Select Board May 19, 2026

Hello. Hello.

Collette, are you in, Skoll?

Not yet. This time tomorrow.

Nice. Quick jaunt over to Portugal to visit Len and Marjorie?

No. She gets some time off.

clearly yeah right she logs in for a 10 30 p.m select board meeting

But we will not forget Colette logging in at about 2.30 in the morning.

4 a.m., Tom.

Was it 4 a.m.? By the end, yes.

Oh, I'd be getting off. Me too, last summer.

Yep.

Okay, we're all here, right, Megan?

Yes, everyone's here.

I'm not expecting anybody else. Okay, great. Good to go? okay um hello everybody i'll call to order the select board meeting of may 19th 2026 on the zoom remote platform Just lost my notes. Okay. Here from the Select Board are Vice Chair Tom Ulfelder, Secretary Coletto Frank, Beth Sullivan-Woods, Kenny Largess, and myself, Marjorie Freiman. Also with us, our Executive Director, Megan Jopp, Assistant Executive Director, Corey Testa, and Lieutenant Michael Lemenager, The meeting is being televised live on Comcast Channel 8 and Verizon Channel 40 and on Wellesley Media and will be available for later viewing on Wellesley Media. So, Corey, I'll turn citizen speak over to you.

Yes, we have Leslie Hanrahan here for Citizen Speak.

Hi, Leslie.

Leslie, if you don't mind done muting yourself quickly.

Yeah, sorry. I had a two-year-old screaming in the background. No problem. I wanted to spare you. Leslie Hanrahan, 5 Putney Road. Last week, I came before you with the results of the special town meeting vote. 94% of town meeting members rejected the state's proposal for 180 units on and around the parking lot, preservation of 37 acres of forest, and the promise of considering 20% affordability. Only 6% voted for motion 2A. 84% voted to fund litigation to protect the town's interests, particularly if negotiations do not deliver results. A new and important data point emerged from special town meeting that I'd like to share. The majority, 57% of those who spoke, supported option C.

from which we may reasonably infer concern about the scale of the proposed project and its impact on the forest in this ecologically sensitive and the frustration that the state has failed to meaningfully respond to our concerns. Of the 61 speakers, 35 supported option C. In addition, at least six more residents waiting in line C were unable to speak before debate was closed. Had they been heard, support for option C among speakers would likely have exceeded 61%. The message from town meeting was unmistakable. Residents do not believe this land is surplus under the Affordable Homes Act statute. In addition to these data points from Special Town Meeting, 3,100 people signed a petition that 40 Oakland Street is not surplus land. This means 3,100 people believe the 45 acres cannot be used to justify a 180 unit development.

The message from the community to the select board from thousands of letters, countless meetings, a petition, and special town meeting is clear. 180 units of housing is unacceptable in this environmentally sensitive area, and the surplus land designation must be the priority challenged through your negotiations with the state. The only successful negotiation will be one that reduces the project to no more than 20 units, preserves the entire forest, and guarantees a minimum of 20% or more true affordability. If the number of units is dramatically reduced, all of the other issues, including traffic, parking and safety, essentially become moot and therefore must be weighted accordingly. So in keeping with the feedback of the community that the community has consistently given, protection of the entire forest and reducing the number of units to 20 or less

should receive almost the entire weighting in any negotiation that is undertaken. And I think that's what I wanted to share tonight. And thank you for letting me share that. Thank you very much. Okay.

Marjorie, that was everyone that reached out about Citizen Speak.

Terrific. Okay. Megan, may we have the executive director's report, please?

Sure, I have a couple updates. First, I wanted to thank all of our department heads and boards and committees for the open houses for this weekend as part of Wellesley Wonderful Weekend. and certainly the celebrations committee who organized Wellesley's wonderful weekend and all the events that took place. And they had great weather. and then I also wanted to specifically thank the Wellesley Police Department and Chief Whittemore for the great care and empathy that they showed our Wellesley family and during the funeral this weekend. And so it went off incredibly well and appreciate all their efforts on that as well. Saturday was an incredibly busy day throughout town and they organize that incredibly well. We have another upcoming event, which is our Memorial Day celebration, which will be scheduled for Saturday, May 30th.

That event starts with a short ceremony at 7pm at Woodlawn Cemetery. and then we have the official observance beginning at 7 30 p.m in front of the war memorial at town hall weather permitting if it starts to rain we'll bring that inside to the great hall and town hall So that is Saturday night, May 30th is Saturday night. And so that'll be 7 p.m. at Woodlawn and then 7.30 p.m. in front of Town Hall. the board following special town meeting last week which feels like it was longer than a week ago because the board has been so busy following that submitted a letter to DCAM regarding the request for proposals that was sent on May 13th That letter was posted immediately upon sending it. It was then sent out to news and announcements and then we also sent that directly to town meeting members. So folks, the letter is available for review. The Select Board will be holding office hours. Chair Marjorie Freiman will be holding those on May 28th from 9 to 1030.

Folks can email Marjorie to set up an appointment at mfreiman at wellesleyma.gov. and then perfect timing with Lieutenant LaManager here. So hot off the presses, Mike just sent me and the traffic committee a note. that we have been notified that Wellesley's application for the Linden Street corridor for the bottleneck grant, we were denied the bottleneck grant last year, but this year it was approved for looking at the entire Linden Street corridor. and the amount of $840,000. So congratulations to team traffic on that application.

It's wonderful news. That's terrific. if at first you don't succeed. That's great. And that becomes available July 1st, Megan, or right away?

No, Mike, do you know when the bottleneck ramp becomes available?

