Select Board January 6, 2026

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the January 6th, 2026 meeting of the Wellesley Select Board in hybrid format, both in the Giuliani room at Town Hall. and on the Zoom platform. Happy New Year, everybody. Hope you had enjoyable holidays with family and friends. It feels like forever since we've been together because we're together all the time. So it's nice to be back. We're being broadcast live on Comcast Channel 8 and Verizon Channel 40 and on wellesleymedia.org. And the meeting will be available for later viewing on Wellesley Media. Here from the Select Board are Vice Chair Tom Ulfelder, Secretary Colette O'Frank, Beth Sullivan Woods, Kenny Largess, and myself, Marjorie Freiman. Also with us are Executive Director Megan Jopp, and Assistant Executive Director Corey Testa. Our first item is Citizen Speak.

I believe those people who have registered were advised that we ask people to keep their comments to three minutes. and we'll allow a total of 15 minutes for citizen speak tonight. So Corey has the list, Corey.

The first speaker is Lisa Moore. just press the button on the microphone please

Hello, my name is Lisa Moore. I am a resident here in Wellesley. I also work for the Natural Resource Commission as the environmental educator. But tonight I am speaking on behalf of myself as a Wellesley resident. I want to just give my opinion about the MassBay potential 40-acre sale. I wrote a letter to Governor Healey and her administration, and I'd like to read that to you. And I ask you to consider the same points that I asked the Healey administration to consider. I asked the board to consider as well. I've been a Wellesley resident for the last 21 years and an environmental educator for over 30 years. As part of my job I take people out into nature or take nature into classrooms to teach about environmental issues like protecting the watershed, and the importance of protecting habitats.

I educate residents how we humans are part of nature and being good stewards of our environment and conserving diverse habitats help improve the health of everything living in an area, humans included. I'm requesting that the 40 acres of Mass Bay Forest at 40 Oakland Street be removed from the surplus land inventory list and not be sold to a private developer. In August, the Healey administration launched a nation leading plan to protect nature and wildlife. I quote, the 25-year biodiversity initiative will help revive rivers, forests, and habitats across Massachusetts, end quote. That was what the Healey administration said about the plan. After committing to such a bold plan just three months ago, I cannot understand how cutting down 40 acres of forest fits in with the plan to preserve habitat, support biodiversity, and revive rivers and forests. It is much more cost effective to not cut down a forest than it is to try and rebuild, regrow, and repair

Over the last few years, Wellesley has cut down hundreds of trees and acres of forest to increase housing and to provide supposed affordable housing. The units added are not affordable and very small in number, and the rapid increase in population density has caused a strain on the town's schools, roads, water, and recreational spaces. When across Massachusetts, communities are being encouraged to rebuild habitat, and Regrow Forest, it seems counterintuitive to cut down a large mature forest in Wellesley. I hope you reconsider the designation of surplus land for this important parcel and do as you say your administration would and protect this habitat and the biodiversity supports. Thank you for your consideration tonight. Thanks for what you do for the town.

Thank you.

I'm Phillip Honfeld of 45 Chestnut Street in Wellesley. I'm also going to weigh in, obviously, on this MassBay transaction. I won't get into the... tension between the surplus land designation and the article 97 matter as I think that's being contemplated by people better in the know. And I understand there's maybe some lawsuits that may be entered. to try to resolve that. What I wanted to get into was more of, this is a more unique situation than I'm accustomed to, such as with 8th Cliff, the land had already been sold to a developer and then were scrambling to avoid what might have been a logistical fiasco of having that project be put in that particular location. In this case,

the sale is yet to be completed which opened up for me some questions about well from the standpoint say of the conservation land trust are there options being thought about where This land could be, to satisfy mass-based financial interests of some, this land being acquired by a trust with sufficient public support, such as to, you know, conceivably privatize that area from perpetuity but you know I spoke to somebody in more to see what he would say is somebody at the conservation land trust who said well Maura Healey is resolved sees laser focus on the idea of putting affordable housing in Wellesley. So pretty much to the preclusion of other thinking.

and I thought about that and I thought, well, I seem to recall her, Maura Healey, making a similar point about land conservation and that it would be a mistake both politically and logically to sacrifice one promised laser-focused goal for another. If we assume at least part of the idea of bringing more affordable housing to Wellesley is to share what Wellesley uniquely has to offer, capture, for example, in the Arbor Day Foundation's designation of it being the longest running active tree community in Massachusetts. It'd be absurd to destroy such uniqueness for the very purpose of sharing it. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Christine Duvivier. I apologize. Perfect. Wellesley High School French.

I'm curious if it would surprise you to know, as it surprised me greatly, that although Wellesley received the National Tree City Award in 2024, We have more housing and less parkland than some comparable cities and towns around the country. so as I said that really surprised me and I'll talk more in a minute about some things I found out that in terms of how we compare and you may already know all this I'm really here to say I support what you're doing in challenging the state on this issue with MassBay Forest. And I want to thank you for doing that because I know it takes a lot of courage and a lot of time and a lot of persistence. I support taking it off the surplus land list. I think there are two false trade-offs that the state is putting in front of us.

The first is the idea that we either destroy this forest, or we fund the building that MassBay wants. and so on. the trade-off, the idea that we have to sell this land in order to fund that is not accurate. So that's the first thing. We've already written about that, so I won't say anything more about that right now. But the other trade-off the state has put in front of us is that We either destroy this forest or we get affordable housing. and that's a false trade-off too. And traditionally, as you know, as a state, we've been able to do both and it's been really important to Massachusetts.

