All right, good evening everyone. Welcome to the first meeting of the new year. Um, I called the meeting to order. This meeting of the Hopkins Select Board is being held both in person and remotely using the video conference platform Zoom. All members participating in the meeting are going to be present in the meeting room. The public has the
option of attending in person here at town hall or via Zoom using the link posted in this meeting's agenda. This meeting is being recorded. We will start with the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Uh, welcome Brian. Uh, next we will move to public forum. Each person will have up
to two minutes to speak at public forum. Please start by stating your name and address. Um, tonight this public forum is going to go till 6:15 because we need to open a public hearing. So, if someone still has to speak, I'll ask at 6:15 and we can pick that up later on in the meeting so that everyone has a chance to
talk. Um, so with that, if anyone would like to start, come on up. Welcome. Thank you. Ed Harrow, 8 Spring Lane, speaking as chair of the Open Space Preservation Commission and opining as the town fence viewer.
On the 25th of October, I believe it was a tree that was on town property, open space property, fell on the car of of an abutter. The town insurance company said TDB. Yeah, I guess I can say that you can figure that out. Um because the
abuter hadn't notified anyone that this tree was a hazard. I find that reprehensible. Now I'm going to appine as the fence viewer. We all probably know Robert Frost and his poem mending walls with had the famous line
in it, good fences make good neighbors. As the fence viewer, I try to turn it around and say good neighbors make good fences. This is about a butters. This is about relationships. This is about being good neighbors. This is not about the
$1,400 or so that we told the butter too bad. I find as I said appalling. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ed. >> Who else would like to come up? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Welcome.
>> Thanks, Barry Rosenlum, 10 Brier Cliff Drive. I had a question for the board on the upcoming uh agenda item on the tiff. Um the concern about the tax concessions of any tiff at at a time when our taxes
have risen substantially in the future looks like more of the same. I'd like to understand um the benefit of issuing a tiff. Please explain what's the cost in real dollars in the tiff agreement versus the benefit to the town. I just
don't understand it. I know the amount of foregone real estate taxes is probably a drop in the bucket annually over the seven years of the term of the contract. But I still like to understand uh the
answer to the question. I I did a quick calculation. It's somewhere in $250 to $300,000 in taxes foregone over the next seven years and it is small in terms of our large budget but I just don't understand
the the need for it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Also like to come speak >> welcome. Happy new year. General Maskowski, 15 Lauren Drive. Uh, tonight I want to talk about and and present some data here around town
manager Lane Lazarus's failed her responsibility to protect public safety. and there's misrepresentation of some town policies she's been discussing and made unilateral decisions and policy changes without select board approval. Elaine has detailed knowledge of the
town operations for over 10 years. She's been part of the town licensing process for 5 years and entered the role of town manager in April of 2024. And in December of 13th, 2024, when Peter Smanis applied for his Vic license past the application deadline, Elaine and the
select board did not vote or prove his license in December. No contingencies or nothing. It was though Hiller's Pizza did not exist, even though public knowledge of arrest and ongoing trial. Elaine let Hiller's Pizza operate for 21 days without a valid business license in his town.
Not until January 21st did Elena add Hillers to the consent agenda where it was swiftly and just stealthily consented in one big swoop for approval. There's no evidence Hillers apply and also there's no evidence Hillers applied for required entertainment license which
requires a Corey by the way and for licenses that involve alcohol. Town policy specifically states, and this is your policy, I quote, "The board will conduct a background check of applicant's proposed manager and any individual financial interest in that
applicant." Yet, the town application has no input for anybody that has financial interest in those businesses. It's just left off. On November 12th, she came in here and provided documents that explained past current policies that were under consideration to quote
improve the common VIC license process. At that meeting, she stated Corey background checks were not a requirement. Okay. Yet, as far back as 2016, HPD commentator on common vic license applicants on your own checklist. It's a requirement in the checkbox from 2021 on
to have Cory's. And they weren't done. And she's stating in here they weren't required at all. We find that just ridiculous. The application checklist uh from 2021 listed as a requirement from 2021. She makes these misleading statements in 2025 apply. No such
requirement existed even when she sat in these meetings for renewals as assistant town manager for years and she knows it. Two minutes I'm done. Thank you. >> Hi Marie Lascowski 15 Lauren Drive Ashland.
In continuence, Elaine has presented uh excuse me, Elaine has pretended to do improvements to the process by adding quories and stories, but at the same time, she removed HPD input. Police input that has been part of the Vic
license process for 10 plus years. Database checks do not replace police professional judgment. She is setting a dangerous precedent for public safety in Hopington at a time when we should be
doing the opposite. To make matters worse, Elaine employed these new processes in year end 2025 renewals. Show us the select board vote that authorized removing police from licensing oversight or even adding a
story. you will not find it because she did it unilaterally without approval and presented these as improvements. That is not her authority per town policy. That is your authority, Select Board, and she
usurped it. She removed police inspections from the process at a time when it was most needed. She has publicly made statements that are misleading to you, the select board, and to the public to cover mistakes and neglect of her role around licensing.
She ignored ignores the town's own policy requirement for background checks for people who have financial interests in the applicants. So, the town manager with decades of experience in town licensing can't get it right.
A sex offender was approved for license while on trial in open court under her watch in 2024. Her response was to remove police oversight and mislead the public and select board about pol about policy history. It is time that we hold
her accountable for her actions. Town manager Ela Lazarus must be included in the upcoming independent investigation on public safety in this town. hire a truly independent firm. She cannot lead or influence the
investigation and she cannot investigate her own failures as this board should suspend her November 2025 policy changes until you, not the town manager, re review and approve them. Thank you.
>> Thank you both. Thank you. >> May I May I provide these to the chair? >> Yes. Um just to review, this is the consent agenda from 2025 January uh 21st of when Cis Manis was
finally approved um for his VIC license without contingencies. Uh, I'm also including in this packet your own laws or policies, excuse me, that were revised, well, they were adopted January 1st, 2017 and revised
November 717 and April 4th, 2022 that basically show here how a Corey is required um for anyone uh for an entertainment license. And
also in this packet, oh, excuse me. Um, yes. And also in this packet is the policy that states um that the entertainment license uh excuse me, that the VIC license for alcohol um is to
include a background check for those um that also have a a financial interest in the applicant. I'm not sure I got the dates right. I don't know if I spoke of the dates right, but it's in your packet. Correct. We'll take a look. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Marie.
Um, anyone else for public forum? >> Thank you. >> Amy, are you on the Zoom? Thank you. >> Yeah, there are people on the Zoom, but there are no hands raised. >> All right. Um, if that's the case, then we will move on. Um, so up next,
one sec. Um, can I start the public hearing early or a few minutes early? Right. >> I have to wait. >> All right. Um, so tonight we also we have no public forum statement from the select board. So item number four,
there's nothing there. Um, we've got a few minutes, so I think we'll move to the consent agenda. The select board will consider the following consent agenda. Board will consider approving the minutes of December 2nd, 2025. The board will consider approving a parade permit application submitted by Troy Hoy
on behalf of the Hoy Foundation for the 4th annual Deco Hoy Memorial 5M road race to be held on April 11th, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The race starts at the Marathon School and ends at EMC Park with partial road closures that are to be discussed with the police department.
And lastly, the select board will consider affirming the town manager's appointments of Britt Foster, assistant treasurer and collector, and William Burke, food service worker for the senior center. So, um I will start. Does anyone have anything they want to break out or
discuss individually or just general comments from the board on these items? >> Break out. Just uh welcome to uh Brit Foster uh for joining our town. Congratulations
and uh I move the consent agenda as written on the uh select board meeting agenda. >> All right, there's a motion to second. Do we have any additional comments as people look through? Um I did want to ask Elaine as as we look at the parade
permit application. I know we've done this in years past, but is everything in order with the application? >> Yes, it is. >> Perfect. >> Permitting team comments are set. Okay. Um, any other comments from the boards or thoughts?
All good. So, we've got a motion and second. Um, all those in favor? I >> I >> Any opposed? That is unanimous. Okay. All right. 613. So, we The next one is the TIFF agreement. I
don't think we have time to go into any of these other items. Um, so we will open up the public hearing in just a minute. >> Could we do the appointment for the conservation commission? >> It's only There's only one applicant. >> Where's that one? >> It's number nine.
