--------- Yeah, good evening folks. Welcome to the uh annual town meeting. Thank you all for joining us here this evening. For those of you who are joining us at home, welcome. Welcome your participation. Uh before we start, I wanted to ask you to join me in acknowledging the passing of
Bob Nemit, longtime Hollison resident, citizen, volunteer, wonderful, wonderful person and passed away since our last meeting. So join me for a moment of silence to remember Bob if you would please. Thank you. Thank you. My thoughts go out to Bob's family on behalf of all of us here this
evening. Uh before we get to hear from the select board and the fincom, I'm going to ask you to consider the consent agenda. For those of you who are regulars here, you understand that it's been my practice to take up and gather together articles that are generally considered routine. They don't
engender debate usually and they appear uh annually and so the interest of time I'm going to take them in the form of a consent agenda and if uh on any particular article that's included in the consent agenda seven citizens rise and indicate they'd like to have it separated and considered for debate I'm
happy to accommodate that. Uh so the articles to be consider included in the consent agenda are as printed in the warrant. Article three to authorize the treasury collector to sell foreclosed tax title properties. Article four, tax workoff program. Article five, amend the
interest rate perom. Article six, amend the income requirements. Article seven, veterans tax exemptions. Article 8, personal property exemption. Article 9, revolving fund spending limit. Article 13, adoption of master
law chapter 32B, section 2B, and article 28, general bylaw change from town administrator to town manager. The motion is to approve the articles in the consent agenda as those articles are printed in the warrant. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion on any of those articles that I've
included in the consent agenda? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. Those opposed so voted. Those articles have dealt with art. Article one to hear the report of the select board. The motion is moved that the
annual report of the town for the 12-month period of time ending January 30th, 2025 be accepted. Is there a second? Thank you. We'll hear from the select board, please. Miss Hine, good evening. Can you hear me okay in the
back? Okay. Welcome. Before I present the report of the select board, I'd like to introduce a special town meeting member tonight. Frank Travasio is the Hollist's new incoming town manager. He is due to start on uh June 1st. Frank,
could you please stand and be recognized? Thank you. As the policy setting executive body for the town of Hollist, the select board acts in a responsible way for the benefit of the taxpayer and resident in Hollist. Over the past 12 months, we
have met 36 times for a combined total of more than 100 hours with a thorough and deliberate process, hybrid public meetings, and community engagement efforts. With all of those, the select board prepared the warrant presented to town meeting tonight. Throughout, our
focus has been on the needs of our community and strengthening Hollist for the future. With projects, initiatives, and priorities developed over months and years, we follow state and federal laws in our planning. We seek state and
federal funding sources for our projects. We collaborate with Hollist's state and federal representatives and we work to improve communication and engagement with residents to keep you informed and incorporate your feedback. This is a
significant priority for the board moving forward. The progress made by approving the articles tonight serves the greater good and I am proud to present the warrant for your consideration. Thank you to the many boards and committees,
department staff and residents who participate in the select boards process. Tonight's warrant is a is collaborative in the making and represents diligent planning and effort to improve services, quality of life, and meet future needs of the residents
of Holliston. The select board's agenda over the past 12 months has been centered on a number of key projects and initiatives moving the town forward. Namely, the DPW project, the factory pond dam and bridge repair, the Norfork Street water main replacement drainage
and sidewalk project, downtown sewer, economic development activities, the town manager act, which included the competitive and successful hiring process for Hollist's first town manager. Again, welcome, Frank. I'd like to take a moment to share a brief update
on several of these. The newly appointed sewer commission has been hard at work over the past few months diving deep into funding sources to lift the capital costs of designing and constructing the system off of local taxpayer dollar uh
local taxpayers using state and federal money. Progress there is being made and the town will learn later in 2025 this year, whether its $7 million grant application to a state program is successful. The commission has also been engaging with downtown property owners
and the town's economic development people to explore benefits and potential downsides of the sewer project. All indications at this time point to a strong need and a desire for sewer in the downtown commercial district, but
the commission's work continues in this area. Economic development activities have changed in Hollston in the past few years with new efforts to strengthen opportunities for growth and support and better support existing businesses. The town hired a part-time economic
development coordinator initially with a state earmark to pay for the position and now through the operating budget. Our coordinator is halfway through a three-year work plan to date that focuses on outreach to businesses, encouraging local shopping, and
attracting new businesses. A few highlights of the past 18 months successes include visitor maps throughout the downtown, a visit from the Boston Zip Trip, Boston 25 Zip Trip program to promote local tourism, and an expanded farm day
event. The factory pond dam and bridge repair project is ahead of schedule, on budget, and likely to return much, if not all, of the money appropriated by town meeting last October. Many thanks to the dedicated town staff who work closely
with our state partners to secure as much grant funding as possible to nearly eliminate the cost of the repair from the local taxpayer. In October, town meeting approved a $50,000 local match for a state program that is sending $200,000
federal dollars to Holliston to improve the Whitney and Washington Street intersection. The do design work has just started and in addition to intersection improvements at Washington and Whitney, there will be the project will likely include a sidewalk extension
from Locust Street, filling a gap in the town's sidewalk network as well as improve the rail trail crossing on Washington Street. When we have the design plans in hand, the town will return to the same state program for construction costs to complete the
project in the near future. Has this slide been up the whole time? Well, then I should ask for forgiveness because I did not ask for permission to share. This is my mother. She's in the back there. I didn't think you were coming tonight. She didn't give me forgiveness,
so that's the problem. Um, I intend to highlight a few critical articles in the warrant for your special attention tonight. But before I do, I would like to tell you that outgoing town ad town administrator Travis Hearn left the town of Hollist in very good shape with strong multi-year budget forecasting,
strong reserve funds, and deliberate careful planning to address future fiscal challenges. Through Travis Ahern's professional skill and financial expertise, the town handled a difficult budget this year without reduction in services while preparing the town to
make progress on its priorities in this upcoming fiscal year. Tonight's warrant asks for town meetings approval to continue progress. I would like to state clearly that there are no financial alarm bells ringing in the town of Holliston. We are well poised to hand
fiscal and operational management of the town to incoming town manager Frank Travasio who has the financial experience from his career working at the state's division of local services and as assistant town man assistant town administrator in neighboring Medfield. I
asked town meeting to trust the past four years of the town's budget process and to trust the select board's process for advancing goals and priorities in fiscally responsible ways. As we look to start fiscal year 2026 on July 1st with
Hollist's first town manager ready to go, I respectfully ask town meeting to approve the articles presented tonight so progress can continue. The request tonight to enter a three-year leaseto own agreement for town street sweeper is triggered by
increasing contract costs and unmet needs with our current model for contracting services contracting services. Street sweeping is more than fall leaf pickup here in Hollist. Our downtown commercial areas are hightraic areas that need regular sweeping. And a
street sweeper responds to road washouts and other emergency cleanups and is required to comply with the town's storm water management permit. The town follows a five-year capital improvement budget plan to forecast future project
and equipment needs. Delaying progress on projects and delaying equipment purchases exposes the town to cost escalation through inflation and other factors, ultimately costing the taxpayer more. as we will as we have heard recently from the town's facility
manager on the Adams school roof project and why you'll see in the capital requests an additional $750,000 included in the article to complete the roof project this summer. The requests listed in the article represent those from the capital improvement plan that were
collaboratively reviewed by staff and the capital subcommittee and presented to the select board before the warrant was finalized. There are additional changes that you'll see in the finance committee recommendations. However, I'm here to state that those did not follow best practice process and will need the
finance committee to explain to town meeting, which I'm sure they will do in time. The DPW project is approved by voters because the buildings are long past their useful life and because the select board has shown its commitment to
keeping vot voters updated on the project as it advances. This is what we're here tonight to do. You see the request tonight because the intended cross street site has proven difficult to obtain from Lancort and there is diminishing confidence in construction
starting for a new facility in time to replace failing buildings. The town of Hollston is faced with rising construction costs on this project as are all communities. We have limited options and further deteriorating conditions on the current buildings
which are beyond rehabilitation. We must take action to prepare for failed or critically unsafe buildings while also continuing to explore site options and additional project feasibility. The select board is taking
the responsible step tonight to ask town meeting to repurpose repurpose previously approved again previously approved $7 million from the capital expenditure fund for the reasons stated in the article before you. Although the select board has discussed the DPW
facility project numerous times at recent meetings and a public forum, we did ask our consultants Weston and Samson to have a representative here tonight. If technical questions come up, Weston and Samson is ready to respond. I think I'm going to take that as
forgiveness. This is the question. This is the vote the photo I needed permission for. I got a thumbs up. Okay. Sidewalks are consistently and repeatedly supported by voters. The town has made real progress repairing and reconstructing our network of sidewalks
and ramps, prioritizing the downtown areas and around each public school, Blair Square, and access to the rail trail. These are places with higher number of vulnerable users and prot potential conflict with other road users. They are areas visited by people on foot or bike every day of the year in
all weather for all different reasons, shopping, errands, commuting, recreation. The select board is committed to making Hollist accessible and safe for people of all abilities. It is an equitable way in which we make Holliston welcoming and safe for
everyone. After not funding the repair program fully in fiscal year 2024 and not at all in fiscal year 2025, the select board is asking tonight for $1 million to further reduce the town's backlog to the repairs needed. Like the school roof project in the capital
budget, completing work now saves taxpayer inflationary costs later. A modern network of sidewalks is an equity issue, a quality of life issue, and a safety issue. And ADA compliance is not something that the
town can delay. It is the law and compliance has very real benefit for people with disabilities who live in, work in, and visit Hollist. The town engineer was first presented as a cost-savings addition to town staff by town staff several years
ago with an eye to the programmatic stabilization fund to kickstart the position. The decision to present the position to town meeting was deferred while the town moved to a regional dispatch command center and advanced life support ambulance service in the
past few years. The priority for the use of the programmatic stabilization fund was these two services. Today however we have realized the cost savings of both and the programmatic stabilization fund is repaid and ready as was intended with
its creation in October 2022. The fund can cover the cost of the town engineer position in one year with cost savings through the new position paying the fund back in the next year. Currently, the town is losing out on cost savings without a town engineer.
We pay more for the service through consultants as well as miss out on opportunities to apply for state and federal grant programs without this service inhouse. Not having the technical engineering services in Hollist this winter to complete an application for the state's
culvert replacement grant program means that the town has to ask for local taxpayer dollars to complete this critical project instead. This request tonight can be found in article 19 as a critical need to replace to maintain the current operations at the DPW on the
Arch Street site through a culvert replacement. With this I conclude my report to town meeting. I thank you for your time and attention. I thank you for being here tonight, for carefully deliberating the articles, for listening to the comments that you're about to hear, for weighing the pros and cons of
all uh and hopefully agreeing to make the progress that the select boards put before you in this warrant. And at this time, I respectfully ask that you turn your attention to the finance committee chair, Vin Murphy, who will present the report of the finance committee to town meeting. Thank you.
on to article two, Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Chris. Okay, so welcome. Um, thank you, Tina. So, first thing I want to just say was a budget process. We went through it. We it was
a relatively easy bud budget process compared to other ones. Last year we had to do with override and other things like that. So just to highlight a couple things, the revenues and sources. So property tax levy is increasing by
$1.47 million which is in line with 2 and a.5% prop 2 and a half. New growth we're budgeting for 325,000. Net state aid is going to be 11.02. O2, which is a $495,000 increase from last year. This
is the House figure. Now, the House, the Senate could decrease it. They usually don't, but we anticipate them leaving it like it is. They might give us more, but maybe not. Local receipts, we're budging 11 $175,000 increase from last year. So the
total omnibus, this is the fine point numbers we're budgeting we're going to be voting on is $77 million. Now this has increased $2.5 million from last year, which include the override that we all voted on, plus the money that came in from surplus for
special ed. Now, the school's budget increased by $1.4 million or 3.26. Most of it was related to salaries which they as you may know they had their contract negotiations so is all embedded
in their all increases. Now Keith though did go down that's because of the number of students have decreased. Now the thing that we have to be aware of in the horizon is that they're building a new school. They got permission from the state and they're in the reimbursement.
So that will impact in this us in the future. Couple things that did also increase. Employee benefits went up by 353,000 and Middle Sex County retirement system is going up 339,000.
So other postretirement OPED, the infamous OPED that we've spoken about many years, we've kept it the same as last year 1.25. Now this is slightly lower than our historical which was 1.5 but we felt as though where it is and
plus we've seen gains and everything from the investments. So we could sustain 1.25 and still be at a good position and be fully funded by the target date of I believe it's
2035. Couple articles of note. Snow and ice deficit. We're recommending at this time to postpone it. There's a $25,000. The recommendation in the article is to move money from the reserve fund. We're a little hesitant because that'll leave us only with about
$99,000. We don't know what could be coming. We don't anticipate things, but we're we're warts here on the finance committee. So, we'd like to say let's hold off. We'll worry about it at year end and will allow us money to move things around if there's something that comes up between now and the end of the
year. Also, article 17, we're all in favor of having the lease for the sweet sweeper. However, we want to just say, let's just appropriate the whole entire money rather than coming back every single year for
um the additional monies for the lease. It's silly because if we're saying yes to the lease, we're going to be purchasing the equipment at the end of the term. Let's just appropriate $344,487 now rather than wait and do it every single
year. Now, couple notes. This warrant article is slightly different from the one we spoke about than the one that's in the warrant. The reason was because we added a couple things. If you notice, a
couple things are school supplies. That was from the school was coming in. They need a couple additional things for um scheduling and things like that. And the water department is $110,000 for two
pickup trucks. So we recommended federal um expenditure of those funds. Now it is different and I don't think it's bad practice as we were pointed out by the select board chair but we received the
information our subcommittee the capital subcommittee received information from the schools and also from the water department we feel as though that's sufficient and it makes sense to do it. Next thing article 19 we spoke about that Tina spoke about that a lot. We're
not we're well aware of the situation going on with the whole cross street. Ideally, we'd get cross street, but it's lane court and who knows what happens in lane court. So, our concern is to recommend the whole entire $7 million. So what we're
saying at this point, we're recommending a million dollars, 500 for the covert and then additional 500,000 for whatever reason, but to help for the DPW plus if there's additional things that come up between now and then. We have October meeting and we
have the fall um May meeting. So at those points the select board can come and ask let's repurpose additional funds rather than blank check of saying the $7 million which was originally earmarked for the purpose of building new DPW
facility. Now I understand yes all these different things relate to the DPW facility but it could be pouring good money into bad and I think it needs to have some sort of check on it. The committee agreed and that's why we're recommending only using a million of the 7 million.
Next, article 21. We thoroughly agree their sidewalks need to be repaired. There's new sidewalks, but the original working group stated they wanted to use free cash, not capex monies. Usually free
cash is used and dispersed in the fall, not now in the spring. So, we understand there's some projects that could take place this summer. So, we're saying, okay, let's go ahead. Let's do 500,000. Let's come back in fall when October we have the free cash and we'll do
additional monies at that point for the additional sidewalks ADA compliance and etc. Town engineer there was another issue. So with the town engineer our concern was it's coming from the programmatic
stabilization fund. The purpose of the programmatic stabilization fund was to issue to start projects that can generate revenue or other things. So our concern with
using the whole 135,000 for the programmatic stabilization fund is this does not actually reduce or generate revenue or reduce specific costs that we can say earmarked. All the costs that this will be reducing relate to capital
expenditures. So we said this needs to be added to the omnibus budget, the main budget in somebody's department. We're all in favor of doing it. We just don't think the funding should be coming from the programmatic stabilization fund because monies are earmarked and going
to be paid back, for example, the ambulance service. Once we get that up and fully running, we'll be putting money back for the ambulance service. That was not what we expect to happen with the town engineer. So, we're recommending delaying this and bring that town engineer into one of the
departments in the budget for next year or we can come and do it in October if so desired if we foresee it and we see we have money for that. So next line article 24 we met with uh the chair of the community preservation chair
committee and they told us everything that they are recommending. So we said in the article and the warrant we're going to make a recommendation and we are recommending favorable action for everything listed underneath the article. So lastly I just want to say
thank you. Thank you to all the town employees, town administrator's office, the treasur's office, the accountants's office. Special thanks to acting town manager, assistant town manager, Kathleen Buckley, who's been wearing two hats for the last several months, the
treasurer Chris Haymons, town accountant, Gina Patel, and the former town manager who was probably enjoying himself, Travis Hearn. And thank you to all the department heads. you put a lot of work into doing the budgets and we appreciate
your hard work and thank you for all the volunteers who serve on the committees. Thank you. Okay. All right. For purposes of the record, I'm going to ask us return to article one. We had a motion made to hear from the select person that we've already heard from. Is there a second to
receive that report? Second. All those in favor say I. Those opposed? So voted. In respect to article two, we've heard the report. The motion was to receive the annual report of the Finn Commons. A second for that. All those in favor say I. I. So voted. As a result of the
consent agenda, we're going to advance beyond the next uh several articles to article 10 unpaid bills. This article is to see if the town will vote to raise and appropriate a transfer from available funds. a sum of money for unpaid bills from prior years or take
any action relative there too. I'm happy to report there are no known unpaid bills of the prior year. So the motion is moved to indefinitely postpone article 10. Is there a second? All those in favor indefinite postponement say I. I. So voted. Thank you. Article 11,
current fiscal year transfers, to see if the town will vote to raise and appropriate or transfer from available funds a sum of money for the purpose of supplementing various town accounts of the town's fiscal year 2025 annual operating budget previously voted by the town under article 15 of the warrant for
the May 13, 2024 annual town meeting or take any action relative there too. And the amount suggested is respect to uh snow and ice. The ex the explanation is snow and ice is legally allowed to run over its annual appropriation of $250,000 and be corrected in the spring.