It's FY26, so I think it's effective.

Oh, that's terrific. That's terrific. Thanks, Mike. OK. Thank you very much, Megan. Thank you, Beth, for all your work with Celebrations Committee. The parade was great and we appreciated you having us move up a little bit in the line as it was a warm day, but it was a beautiful day. Our next agenda item is the Consent Agenda and there are two items under the Consent Agenda to approve signs to be located on property owned by the Town. The new signs are for the Wellesley Free Library Main Branch and the new DPW RDF administration building. Both signs have been reviewed by the design review board and staff recommends approval.

So move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Tom?

Aye.

Beth? Aye. Kenny?

Aye.

Collette? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Okay. Our next agenda item is to discuss and vote a bond anticipation note for the Hardy Elementary School. Megan or?

So Maura and Rachel are here with us. Maura or Rachel, do you want to give an overview?

Sure. We are renewing the $7.5 million ban that we took last year for another year, hopefully, until the Long-term borrowing, we can roll it into a long-term borrowing once the final MSBA payment comes in. But Rachel will elaborate a little bit more on the scope has changed a bit also. but I'm just gonna give you the highlights of the band. We received four bids, very competitive because again, our AAA rating was reaffirmed by Moody's recently again, and so we're getting the best rate that's out there. There were four bids. They range from 2.600 to 2.7495. Fidelity Capital Markets was the one that was awarded the ban

and we also received a premium of $67,275. So the true net interest cost is the 2.60, taking into consideration the premium that we received. Anything else? Any questions on that? We did a little bit better than last year's rate. Last year we got 3% with a 74,000, I think, for something premium. So again, the true net interest cost last year was a little bit higher. So we actually did better with this year's rate.

Thanks, Mara. I was actually just going to add as well. So this time last year, when we initially presented to the board to do the Short-term borrowing, we were expecting to go out this spring to do the final, the debt borrowing. However, as you know, the scope has been expanded now that we're including solar. We're still in the closeout process. We have additional warranties that are still active. So given those changes from what we knew this time A year ago, we have decided, as Mara mentioned, to renew the ban. Again, because the MSBA reimbursements, we can't enter that closeout phase until the project work is complete. So again, because we're moving forward with additional work. that's been pushed out as well so for all of those reasons and working with Hilltop Securities our financial advisors we came to the decision that we would renew this ban

and hold off on the final borrowing until we're clear as to what the final project costs are as we continue to move through closeout. So just wanted to clarify that.

So Rachel, do we have to wait for all the warranties to expire or can some of them still be in effect when we do close out?

Yeah, some of them can still be in effect. It's more so adding the additional scope for the solar and having this extra time to really understand what's the final cost. otherwise if we were to borrow now we may end up borrowing too much or or too short so then that could cause a need to go out for an additional bar next year so That's where the decision was made to renew the ban. We'll have more time to see where those warranties land, see the additional costs that are incurred due to the solar, and then we can go out with a more concrete number for that final borrowing.

And you think a year should do it? Give us enough time to complete everything?

I think so. And we were discussing this with Joe McDonough earlier today. There's going to be, and Megan, correct me, there's going to be some quotes coming in regarding the solar. We're going to have more clarity on that timeline. will the work be in the fall or is the work gonna trickle into the spring or next summer? So again, buying this extra time to do the short-term borrowing so that we have the cash flow will just allow us to have a more accurate number when we do that final borrowing. Great, thank you. Kenny?

Thanks, Rachel. So just so I understand. So the idea is we're going to refi basically the existing $7.5 million of debt. and then roll all of the debt into one broader refinancing. Okay. Yes.

That's correct. That's exactly right. Anything else, Kenny?

Beth? Rachel, is there a difference in the rate if we had started the long-term borrowing now versus doing a ban? And then what's the difference in the rate?

Yeah, I mean, that's a good question. I mean, we don't we don't know what rates are going to be in the future. But for Mara's point, the rate for the ban this year is less than what we saw last year. So, again... Can't predict what rates will be when we go out for that final borrowing, but the good news is that this ban, the true interest costs came in lower, if that helps answer your question, Beth.

Yeah, so what I'm curious about is we just did a longer term borrow, right? So the rate that's available for the long term borrowing versus the rate right now. that's available for the short term. How did those two rates compare now?

Oh, sure. Well, when we went out for the, again, the borrowing last month, the month before, that rate was 2.78. and now we're seeing when we just went out and got these bids Mara had said it was the 2.6 so we've seen the rates come down a bit and again our decision to wait to do the final borrowing I mean we could have gone out and done a long-term borrowing now and then a final final borrowing but again there's issuance costs that are rolled up into that so ultimately renewing the short-term borrowing um is going to cost less in the end, just be the trending of interest rates coming down. And then we're saving to not have to go out and incur all of those issuance costs right now.

Right. Thank you.

Yeah. Any other question?

Okay, Collette, may we have a motion please? Move to approve the votes of the Board as prepared by Bond Council to the Town and presented to this meeting, which votes, among other things, formerly award the bond anticipation note to the low bidder determined a competitive sale held on May 14th, 2026 and established the terms thereof. The formal terms of the votes prepared by the Bond Council to the Town and approved by this motion shall be incorporated in the minutes of this meeting.

Second.

Millett? Aye.

Kenney?

Aye.

Beth? Aye. Tom? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Thank you, Maura. Thank you, Rachel.

Thank you.

Okay, our next agenda item, I just want to note we're 13 minutes ahead of schedule. Our next agenda item is to discuss and vote the modification to parking enforcement and citation management provider. and I'll turn it over to Lieutenant LaManager.