>> Yep. That's a good one, Amy. Um, so the board will consider appointing Margaret Shaw of the Concom to a term expiring June 30th, 2026. Open up to the board if there's any thoughts or comments. >> Um, I I know Peggy has been on um other boards including um the Board of Appeals
and I think Open Space Commission. So I I think I'm glad that she stepped up for conservation question. >> Yeah, we just had multiple people here who would have had a strong opinion. So if I haven't heard it, welcome to the board. >> I believe there's a concom meeting as we speak right now. >> Oh,
>> tricky. >> Um no, I think she'd be a great candidate and u we have good Brian. >> Great. All good. Perfect. Um so I'll look for a motion then. I would move to appoint Margaret Shaw to
the Conservation Commission to a term expiring June 30th, 2026. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any further thoughts? >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? That is unanimous.
>> If she's at the meeting, do we want to just email her that she was appointed? >> She still has to be sworn in, though. >> She wasn't able to come this evening anyway. Correct. >> Okay. Well, we appreciate her volunteering for that. It is almost 6:15.
>> I'm just not sure where you grab my script. No, here it is. It got It got pushed in. >> All right. >> No, we're good. >> Yeah. Um, so it is 6:15. We will now open the public hearing. Um, select
board will hold a public hearing to relative to the transfer of the section 12 all alcohol license for Orale, Inc. from Mauricio Bremerman to Victor Roman. Restaurant located at 2224 Main Street. Um, is the applicant here to join us?
Would you like to come on up? >> Hey guys, >> welcome. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. If you two would like to introduce yourselves, you know, we'll we want to hear from you and you obviously taking over this important role in the business and then we'll kind of open it up to the board to ask any questions and get any thoughts. Okay.
>> Okay. >> Of course, I can start off. So, my name is Stani Garcia. So, I'm the Latino guy. So, with my dad, Victor Roman. So, we're here to provide guys to the whole town. Good service, good food, good drink
sometimes. So anytime that you guys want to have good experience, so you're more than welcome. >> Perfect. Um my name Roman and I for Puerto Rico guy. I I coming over here
for my son open the uh the restaurant for everybody. He can go there enjoying the food, everything. >> Perfect. Well, appreciate you both coming. Um, I'll start with the board if for any, you know, questions or
comments. Amy, would you like to start? >> I think just, um, just confirming all the paperwork is in order. They have the alcohol license from the state. Um, and it's just a transfer of the owner's name transfer. >> Yeah. And the permitting team comments were all e positive or addressed.
>> There was uh one item that the fire chief uh flagged u, but it's more for the renewal, which is later on this evening, than the transfer of license. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Links. That was the question I had was I wanted to be clear here. We're talking about the transfer of the lensure and not
necessarily the sought out expansions in the existing license. >> Correct. >> Okay. Then I don't have any other further questions based on review here. >> Nu, >> I'm good. >> Brian, >> uh, full disclosure, I had lunch there today. I forgot we were having this
tonight. Uh, I don't see any conflict with that. It was an excellent meal. Thank you. Uh, no questions. Thank you. >> So nice. Um, perfect. Yeah, I have no additional questions. You know, appreciate you guys coming in. Um, obviously the thing we say with anyone that takes over um, these licenses and
stuff, especially with an alcohol license, it's very important to help keep the residents safe. That responsibility, you know, falls on you as the license holder. So, we just make sure to reiterate that. It's a very important thing in this town. We've got a lot of youth in here that we take very seriously. So, we always like to wrap it
up with that and stress the importance there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yep. Um, with that, I will look for a motion. >> Chair, should we go to the public? See if there's any comments? >> Yes. Thank you for reminding me. Is there anyone here that would like to make a comment from the public?
>> I just have some questions. >> No, you can come grab a mic. >> I'm Marie. I'm >> Nice to meet you, Victor. Stenny. >> Hi, Sty. Nice to meet you. Um can I may I use the microphone? Okay, thank you.
So I just have some questions in regarding the process itself. Um and understanding now that we know that those that have a financial interest um should also have a Corey done in regards
to um the licensing process and the transfer of the alcohol license. Has anyone asked um the applicant if there are other individuals that have a financial stake in in in him or in the
business? >> Mr. Chair, we don't know that to be fact. That's been suggested, but that would have to be town council. >> Sir, I gave you that information, the policy just 10 minutes ago. >> We we don't have that verified by town council. Mr. Chair, we can't respond to something that's not >> Yeah,
>> sir. you. We should be able to check the policy with town manager right now. She should be able to provide that that is a policy. We can pull that policy up right now. Sir, can we please check with the town manager if that is current policy? >> I believe it's time for public for the
public to comment. >> That is I am asking the question through the chair >> and you know I I'll look for the board again. I the biggest thing for me is like it's new it's new information that we need to vet like when it comes through. Ruby, we we can take you in
good faith and it it has likely been provided to us accurately and as exists. We have to digest it and it has to go to town council based on what you're talking about because in a world where you are accurately describing it to us, this is much bigger than this particular issue, there are significant potential
ramifications. Absolutely. >> Which I know you are aware of. Yes. But >> that's why we are trying to respond, I don't want to say diplomatically, we're trying to respond mindfully. We really do need to go through this. We're not going to be able to bully our way to an answer tonight. And this is me saying
that. I bully professionally. >> Yes. And and in response to that, my concern is that we have a town manager that can't quote the process or the policy. Ruby >> that I I just want to just hear me out. I have a right to speak. Um and that's
that with that being said, I would hope going f forward um that not to be the case in the next time. Um my first question is this though. Is there anyone else that has a financial stake in your business other than you?
>> Mr. Chair, who's not you can't ask them that. >> Okay. Um >> we're in a back and forth. >> This ladies and gentlemen is why you are in the position. >> I'm sorry. I'm incredibly uncomfortable with where this discussion has gone. You are now essentially acting as a proxy
member of the board asking questions that isn't appropriate. You've given us a policy. We've committed to review the policy. We've explained why we don't believe we can respond on it in real time. We are making an assessment here with the information that is provided before us. And candidly, I am uncomfortable with the degree to which
this is beginning to feel personal. This is not sir I have >> I'm not speaking against I am not speaking in regards to the gentleman you are sitting next to I am speaking in regards to the way in which you have been addressing our town manager. I would like to ask that we we have given you our answer on this. We hear you. We
have taken the material. We are absolutely going to review it. We are going to respond. We need to be able to move on here. And I need you to acknowledge that we are the elected members up here. You are not. >> Absolutely. And hence the questions while I'm asking you are correct.
>> We have someone >> through the chair. I I would echo what uh my colleague Mr. Krishna has said and may I remind this is a public forum and we go through the chair all the time. >> It's a public hearing. Yes. And I did ask through the chair. >> Um you were asking direct questions and >> I believe I did
>> but it's it's gone back and forth since without that. >> Fair enough. Yes. I apologize chair. >> So I I think you know again I echo what my board shares. We do take like what you're bringing up very seriously. We will look at this >> appropriately with councel and we will
consider this moving forward. Um I don't see anything right now that should prevent us from moving forward with this license transfer. >> Can I offer you one more piece of information and I'll just hand it to you and you can decide from there. Um, I'm not sure who the owner of the business is because on the license renewal
from 113, it's a just the past um owner's name and that may be okay. I don't know. Um, but it just conflicts with the current application that has this gentleman's name. Um, and it it
this isn't I I don't believe this has anything to do with them. I believe it is um an issue that has the town with your town manager that literally has a some issues with process.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Murray. >> Through the chair, I have a question for you and for us sort of in response to this. This is the first time in which we've had an item presented to us since I joined the board in which there has been a potential question raised that we
are acknowledging needs to go to town council. I'm not familiar with whether or not that merits us pausing this decision and discussion to consult town council. I'm not familiar with whether or not we should be expecting to call town council now. But I do want to ask
that question not because I'm questioning our judgment here, but in deference to the fact that this may be a legal issue. I do not want to create more challenge or churn for us. I want to give us the maximum chance to respond appropriately. So I wanted to at least
ask the question of those of you who are a little more experienced than me about what the right way to approach this is. >> So there's not an avenue for us to call council right now and get a real time update. So we as a board have to decide on the path forward collectively.