So over the past few months, the way this has come up for me is I've been traveling both on the East Coast and out West, and I've been shocked at the amount of parkland I've seen in other places. and so just as one example and I sent something I don't know if Corey had a chance to get it okay thank you but just as one example I picked a town so Philadelphia and Boston are both historic towns we both pride ourselves on Leading Edge, Innovators, Forward Thinking. And so there's a town right outside of Philadelphia. It's called Gladwin. Wellesley's 12 miles outside of Boston. Gladwin is nine miles outside of Philadelphia, so closer to Philadelphia. Philadelphia is more than twice the size of Boston, so a more urban area, far more urban area.

and one of the things I was shocked to see was that Gladwin has, well I'll put it the other way, Wellesley has about one third the park space per thousand residents that Gladwin has. Gladwin is a tiny town outside of a huge urban area. And Philadelphia is growing 40% faster than Boston is. So the idea that we have to trade off our park space, which we don't even have enough of right now, for housing, which Wellesley, I don't have to tell you. You already know. We've already met more than the goal of affordable housing. but it's not even a trade-off even if we hadn't we can do both and that's what I hope you will bring the state to see that doesn't have to be these trade-offs the only other thing I'll say about the state plan is I hope that and again legally you may do something different but the only other thing that I noticed in the state plan is they say this is surplus land

and they partially say that, I don't know all their reasons, but they say here are the uses currently of this land. Pickleball. I don't know if you guys go over there. I go over there all the time. I've never seen Pickleball, but okay, maybe it's there. Parking. Okay, yes, that's there. but they don't even mention the thousands of visitors from all over Metro Boston, Waltham, Natick, Needham, Weston, Newton, Westwood, Dedham, I could name more. Every single day, people from all those communities come to this park. So it's not just a Wellesley issue. This is a Metro Boston treasure. and I think traditionally Wellesley and Massachusetts have found ways to both grow. I'm a huge supporter of growth and industry and new jobs for people but I think we can do both grow and save Forest.

So again, I just want to thank you for what you're doing and wanted to throw in there what surprised me that I haven't seen before.

Thank you very much.

Ellen Fine did just join virtually.

Okay. Ellen, you're up.

Good evening, everyone, and thank you for letting me speak. I appreciate the select board allowing me to speak and I hope you can hear me okay. My name is Ellen Fine and I live in Needham and I do a fair amount of hiking and walking through Needham and Wellesley, Dedham and Newton. And I'm one of those people that really takes great joy in spending time in the forest. And Obviously I'm here to ask whoever and however the decisions are being made to really consider that this really important aspect of life to people in these surrounding communities. how much joy and peace folks find walking in nature and how as much as we're all for affordable development,

Once you've taken down a forest, you don't get to put back a forest for the most part. I mean, there is regeneration that can happen. It takes many years and a lot of effort. So I would hope that this would be considered when decisions are being made. And so obviously for people in Wellesley, it's hugely important, but it's also for the surrounding communities as well. the more development that happens the more that we need to retreat to nature to find spaces in which we can walk and enjoy nature and certainly there's the climate aspect when you take out however many acres of forest. It really does accumulative damage in terms of in terms of climate. I run something called the Resiliency Gardens Project out of my home.

And I remember two summers ago, a bunch of us in Needham about 250 homes and businesses were subject to climate catastrophic flooding. not once, not twice, but my own house was hit three times. Other houses were hit four and five. And I know that it hit Wellesley, Newton, and Natick as well. So in a way, we have to really take care of how we are literally doing things in our own backyards that can be bringing on more climate catastrophe. And so I guess the last thing I would like to say is that I do have had the great joy of spending time with, when she was still alive, Chief Caring Hands of the Praying Indians of Natick. Poncapog and Neshoba and that there are still many tribal members and I'm not speaking on their behalf and

have not had the chance to talk to them that much about this. But when you're talking about sites that can be historically sacred to a people, and paving over them and building over them. I know that that can cause pain to so many of us. And the way that we have treated people in the praying unions of Natick and Ponkapok and Neshoba, as we have paved over in various places, much of the land that they respected and lived on for centuries and still do today. So I just want to sum up by saying that I hope that we're really thoughtful and that there can be other places that already exist. that may be old parking lots or other places that are partially developed

that we might think of for developments before we take down a forest, especially here in Eastern Massachusetts. I grew up in Needham. I spent years in Wellesley and Needham and Newton and all of these places, so much development has happened and we have less and less natural spaces. Obviously species other than humans are important as well. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you much thoughtfulness in your deliberation about this issue. It's an important one to me and obviously to the community of Wellesley. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to address the board? Briefly, yep.

Yes.

Hi, my name is Caroline Wilson and I moved to Wellesley seven years ago with two very active dogs. it wasn't long before someone had recommended Centennial Reservation to us as a place to walk them and at the time I understood Centennial Reservation to include and the MassBay Woods, I think a lot of people did. I was sort of stunned to learn this year that that was not the case. Those two dogs have left us. I've got a new one in their place who also needs a tremendous amount of walking, which means that I have been in those woods at all times of day, in all weather, around the year. I have never once been there alone. The designation of the land as surplus land was shocking to me. It's never without use. I have run into, of course, other dog people, hikers, bikers, runners who are amazing because those are some steep trails.

it's extraordinary and also a lot of families with young children who want to literally show them what nature is and we don't have a lot of places to do that kids playing in the brook and building forts and watching birds. I saw a couple, I mean, they had the binoculars and the notebooks and everything. Bird walkers are in there. and it remains one of the only true third spaces that I know of in Wellesley it's free to enter you can go as much or as little as you want you can do a whole variety of activities there it's not structured I think that it's a great asset to the community and it is also something that the community maintains. I in these walks constantly run across people who are clearing debris from the trails who are picking up trash to carry out with them. who are picking up other people's dog poop. It's maintained. It is loved. It's a very important space to a lot of people. And so I would just ask the committee to

do what you can whatever is in your power and go ahead and get creative with that to have their backs thank you thank you okay thank you everybody okay

I didn't email, but I'm Paul Derrickson, 30 Riverdale Road. We're 26-year residents of Wellesley. We've raised two children. We've used Centennial Park and the Mass Bay Forest for a quarter century now. Reservations like this in a suburban town so close to downtown are very, very rare. This is one of these things that makes Wellesley a unique place and it's fabulous. You know, we've used the park. We picnic there with our kids. We went to that little pond and caught frogs, little frogs, big bullfrogs there when the kids were young. We now have a dog. We take our dog there. I forage mushrooms there and I see other foragers in the woods. and just to echo the comments of the woman before me, it's really hard to believe that that's considered surplus space. It's constantly used.