The 202425 ran over budget in early February with numerous uh storm events. The reserve front balance for 2025 after this article and previous use would be 99,604 that you heard Mr. Murphy reference to be used by the fincom
between May 7th, 2025 town meeting and the end of the year. So, the motion is move to raise and appropriate from the town's reserve fund $25,000 for the purpose of supplementing various accounts of the town's fiscal year 2025 annual operating budget previously voted by the town under
article 15 of the warrant for the May 14th, 2024 annual town meeting. Is there a second? Select board want to be heard. Finom. Yes. Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to indefinitely postpone this. As I
mentioned, we in the fincom would like to have that money reserved so we can make sure we have enough money to cover extraordinary things that may happen between now and the end of the year. So, we also have the ability to move monies around from budgets. We have quote unquote as Ken likes to call it
superpowers and it's baked in the whole legislation, the state and everything like that. So, with the state elect boards and our approval, we can move transfer money between budgets. So, we just don't want to be keled up and hauled for the 205 right now. Give us
the ability and it'll get paid off so we don't have to worry about it. Usually, the last time we did it, it was small amounts, but 205 is a lot. So, is there a second to the motion to definitely postpone? Okay, that's open for discussion. Anybody wish to be heard? Seeing none, then we'll move
first of vote on the motion to indefinitely postpone having been made and seconded. All those in favor of indefinite postponement, please say I. I. Those opposed, that carries. That article was indefinitely postponed. Article 12, uh, to amend the
consolidated personnel bylaw, section 29, job and wage classification plan to see if the town will vote. Part: 2
amendment. Is there is there a second to this motion that I've just read? Yes. Thank you. There was. Okay. Okay. So, bear with me. The finance committee and I recommend the rec that the town appropriate
$1,683 800 sorry 1,683750 from the capital expenditure fund for the following items. Bear with me. 275,000 for ambulance replacement supplies sorry 12,150 for town hall HVAC
24,000 for wastewater treatment sensor 350 from police station HVAC 99,000 for high school auditorium lighting try to read my own writing 750 for Adam school roof replacement
23,600 do for school supplies 75 5,000 for school IT infrastructure upgrades, $75,000 for school exterior doors. Okay. And then $110,587 from the water enterprise fund
for two four-wheel drive pickup trucks. Is there a second to Mr. Murphy's motion to amend? Second. Ken, go right ahead. Just just to clarify on this one, um
this is not a difference of opinion. The warrant was published before the capital plan was fully updated. So these additional expenses were part are part of the capital expenditure plan. They went through the normal capital planning process. Um they were requests that were
made during the budget process. So this is just an updated list of capital. It's not shouldn't be anything controversial. This is all stuff the town had requested of the finance committee. Okay. Anybody else want to be heard? Yes. Was Yeah, there was a second to his
motion. Was there? Yeah. Thank you. Lixie Kerry, 37 Green Street. I would like to know about the two pickup trucks. I just don't like that they're just show the $110,000 for the DPW pickup trucks. Can someone explain that to me why we need
that? Anybody here from DPW that can respond to that of FINCOM or select board? We do have the motion first. Yes. And this was on the original, but he also touched on his motion to amend, did he not? Well, it includes it.
Includes it. Okay. Got it. Okay. Besid, do you want to be heard, Miss Buckley? Do you want to be heard? Excellent over here. Kathleen Buckley, acting town manager. Um, this is
just acting town manager. Thank you. Um, this is just part of our regular replacement of vehicles that's on the warrant tonight coming out of the water enterprise fund. Thank you. Yes, sir. Do you want to be heard? Michael Savorski, 217 Gwin Drive. Uh
just curious about the replacement of HBAC for a brand new police station. Could you explain that, please? Mr. Murphy. Well, the first off, the police station is Hold on. Wait, use the microphone so I can hear you at home. Uh the police station, believe it or not, is not that new. Um I think, correct me
if I'm wrong, James Kee. I saw him. He's it's like 20 years old. So, it's just like nature. Certain things upgrade. So, they need to upgrade it and needs to be replaced. Regarding the H the pickup trucks, they're Ford F-150s, but also
has the package for the plow, so they can use that. Um, and then there's other aspects to it. So, it's not unreasonable from our looking at it and reviewing it. Mr. Keys, would you like to?
No, he's hiding. Okay. Okay. Answer your question. Further discussion. Are you still wondering about the police station? That seems Sorry, that that seems to be pretty excessive as far as compared to all the other adjustments and improvements.
Yeah. Direct your comments to me, sir. Sorry. That's okay. Yeah, we're we're looking at almost a fifth of the overall budget just for the police station just for the HVAC. I mean, is that a competitive budget or quote or is that I
mean, again, it seems like that's quite a bit of the budget. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. James Keys, facility director for the town of Hollston. Uh the uh systems are about 22 years old and there's three
separate systems. There's air recovery units, there's makeup air units, there's uh a boiler and there's a chiller system. It's a very complicated system. Uh it uh has a series of components that have failed. And so this is for
replacement and upgrade of those components. It's needed because we have moisture problems in that building. Uh and uh we're we're rusting firearms. We're also um you know creating mold on uniforms and things. So it's a pretty
serious problem that we need to address. Okay. Thank you sir. Further discussion. Yes. Pamco 180 fisks rate. Can you please tell me how much is coming out of the capital expenditure fund in this amended
and how much out of ret water retained earnings? I can't come up with the total. I think it was 1,683,750 from the capital expenditure fund and 110,587 from the water enterprise fund if I have it correct. Is that right, Ben? Thank you. Is that right, Mr.
Murphy? Yes, Mr. Thank you. Yep. Further discussion. Yes, sir. Good evening, Daryl Abby, 351 High Street. Um, I don't have an issue with the uh estimated cost or the breakdown
of that cost. And perhaps my question is more procedural. Uh, in article 16, uh, we approved the allocation uh to raise funds in the amount of 1.8 million for capital. Yeah. I'm sorry. You got to keep your voice up for so
everybody can hear you, sir. Okay. I'm sorry. Thanks. Um, so, uh, in article 16, we agreed to approve the appropriation of 1.8 million, uh, uh, to move to the capex fund. And here, we're taking money right back out of the capex
fund in the amount of 1.6 million. So, are we just taking money out of one pocket and putting it back in the same pocket again? uh but it's also by required to do that because there's different rules regarding the capex fund of how that's
treated versus the money that goes into it. This capex is more like a syncing fund. So you just say well how much and they keep track of how much has been spent against it and anything that hasn't been spent gets returned back into the capex fund. So that's the logic and logistic behind it. Plus we put more
money in hopefully in the fall. So okay, thank you. Thank you. Further discussion. All right. If not, we'll proceed to mo to vote on the uh motion to amend advanced by Mr. Murphy and Dr. Shada and properly seconded. Uh all
those in favor say I. Those opposed. So voted. Now we move to a vote on the main motion as amended for the increased amounts of the amounts identified and the motion to men you just approved. All those in favor say I. Those opposed? So voted. uh article
19 facility for department of public works design and engineering construction and administration to see if the town will vote to repurpose $7 million appropriated from the capital expenditure fund under article 21 of the 2023 annual town meeting for the
following purposes. acquisition and/or lease and installation thereof of temporary DPW facilities, including critical infrastructure repairs necessary to maintain the current operations to include but not limited to modular offices, bathrooms. Two, feasibility, engineering, and design
studies and services such as but not limited to traffic studies, environmental impacts and butter impacts, etc. related to the previously proposed alternative to be determined sites for the new DPW facility or take any action relative there too. replace
the fi failing culvert, a structure over a body of water to continue to safely access the site. The motion is move to accept the repurposing of the $7 million previously appropriated from the capital expenditure fund for the DPW facility in
the Maytown meeting of 2023 for the purpose stated purposes stated in the article. Is there a second? Let me note for the record that the finance committee recommends that the town reappropriate $1 million of the $7 million with $500,000 used for the
culvet replacement and 500,000 to be used to maintain the existing facilities while a new site is still being studied 6 with Matt Leachch absent. Uh so we'll proceed. I'm sorry, M. Do you want to make a motion to amend? I do, sir. Yeah. Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion to
amend the motion and to Hold on a second. Did I get a a second on the main motion? No. Did you second on the main motion? I second. You did. You second. Thank you, sir. Now, go ahead. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to amend the first motion to reappropriate only $1 million
so that of the $7 million that was appropriated back in 2021. So, $500,000 will be used for the covert replacement and 500 will be used to maintain the existing facilities while a new site is being studied. Okay. Is there a second
to that? That in writing. I'm sorry. What? That in writing. You give that to us in writing, please. Thank you. We'll we'll we'll continue the debate while it's we'll advance the debate while you're doing that for us, V. Thank you. All right. That uh the motion is amended as seconded. So that's open for
discussion. Sir, you want to be heard? Go right ahead. David Gan, 72 Water Street. Uh Mr. moderator on the the language of that referring to the failing culvert a structure over a body of water to continue to safely access the existing DPW site. Uh can I get someone to
specify which failing culvert we're talking about? Sure. Fair question. Anybody able to help us with respect to what culvert they're talking about? It's article 20. So it's between
well Ben Mr. Murphy. Listen to me sir. We have people at home. I want to encourage you to speak but wait to talk to you. Come up to the microphone so everybody can hear you please. Thank you. It is between Sorry, I just start. Um 89 and 92 Arch Street.
I haven't been there. So in article 20 you're saying? Yes. It's all referencing the one same in article 20. So what will happen is we approve article 19 as amended or even if we keep it um we'll just indefinitely postpone or don't even do anything with article 20.
So okay sir go ahead you've got the floor Mr. M. The reason that I raised the point is that uh in April of 2023 as an abuter to the br the bridge on water street we were informed that the scope of work involved uh several of those
bridges those granite bridges and at the time I I made it widely known that I was opposed to such a move uh because those bridges have historical significance. They were built in 1850. They they were built to bridge Mudville to the rest of the town. They were using the granite that was the s that was the bread and
butter of the town. They're of historical significance. Okay. I in the two years since I haven't heard anything referring to to uh to the culvert. We always call it a bridge on water street. And I just wanted to make sure that what
we were voting for here was very specifically keyed to the culvert on Arch Street. And since the language there is just vaguely referring to a culvert, I I'd like to make a motion to amend that it in article 19 that the No,
we're not on article 19. We're in this article. Oh, and I'm sorry. Go ahead. Excuse me. I stand corrected. We do now. We're going to have a motion to amend that motion. You you you're seeking to amend Mr. Murphy's motion by
spec giving greater specificity to which culvert we're talking about. Correct. Mr. M. Okay. Go ahead. All right. So, I'd like to add I'm sorry. Is there a dispute? Is are we all on the same page that the culpit that's being described is the one that this gentleman's concerned with? Tina, I'm just going to
ask Robert Walker to speak to that. So, let me ask let me have this gentleman speak and he may address your concern. Your motion may be unnecessary if we're all on the same page. Go ahead, sir. If you will, please come up to the microphone, identify yourself, and let the folks hear and at home know what you can share
with us. Robert Walker, WDDBW director. The culvert that we are referring to replacing is the one that's on Arch Street right by Pleasure Point. No, no, these are the three they want to repurpose it for. Yeah. Thank you. A
million bucks isn't going to do it for any of those. No, no. This is what the money was originally appropriated for. No, no. This is what they want to change it to. Mr. Moderator. I'm sorry. Go ahead, sir. Right. Uh if we're of that understanding and given that that's on the record at
town meeting, I would withdraw my motion to to have it spelled out in in the record and uh and appreciate the clarification. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Yes, sir. Mr. Cronin, good evening. John Cronin, 40 Holly
Lane. Um, I'd ask the finance committee to um address the reasons why they are looking to amend article 19 from 7 million to 1 million. This article was sponsored by the select board. I have some background and knowledge on why
it's needed, what the purpose were. I think it's well defined in our warrant article this evening. It's important to note that this town meeting is called by the select board through the warrant that's delivered to you by the select board. Our finance committee makes recommendations to it. This is a very,
very complicated project. Yes, Pam, it is true. It is. And I'm concerned that the finance committee is making amendments to warrant, excuse me, amendments to these motions without the full knowledge of the project. They simply asked for you to
change the 7 million to 1 million, but didn't explain why. How come? Could I please get an explanation from our finance comm Mr. Mur There you go, Mr. Murphy. Right to the microphone. Thank you, sir. Here's my motion. Oh, great. Thanks. Give it to Mr. Talment to get
his blessing, please. Thanks. Secondly, I'm sure you fell asleep during my presentation, but I did address it during the presentation. Now, let's keep it on a high level. Mr. Murphy, go ahead. Okay, go ahead. So, the reason we want to we are not aware of anything. They didn't communicate to
us about what the whole purpose of the $7 million. We understand there is a reason for certain things. We said let's give us budgets as we all do normally for anything. We haven't received anything. So while we understand they're
making a recommendation, it is our responsibility as the finance committee to check these recommendations. Is there any backing to it? Is there reason for certain things? We're all in favor. We understand there's stuff that has to be done that those two facilities are
falling apart, but it is checks and balances and we're just saying slow down. Provide us information. Bring it to us and then we can make a recommendation in October or next May. So, Culver is fine. Yeah. Feasibility is
gone, but 500 to maintain the existing facility that's not there. So, I'm just a little concerned that we're like really just changing it so much that it bears no relationship. That's okay. I'm sorry. Go
ahead. Further discussion. Yes. Yeah. Nope. In the middle, you'll yield. All right. Come on up and stand on the side if you will. I'll get to you next. Thank you. Yes, sir. Uh Michael Tami, 25 Morgan Toy. Can someone explain
this to me in plain English? So the way I understand it two years ago we said DPW facility is basically falling apart. So we allocated 7 million and so in the since time we've spent I don't know what percentage of that 7 million uh maybe
not now we haven't come up with something so now we're saying we want to spend the 7 million just as a stop gap to something else then we might spend 45 million. So I'm I'm kind of lost in all this and so perhaps somebody could just explain this to me in plain English.
Tina wants to explain. Tina, go a great if you can respond to that. Thank you. It's a fair question. In 2023, the article to move forward with the DPW facility, the project was 7 million to be appropriated from capital expenditure
and 23 million to be uh appropriate raised rather through excluded and non-excluded debt. Um the trigger was that it would be sight specific to Cross Street especially and only the exclusion the debt component of it. The capital
expenditure money uh capex funds were not specific to the site which is why we're here tonight. We are not here to ask for additional debt spending for development of a DPW project because we are still in sight selection.
The $23 million of the total 30 back in 2023 is not being discussed tonight. Tonight, we're looking for repurposing the $7 million for the reasons specified in the article.
Okay. It's not specific to the site. And if I if I may take a moment. No, no, go right ahead. I'm sorry. I thought you were done. Excuse me. Uh, in terms of the why $1 million, uh, why why is it limited? I asked the same question. Um, we hear from the public through our
public forums, public engagement, public comment, through emails sent to us, through meetings that each of the select board members have one-on-one with concerned residents. We hear a number of concerns and questions asked related to the feasibility of any site. For example, we hear questions about what
will the traffic impact be. We hear questions about what would site development look like on any particular chosen site. Uh we have been asked to and we have currently open it closes in two days a request for proposals for privately owned land. Uh we would have
to have the acquisition costs for privately owned land if we were to move forward in that direction. So we are responding to the public feedback we have from residents for the past several weeks and months now in limiting us to a $1 million um appropriation for a
repurposing rather of the 7 million. I I do do not see that as necessary and it also limits our ability. 500,000 we uh have estimated for the covert replacement leaving $500,000 for us to do all of the work that you see outlined
in the article. So any acquisition costs, any exploration of a site, uh any feasibility, uh as well as perhaps importantly to state any interim solution we need if and when the buildings fail. And the the point about
where are the cost estimates for the finance committee to review. That's a very difficult thing to provide in the sense that we don't know what will cause the buildings to fail. We don't know the extent of the failure. So we can't pro put forward a cost for a future uh
unknown certainty uh as to what types of buildings we'd have to have as that interim solution. So to cap it at $500,000 to accomplish the three bullets within the article is to limit our ability to respond to resident concerns to do that additional
feasibility study on a number of issues that have been brought forward. It limits our ability to start any process to acquire private own land if that's the direction that we uh end up going forward with town meeting feedback. Of course, it limits our ability to explore
any of that and it limits our ability uh with the interim solutions that we will uh anticipate needing to make in the coming in the coming years. So, it puts handcuffs on the select board on the town's ability to progress this project. Um we are not here to ask town meeting
to be town project managers on a complicated multi-year significant project. returning to town meeting to get additional repurposing approval from the $7 million that was already approved in 2023 is to make town meeting a project
manager. We have staff, we have consultants, we have a dedicated select board that frequently puts us on agendas to talk about in public meeting. We are committed to bringing this back to the public. Uh so speaking not so much to the prior um resident's question but uh
to the amended motion, I really urge town meeting not to approve the amended motion. It puts again handcuffs on the town's ability to make progress on this project and it makes town meeting project managers again on a multi-year multi-million dollar
complicated project. And I don't believe that's the intent of town meeting or the purpose for town meeting. We have staff, we have consultants, and we have a dedicated select board um to uh guide through this process and keep uh feedback from town meeting and residents coming in and keep town meeting
informed. Thank you, Mr. Sparrow. [Applause] Yeah, I want to make two quick points here. Uh Ben Sparrow, uh vice chair of the select have to be quick. Take your time. It's an important article. Go ahead. Okay. Um the two points I want to
make uh the first is is that um any site selection will go through this body just to be clear here. So you know the select board is putting things forward. This the town meeting is going to be able to approve the site. We don't know quite
what that will look like in the future but I don't want people to think that the $7 million is going to go to a site that town meeting does not have a have a a say in. The second point I want to make is the finance committee's recommendation includes uh uh let's see what is it $500,000 to be used for
maintain the existing facilities while a new site is being studied. We are not asking to maintain those existing facilities. We are asking for the acquisition or inst or lease installation of temporary facilities because those facilities that are currently existing on Arch Street and
Central Street are in very poor condition and putting $500,000 into them is a bad idea. we it need to be replaced and hence the need for these articles. So, thank you. I just clarification. Mr. Cronin, go ahead then. Mr. Alfred, you you're all set. Okay, Dan, go right
ahead, please. I thought you were waiting to be heard. I am. You yield to Mr. Alfred. What a gentlemanly thing for you to do. Go ahead. Okay. I wasn't. I'm sorry, Lexi. Excuse me. Do you want to go first? No, no. Go go go ahead. Thank Uh so as a member of
the uh the working group back in my my former days oh I apologize Dan Alfred 315 high street with you um in unfortunately actually the the article um from 2023 which is article 21
did actually specify that the $7 million that we were setting aside was actually for the ax cross site. So, we can go back and we can look, but the whole article reads, "Contingent upon a successful vote on the corresponding ballot question on the May 2023 election ballot, which happened and passed, the
finance committee recommends that the town appropriate $7 million from the capital expenditure fund and approve a borrowing authorization to be 75% non-excluded or 17.25 million and 25% excluded or 5.75 million for the per for the proposed article at the 20 cross
street location and that passed 7 to zero by the finance committee. So the $7 million was set aside for accident cross and I've watched the meetings and I've seen the the the presentation from the the select board and there just isn't enough information to understand what they're spending the $7 million on now.
