Select Board June 8, 2026

Good evening, I'd like to call to order the select board meeting. of June 8, 2026, in the Great Hall. Hear from the Select Board of Vice Chair Tom Ulfelder, Beth Sullivan Woods, and Kenny Largess, and I'm Marjorie Freiman. Also with us are Executive Director Megan Jopp and Assistant Executive Director Corey Testa. We're being televised live on Comcast Channel 8 and Verizon Channel 40, and the meeting can also be viewed later on Wellesley Media. I don't think we have anyone registered for citizen speak. Okay. Thank you, Corey. Our next agenda item is the executive director's report.

Thanks Marjorie. I'm pleased to inform everyone that Department of Energy Resources Green Communities Division has approved an award of a million dollars to the Town of Wellesley's Climate Leader Communities Decarbonization Accelerator Application. This is to support the installation of solar PVs at the Honeywell and Hardy Elementary Schools. I want to thank Dr. Mary Beth Martello, the town sustainability director and sustainability, excuse me, analyst, Janet Mosley, along with FMB and MLP partners for all their work on this application. Great news. also on the sustainability front, just as a reminder, Wellesley's Climate Action Committee and Natural Resources Commission are hosting with the Sustainable Wellesley a Get a Scoop and the Scoop. on sustainability on Wednesday at 6.30 in the Honeywell School Playground. It'll just go inside if by chance it's raining.

and you can come and enjoy a scoop of J.P. Licks ice cream and get the scoop on a variety of opportunities such as quieter lawn care, suggestions from Wellesley's trained no cost home energy coach, local transportation options, Free Rides in and around Wellesley, Weatherizing initiatives to help rooms be more comfortable and less costly to heat and cool, Waste and Plastic Reduction, and a bunch of other ideas. in addition there will also be fun kids activities if you're looking something to do on Wednesday evening. The other, just quick reminder that Morse's Pond, is open for pre-season, so no lifeguards, but you do need a pass to be parking. That's for Wellesley residents or non-resident season pass holders. You must provide a valid ID or season pass receipt. Park Rangers will be monitoring the parking lot. So there'll be no lifeguards on duty.

However, lifeguards will begin on Monday, June 22nd and run through Sunday, August 16th for those people who like to have the lifeguards on duty. and gives you a little time for the water to warm up a little bit. And so we look forward to people celebrating and using the pond. I will note that the season pass, To get the current lower rates, that ends on June 21st. The rates go up on June 22nd when the season starts. So you should check out the recreation page and you can get your passes now. That's it.

Well, congratulations to Dr. Martello. It was really a group effort among several departments and committees to prepare for that grant. And it's a substantial grant to enable us to complete the solar Peevees, Beth.

So I also want to announce that Sunday is Flag Day. So if any residents have flags that are in, they've done their service and they need to be retired, please drop them off this week. at either the COA Dropbox, the Town Hall, West Lobby Dropbox, or at the RDF near where the clothing recycling is. hold a ceremony at 1 PM at Woodlawn Cemetery for that respectful flag disposition.

Thank you for that reminder. Okay, our next agenda item is our consent agenda. We have three items on the consent agenda. The first is to modify the CV license for food service at Shake Shack. on Sundays to run from 10 AM to midnight. The hours for alcohol service remain unchanged. from those approved at the board's June 2nd meeting, which are Monday through Saturday 11 a.m. to midnight and Sunday noon to midnight. The second item is to approve a change in officers and directors for the Wellesley Country Club at 300 Wellesley Avenue and authorize forwarding of the updated information to the ABCC. and the third is that staff worked with HR and the police department to review and update the police record manager job description

because parking administration responsibilities have been consolidated within a single position. Cheryl Carson has transitioned from her role as police records manager to assume the additional duties of parking clerk, which reflects additional responsibilities and provides centralized oversight of parking enforcement administration and adjudication functions, So as required by the town, our third item is to appoint Cheryl Carlson as the parking clerk. Okay. Beth, may I ask you to make the motion just to approve the consent agenda? Oh, I'm sorry. You can second.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Go ahead, Tom.

I'm sorry, I should have said this earlier. I'd be remiss if I didn't say thank you to World of Wellesley, Mark Roble at the UU Church, Corey, and the entire organizing committee that put together the event for Pride Month at the UU Church. It was an absolutely perfect summer evening and it was really a remarkable event in terms of the positivity and the happiness the entertainers were terrific, the kids were having fun, we really enjoyed, I know Colette and I were able to attend. and I just want to thank everyone who was involved and worked so hard to make that a successful event.