I myself am there probably three to four days a week. tend to park up at the top of Maugus. Never the only car up there, and there's always cars down in the lot, down off of Oakland as well. It really is a treasure. Once lands like this are built upon, they don't come back. You know, it's really, really hard to preserve a space like this. It's really easy to build on it and then it's gone. The towns around us have built on them and they're gone. Wellesley has this beautiful space. I would encourage you to do whatever you can, whatever we can as a community to maintain this. Because again, it's a treasure. Once it goes. its gone. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We've reached our time limit for tonight on Citizen Speak, but we appreciate you coming and sharing your thoughts with us. If anyone has thoughts in the meantime, we will meet next week and the week after. but please send your comments into the select board office. Megan and Corey distribute them all to us so we read everything that comes in and we appreciate your interest and your participation. Thank you very much. And with that, we'll turn to Megan for the executive director's update.

Okay, I just have a few announcements. One, I wanted to remind individuals who are interested in running for town-wide office that the last day to pull nomination papers is this Friday, January 9th at 5 p.m. And those papers must be returned with 50 signatures by Tuesday, January 13th at 5 p.m. also reminding folks for individuals seeking to run for town meeting the times are a little bit different and the last day to pull papers for town meeting member is Friday January 23rd and those must be returned with only 10 signatures but from the precinct by January 27th. So just a reminder for folks on that. It's also renewal time. We have a couple things that are on an annual basis, those being our annual parking passes as well as dog licenses. So both of those renewals can be done online.

For our dog licenses, we did want to remind folks, some folks, if you already have a dog license, the renewal would, you would have gotten an email. and so that's at noreply at opengov.com so that is from the town so we also just would encourage people to check their spam folders in case it gets lost. You can also just go to the town's website. and so those renewals need to be in by March 31st to make sure that you're not fined and those renewals are for each dog. A separate application is required. for the annual parking permits. We encourage residents, if you're using any of our lots, which just as a reminder, those are the tailby lot, the Wellesley Hills Commuter Rail Station, the Farms lot, the Weston Road lot, the Cameron lot, and the Eaton Court lot. If you're using those lots more than basically 13 times a month. It is more economical to buy our annual passes, which are $480 for Wellesley residents, students, or business employees.

and then that $1,080 for our non-residents. So the annual passes, if you're using the parking lots on a daily basis, are really the way to go. You're going to save money. So those renewals are up and you can apply for those online this year too. So we just wanted to remind folks about that. and then the last thing and we just sent notice out on the town's website as well is that MassDOT is doing some overnight closures actually starting tonight. and Thursday the 8th and Friday the 9th from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. Those are ramps from I-95, Route 128 northbound and the Mass Pike eastbound and westbound. will be closed overnight. So detours will be in place. And on Wednesday, the ramp from I-90 westbound to Park Drive in Weston will be closed from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.,

So we want to just give people a heads up on that because your travel may be, if you're coming back from the city in the next couple nights, it's going to be detoured. And that's all I have, Marjorie.

Thank you very much. I appreciate you saying that if you park more than 13 times a month, you save money because we ask businesses to make those parking pass, at least to make it known to their employees. that those parking passes are more efficient and affordable for them over the long term. And it also leaves more spaces available for people who want to shop locally, which we also try to encourage. Thank you very much. Okay, so my Friday night mail on my computer was in a different order, so I apologize. We'll now move to the consent agenda. there is one item on the consent agenda and that is to make additional appointments of people to assist the town clerk with the annual town election which is in the first week of March. has anyone requested that it be removed? No. Okay. Turn to Colette please for a motion.

So moved to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All right, I'll turn back to Colette. Our next agenda item is the policy subcommittee update on the appointment policy amendments.

All right, thanks, Marjorie. So we've reviewed the appointment policy after our last round of appointments. And the board's had this draft policy actually since December. We tried to look at this during special time meeting but there wasn't time for it so we're looking at it now. The red line was in the packet that people have received. and I received a couple of comments since the packet went out and those were circulated. The amendments that were suggested as part of that were circulated to the board this afternoon. So there's a couple of things I wanted to discuss with the board just to get some feedback. And if we come to consensus tonight, I'd like to then send it to town council to have them review the final version of the appointments policy and then we can approve it. So the biggest things I really wanted to go over with the board tonight were the interview process.

you know basically we're as we've discussed before the select board is responsible for the appointments and we really have to just have a process whereby the The select board can decide how and when it wants to get involved in the interview process and make that clear to the underlying boards. In some cases, we might not want to be involved in the interview process, but in other cases we might want to. and I tried to draft this to make that clear both to us and the underlying boards and then to give us a way to say early in the process if we were going to be involved in the process we could have that communication with the underlying boards. So if I could take feedback from board members on what was presented in the packet, is this acceptable or do we want to make further changes to this? I'm happy to... entertained for their comments. I don't know, Corey, if it makes sense to bring up the version that we circulated this afternoon. I didn't get it. No.