So I think that what the finance committee has proposed is is reasonable gives them some some leeway in case uh there there is something that happens to get some extra um uh what do you what do you units modular
units to to house people. Um, but then we can get a real plan, come back, present it to town meeting because while TW meeting isn't project managers, town meeting is fund allocators and you want to know what you're voting on and what you're spending your taxpayer dollars on. Lexi, thank you.
[Applause] Lexi Kerry, 37 Green Street. Thank you. It's mostly the second bullet. It's the feasibility engineering blah blah blah rel relating to the previously proposed alternative or to be determined sites. I
like the idea of putting handcuffs on this project because I don't like what's being proposed. And when we voted on $7 million, we kind of like the idea of Axton Cross. And I think that there's just not enough consensus that we found
someplace. And I'm afraid you guys are going to go and spend money on something that a lot of people in this town don't want you to spend money on. So I'm in favor of just a million dollars and and putting handcuffs on this project. Mr. Cron, do you want to be heard? It would
appear the shade like speaker. Okay, you yield again. Ken, Dr. Shada, go right ahead. Waiting for 10 minutes. Bill, the uh Ken Shada 676 Fisk. So, just to be clear, um I support 100% what Lixie just said. The reason the finance committee
took this vote was because the select board came to us, not physically, but through the warrant and other things and has said publicly at their meetings, the current DPW facility is in rough shape. We need to do something about it. We all
agreed that there's something that needs to be done. Along with that, they came and said, "Hey, there's this covert right near the existing facility that if it fails, cuts off access to the DPW." So, we looked at it and as proposed, when they said, "We want the seven million." I said, "What do you want it for? Explain to us what you're going to
do. We understand you need money to maintain." When and when we say maintain, that's being semantic what Miss Hine is saying. Maintain means keep the current facilities going in whatever fashion it takes until we have a new site. That may be modular units. We're
not saying put 500,000 into the old buildings if that's not the the smart thing to do. However, it would be an abregation of our responsibility as a finance committee to you, the people who elected us, if a board, whether it be at the
select board or anybody else, no matter what they have the responsibility for, came to us and said, "The town voted to put $7 million towards a specific project. Now, we want you to just agree with us that we can take the money for a similar
project with no details, no cost estimates, nothing. Just give us a $7 million blank check. Then I would expect you to vote all seven of us out of office next year because that would be highly irresponsible. Okay? Instead, we
understood the problem that they were bringing to us that the current facility needs some money to handle some of the issues and that the culvert needs to be replaced to allow the current facilities to keep going while we while they do do their work to try to find a new site.
So, the $1 million came as a result of a asking for cost estimates. When there was talk about the modular units, I specifically talked to the town's officials, not the select board. I will be completely honest because I was at
town hall. So, I was talking to town employees there and I basically said, "Do you have quotes for the modular units? Do you have any quotes for any of the stuff that would be needed to maintain the facility?" No, we're in the process of getting those. So the
fiscally responsible thing for us to do which is what we did was we said look the one thing we know is the 500,000 culvert needs to be replaced. So we'll give them that they need the estimate was the modular units would be a couple hundred thousand. So we said 500,000 that should be more than enough to cover
whatever they need to do in the short term to keep the facility going in a in the proper manner. Okay that's how we came to our recommendation. We are not opposed to at a future town meeting if the select board came in and said, "Hey,
there's there's more costs incurred that we need to take care of there. You know, we're all in support of doing what it takes to make that the current facility last until we get a new one." Right? However, what we don't agree with was
what Lixie said, right? The money was intended to offset the cost you and me and everybody in this room would pay when we go to a new building. It was specifically allocated to lower the tax
impact of the new DPW facility. If we spend the entire 7 million looking for another site or doing other things, then that's 7 million more that all of us have to pay when the time comes. So, we looked at it and said, "We're we're okay
with releasing part of it because we realize we've got this bind. Cross Street isn't coming through as quickly as we thought. They need to do these this work. We'll give them enough money to allow things to continue while they can go off and look at other sites." And when they have a new site, they can come
back to town meeting and say, "Now, give us the rest of the money so that we can do the design work for that." And have the town decide, is this the site we want? as as Miss Carrie pointed out, there are lots of people in this town that do not agree with the sites the select board has been looking at. So why
would we as a town vote to give them $7 million to pursue avenues that we as a town may not want them to pursue? Have them come back to us when they have a site and say, "Give us the rest of the $6 million, the $7 million." We'll be happy to support it if the town says, "Yes, we have a new site. Here's
six the rest of the seven million." But right now, all they've asked for is the covert and to money to keep the existing facilities going. And that's what we're recommending. And we hope you support our our motion to amend. Thank you, Mr.
Cronin. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you. John Cronin, 40 Holy Lean. Um, earlier the uh chair of the finance committee remarked that I must have been asleep when he made his presentation. I was wide awake. I listened to it. Um, and I was vexed then as I am with this answer. What is the $1 million for? I
still don't have an answer. You have a you have a proposed amendment in front of you to spend a million dollars on something that the vice chair just said think we think we need that. So that sounds like a committee overreach to me. They're hijacking an article that the
select board has put before you that I believe is thoughtful and responsive to the plans of this town and the needs of the Department of Public Works. Those buildings are falling down. When they fall down, they have to fix it. They're the ones have to respond. Nobody else. So, they're going to need the resources
to tend to those buildings until the cross street property is ready. It's in land court. It's probably going to be years before it comes out. So, I will ask again, what's the $1 million for? You're about to vote on something. Do you know what it's for? And is it possible that
part of it is not applicable under the terms of an amendment? Could I please get an answer on what the 1 million for? And when you get an answer, I'd like to have a follow-up, please. As I understand the article, the motion is that $1 million
of the 7 million u with 500,000 for the for culvert replacement. The culver's been identified. I think we have an understanding what cover we're talking about. and 500,000 to be used to maintain the existing facilities while a new site is still being studied. I would ask I would ask town council to evaluate
the second portion of that amendment to find out if it is well within the framework of this article and if it is votable. Okay, let me I believe it is too broad and it does not necessarily I I'll refer the question to K. I've looked at that while the debate is ongoing and with respect to the article
that's published before our consideration today. The first bullet point was acquisition or lease and installation thereof of temporary DPW facilities including critical infrastructure repairs necessary to maintain the current operations to include but not limited to modular
offices and bathrooms. this article. The second part of it, the first part covers the culvert that's in part the third bullet point. The second part I think I think 500,000 to be used to maintain the existing facilities while a new site is still being studied could reasonably be
interpreted to include critical infrastructure repairs necessary to maintain the current operations to include but limited not limit to module offices and bathrooms. But I would defer to Mr. Talom and see what he thinks. Officer, go ahead.
Okay. Yeah. Interpretation. All right. Mr. Talon indicates that he defers to me. He thinks mine is a reasonable interpretation. So, it's my view that the amendment is within the scope of the article. I'm not saying to vote in favor of against it, but I think it's properly before town meeting. Thank you, Mr.
Moderator. I will just leave with these remarks. Um, you all should remember that these articles are prepared by the town select board. Um, I would encourage you to reject this motion. This is an overreach of a finance committee into a executive board space. It is classic and
I think it should be rejected. They are not managing the project. The select board is. Please reject this article. Thank you. [Applause] Leo down in 11 Shay Drive. So my my question is the facilities the one on
Arch Street in the other location are they dilapitated? Are they a strong storm? So does any manufacturing get done there? Does any maintenance gets done there of the vehicle equipment and other things? Okay. So I've worked in
construction. You marginal uh units you know uh also if there's any type of manufacturing being done there's also temporary structures that else can be purchased so what is preventing us from just demolishing the structures itself because I assume the soil and the
the land is okay so you can build temporary structures use whatever money that you've allocated or if you've even looked into this use that money that was allocated have the basically the office being one location with you know trailers ers and then another location
before the actual maintenance of the actual vehicles or any type of manufacturing that's being done. Has any of this been looked at and why did that not happen? I guess is my question. Say we have $7 million, you got a million dollars for or 500,000 is going to be
used for the upkeep of the facility. It just seems like you're putting a band-aid on basically a g like a a fire hose. I just don't see the Thank you, sir. Mr. Sparrow. Um, Ben Sparrow, vice chair of the select
board. I don't know if I have to introduce myself every time, but I will out of protocol. Um, so, um, that's what this article is asking for. If you look at the first bullet point, acquisition and or installation thereof of temporary DPW facilities. Yeah, you say that, you know, an office. I'm sorry, sir. They
can't hear you at home over there. This isn't a back and forth. Let Mr. Sprout finish his response. So you Yeah, I saw that. And it said for the bathrooms and all that. I understand that. That's fine. If you're if you're on a, you know, a construction site, you're going to have that for the project man,
estimators, all that great stuff. But I'm I'm more interested in the the, you know, the the mechanics. Yeah. And so if why are we not if I might miss didn't read that, m that would include maintaining current operations, right?
Maintaining current operations. maintaining but but also to include it would be all of those particular parts depend on what failed and where. So basically that the the idea is is to be able to uh maintain the but maintain the
current existing building. No. Okay. Just just operations so acquisition and or lease installation of temporary. Okay. So it's a the intention is if they fail those buildings would not be usable. Therefore we would need some sort of a temporary solution. Okay.
surface of both of them. Okay, that's thank you. Thank you. Question. Who who else wants Can I just make one quick can I make one other quick mo point here? I I understand some of the the concerns here about the feasibility engineering, but one of the things that's coming forward as we talk about these um
additional locations and the results of the RFP is forthcoming is people are asking us for things like traffic studies for things like um you know there might need be needs for soil studies or or some other kinds of studies of the particular locations and we need to be able to have the resources
to accomplish those things in the event those those locations come forward. So I just wanted to make that point clear. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. Go ahead. I'll call on you next. Miss Michelle Zeamer, 583 Winter Street. Um, I just wanted to address the question of
the uh finance committee overreach. Um, this comes right from the bylaws. This is article article 4, section 4. The finance committee shall consider any and all municipal questions for the purpose of making reports or recommendations to
the town, including but not limited to matters relating to the appropriation, the borrowing, and the expenditure of money, municipal debt, property valuations and assessments, and the administration of town offices and departments. So I would question how the
amendment and our excuse me our recommendation is overreach when it is very much within the bounds of the [Applause] bylaw Patricia Boyd 85 Karen Circle it
seems to me the million dollars takes care of bullet one and three Now, up to this point, there have been a lot of work done by our consulting firm. I believe it's Weston and Samson. I watched that meeting. They looked at 12
different sites. I attended the field trip to the Pinerest site. Um, bullet two, where are you getting that money to pay them? And do you need more? Is that what bullet two is about?
No. Tina wants to speak. I'm sorry. Yeah, Tina, go ahead. You can answer her, please. No, it does not pay for the ongoing consulting work with Weston and Samson. We have, I believe, I'm looking to James Keith to confirm. I believe we have $400,000 remaining on our contract with
Weston and Samson for that work. So, no. So, the $400,000, what about purchasing private land? would if someone responds to the RFP and you like the price that they want then do you have to go into the
borrowing for the 23 million or is that from the sec Tina what's ahead please thank you again fair and good questions we would not purchase property without coming to town meeting hard stop right there will
be legal fees to explore the feasibility of purchasing a site uh we'd have to look at title would do a title search and and other deed restrictions. Uh we might want to do soil testing on a site before we would consider it for purchase. Uh so that would be what we could potentially use
the money for. Again, feasibility for uh site development, site selection, site development. There will be no site determination without town meeting approval. Okay, I'll entertain a motion to move the qu I'm sorry. I'll let Pat have one last cause question. No, M.
Boy, go right ahead. Full time sake for you and I. Am I supposed to talk now? Go right ahead. So, just to wrap it up, the $6 million that you need besides their 1 million that they're offering is for bullet two.
Why? I'm so confused. Sorry. The the motion does not identify by now bullet point how much for each one. The motion, the underlying motion was for the seven million for all of those points. Last last speaker. Yes,
you were waiting patiently there. I was going to take a motion to move the question, but I didn't think that'd be fair to you. So, go right ahead. Thank you, Mr. Allison Quinn and 37 Pilgrim Road. Um, so first I understand that article 20 actually covers the $500,000
for the culvert fix. Um so my question about this article is um what will not be able to be done if the amount is reduced from 7 million to1 million or actually to
$500,000 because $500,000 is dedicated and earmarked for the covert. So what will you not be able to do if you don't have that money? What if opportunities for purchasing private land, for doing feasibility studies,
what if those opportunities come up before the next town meeting and you don't have the money allocated to do the research and the studies that are necessary to then bring forward a potential property to the next town
meeting? And if the $7 million is repurposed tonight, are will the select board essentially spend it all or is this just an opportunity to have $7 million available, excuse me, available to do
the feasibility studies and to look into other options, etc. So that's my concern is what can you not do? Yeah. Great. Thank you for the question. Yeah, thank thank you for the question.
Um, so the the the challenge is is as uh um the previous speaker had indicated if we if the money is not allocated here as the RFP comes forward or other sites might come forward um through uh additional processes, we would not be
able to do the studies that are required. The longer we wait, the more this costs. So, when we looked at the um the the the DPW facility when we had a a report a couple couple months ago, uh every year that we wait could cost
between 1 and a half to $3 million. I mean, it's pretty substantial. And with tariffs potentially with other potential um uh inflationary costs uh coming into play, the longer we wait, the more expensive this is. The intention here is to have something in front of this body
in October. We need to move forward quickly or this is going to get more expensive. We're talking 50 million. It could get to 60 million very quickly. The longer we wait and six months is a long time. We want to be able to finish the studies that are required for the results of the RFP and to make sure that
we have all the answers for this body in October and we also don't know how much those temporary facilities could cost. We want to make sure that we're prepared for that. So, thank you. Thank you. Move. Is there a second? There's a motion to move the question. Is there a second? Okay. Okay, I'm satisfied that
the uh motion and the underlying article have been sufficiently debated. So, all those in favor of moving the question say I. Those opposed. So, we we turn to the main motion as amended. And just for purposes of the record, the mo the motion now as amended is to
reappropriate $1 million of the 7 million. I'm sorry, Jay. That was just to move the question. Now, we have to vote on the amendment. Thank you. You've effectively moved the question. So now we're going to move vote on the amendment. The amendment is to reappropriate $1 million of the 7
million with $500,000 for the culpit replacement and 500,000 to be used to maintain the existing facilities while a new site is still being studied. And that been seconded. All those in favor of the motion as amended say I. I. Those opposed.
Uh that's close enough. So we're going to call for hand count on it, please. Thank you. We've got tellers in each uh section segment. Each section has counters. Yeah. Okay. Hold up their hold up their slips. Yeah. Does everybody have a slip that they do?
Okay. All those in All those in favor of the amended motion say hold up your slip, please. What's that? We're voting. You're voting whether or not to amend the main motion [Music]
to correct and then we if it's amend if the amendment passes then we'll vote on the motion as amended. This is on the motion to amend to in effect reduce the requested re re aortionment from 7 million to 1 million tellers report to the town clerk not me.
Thanks. Okay. 15. Thank you. How many tellers we have? We have no for each section. Okay. Who's in the middle? That's what I'm asking. Yeah. What's What's your number there?
33. Thank you. Who's Where's the Patricia? Oh, no. Wait. Jo. Where are you? I thought Joanne was the back.
21. Cuz who's in the middle? I need somebody in the middle. Who's in the mi? Do we have a teller in the middle in Nia? No, we don't. So, so Joanne Joanne did her name. I We apologize for the delay. We need to tell it to handle the Trisha
reassection. What was 21? Thank you, Lisa. What do we have? Five sections. Mhm. Okay. Mhm. Oh, don't hurry. We don't want any
injuries here. 24. She's up there. 24. All right. So, who's going to count? Who's counting the middle? Joanne, can you? Trisha and Joanne, can you decide who's going to count? One of us that
that back middle. We're doing the oppos now. Now, we can do the opposed. We have somebody for every All right. All those opposed, raise their hand, please. Thank you. Oh, let's do that again. Oh, no. I'm sorry. Okay.
Boost your win. the first time in the same section as treasure. Oh, bye Joanne. Oh, you were supposed to be Yeah. I don't know where what I did with my list, but yes. Could you please? Yes. Thank you. Could you have a tag?
Three. Three. One. Three. Yep. One more. Two zero. Is that all of them? That's all of them. Okay. You got 113? Yep. Motion fails. What do we got? 113. No. 106. Yes.