Thank you very much Tom and Corey we know you were very involved in that so thank you for bringing that to Wellesley. Our next agenda item is to vote special counsel for the central mass MSW consortium negotiations for trash disposal contract and I'll turn that over to Megan.

So Jamie Manzolini, the RDF superintendent, is on. So we can certainly have Jamie answer any questions. So this request is an expenditure, legal expense, up to $5,000 for the Board of Public Works. to basically join the central mass MSW consortium to seek information as pertaining to a trash disposal contract. As part of this, they're not entering into the contract yet. It's more fact finding and getting specialized information as part of the consortium. The anticipated contract would require further review and adoption by the Board of Public Works and likely could be in a three to eight year contract range pending sort of findings from this exercise. Jamie, I don't know if you want to add anything to that that I may have missed.

No, I think that pretty much says it all. This is, like you said, it's just an information gathering exercise. We just, you know... We're trying to gather all the possible information so we can make the best possible decision when our trash contract is up at the end of FY27.

Any questions? Beth? So are they a current consortium that is buying trash disposal services right now?

Yes. Well, the central mass MSW consortium got together so they could negotiate together, you know, for like a group rate or whatever for trash disposal. I believe that their current contract is like a 20-year contract that's coming up. coming due around the same time that ours is. So I don't think it's going to be another 20-year contract. I think it'll be much, much less. But yeah, it's an existing consortium, yep.

and how do we currently contract for our trash disposal? Are we in a different consortium or do we go direct to someone?

we go direct with someone so we negotiate with the companies out there and there's less and less companies there's basically three big companies or four big companies right now that we would go and negotiate a contract. It would be likely that if we weren't negotiating part of this consortium, we would just negotiate by ourselves with the same company. We might be getting We could potentially be getting a better rate because if we decide to go this route.

Great. Thank you.

Jamie, are we outside the typical catchment area for Central Mass? Is this an exception?

uh nope uh some of the um some of the towns that are part of this I was going to try to gather all the towns around but I know that uh I know that there's towns right around us uh Newton um Dover, I believe. There's towns right around us that are part of this same consortium. So it's the same service area.

Thank you. Kenny, you have a question?

Yes. So in the memo, it talks about We're trying to evaluate our options, right? And the way that I'm reading this is that we have to pay $5,000 to negotiate a contract Consortium, we might not join. Is that just the price of doing business? Or could you do it? I'm not saying I understand this at all. So take this with a grain of salt. Is it possible that you could just buy in if we decide to to go there, essentially reimburse them for our pro rata piece of the legal expenses.

Well, that's kind of the catch. The answer to that would be no. We would have to be part of the negotiation for it to be an option. And it's not necessarily $5,000. I think it's going to be less than $5,000. there's about 30 to 35 towns in the consortium and so the legal fees for the negotiation would be split between those towns and then it would be adjusted proportionally to how much tonnage so for example Worcester is in this So Worcester would pay the majority of this because they're going to be moving the majority of trash. So it's split between 35 towns and then adjusted proportionally depending on how much trash tonnage you have. Got it. So that 5,000 is just an estimate, and I think that that's on the high side. Thank you.

Beth, you have another question? I have one more question, Jamie. So did I read the, I think when I read this, I understood it was just for I don't know the correct way to say this but the pure trash as opposed to the recycling and my assumption was that how you manage the recycling and the revenues that you garner for the town through management of the recycling wouldn't change, that this is getting rid of non-recyclable trash. Is that right?

This is just MSW. Just one part of, you know, that's exactly right. Just the MSW.

Thank you. Any other questions? Tom?

I'm curious, Jamie, if you don't have a reason to believe that there is a savings, I'm not sure why we're participating. You said that you think we might be able to negotiate a relationship that is less expensive directly. So what leads you to feel that at the end of the day the difference in the contract is equal to or greater than the legal expenses.

Well, no, I feel that the prices that the consortium will receive will probably be less than if we went out by ourselves because they would be getting a quote unquote group rate or the end user can lock in that tonnage for a long amount of time which is worth something to them I don't know what the price is going to be but I have a feeling that the consortium price will be lower than the prices that we could get if we went out on our own.

That's what I would have expected, Jamie, but that's not quite what you had said earlier, and that's what I wanted to clarify. Okay. volume should equal a lower contract price.

Correct. That's correct.

Okay.

Yeah, I might misspoke. Sorry.

So move that the select board authorize the expenditure of funds for legal services associated with the town's participation in the Central Massachusetts Municipal Solid Waste Consortium negotiations for a future trash disposal contract and approve the appointment of consortium special counsel for such negotiations.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you very much Jamie for this and also answering the questions in advance.