>> Mr. Chair Elaine, can you comment specifically on the ownership question? Are we good there? you feel the applicants documents are in order. >> Yes. So both of these uh are going to the through the ABCC process and so we follow the state's process. Um the transfer occurs and then the license is
renewed. So it's going together to the ABCC and we're following their process. >> And do you believe those the documents submitted to date are in order? >> Yes. >> And as town town council would not review those at this stage, right? >> No. But >> typically they would not review them at all. >> Right. So the applicant goes through the
ABCC and once they go through the ABCC process they get sent to us. >> You speak to the Corey piece of this puzzle was >> so all of the applicants and managers have been ceried. >> Okay. >> This these gentlemen in front of us have been cied. >> Yes. >> Is that correct?
>> And he's this both of you. Yes. >> And the gentleman Victor has been quarried as the new potential owner. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Good. I'm good Mr. Chair. I think we can proceed. Thank you. >> Yep.
>> I I agree. I think the other part of this was, you know, if we go back, it was about two months ago now, we talked about the license process. And as part of that, I think one of the things that we did not move forward on was, you know, financial owners and making that a
mandatory part of this review process. So, I'm very comfortable right now moving forward this one. So, I will look for a motion from the board. >> Well, Mr. Chair, I move that we've closed the public hearing if there are no other speakers. >> All right. There's a motion. >> Second. >> Second. Um, all those in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? All right. Thank you. Uh, we're going to finish continuing this. So then I will look for a motion to move forward on this. >> Before we start the motion, I just wanted to clarif
>> we just closed the public hearing. I'm sorry. We just Yeah. Sorry. >> Yeah. Quick comment. So, um, can we summarize what our next step is on this for followup or if any?
>> Well, I don't think there would be any additional follow-up on this. It's our path forward is either we approve the license transfer tonight or >> and then it goes to the state >> and then it goes to the state for approval and they can move forward their with their business or the only other
alternative is is if the board votes not to move forward with that and then it's the next steps are you know to be determined later. >> I I I agree. I think I'm um okay with moving forward. just for the residents. Um, can we clarify what exactly was the
concern and how we are moving forward uh addressing that? >> So, so I think again as as Mr. Ker brought up, it's new information that, you know, we need to review, we will consult with council and we will, as we've been trying to do in recent meetings, make it a priority to discuss
and get a response to so the residents understand like what our process is and our understanding moving forward with these things. And again, I think as we talked about the overall license process for a couple meetings, um, you know, we we said things would be, you know, we
would continue to figure things out as we went. It was not what we decided on this fall was set in stone. You know, we want the board to be um, you know, adaptive to things that come up and changes and take those into account and review them as they come. So, this this
just is one piece of that in my in my opinion. >> Yeah. A lot to digest there. >> Thank you. Yeah, that makes sense. >> Mr. Chair, I move that the uh board authorized the transfer of the section 12 all alcohol license from Orale, Inc.
2224 Main Street from Marcio Bremerman to Victor Roman. >> So, sorry before we do, >> so discuss. >> So, we can Yeah. So, we've got a motion in a second and I will open up to the board to discuss further. My only concern here, and I'm just going to ask it openly, because there has been
potential information provided to us that we are unable to verify that potentially calls significantly into question not just the decision we're about to make here, but other decisions later in the meeting. Is there truly a reason for us to have to make the decision? I don't want to adversely
impact the business by not allowing the license transfer. That isn't where I want to go with this. I'm rather comfortable with this, frankly. But on the other side, I would rightly look at this and say, I just established a precedent and I'm uncomfortable with establishing that precedent given the
potential legalities that are at stake here. To me, there is significant information that has been provided to us that I want to verify. I don't need to compound a potential error. And I'm not saying there is one. Please do not hear me implying that there is one. I don't know what I don't know yet. But I at
least have to ask the question, are we embracing risk needlessly here? If the rest of you are comfortable, I will follow along. But I felt like I needed to at least ask the question. >> Well, I I guess my only response would be like, what risk do you think is there?
>> And and I'm asking that genuinely. This is all new information to all of us. >> We're parsing it in real time. I appreciate you engaging with it. I I think the potential risk is because I recall it the way you do, Mr. Chair. We really did explore pretty I would say almost aggressively on my part financial interests of business in in regards in
specific to the one we're not going to name but we all know I'm talking about. We really did go down that avenue and I recall it ending with us deciding that that was potentially not within the allowable remitt of the board. And so that was also why I kind of blushed a little bit here because my recollection was we really did have this conversation
and we got some guidance that we couldn't go this way. So my concern is that it once again exposes us from a legal perspective. I don't want to see us getting letters from lawyers suggesting that we have violated rights and I don't want to see us getting sued again in town. That has been to our
significant detriment. So to me the risk is just willfully embracing what can potentially be exposure. >> I just want to say one thing. >> Sorry. It's it's not a it's not a public forum. I apologize. This is just this is the board's opportunity to discuss like
just be bear bear with us for a second. I I appreciate the patience >> and and I recogn all of you here because I know I can poke at everybody. This is not a challenge to the way we have done business. This is not meant to impugn or call into question anything we have done previously. I I genuinely don't know
what I don't know. So I'll I'll follow, but I at least wanted to say it and make it clear that that's what I was thinking and at least leave you all with that to consider. through the chair. I'm really confused. No, I understand the concern a little
bit but not in entirety. Maybe I'm missing something. So, um if you may help uh clarify which is we are making a decision based on the information that we have and there's new concern and new information that may or may not be
applicable. Um how do we process that? Do we stop everything until we have all the you know every everything >> again you feel that >> and that's not what I'm advocating you're I I hear how silly that sounds and I want to be clear to you that's not
what I'm suggesting I'm with you. >> No understood cuz um you know for whatever reason next time we're at here someone else may come with another piece of information. So I'm saying um and we don't want to ignore important information. We want to do the due diligence on those which we I think all
are agreeing that we will do a follow-up but at the same time we need to continue our operations and day-to-day business. >> So what would be the proper process and correct me if I'm reading it wrong. I'm thinking based of the current set of information that we have and we also
verified with the owner that is to be accurate and correct in good faith we may make a decision today and in parallel we may you know do the follow up on the information provided with the uh council and if there is any new information that makes it look any
different than what we have today we can bring it up and um discuss and reconsider it in future meetings. >> Does that sound like the due process? I like the way you put that. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Brian. Amy, any thoughts here? >> No, I'm ready to take the vote.
>> I'm comfortable moving forward. There'll be other opportunities when the license is renewed and it was also going to go to the ABCC. So, I think we should get that information from council, but I'm comfortable moving forward with the transfer tonight. >> Okay. So, with that, um, I have no additional comments. Um, I kind of share
both your opinions on this. Uh, so we we had a motion, we had a second. So all those in favor I >> I. >> Any opposed? >> I abstain. >> One abstension. All right. Congratulations on the transfer. Thank
you guys for coming tonight. >> Good luck. >> And through the chair. Thank you to the board for the discussion there. Of >> course. >> All right. So, next. Thank you. Good luck. >> Thank you. Good luck with the business.
Thank you so much. >> Thanks for the good food. >> See you again. >> So, next, uh, the select board will consider reviewing and providing feedback on a draft tax increment financing agreement between the town and Open Play LLC for a new pickle ball paddle facility located at 124 East Main
Street. TIFF agreements require town meeting approval. Um, so Elaine, would you like to introduce this one? I know we talked about this was probably what, a couple months ago. We had them here. It was presented. Um but just kind of tell remind us what's happened since and where we are in that process.
