rider, is that something we offer now?

We only offer it for Harvard Pilgrim so this is a new opportunity for Blue Cross Blue Shield.

And then how does the co-pay work on that?

There's no change in our co-pay structure. We're under contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield. I think for both of them actually for one more year before within West Suburban before we can evaluate any modification to any of our co-pays or deductibles.

Great, thank you.

Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Williams. Williams. Great news. Great news. Great news. Okay. Okay. So, Rachel, let me pull it up. So, Rachel, let me pull it up. I just want to share screen. I just want to share screen. Thank you for bearing with us, Thank you for bearing with us, Rachel. Rachel. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We're behind schedule. We're behind schedule. Hold on one sec.

Well, Megan's pulling that up. I'll just jump right in. So as you're aware, there's been the request to perform an analysis to show what shared costs the other town departments are engaging with the school departments. So the finance department, along with the other town departments, we've been performing an analysis. So the board, you should be aware that We already have an existing agreement. So it's an agreement on municipal expenditures for education. So these costs, if you look at the bottom of this analysis, you'll see Yeah, if we just scroll down, starting in line 18, we have retirement, we have unemployment, health insurance, OPEB, all of those shared costs, those employee benefits, So we're already doing a yearly analysis with the school based off this agreement.

When they're preparing their school end of year report, we're capturing these costs so that the school can report of these shared costs, what portion is allocated to them.

That's schedule 19.

And that's schedule 19. And that's something that we're already, the finance department is working with school department every fall on that analysis. What's new is looking to some of the other departments to see what cost within their department support or service to schools. So let's go back up, Rachel. Sure. So again, I do want to caution this is a draft. So as Megan mentioned, we did share this with the school department so their administration can review. We did want to give them that courtesy. Again, we, finance team, we verified that it for some of those existing shared costs that we're already aware of. They align with the school end of year report agreement. But you'll see some new costs in here. HR, IT, police, recreation. So some of these costs we've reached out to the departments to get a better sense of your day-to-day operations, what is supporting the school.

So our plan is to include this analysis, this really high level, within the townwide financial plan. In support of all of these figures, the departments went through. We have a workbook by department where they're identifying their total budget, what either percentage or dollar amount, of their department costs would be associated with the school. So we will have those available. But when it comes to town-wide financial plan, This view, this high level depiction is what we're going to include. And again, Megan, if you want to scroll down a little bit. Excuse me. So what we're doing is we're looking at the total cost within. So column B is how much we're allocating towards the school. Column C is allocated to the the municipal departments, and then column D is your total budget. So again, this should align with the submissions at the department level.

So again, finance we're still going through and making sure everything ties out. And if we scroll further down to the bottom, I guess this is and so forth. So that's kind of what we're gleaning So that's kind of what we're gleaning from this analysis, how much from this analysis, how much if you looked at the school if you looked at the school budget plus adding these budget plus adding these shared costs, what's a fully what are the costs that are fully allocated to the school. So essentially that's what this analysis is providing. and again this was motivation at last year's annual town meeting there were those questions what is you know if we were to present a school budget fully allocated. This analysis is providing that. But again, when it comes to voting these costs, a lot of them are fixed costs within the department's budgets, like plowing the parking lots, DPW performs that. That's part of their day-to-day fixed cost, part of their operations. We're just using this analysis to call out of plowing the parking lots. This portion is allocated to the school.

The other thing, too, just so the 191707, that ties out to your sources and uses. And I just want to be clear, that ties out to personal services and expenses. So if you look through the school budget, which is very easy to search, and I'd recommend anyone who has questions on it to really take a look at it because it's a great document. They spend tons of time doing it, and it's award-winning. but you may see that their total budget and shared costs may be in the $150 million. because that's also including debt service. Attributable to Buildings. Under our cash capital in the budget, keep in mind that is different than regular school costs.

and so forth, capital costs, they can't switch between personal expenses, it's a fixed cost so we haven't in Article 8 when we talk about that shortly. We didn't move those over because we actually have control of those funds rather than those funds being able to be allocated between personal services and expenses.

I just wanted to clear something up. Under exclusive costs, you have school budget, town only costs, but then it's additive. So it's confusing. What do you mean by town only costs?