Sure thing. Thank you.

Okay, our next agenda item is the policy subcommittee update, and I will turn it over to the policy subcommittee.

Marjorie, I just want to note for the public that were aware that this was not on the agenda up until a minute or two ago so that I would respectfully ask that we don't vote any of these items because I didn't know it wasn't on the agenda until I received calls and I think it's been off the agenda for most of today.

You're right, Beth. It was originally on the agenda and somehow inadvertently got omitted from the amended agenda. But we have the policies, at least two of them are first read. So is the concern about the naming of the public assets?

So I received calls about the naming and also about the abutter sale program.

Okay, well that's a first read. I was trying to figure out if there were questions about a policy that we otherwise might have been ready to vote on. But we can hold that vote. And you might want to contact the people who spoke to you and have them watch the meeting so they can see the discussion.

Okay, Colette. I would also say that the, let me see. if you're receiving calls and questions on things it would be helpful to send them to Megan or Corey actually Corey so he can send them to me so I can prepare to answer them in the meeting I haven't heard of any questions that have been raised so that would be helpful So the policy subcommittee, Kenny, sorry, do you want to kick off?

Sure. Colette has been leading the charge on these three policies, so I'll hand it over to Colette to talk about them.

Thank you. So we had our first read of the naming of public assets, and I got feedback from one member of the board, which has worked into the draft. I wonder if, Corey, you could bring that up. This policy subcommittee had the feedback from the board before we had our meeting last week and we met with Town Council and Megan and Corey to go through the feedback and work it into the policy. So the Town Council has seen this draft. and in the first page of the policy which will be up on the screen as soon as possible there's a little bit of you know just I'd say ministerial edits

taking out constantly using the select board and replacing it with board, a couple of just ministerial edits there. There was one edit that Town Council suggested in the tax exempt bond financing property section, which is pretty technical. buildings that are financed by tax exempt bonds. Once we develop this policy, and this policy is reviewed by our bond council, they will take that as, you know, acceptable use for or acceptable naming going forward so that's that whole paragraph is really driven by town council so there's questions on that I'm going to defer to town council on it

Then we had talked in the policy section, we had talked at our last meeting that we might want to put in some sort of guidance in the document as to what might be useful elements in a naming agreement and a town council set up an exhibit A, which we can go through at the end, which had all the items that he felt would be appropriate in a naming agreement, which I actually thought was very helpful. Then we had some, I'd say ministerial corrections there. Tom, I think you had asked in the equitable treatment that the board have a full understanding of the reasons for any requests. We worked that into that. Again, just some ministerial changes on item number five.

Under the procedure, Beth had asked that we kind of make boards on notice that if you're starting to have any discussions on naming, you engage with their office early so that there's not any So misunderstandings of the process and any missteps there about maybe making some promises that we can't keep. So that has been worked into the procedure step. Let me see. The first two considerations are mandatory and required. The rest of the considerations are just for guidance. So that was just a little bit of tidy up there. We had some discussions on the last

the first discussion that we had that the public hearing section was a little bit confusing so we really reworked the public hearing section and we broke out the discretion to deny a request separately from the public hearing because if you deny a request you won't have a public hearing so that's really why that is there. And then there was a question that was sent to us, how do we document the consideration of a request, denials of request, things like that. and it would be, we're suggesting that they be documented and if it's a decision that's made in a meeting or in a public hearing it's part of the minutes. So that was really what was changed there. we had a bit of a discussion about is there a timeline that we should put ourselves under in terms of responding to our request and I think the board talked last time that some of these requests can take quite some time so we didn't want to tie our hands with a

a period of time, but we did say that we would endeavor to keep the parties up to date and to deal with the request in a timely manner. So that is really, let me see, that is it I think on the naming of public assets although I think we got one or two comments today that the renaming of an asset the language that's used in the body of the policy, which is basically if it brings a town into disrepute, we could match the language that's in the policy to the language that's in the appendix, which is a bit more specific. Let me see what that is. So under the Appendix A, subsection N, there's a paragraph there that says, a morals or reputation clause could be in a naming agreement that permits the town to revoke the name

or rename the asset if the donor engages in conduct that would bring public disrepute or the donor's reputation becomes inconsistent with the town's values. So there was a request to make the language within the body of the policy more in line with that suggestion and the naming agreement. So I think that's the main changes. Are there any other questions or comments? I didn't get anything else from board members. Tom?