>> Sure. Uh so a couple of months ago, Open Play approached the town and requested approval to negotiate a tiff agreement for their new facility at 124 East Main Street uh for pickle ball and battle facil facility. Uh so the board authorized the negotiations to proceed
and we proceeded with our team who is includes Lance um Kyla Larierre CFO uh John Nice principal assessor and Julia Chun sustainability economic development equity project manager and myself. Um the 24,000 foot indoor facility is under
construction uh and it also has outdoor courts as well. Uh so OpenPlay initially requested a 14-year agreement. Um we in general prefer as a town uh we've preferred shorter agreements to minimize the lost
revenue and also because we found that businesses over time as they grow and change um they can be bought, sold, merge with others and the tiff agreement goes away and um sometimes they don't reach their end and it just it kind of fizzles out. It uh ceases to exist. So
the current draft uh that we've discussed with uh open play is a seven-year agreement for real estate tax exemptions and five years for personal property. So for real estate the exemption starts at 90% and goes down to 30% in the final year. And for personal
property the exemption is 100% for all of the five years. So and the uh the exemption is on the improvements. It's not on the full value of the property. It's on the improvements that are made. In this case the property was vacant. So the improvement is most of the the value
that's going to be there because there's a new uh building. Um so I've distributed this evening um some figures on lost revenue that are anticipated um that our uh principal assessor has developed. Um and so assuming uh that an
assessment uh is uh for $4.5 million uh in year 1 um with the exemption applied the lost revenue that year would be 50 $57,024 and that would decrease in the final year to $19,08 uh for real estate taxes. So that would
be the lost revenue for those seven years. And for personal property, they're anticipating that that will be about $14,000 a year. That would be foregone for a 5year period. So that's the what we have for the board to review
and comment on. Um and also um the um open play uh is offering benefits to the community in return and those are some junior which are under 16 and senior which is 65 and up membership discounts for up to 50 Hopington residents a year.
hosting an annual fundraising tournament for a Hopkington nonprofit organization. Reserving a minimum of 200 memberships for Hopkin residents. Um using all reasonable efforts to undertake a partnership with the public schools for varsity and or club youth programming.
Uh using all reasonable efforts to provide for Hopington youth employment volunteer and apprentice opportunities and partnering with Hopkin resident restaurants for catering. So those are the the benefits that they're offering in return for uh what the town will forego in in revenue over the period of
the tiff agreement and it would start when the facility is construction is complete after occupancy and the tiff agreements do require town meeting approval. So uh the board's feedback on our negotiation to date um
is important to to the to open play and to us to know if uh this is headed in the right direction. uh or if there are other things uh you think we should consider uh as we proceed. >> Okay. Uh thank you for the overview, Elaine. Um I I think you know I I'll
kind of just I'm kind of putting all my thoughts together. I think at like at this point like I don't I don't see the benefits to the town for this tiff agreement. I think at this stage in the project, um I
think this is something it seems like it was almost done like towards the finish line as a way to potentially save some tax money. Um and at a time where tax revenue is critical to what we're doing to balance the budget every year. Um so
I'm probably leaning towards, you know, if it was if it was anything, it would be a very short kind of one-year thing, but I I don't see the incentive for the town to do it right now. But I'll open up to the board um for their thoughts. Anyone like to go first? Matt, you can go first.
>> I thought I was going to have to say all that. This is great. I I share your I share and echo your concerns here. So, I did some blanket math based on what you gave us. It looks like about 350,000 in lost revenue. That's tough. As I recall, the last time we did a tiff, it
was for the development up on Cell Street with Lyan, now Roslin CT. a large number of what I would consider to be more white collar jobs. Not that that matters, but those people also tend to spend a lot more money and engage with other services in town and
potentially move to town versus something like more of a service-based commodity. This is a tough one for me though because I'm mindful that as you looking down the table like to remind us, we need to be friendly and be open to business in Hopington. So, I want to be clear here. This is a business I find
highly desirable for our community. I think it will do really well here. I think the citizens will support it and I think it does add enrichment in value. I just don't know that it is something that we should be subsidizing. Ultimately, my understanding of a tiff is it's supposed to help ease the burden
of the development. I live near this place and let me tell you, I have driven by it. It looks developed. It looks built. So, I share where you are. I would like to see this significantly shortened if at all. And I really need to see some financial offset back. simply telling us that you're going to
allow the community to access and leave things aside for them. Who else is going to come? >> Amy, would you like to go? >> I guess I have mixed feelings about it. I do want to be friendly to business. The lot was vacant for a long time, so it's nice to finally have a tenant um or
developer. So, we will get a lot more tax in the long run because it's developed. Um but I agree that there's not a huge economic benefit to us. About 10 employees. Let's see. 50 sounds like free memberships for seniors and students and then 200 memberships
reserved for residents and a charity event. You know, people we have a lot of charities in town which would enjoy charity events. And I haven't heard too much from the public on this if they I like I I don't play pickle ball myself, but um so I don't know. I'd kind of like to hear more from the public and I would
be open to perhaps a shorter term than what's presented so far. Um just my thoughts. >> Okay. Yeah. No, this is interesting. Of course, um you know, as you have heard many times, I'm a proponent of economic development and we want to attract new
business, the right business that benefits us economically as well as um improves the quality of life of our residents and this um business I certainly like. um it has the potential for both and uh in the long term it would also uh certainly create uh new
opportunities um and attraction for similar other business. So I'm um thinking a little differently. I think I like the business. I like the uh model to some extent. We have used this model but I think we need to go back a little
bit to the financial drawing board and renegotiate. What I'm kind of looking at is instead of 350, how about we cap it uh I'm thinking of two terms. One is cap it to between 125 to 150 total and reduce the term to 3 years. And second
is we want to also have a clawback uh clause of some kind that uh after 3 years or four years we can find a suitable number. uh if the business decides to leave as soon as the
thief uh benefit evaporates that wouldn't be um good investment and would be a loss. So if it were uh something of a big investment where you know closing out the business would u incur for example a plant or um pharmaceutical
research lab where it would incur additional uh capital investments which would be difficult to remove over couple of years then it would be a different deal which we may have done in the past or we can do every business and every
deal is different so in this one I think It's a little more lightweight and it's much more portable in some ways. So I would uh request considering these two claws. One is limiting the term limiting the financial cap to maybe 150k in my
view tops uh and then have a clawback clause for say 5 years or seven years. >> Okay. Um, I appreciate the application and uh
the interest in the TIFF. Uh, like many of my colleagues, I'm struggling with this one uh for a couple of different reasons. Um, it it it felt it feels to me like they're trying to close the deal and they're putting some stuff on the table in front of us to discuss that are things that are nice to have that might
help us close the deal, right? And um, it's business 101 stuff. I get it. But I'd want if we're going to do this and if the town meeting decides to do this, I'd want to see all those benefits in writing as part of the TIFF and have an
annual TIFF review to make sure that those benefits that have been put forward are actually happening. Um, I like the idea of some kind of clawback if they're not. Uh, a termination clause to be included after each year of the review if it doesn't play out. Um, and
then maybe this whole thing is just a threeyear deal or something like that. I don't know. But in general, um, um, there's a I think there's some selling going on here, which is okay. It's what I do for a living. Uh, selling is a good thing in business. You need to do it, but I'm not sure what the benefit to the
residents of Hopington is financially for this particular transaction. So, uh, I'd want to go into it with a little bit more teeth in the contract to get our money back. it doesn't play out. And I'm curious, um, so it's about
350K, Matt, on back of the envelope. >> Yeah. >> Um, like what do we see is what is the what would be the financial benefit to the town for this 350K investment? Like forget all the nice to have stuff, the closing deal stuff. >> Do we know what a fin is there any kind of financial return here for us in this
one over the long I guess over the long haul there would be >> taxes, >> right? Like with the next 15 years after the 5year tiff or something like that. >> Yeah. And I agree with that. Like, you know, I think about these tiffs though and and again, it's just my opinion, but I see this as, you know, I I think if if
it was Amy might have brought it up like, you know, we want to bring more businesses to town. Like when I look at this, this business is already in town. Like, it's not like it came like, hey, you know, we're we're looking at Hopington and Ashland and Milford and Hollist for a new uh pickle ball
facility. Like, it's it's already here. And for for that reason alone, I don't see the benefit. I don't see that 350K. Um I think that's more important now. And you know, again, I've been up here just as much. Economic development very supportive. I would love to help bring
more businesses to town. I think that 350k revenue is more important right now. And if we look for other businesses that try to come in in the future, we can support them. Um this one for me just doesn't make sense on the timing. >> Yeah, >> I like the way we're signaling this at the end. We are not opposed to a tiff.