OK, apologies about that. there's only a couple of, and we can walk through those edits. Let me find that. okay well Cody's bringing that up I'll just go through what they were in policy step number three which is right on the very first page of the policy um, So it says broad community engagement.

So we've highlighted a sentence there that says the board recognizes that holding another appointed position can be beneficial and may be specifically identified as a requirement or may be deemed to have synergistic value and simultaneous service. Some of the feedback I got today was potentially just deleting that last sentence because the previous sentence says that the board shall take notice of other elected and appointed positions candidates currently hold. I think we have several situations where there are members that serve on numerous positions because it is beneficial and it's neither a plus nor a negative I think the board has to consider each situation as it comes and so I think it's probably just helpful to say that the select board will take notice of other elected and appointed positions but I don't think it's necessary to say it's either helpful or disqualifying and I just wanted to get the board's feedback on that.

So Colette, I think that's a good idea. I'm not sure the heading makes sense, Abroad Community Engagement. I don't think the statement encourages broad community engagement but I do agree with taking out the last sentence.

Okay do you have a suggestion for that title?

Well our original idea was that our orientation was toward broad community engagement. This one seems to me membership in other boards is kind of the title.

So are other community service, because it might not be a board. I mean, there's lots of stuff that people do. Consideration of Other Service, maybe something like that. That's good, I like that. Okay. Can you make that edit, Corey?

Yep.

Okay. So that was the first... Consideration of other community service, other town service. Yeah. and then under procedure number two There was just a small addition to say the select board chair or their designee and or the liaison shall discuss and consult with the chair of each underlying board. to identify needs qualifications and determine whether current board members seeking reappointment meet those needs as defined by the underlying board so the addition today was discuss and before consult the rest of it the board's already seen

Actually, I think I may have misplaced where I thought it should go. but I thought it made sense and or liaison shall consult with the chair of each underlying board to discuss and identify. needed qualifications because our board and their board may have overlapping or different ideas.

And that's fine with me. I thought that was a fine addition.

just the one question I had on the as defined by the underlying board I think read literally what we're saying is the underlying board is going to tell us what the need is we're not We're not injecting ourselves.

Well, I think the intention is they, that whole underlying body, needs to define what they think their needs are, but we also have feelings on the needs, so we need to discuss it with them. So, you know, I think in this case, this last past year, we had an example of where our board did have a discussion on, we talked pretty broadly about the Council on Aging, what did we think the needs were, we shared that with the Council on Aging board. they also shared that with their underlying board and their underlying board talked about what their needs were. Do you want to make it clearer?

I think, to be honest, I would just delete the as defined by because we're already describing how we're coming to what the needs are.

and so all that is doing it I think five years from now we could be reading this and say what are we trying to modify I think the intent of that sentence was to make sure it was the underlying board and not just the underlying board chair because sometimes the underlying board chair has taken a single hand in that and we want to make sure that the whole board is involved.

Unless we say identify needed qualifications as defined by the underlying board, put it there. The reason I put in discuss was exactly what Colette said, that there may be something of which we're aware. that the board might not be aware of and just to have the opportunity to talk with them about it. But I'm fine deleting that last phrase.

My recommendation would be to put a period at the end of qualifications, so to discuss and identify needed qualifications. and then delete the rest of it because we're having all board members reapply. So it seems to me this step is determine what the needs are that we're looking for in filling the board seats for the next year. And so I would actually delete the rest of it. And I don't think we are... in point three, I don't see the basis for determining if we are releasing a member from service at that point in the process. I think we can notify and ask if they would be considering reapplying and put a period there. We don't need based on the needs because

in theory the way this process is written everybody is reapplying that is up and we are looking at the needs of that board and making a choice from the full selection of new applicants and existing applicants. So I don't see a need to release members prior to seeing the applicant pool. and I'm not sure what the basis is for who's deciding to release the existing members.

I think that's fine. I think the intention of that was to, if you already knew that a current member didn't have the needs, didn't have the skills that you were looking for, it was to just let them know early in the process. But if they're on the board... and they're determining the needs. They should be aware of that.

And it doesn't mean that somebody couldn't reapply. It's just up to the board. Yeah.

Period after qualifications. Would it be this deletion, Beth?

It's after the word... whether they wish to be considered for reappointment notify the members whose terms are expiring and ask whether they will would like to be considered for reappointment. And that's the end of it.

Okay. So I think that's fine.

then the next thing that was added was okay so it's not in there now if I understood Beth correctly Underlying Boards will be asked to notify members whose turns are expiring and ask whether those members would like to be considered, wish to be considered for reappointment.

So it's whether they would wish. Yes.

Or ask whether they will be reapplying for appointment because this procedure is an application process, right?

Okay.

I think it should be.

Applying for reappointment. Yes. Or reapplying.

I think applying.

Applying for reappointment.

I don't think the word asked is correct. I think it's ask.

Yes, right.

Okay, and then, so then the next big change is procedure step 6A, not big change, but the item we wanted to really discuss. So in 6A we added the select board will determine whether and how select board members will participate in the interview process for appointments to the underlying boards. and so I think we had that discussion this year we you know met discussed with the when we discussed the Council on Aging we talked about well how do we want to be involved and we the board decided that the chair and the Vice Chair would participate in the interviews so that is basically what happened this past year so I wanted to just check in with members and see what they thought about that provision and anything else in this section because I think this is where we have I just want to take feedback from board members on what the draft policy says.

I like that change. I think it should be a board discussion.

and the next paragraph which says any individual select board member may request additional information on a candidate via staff, the results of which will be shared with the full select board. That was really in response to Kenny's question about if a member wants to interview any applicant like what do you do and the question is we are a board we act as a board and we need to have a process that we understand the underlying boards understand and the applicants understand and So rather than having some ad hoc members just engaging with applicants on an individual basis, if you want more information, ask for more information. It comes through staff. We all get it. And then we can all act. And then we can decide if we want more.