Thank you. And I promise I will not ruin this good streak of staying on time here.

No, we gave you 13 extra minutes, Mike.

I won't use any of them, I promise. Okay. So thank you for having me tonight to go over some Future Goals and Planning with the Traffic and Parking and On-Street Meter Enforcement. Just a little history. In the early 2000s, the town went to a company called CompLast Data Systems, and they managed our Ticket and parking systems for quite a while and at some point they were bought out by Passport Parking and we retained them from parking services up until 2023 when we made a transition from Passport to Plymouth County Parking. And what we're doing as part of the FY27 goals is you know reviewing parking operations in line with the amenities project in Wellesley Square just looking at the services and the efficiency of the program and doing some research, talking with the current parking clerk, the attendants and myself.

The Plymouth County system is awesome. Great people to work with. Customer service is five star class rated, but Passport sort of has a little bit more of the modernized technology and platforms that we're trying to leverage to make the job a little easier. So right now we kind of work third party to third party where Plymouth County issues the parking citations through their platform and people can either pay for parking with coins in the meters through Passport in the app and then a secondary app paid by phone. The merger to bring everything back to Passport to manage citations, the appeals, payments, it's just the streamline so everything's in one location and that the communication between the two is streamless.

We did run into some hiccups over the summer where sometimes the third party Passport isn't communicating correctly to Plymouth or vice versa. And it ended up with some people getting issued citations where they paid for parking. And we're just trying to... present a better overall user experience for the people using our parking as well. And more recently, when we moved to online permits in that process, We actually had the attendants spending more time doing on-street meter enforcement, so in the square and in the hills and less time in the parking lots. and I saw improvements you know they were able to hit the 30-minute zones more they're able to focus on the turnover in Wellesley Square and focus their attention there and that made me

think more of hey let's leverage trying to automate our commuter day lots you know people park there in the morning they stay for the day and they leave we don't need the attendance in there every single day running all the plates to see if they paid for parking. And Passport has the integrations to make that automation for those lots sort of seamless so that we can keep the attendance in the commercial districts doing the 30-minute parking or hitting some of the troublesome neighborhood spots they've been able to check on Atwood Street or some of the other side streets along their path and just not rely on the patrol officers. So overall, the goal here is just to continue to modernize parking operations and switching to the Passport platform, I believe is going to give us the tools and the resources we need to be able to do that.

Thank you very much. Mike, why did we switch from Passport in the first place?

So when their passport bought out CompStar or CompPlus Data, their customer service during that transition, they went through some leadership on their end. and their focus and goals weren't aligned with the old platform. So we couldn't reach anyone in customer service. We had open tickets or anytime we have troubleshooting things. it was kind of like early stages of you know those ticket windows and IT help desk and emails so we were looking for more engaging customer service and that's what Plymouth County Parking gave us and more. when you called or you picked someone up, you had a direct line to someone, we had a voice, we get the problems. Resolve. Since then, Passport has changed their leadership and they're going back to their customer-focused platform. And over the past year, we've had dedicated support staff working with us for the payment portion of it. and other projects.

And they've resolved the issues of why we initially wanted to leave them.

And is there a difference in cost going back to platform to the town or to the users?

There is a cost difference. Most of the costs with both Plymouth and Passport are put onto the user, not the town. But going back to the Passport Platform, they do have a $500 monthly fee for those services. So in order to modernize it and leverage the technology, there is a cost associated with it.

Any? Thanks, Mike. Is there a transition cost?

There is no real transition cost associated with it. The current technology that we use with PASS Plymouth County we can actually leverage on the Passport platform so we just have to switch over data plans that we have access to but the actual tablets and printers we can utilize and mobilize in the new platform and the the transition over is quite seamless. We already use Passport for the app based application. So there's no large expenditure to move over into the new contract other than if we had to purchase new equipment or we wanted to modernize some of it to their latest equipment, then that cost would be in there. But to switch over other than the monthly fee, there's no real impact there. Thank you.

Yes, Treasurer O'Brien, hi, thank you for being with us.

Thank you so much for letting me in and it's a pleasure to join you folks this afternoon, a beautiful day. and thank you to Sergeant Land Manager for the kind words about Plymouth County. I'm the Plymouth County Treasurer. My Deputy Treasurer Jeff Welch who runs the program for the county is actually down in Plymouth right now doing a training session with their parking program because they've just onboarded with us as well. I wanted to make sure I was here just to let you folks know what a great team you have in Wellesley. We have thoroughly enjoyed working with them over the last three and a half years. They share our desire for exemplary customer service. The lieutenant and his team are great. and Catherine Rumsey has been a pleasure to deal with. I also want to say they go above and beyond. You folks had a resident who had run into a scam and they called down to our team and as

the lieutenant mentioned we have people that answer the phones and our team member was able to assist your resident and the lieutenant or members of his team took the time to write down to me to let me know about what a great job our staff person had done. So just it's something that we have thoroughly enjoyed. I will say we would love to not see you go. If there were anything we could possibly do to have you stay, we would do that. We offer a very reasonable cost. We think our program's are top notch. In fact, a lot of the innovations we've added in are now being copied by the private sector. And this business, they'll leapfrog ahead of us. We'll catch up a little bit because we're the public sector. And so I just feel confident that we're industry leaders here and that we value partners like Wellesley. But I also understand that there are decisions your team needs to make, we will be as supportive.