We are not opposed to working with you, but we want to work up front and we want it to be because you want to be here. >> To elaborate on the last point, I think I um um I'm just trying to clarify. So, the business is already here set to go and everything. Uh then what is the t
incentive purpose of the t incentive? I thought they are going to make a decision and go fullblown and that's where the t um incentive is. Can you clarify on that? So for from their perspective, they're starting a new business from scratch and so it's, you know, tough to get that going, but also
uh they can use the tiff um even if it's a one or twoyear tiff, whatever tiff it is to leverage some state uh funding and loans and so forth, um tax credits, those kinds of things. So it it helps them get into the state queue for certain certain benefits.
>> Yeah. So to clarify, they are a business here and they're going to operate here. They're requesting this. This is not a negotiation perspective for per se, right? It's an open request. The reason I'm saying it that from a negotiation perspective, I think we have a very good
upper hand if that is the case cuz um this is not the time to negotiate a TF. Uh but we are very happy that they are here and we would love to cooperate and collaborate but again I agree that there is no additional benefit for the town at
this time to get into a TE it seems then. >> Yeah. and and I just pulled up on my phone and it's it looks like memberships are already open to start it. Like that's that's to me as a revenue source that could potentially start at any time. Um so I don't I have nothing else
to say. I'll look for the board if there is a motion. Like again this has to go to town meeting either way. So this is really looking for the board's direction on you know how supportive or not supportive we are of this. >> Does it have to go to town meeting? >> Thank you. It was a question I was about to ask through the chair. If we don't
sponsor it, it doesn't go to town either. >> You'd have to submit the article. >> Wait, what if we do that? >> It's on our potential It's on our potential list of articles that you would submit into the warrant, >> right? So, we would essentially have to vote to include it for it to then be considered by the town. So, to Brian's point, I don't even know if we need to
continue negotiation if we are not in support of it. >> That's what I mean. I just want to make sure we're all hearing that. >> I am comfortable continuing some negotiation for a smaller tiff, but if the the rest of you are not, then we shouldn't drag it out, I guess. >> Yeah. I mean, we can just do a straw straw vote. I am not >> I'm not
>> uh she said com it was negotiating a smaller tiff keeping that open. She was comfortable for that. Matt and I are not. We're just kind of giving everyone a chance to talk. >> I'd go smaller one year ter one year increments and check on it. >> I I am okay with um smaller incremental
and I I'll be also elaborating just a little bit. I think from an business negotiation perspective it wouldn't make sense for us to do it right now because again the boat has sailed and but I think as a welcoming gesture and for uh and an incentive and
uh kind of promoting factor for new other business to come this should set a good u tone and vibe for the town which I'm um in favor of but um maybe one or two years then because it's completely
kind of proono incentive from my view. >> So add just a little something just one thing to consider too if we possibly do a smaller one. So having new some new businesses can bring more new businesses like it brings more people to the area that are going to play pickle ball then they might want to get a coffee or they might want to do other things in town.
So, and we have this goal of downtown revitalization after our big project and um I think I think something smaller would be appropriate myself and I think because we do want to encourage that revitalization of downtown with the project being done and and we'll have the marathon center soon. U so anyway
that's my two cents and why I would want to do something but if I'm out voted it's mine. >> Sure. >> Not a vote. >> I think some of our colleagues would expect this from me. I'm curious what our three members of the professional team think about this tiff and if they would support it. I do. >> I know you've been in negotiating it,
but I'm just curious like it's okay. What do you think? >> Yeah, I think um in um you know, sitting down with the business, you know, you become aware of what it takes to start a new business from scratch, go to a place and make a huge investment. Um so I
understand the need for some assistance in the first couple of years. Beyond that, I don't I don't necessarily think it has to go on for very long. I think it's going to be very successful business. >> Yeah, I mean I'll echo that. I think, you know, my big concern going into this
was just, you know, a matter of precedent and what that looks like. When we set a tiff agreement for a business that's already committed to being constructed, I think in this case there is, you know, an interesting factor that kind of sets it apart in that this is was a difficult to develop piece of land that sat vacant for a long time. So that
even though maybe the process a little bit cart before the horse now because now we have this applicant coming to us after committing to build whereas you know if he had approached us beforehand it may have been a different discussion um you know I think you know that that is a kind of a distinction in this case that you know that he has decided to
come to Hopping and develop this difficult to develop parcel um you know but again you know it's it's already underway so you know the ball's certainly in our court. >> Kyla would you like to I agree with
everything said. Um, shorter term is much more welcoming to me than a seven-year term. >> Okay. So, I heard kind of three of the board members express interest in continuing negotiations. You guys are the negotiating party. So, if you guys
agree with that as well, I don't think it's, you know, it's not on us to hold you guys back, it sounds like. So, >> do we need a motion for this? >> No. No. Okay. >> We'll see if they're interested in that. Everyone comfortable? Yep. Good. >> All right.
Thank you. You can >> tell it's the new year. We're very collaborative tonight. >> All right. Next, we are going to move on to the license renewals. The board will consider renewing annual licenses for the following businesses. Section 12 restaurant all alcohol and associated licenses for 110 grill carbon restaurant
Cornell's Irish pub hockin and country club co- restaurant pantai bowain pizza bar rap scallion or rally Mexican restaurant Hopkins center for the arts and aros hospitality section 12 club all alcohol and associated licenses for the woodville rod and gun section 19 C
farmer brewery pouring permit for startline brewing company section 15 package store all alcohol licenses for Hawin and wine and spirits the vin bin and country farm Farm liquor section 15 package store wine and malt license for global Montello Group which is Alltown
Fresh. Common Vic license for Muffin House Cafe. Arrow Market Dell 176 South Street and 228 South Street. Blue Square Pizza. Starbucks at Price Chopper. Starbucks coffee at 85 West Main Street. Red Barn Coffee at Angel's Cafe. Domino's Pizza, Crustin Co. and Hapio.
Class one and Class 2 licenses for Bulldog Fire Apparatus Inc., Whiteall Auto Sales, Inc. and Main Street Service Center and then livery and limousine license for Able Limousine. Select board will consider granting an extension of licenses for businesses for whom the annual inspections are not yet complete.
So, um we initially went through a couple of these like and the inspections weren't ready when we met back in December. Um so, we've made some progress on those here tonight. I I think I believe not all of them are completed. >> Elaine, you want to jump in? only six of
them are ready for renewal. >> So do the chair if I can ask a quick question. So based on our previous discussion and our animated back and forth with the potential policies, I want to ask is it this is different than a license transfer. These are existing
licenses and it is within our power to extend them without any impact to the business. Correct. Without indulging or engaging in whether or not what we were presented with was valid, is it worth us considering an extension until some period after our next meeting, not more
than a day or two would be my preference so that we can at least finalize this such that we do not put ourselves in a position of approving the licenses at risk. I'm going to ask again. This feels a little different to me than the previous discussion. >> Mr. Chair, I'm confused. Are we talking about the six that have not submitted yet or are we talking about all these
other ones here? So only six businesses have completed um uh the inspections and so forth have been completed for them and they're ready to go. The others uh we're asking for an extension of those. >> All right. So >> in the motion document, so just to so just to clarify, there's a group of them
that we already need to submit extensions for or we need to do extensions for just because incomplete permit or um uh yeah, so inspections and then so your your recommendation is do we extend the other ones pending more
information from the or or more intel on the information that we received tonight, >> especially now hearing that it's six and we're going to be expending all the other ones. anyway as it doesn't have adverse impact to the businesses. >> Yep. No, I was just making sure I wanted to understand that. So, I I'll I just
think it's something it's it's a great thing to bring up. Um I just want the rest of the board's thoughts on that exact matter. So, we'll just kind of go down the line, share what everyone thinks. >> Are we thinking that one of these is a auto sales company, not a liquor license at all? Are we still wanting to is the
proposal to extend that one as well? >> That's what I'm asking. I don't I want to be clear, not a proposal, not an ask for a vote. to me. We're having a discussion >> right now. I'm just kind of looking for a straw pole on >> So I guess there would be no harm in just extending them another couple weeks. >> Correct. The licenses would continue to
operate with an extension. >> So, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I'm still confused. Must be hour or something. It's not even that late. We just talked about 30 different businesses. >> Yep. >> Are all 24 of those 30 ready to go? >> Only six. >> Only six are ready to go. Now we're
getting somewhere. Okay. Six of this list are ready to go and the rest haven't done what they need to do. Right. >> So that's where I was going. >> So something's wrong here. >> Yeah. So we got to extend 24 anyway. >> Correct. So So his idea is we're already like we need to extend 24 just out of >> to allow those businesses to operate and
we received some new information tonight that none of us could confirm. We don't have legal counsel, but I think there was an appetite for us to get some legal response on. So the idea is just why do we not just extend them all for right now? We will move on. It gives us two
weeks to get to um to get some feedback from legal counsel on that information and then we make an informed decision at our next meeting. >> The six that are ready to go, who are those please? >> So those are a rally, Alltown Fresh,
Carbon Restaurant, Country Farm Liquor, and Bowman and Whiteall Auto. And if it's helpful, I can read from the alcohol policy as far as what's required with an application and what the standards for issuance of a license are >> through the chair. That would be helpful. But >> why would you want to do that, right?