So we're taking, if we were to take the total in column D and the town only, those are costs that aren't attributed to the school.

that are? Are not. Are not. Why do you show, am I missing something?

Trying to tie to the 191.

Yeah, so if you look here, obviously within Brian DuPont's budget under IT, The predominance of his costs are non-school related.

This part I understand. Let me scroll down. It's just that section at the bottom. Is it the heading? It's the heading.

That doesn't make sense.

Oh, here. As opposed to non-school, it's called town only.

It's not intuitive that it's additive. You would think that it would be subtracted.

Oh, I see. So we can, the non-school at the top, we can just copy that. Yeah.

Okay. Sorry, I wasn't understanding your question. Oh, and I see what you're saying, because right below it is the non- Yeah, exactly. Non-school.

We'll just change that heading. Right. That's a good flag. I certainly hope I understand this. Yeah. So, Rachel, exclusive costs, is that operating budget? Is that what that is? The yellow here, yes. Yes, that's called the operating budget. And then up above is shared services. Is that right?

Correct.

Okay. And the Schedule 19, if you scroll up,

I'm sorry, it somehow was like slow here.

There are items in the shared services that are in Schedule 19 and some that are not. Is that right?

Correct. So we're already so there's the agreement on municipal expenditures. So it's our end of year report agreement. So we're already We're already looking at costs within FMD, costs within DPW. We're looking at those employee benefit shared costs, unemployment, health insurance, OPEB. Risk Management, Compensated Absences. So we're already doing a yearly analysis based off this agreement so that the school can capture those costs in their end of year report. What's new is reaching out to the other departments like IT and police and recreation to kind of identify part of their day-to-day operations, what is supporting the school.

could you tag, not this minute, but could you tag for us the ones that are new analysis as opposed to ones that are kind of understood shared services by the state, you know, that the state looks at in Schedule 19. and your plan is that the school department is going to be on the same page with everyone when it gets presented, is that right?

Correct.

We have the departments have a workbook. If somebody were to say, how did you come up with that number, the workbook would have the explanation?

Correct. So the workbook, I don't have an example. So the workbook is really capturing their FY27 budget requests and they're either putting in a percentage or a dollar amount of that budget line, that expenditure or personal service line, with a description. So again, if someone wants to dig in, we have those materials available. That's a lot of work. Thank you so much. You're welcome. It was collaborative. The departments, it was were very supportive. But it's a nice analysis because it gives you more of that global view.

Were you surprised by anything you found, or was it kind of what you expected?

I mean, I would say there were a few, not to call anyone out, but there were a few I think that we haven't identified historically, and at the end of year report, those requirements, we're not required to be picking those up. but I think going through this analysis we may have identified maybe better ways to allocate the health insurance costs. or there were a couple of them, maybe risk management. So I think it was a helpful analysis on our part and we'll work with Cindy in the school department. There may be some updates forthcoming to the end of year report agreement. now that we've had an opportunity to kind of look through this. And will you send it to us? Will you send it to us? This analysis, yes, this is going to be included in the Tadwine financial plan.

Oh, but just to look at it.

Sure.

No, we just wanted to have finalized numbers before we made it a public document.

And we wanted to give the school department an opportunity to review.

I may be asking the exact same question Marjorie just asked, but are you looking at a line item by line item and deciding an allocation methodology or are you like applying a set formula?

for everything. The departments went line by line. But in some departments, it's just one. So for police, not to call out police, but they have the resource officers. So of the entire police budget, the 8.5 million, 209,000 are for those two resource officers. So again. for some departments it wasn't as a heavy lift but we did ask them all to kind of go through and identify those costs.

So your point is you're tracking that so you can apply the same methodology year over year so we can see.

So this isn't actually, I can't erase Paul's note, but as you can see, this is what Paul was directing people to do. But so here, this would be risk management, but under the comprehensive liability insurance premium, we actually had Maya go through our premium and divide it between town and school as a separate document. So we have that as another backup to this. But then this is just how I had to insert it. This is actually one where, so over, After the total cost premium, what we haven't done is added a component of the endorsements to them, or in the past, deductibles to them. We've just sort of left that. So if we maintain that, okay, about 33% is allocated to the school, those endorsements should be factored in as well. and deductibles.