I know a lot of towns are still coming with us because of the cost. I will say that private vendors out there still have that customer service problem that we've solved. Sure, we may be a little slower, a little sluggish at times, but we use that time to innovate and to improve when we can. So whatever decision is made here, we want Wellesley and wish them all the best. We don't know if there's any kind of a procurement issue here, maybe not because you guys already have a relationship with them, One of the benefits of coming with us is we could enter an intergovernmental agreement. And so you don't have to worry about some of the procurement issues you would otherwise have to worry about. But I know you guys are top notch and will take care of all of that in due course. So if you do leave us, we hope you come back. If you stay, we'll probably exemplary service and whatever we can do to oblige the needs of you and your team.

Thank you very much, Treasurer O'Brien. Appreciate it. I think that Lieutenant LaManager knows how proud we are of him and the entire department. They really are one of the best around. Beth?

So thank you, and thank you to Lieutenant Lou Manager. And I do know people have had wonderful experiences with their parking tickets, so thank you to Plymouth. My questions were about any changes that with this change people should anticipate around the fees for parking or the equipment and the customer usability. Are there any that should be anticipated?

The only change that the customer would see would be they would no longer be going to Plymouth County to pay their parking violations. So they'd still be paying for parking in the same Manor in which they choose to use whether it's the passport app or coin or pay by phone. It would just be when they were going to pay for their citation, they would be directed to the passport payment site versus the Plymouth County site.

Thank you.

Okay. If there are no other questions, I think we're ready for a motion, Colette.

Sure. Move to end the intermunicipal agreement with Plymouth County and to rehire Passport Parking to administer the town's enforcement and citation management.

Beth? Yes.

Tom?

Aye.

Colette? Aye. Kenny?

Aye.

And I vote aye as well. thank you very much everyone we appreciate you being here thank you thank you okay our next agenda item is to discuss and vote temporary parking at Cameron Street lot for the solar contractor.

Megan? We've received a request from Steve Boghossian who's managing the solar project on both the Hardy and Honeywell schools. because the Honeywell lot doesn't have extensive parking and obviously they'll be in session they are seeking the ability to use 12 to 15 parking spaces on Cameron Street for the contractors from September 1st to November 30th. The number will diminish as we work our way through November, which is the project completion date. and so we'd be requesting availability there. I will just also give the board a heads up on sort of another summer request which likely will come in June. They are looking at how many parking spaces we will need when we repave the library in through July and August. Initially, we were thinking

Cars could park at the Honeywell School and there may be a small portion that can, but Honeywell is gonna be running the, excuse me, not Honeywell, the Recreation Department will be running some camps at Honeywell, which offsets some of the parking we had anticipated there. So we would be looking for parking space. We will have a request for summer at Cameron, which is a little easier because it's and then we'll leave the 12 to 15 for the solar contractor. When we did the Honeywell construction project, and we're wrapping up we had I think 20 spaces that were dedicated to contractors as well just given the limited parking ability on the Honeywell site.

Do you want us to talk about the library paving now or just this one?

Just this one because they're going to pull together. They're looking at how they're going to phase that project. So I'll have more information for the next meeting for the board on the library.

So when you say the number of spaces will decrease as the installation begins to wrap up, is it going to be like one less car a day? Are we going to gain the full amount of parking back by the time commercial activity picks up for the holidays.

Yeah, so we're expecting this project, if all goes according to plan, to be completed by November 30th. But Steve was saying basically like as we go through November, if it's at 15, you know, to your point, Marjorie, it'll probably trickle down one or two, you know, every few days.

Okay, thanks, Beth. How is the capacity at Cameron right now? Do we know how full it is during the week?

Mike, do you have more insight on that one? I look over there and I see we have capacity basically most of the day.

Yes, the all-day section of the lot is usually capacity. Most of the lots have room for growth and ability to take on special requests like this.

What I would ask is that if we find we're having capacity issues, that we work with the solar vendor to see if some of the folks that are working could park in Talby. to free up for the commercial district. But otherwise, I have no concerns about it. Is the timeline set? Have we received the grant?

This timeline is... is set based on, I think, the July 1 start.

So we received the grant.

I don't know if that's, I don't want to say we have yet. I don't know if we have.

The timeline is based on W.T. Rich's availability, the careful consideration and exploration of where they've done this kind of soft construction during the school year. and during the school day. So reports from other school systems are that there's no interruption of the educational program. by doing it this way. And there, of course, are significant savings by simply doing this as a change order, both with W.T. Rich at Honeywell and with Sean at Hardin.

Tom, so I was more asking if the dates might move because the grant timing hasn't been determined yet. I just was wondering if we should authorize it. for a set number of weeks, starting with when the grant comes in. I was only asking that.

I would recommend these are the dates that were requested. We'll take up potential use of Cameron for the library, I think, at the June 6th meeting. So we can, if we need to modify it, I'll have more information. I did just text Mary Beth about the grant, just to clarify that.

So Megan, shall I add in the dates of September 1 to November 30 into the motion?

Yes, let's add that in and then if we need to modify that, we can.

Okay, are we ready for a motion? Yes, please. So move to approve the use of 12 to 15 parking spaces at Cameron Street parking lot for the parking of construction staff to install solar panels on Honeywell Elementary School for the period between September 1 and November 30, 2026. Second. Kenny?

Aye. Beth? aye Tom aye Colette aye and I vote aye as well okay and Megan, you said we'll discuss the next one on June 2nd.

I believe, yeah, Joe is working to pull those plans and requests together.

Okay, very good. All right, our next agenda item is a policy subcommittee update with a first read on the naming of public assets. and Policy.

Thank you. Megan, is someone from town council able to join tonight or maybe not?