Okay. The results of the motion are all those in favor were 106. All those opposed are 113. Very narrow vote, but the motion fails. Yes. Sure. Mr. Marier J. Larry 146 Karen Circle. Um it's my understanding from
one of the other speakers um earlier that this money that was earmarked as $7 million back in 2023 was specific to to a certain site which was the Cross Street site. So, I guess I'm wondering is how can we even be voting on this
motion at all when it's asking to spend money at a site that is other than the 20 cross street site and it's asking to spend money on arch um the Arch Street Culvert andor to use it for other purposes that might not be related to
the uh cross street site. Could I have that answer please? Jay, you want to handle that? I think the Uh Jay Talererman, town council, we we looked at that question. The the funding in u under article 23 at the prior town
meeting had different components of it. 23 million of it which got locked in also through a debt exclusion vote. The $7 million was a more of a simple cap capital expenditure vote. So that money
was not restricted to being from being amended further which is the article before you here today. So this town meeting has the full authority to change the purpose of the 7 million. Not so easy with the 23 million but the 7
million this town meeting has the authority to uh alter the purpose. Thank you. Okay. The motion to amend. Having failed we now turn to a vote on the main motion. That's the one that was published uh in the warrant, the $7 million figure. I won't take your time
repeating it. All those in favor of the uh motion say I. Those opposed. Jay, can I accept that voice vote? Huh? Okay, we'll hand count again just to make sure. There's a hotly debated article, so let's make sure we have it
right. So, all those in favor of the uh motion, raise their hand, please. What do you got there? What's that? They can hear us on camera. I'm in car 38. Yeah.
Well, go ahead. You can say it. One six. Okay. These folks can speak up. It's not something secretive about it. I know Henry used to whisper. I know. You don't have to whisper. I want the tellers to feel free to speak up loudly what the vote is. It's not se
it's not a secret ballot. Thanks. We got them all. No two more. We have three. I have 381 17 25. 3817. Who gave us 17? Chris. Did you hear
Christine? No, I didn't. Okay, he he told us. Who's doing the middle? Where's Peg? We haven't heard from Peg yet. Peg. So, we need the middle counted. We know that. We know that. Who's the teller for the middle section? It's Peg.
She just walked back in. She had to go. Peg. Peg is here. She's counting. Oh, I got you count. You're counting the middle, right, Peg? Yes. Okay, Peg, are you counting the middle for us?
Put your hands up. All those in favor need to raise their hand in the middle. Yeah. Who is counting the middle? All right, let's in the All right, the middle section. Please hold your hands up again so we could get
an accurate count. In favor of the motion. In favor of the motion. Yes. Just the middle section. And you don't have to whisper. 42. 42. Okay. Those opposed. 138. Say it out loud. It's okay. Thank
you. Thank you. 28 16 16 19 19 Thank you. Okay, so that's great. Okay, the vote is
138 in favor, 84 opposed. So that article, that motion passes. Article 20 uh was conditioned upon whether article 19 passed or did not pass. Since article 19 passed, we're free to bypass article 20. We'll move to article 21 to see if the town will vote
to raise and appropriate or transfer from available funds a sum of money for the purpose of addressing the ADA compliance of existing sidewalks and ramps in town or take any action relative there too. As I recall, the select board addressed this in their comments. So, I'll spare you the
explanation. The motion is moved to raise and appropriate $1 million from the capital expenditure fund for the purpose of addressing the ADA compliance of existing sidewalks and ramps in town as presented in article 21. Is there a second? The finance committee recommends
that the town appropriate $500,000 from the capital expenditure fund for sidewalk maintenance with Matt Leech absent. So yes, Mr. Make a motion to Yes. Vin Murphy from 432 Northfor Street, chair of the FINCOM. So, I'd
like to make a motion to appropriate only $500,000 from the capex fund. Okay. I shall write down. You write it down for us, right? And is it a second? Okay. The motion to amend is properly made and seconded. Do you want to be heard, Mr. Murphy, in in support of your
motion? Sure. You want to write? So, as I So, as I stated in my presentation, the reason we want to postpone or just only spend 500,000 is that the original plan, the working group when they developed all this about
the sidewalks said, "Let's use free cash." So, rather than appropriating half a million dollars all from cap the million dollars from capital expenditure, we're recommending let's do 500,000 and then when we come in October, we'll have some additional monies from free cash. then we'll be
able to say let's appropriate additional monies for the sidewalks. Thank you, Miss H. The select board was the sponsor of the underlying article. So, go right ahead and respond to the uh motion if you will. Just a little history lesson. Back in October 2022, the appropriation
was raise and appropriate from capital expenditure. In 2023, the appropriation was raise and sorry, the the article was raise and appropriate from capital expenditure. We are following our past practice with this article to raise and appropriate from capital expenditures. We're not deviating from our past
practice. Thank you. And how about the amount? The suggestion is that it be reduced and by 50%. Yeah, a reduction in 50% would mean that projects that are backlogged that are in the pipeline with DPW ready to go to to perform um would be delayed. Uh the
costs would be higher when they are completed. Uh we have projects that are lined up for the summer with money that's remaining from the prior appropriation and projects that are lined up for the fall. If this is successful tonight to go forward, those would be delayed. Uh and when we come back to to appropriate as the finance uh
committee chair suggested in October, we would be out of the construction season heading into the winter. They would be delayed until next spring, most likely at the earliest and the cost would we anticipate would be higher due to all the obvious reasons. So, uh, we're looking to do a million dollars to address the backlog with known projects
that are waiting in the pipeline using the capital expenditure fund as we have done with both prior articles. Thank you, Mr. Shada, Dr. Shada, please. And Shada 676 Fisk. Um, just comment a
couple things in October when we appropriate from the capital expenditure fund. A lot of that is because we have the free cash number and logistically what we do is we take the free cash and we put it into the capital expenditure fund and then we appropriate it from there. So it's semantic to say everything's always come out of the
capital expenditure fund. We do it in October for a reason because in October we have the number. We know how much we can put towards it. That was the agreement of the working group was to wait till we had free cash in October to make an allocation. As far as impacting ongoing
work, the town has already appropriated well north of $2 million. I think it's closer to three. In fact, it may be over three at this point for the sidewalk work. The Stantech report that governs all this said $1.8 million is what it would take to bring all the sidewalks up
to ADA compliance. We keep hearing ADA compliance over and over again and obviously it's very important. But what's really happening is if you look at the Stantech report, it says in detail that the money is not just for ADA. It's for new sidewalks. It's for repair of existing sidewalks, which is
all good. I'm not arguing against that. Okay. But when we looked at when we looked at the the money in the capital expenditure fund and what we looked at what was planned for today and what is on the capital expenditure plan for the fall, there's
concern that we are spending more than we're putting in which is obviously unsustainable in the long term. Okay. The reason we wanted to lower this to 500,000 was because we we got the status of what's going on. We were told that the existing
money, okay, the existing monies from prior appropriations have not been fully expended. They've been committed, but the projects haven't been done yet, and they're scheduled to be done over this summer through August 30th. And as you know, winter is not sidewalk season. None of the work is done when the
weather gets too cold. So we felt that by giving an additional 500,000 we could make sure that all the work that needed to be done this summer would get done that was presented to us. Okay, was presented to us and that in October when we had the free cash number
and we had an idea as to what the other capital requests were going to require. We could then put more money which wouldn't get used until next year, next paving season if you want to call it that. So, this was a way to make sure the sidewalk work would continue while
also being financially responsible by saying we need to wait till October because the total amount of capital requests that are sitting in front of us right now over $4 million. We put 1.8 million in at this town meeting. We've already appropriated more, you know,
about that amount, right? As was pointed out before, we have another 2 million waiting for appropriation in October. So the the sole reason for lowering it from a million to 500,000 was to keep the project going but to allow us to get
better visibility into future capital needs because we cannot continue to spend four and 5 million from the capital expenditure fund and only put in 1.8 million every May. We've been able to do that in the past because free cash
has supplemented that. That's been our primary use of free cash. We come here every fall and we say when we have the number, we stick it into into the capital expenditure fund after we do a couple of other little housekeeping things. So, all we're asking here is not to we're not killing the sidewalk project. We're not causing any grave
harm. We're just saying give them enough to get through this paving season, the 500,000, and then in the fall when we have better clarity, we'll give them the other 500,000 if we can afford it. Because the reality of the situation is, and we haven't talked about this much tonight, but the reality of the
situation is last year was a very difficult budget year. Everybody knows inflation has been killing a lot of things, okay? Inflation kills town budgets because we're limited by Prop 2 and a half. We have at least half a million dollars of expenses we know are
coming with certainty in fiscal 27. So, we're starting out already with a $500,000 hole. So, I would certainly ask that you support our recommendation of 500,000, which allows the sidewalk work to continue and allows us to get
better fiscal clarity before we commit another 500,000 to the ongoing work. Thank you. Further discussion on the motion to amend. Yes, Tina, go ahead, please. She yielded. That's right. Go ahead, sir. Sir, go ahead.
Uh, Mike Tambi, 25 Morgan's Way. Can the select board give precise details about what projects would not happen if it were go like specific streets, specific sidewalks, not just backlog projects? You beat me to it. So, thank you for the question. Um, so it is not just ADA
accessibility, although that is critically important uh and something the board cares deeply about because residents care deeply about that. Uh, the the article is for sidewalk and ramp reconstruction. We are not building new sidewalks with this money. We are restricted by the purpose of the article
from doing that. We build new sidewalks through other funding sources uh especially state and federal grant programs. Um so this is not for new sidewalks. This is for reconstruction of existing sidewalks and specifically it's Hollis Street this summer with the
remaining appropriation and it would be and I've got the DPW deputy director up there. He's going to give me a thumbs up if I got it right. It is for Dalton Road up to Willowgate Rise where there are sidewalks that have not been repaired in 25 plus years. That is the work that would be deferred. So, it's
reconstruction of a very large neighborhood with sidewalks that are in very poor condition and have not been touched since they were first installed. So, again, no new sidewalks. Um, delaying this rises costs in the future. Man, did you want to be heard up against the wall? Yes, please. Dan, I'll get you
next. Thank you. Danielle Cune, 51 Mitchell Road. Um, mine is a question about sidewalk projects in general because this is specific to repairs um and ADA compliance. Um, and I'd like an update
on the allocations for new sidewalk creation, especially on Central Street heading toward Dalton. um as I understand that was allocated quite some time ago and we haven't gotten an update in a very long time on where those
projects stand. So I know that is sort of adjacent to this specific article, but as we're talking about allocating sidewalk funds in general, I'd like to know where that stands. Yes. Go ahead, Tine, please. Thank you. So, new sidewalk specific on Central
Street was a town meeting vote and a ballot question in 2023 related to the DPW is a debt exclusion. So, the money was appropriated and voted for as a debt exclusion in 2023. The project timeline for the new sidewalk construction pro
projects that you're referring to was Norfork Street first, water manes, drainage, then sidewalks. Central Street second, water manes then sidewalks. So this later this month, the Norfork Street water man and drainage portion of
that project should start with sidewalks on Norfork Street coming in the spring of 2026. That is the timeline we have. Central Street would be the following year. So as an update, 2027. Okay, Mr. Alfred, uh Dan Alfred, 315 High Street. Um I
found it very interesting that the chair of the select board uh finally came around to saying that this was not just for ADA compliance. And what's very interesting about that though is because when presented to the working group, and again as a member of the working group, this was all about ADA compliance. and the finance committee supported the plan because we were concerned that we were
out of compliance with our ramps and different areas of town and and the sidewalks and curbs and cuts there. So, I don't understand why we're now spending money on things that are not for ADA compliance because that was again what the recommendation from the finance committee was way back um when
we did the working group. So, thank you. Thank you. Further discussion? Yes, sir. Ma'am, excuse me. Yeah, I didn't see that clearly enough. Hi, Barbara Ryan, 14 Irving Place. Don't we deserve walkability? Don't pe all people with different abilities deserve
sidewalks to walk on? And the quick amount of time sitting here. I I believe and there's a lot of research to show walkability impacts the economy. it impakes impacts home values typically increases um compared to car dependent
communities. So again just consider that that this will help people with different abilities uh get throughout our community. There could be potential e economic positive impacts as well as home value impacts
with better sidewalks for all. Thank thank you. Further [Applause] discussion gentlemen. Yeah, got him. Yep. All right. Good evening. Devin how 10 Dixon Circle. Uh not necessarily advocating one way or the other. Um but
uh really two questions. Um first being is the sidewalk work uh contracted out um or is it done by the DPW? And then the second part of my question is how is that um compliance checked? Um my
experience in the city recently has been that um ADA compliance groups will go around with two-foot digital levels and uh developers throughout the city will end up ripping out um hundreds of feet of sidewalk um if they've constructed it
deficiently. So, what safeguards are the is the town taking to ensure that, you know, we're not put in that situation where they put all this sidewalk in, looks great, um, and then turns out it's just out of compliance where literally a a grain of
salt could be the difference. Um, unfortunately, I've been on that receiving end before and I can tell you it's it's really not fun. Um, the other thing that I would just like to say is, um, it drives me crazy when you see
brand new sidewalk ramps, um, and then you you walk 10 ft down the sidewalk and it's cracked. Um, it's deficient. It's just it's kind of like what's what's the point of mobilizing all that construction equipment um to really not
have a a gain to it. So, thank you. Thank you, Tina. It was two part is a contracted out and who checks the quality compliance. Uh so no contracts on work that would be uh funded through this appropriation
tonight. We have contracts out for work with the prior the remaining balance from the previous um appropriation. So it's my understanding that Holl Street is contracted for work because that's a prior appropriation. The work I referenced uh up on Dalton Road has not yet been contracted because it would
need this this evening's approval, which I hope we get. In terms of compliance, uh we are compliance officer is the building inspector. Uh if you're asking for an ADA compliance committee, we don't have one yet. That is something that the town can absolutely consider.
Uh so it's right now it's our building inspector. We don't follow a process similar to the city of Boston or the city of Worcester in terms of uh that level of detail. And I'm being honest when I say that um we follow MUTCD standards. The uh we follow Mass DOT
standards. Our DPW staff attend uh workshops through the uh through uh Mass DOT particularly complete streets. Our DPW deputy director was just at the mass DOT innovation conference yesterday learning about techniques and so on. So we we uh use best practices through our
DPW operations on these projects and we contract with an outside contractor who's held to that standard. So our DPW staff for the bigger projects is not doing it on their own. For the smaller projects, I believe in the past they have. I hope that answers your question, sir. Thank you. Further discussion?
Yes. Andre Vargas, 12 Kur Street. Uh, I think there's very few people here who have walked the entirety of the town almost on a daily basis like I do. I have a big dog. I walk her every day. I didn't try to take a different route every day. And I can tell you the
sidewalks are not where we want them to be. We're missing a ton of sidewalks. I mean, the Queens is completely isolated from the rest of this of the town. If anything, we shouldn't be talking about cutting this budget in half. We should be talking about duplicating it. We should be talking about how we're going to get these sidewalks, all those cracks
that the gentleman was talking about, fixed to have decent sidewalks. My neighbor is a 12-year-old kid who's in a sidewalk and he goes in in is in a wheelchair. He goes in a wheelchair every single day to school to look at that kid in the eye and tell him that the money for the ADA compliance is
going to be cut. Not me, him. If anything, we should put much more money into fixing them much quicker into getting this town as a walkable, passable town and really focusing on that. That's it. Thank
you. Any further discussion? Uh yes, Ken Ken 676. Just wanted to make one comment about that. I think that what is being confused here is whether we do sidewalks at all or not. Nobody's saying don't do the sidewalks. I will point out
I will point out just since we've talked about ADA compliance, the Stantech report on all on which all this is based said that it would take $1.8 million to address every ADA compliance issue with the existing sidewalks. We've allocated over $3 million. The reason I mentioned
the ADA compliance is because if we said it was 1.8 8 million and we've allocated three 3 million and that was the number one priority then according to that report we should have all the existing sidewalks should be ADA compliant by now it is not just ADA compliance that's
being done here and and and again I'm not saying it's a bad thing I'm not saying don't do sidewalks what I'm saying is we have enough work allocated the existing money I already know from what I've been told from the town will not be fully expended. The
money that's already appropriated will not be fully expended till August 30th. Okay. So, we're I think that there's confusion here that we're somehow saying don't do sidewalks or or you know postpone. We're just saying there's enough work already on the docket for this summer. Give them the
500,000 to get as much as they can done get done this summer and then we'll see what we have in the fall for the remaining 500,000 and maybe more if we have better numbers than we expect. So, just to be clear, we're not our motion is not kill the sidewalk project or make
it harder for anybody, right? The goal is I think we're all universal agreement. We want better sidewalks if we can get them. Okay. The the thing is it's a matter of fiscal responsibility to say we've got a full docket for the summer already. Give them enough money to get through this summer and then
let's look at where we are in the fall. And as I said, if free cash is gigantic, maybe we look back and we say give more than the other half million. That's we'll decide that in the fall. But with another 3 million or so, it's about 2.7 waiting for expenditure in the fall. We
we can't just say sidewalks are so important that we don't have fire trucks, that we don't have other capital equipment, we don't have ambulances, right? You just approved an ambulance earlier tonight. Okay, those things need consideration, too. and giving a half
million dollars to continue the sidewalk, I think, is a a fair deal, so to speak, to keep the project moving forward while we get a better picture of what monies we actually have to keep putting towards this. It's all about fiscal responsibility. It's not pro or
anti- sidewalk, just to be clear. Thank you. All right, let's proceed to a vote. I think the topic's been fairly discussed. The motion to amend is to seeks to reduce the appropriation from the requested $1 million in the underlying motion to $500,000 from the capital expenditure fund for sidewalk
maintenance. Uh all those in favor of the motion to amend to reduce the approp requested appropriation say I. Those opposed. That does not pass. We'll proceed to vote on the main motion. The main motion
is to Hey, I'm sorry. disagree. Okay, let's let's let's we do we have tellers for each section now? Yes, we do. Okay, let's proceed. All those in favor of the uh was it the motion to amend or the main motion?