So that's like the slight tweak that like when you actually go through the exercise it just is a little bit more precise but we actually had Maya go through and they split out all of our Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor

Just so everybody knows, Megan and Rachel met with the school department of David and Cindy and school committee to explain how the budgets were going to be presented because they had some questions. about what they were going to be asked and how it was going to be depicted. So Megan and Rachel went and explained everything to them. So I think they feel much more comfortable about it now. This is great. Thank you.

So if you want to say, and we'll just do the motions real quick. I know I had provided draft motions, but just while we're talking about the budget and the school separation, these are not 100% accurate because the school committee just voted their budget so some of the line items have changed since we have done this and I want to highlight Jay Bach who Friday night was doing his homework and said, oh, this changed, Megan. I said, I know, but it's already gone out. I said, I told them they're not gonna vote it. Let me just share this screen real quick and work you through it. So I know the board has talked about how on a technical basis this would work, but just in practice I just wanted to maybe walk folks through. So, historically, we have three motions for Article 8, and here we've broken it out to four. And Rachel and I, in particular for schools, have broken it out this way deliberately, so we wanted to just walk through.

Obviously, one million in terms of the MLP. We should add that to consent. I'm just saying, just thinking out loud. So, I don't know why we don't. I know, you're right. So this is the typical format of the omnibus budget. So schools has been removed from this. So this is inclusive of all of the departmental budgets that would tie into actually the sources and uses that you happen to have in the book. and I think this is actually reflective of the the correct health insurance but so and then we would have the capital and debt, etc. So this would be our standard 8.2, which you're used to seeing. What would be modified is 8.3.

and 8.3 essentially takes that holistic line or lines from the public schools and puts that in because really for the public schools, for the general fund, it's really the lump sum that matters. because they have the capability and we try and say this over and I know you know this but not everyone knows this so it gets very convoluted for let me just go back up just to make this point. So for any department, Board of Public Works, School Committee, any of these listed, in particular up here, there's no capability to modify personal services and expenses. So what's appropriated here has to stay in those buckets, and their bottom line, but any modification other than that requires town meeting appropriation. The school department gets, they have broken it out to show you where their expenses are.

But in the course of the year, if they need to make modifications as a body, the school committee can vote that. But that bottom line number that 96, 856, 075, that is their total appropriation. So the numbers can mix between their line items but otherwise has to remain the same. So in pulling this out, that's the separate appropriation that would be voted and then what typically has been the motion for 8.3 would become 8.4 which is then if you vote all of these budgets we still need to close the gap with the appropriation of free cash and so this then demarcates what that exact dollar amount is to close that budget gap.

I have a mechanic, I asked this question before, just mechanically with the budget separated. is 8.2 staying open until 8.3 and 8.4 close because typically If you make a motion to add, you have to say where you're getting the money from. Or delete, you have to say where you're turning the money to. Jop, Largess, Sullivan Woods, Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor

so once you vote a motion it's closed right so that's why I'm asking so you can it so what would happen is if it was in 8.2 and we were going to cut Jop, Largess, Sullivan Woods, Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor

So you're working in and out of 8.4. Is that right?

Yep.

Because before you've been able to work in and out across. But now we're doing puts and takes from 8.4. And so when 8.2 is open, if someone wants to add, they take from... Free Cash. If they want to delete, they put it back in Free Cash. And then when 8.3 opens, they put and take from Free Cash. So at the end, free cash is going to even out in theory.

That is one way to do it. That's fine. Which I think works. The other thing which can also happen is there could be a proposal that expressly balances. So it could be I'm going to take 100,000 from NRC and I'm going to give 100,000 to DPW. So it depends on the motion that's before you. So I do think mechanically we have the flexibility to do that. The other thing is if you leave the article open based upon the warrant, there is also the probability to create of the House of Representatives, and the House of Representatives, and the House of Representatives, the unforeseen amendments that may transpire. So I think when you're thinking of keeping it open, that's the broader article, and within the broader article you can do multiple, multiple motions. and we oftentimes do that with Article 5.

That's where we end up ultimately bringing in appropriations for union contract settlements. So we would expect MARC to not close If we had any expectation, which, by the way, I don't, that union contracts would be coming to annual town meeting, we would keep Article 5 open as we continue to go through the warrant.

So are we going to explain to town meeting members how to do this because it's a little bit different than before in terms of if they make a motion, that they're making a motion in and out of free cash.