I think Derek was going to join.

Let me ping Eric. it's because we're ahead of schedule we're way ahead of schedule um well he's uh well Corey's reaching out I'll just go um so the the the board the the The town has a naming of public assets policy or the select board has a naming of public assets policy that was adopted some time ago in 2008, I think. and we had recently named the kitchen at the Council on Aging and noted during that time that the policy was a little dated and so since that was fresh in our mind we took a look at this at the policy subcommittee so in the packet there's a draft updated naming of public assets policy and really the changes are it's to put the policy into our standard format and I had reviewed some policies in other peer towns and looked for best practices and better language. The language is a little awkward in our previous policy.

and so the new policy isn't significantly different from the previous one but there has been some procedure, some policy steps and some procedure steps added. So for clarity, the policy step that was added is step number two, which is specific about, and maybe Corey, it might be helpful to bring it up on the screen. Policy step number two is talking about renaming of an asset and it's not a new policy per se because it comes directly from the bylaws but I wanted to put it in our policy document so it was there. there's also based on some peer time policies that we had reviewed I added in language on revocation of of a naming that the board had given.

So there's some policy there if we feel like we need to consider revoking the naming of an asset. and also under the policy section it's a bit more specific on expenses so that's policy step number five just to be clear that the board doesn't isn't responsible for this expenses of a naming of an asset whether it's a plaque or a sign etc the board can certainly do that if they want to but they're not automatically responsible for it so those are the things that were added in the policy section. In the procedure section, which is the next, if you go to the next page, Corey, there's the considerations section is updated. Let me see. So procedure steps four, five and six have been added or elements have been added again based on review of best practices.

so it's consideration the function design and placement of the naming plaque or memorial or marker and then just a little bit more clarity about the public hearing, when we need to have one and should we go forward or not go forward, what happens in that case. So those are the new parts of the procedures. And then we did put in a definition of major gift under the definitions section. it wasn't defined before and this is a definition just to give us some guidance and so there's a small typo in it which I'll correct but it's just basically giving us some guidance around what we would consider a major gift. So this is our first read of the policy. Basically, what I've said in the document is I'd like to take comments on this first read.

also I'd like to raise for the board to consider is the benefits of compiling a comprehensive list of public gifts including the relevant historical information and the naming context and the reason I said that it was included in our policy before we hadn't really gotten around to that but I think it's something that we maybe could work in partnership with the Community Preservation Committee and the Historical Commission as a side project maybe get some resources perhaps if the Historical Commission took this up took the lead on this got a consultant or dedicated some staff time for it the Community Preservation Commission could potentially fund that and I think it would be really helpful because in I think what was circulated Corey circulated to the board a memo from town council from 2007 which gave a lot of history and context to some previous naming

and really I found it very interesting but I think we need a more structured register of everything we've named in the town and what the background of that is. I don't think it's necessary to update the policy but I think it would be really helpful in the future to give us guidance. but that would be a separate project that we would maybe suggest to Historical Commission and the CPC. So with that I'd love to take comments or questions from board members.

So Colette, the advisory committee on naming that was convened several years ago said that they were going to create an inventory of assets. that you said they didn't get around to doing?

I never found it. I spoke to the town clerk. I spoke to Brandon. I never found anything that was named. So I have to admit, I have to assume that that just never happened.

Okay. All right, I have some other questions, but Kenny has his hand up, so I'll let him go first. Kenny?

so just two two things so when you're the definition of major gift you will see it's not actually used if you do a word search you're not going to find major gift and the reason it's as Colette said it's there because we need to understand what it means because the bylaw which this all has to be bounced off says you may contemplate major gifts when deciding. And so this gives essentially clarity to what that means per the bylaw. Just one thing on that. Corey, and Collette. I don't think the cross-reference is correct. I think it should really just say, major gift is a monetary or in-kind contribution. because if you look at the cross-reference, it doesn't actually tie.

The other thing that I think is important is in the revocation language and the policy, We included language that says under extraordinary circumstances that may cast the town in a negative light. In my view, we don't want to be one of these towns that just, you know, flies all over the place when something happens and start renaming assets. I don't think that puts the town in a good spot, but it does preserve the ability in certain instances to change names.

Yep.

So, Kenny, are you suggesting that language be changed?

No, no. Or just don't use it that often? Why it's there. Okay.

which is the point of discussion in the policy subcommittee. That was language that I think came from Belmont. And it's something that does occur that you may want to consider renaming. and I think it's actually referenced in the letter from town council with respect to previous corporate meltdowns I would say. So we just wanted to have some guidance in there for the board Kenny, and we talked about it to say it's under extraordinary circumstances because we really don't want to go down that discussion unless it is extraordinary. and you know other policies certainly talked about cooling off periods and you know waiting for a year before making certain decisions you know you could think about that what I think we've come up with is a good policy and a workable policy but if we wanted to have further discussion we can certainly talk about it.

Well I think if you're having a discussion about it the board could consider at that time whether they want to wait a certain period of time it might be appropriate in some cases and maybe not appropriate in others but if you leave it up to the discretion of the board then the board would have the flexibility to decide based on the circumstances So under policy collect, it talks about a naming agreement or other documentation. What other kinds of other documentation do we have? that names something other than a naming agreement.

you know I haven't seen anything Marjorie so this again may have come I may have looked at a lot of policies and found what I thought was best practice language out there and you put that in there for us to consider so it could be so the Campana I'm thinking about what we did recently there's not a naming agreement per se but there's a letter which gave us some guidance to say you know for whatever reason so maybe if it's something not as formal as a naming agreement but maybe there's a letter that might be helpful.