Motion to amend. The motion All those in favor of the motion to amend, meaning reduce the requested appropriation from a million to a half a million, raise the hand up high. Thank you. Okay.
Is it echo in here? Yeah. Right. 31. 31. You got his number. Yeah. The opposite. 31. Okay. Get my I can't hear you. Six 15. Got them all? Yep. Okay. All those
opposed? 78. Okay. 116 36. Right. one 17 Okay. Okay. Those in favor of the motion to amend 78. Those opposed 109. So that
motion is defeated. We'll proceed to vote on the main motion which called for the appropriation of a million dollars. All those in favor say I. Those opposed. That's that passes. Article 22, HDAAC opioid response
initiatives to see if the town will vote to raise and appropriate a transfer from available funds the sum of $29,000 for the purpose of maintaining the HDAC portion of the opioid abatement fund at at a total of $50,000 annually
to ensure continued financial support for individuals and families impacted by substance use disorder. This funding would allow for the continuation of critical services such as transportation to treatment, housing stability assistance, and recovery related expenses in alignment with the opioid
settlement received by the town or take any action relative there too. The motion is moved to raise and appropriate $29,000 for the purpose of maintaining the HDAC portion of the opioid abatement fund. Is there a second? So noted, the finance committee recommends favorable
action 51 with Mr. Vincent Murphy against and Mr. Matt Leech absent requires a majority vote. Is there discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. Those opposed so voted. Town engineer position development to
see if the town will vote to raise an appropriate transfer from available funds for the purpose of hiring, onboarding, and establishing a town engineer or take any action relative there too. The explanation is such that over $1 million was spent in FY2024 on professional technical services related
to engineering GIS and compliance was identified and reviewed to find efficiencies and cost savings. The town could realize significant savings and efficiencies with in-house engineering services on some phases of uh projects reference to town manager memo. The motion is moved to transfer
$135,000 from the programmatic stabilization fund for the purposes of establishing, hiring, and onboarding a town engineer. Is there a second? It's open for discussion. Yes, Mr. Shada. Ken Shada 676 Fisk. Um, this one
uh is a little near and dear to me because I was involved in the creation of the programmatic stabilization fund. For those of you who were here at that town meeting, uh when we talked about it, and this was something that I worked on with our former town manager,
uh the idea was that there come times in in town government where we need a little seed money to get something going when we can recognize a savings at a later date. Okay. A good example of this was the street light project. We didn't use it for this because we didn't have the fund at the time, but that's the
kind of project this would be ideal for where we sat there and said we need to spend a certain amount of money to replace all the street lights, but the cost savings is going to be every year after that when we go from incandescent to LED bulbs, right? Which has actually
happened. Our cost for street lighting, the street lighting budgets come down dramatically because we replaced all the street lights. The idea was that the programmatic stabilization fund would be a seed money fund like that that when you took the money out and this was this was written in the original article if
you go back and look at it it was given in the explanation there that if the money was to be used for things that either realized cost savings or other financial benefits where those benefits could then be used to replenish the fund in essence to for lack of a better
phrase almost like a town venture capital fund where we could invest in things that we would expect to bring back money later. ALS was what it was first used for. So, we knew there was an investment that had to be made to bring the town up to ALS standards. We made that investment and as a result of that
investment, we now can bill at a higher rate for ambulance ALS ambulance services. Right? So the intention is that now that we are ALS certified and we get these higher revenues from it that a portion of those revenues will be
used to pay back the fund and allow it to be used for other seed projects. That's the whole intent when the town engineer position came up. And again, this is not an argument for or against the town engineer per se, but if you look at what
the the town administrator, town manager said before he left about it, we've heard this number banded about of a million million2 in consulting services, right? But if you look at his analysis, he said that of all the consulting services that we spent in 2024, only 187,000 of it would have been covered by
a town engineer. That's not to say we don't get one. And I'm not again I'm not arguing for against it but the cost of a town engineer without benefits without pension and all the other costs would be very close to that. Okay, very close to
that. And unlike other positions in town where we may look at the position and say uh this per there's a direct function. We have a town clerk, we have a treasure collector, things like that. The problem with a town engineer and again not arguing that we should never
get one is you have to look at a little more carefully because when you look back and say geez we could have saved all this money they're generally on projects we're not doing every year. So for example we have the damn all the work going on at Woodland Street. If we look at that and say geez we could have saved
money if we had a town engineer. Well the reality is in fiscal 26 we're not doing another Woodland Street. We're not going to do another Woodland Street for 40 years probably after we fix it this time. Right? So there will be other work and that but because the financial tradeoff is so tight it needs
further work in the same way that several years ago when the facilities manager was first proposed we had the same discussion and we said let's take a step back and let's do some more math. Okay. Now, so, so as I said on that
alone, I'd like to wait on this position. There is nothing that is going to happen this summer that isn't already contracted. In fact, you talk about the DPW, they have $7 million to do all the work, right? So, a town engineer at this point, you know, doesn't really harm us
too much if we wait till October. But the other side of this is the budgetary part of it. I mentioned before that we are going into the next fiscal year, not the one we just approved, but fiscal 27 with a half million dollars of
expenses we already know are going to come. If we pull money from the programmatic stabilization fund to seed this, that means we're adding another 135,000 to that before we even start talking about level service in FY27. Why? Because the programmatic
stabilization fund does not have enough money, nor should it be used to fund operating expenses. We have to live within our means. This is an operating budget position. Okay? Right now, the operating budget cannot support it. And
I will remind people that last year because we had financial trouble, we added a4 million to the operating budget above what we usually do. Why? because we reduced our oped contribution from a million and a half to a million and a quarter. Okay. So, we've already added
money into the operating budget. We have another 500,000 we know are going in. And now, because there's not room to put it in the operating budget, the the decision was made to, oh, let's just take it out of programmatic stabilization. So, I would like to make a motion to
indefinitely postpone this to give us the opportunity to come up with a way to get it into the operating budget where it should go and fit in with all the other ongoing expenses of the town. Thank you. So, I make a motion to indefinitely postpone. Is there a second?
Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Sparrow. Motion to definitely postpone will be debated now. So, by that I can't answer. Oh, absolutely. No, go right ahead. I'll give you that latitude. Sure. All right. So, I I oppose uh indefinite
postponement. Um I would prefer this body to be able to have the chance to debate the merits of the article as opposed to postponing. And I don't really uh personally like the idea of postponement because of that. We should have the opportunity to talk about it. Um I would like Let me make it clear.
You're certainly free to talk about the underlying motion. I understand. But I also want to I don't want you to feel limited. So I wanted to sort of speak to a few of the things that uh uh Dr. Shada had brought up and I understand you know some of his concerns about the budgetary concerns there. Um I would also add that there was a you know he worked with a
previous town administrator Travis Hearn who supported this. This was his idea actually to put use the programmatic stabilization fund towards this and there are a number of reasons that we can talk about. I mean I'll go through a couple different things. I was trying to write down because uh Ken brought up a
lot of uh good points that I want to be able to talk to a few of them. Um, the first thing I wanted to talk about when he talks about the $500,000 in pressure, um, I'll get a little wonky here in saying that the two things that, um, I heard that, uh, Dr. Shada bring up in a previous finance committee meeting was
the, um, the movement towards the, um, it's called the wreck for the, um, um, uh, it's after 9:00, so my brain is scrambled. Um, but there was $160,000 for the wreck, which is the, um, emergency. Yes, the emergency services.
It's the um for dispatch and um there's the $160,000 is more than made up for by uh additional revenue from the ambulance. Uh we have now that we are at ALS where the ambulance revenue has increased and that more than makes up that offset between FY26 and the
projections for FY27. Further, some of the things that were concerned were Middle Sex County uh pension and we have a pension stabilization that's going to help offset some of those concerns. And um when I had talked previously about some uh issues with bringing these things forward at the end of the
process, if we had talked about this early in the process, we could have addressed some of those issues. Now further I would like to also mention yes the the the challenge here is that a lot of engineering services go through projects free cash particular in capital but I would also mention when uh Dr. Dr.
Shada brought up that there's not any ongoing projects. There are several. As a matter of fact, we do water replacements several years. I believe the for Norfol Street, it was north of $200,000 in engineering services for Northfor Street. We have Central Street coming up as uh next in the queue and
that will also incur an enormous amount of engineering services. I'm not saying all of it will be offset, but there will be substantial amounts of offset. We're also talking about sewers and putting in sewers and sewers will require engineering as well if we're if we're do working in that direction. Never mind the fact that we have right now since we
do not have an engineering staff, we have a number of staff who are having to do engineering services and it's not part of their job description. So, you know, when our fire chief goes to a particular location and because some of the engineering has not been updated in from the uh previous
articles we've talked about with sidewalks and water mane replacements, what we're seeing is that some of those updates are not being made with GIS management and we have we have an issue with some of those things and that would be some of the things that would come under the purview of an engineer. An
engineer is going to help us save time and energy that a lot of our staff are putting into engineering that they don't have as part of their job description and things that need to be done. Never mind when the planning board has peer review for some of their uh for some of the projects. We don't have anybody in
house doing that peer review. And one of the things we talked about that covert, that $500,000 covert for the DPW, we were not able to apply for a grant of $400,000 because we did not have the engineer inhouse. we didn't have the time to put it out to bid and to be able
to apply for that. We lost out on $400,000 grant because that needs to be replaced immediately and because we didn't have an engineer, we lost out on that. So, I would just strongly urge people to consider the fact that there's substantial savings and there's also lots of opportunity here within the
organization to be able to create more efficiencies and to save our staff time. Our staff are doing a lot of work beyond what they are supposed to be doing and they're doing things that are outside of the purview of their positions and they need we need to be able to have this
position in order to ensure that we provide the best services to the community. So thank you. Further discussion? Yes. Uh Melissa Casper 109 Robert Road. I am a parks commissioner and also sit on the community preservation committee. And in
thinking of a town engineer, we often get requests for community preservation to spend money to do research, do studies, do engineering plans in order to move forward with projects. And it's something that we've funded in the past, but it's also not the best use of our
funds. It would be better to put those funds towards actually doing the work and doing the projects. Um, off the top of my head from a parks commission standpoint, I can think of three projects that we could have used an engineer and save money and move things along faster. Um, the Mission Springs,
which you'll hear about, doing pickle ball courts. We're looking into a bike park on the Woodland Street property that we need to have engineering work done to see what we can and cannot fit there. Also, the renovations to the old
Flag School site that needed engineering work. So there's all these little projects that come up as well that if we had an engineer on staff, they might not be able to do the whole project, but they could get us started. They could take on some of that burden of the
initial work, which I think would be amazing. Again, these are just a few things off the top of my head. Between state allocations and some of the park revolving fund this year, we spent $70,000 on engineering work in order to see if projects were even feasible. So,
this is money that we're putting out to see if projects are feasible. I'd rather see the money we have going towards getting these projects done and having an engineer work for the town, I think, would be a huge benefit. Further discussion.
I PMCO 185th Street. My question would be, how are you funding it for the following years and how much would that really cost? That would be my question. [Applause] Go ahead, Ben. Thank you.
Uh, we work it into the budget. It would be worked into the budget in in in future years. Then how come it wasn't worked into the budget this year? If it's so important, why wasn't it in the budget? The reason why is because right now we're trying to work through um getting
the position established and hire and hiring that position and the um programmatic stabilization allowed us to have that seed money because right now what happens is the engineering money is coming through capital. It's not coming directly through the omnibus. I understand, but the the space would come
in the future. Plus, having somebody on staff would be able to look at other budgets within um the omnibus right now within our budget to be able to see if there's other opportunities for savings to to realize those savings by the definition of the um money that it's coming out of. It shouldn't be coming
out of that budget. It shouldn't be coming out of the programmatic. It should be coming out of the omnibus budget, right? Shouldn't be coming out of that. Yeah. But the but the but the the purpose of the programmatic is to be able to do so things like this is to be able to find realize those savings. I
was going to ask that if we look at the actual reading of the programmatic stabilization fund one of the areas that the savings that we would be realizing is within the budget and within capital and this would save substantial amounts of capital. I can see the savings in the uh recck department because then they wouldn't have to spend the $70,000 and
they can use it for something else or we could take that out of their budget and use it for something else. But if you're going to be we're going to be having an engineer on staff, then we I just want it to be in the omni budget. I just wanted to be in the budget. Thank
you. Y I'll come back to you, Ken. Yes, Miss Yeah. You were blocked from my view by Mr. Blae unintentionally. Thank you. Allison Quinnon, 37 Pilgrim Road. um sort of um along the lines of
what Pam said. So if you can just clarify for me. So, you're asking for the money from the programmatic stabilization fund for this first year of this position, expecting to realize savings in this first year to go back into the
programmatic stabilization fund that would replenish that fund and thereafter expect to fund an an ongoing annual salary out of an operational budget. Is that correct? Yes. And yes, and the other thing to
remember here, speaking to the microphone. Yes. So, yes. And also the other thing to remember here too is that part of the savings would come through the water uh the water budget as well. So, it's not just through the omnibus, it's also through the water budget too. Ken, did you want to be heard again?
Something too me. Um, just to be clear, as I said from the beginning, I'm not arguing against the position. Okay? I'm not arguing against it at all. It's kind of I don't want the debate to just focus on me getting up here and saying don't hire a town engineer but they pointed to the town manager's report and as I said
I was intimately involved in the creation of the programmatic stabilization fund and it says very clearly in the objection in the objective there that a plan has to be presented to repay the fund. We haven't seen one. We haven't seen any proposal of how the money of
specifics of this is where we expect to see savings. this is how we expect to get it into the operating budget. Okay. So, and again, so that's why I said I'm not, you know, Melissa made a good point. But the other thing I'll point out is an engineer engineer and I am one.
Okay. An engineer is not an interchangeable part. As Travis himself pointed out in his analysis, there was $1.2 million of engineer that we spent on engineering services. Sounds like a big number. You might say hire an engineer. We save all that money. Then
he looked at the details and he said all this engineering requires special certifications that you have to hire out. An engineer, a civil engineer is not an electrical engineer, not a mechanical engineer. Civil engineers have different branches that they're certified for. Okay. So I agree that we
may hire a town engineer. And again, I'm not opposed to hiring a town engineer. However, I think the savings we have to be careful in saying, "Well, we used engineering services and we could just replace them." Travis himself said only less than 10% of the money we spent on
engineering services could be replaced by a town engineer because all the other 90% required special certifications that would still have to be paid for. Okay. Now, having said that, I personally support getting a town engineer.
However, we they talked about ALS in the ambulance. You know how much has been paid back to the programmatic stabilization fund since we got ALS certification? Zero. Zero. There hasn't been a dollar deposited. You haven't seen an article putting money back in programmatic stabilization, have you? Because we're
just starting to realize the savings, right? So, so before when somebody sits there and says, "Well, we're going to get all this ambulance revenue and that's how we're going to pay for the town engineer." You haven't even paid the programmatic stabilization fund back yet. Right. So, as I said, this is not do we
get an engineer or not. I think we should get an engineer, but I think that we have to do it the right way. Travis suggested using a programmatic stabilization fund and then using free cash, which is even worse way to support an ongoing annual salary to say we're
just going to rely on excess funds that show up every year to do that. We worked very hard as a town to eliminate the use of free cash for our ongoing expenses because that makes our budget stronger. That makes us less susceptible to to sudden changes in the economy, which we
kind of see going on a lot now, right? So, I would strongly encourage that we just postpone this. It's not going to be a problem to take a little more time to get it into the budget the right way so that we can come to you in either October or May of next year and say we got a balanced budget and we have a town
engineer and we don't have to ding programmatic stabilization. We don't have to worry about paying it back and we've done the analysis to say this is exactly how we can recognize the savings. Thank you. Okay, sir. [Applause]
So, good evening everyone. My name is Fan Herbage. I live at 239 Conquer Street. I am an engineer. I have a master's degree. I'm a systems engineer. I can't do the job for the town. What you're looking for is a managing
engineer. One who can go off to subs and say, "Your price is too high." Or, "I have three different offers. This one's better. We'll take this one and that'll reduce, let's say, some of the costs. Looking at qualifications, you're going to need civil engineers. We're going to
be able to to to say that this protection structure is going to stable. This bridge is stable. You discuss things like lighting. Well, that's that's kind of in my background, too. I could have done that. But, uh, the darn thing you run
into is that you have people who actually do the calculations on the street. uh down lighting to make sure that we don't have uh destruction of night skies. Those sort of specialties, you won't get a town engineer, but
they'll be able to talk the language is what you want. So, you need this person not out of the uh let's say uh pulling out of the uh um this uh programization stabilization fund. you need him
employed and you won't get a direct payback but you will find that uh costs on some of the jobs are going to get reduced. uh someone may come over and say, "Oh, well, we can replace this plumbing here." Or, "Oh, did you uh
realize that we have this copper uh for instance, water supplies now? We're talking about copper pipes in there. What should we be running?" Um there is a significant breath of of specialties that have to be covered. But this this
uh town managing engineer will be able to talk the language to the other engine other companies and say okay yeah you know your bids right okay we can we can we can do that or maybe you shouldn't be um replacing every uh
ADA compatible uh ramp here with the plastic ramps here you put a steel ramp in there or incre I can see the sidewalk has to be replaced beyond this 30 ft that you're working on, continue on. What's that? Another 10%, we can handle
that. That sort of thing. So, those sort of tradeoffs you're um your managing engineer will be able to make and they will know who to call. That's the other thing you run into. So, you're looking for someone to say, "Oh, you know, I
need to get that truck replaced for the or repaired for the highway department. Can we get a new transmission for it?" or so. I can't. he won't be able to replace a transmission, but he'll be able to work the call. So, this is what you need as a manager that actually can
say this is the work we have to to parcel out. Let's see what we can do in reducing the costs. So, uh I uh I I agree with the town right now. Don't take the money out of stabilization fund
because you can't get him from 135. Be perfectly honest. You're looking at someone who's got years of experience. So, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Tina, you want the last word? You all set? Contin. All right. What's
that? Chief, I think Chief, you want to be heard? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I stand here before town meeting and ask you to uh vote against indefinite postponement. Uh as a department head, I was on a working
group which included the IT director, the finance director, the conservation agent, the facilities director who is involved in procurement, which the previous speaker was discussing, the town planner, the building inspector, the assistant town manager, the DPW director, and the principal assessor. All of these department heads as part of
a working group were unanimously in favor of the creation of this position, and it doesn't need to be delayed. If you look in the uh warrant materials that were provided uh at the end of fiscal year 25, the balance that is uh projected for the programmatic
stabilization fund on page 51 is $247,469. So if town meeting were to appropriate the $135,000 from programmatic stabilization as proposed in the underlying motion, then there would still be money. Earlier, uh, a member of the finance committee said,
"Have you seen any money paid back to the programmatic stabilization fund?" Well, I'd like to explain why that hasn't happened. The town was very fortunate that the taxpayers, members of town meeting, invested in through the programmatic stabilization fund and
through the omnibus budget, increases to the fire department and ambulance budgets, which allowed us to obtain our ALS ambulance service license. We obtained that ambulance service license on October 4th. So on October 4th, we started to be able
to transport patients at the ALS level, which allowed us to on October 4th start billing people, billing insurance companies more specifically, at the ALS service level, which means we have higher revenues. By the time insurance
companies pay us when we bill them, that money starts to trickle in in January. There's about a three-month lag between when the service is received to when we get the money from the insurance companies. I can assure you that when you look at our revenue from the ambulance service
at Jan on June 30th at the end of this current fiscal year, it will far exceed the very conservative estimates that were built into the budget model for the current year fiscal year that we're in. And the time that those monies will have
paid back to the programmatic stabilization fund from free cash will be October. So, I urge you to vote down the indefinite postponement and to support the creation of this position so that the town can continue to work more
efficiently and better use our resources. All right, let's let's proceed to a vote on the motion to indefinitely postpone. That requires a majority vote. All those in favor of indefinite postponement say I. Those opposed? No. Okay, that that
motion fails. We'll proceed to the mo the main motion to move to transfer 135,000 from the programmatic stabilization fund for the purpose of establishing, hiring, and onboarding a town engineer. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. No. That prevails.