With regard to number six, discretion to deny a request, I'm wondering if we shouldn't make one change, which is in that last line. Sure. Reasons for denial shall be documented which documentation shall be the minutes of the end. The reason I ask that is because I think there are circumstances in which the in which the public really may have been in favor of a particular request and I think I think the select board should be expected to answer in some form. So I don't read this as saying that the select board

Won't require a public hearing if they so wished, but I think somewhere it ought to be, the select board should have to document the reasons.

Right, and since it's going to be board action, the only way we can act is in a meeting, so presumably it would be the minutes of the meeting. I don't have a problem with that. Procedurally, Megan, operationally?

So you could say which documentation shall be recorded in the minutes of the applicable meeting?

Yeah. Yeah. I think we could shorten it and just say it shall be documented in the minutes of the applicable meeting.

Yeah.

Even better, Kenny.

Okay.

So I'm fine with that. If anybody else, and Beth?

So Colette, the first one's just a, I don't know why I didn't notice it when I first read it. What is personal property under applicability?

We name this personal property. Policy or procedure, where are you?

I'm under applicability on page one, line three, first word. It says, such assets shall include all real estate structures, fixtures. And then it says, and personal property.

I'll need to ask town council on that. Do you have an insight to that?

Well, personal property is essentially any property that is not real estate or something affixed to it. So if we want to name this microphone,

So it's town property there, right? It was just the personal word.

That's more of a term of art.

I suppose we're going to get a wooden podium here. When that podium comes in, it could be the so-and-so podium if they donate money to

I just didn't understand the term.

Just to distinguish it from real property.

Yes, okay. So I think Colette you referenced the equitable treatment paragraph number four. So when I read this, I didn't take away equitable treatment. because it said you have to be aware of what the other namings have been but it didn't necessarily imply equitable or like-minded application. So it was just it was that the title made sense to me but I'm thinking maybe we should tighten up what's in the paragraph a little bit.

Okay, let me take that back. I'll try and see why we, that might be cross-referenced to somewhere else in the document. I'll try and find what's driving that title and see if it could be better.

It might be equitable consideration. I mean, you say that you're going to consider the history of renaming similar assets.

I assumed it was like if it was a value of money we had taken for one room, it would be like-minded. quantities that would qualify for the next room.

So I mean, I can...

Although Beth, you know that might be a question of proportionality too because if it's a similar amount of money in a much much bigger building it might not be accorded the same treatment as a larger room in a smaller building.

I was just looking for the paragraph to have more about equity in it. and in number five, I was trying to figure out why we wouldn't go to design review if that is the town's process, why we wouldn't go to design review.

So if it's interior to a building, I don't think it goes to design review. Is that correct, Megan? I think Campana did a plaque.

And that didn't count.

No.

No. So it just said that the board will decide whether to go. And I didn't know whether this whole paragraph is even necessary.

Again, where is that? Which paragraph are you talking about? Oh, number five on page. Procedure.

It says the board shall consider whether DRB should be consulted. Yeah.

It just seems like we would either go to DRB because it's in their catchment.

No, it's procedure number five, function, design, and placement.

You know, honestly, it came from the previous policy.

It just seems like DRB will be consulted as appropriate, might be. Kind of easy to cut to the chase on.

I mean, honestly, we could strike it. I mean, it's a bylaw thing.

I would be fine with striking it. Then on number 10, the list of named assets. I wasn't sure why the idea that something may be helpful was in a policy.

Again, so the last policy...

It was in the last one, but before revisiting.

But why I think it could be helpful is that...

Sorry to interrupt. I believe it could be helpful. I wasn't sure how it fit into the policy. it doesn't say one will be developed or not it just says it if you put it may be helpful to consult other naming things that had gone in town I would understand that it just it seemed more like a comment that

So the reason why I think it might be helpful is that when this, again, came from the previous policy, but it sent me down to search for a list of previously named assets. I did come across Town Council's letter which I did find really helpful so the reason I'm putting it in there is because we don't name things that often and why I think it should be in there we don't name things very often and you might not know that there is a list of named assets if we develop it so it's directing you as the person who's using this policy or even a resident to say, okay, I'd like to consider renaming. I'm thinking about this thing for this building for these reasons. If you're aware of that list of named assets, that might be really helpful for you as you go through the process. That's why I think it's helpful to have it in there because it directs the reader to look for it.

So I agree with you, it would be helpful. I just wasn't sure about its applicability in the list, so it's fine.