Just to add to that, Marjorie, it could be someone as part of their will leaves money to the town with specific provisions. So an acceptance of that gift, it potentially could be acceptance of those provisions, which could up and include naming.

Right, like Tolles, Tolles Parsons. Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Beth? So, um, Thank you. I have two questions. One is, Colette, do you have a red line copy of this document? So I appreciate the summary memo, but it would be helpful to see the actual changes in the document.

I don't Beth because they're so apples and oranges. The previous document was written in such a wildly different style that I tried that and it was incomprehensible. but I think if you and tonight before I was preparing for this I was reading our old document and the new document there's a lot of language that's crossed over it might just be helpful to read them side by side and kind of tick it off but I don't think that a red line is even possible.

Okay, okay. We didn't have this format when the last policy was done.

Right, okay. and then the second question is, so there are other boards that do name items. Have you shared this draft with them?

So no, because I wanted to get our board's feedback first. And also because, and actually there's one document missing, which was a hyperlink document, which linked to their policies as well as other towns. I can have Corey send that out. but basically what happened in 2008 is there was a group got together they worked on it and then recommended the bylaw so the bylaw came together and then each body was responsible for their own naming policy so each body's naming policy is a little bit different we can update ours and then share it with other bodies it's up to them if they want to update theirs

so whatever we do it's independent and it's independent from what schools and library can name right now right yeah okay

they just have to the bylaw says you need to adopt a naming policy you can't name anything unless you have naming policy and everyone does to different degrees and I'll ask Corey to send out that hyperlink document so you can find them easily because they are different

Great, thank you.

Tom?

Under policy, under... renaming an asset, point two. I'm wondering if it is appropriate to add to that list a consideration of the reason for the request to rename. I don't think that all requests for renaming should be given equal weight.

So that point number two comes straight from the bylaw, Tom. That's how the bylaw is written.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that it can't be. Oh, it doesn't mean it can't be changed, but you try not to have to go back and change the bylaw.

I don't want to do that at all because we'd need to convene a group similar to what we did in 2008, us, the library, school, NRC, anybody else. I don't really want to change the bylaw. I just want to make a policy easier for us to follow.

I can understand that. I just think we're in a period and have been through a period where the reason for the requests can be quite variable. I think it's reasonable to consider the reason for the request, but I do understand the point you've just made.

Yeah.

I would say one thing, Tom. that list is not necessarily exhaustive, right? In a discussion about it, we can, and I'm sure we would ask that question.

I think policy step four might help Tom because it's saying equitable treatment so it's saying in naming or renaming an asset the select board shall give consideration to the history of the renaming similar assets in similar situations. And maybe we can expand on that to see and have a full understanding of the reason for the renaming.

Well, I wondered about that. It's interesting you bring that up. I was looking at that one and kept reading it. I understood what you were saying there, but wondered if it was really complete. in terms of what it could say, because you may have had a request to rename a school, for example, just to create an example, 10 years ago. and the history of the reason for the request to rename or the rationale for renaming isn't applicable today in today's social context. Again, I'm just throwing out an example. So that concerned me a little bit.

So would it be helpful if we add into that that the board has a full understanding of the reason for the renaming?

That would... Yes, that does help. Okay. Give consideration implies gives weight to the argument rather than the board is assisted by a full understanding of the reason.

I would also just add, I wouldn't read this as being completely exhaustive of the considerations because other things can come into play, such as whether there are restrictions implied under laws related to charitable donations as to whether you can rename. There was a big lawsuit years ago when Avery Fisher Hall in New York was renamed to David Geffen Hall on that exact point.

Right, it doesn't say you can only consider these factors.

Yeah. Beth? So to that point, I think because it's a policy, I would prefer an example, but not an exhaustive list because I think the policy gives the board guidance, but it's not a strict rule book. if it doesn't check a box listed in the policy then you can't respond to it I think you need to leave some agility in a policy like naming where there are so many unique situations that come up that it's hard to anticipate all of them and you wouldn't want to be hamstrung by the policy, want the policy to guide and provide a construct.

Should we just add something in the introductory sentence? The introductory sentence says the select board will follow the bylaw and in each case will seek to implement this policy in a transparent manner. Should we add something to that to say that the following policy steps are for guidance but not exhaustive?

something along those lines I can work with town council on this I think the better place for it is in considerations in the procedure and we could make the statement like the following may be considered, but it's not in a, you know what I'm saying.

Yep. Well, under considerations B, it says when considering a proposal, the select board shall consider the factors described in the bylaw. and you could say and may consider other relevant factors.

Including without limitation the reason for the renaming request.

Okay. So Colette, one of the things that I've noticed over the discussions around naming is that for the I think for the boards that are considering naming, it's helpful for them to come to the select board prior to engaging too far along with a commitment about naming. And I don't know quite don't want... let's say one of our appointed boards to get into a position where they're running a campaign or they've made kind of advanced suppositions about it. So if you could find a way to fit that in, that would be great.

I mean it's probably under proposal step one you know that the sled board cautions any appointed board to engage in conversation with this legboard early in the process, something like that.

I think so because it avoids the awkwardness and naming is always a little bit tricky and very unique. Yep.

Paulette, under considerations, it refers to some namings that have been time limited. Did you come across one that was time limited?

So can you tell me which number that is, Marjorie?