And it's generic enough. Yes. figure out how you're going to gather that information one extremely minor underlying board in C underlying should be capitalized and Cher should be lowercase. Keep going, keep going. To the right, to the right. There you go.

Could I ask a question about the word underlying board? I don't believe that's a term we use in town. It doesn't appear in our bylaws. doesn't appear anywhere but in this policy and I would prefer that we use appointed board because that is the dominant language in town and it's an appointments policy so I think that's fine we define it under definitions but you know But we make the final appointment. No, it's just the terminology, underlying board. It's not a term that appears in any of our... I would just super replace underlying board with appointed board and just use consistent language of how the town operates and that's fine with me it's a defined term as long as we change it and change the definition I don't think it matters

So we can do a search and replace for that, Megan?

Can I ask you kind of the way we envision this process? I think we all agree that the appointments are select board led. Should the policy be written to say that the select board will determine the dynamics and engagement with the appointed boards and how that input happens? We're seeking input from the board about what their needs are and what they're looking for. We have the applicants. They should also go out and solicit applicants to apply, but then we will collaborate with the board on how those interviews occur. and I think we can determine so there are some boards where

this board may decide it's very specialized and we want the appointed board to take the lead so let's say it's a technical board. I'm just gonna pick historical, which isn't technical, but just by way of example. We want them to take the lead in doing those interviews. Thank you very much. it's far more efficient for this board to meet the candidates and then kind of determine the appropriate appointments I'm wondering if this is so prescriptive that what we've struggled with is who's the lead and kind of defining the role of the underlying board or the appointed board. when the reality is it's not really a struggle.

The select board leads on appointments. We lead on determining the right fit of an individual with the board. and we seek input from the appointed board on what their needs are, what's working well for them, what's not working well, who they've seen in the path of the year that they would like to see recruited. or they've solicited recruitments for. I just don't think it has to be so complicated.

I feel like the first sentence in this section addresses that because it's the primary sentence here. It says select birds determined in the process and everything on there is sort of you could leave it at that but this provides a little more granularity I think this essentially says

So maybe if it's not A, maybe that's interviews and it's not a... When it's A, B, C, it looks to me like a sequential process as opposed to... interviews, Colin, the select board will determine considerations or something else that outlines these are possible strategies for how it will work.

Well, and also, I mean, we've had, I think we've had this discussion repeatedly. And so I have repeatedly put into the policy that the select board is responsible. It's the first statement in the policy. and so I mean I think we're addressing this I mean so

And over the past number of years, the number of times that the Select Board has been involved as extensively as we were last year are relatively few. So the way the policy is now leaves the opportunity for us to do that, but not to have to review every single board every single year. you know it's going smoothly and they've identified and have responses to their needs.

I actually like the way this is written for a slightly different reason. I think where we have a decentralized form of government, I think one obligation that we continue to have is to to enable the appointed boards to be able to manage their affairs well and to be able to demonstrate leadership, to have people feel empowered such that they may at some point wish to run for different office. And the only way that I know that you can do that is by giving people responsibility. The way I think the policy subcommittee has written this, it allows a certain degree of fluidity so that when we have a situation like last spring, we're able to assert greater involvement. and we might otherwise wish to assert.

I really like the way this has been written. I think it allows us to accommodate boards that are fully functioning well and situations like Glass Spring.

I mean and the first time that we but the first time I was involved in asking my underlying or the appointed board for information on their candidates there was a feeling that I was interjecting myself in a process that that we shouldn't have been. And so I think we needed to make it a lot clearer in the policy that this is our responsibility. And ultimately, it's up to us. But the underlying, the appointed body can run the process if we feel that that's the best use of their and our time. I think if we are going to be involved in every single appointment, we would get no other work done. So unless there are other comments, I see you've got some... Just minor cleanup.

So voluntary information form. I don't think we need that.

Volunteer information form?

Sorry, volunteer information form. It's sort of a proper... Now and Anyway. I don't think we need to describe what that is. It's also probably a moving target. And then the date should be 2026.

Do you want to just give me the minor edits? I'll work them through.

This is the last thing, and I think this actually is substantive. Under policy, it says select board shall make appointments in a consistent and transparent manner. That's the and I probably was the one who wrote it in the first place, but that's too absolute a statement. I think we should say we will seek to because fair is like beauty's in the eye of the beholder.

so right so fair had to be taken out because fair you know didn't okay so we want to say the board shall seek to make appointments in a consistent and transparent manner I'm fine with that um yep

on under procedure and timeline number three, I would request that we remove and if not thank them for their service. I think generally our volunteers are mature and experienced and understand the way to handle things. I'm uncomfortable having that actually in the policy.

That's been struck as part of the edits we did tonight, so that's gone, but that's a good point, Tom. Okay, so if I can just, so I think we've got all the comments. I'll take this to town council for review and we'll finalize it at policy subcommittee at the end of the month.

Yes, I think we should just sort of leave it as if we vote yes, then we can just proofread it after Tom looks at it, Town Council looks at it, and then...

So do we want to vote on it and delegate final review by town council and ministerial edits to policy subcommittee? OK. So I will make a motion to approve the appointments policy as amended with final editorial comments and review by town council to be and integrated into the policy at the policy subcommittee meeting.

Second.

And if necessary, bring back to the full board for further review.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you both very much. I know this has been quite a slog. We've been through several iterations. So thank you both very much. So on to the annual town meeting warrant, which is an amazing warrant at 37 articles. Turn it over to you, Megan.