Anything else? So I'll work through those. I don't think we need to take them back to the policy subcommittee. I can work through them and circulate it for our next meeting. Okay. So the next one is the abutter parcel sale policy. So this is our first read of this. the genesis of this and Megan circulated a memo today which let me just find that memo Okay, so several times since I've been on the board, people have come to the town and asked to buy a piece of property that's adjacent to their property, that's kind of an orphan piece of property, a small piece of property. and the answer has always been we can't do that because we don't have a policy for it and it's one of the things that was on the list to do when we pulled policy subcommittee together. It's been on the list for three years now. So we finally got to it.

Before we even started this, I asked town council for some guidance on this and he recommended that we looked at the Littleton policy which I did and then I took our list of comparable towns and I searched for any comparable town that has a policy on sale of land. Lyttelton, Springfield, Weyland, Wilmington and Yarmouth had something on their books Littleton and Springfield are essentially the same program and the other programs were a little bit more substantial but the initial discussion that we were given was to focus on disposition of small parcels of land to abutters. Nothing more than that. So this is really just for these slivers of land that are almost orphan pieces of property. So the

We started with the Littleton policy and then reviewed it at least twice at policy subcommittee with town council to go through what makes sense for us here. There were a few things that definitely had to be changed. and then I asked Mike Thompson if he could pull together a GIS map of what parcels are we talking about and so Mike had pulled that together for us and that was circulated and so Mike had basically the parameters for that were only including parcels where the assessor shows the owner as a town of Wellesley owner unknown parcels are removed because they're unlikely to be sold by the town we're only including parcels with the assessed square footages under 4,800 square feet so on GIS small there's a lot of town-owned parcels that are small that are kind of traffic islands or slivers beside main roads that aren't appropriate for sale so they're removed

and then all parcels assessed value of $35,000 or less are included because below $35,000 there's a different procedure for selling something than there is above $35,000 and I'm going to leave that to the professionals to talk about if you have questions on that. That's how we started this policy. So it's really, this is our first read. I think tonight I just want to take questions and comments. I really think that this one's very legalistic. and I really need to have town council to help address questions and comments but I'd love to hear what the board's questions are. I certainly got some editorial comments today and then a list of questions today.

but I do think the list of questions I've got to take back to a policy subcommittee I'd like to answer them there and then send a memo back to the board so it's not so you're getting the right answer the first time I'm not a lawyer I don't know if you're comfortable with that Kenny or not yep Tom.

I had two areas that I just had questions on. One is under policy number two and the purchase price. Should there be any language that if there are conditions that are the basis for an appropriate challenge as to the assessed value that there is an opportunity for an interested buyer to bring those forward. You know, assessments aren't updated so frequently that they might catch every factor that might diminish the value on a particular parcel. and the way this is worded is absolute. I realize that most frequently assessed values are lower than the actual value and that may be the answer. but I just want to put that out there for you to think about that if there is a valid challenge. that there is a pathway.

So Tom, parcels are assessed every year. So are you suggesting that there might need to be an interim reassessment?

No, I'm saying that parcels aren't physically visited every year. Oh, they're not physically visited. So it's, what is it, five years?

Yeah, complete recertification is every five years.

Is every five years. So if something's happened that

I understand now, thank you.

It physically diminishes the value.

So honestly, I would ask Ellen and the assessor's office that and also town council and get an answer for that, Tom.

and the other is under policy number four. The only thing I'm concerned about is where it says in the third line, or the abutters will be sold the parcel as tenants in common to subdivide at their own expense after the sale. should there be some language there that the town has no ongoing liability that the buyers have done their due diligence as to the Ability at some point to subdivide the property that they're fully satisfied that the conditions are commensurate with their expectation.

I'll ask Town Council you're seeing a theme here this one to me is very technical I don't feel I can answer those questions but I can take them back and get an answer unless you have something Kenny I would

I think that's a valid concern, but I would think that would be in the purchase and sale agreement. I would think that would be in the purchase and sale or the actual conveyance document, the conditions, and a rep. representation that essentially you're taking it as is and that's that. So I don't know if that goes on a policy, but it definitely should be addressed.

in the conveyance document. I just want to be sure that nobody can come back and say, well, I didn't realize, you know.

Understood. Understood.

Okay, other questions? So on policy number two, is the implication that the buyer pays our legal fees and their legal fees? It says, in addition to the purchase price, the buyer is responsible for any applicable fees, costs, and expenses, including legal fees, registry filing fees, and in lieu... Tax Payments. So is it our legal fees and their legal fees?

Would we be able to quantify our legal fees easily on that, Megan?

We could.