>> But but one quick thought on that. I think we need to also um maybe this is a good example. We need to also kind of reconcile among ourselves how exactly are we going to approve this going forward for now and in future. For example, all 30 business would
potentially have uh you know many inspections. Each of the inspections have 30 to 60 checkpoints and all that. It would be impractical and also from the charter's responsibility perspective to get into that level of operational detail that we're going to look at every
single checkboxes of each inspection. So I want to make sure that we are all on the same page as well as you know we communicate it well with the town residents that what exactly is the framework we are going to use and here's my thought and suggestion on this which is for example this six they have
completed all the required documents inspections and all that are ready to go pending our approval so I would like to ask the questions in a way that based on the town's expertise the town's assigned um administ administrators and Elaine uh
you being um you know the chief administrator unless you see any aberration any exception any escalation that we should be taking a aside and considering and discussing and then make a special
decision. The way I would want to have this framed is that business A has completed all the required documents, inspections, past core, sorry, and all the required policydriven processes and we do not have any objection. We
recommend it to be approved and there's no exception required. That type of kind of spoon feeding in some ways of the gist of the outcome of the process would be I think appropriate
in many ways because we trust the town administrator trust the process. We went in detail uh very much with this process and all the questions and if needed we will go again. But once we have decided that that type of framework I think
would be meaningful for the efficiency as well as compliance and adherence to what we are trying to do. If everyone agrees, I'd like to propose that we do things that way and at the same time also limit kind of our liability that we are not going through every 60 check
boxes. I'll pause. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time. >> Yeah, you have a thought. >> Sorry. So, um, couple of thoughts. This notion around new information, we really need to put that aside. Okay. We cannot run this board. We cannot run this town
based on new information presented at meetings because somebody's mad at somebody else. We just can't do that. So, stop worrying about the new information. We have a process. Let's follow the process. Let's get it done. We have six folks that have done their job. Maybe they're financing the businesses requires a license to be in
place by a certain time. Maybe there's some other corporate governance that they have to have a license at all times. If someone's done their job, we should approve those tonight. the ones that haven't done their job or not they haven't done their job, the ones that haven't got around to submitting yet, we should extend those. But I don't want to hold up the six folks that did their
work. >> So, so I think so what I'm hearing is kind of two suggestions. You know, one is extending them all, which to the next meeting, which again doesn't hold back anyone's license. They continue to operate with the extension. and then yours is um moving forward to approve
the six and then we have to extend the other 24 just for lack of inspections anyways. Um so you know I think both are feasible options. It's kind of you know we'll do a quick straw poll. I know where you two are shy you want to start
like where do you fall on those two? They're both path paths forward. I'm honestly open to both but given you know um we are extending I think logically extending all would make sense and and the threshold is very small it's
six so I would go with extending them all although I agree with Brian or Mr. her um that you know to incentivize someone doing things right and on time is a good thing to do but it's six
versus 24 so I just go with extending all of them >> yeah I would I agree with Brian that I think I I would feel comfortable moving forward with these six that are all complete based on the process we've gone through and all the applications that have been submitted but I I agree that it won't I don't think it will really
cause any harm for them to have to wait two more weeks if we extend them. >> Yep. Um, so I I appreciate your perspective here, Brian, and you I'm thinking of Glen Close. I don't want to negotiate with terrorists either, and that isn't the
way that I want to see things run here. So, I want to make it clear that I do hear you. I I'm coming I'm coming around quickly to where you are. I really do not want to establish the precedent that you can stop the routine workings of the government here by suggesting something. and it is well within our authority to
come back and alter our decision based on information that we learn. I think you've made a rather fair point. >> Are you changing your >> I think I am in support of what Mr. is proposing that we approve the six which are existing and known lentures and which have as Mr. Manan has highlighted
gone through our town process for the other 24 they get extended and if we learn something that changes that gosh darn it we'll do something with it. >> Well said Brian. So I I think that looks like there's a motion ready for that. >> So with that, speaking to the sixth then
Elaine, can you please confirm that for these six applicants, the process is buttoned up, all the eyes are dotted, all the tees are crossed, all the tests, the quaries, everything are done and complete. >> They are. So the board requires uh in addition to the ABCC renewal application
form and other documents that they require, the town requires its own general license application form which they've submitted, proof of insurance which they've submitted, certification of completed alcohol awareness training which we received those and the town's application fee. We've also cried and
sorry the managers and owners as well. >> Perfect. our bylaws and state law >> there >> and and board policy >> and policy process >> and can you and can you please read the six again for me? >> This is a rally a Mexican restaurant all
town fresh carbonius restaurant country farm liquor bow main and then also whiteall auto sales which is a class 2 vehicle license. So to the chair >> question independent here does this and maybe I'm asking Elaine I apologize
>> when should I be discussing and when should we be getting back to the entertainment license piece of this and the fire chief's comments about would that be now >> some of them yes so >> that's that's for a rally which is one of the six that's why I'm asking >> moving on from alcohol so some of them also have entertainment licenses
>> okay >> and uh one of those is orally which is as we discussed with um Cornell's recently is one of the older buildings that lacks um the current code compliant fire protection. And so in 2023, the
town when they got their original license, the town was faced with the same question. And the town uh attached conditions to that um license, which you have before you this evening. So, the director of m municipal inspections and the fire chief at the time signed off on
a list of the terms and conditions for approval of the um the entertainment license. And so, we would uh continue to attach that to their license and that would be a restriction that they have in effect. So, even though they had requested additional items on their
application, they would not be able to do that. >> Thank you. I appreciate that clarity. >> Mr. Chair, I move to renew the following annual licenses. Carboni's restaurant 280 Cedar Street. Bowain Pizza Bar 14 Main Street. Oral Mexican Restaurant 2224 Main Street. Country Farm Liquor 3
Cedar Street. Global Montello Group doing business as Altown Fresh 92 West Main Street. And Whiteall Auto Sales Inc. 34R Spring Street. I >> I hate to say this um Brian, but I think some are Vuier and some are and at least one is all alcohol. So, we need to read
the whole thing. >> Do we have to state the type of license? >> Make a solid point. Thank you. Would you like to pick them all? >> I got it. I got it. I got the big mouth, so we may as well take advantage. >> Go for it. >> All right. >> Motion. I move to renew the following annual licenses. Carboni Restaurant, 280 CD Street, Common Vic, Section 12
Restaurant, All Alcohol and Entertainment Licenses. Bow Pizza Bar, 14 Main Street, Common Vic, Section 12 Restaurant, all alcohol and entertainment licenses. O'aley Mexican Restaurant, 2224 Main Street, Common Vic, Section 12, Restaurant, Alcohol and Entertainment Licenses. Country Farm
Liquor Store, three Cedar Street, section 15 package store, all alcohol license. Global Montello Group, TVA, Alltown Fresh, 92 West Main Street, section 15 package store, wine and malt license. Whiteall Auto Sales, Inc. 34R, Spring Street, Class 1 and two auto dealer licenses.