Yes, Considerations, Section D. Yes, so

So, and I think Eric can chime in here. I think that it's not possible to name something in perpetuity. So even though you may name a building you know ABC building I don't think it's possible or say Mr. Smith School I don't think it's possible to name that building in perpetuity and so the board should think about should we name this building building this room or this asset for 20 years, for 30 years, whatever it is, that's up to the board. And I know, Eric, if you want to chime in there about whether or not things can actually be named in perpetuity.

I think they actually can. So I think it's a good idea to impose time limits on them. Fights do come up over attempts to change names after a long time like I just mentioned there was the fight over Avery Fisher Hall changing to David Geffen Hall there was a uh college in the south that got into a big fight years ago with uh the descendants of a major donor who had donated funds and had a dormitory named after them. They were strongly associated with the Confederacy. I think may have been a general. and students didn't want to live in a dorm named for a Confederate general. And it was many, many years after the donation when the school wanted to change that. So, they can be in perpetuity, and I do think it's a good idea to put limits on how long the naming rights last.

So, Eric, can I ask you, what I've seen is that that's part of the Contract, or the agreement that you make, so that if you're naming a conference room, it may only last for the duration of that room if the space is reconfigured or the use is changed. where the building has changed or things like that where there's an a use change. You know, like we just redid Town Hall if we had named rooms that then became no longer a conference room.

It wouldn't be a room there anymore. I think that's another very reasonable way of limiting it.

You know, it would help. I'm not sure all the specifics of what's included in a naming agreement. but you might want those specific details in a naming agreement in case somebody proposes a renaming. You want to go back and see if it's 50, 60 years later if you want to go back and see what the considerations were for naming an asset in the first place. A Confederate general is a little more obvious, but if it was a town luminary and, you know, People aren't aware of this person's history or contributions. You might just want to have something that you can look back on. I wanted to raise something else. Under public hearing, it's Procedure number six. Yep.

It says the board shall hold a hearing, but a decision to reject a naming request shall not require a public hearing. If you have to hold a hearing in order to decide, how can you decide without holding the hearing?

so I think it just needs to be clarified so I think the board shall hold a hearing to name something but if you decide that you're not going to name something you're not even going to go down the path then I don't think you have that's what I was trying to get to is that Eric did you want to chime in with something there?

I was just going to say a public hearing usually you associate that with more formal notice requirements than you do with just a regular board meeting. So the way I read this was if the board just decides in a regular meeting we're not moving ahead with this, you don't have to go through public hearing process.

Maybe the first hearing is not a public hearing. So Eric, the first hearing is not a public hearing with the notice requirements. it would just be in a board meeting yeah in a board meeting okay I was just wondering because there are a lot of steps in this public hearing section yeah and I was trying to decide what comes first and what comes next, depending on what the board decided. And wondering whether it might be appropriate for the board to have some explanation why it decided not to name or isn't taking action. You know, that can be sensitive too. But if somebody's requested a naming, You might want to capture the reasons why a particular decision is made.

I have some other comments too, but I'm just going to send them to Megan and have her send them to you and Kenny.

That would be great. And as I'm looking at that, that was definitely something where the public hearing was handled differently in different towns. I was trying to pick the best of all of them. and maybe the order needs to be changed in some sub bullets so it's clearer that if right off the bat we decide not to hear, we don't want to name something, there will be no public hearing. If we want to take it to the public hearing stage, this is what happens.

That would help, yeah. The other thing in there is that I was wondering why there's no timeframe in which the Select Board must act because, again, assuming a fair amount of time has passed, you want to make sure that it's still on your work plan that you have a pending request or you haven't acted on a request I don't know it might be nice to say the select board would decide within a certain period of time to give the requester some sense of when that decision might be coming?

Well again I was just trying to pick what was best practice and also just going back to our most recent naming which took a long time to pull together. It took a long time before it got to our desk, put it that way. and that was why I didn't think to change what I obviously picked up from another policy which basically said there is no set time frame if it takes a long time it takes a long time

I think it does take a long time generally. That's been my experience. It takes a while. I don't think we should put ourselves in a place where it's limited and all consideration has to be completed in a certain amount of time.

But after it comes to the board, I mean, you can read this. It could take six years. It could take eight years for the board to decide. Just something to think about. I don't think it should sit around on the board's desk for that long.

One thing I was going to ask, based on what you said before about would it help to have something specified in the naming agreement, I wonder if it's worthwhile making a template naming agreement and using a naming agreement for everything so that now they were like it's 20 years or like for this kind of asset it's 10 years for this kind of asset is 20 years etc so that there are some expectations and then maybe we can work with town council on a very skeleton naming agreement that should be These are the things that we want to try to get some agreement on. We have things in town named for, for example, a town engineer. There's a pond named for a town engineer. What happens to all the 10 engineers that come after him? There's only so many pawns. What happens at that point?

I don't know the right answer to that, but I think maybe we need to get a little bit more specific about the expectations.

Well, Eric, I have a question on this. I'm curious. Regardless of a policy, not the bylaw being in place on this issue, once a donor came forward, If we had somebody who came forward and offered to write a check for $20 million for the interior renovation of Town Hall and said, but I'm not going to be subject to a 20-year or 30-year, you're not going to tear this building down. Does the town have a right to eliminate that from the agreement?

Sorry, there's some loud truck was going by and I missed the end of your question there. Can you just repeat that?

Well, if a donor came through and agreed to write a check for the entirety of a project and said, but I'm not going to have my name, if approved, subject to a time limit.

Hmm.

can the town choose to eliminate that clause from an agreement?

Yes, the town could choose to do that.

It would just be a sample agreement of things you'd want to think about?