Yeah. Again, I'll ask, we'll talk about it, and if that's what the board wants, we'll define that, and if that's typical procedure. If we're selling something and there is value to us, i.e. we're getting money and we're getting tax revenue, is it reasonable to have them pay our legal fees to do that? I don't know. I can ask.

Collette, if you're going to ask, I'd also be interested in kind of a typical range.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the $35,000 value is under the procurement Limit, and so that significantly reduces the legal costs really associated with it. Above that, it's far more significant.

it is a de minimis cost to the selling party to sell real I mean it's purchase and sale and a deed essentially from the seller's perspective so it it's small but we should just make a decision so

Can we sell town land without going to town meeting? That was like a bigger question that I received because I know we changed some of our releasing of easements so that Now we can do that with the DPW, but it seems to me selling town-owned land is something that might be more scope than the board has.

Under the square footage, this is the amount under the town square footage allowance. Anything over I think the 4,800 square feet would require town meeting action.

So that's almost an eighth of an acre, right?

It's less than 10% of an acre. An acre is 43,560.

Mm-hmm.

We did discuss this and let me get a better clear. I don't want to say what I think the answer is, but let me bring an answer back on that.

If you could find out, Colette, because I think with all the way the housing rules are changing, if they're reducing the square footage of a parcel required for building, and we are creating more lots. I think that's something we should know whether that's in our jurisdiction or not in our jurisdiction. It may be frontage and lot size. And my second question was, I didn't spend a lot of time with it because the map came through kind of late today. but it might be an important exercise for the board to go through and look at where those parcels are because they might be valuable pocket parks or community gathering spaces within neighborhoods that we might want to look at separately before they're on kind of a register of land. The reason I got calls just to complete my thought

is the idea that we were actively embracing disposal of town land by doing the policy. And so I think if that's kind of a takeaway that people have, we should get ahead of what's on the list and look at it from a planning perspective about what value those parcels have as non-buildable lots but maybe there are some neighbourhoods where they add a richness. I know we had the civil discourse and we talked about ways to build more sense of community in different areas and they talked about having group gatherings and things like that. So if this is, is part of a pathway to that. I think it would be good to look at.

So in the cover memo, one of the next steps we have to do in my mind is to circulate the the map with the parcels which is quite limited to all department heads to have them look at it first to see because there's one parcel in particular that looks like it could be an access from a neighborhood into a school So it needs to go to all department heads, sort of a mini roadshow to get that feedback. But I didn't want to do that before I had the board's feedback. but in my mind this isn't a land for sale program this is for when we get those questions like there's a somebody on Stern Street who has asked us repeatedly for a sliver a triangle of land beside their property. It's to be able to answer those questions and say yes or no and here's the program to do it. but it's really there are various I didn't see any that would fill the role that you're thinking about but that's only me but I think every department head needs to look at it.

I don't No, but if there are, I think our definition of a butter might need to be a little bit more open so that there could be neighborhood titling of a parcel. as opposed to you only can be A, B, C, D or D to approach.

Maybe take a look at the map. I'm not sure there's any that fill that need.

I think it's important what Colette just said to emphasize this is not where here's 35 parcels we're putting them up for sale. This is to have a policy if somebody comes to it. and us, so that we can react. We're not affirmatively selling land.

I would say our next policy subcommittee is... What's that, Tom? So our next meeting is June 25th, so if you have more questions as you look at the map, can you please send them to Corey so that we can get answers to them before we talk about it again? Tom?

I think it's important for us to remember that we're really talking about sort of orphan, very small orphan parcels of land and we're converting this land from non-taxable to taxable. and, in particular, it may have a multiplicative effect when combined with the Butters property as well in terms of revenue to the town. I think it's highly unlikely that these are neighborhood gathering spaces given the size of these and I think they have greater value financially to the town if people are interested in acquiring the property.

I agree with that, Tom, but I think it does take a little while of sitting down and looking at the map. And I know that came out this morning, but take some time and look at that.

Well, and another small point about the map, it might help to have one on 11 by 17.

We could print bigger ones. It's really hard to see at that scale. It's almost near impossible.

Maybe we just look it up on Google Earth or GIS. Okay, never mind. I was like, oh my god, I can't see this.

It is hard to see. In our meeting, Mike was with us, so we could talk about individual parcels. We got a good look through them. Okay, so that's the... That's the... And you've got my comments and questions. I have your comments, yeah. But I want to get a proper response to them.

I just want to make sure you have them.