>> Excellent. Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. So, there's been a lot of discussion, but I will open it up. Final thoughts from the board. Okay. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed?
That is unanimous. Mr. >> Chair, I move to grant an extension of the following licenses to January 21st, 2026, the day after the next select board meeting. Uh number one section 12 restaurant all alcohol and associated
licenses for 110 Grill Cornell's Irish Pub Hopington Country Club Core Restaurant Pantai Rap Skelean Hopington Center for the Arts AROS Hospitality number two section 12 club all alcohol
and associated licenses for UT Rod and Khan Club section 19 C farmer brewery pouring permit for Start Line Brewing Company. Section 15, package store all alcohol licenses for Hopkinington Wine
and Spirits. The VinBIN uh common Vulier licenses for Muffin House Cafe, Aramark at Dell, 176 South Street and 228 South Street, Blue Square Pizza, Starbucks at Price Chopper,
Starbucks coffee at 85 West Main Street, Redburn Coffee at Angel's uh Angel's Cafe, Domino's Pizza, Crustan Company, Hopio. Class one and class two licenses for Bulldog Fire Apparatus Inc. Main Street Service Center and livery and
limosine license for Able Limosine Inc. >> second. >> Okay, so we've got a motion and a second on that. Any final thoughts? Yeah, quickly next time I would just like to ask if it's possible for the licenses that are not complete when we review this item again if there are any that
are outstanding from a perspective of there is potential back and forth from like a compliance perspective versus we simply haven't done them. I do want to start to tease that out as we get into further extensions. >> There is a chart in our packet with has the detail. Yeah.
>> Okay. Elaine, would it be appropriate to reach out to all these folks and just remind them that we're going through this process and this is like the second meeting. We've kind of kicked this around for half an hour and it'd be nice if we could just get it done. >> Yeah, I suspect we might have a few next time who aren't ready either, but we will try our best to get them
>> ready. >> Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Final thoughts. >> I hope you are hearing us clearly. We are going to start viewing the extensions differently. Okay. With with that all those in favor
I >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Okay. That is unanimous. Those are extended and that means we are moving on to the select board will consider reviewing the adopted financial management policies which were last reviewed in 2022.
So, oops, I just closed out a bit. Elaine, do you want to I know this was brought up as a board item, future item. We haven't reviewed it in a couple years. Um, but you know, we got we got some intro stuff. Do you want to introduce this? And I know Kyle, you're
here, I'm guessing, to join us for this. >> Just listening. All right. Well, you're welcome to sit with us, but Elaine, you want to? >> Yeah. So, pretty comprehensive. Uh, these were developed in the past by uh this board and the creation committee, reviewed every couple of years uh by both boards. Um, so it's here for your
review. >> Perfect. Um, so take it the board's all had a chance to look through this these policies. Um, I'll just kind of start go down the line. Thoughts, comments, you know, initially from the board. You know, Amy, would you like to start? >> Well, in general, I feel like it's been
working pretty well for us the last few years. Um, I guess I would ask if town staff had any recommendations for changes. There is one section in the policy that I do think we need to review under the capital program policies. So, it's um
something that we're not currently doing that I would like to discuss. >> So, is it is it one of like the lettered items or is it you're suggesting a new one? >> We're adding a letter. Yeah, >> it is. Now I heard that
>> capital program policies letter C. >> Heard that. Is there something we're not doing? >> So it's just saying um for each of the town's capital assets, the town will determine its annual capital contribution. An item's annual capital
contribution is the amount of money that should be set aside each year to have enough money available to pay for a replacement when the current one reaches its end of life. >> That's wild. That's like town escrow for all our assets.
>> So, when I started reading this, it would mean that we wouldn't need capital requests for things like vehicles. So um my advice would be that we need to change our policy to make sure that we
are we have our policies that are based on reality not what we wish we are doing. What would you recommend >> that we follow our capital request process?
Um because we currently don't set aside money for replacement vehicles in a standard fashion. We are attempting to put money into capital stabilization, but we just started doing that last year and again in 27.
And and so you're suggesting instead of doing it literally going capital asset by a capital asset and assigning, you know, an amount per that useful life, putting that into that capital stabilization, it's just what we can afford to put into stabilization each year as opposed to individually.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> And let's say we talk about the capital reserve in the next item, item D. Um, so do you think that's sufficient and we would get rid of item C since we don't really do that? Yeah, correct. I don't think that we're
are ever going to build up our capital reserve to cover all of our capital expenditures indefinitely, but I do think that we can build up our capital reserve or capital stabilization in an effort to uh reduce the impact on the
town in the future. >> I take it a step further. I think we need to almost clarify what we envision that capital reserve being. From my experience chairing that committee, we tend to view that as what free cash is for. And so I truly wonder if we'll ever allocate anything into a capital reserve given that we tend to just put things
into either stabilization or free cash and then kind of allocate from the most easy to allocate bucket from. So I think there may be some clarification needed from us as well. >> Yeah, I would change this capital reserve fund to capital stabilization. And I don't think a reserve fund I don't
think that title of reserve fund is correct in this policy. >> And it seems like we don't get to do it anyways. Right. Today we don't set aside that money. >> If it's extra money, we put it in stabilization, >> but not one for one. Correct.
>> Yeah. It's not pract. Sorry. >> No, I'm just I'm just I just want to like capture what we're suggesting. So, we're we're recommending potentially removing item C completely and then in item D, changing that to capital stabilization instead of capital reserve
fund. And I'm guessing in item E, >> yeah, >> that would need to be changed to stabilization as well. Um, okay. I'm just >> through the chair Kyla. When was this written? How old is this? The original
draft was um adopted May 15th of 2012 and then revisions were done in April of 2022. >> Okay. The reason I'm asking um the
capital CIC review limit is 25K. Was that from 2012? I don't know what was revised between 12 and 22. I just have an updated revision from 22. Gotcha.
>> Yeah, cuz I was thinking it the threshold seems low. Not that we don't want to re review uh all the important capital requests, but um in 13 years through inflation and all that, uh I think 25k seems like a low pressure.