Oh, I wasn't arguing against doing what you were suggesting, Colette.

the meaning to ask that question yeah that's a good question Tom and in Town Council's memo from 2007 he talks about the pros and cons of that that especially in a school setting that then the school and the bigger rooms or whatever become the purview of the parents of the children who have a lot of assets? And is that something you want to further or not? And so something to think about. But I think that, and Eric, I think I cut you off. Give yourself some flexibility to think about it.

no my comments are going to be along the same line just something that that that that is a sort of request the town would want to give careful consideration to understanding that you'd be tying uh the town's hands uh you know very far into the future on that.

See Colette, I don't think it's worth drafting a sample agreement at this point. We don't have anything on the horizon that I'm aware of. and it seems to me that each naming is unique and I don't think it's a good use of time or resources to draft a template where it's going to be customized anyway. but that would be my point of view.

On the other hand, it might give boards that are considering naming some ideas of considerations if it's new. I mean, a lot of it comes right from here.

And the one thing I would say, Beth, is I wish I had done this work before we had done the most recent naming. I would have felt better prepared for that discussion. I think what we did was right. But I think we could have been clearer that this is going to be named for a period, not forever and ever. and I think we could get better on that and so I'm not talking about like a very detailed agreement or anything like that but just maybe here are the things you might consider in a naming agreement maybe even just something as simple as that.

Right.

Well, thank you. I really appreciate that you looked at other ones and expanded the sections. so that it's more complete because when I read our old policy, I was like, okay, this does need some work.

Ken, were you gonna say something?

I was just gonna say on the naming, on the agreement, I would rather we just don't spend the money on that now, wait till the next time it happens, create a master template at that point and use that going forward. the alternative I think is to put an exhibit here and say, here are the things to think about in putting into an agreement, duration and whatever else. That's a good idea.

I think that's where we were headed, Kenny. Yeah, I agree. Okay, thank you.

Okay, so if people have other comments, why don't we send them to Megan by the end of the week? and then Megan can get them to Kenny and Colette to incorporate for our second read.

Marjorie, can I request that you send them to me, not Megan?

Oh, sorry.

One thing off her very busy brain.

Of course, Corey.

Thank you. And Corey, will you send that hyperlinked document? I already did. Every time I try and send out the hyperlinks go away.

All set.

Okay, anything else? Nope. All right, our next agenda item is administrative matters on minutes.

We only got one edit for very very very minor grammatical edits which I made throughout all three sets of minutes and otherwise no edits to the minutes.

Corey, can I just say on the May 5th minutes, there's just starting on point nine, the numbering goes off. If you can just look at that, it's just purely formatting.

Oh yes, okay. Yep, yep, yep. I see that.

Okay. So move to approve the minutes of May 5th, May 11th, and May 12th, 2026 as amended.

Second.

Paulette? Aye. Kenny?

Aye.

Tom?

Aye.

Beth? Aye. And I vote aye as well.

Okay. Marjorie, can I ask a question on the minutes? It's not an edit. I'm happy to approve them. But I noticed we have the May 18th. change in the municipal lien certificate coming up, and I haven't seen any communications on it. So if we could look into that, that would be great.

I have an update on that. I'm actually glad you raised that, Beth. Nunu. So the demand fee letter has gone out. That change is in effect. So unbeknownst to and myself, and to, well, unbeknownst to Maura and then ourselves, there is a statutory provision that would require, so a lot of communities are not following this, and have changed the fees in similar fashion to how we were proposing to change the fees. But there is a statutory provision which sets the fee at $25. I'll send you the full documentation on this unless modified by a special act. and so we are not going to change municipal lien certificates which we were holding at $25 anyway except for the emergency. So there will be no change in municipal lien certificates.

but I will send the board the documentation on that.

Okay, our next agenda item is the chair's report. As Megan said, since it's only been a week since town meeting, I don't have a lot to report except that Dr. Lucier was required to notify the school committee by June 30th that he was interested in extending his contract, which he did. and the school committee plans to discuss the renewal and vote of extending that contract at the June 18th school committee meeting. and the chair Nikki Olfenlock would like everyone to know that as with anything before the school committee, community input is welcome either through emails, visits to office hours, Conversations, and or public comment at their meetings. That's really all I have. We do not need

Can I go back to the municipal lien certificate? Sure. We voted that. In order to show that the select board is in compliance with the statutory requirements and recognizes that obligation, should we have a vote to rescind at a meeting. I don't know if that's necessary or advised.

I don't think you have the statutory authority to modify it.

It's null and void, yeah.

Kenny? I just want to bring up I know we're not talking about MassBay but I think we should be having a discussion at some point about what we all heard at that meeting in public so that the public can hear what our views are of what we heard. So going forward, they'll know where each of us, we can reconcile what we heard in public.

So we can report what we heard at town meeting?

Yes.

Okay. All right, Megan. We can put it on an upcoming agenda. Yeah. June 2nd maybe if we have space the next meeting okay so we don't have an executive session so that concludes our agenda items and unless there's anything else We are adjourned.

Beth? Oh, sorry. I put in my calendar our retreat is June 20th. I don't have a time. I think we have a June 30th. June 30th. June 30th. Okay.

But I don't think we have a time yet.

Okay. Super. Thank you.

Could we do it in the morning? Let me look at my calendar. We typically do our retreats from 9 to 2.

I'm flexible that day.

I am too.

I can do that.

Yeah, I think I'm okay. You want to do nine to two?

Yes. Okay.

I just wanted to get something on my calendar.

Okay, that's helpful. And I'll just verify location. Okay.

All right. Thank you, everybody.