Well, I think what the... And we can think about it. Well, that may or may not be the case, so I think what we always recommend, if someone has an anticipated motion, in particular on any of the omnibus, that they would send it in advance so that town council could assist them. in the best order of operations for us to address that.

I think it may also be helpful to have you or Mark Kaplan or Town Councilor or somebody walk through what you've just walked through here at the League of Women Voters Prep Night and then also to have Mark put it into his Billiton to time meeting members.

Yeah, I think that would be really helpful for the League of Women Voters.

Could I ask a question? Sure. I'm just curious so we've the capital is all left in the municipal budget can you talk through why that's staying there and not being sort of

Allocated. So unlike the personal services and expenses, under the cash, well, it's only cash capital that's remaining in there because they actually don't have any Capital Expenses, other than that, you know, well, I take that back, except what's in Facilities. Mm-hmm. But we've left it in because capital is very explicit purpose. It cannot be modified from what has been presented to town meeting or what's in your capital sheets. Rachel has expressed authority to say you either have met your obligation under what you submitted for capital or you have to come back and amend the appropriation at town meeting.

I'm just thinking about, I think what we were asked was what's the total that we're spending on municipal spending and school spending to see it separately. And there's an element of school spending that's still in the municipal.

However, our concern, and this is one of the breakups and it's an important point, that money is under our control. We don't give that to the school. We basically, they send us the invoices and we process it. If you put a motion into that to potentially, it convolutes it because it, you're highlighting what's under control of the town versus the school. So we've tried to, although we've tried to break it out, we're recognizing that you know if you wanted to put that allocated cost table in there what we want to be very explicitly clear about is we are not giving the school so within IT whatever they have no control of that. And so it becomes challenging to have that technical discussion potentially at schools. So that's why we've gone back and forth on detailing that expressly in the town-wide financial plan in terms of the allocated costs.

But the motion really is, you know, the appropriation.

I think we spent too much time together. I was just going to say we just have to discuss it in term of financial plan.

Don't worry, Colette.

Okay. Mind meld completed. Okay.

And that's in the allocated costs, right? The cash capital? In the...

No, we've kept that in ours because we control cash, we control capital expenditures.

But your, I'm going to call it the enhanced Schedule 19 list. that includes everything that's in the town side budget that is a shared service or a school cost borne by the municipal side of the budget. Where is cash capital?

We have capital separate and distinct. We could do an allocated in terms of cash capital, but in the sources and usage, we expressly detail which department is getting what from a cash capital standpoint.

It's already outlined, so if we...

Right, I'm just asking if you... I don't know how you... No, we don't have that in the personal expenses. That seems to be the only piece that has not been homed. in the new spreadsheet of separating. So you have the total town budget number. We can break out cash capital. I'm not sure what decision Town Meeting will make other than knowing the factoid that these are the costs. I wouldn't know how to answer to town meeting that just one component wasn't in the total roll-up because we've got every other piece there so Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor top part of Rachel's sheet is appropriated to municipal, the municipal side.

So it's like that except it's not a shared service.

I think our initial thought process was we're already calling out cash capital at the department level. So it's already transparent that School cash capital is separate and distinct, whereas the school allocated cost and analysis was to identify those costs that are not adherent. But to your point, if we do want to show a full picture, we can roll it in. But that was just our reason not to because we're already calling it out.

I get it. It's just when you break the operating budget out also, we've done 99%.

and so I think when it's presented we're saying we're splitting the schools out from the town letting people know the instances where that's not because they may be looking at it. They may not understand. I think you could stop a lot of questions by just saying these three things are still in town, and this is why.

. Well, thank you for walking us Well, thank you for walking us through that.

through that. I did provide you with I did provide you with motions. Happy to hold these to the next meeting. They still need town council review, so it's okay to hold on those. It was more I wanted you to see them in draft form, but we can hold on those.