Let me just scroll down and I'll just put a, I won't walk through the, that's only a draft. It's currently being reviewed by town council. But let me just share screen with the list of articles. So this certainly is what I would call the shortest we've had in as long as I can remember. A number of these articles also are some that had previously been discussed last year and then deferred either to special town meeting and then and or here. We also anticipate that we would have a number of articles in our consent agenda, which are our annual sort of necessary articles. I did not demarcate any of those at this time.

That will be for further discussion with the board as well as with the moderator. . This year we've discussed a number of the items with regards to supplemental appropriations, the division of the omnibus budget. will have our typical revolving accounts and typical stabilization funds and our enterprise funds. We have some capital projects, which at our next meeting, Rachel DeRoach and I will walk through both on the FY27 budget, where we currently stand in our proposal to Anticipate closure of that and which items within the special capital projects we anticipate recommending the use of free cash and inside the levy borrowing.

So a number of these articles, the irrigation was from last year, and the Weston Road intersection design, that was when we had anticipated a grant that we failed to receive, so we're bringing that forward. We also, on the 20th, will be having a joint meeting. It's anticipated to have a joint meeting with the Board of Public Works to discuss the DPW Campus Municipal Service Building Feasibility Study. As part of our look at trying to reduce cash capital, we've also put the comprehensive plan as a separate article. We'll also recommend actually appropriation of free cash to that as well. We have a number of different authorizations moving forward with regards to the COLA base, which this board has actually talked to the retirement board on. personnel policies, our typical borrowing for our water and sewer funds. We have to have continued discussion on the authorization of our TNC of their UBILIF funds.

We are hopefully anticipating a presentation from the MBTA on the proposed easement at our next meeting. Sheila is trying to confirm on that. and we've had some additional articles placed on by DPW and NRC. We have a general bylaw modification with regards to the HR personnel policies and a subset of those not requiring town meeting action. The two zoning bylaws, these are the amendments that we anticipated. Very, well the floodplain is incredibly minor, likely a consent agenda item, arguably. and then continued discussion based upon the Rio task force modifications to the residential incentive overlay and then articles 34 to 37 are our standard items. The board at our last meeting, and I know Sheila is going to Climate Action Committee, had discussed potential zoning.

And that may come back on the 13th within the parking for the EV charging and such. Schiller and I have talked and I actually think we have a proposal to look at it in a more holistic way in sort of not just all of the parking but the parking and site plan which are items that the Climate Action Committee would want to look at to work sort of between climate action, select board, and planning board on those items over the next year. So I know Sheila's going to go Friday to discuss that with climate action. and so I currently am not showing that on that warrant but can always be added on the 13th should the board wish to proceed with that. So we have drafted this. It is currently under review with town council. If people identify any minor for medical errors. I'm happy to send you the word document in the next iteration of Friday Night Mail.

But given the length of this and our sort of standardization of the warrant, it is in very good shape. Great.

Go ahead, Tom.

Megan, I'm a little concerned about the DPW campus project in that The dollars are enormous in terms of the option that they seem to be recommending. I think this board would benefit from having material about that more than ahead of time then in the Friday Night Mail. and I think if that material could include the other options that they looked at as well, I think it would assist members of this board in questions that they want to ask in the joint meetings.

And one of the reasons Joe McDonough, Dave Cohen, Glenn, and I had a long conversation about whether this was something that we would push forward to annual town meeting. rather than potentially special town meeting. Special town meeting is looking heavy. But one of the reasons we are contemplating it is as we move forward with contemplating really a town-wide capital plan. A couple things are sort of trickling into place. And that's why we really thought the timing for this worked well. So again, this is a feasibility study. So what we're really hoping is we fund this feasibility study. This would be a million dollar request. We're anticipating use of free cash for this. to really go through what's the programmatic design that we want to move forward with. Exactly to your point, Tom, right? And understand what the financial implications are with that, whether that's inclusive of the land use departments,

or whether it would go back to simply looking at Park and Highway and the garages, right? So a much smaller scale project. so really determining that. Then in the fall, looking at fire station feasibility and potentially working with the schools to do a broader sort of feasibility study on what is all the work that's needed over the next 10 years inclusive of all of their buildings so then you have three feasibility studies that essentially we sit down and say okay here is our plan over the next 10 to 15 years. Very similar to how we did that with the schools exclusively about 12 years ago. but it really, the timing sort of aligns that over the next year we could really align all of those projects to really create a work plan and understand what the financial implications are. As we've already begun working on some tables and such for the town-wide financial plan, we're also looking at

A snapshot in time based upon today's taxation and valuations on what each project would cost the taxpayers. having that 10-year plan, which I know you've seen sort of the broader cost implications, really showing what is it to the median property? What is that impact over and the cumulative impact over those 10 years? So the big projects we're currently anticipating if everything went forward. So if we had AC, DPW, fire, and one other. It's about $2,000 a hit to the median tax bill over like a four year period. So we intend to, we really want to lay that out in a transparent manner. I think it goes forward and it fits in nicely with the Townwide Capital Planning Committee. This would be sort of the evaluation process.

But you really need those feasibility studies to understand What's the programmatic changes? What's the work that's necessary? What's the impacts from both design and regulatory standpoint? So that's why we've decided the timing for the feasibility study sort of works now. But we'll just describe that in more detail at the January 20th meeting.

So Megan, I have a couple questions for the duration of the feasibility for DPW. Will they be talking to the fire department? because depending on what the fire department wants to do with the old headquarters may impact what DPW does. That's correct. The second question is I also think that we may want to ask Joe to include the potential cost impacts to the middle school. because that feasibility and design will start before we pay off $100 million of the DPW. And I think it would be prudent for us to let taxpayers know what's coming down a little further down the road. because we're not going to be done with this big slug of money. I had one other thought.

So cost impact at the end of life for middle school? Yeah. Yeah.