Article 24, Report of the Community Preservation Committee, to see if the town will vote to act on the report of the Community Preservation Committee for the fiscal year 2026 Community Preservation Budget, and to appropriate a reserve for later appropriation monies from the community preservation fund,
annual revenues or available funds for the administrative expenses of the community preservation committee, the payment of debt service, the undertaking of community preservation projects, and all the necessary and proper expenses for the year. With respect to reserves, the requests are community housing reserve
92,116, open space reserve 92116, historic resources reserve 92116. With respect to appropriations, administrative functions to support the committee 5,000 Hollison Historical Society barn ADA restroom as best
abatement 18,838 pickle ball at Mission Springs 115,000 for a total of 138,838. The motion is moved to appropriate the sum of 138838 from the community preservation fund general
balance for the administrative expenses and project appropriations as printed in the warrant and to authorize the allocation of 92116 from the community preservation fund for each of the three the three required cert reserves as stated in article 24. Is there a second?
Uh the fincom will make a recommendation at town meeting. So I'll accept the fincom's recommendation. And then I understand the committee commission wants to make a brief presentation. Mr. Murphy. Yes. The commissioner um the the chair of the committee came before the
FinCom before this meeting and we voted. We heard what he said and we're all in favor. So we recommend favorable passage of this article. Thank you. Does the uh committee preservation committee wish to be heard? Yes.
Okay. Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain. I'll be right back. No, don't hurry in my account. I'll be right back. We'll keep this short. Frank Chamberlain, 333 Hollister Street, chair of the community preservation committee. Um, just very quickly, we voted to
support uh two projects this with this spring cycle. Uh, one is for additional funding for the Hollist Historical Society to support the creation of ADA restrooms in their barn. This was a project that the uh commissioner that the CPC voted on and voted to support
and the town voted to support a year or so ago. Unfortunately, when they began to do the work, they ran into an issue with asbestous that raised the cost slightly. So, they've come back to ask for a little more a little more money to finish the project. Uh if any of you have had a chance to be in historical
society barn recently, the project is is complete and it looks really good and it uh it adds another resource to the town. Um, and it it fits in with the historic preservation aspect of community preservation, the community preservation act. With regard to the pickle ball
courts at Mission Springs, if anyone has any questions with regarding regarding that, I believe the recreation director Mark Frank is here and can answer your questions for you. But, uh, this is something clearly the parks and recreation department has received a lot of demand for and we're happy to support
this uh, this request. Uh just in case people are are wondering, I note that the in the warrant it mentions a $ 1.7 million comm article from the uh that was approved in October 20 actually was approved in October 24 being extended
till October 2026. I think this is a this is a misprint. This is with regard to the Goodwill Park project that was approved at last fall's town meeting and we do not need to extend at this time. We're not asking for it to be extended at this time because the appropriation
as voted last fall was for two years. The project is underway. It's on time. Uh there is no need to extend at this time. So if anybody has any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Otherwise than that, I'll uh shut up and go back to my seat. Questions? Nope. All right.
Great. I don't think so. I think it was more than just the description the appropriation. Thank you for that brief brief presentation, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm not going to say it's a first, but it's welcome. No problem. Well done.
Further discussion. Okay. If not, we'll proceed to a vote. All those in favor of the motion say I. Those opposed, so voted. Article 25, open space and recreation plan to see if the town will vote to raise and appropriate a transfer from
available funds for the purpose of updating the town's open space and recreation plan to the use of consulting services or take any action relative there too. The motion is moved to raise and appropriate $30,000 for the purpose of updating the town's open space and
recreation plan through the use of a cons of consulting services as stated in article 25. Is there a second? Thank you. The FINCOM recommends that the town raise and appropriate $30,000 for the purpose stated in the article 6 with Mr. Leech absent. Requires a
majority vote. Is there discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. Those opposed. So voted. Water main easement Indian Ridge Road South to see if the town will vote to authorize the select board to acquire by should say gift purchase or eminent
domain right to use the drainage easement shown on the plan of Indian Ridge Road recorded at book 995 page 112 for all purpose for all proposed easement improvements and modifications for which easements are used in the town of Holliston. location and center of the
easement 10 Indian Ridge Road. The motion is moved to authorize the select board to acquire by gift, purchase, or eminent domain the right to use the drainage easement shown on the plan of Indian Ridge Road recorded at book 995, page 112 for allpurposed easement improvements and modifications for which
easements are used in the town of Hollison. Is there a second? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. You want to be heard? Go right ahead. This will require a twothirds majority vote when we come to a vote. Go right ahead, miss. So, I'm Cecil Freighic and
I live at Give us your name, please, and speak up so everybody at home can hear you in here, too. Thank you. My name is Cecil Freighic and I live at 10 Indian Ridge Road and so the easement is on my property. So, I I'm totally for the
project. uh that is it's a seems like it'll increase water pressure in the area which everyone seems to want. What I do want to bring up are two things. One is the process. So, um this really
started uh in 2020 when um the land adjacent uh to me was zoned for um 24 house to be 24 houses to be built and everyone knew that water was going to be a problem among other things. that um uh
passed and um I inquired at that time and I was told that uh no that um my easement was not going to be changed and um I was not going to be affected. Um that property was then sold to another builder who now wants to build 40 houses
on the same property. And so of course the water issue is even more important and and that's why this um um issue has come. One of my biggest issues so um I
mean I think the water man has to be built. One of my biggest issues is in the five years that this has been uh going on um no one has reached out to me as a owner of this property to say that
this is being um planned um that this will affect us in some way that it is going through our property and I just don't think that's right. Now, I did reach out to the um director of the um
DPW who initially um Sean Ree who initially denied that there was going to be um um any water mane going through my easement. Um but more recently agreed that the town was planning to do it and
I don't really have much to say about it. Um the other issue I have is um the wording the kind of legally wording that says that they're going to acquire it by give purchase or eminent
domain. I mean it seems to me that I paid for this property this acreage as part of my property and I don't really think this is an appropriate way of acquiring what the town wants. So, okay.
Thank you. Further discussion. I'm sorry, ma'am. We Yeah, you I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. Sonia. Uh Paul Sonia, 29 Church Street. This um this proposed uh water main construction, I'm assuming that it's
going to be paid for by the developer of the subdivision rather than the town cuz typically that's what happens when a subdivision is built. the water man is extended and the the developer um pays for the cost of that. Is that the case in this case? It doesn't say here on the
on the warrant. Anybody in the select in a position to answer that yet, Tina? I'm coming up to speed on the backup materials for this article. I'm going to ask our uh DPW director to come down and speak to it. He has the details. Sean, if you wouldn't mind.
Thank you. Hey, uh Sean Race DBW to answer. Yeah, the developer is going to pay for the cost for the 200 ft uh installation of the water man. Okay. Thank you, Sean. Thank you for attending tonight, being able here to answer that
for us. Thank you. Further discussion. Seeing none, all and again this requires a two-thirds majority. So let's see how the vote goes. All those in favor say I. Those opposed. So voted. That's unanimous for the record. Home rule petition local
voting article 27 to see if the town will vote to authorize the select board to petition the legislature for passage of a special act substantially in the following form. It's an act permitting the town of Holliston to enact local bylaws allowing permanent legal residents to vote in local elections.
The precise language of the article is set forth this precise language of the article is set forth in the warrant. The explanation offered is as follows. This homero petition does not grant voting rights but rather requests that the state legislature provide municipalities with the authority to make that decision
through their local own democratic processes. currently permanent legal residents per pls defined as noncitizens non-citizen individuals who are lawfully residing in the United States under permanent resident status live work and raise families in the town of Hollist
and yet are ineligible to vote in any elections. The motion is as follows. move to authorize the select board to petition the legislature for passage of a special act substantially as presented in the article and to authorize the select board to accept ministerial
amendments to such act as may be required by the legislature. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Mr. Dimmick want to be identified as the sponsor. You want to speak on this? Thank you. Good evening. Damon Dimmick for Tea
Party Lane. I am the clerk of the select board. Um, our moderator has amply introduced this very well, but earlier this evening, someone did ask for plain English. So, why don't I do a version of that here? The language is constructed because it will go to the state in a
very specific way. But for us folks here, let's break it down. So, what is and isn't this? The home world petition asks that the state legislature grant Holliston the permission to decide through a local vote whether permanent
legal residents should be allowed to vote in our municipal elections. So what it does it seeks state approval to let us decide at a later time through a vote here um and applies only to town
elections, school committee, etc. It does not grant voting rights directly. It does not apply to state or federal elections, Congress, etc. It does not force the town to decide. It only allows us in the future to vote in a democratic
fashion. So, the petition is both symbolic as well as practical. We would be joining a handful of other towns in the state uh including Somerville, Newton, Brookline, a few others who have discussed or submitted similar requests. The state has not approved any of them
so far and is unlikely to do so in the near future, but there is a growing ask for this. So progress is uncertain, but it is meaningful. The Hollist version, the version that we're actually supporting, stands out because it doesn't lock us into a position. Some of the other towns have locked themselves
into the position of we want this and as soon as the state enacts it, we're going to do it. Ours is more nuanced and the focus is on local control. So it appeals across the political spectrum both to folks who are fans of more localized government and to those who are fans of
inclusion. Um I will rest there because hopefully uh this will be well supported. I know that it is a a constant source of some conversation in some parts of this town. We've tried to think it through, reach out to people of very different political opinions, and we are hoping that we have threaded the needle to allow Hollist to decide on
this matter in the future and get a permission essentially to have a democratic debate that right now we cannot have. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Further discussion? Yes. Go right ahead.
Hi, Carla Alfred, 315 High Street. Um, you know, it's serious if I wrote something down, so um I I'm sorry. Did you say you were serious or you were not? I am serious. Okay. I assume so. Put something down. Very serious. Go right ahead. I couldn't hear you. Thank you. Um I know we're almost to Thursday,
so I'm going to try to be brief, but um I'm here because I know most of you. Um we spend a lot of time together and I'm glad for it. Um, you know, I know you from historical society and the PTO and the library. Um, I see a lot of lions out there really late at night. Um, so
congratulations on that representation. And we're all consistent members of our community, including the back corner there. And that's what I'm here to talk to you about tonight because our community is what it is because of the people in it. We choose to raise families here. We choose to grow old
here in this town. And we do it for a reason. We aren't all here tonight because we had nothing else going on. We're here because we prioritize our community. And this at its core nation was founded on the principle that those who are
taxed should be represented. And we have a subset in our community of our friends, of our neighbors, and our loved ones who are not represented. These are the permanent legal residents. Um they pay taxes. They are on um committees with us. They are members of our
societies and they are right there volunteering and doing the work with us. Um they're the people that you love, you can count on and they make up a large piece of what we all here find important. And they're here tonight um
without the ability to vote, without having the same equal say that we have. So tonight as a community, we have the opportunity to do right by our friends and neighbors and support this article. So, let's uphold what at our core is
repres. It's I know it's not the full. You did a great job of breaking it down. Let's take that tiny first step into giving these um our neighbors the opportunity for the right to represent themselves and all of us in town
government in town meeting and be part of the whole discussion on an equal playing field. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. [Music] John Barstow 230 Melon. Come on down,
ma'am. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Um, a question. Did you consider and reject or would you be open to adding uh to vote in local elections and town meetings? This is the most uh
basic democratic action we have in the town. It's equally democratic with our local elections. And as I remember the the check-in is not just are you a resident, but are you is is it not a voter or am I mistaken?
And and uh permanent lawful permanent residents can vote at town. Anyway, I would I would ask that you consider amending it to add town meetings to local elections.
[Applause] Believe this is someone's pen. Definitely don't want to lose that. Overpriced. Uh generically speaking, um I tried to craft a article that I thought could get the broadest support in the town. uh recognizing that there
are folks who um may or may not be comfortable with all levels of inclusion. Um although I think that we are definitely tilting in that favor. Um the article is really crafted to be part of the conversation at the state legislature to get that inertia going. There are a few a few towns that have
added their voice. So my intent is really to add to that bull work of conversation and then after that uh should we get that permission all the things that you're talking about all the different levels of inclusion they return back to the town as something that we can vote on at the time. So if uh if folks on the floor want to make
that amendment of course that's always up to anyone at town meeting. Amendments can be added any time. Uh I just specifically crafted it to make it the most portable the most easy to understand and to get it through as quickly as possible. And I'm trying to be very pragmatic about it. Hopefully you appreciate the openness. My my brand
is honesty. So that's where I'm at. Thank you. Cool. Yes, ma'am. Hi, I'm Puja Gupta. I am a resident at 105 Overlook Drive and I know it's pretty late, but this has been a discussion I've been having with town for 2 years. So, if you can give me a few minutes to put my perspective out
there. Excuse me, ma'am. Yeah, it's not that late. Okay. We're here. We only meet once here. So I want you to take your time and express yourself. Don't feel pressured by time. Say what you want to say. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Um, so I think Damon and Tala has put across the opinion of the citizens, right? I'm
on the other side of this article. I am that legal permanent resident who doesn't have a voice in the town right now. So what I'm going to talk about right now is where I come from and why we are talking about this right now. Right. So I have been a Hollister resident for eight years now. I have
been in the US for about 20 years out of which eight years I am a Holliston resident and this town truly feels like home to me my husband and my family. We love our small town. I try to give back wherever we can. Um I've been a part of the Lions for 6 years now. I'm part of
the Holliston Cultural Cup for 4 years and then my husband serves on local board as well. Why am I saying all of this? because we can volunteer where we can but where I am surprised is that being that legal permanent resident we
are not allowed to vote in a town's mun municipal local elections let's be very specific just the town municipal local elections I'm talking state we're not talking anything else just the town where we are paying taxes over the few years there have been important
decisions that affect our daily lives school overrites bus schedules local services but we didn't have any chance to you know have a voice in those discussions including a lot many people like me who are not a US citizen okay so
now let me take a moment to clarify who legal permanent residents are individuals who came to United States on valid visas and have been granted the legal right to become permanent residents and eventually US citizens
Please note when we become US citizen we are giving up the citizenship for the country we come from. So just just keep that in mind. Okay. And we live here. We raise our families here. We pay the same local taxes as any other resident in town. The same amount that my neighbor
pays. I pay the same amount. With this article what we are asking Hollist to take a step forward. begin a conversation about extending local rights to legal permanent residents. Other towns, as Damon was mentioning,
has already taken that step. Why now? Because the path to citizenship can be extensively long for me. It took almost 16 years to get a green card and then it'll be another 5 years before I'm going to become a citizen. So, I'm
talking about two decades. And for people who are waiting in the queue, we don't even know what that timeline looks like. It can be decades. It can be more than that. Okay. So, some may wonder why talk about this town at town level if the state isn't addressing it yet. The
answer is simple. Massachusetts has 300 towns. Unless the majority of them are advocating for this change, the conversation will never reach the state level. It has to start somewhere. And I believe Holliston can be part of that example. Let's be inclusive and
forwardthinking town we know we are. Let's acknowledge the gap in the current system and take the first steps forward giving legal permanent residents a voice in the place they call home. Thank you. Further discussion. Yes sir.
John Barstow, 230 Melon Street. I would like to amend the article as presented by inserting the words and town meetings in section three. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Y before the semicolon at the
end. So to vote in local elections and town meetings. Okay. Is there a second? Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion to amend say I. I. Those opposed.