If town council still needs to review them, let's hold them. But I wanted to take a look at the articles because in this Annual Town Meeting we only have four articles that are not in consent. So I wanted to talk about who would be presenting them. and I know, thank you Rachel, thank you very much. We will have presentations on the consent motions in case something is removed from consent, but in terms of presenting, so I'd like to introduce Megan for the townwide financial plan. Beth, will you do the consent agenda, number three? . Collette, would you do town clerk salary number six? Tom will do number seven. Megan really does number eight. And then we have the consent

articles, which are number nine, and that's typically one that Beth does. No. 10 Stabilization Funds. Kenny, would you be prepared to do that as a backup in case it goes that way? Tom, you do 14, Wellesley Media. Colette, you do Uber Lift. Kenny, do rescind transfer debt. Sorry, 33. That's everybody's favorite one when you're rescinding authority for borrowing. And Beth always does 36.

So, and Beth, we've assigned you for dissolution and for... Yes, exactly.

Let's hope it's night two or something like that, right? Okay, so we'll put the motions on for the 24th, and I'll turn to Corey for minutes.

I circulated edits at 5.30 via email. They were incredibly minor, a few grammatical things, but that's it. Can I just hand you the few things that I have? Oh, sure.

Are they ministerial in nature? Yeah, absolutely.

Kenny usually picks them out when I can't see them.

The one thing I would say is this is not ministerial. Where we list what we talked about taking out or deferring. Can we put the DPW feasibility study?

So right now it reads, board engaged in a discussion about exploring specific capital projects that could be deferred, including an irrigation replacement proposal, playground reconstruction, and then after that, add and DP dump.

So I had a non-ministerial edit that I apologize I didn't get you, Corey, which is in the line 187. Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, more clearly identify when the gate is open, the open and closed hours.

Can you say that I don't understand what you're saying? So you're suggesting an addition?

I'm suggesting that we add those two items that were raised so that we have permanent documentation as when we go back and evaluate how well things are working or not working, those were two things that came up that we discussed.

What was the first one, Beth?

The first one was more visible signage of where the parking was for Mopo so that people would go down the thing and clearer signage of the gate hours so people would go down and park.

So on line 186 you would expand that to say for better signage for parking availability and hours of opening? Okay.

Okay. Just delegate to Corey to figure out how to put them in there.

Got it.

OK, so move to approve the minutes of January 13, 2026 as amended.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, I have a few things under the Chair's report. Because of the availability conflict of the high school for special town meeting. The dates have now been changed. It will be November 9th, 10th, and if we need it, 16th at the high school. The moderator is going to announce that his anticipated order of articles for ATM will be to begin with Article 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . to make sure that they're all presented and voted on by the same town meeting members the same night.

So we'll get as far as we can after number one, skipping two and eight. We'll do two and eight at the opening of night two and then go back to wherever we left off on night one. As Collette mentioned earlier, Joe and Collette and Megan presented the idea of the Townwide Capital Planning Committee today to school representatives. in terms of Joe's thinking about how we needed the school facilities master plan to be the last piece of master plans that would inform the capital planning committee So I believe Nikki will discuss with Sharon and David how to put that on their agenda and discuss it with the rest of the school committee. School Committee is presenting its budget to advisory tomorrow night, and we are presenting our articles and the town-wide financial plan on the 25th, February 25th.

which is the same night as their public hearing on the warrant. And the planning board zoning public hearing has been continued to the 23rd. So they will pick up with their zoning hearing on the 23rd. I did not see that Rio Task Force discussed a potential meeting Thursday night prior to candidates night. but I didn't see anything posted so I don't know if they're intending for the task force to meet again.

There was a lot of I'm not going to be there, so I think it might change.

Okay, yeah. And it wasn't posted as of the time that this meeting started.

I think a lot of people might be traveling because of the school break that is the following week.

Just in case people were expecting it from the last task force meeting, it hadn't been reposted. So that's all I have. Good meeting, long meeting. Thank you, everybody.

Margie, can you just... I've been getting a lot of questions about what's up with MassBay. Can you confirm we've heard nothing?

Yes, in fact, Corey sent that response to a resident who asked today. As many people know, the Select Board sent quite a detailed letter to Housing and Livable Communities Secretary Ed Augustus on January 9th and we are awaiting their responses in order to determine what next steps the town wishes to take. We have been given to understand that they are working through those questions and that they just expect it's going to take some time. So we have not received responses. We will let you know as soon as we do and when we have anything further to report. But as of now, we don't have anything new. Thank you, Beth. Smith. Okay? Thank you very much, everybody, and good night.

We're adjourned.