I think I would actually ask that it go further. I'm a little concerned when you talk about a school feasibility study I'm not as interested in where we need new roof and siding and the air conditioning. I think it ought to be predicated that there will be a school building committee formed. that we're going to be looking at Schofield Fisk in the middle school as new building projects because I think we have an obligation as fiduciaries to inform town meeting so that they're making discussions about all of these projects, knowing that we're also considering lining up new buildings. And that's when we're going to truly achieve equity among neighborhoods. is when we're actually replacing schools with new facilities like Hardy and Honeywell.

And to that point, Joe's, the capital plan that we have, you know, five years, ten years, Joe's also going to have capital needs and that go beyond between the 10 and the 25, 30 years. So we might just want to take a broad brush look at all of it and see what we're getting ourselves into here.

And we've also talked to DPW about, you know, because keep in mind, those are buildings. In terms of our other major plans, we certainly have a number of road work projects, our annual sort of big road ticket. you know this year's great the back half of Great Plain Ave but each year those costs are also escalating you know so Western Road's a good example 4.1 million dollars for that stretch we're anticipating about 4.5 million for Great Plain Ave So as we sort of look at the out years of that planning process as well, we're also trying to incorporate those understanding what those financial implications are on the inside the levy debt.

I think to add to the conversation, Tom, that as we've gone through the roadshow with the Timeline Capital Planning Committee, is becoming more and more apparent that we need the companion to this is the town-wide facilities master plan. which is in our work plan this year. But as we work through it, what had become apparent in discussions with Joe and Megan is that we have the elements of that coming together with the fire station master plan and the board of public works and what they're doing with their area but the missing piece and the elephant in the room is the schools. And so we really need to really restart that school building committee and that's the appropriate time for that is requesting funding at special time meeting to do that work.

and I've spent the day to days collating all the feedback from the roadshow from each committee and what the responses are and how we build that in and two or three of the responses are we need that town-wide facilities master plan as a partner to this. because without that I think we're not going to be able to make all the decisions and communicate to the community the entirety of the financial requests of because I think what we're looking at right now, when you say $400 million of capital on the horizon, what does that mean to somebody? then when you say it's two and so much thousand dollars on the median that's about 20 to 25 percent increase in the median tax bill something like that I mean so that's it's really when you start to put it in those numbers that people can then relate to themselves

I think it's much easier to then have a conversation to say okay we've been saying for a while we can't afford all of these therefore which ones do we prioritize and and some of the questions in the the evaluation of projects is okay what's the alternative what's the operational alternative that could avoid the capital project and those are some of the difficult questions that have not yet been asked that we have to ask and the justification of them is because here's the runway that we're looking for in terms of taxes.

Well, the other thing I'll just add to that, Colette, is it's compounded, right, by two other things. The operational increase each year, right, which typically we have obviously the capability to tax up to 2.5%. but our annual growth really ranges between 4.2 and 4.5 percent with new growth and in addition to that just because tax bills have gone out and I've gotten a couple calls as well is obviously our valuations increase. So even if taxation remains the same, people's property values are going up, right? And so it's a greater hit. So really understanding from a transparent standpoint what that means compounded is really going to be important to understand what is sustainable and what is not because We're at that precipice right now where it's becoming unsustainable.

Well, we'll know we've communicated when the for sale signs start getting banged into the ground. So I think to Colette's point, it is important to personalize what the impact will be because that's the only way we're going to get helpful feedback about what that trajectory looks like in terms of tax impact and what people can tolerate and what they're willing to trade off.

Right. What they have the appetite for, what's the need to want versus need to have or want to have. the other thing we haven't thrown into this mix is the comprehensive plan and what comes out of the comprehensive plan and I would also posit that we're going to need a new strategic plan as kind of an umbrella to all the facilities in the capital. And those are going to have costs to implement as well.

On a slightly different matter, I think there's a couple of other joint meetings that we need to have in terms of the Warren. One of them, I think, is with HR. to talk about their policies and when the policies are financial. And I think HR have already discussed that we need to have a discussion with them. and the other one I think we need to have a discussion with the NRC because they're and this came up and when I did through a show with them is well how does the Townwide Capital Planning Committee and process interact with their land conservation plan and again we're looking at a land conservation plan in a silo for them it makes sense to do this but we have other pieces of land in the town that we've been thinking about purchasing for some time and there's a lot of projects that are going on that may require purchasing of land and so I don't think we can look at them independently. So there's land purchases possibly for municipal use, including a fire station and or a school that we have to think about them all.

Does it make sense to have buckets of savings all over the place? How should we think about it more strategically? So I think we need to have those two joint meetings as well.

Well, especially because the NRC is contemplating funding that stabilization fund from fees and we also have CPC. Do we want to change our percentage contribution to CPC? They have money that goes into the open space bucket every year and do people really understand the implications of that?

On that note, I think we also would need a joint meeting with the planning board because the task force recommended and the planning board voted in favor of a development agreement as part of the Rio. obviously that impacts us.

So on Article 20, Could someone clarify for me if this article is intended to look at the alternatives for both our... other land use departments as well as the FMD departments because there are options of you know buying a building and renovating and I just it wasn't clear to me where it's a board of public works is it a holistic look at the needs for placing all of our other departments or is it Board of Public Works kind of evaluating their needs and seeing kind of the options for including the town departments?

So within their supplemental study, they did include bringing over FMD and land use, and that is a factor that drives up the cost in terms of an option to move forward. and so the feasibility study hasn't been completely fleshed out yet but if the board says yep that's the right location it would be that's one of the questions is would it be inclusive of that or is leasing for a period of time or What's the word I'm looking for? Or an alternative location, or as the Taylor Block gets rebuilt, we want to work with them to get a condoized portion of construction across the street from us. I mean, I think there is a lot of options.

We want to buy a building.