That stands. Any further discussion on the mo underlying motion? The motion would read uh move to authorize the select board to petition the legislature for passage of a special act substantially as presented in the article and I'll add now as amended to include the language that the gentleman
offered with respect to town meeting and to authorize the select board to accept ministerial amendments to such act as may be required by the legislature. All those in favor say I. Those opposed so voted. Article 28 was
Article 28 was uh covered by the consent agenda. So we can move to article 29, general bylaw, demolition delay bylaw, but sponsored by the select board to see if the town will vote to amend its general bylaws by replacing article
xxiv section 10 demolition delay with the following d bylaw entitled preservation of historically significant buildings. And the article runs uh a number of pages with technical uh language describing uh demolition
delay. And the motion is moved to amend the general bylaws by replacing article xxiv section 10 demolition delay with the amended language as presented in the warrant. Is there a second? The fincom recommend favorable
action 6 with Matt Leech absent. The explanation of it is that the intent is to use the permit funds to formally record the property prior to demolition for historical purposes. And if one had taken the time to examine the article in the warrant, you'll see that it depicts the process before you can take down a
building, I gather that has historical significance and requires some uh careful examination of that process. Okay. Is there discussion? Yes, Sarah. Yes. Go ahead. Good evening. Sarah Zarelli, 79 Northway Street, Chair Historical Commission. I
do just want to briefly introduce this. I know it's late, but I want to run through this quickly here. I think we have a few slides theoretically. Fantastic. So, preservation of historic buildings bylaw or a demolition delay bylaw is a chance for a community to uh gently tap the
brakes on the demolition of significant historic buildings and to allow for more time to find different solutions. So, in practice, it helps communities protect the places that matter to them. And in Hollist, we know from our outreach and our surveys that there are lots of
places that make this place special and unique that people want to protect. And these are just a few of those places that we can we've heard from our outreach in the envisioning future Holliston surveys that are important in Massachusetts. There are about 160 communities. They're shown here in green
tonight. Holliston is circled in red that have this demolition delay bylaw. Holliston passed it in 2006. Uh showing its commitment to preservation. And we're here tonight because about 20 years on, there are a few things that we need to fix in order to keep our
commitment to preservation strong. So, what in fact is actually wrong with this bylaw? Well, for one thing, there is too much red tape. We've heard clearly from applicants and the building inspector that the process is unclear and hard to administer. And frankly, it's difficult
for the historical commission as well. We're not getting the information we need to make timely decisions. And believe it or not, this bylaw actually will apply to too many buildings. The current bylaw is rolling. Anything that is 75 years or older, it
applies to. So that means in this year that anything built in 1950 or before will qualify. And this is going to lead to a title wave of applications over the next few years because about 40% of homes in Hollist were built between 1950
and 1969. And while these are great places to live, they are places that the preservation field is pretty confident are currently not necessarily worth preserving on their architectural merits, but it would have a huge impact on residents here in Hollist. So, I know
we've raised our hands a lot tonight, but humor me and let's do it again. Uh, raise your hand and keep it up if you live in the Queens. Okay, got a few folks. How about the orchards? That's Norland Street, Regal Street, Woodland Street. Anybody living in Brentwood? So that is the
Underwood Street area. Few people. Excellent. How about Harvestdale, Highland Street, Prospect Street. Anybody in Strawberry Hill, great name. Norfolk Street, Sky View Terrace, off of Central. So all the folks who raised your hands, you would be impacted if we
don't amend this bylaw. And for those of you who didn't raise your hands, these are your neighbors that would be impacted. And last, the delay that we have right now is actually too short. With six a six-month delay period, there just isn't enough time to find workable solutions,
and it's not enough encouragement to bring owners, particularly developers, to the table to think about solutions. So, if we vote yes tonight, what's going to change? First of all, we will have a new application process. For the first time, there'll actually be an
application to fill out, uh, which will streamline the process, remove the building inspector as the middleman, and get the commission the information it needs sooner. We have also worked to streamline the process, taking as much as 60 days off the total decision time.
We'll also be assessing a $100 fee which will go into a revolving fund. And yes, spoiler alert, that is the next article. Uh that will allow for the commission to fund documentation of at risk buildings or buildings for which we cannot find another solution that we deem historically
significant. And just as important, it will set the uh period of significance to 1950. This does two really good things. First of all, it keeps everything that is currently protected protected. And then it also allows us to focus on the buildings and the places
that really matter to this community and that make Hollist a special and unique place that you know when you step into Hollist feels different. It doesn't look like other towns. We're also asking for a longer delay period. We're moving to an 18-month period which is in keeping
with the best practices in the field and is the recommendation of the Massachusetts Historical Commission. And 18 months is also in alignment with our neighboring communities. Uh, as you can see here with a six-month delay period, we are actually out of out of step with
our neighbors who have delays. Um, most of them are using a 12 to 24month period. So, our six-month period is really pretty short in comparison. So, we believe that these changes that we are proposing will keep the intent of the 2006 bylaw will reaffirm our
community's commitment to preservation and set us up for successful preservation activities in our community for the next few years. Thank you. Thank you. Did a far better job of explaining that article than I did off the cuff. Any further discussion with
respect to this article? Yes, sir. Mr. Dunovan, you look younger than ever. You're lying. Uh, Phil Dunovan, 865 Washington Street. My question and concern with the bylaw
is we've had going on 20 years of historical data of this being in effect since 2006. While many around us may have 12 to 18 months of a delay time, as I understand
it in my research, in the state of Massachusetts, the most used period of time for delay with these bylaws are is 6 months, which we currently have. When I was going through the
um town web page and the historical commi commission says within their reasoning for why we should do this is that they need more time than the six months to do it. My question is in
actuality how many times have you bumped up against that sixmonth demolition delay time? I've done some research and I don't know of I couldn't come up with anything that that that did not I don't know how to say
this correctly but that bumped up against that six-month time where that you needed to go to 18 months. You had to extend it to almost 550 days for a homeowner. Um, we all tend to have our
largest expenses beyond our children is our homes and houses and 550 days is a lot of time to be stuck in limbo. So that's just my points. I I don't know why we have to change the current law from 6 months or bylaw from 6 months to
18 months. Okay. Thank you. Further discussion? Yes, ma'am. Sarah Zarelli, 79 Northway Street. Uh actually, uh based on our research from the Massachusetts Historical Commission, uh over 60% of communities have 12 months or more across the state. And I
do have a graph that is the very last slide in this presentation. If the uh tech support could put that up for me. Thank you. Um so in relation to the period I want to be very clear that it is up to 18 months and we are we work very hard with any applicant who comes
before us to find a solution sooner than that. Our goal is always to find a way for a project to proceed that satisfies both the applicant's desire to make changes to their property but also our desire to protect the protect some of our town's historic resources. It is
always our goal to find a solution and lift that demolition delay as soon as we can. Nonetheless, six months does not give us enough time to really find out find workable solutions to the complex problem that might include selling the structure to another owner, moving it to another site or figuring out how to
reuse materials on the site. And that 18 months gives us time to fully explore those different options while also acknowledging that it can be lifted as soon as we can come to an agreement. And our goal is always to find that agreement. Thank you. Any further discussion? Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Phil,
you want to respond? Come on down. So, I'll get you next after Mr. Dunovan. Phil Dunovan, 865 Washington Street. So, it's a theoretical problem at 6 months, not a an actual problem at 6 months. You're
projecting that it may be a problem, but it hasn't been in 19 years. Is that am I correct in that? And 18 months is only 39. There's 39 less communities at 18 months than there were
than there are at 6 months. Okay. X. Yes, sir. Uh Devin How uh 10 Dixon Circle. Um I think this town has to really think a lot about the red tape that they're raising. Um, I myself live in the Queens
um area and I I do a lot of work with developers and the way that I see this this proposed bylaw as it's written right now is by trying to extend it to that 18-month time period. What this
town's doing, not only with this bylaw, but some other bylaws that I've spoken out against, is we're just we're keep raising this red tape. I myself was on the Northfor zoning board of appeals
for 5 years. U probably dealt with numerous uh 40b projects. Not sure how many people are familiar in this town with that. Um but in other words, a town loses uh all ability really to regulate
um 40 a development project. Um so one example in Northfor was they were uh proposing 200 units of housing um on the Buckley and Man um mill site. So the way
that I really see this bylaw is it's just another red tape. um developers are going to look at it, they're going to laugh. My clients would probably laugh at it and they just wouldn't see a project being economically viable.
While it's been suggested that um the commission would seek to find a solution um you know as as fast as they can, that's not the reality. Um, I've worked on projects before, won't name the towns, um, but towns have looked to
preserve barns, um, houses, they just get left abandoned. It's it's a sad reality. Um, but w without a funding source, um, to upkeep these places, they just
sit there. um you know, we'll carve them out for towns, literally pretty much beg towns to take those properties, but they don't want it. So, the way that I see this is again, it's just it's raising more red tape in town. Um I brought up
the Queens because there's a a 40B project um being proposed uh adjacent to our property. not necessarily against it for it. Um, but you know, the way that I look at it is
this town continues to raise that red tape, make it so difficult to developers that this town believes that, you know, developers will pay for this stuff. It's not the reality.
Um, I would make a uh motion to reduce the 18 month date to uh 6 months. Thank you. There's a second to that motion. Second. Second. Okay. It's open for discussion
with respect to the motion to amend to reduce the uh stated period from 18 months to 6 months. It's Miss Ryan. Good evening. Barbara Ryan, 14 Irving Place. I just want to share my experience. Um, I live on, I believe, one of the most idyllic streets in town,
um, Irving Place. And my husband and I are involved in a large project with our home. And when we triggered section 10 earlier this year, uh, we thought we had gotten through all the wickets. And in our experience, um, it felt daunting, but I felt the historic commission,
again, I speak to my experience, was open, uh, fit us in a schedule, um, talked with us, guided us, we we met with them, and thankfully um, half my house is still standing because it's
considered historic. It was actually the Baptist parsonage, and it's a 1721 deed with an 1804 on the building. And then one of the historical society folks said, "No, that can't be possible. It's probably built in 1850." So, I have an old home before 1950. Um, the historic
commission worked very closely with us and as expediently as they felt the process should be in honoring that my husband and I thought we about to turn dirt. Um, but we worked together. We made our pres presentation. They worked with us and thankfully half of my house
is now designated um preferably preserved because of it's maybe not it very historic from an architectural um perspective because it looks like a lot of Budville houses but it has such rich history because it was a parsonage.
Um so once the house is built maybe we'll have a party in Irving Place and um we can share in the joy but I found them to uh have worked with us. the six months felt daunting. Um, but I found this the historic commission uh worked
really well to hear our intentions and then supported us. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. I think you were next. I'll get you sir after Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you. Uh Frank Chamberlain, 333 Hollister Street, vice chair of the
historical commission. Just wanted to point out a couple of examples of properties. Uh the gentleman I think had raised a question about what what what properties in town had we lost as a result of a failure to to uh uh fully
utilize our existing demolition delay period. I can think of two at least off just off the top of my head. One is Brooksmont Farm. Uh if those of you who are who have lived in town a while remember remember Brooksmont Farm. It was a uh what's known as a century farm.
In other words, it had been in the same family for over hundred years. This was on Conquered Street. Um and the the barn and the house were raised as part of a a part of a development. Um unfortunately a six-month delay period does not allow
sufficient time to engage with the developer and find a solution. Our hopes at that time had been to to engage the developer, to get them to incorporate at least the barn, which was in good condition uh into a into a new
development into the new into the new project, and we were unsuccessful in doing that. There's no incentive in a six-month delay period for the for the developer to do that. Uh, another example would be Three Fruit Street, which is now a parking lot. Uh again, this was an example of uh affordable
rental housing, which is something that the town can use and something that the town is is desperately short of. And again, uh because the developer was unwilling to engage with the with the commission to to discuss possible
alternatives, this building and the apartments it housed were were lost. So, u I would uh ask the town to vote against the amendment. Uh I think we have uh the the idea of of a six-month delay
period we've we've we've determined from from experience is uh basically meaningless. And uh what we what we need is the longer period. And as as Sarah pointed out, it's it's highly unlikely that we
would ever exactly use the full 18 months. We would hope not. We'd hope that would not be necessary, but it gives us the tools that we need to uh to affect a reasonable a reasonable compromise. So, thank you. Question. Yes, sir. I'm not going to recognize
Sir, does he want to talk or not? No. Sir, do you wish to be heard? I'll entertain the motion after this gentleman speak. But there's a there's a I'm sorry, sir. What's your name? David Dean, 72 Water Street. Thank you. Go
right ahead. And in the interest I will keep this brief just because uh I'm not actually going to be uh uh arguing nuts and bolts so much as just making the point that I in this thing in this issue of like historical uh preservation basically what you're balancing is the
ability of contractors to legitimately make money and to have things that don't get in the way of their ability to actually execute projects. And I'm sympathetic to that. The other end of it is the fact that once this stuff is gone, it's gone. And I I had a
uh a brief sojourn down in New Jersey uh during around the time of co I was kind of trapped down there and uh I heard a comedian in New York make the joke that uh New Jersey history is 400 years old but only about an inch deep. And that's
I found that to be accurate. Most people in the towns that I was in in New Jersey uh had no idea about anything that was anything in the towns that they were in they as soon as the thing became redundant it was bulldozed and made into something else and there's no sense of
connect of like of any town in New Jersey being having a distinct personality from another town in New Jersey. they just they run into each other and uh and we're not like that here. And I'm very sympathetic to the sense that you know nobody wants to be in the
process of trying to make something happen uh and being told this could be a year and a half that you'll be fighting this this long endless battle until you can make the thing be done. Uh to be clear when we're saying that 18 months that's up to 18 months. If the thing
could get resolved in short term that would be great, right? And I would argue that the issue is that we don't really have robust systems for taking care of these things. And what we're left with is people, you know, you using nickel and dime methods to try to solve problems
over the course of long long periods of time. And I'll have to admit that my I my sense on the issue is kind of is impacted a little bit by the reason why I got up earlier to ask the question about the culvert. Right?
That granite bridge that I was talking about and trying to specify is 40 feet away from a wooden bridge that I used to canoe under as a kid. And I later on found out that that wooden bridge actually dated to like the 17th century. And some somebody came along and just cut it down with a chainsaw because it
was inconvenient and it's gone. And there really isn't a system to like try to protect things like that, you know. So uh so yeah, I'm I'm speaking in favor of the original motion for the fact that these systems need to be more robust. And you know what? If you think that uh
you think that you'd like to weaken these things, then what I'd suggest is coming up with ways to support the people who could otherwise document these things quickly so they could go about the process of developing. Thank you. I'll accept that motion to move the questions. Is there a second? Second.
All those in favor of moving the question say I. Those opposed. So voted. Now we're going to vote vote on the motion to amend which proposes a reduction of the waiting period specified in the bylaw from 18 months down to 6 months. All those in favor of
the motion say I. Those opposed. That motion fails. We now proceed to the main motion seeking approval of the uh demolition delay bylaw as outlined. All those in favor say I. Those opposed.
So voted. Article 30 seeks to establish a revolving fund for demolition delay by bylaw/historic preservation fund sponsored by the select board. The motion is uh since it follows the establishment of the uh amended bylaw,
move to establish a revolving fund for the demolition delay bylaw fees collected from property owners applying for a demolition application on a property built in 1950 or earlier by amending the table at article XLIV section 5 by adding the following
and establishing an initial expenditure limit of uh $2,000. Is there a second? Finance Committee recommends favorable action 6-0 with Matt Leech absent. Topics open for discussion. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor say I. Those opposed? So voted article 31 zoning bylaw flood planes to see if the town will vote to amend the Hollison zoning bylaws at section B-J uh with respect to flood plane district
regulations. and it's outlined in technical detail for a number a number of pages. We have the town planner here this evening if there are technical questions that opposed that need to be answered. The motion is to uh move to amend the Hollison zoning bylaws at
section B-J as presented in the warrant. The explanation offered is that this update to the zoning bylaw would enable homeowners in regulated flood zones to purchase flood insurance. I'm advised that the planning board as as regulate as required by chapter 40 of the Mass
General laws did hold a hearing and did generate a favorable recommendation uh for your consideration in connection with the zoning article. As the zoning article, it requires a twothirds majority. We have did I get a second? Did I have a second on the motion? Okay.
Thank you. The second. All right. The topic is open for discussion. Seeing none, it requires a two-thirds vote. So, we'll see if it's unanimous or close there, too. All those in favor say I. Those opposed. So, voted.
Excuse me. Declare 2/3. I Yes, I declare that's a two-thirds vote and that passed favorably. Now, before we reach article two, I've had two folks members of the group this evening. I I kind of smell a rat, but I'm going to call on them anyway. Rather, we plunge into article
33. So, the town clerk asked me first. she wanted to address the town meeting and then Mr. Alfred also wanted to uh say a few words. So Liz, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Um I'd be remiss if I didn't say anything tonight.
I've had the pleasure of sitting next to you for many years and um while you conduct um the town meeting in in the graceful way that you do, but I also did a little research and um you have a total of 31 years of service to the town
of Holliston school committee u from 1987 to 19 to 1991. Select board from 91 to 94. School committee from 94 to97. town council from 2002 to 2017 and now
moderator from 2019 to 2025. We're going to I'm not done yet cuz I'm one of He deserves this will miss the efficiency with which you run your meetings, your kindness, your patience, your humor that you add
it and your vast knowledge of the town and the people in it. Thank you so much for 31 outstanding years. Go enjoy your life on your own time. Thank you, Bill. It's your turn to Well, so so Liz was much better uh
prepared than I was, but uh but you do such a nice job uh recognizing people who are stepping off boards or leaving public service after so long. So I I did want to just make sure that you were recognized, but uh Liz did a far better job than I did. So just uh you know, thank you very much. Thank you. Uh thank you. I'll I'll be brief.