So the next one is withholding of permits and licenses and I do want to start this off by thanking Corey who did a lot of the legwork in both the cover memo which I thought was excellent and the policy document because just as a reminder We've adopted a bylaw, and this policy is really written to basically follow the bylaw. So we've walked this through with The Treasurer and Collector. We walked it through with the building inspector. We got some feedback from the building inspector. But this is really the first read for us. And again, we're going to have to do a mini roadshow with this one because any permit and any permit issuing body will need to know about this policy, give us feedback on the policy. So this one might take a few weeks to get to the end of it, this is really based on the bylaw.

And I know there were some very specific questions today about why certain permits or licenses are excluded so we can get all those answers but this is really very bylaw driven and very statutory driven. I don't think there's a lot of discretion here for us, but I'd like to take comments and feedback.

I had a question about CV types of licenses because given the volatility of businesses I think we have Can you talk into the mic? Sure. I actually called Megan about this this morning, I guess. that during COVID what we realized was with business volatility the way it was, some of the businesses were behind. and I wouldn't want to see us not reissue a CV license because that would be the only way they could get out of being behind. and so I thought it would be good for us to have a discussion about the type of licenses that we would and wouldn't renew. at some point. It doesn't have to be now, Colette. That one was of particular interest to me just because we had inadvertently bumped into that issue where

We did a food program through the state and with the chamber and the restaurants and what we found is that there were some restaurants that we could not do business with because they were behind on some of their taxes and it would have been a helpful way to create some kind of buyback out of your and so forth, current situation.

Well, so we do have, there is a paragraph under the procedure for a payment agreement, so This provides for if someone's behind and if they can enter into agreement with the treasurer and collector to address them, then the permit or license may be issued or continued. but I think it again I want to make sure that this if it's directly channeling the bylaw then that's a bylaw amendment as opposed to something we can amend in the policy. I'll look at it.

I do think though that although a good point with regard to the retail sector under policy In number two, implementation of this policy, no license or permit shall be denied, suspended, or revoked under this policy without written notice and an opportunity for hearing. So I think that's where a business has the opportunity to come in. and businesses, I think, and COVID's a good example, have choices to make about whether they're working out delayed rent payment in order to pay their taxes. I mean, these are the choices they make, but as long as we have a I think they're covered. Back in the first paragraph under policy line three, who have not filed in good faith an application for an abatement.

Do we really want to be in the business of deciding whether it was filed in good faith? I mean, that's a rather difficult to define term.

Okay. Again, let me follow up with where that language came from and what was behind it.

I think on that one it was, so keep in mind to have a valid petition to the appellate tax board, you need to have paid your taxes. Mm-hmm. So I think that's what that's pertaining to is that you've paid your taxes and you're awaiting that appeal. but I think it's a good clarifying thing. And then just with regards to retailers or restaurants, so in particular, Under personal property, you cannot lean personal property. So actually to recoup any of those costs, it's really this type of mechanism. We don't really have anything else. And there's certainly businesses, not necessarily restaurants. I mean, it could be a... A small tax office. It could be a small hair salon who have never paid personal property, so it keeps aggregating. Some of them are very small amounts that just keep going. We did clear

I think passed charges prior to 2019 a couple years ago and so now it's anything really from 2019 to the current date.

Anything else on this? So I would say just at the end of this, I'm making a plea for any comments to please send them in to Corey so he can get into me, and then I can get into town council so that we, Kenny and I, try and get that responded to in the not too distant future we've got a meeting on the 25th so that we can you know move these forward it's just it's hard to get the comments in the meeting because I can't respond to them. These ones are too technical for me to respond to. So if I get them beforehand, I can get them answered.

Thank you both very much. This is to make such progress on three, especially the couple that have been hanging around for a while is very rewarding. So thank you and thank Cory and Megan for all their work on their policies. Okay, our next agenda is the chair's report, and I have a few issues to report on. We on 40 Oakland, we would like to thank residents who attend Citizen Speak and write to the board on 40 Oakland Street and want to reassure everyone that we take all comments and concerns into consideration in our ongoing work. Citizen speak is an odd process in that by definition it is a time for comments on issues not on the meeting agenda for deliberation. Walsh.

Open meeting law requires that every issue to be discussed be listed on the agenda to provide notice to the public that it will be taken up in that particular meeting. For that reason, the board is unable to respond or engage in dialogue unless it is listed as an agenda item. It is absolutely not a reflection of disinterest. On the contrary, the Board is very grateful for continued public engagement on this important issue. We understand the strong public interest in updates and will share any and all information as soon as possible. Williams. Meetings and executive session protect negotiation and other strategy, and hopefully we can all agree that we do not want to compromise the town's position. The Board will share any and all relevant information at the earliest possible time and once again thank residents for their thoughtful comments.