Do we want to buy a building?

If it's not a small-ish building. And I think that may be something that I believe should get real diligence to it.

Right, the last time we looked at relocating the land use departments, we decided to lease instead of buy. That was the other, thank you for reminding me, but that was my other question. because if their lease at 888 is up in 27 and feasibility for DPW is going to start in 26, will it be enough time for the land use departments to make arrangements if they're not going to move then to that

yeah so our plan because 888 is being acquired and sold anyway is that no matter what happens with DPW both FMD and land use will have to find another five-year lease. So we have, within the next seven years, they are going to have to move, within the next two years, they're going to have to move to another five-year lease, no doubt. and so or to best point or acquire a building within that duration of time.

Tom and I will be meeting with the moderator in the next week or two and one of the things I want to talk to him about is the consent agenda because he suggested that he might be willing to consider free cash issues within a consent agenda, which is a departure from his prior view. and I also want to ask him about things like CPC because we've already approved the CPA and it's a tax funder tax Payer Fund that has already been kind of accounted for. So do we need to vote on that or can that go into consent? So we will let you know when we talk to him.

Could I just ask, is White Pond coming up at Annual Town Meeting, or did NRC accept White Pond? I didn't see it on here, so I just wasn't sure.

So we've had that conversation. And when they do come to us for a meeting, that is also something we want to talk about. and so they are still evaluating whether NRC is still evaluating whether they would accept the gift. Dave Cohen and I have raised some additional questions for investigation. So let's say NRC accepts the gift. Any gift accepted by the NRC has to be ratified by this body. the board for real estate has the ability to send something to town meeting I have told Brandon my recommendation to you would be to bring that to town meeting given the ongoing operational cost of that and arguably, in my opinion, lack of public access. But certainly, that's a broader conversation because you could modify that, right? You could create public access potentially with CPC funds. There could be benefits. DPW is going to do some initial analysis on stormwater benefits.

So we're trying to understand, you know, also some additional, we'd like to have some additional testing potentially. and so that is still ongoing. We do not think that is not on the warrant for annual.

Do we need a placeholder? That's what I was wondering.

No, it wouldn't be on for annual. the earliest that it would go forward would be special but arguably I think it would be next annual if they accepted it as a gift because I think there's some additional work that still needs to be had.

Well, I think the NRC needs to clarify whether the landowners who would be gifting this pond would be open to public access, because if they want to make that We don't know what's in there. We don't know what we'd be getting into necessarily.

So they do have some documents online with the preliminary analysis back that I've forwarded to the board. And it is easily accessible for public review. But now we're looking at, you know, because keep in mind, DPW is the maintenance arm for the Natural Resources Commission. So really understanding what those ongoing costs are. So Dave's just beginning to make that evaluation.

and then Marjorie had one other question it wasn't in the hard copy but in the digital copy there were notes about questions about the warrant language are those questions for town council or questions for us those are questions for town council thank you

Okay, anything else on the ATM warrant? All right, our next agenda item is to review and discuss minutes. Now, I know Corey sent around the composite minutes after 5 o'clock. Does anybody feel strongly that we not vote on those tonight? Want to review the composite edits?

So I did review the composite edits. I had one clarification that Corey corrected for me. I'm fine to vote on them too.

Okay, I saw them too. Lieutenant LeManager's name is misspelled in, I think it's the December 11th, the one that he was here with with Chief Whittemore. and my visual recollection is that it's near the bottom of a page but it has an extra N in it but otherwise I'm fine with those composites.

and the one correction that I asked Corey to make is I had said erroneously that with the conservation restriction that taxes are lost to the town, they're not lost to the town, they're redistributed so he corrected that I had that question too, okay

All right, so let's, Colette, have a motion.

Was there anything substantive in the changes?

that thing that I just said was the only otherwise it was I had some style changes but nothing substantive

Okay, so move to approve the minutes of November 18, 2025, November 25, 2025, December 2, 2025, and December 11, 2025 meetings as amended.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. All right. The next item is the chair's report. I don't have a lot. We did not meet with school committee this morning. We did meet with advisory. and the board may be interested that Madison is presenting his analysis of the longitudinal school numbers. tomorrow night. It's been distributed to the committee, so it may be posted, but he is going to share that information tomorrow night. Williams, Jay Bach, and Mariana are the school committee liaisons, and we'll be incorporating some of that work in their write-up on Motion 3 under Article 8. trying to think whether what else

Marjorie, just on advisory, working with advisory, we did move the town-wide financial plan until February 25th, which actually serves us really well because we'll have the health insurance numbers finalized by then. I have updated the calendar on that, but I did just want to alert the board to that.

Oh, thank you. That'll make a big difference. It'll give us a lot more... Clarity on what our numbers actually are. Okay, so I don't have anything else to report on the chair and... If council is ready, we can begin our executive session. Okay, well, I'll request a motion that the board vote to convene an executive session for the purposes of discussing strategy with respect to potential litigation with the Commonwealth. regarding the disposition of surplus MassBay Community College land as I declare that having such discussions in open session would have a detrimental effect on the town's position.

So move to enter executive session under Mass General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21A, Exemption Number 3 to conduct strategy for potential litigation with the Commonwealth. regarding the disposition of surplus MassBay Community College land and to invite Megan Jopp, Corey Testa, Town Council Tom Harrington and Eric Russell and Special Council Nick Shapiro and Robbie Hopkins to join as the chair has declared that having such discussions in open session would have a detrimental effect on the town's position. Following the adjournment of executive session, the board will return to open session for the sole purpose of adjourning the meeting.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Roll call, sorry. Kenny?

Aye.

Beth? Aye. Colette? Aye. Tom? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Okay, we are now going into executive session, and we'll come back into open session solely to adjourn.