It's uh I guess it's time for me to go. It's I suppose it'd be easier to leave if I lost an election and I was just turned out than to just voluntarily say I'm all done. I thoroughly enjoyed uh living in town. We Cindy and I going to continue to stay here. As most of you know, we had three children. We lost one
of our oldest child to cancer. He's buried here in Hollist. So I have a connection to the town that is uh it's going to be lifelong. I have uh had the privilege of serving as moderator in the other positions. I could speak my mind and advocate for what I thought and as a trained lawyer. I I do that and I do it
every day. I I hope that I can say as moderator that I left you all guessing with respect to what I felt about any particular issue and you didn't know I was for it or against it. And that uh that was important to me. And it was also, as you'll know, important to me that we had a civilized debate. When I was a law student, I was an elected town
meeting member in Framingham. I love the town meeting. I love the forum. I' I've been a little disappointed at times that we didn't have enough public debate, but tonight was an exception. We had a lot of interesting discussion from folks and people and I've worked here in town with a lot of wonderful people and I've thoroughly enjoyed it. And the position of moderator is of to me is a very
important one because neutrality and is of utmost importance. And so I I respect all of you and I've worked with a great team of people here and and uh it's been my enjoyment. So thank you very much. So let's move on to Thank you. Let's move on as we can to article
32. This is a citizens position. It's offered by Mr. John Tapper, 78 Stony Brook Drive. uh I guess in conjunction with or on behalf of or with Ana Tapatures who's 16 years old and a junior at Hollison High School. It's a citizens petition and under the Mass
Journal law, the town is required to accept a citizens petition in the precise format that it's tended to us uh as long as it's signed by the appropriate number of of sponsors. And this article indicates as follows and provides as follows. to see if the town will vote to accept this proposed
ordinance. No person under the age of 18 shall uh discharge any rifle, shotgun, or handgun within the borders of the town of Holliston except within an area designated for such purposes or with consent of the select board or with consent of the controlling government
body thereof. And the motion is as follows. Move to accept the proposed article and amendment changing the word ordinance to bylaw. You may know that cities have ordinances and towns have bylaws. So the proposal is to change the article to incorporate the word bylaw
rather than ordinance. That no person under the age of 18 so discharge any rifle, shotgun or handgun within the borders of the town of Hollist except within an area designated for such purpose or with consent of the select board or with consent of the controlling government body thereof. The proposed
language is to be added to the end of section 9 of article XXIV of the bylaws. Is there a second? And then I call on uh the sponsor or Ana, whoever they've designated to come up and speak with us. Are they present here this evening? Yes.
Go right ahead. Come up and don't feel constrained by the hour. Just introduce yourself and then say what you'd like to say to us, please. Thank you. Thank you. Um, good evening. As mentioned before, my name is Nissa Taper Touris and I live
at 78 Stony Brook Drive. I'm currently a junior here at Hollist High School and during this academic year I've been working on a bylaw for a capstone project for the global citizens program here at school. Uh but now it is much more than just a class assignment. Rather, it's an opportunity to make an
important and necessary change for our beloved community and it's important to make us safer. The proposed this the proposed I'm so sorry. I'm really nervous right now. Um you know what you can do? Pretend there aren't 80 or 100 people here. Just look at Mr. song you're right in front of. Just pretend
you're talking to him. Okay, forget the rest of us. This proposal isn't isn't to restrict minors who have firearm identification cards from shooting guns, but prevent to prevent teenagers from making irresponsible or impulsive decisions with weapons that they don't know how to
handle. This wouldn't impact any teen from going to the local shooting range here in town or prevent teens from hunting with their parents. I'm simply up here to place the idea of updating our gun laws to reflect modern times, which Hollist hasn't done since 1989. Over the last several years, gun
violence by teens has increased, making this a reasonable step to prevent a gun tragedy from happening in our town. Since 1989, there has been over 390,000 reports of gun violence in schools, with the percent of kids bringing guns to schools going up
150.7% since 2020. This is a growing problem that can no longer be ignored. Gun violence has been a controversial subject for so long, but doesn't have to be. This is There's nothing controversial about keeping kids safe. We as Americans have to use our rights that allow us to challenge to change the
laws that we live by to impact the community that we all know, all live in, and all love. To wrap up this long night, I humbly ask you one more time to vote yes. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.
Okay. Further discussion and will we start? No, you sir, you're kind enough to yield. Why don't we call you first? Uh, Ben Zemer, 593 Winter Street. So, I'm kind of curious of how this makes us
safer and what problem in Holl this actually addresses that is a safety concern for people. Um, and then you mentioned that this doesn't restrict uh individuals with ID cards or for hunting, but there's nothing in this that provides for that. Um, there is
explicit state law that provides people under the age of 18 with the right to use a firearm for hunting. Period. There there's no ifs, ends, or buts about that. Um, and then also has this undergone any uh legal review from a lawyer or anybody that has
gonna have to defend this, you know, because the the town's going to have to defend this if it becomes a bylaw. Someone's going to, you know, challenge this rightfully so because there are multiple conflicts with other laws. So, are us taxpayers going to have to foot the bill
for a lawyer to defend this when that isn't really a practical problem in front of us? Thank you. You can respond, but before before you respond, I I'll give you an opportunity to respond, but I just want to say that when I saw the article, I raised with
town council the question of whether or not the concept of preeemption comes into play here where a city or town can be restricted from legislating one or more topics that are already the subject of state law or federal law. And uh I'm going to ask Jay to weigh in on that
because he had a he had a view on I shared the view with him. I just wanted Mr. Zema to understand that we had given some consideration toward that. Uh so Jay, do you you want to offer some thoughts on it? Sure. And um the the last speaker raised an important point
that there are in fact laws regarding the right to use u discharge firearms with respect to um at at certain ages. I thought that looking at this one um I thought it was a close question.
fortunately that if this town meeting approves it, the attorney general gets to review it after we do. I think there is a strong argument that home rule prevails and that it is an acceptable exercise of home rule and I think
there's a a decent argument that preeemption could apply too. But the attorney general, that's why they exist. We send these all bylaws to them and they would have the last word on it here. Um, I think the moderate moderator and I thought it was worthy of being
presented and allowed to be taken to a vote. So that that would mean that we wouldn't be incurring expense at the local level for legal opinions and things of that nature. It goes from us to the AG's office and they would review and tell us whether or not they if if it's passed the town meeting whether
it's uh lawful or not. Okay. Further discuss. I'm sorry, Mr. I'm sorry. Did you want to speak to it yourself? Now that you've got your maiden speech under your belt, this should be easy for you. Yeah. Just to answer your first
question, this isn't so much as a responsive bylaw as it is a preemptive one. I actually don't know um where the Okay. Yes. Sorry. Um so this there's been an uptick of gun violence. We can all see it in the news
and there's always been some some sort of gun violence in US history. This can be seen dated back to when we first got here like the 1600s. Um but as I just said, there's been a resurgence of not
really a resurgence but an uptick I keep saying. And I would rather pass this now than deal with the tragedies of it later. Like we nobody could ever predict
a tragedy like a shooting happening in any town. So, I feel like and with my research, I just I feel like passing this is so much better than waiting to pass it or having this discussion after
the fact after a tragedy has occurred. Does that Does that answer your first question? Yeah, that's fine. Go right ahead. Further discussion? Yes, Jay. I'll give you another chance, Mr. Z, before we finish the debate. Jay Liry
146 Karen Circle. Um there's no mention we have in town, we have two licensed um gun rangers in town. Um how is that addressed in this potential bylaw? Um is
that considered something that is uh not subject to change or um and can we put that in there that it's not subject to change? And I'll tell you why. Um, I am a coach of the junior rifle team of uh the Hollson Sportsman Association. I've
been doing it for about 14 years now. Um, the kids that we get in range from age 12 to 21. Um, we teach uh responsibility and safety of use of uh rifles and guns and other things. Um, I
would hate to see that. It's been a a thing thing that's been going on at the sportsman association for probably 50s something years. Um I would hate to see that go away. Um that's one that's the one I represent. I know there's also
mass firearms um on October Hill. Um they have courses in the same thing. So, I would like an amendment to be made that it uh guarantees the um that currently licensed um ranges and stuff
are allowed to um remain so and will not be subject to this bylaw. J, let me ask before I ask for a second to that. My own view was that uh the proposed bylaw seeks to restrict the
discharge of any rifle, shotgun, handgun within the borders except within an area designated for such purpose. My view was that an area designated for such purpose would be reasonably interpreted to be shooting ranges or things of that nature. I just want to make sure that that is the case. Jay, do you tell me do
you agree with that? But you disagree with me. I I agree especially if there's lensure involved with it. So that is a that's what I want to make sure that that's there. Okay. Thank you. You content with that Jay? Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Yes.
Yes sir. Just very briefly maybe. Sorry. Mike Tamby 25 Morgan's Way. Uh is the phrase uh except within an area designated for such purpose sufficiently um specific? Is it too legally ambiguous in your opinion? And do we need to uh
modify it to be a little bit more specific? Could I just designate my backyard? Well, I I I think it I think it would really be a matter of designated as being authorized by the town. And that to the extent that the town is allowing
it as a as a matter of law through lensure or otherwise or zoning or other regulations, that's what it's intended for. And I'm I'm always wary to try and capture everything really specifically. broad brush strokes are often uh better
because it provides some flexibility in the nature of the designation for that particular use. When you try and designate everything specifically, you usually something falls through the crack. So a broader brush stroke could be stronger for that um particular
position. That just my general view. Okay, Mr. Ze, are you going to argue against your son? No. Okay. Well, so um I come from a family I'm sorry. Identify yourself. I although I I'm
Jeffrey Zeamer, 583 Winter Street. Uh I come from a family from long tradition. Uh so we are uh sons of the American Revolution. We frequently go to many towns in
Massachusetts, elsewhere, where we honor our forebears and their sacrifices for our liberties. And part of that is musket volleys. Okay? So, unless you're going
to get a little more particular, they are firearms. We do not discharge balls or any uh bullets. They are still firearms and very much so, but they're
very they're part of the American Revolution. Everyone's rights here were made possible by that right and perseverance.
and fourth carried down through the generations. I served in the military. My father served in the military. My uncle served in the military. My uncle was a Congressional
Medal of Honor winner in World War II. We have a long tradition of defense, upholding rights, serving in town for decades for the good good of the people.
I understand the heart that this young woman has put into her thoughts and I think I would like to help reduce any
firearm issues with children for sure. However, knowledge, training and respect is something that needs to be uh brought forth. Uh so I offer my hand out to her to if
she wants to discuss something. Um that's all. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Jamie Ring, 427 Apprentice Street. Um I'd like to commend you for taking this on. It's um an important topic and I'm
all for strong gun laws. My question though is what issues is this covering that are not already covered under the stronger Massachusetts laws and hunting laws. Um my understanding is that uh 15 to 18 year olds are allowed to get an
FID. It's only for long guns with bolt action only. Um and they are allowed to hunt without parental um supervision. Um but they're also learning to you know respect the weapons
etc. But um sorry the lands in Holliston the if you go to the hunting laws there's very few places that it's actually lawful to discharge the weapon or even carry the
weapon loaded. So, where is it that is not already designated as an approved place to shoot that this uh protects against? I guess that's a legal question. I'm sorry. Yes, go ahead. Do you want to
respond to that, [Music] Miss Jay? Go ahead. Um, so I I don't have specific knowledge as to where folks are allowed to shoot or not allowed to shoot in in Hollist. There's
no question that this is more restrictive than state law. So, it's a question as to whether or not it could be preempted. The issue of preeemption isn't so much that there's a less restrictive state law. The question is
is whether or not there was an intention by the state to cover all regulation of a particular subject. Guns could in some respects are that, but in general, towns are allowed to make more restrictive
local bylaws in some areas unless there's a clear expression by the legislature that they are the sole authority. And I think that will be up to the attorney general. The rest of the issues presented here I think are policy questions for this body. Thank you.
Further discussion. Oh, I'm sorry, Michelle. Yes, excuse me. Michelle Zeamer, 583 Winter Street. Um, I usually do not agree with my husband and son when it comes to gun control. I want to put that right out there. Um
but I wanted to make an amendment to the article to the article and that's at the end saying or property owner or in the lawful defense of life or property because that comes from the existing
bylaw and um you could probably tell they're gun people. I'm not. Um, but I know that Ben did um marksman, he did ski shooting, he did what's the other
one? He he did it all. And he practiced in our yard 500 ft away from residents. We've got two and a third acres. Our neighbors have, I think, 12 acres. So, he was able to do it safely with the hay bales and, you know, everything that
you're supposed to do. and it was our personal property and I think that should be able to be continued because the state law says that they have to have the permission of a parent. So as long as a
parent approves it, it's on your own property and you meet the bylaw requirement of distance and not on someone else's property and having approval. It seems like you should still be able to do it as long as it doesn't
conflict with the state law. Okay. So, Michelle's motion is to it's to amend the uh motion so as to pro provide at the end of government body thereof or property owner or lawful defense of life or property. Is there a second? Second. All right. We'll discuss
the amend proposed amendment. Yes, sir. Uh Devon How 10 Dixon Circle. Um first off, I personally don't enjoy these types of conversations. I try to keep politics out of the the public side, if you will. I usually like to stick with the the zoning side and the uh
compliance side. Um certainly appreciate you know the the concern from this young lady here. Um I myself I my wife is actually an educator. Um so you know obviously safety is near and dear to me. Um you know obviously things
you hear in the news is terrible. Um, unfortunately the the reality that, you know, I see with something like this is, you know, it just it further confuses the regulations that, um, you know, have been created by the state
legislature. Um, I'm sure some people may be aware substantial changes this past year were made to um, gun laws. Um, a lot of them are going to court right now. Um it's it's almost comical um where you know I'm a member of the
Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts um and I just get weekly updates on you know this is in court now this is in court now um and I think this this type of bylaw opens up Holl to um a lawsuit for you know for
unfortunately I say in a way that's not to underestimate it but what does this accomplish lish. Um it it just it further complicates it. Um it'd be easier just to write article 32
um to say no one shall negligently discharge um a firearm. Don't break the law. Don't shoot someone. So I don't I know there's um a motion already on the table. Um, so I, you
know, ask the moderator if I could make a motion to indefinitely postpone this article. Second. Second. Yes. Discussion. Yes, sir. No, we're now discussing the motion to definitely postpone, but you can touch
on the merits of the underlying article. Andre Vargas, 12 Curve Street. First of all, I want to congratulate you. That is absolutely fabulous that this is coming from you and I think that regardless of the outcome of it being postponed or or
going through, it is a win. It is a huge win that this conversation is happening right now that we're here debating it. So on that, I really want to congratulate you because there has been something that has been gained tonight. That said, I as a gun owner, I don't
really think that prohibition is the way to go with anything. It is education. Educating young people to learn how to responsibly use guns is much more important. I am a firm believer that 10 out of 10 shootings that have happened in this country could have been prevented by actually pre like taking
care of these kids by having given them the care that they needed when they yelled out and help instead of having ignored them. And I hope that we can actually provide that for every single kid in this town so we never see a tragedy like that. The other ones that we see a lot are the kids who have, like
you said, no clue how to use a firearm and end up shooting somebody. Once again, that is education that comes into place. Teaching kids how to properly use a firearm, how to not use a firearm is very important.
So, I mean, I learned how to shoot from my dad. My dad taught me how to shoot and I want to teach my daughter how to shoot. I think it's that's the important part. So I will go with the motion of postponing it indefinitely also because
there's a lot of ambiguity, a lot of uh the language is not there. We've seen so many people asking so many questions about the ranges, about the state laws that I don't think it's really good. That said, I really want to say again, this was a huge win for us as a
community. So, congratulations. Thank you. Further discussion, last word. Go right ahead. Sorry, I don't know if this will really bring anything to the conversation. I just wanted to clarify some languages that or some language issues that seem
to I didn't seem to clean anything clearly. Um, the intention of this proposed bylaw is not to impact anybody's history with shooting guns
or going to the shooting range. As I mentioned, like this would not affect anybody from hunting with their parents. This would solely prevent a kid from deciding
to, you know, take their parents' gun out to have, you know, to go shoot. This would have accountability for those kids in in Hollist in Hollist law. Um, sorry, I wrote a couple of
notes down somewhere. Right now in Massachusetts law, kids are allowed to shoot their guns at their home without a license with the per with the consent of their of the parent and with the supervision. I believe that was this that was the motion put in place to
amend this bylaw. Correct. Was that was that the language that they added? No. No. But still that's state law. Okay. Yeah. I heard someone mention earlier that I think it
was this lady over here that like kids who want to learn how to shoot a gun safely, they should be allowed to do that at home with parental supervision and with parental consent. I do believe that. I don't want kids taking believing that they have
that right to go shoot a gun in their backyard without the parental consent, without the parental supervision and harming someone or themselves. Um, to add on to a gentleman who spoke earlier about
the history of a certain group, I believe that that would first and foremost, he mentioned musketss. Musketss are not rifles. I specifically mentioned I don't mean to be going into specifics here, but I
specifically mentioned rifle, shotguns, or handguns, and musketss do not fall under that. And also I feel like that would be something that could be brought to the select ward or the controlling
government body which I took when I was writing this to mean either the police chief or the state. I don't know if that cleared up anybody's questions about this or if this helped in any way. Um if this does
get postponed indefinitely, I would love to hear people's feedback. and how I could improve this later on because I would love to bring this up again. Um, thank you very much for your time and I really appreciate it. Okay, if we can let's proceed to a
vote. The first in the order of priority will be first we'll vote on the motion for indefinite postponement that was made and seconded. Uh, all those in favor of indefinite postponement say I. Those opposed. Could you tell? No. No. We need a hand
vote on it's too close to call. Same. We have same uh tellers. No, they're still here. Still here. Okay, though. All those in favor of indefinite postponement, raise their hand, please. That's all right. 14. What' you say? 22. You can speak up.
It's not secret. You can say it all. Huh? 22. Okay. 16. You guys ready? That it? Yeah. Okay. All those opposed
to indefinite postponement, please. Thank you. 17. So is it indefinitely postponed? Okay. Okay. The vote is those in favor definite postponement of 68. Those opposed to 42. The matter stands indefinitely
postponed. Motion to second. All those in favor of adjournment. So voted. Good night and thank you all. Thank you.