On the fire station, many residents are aware that last week the Fire Department and Contacts Deck Architecture presented the final master plan report for the upgrading and modernization of Wellesley's two fire stations. Station 1 on Central Street at 100 years old no longer serves the needs of the fire service and headquarters on Route 9 also has several deficiencies. Neither of them provides adequate living, health, safety, or equipment facilities for a modern fire service. The recommendations from the team are to replace station one, renovate and expand headquarters station two, and set a threshold of decreased town-wide response time for the planning and construction of a third station on the east end of town.

Because response time is the key criterion for location of a fire station, the radius for replacement of station one to achieve an above average response time in a new station is fairly limited. The consultants recommended a location on the North 40 on Weston Road across from either Howe or Curve Street, which would require approximately two acres. Sirens are only activated if absolutely necessary for traffic control when the engines are exiting the station. Last week was the first time the board reviewed and discussed the final plan with the chief and the consultants and the board asked a series of questions. More information will be developed and work will continue. Megan informed me today that we are trying to schedule a public meeting for all input on the fire station later this month. and finally on the North 40 conservation restriction.

At the same time, the board is working to complete and record the conservation restriction on the North 40 Commensurate with the contribution to the purchase made by the Community Preservation Commission. 50% of the acreage must remain as open space. and as CPC provided a percentage of the funding, that percentage of land would be appropriate for a conservation restriction. The board will meet with CPC next week to discuss the recommended delineation for the CR. Understandably, these two issues together are of interest to residents. especially residents on the western end of town and in the western road area. The Board anticipates another public meeting on the CR in September. and finally on reorganization.

Last week at the Select Board Retreat, Vice Chair Tom Ulfelder explained that frequently in past years, the Vice Chair has succeeded the Chair for the following year. He shared that he had met with Kenny Largess several times to discuss Kenny's willingness to accept a nomination as next year's vice chair, but for personal reasons, Kenny declined at this time. Considering that development, the fact that several complicated and critical projects are currently underway which will overlap into the coming year, the Board is commencing work on two new committees this month. and the degree to which Tom and I have been working with state representatives on the MassBay project, Tom put a nomination on the floor as a slate for the current officers to remain in their positions for another year. The motion passed unanimously, so Colette, Tom, and I will continue our work for FY27.

I'd like to say that the current fiscal year was an extremely busy one for the board. Together we have satisfied nearly all of the objectives on our annual work plan in addition to taking on unanticipated projects. In the coming weeks we will discuss ideas for new and different projects, identify priorities, and develop a plan for the coming year. Together as a board, separately and in pairs, we have worked diligently to maintain and improve town services and respond to resident concerns and questions. Staff has been unbelievably dedicated across the board to prepare for and fund capital projects and infrastructure improvements. Plann conservatively and act prudently in preserving and growing our assets for the extensive capital needs ahead.

Fairly and Equitably Compensate staff through salary plan innovations, onboard new senior staff members and mentor others through their professional development, handle responsibly and professionally many last-minute changes, challenges, and new issues, and last but certainly not least, to support the Select Board in our work. Our volunteer work places many demands on staff at all levels on top of their own regular work responsibilities and we are all extremely grateful to every member of the staff for your continued collaboration and assistance. And that's all I have. So we are ready to move into executive session.

and I request a motion to enter into executive session to conduct strategy with respect to potential litigation on 40 Oakland Street and to conduct strategy with respect to negotiations with the custodian union as I declare having such discussions in open session would be detrimental to the town.

Move to enter Executive Session under Mass General Law, Chapter 30A, Subsection 21A, Exemption Number 3, to conduct strategy with respect to potential litigation with 40 Oakland Street. as the chair has declared that having such discussions in open session is detrimental to the town and to invite Megan Jopp, Corey Testa, Town Council Tom Harrington, Special Council Nick Shapiro and Special Council Robbie Hopkins to join the meeting and under mass general law chapter 30a subsection 21a exemption number three to conduct strategy with respect to negotiations with the AFSCME Council 93, Local 49, Custodian Union and to invite Megan Jopp, Corey Testa, Dolores Hamilton and Joe McDonough to join the meeting. Fowling the close of executive session, the board will return to open session for the sole purpose of adjourning the meeting. Megan, did I get time council correct in that? Tom Harrington? Yes.

Okay. Second.

Kenny? Aye. Colette? Aye. Beth? Aye. Tom? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Thank you all very much. We will be back on next Tuesday, June 16th.