>> That's part of our bylaws too. Change the bylaw. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Well, part of >> that's a good point that maybe we should consider that if >> I I I mean, do we want at a time when, you know, capital projects, you know,
we're in such a dire budget situation, don't wouldn't we want that oversight into even smaller amounts? You guys are because you guys are suggesting >> No, it's suggesting the capital improvement committee, they don't review items less than 25,000 and that's kind of a might be an outdated number,
>> right? But where I think the chair is going here is let's say we bumped that to 50,000. Those now disappear and become line items in the budgets. They're a lot harder for us to tease out and for the town at large to tejo. Whereas if they go to CIC, they are explicitly capital and they're kind of detached from what you might classically
consider ops expense. >> Yeah. Again, it's a personal opinion. I'd prefer more oversight on these capital projects right now than anything. I don't know if again, is that the best decision? I'm not sure. It's just my opinion right now. Um, but again, that's why we're discussing as a
as a group. >> If I can, Kyle, I I I didn't get a chance to spend as much time snuggling this guy as I wanted to. Can you help me understand where in here it defines our requirement for what our stabilizations actually need to be at? I was looking to
find that 5% you and I talk about so often. >> So, it's on page three of the um debt management policies. So, hold on. I have this highlighted. Hold on. >> All right. So, the rever reserve and
stabilization fund policies. That's on page two. It's on section part B >> where it says >> the town will establish reserve levels that meets its needs. It shall be the goal of the town to achieve and maintain a balance in the free cash stabilization
fund of 5% of the operating budget. >> Thank you. I was looking for percent and of course we typed it out. you're always going to catch me. >> And then the debt management is about the debt ceiling, about where we want our debt service to be in comparison. >> The only other one I wanted to ask you
about, and I know this might be a little bit of a blurry topic. I was surprised that I and maybe I missed it, so if I did, I apologize. I was looking for policy around enterprise funding, and I didn't see anything in here from a financial policy perspective about our
position on enterprise funds. Is that something you think we should be considering for enhancement? >> It hasn't been included in the past and knowing in 25 that we did not have enough money in retained earnings to
fund our capital projects. Um it should be considered to include them in our financial policies and possibly maintain a similar um threshold for retained earnings. So, without going down the rabbit hole of
something that isn't technically the agenda item, now this is something that I've been talking to you all about that I've been working on with Kyla Abrams, the DBW, etc. I would like to suggest that there is an opportunity for us to mirror some of the language that we're seeing here to put some safeguards in
place around the enterprise funds. Again, we don't have to get into it now, but I really would like us to consider that as part of the enhancements here. And just generically, what do I mean? We've been essentially discussing some controls that we could put in place that would make it very hard for the fund to go negative again and we don't have to
get into why or who's that that's not what I'm interested in. I want some good financial policy >> to the Mr. Kizner I wanted to understand so what would be your suggestion to add we currently have two policies related one is they have to be self-sufficient
and another is um responsible for enterprise funds and fee based services and annually report the percentage of each service paid are you recommending adding to that or changing anything >> I am because ultimately we have allowed the fund to operate in a position in
which it did not operate in self-sufficiency so I am suggesting The requirement is well documented there, but I believe Miss Lapierre said it better. We should have the policy that we are actually managing against versus the one that we are imagining and hoping for. And I don't mean that as a criticism to you. I think we aren't
following what we should be following here. We have not set that fund up to be sustainably managed because ultimately to sustainably manage it, we the board, whatever iteration it is, need to set rates that allow it to make enough money to sustain itself. The enhancements I'd like to put in as Miss Laierre is
suggesting maybe around what is a healthy percentage of operational and capital that we could be putting aside mirroring how we approach it from a town perspective and I don't want to get into the numbers or anything like that but that's what I'm thinking. >> Gotcha. Thank you for clarifying that is
worth looking at. Um obviously this is aspirational >> and we know park and wreck are and u probably water now too right they don't always are self-sufficient um 100%. So do we want to put a
threshold like 80% or what would be the objective cuz either way we'll have to fund them. Uh but the purpose of the enterprise fund is that it would run like a business and be self-sufficient. >> Yes. something for like retained earnings. I don't think we have to go
that high just because we review it on an annual basis and if we want to retain have retained earnings that high at any given point, it's really taking the taxpayers money and holding it in a savings account which is just going to
increase their rates unnecessarily at any given point. So I think a 10% 25% threshold would be great just to cover emergency expenses as well as build up for future expenses.
>> Yeah. So through the through the chair, Mr. Man, we've been talking with Abrams about essentially leveraging a 2010 I believe is where we ended. So I think it was 20% of capital expense and 10% of operational expense and using that kind of as our floor for what we always
wanted to have on hand. There's still a little bit of background math in terms of in years where we're pulling and borrowing for big capital expense, you might still see some rate adjust, but ultimately the hope is that one, it makes it so that we can never be insolvent again. Two, the rate should
feel a lot more dynamic and understandable to the people in town because they're going to be so much more closely tied to exactly what the operation and cap is as the minimum versus where it is now, which is we're given information, but it's ultimately a
political decision. It's always going to be a political decision, but I'd like to see us have some better guidance about the way we should make the decision. I think that's the right way of framing it. >> Understand? That makes sense. My suggestion would be to think of something that's practical in a sense
not only you know um kind of leaving the uncertainty or uh the volatility of a political you know aspect of it meaning then you'd have much more and I know appropriations does that too much more
control or estimate of what is realistic and how you want to incorporate it in the operating budget. um in the operating budget going with the assumption that it will be completely self funded is not practical. We know that. So the more we can tune that is
better for tuning and preparing forecasting our operating budget. That's the benefit I see that you know having this. So I I like the 10 15 20 um idea. if you want to firm it up, give some
thoughts or analysis and talk to the appropriations committee as well. I think that would be a good good addition as well. And the last thought on that is that if um something is consistently not fully um enterprise fund
u performing to the expectation of the enterprise fund at one point and we have done it in the past. we may want to restructure it and say, "Hey, this is doesn't make sense for it to have an enterprise fund structure."
>> And and just to be clear, if we go down this path for like the enterprise funds, we don't need a bylaw or anything. We can do that as a board policy. Is that correct? Right. Because the board oversees the >> Yeah. >> water sewer enterprise. >> Yeah. I think I would hear this as we're implementing best practices and if we
put them into here, it gets harder for us to make a decision that is not in compliance with them, but at the end of the day, we are the board and we are ultimately responsible and empowered to make the decision. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, are we asking town staff to come up with slightly different uh draft language for enterprise funds? I >> I think I'm proposing to you that this
is something that I've been working on in the background in terms of the broader water store and enterprise. This looks like the place where what I have been working on would appropriately go without creating a whole thing out of cloth and I didn't know that. >> But we don't have text for me tonight. So yes. So we're asking them to come up with
>> we're in alignment. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> And Elaine, that all >> sound sounds accurate to you like the process would be to get new draft language added into here to reflect this. >> Correct. >> Vote on it. >> We can vote. Yeah. >> I just want to make sure we're all
understanding the process. >> Yeah. through the chair. I brought us a little further down the rabbit hole than probably necessary because I wanted to do it in open meeting so that we could have the benefit of the discussion and rationale in public through the chair. One other item Ka while we have you uh I
wanted to see if we can incorporate as a because it's a policy. So as a policy essentially that would be a good principle going forward and we have discussed it during our operating budget a few times which is just as we limit or put in a threshold for our u
stabilization funds I want to consider thinking of having a threshold for our quote unquote free cash our favorite um the reason being and I mentioned it and we are working on it with the new
operating budget I think a little bit better than the last few years not that I don't want the extra money to reduce the projection and the actualization of the free cash. So maybe make it you know
we should target not to have more than 3% of the free cash 3% of the opex as free cash and continue to monitor that. uh think of a percent that you think is practical and going forward we can put
it that will this is basically a financial policy that will hold us um our feet to the fire to be more fiscally responsible and financially principled and disciplined that's the goal here and I think that would be a good addition if
we can come up with some formula >> so would you like to work with like our town leaders to come up with that kind of like Matt's working with them and in a future meeting we'll kind go through this new language together. >> Yeah, sure. I'll I'll follow up on that. Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Um, what else? So, we've got a couple we had a couple proposed changes under Elaine. You captured them under the capital program. Those changes. Um, I think everyone was in agreement on those.
>> Just going back, right? Item removing item C and changing reserve fund to stabilization and DNE. I think with it. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Um with it like Lane Lance, any other recommendations that you guys have heard
or something that we should be considering inside of these policies? >> Uh no, I think just um I would just recommend that when we have some proposed changes that we run them by the appropriation committee as well. >> Yes. Well, um I I think then it would make do do you suggest running it by
them before time beforehand or inviting them to our like if we're getting this new language that we're talked about from the enterprise funds and then you're setting up a threshold. Um we would discuss that at one of our future meetings. I think it would be appropriate to invite them and discuss together or do they need to see it ahead of time?
>> Good. If if the timing works otherwise they could do it at one of their meetings as well. I'd also suggest >> during meetings this season so I hate to ask them to yet another >> I even before we get to appropriation I think I'd like to develop the language and then through the chair I'd really like to have a conversation with water sour enterprise fund uh water sour
advisory board as well and our director of the DPW so I think there are people for us to bring in and it's not going to go anywhere without going through the right parties I have no interest in rushing on this >> yep nope I would agree >> the other item I noticed it mentioned the fall special town meeting could be
used um >> but We don't have >> really done that by hand, but we've occasionally had one. But um so I mean I'm okay with leaving it in there because I think it is a good idea. But um do we need to change the wording since we don't typically do it or >> I think we've talked about maybe we should
>> maybe we should do it. Okay. We we might even want to change the charter on that. Charter review will look at that. Okay. >> Well, I don't think it's I don't know if it's mentioned in the charter as far as timing goes. So the board can call a special town meeting anytime. Yep. But I guess I kind of like the idea of it
being set and people knowing where when it is so that they can plan for it. Yeah. >> But I I felt like one of the problems was like this year we didn't have certain information until like the do got back. >> Right. I I know. But um
>> so it's if if we put a date out there that doesn't that does that lock us in or if the language >> have another one if >> the language is flexible? Well, so two two special town meetings would certainly not be my preference. Um I don't know. I just want to be cognizant
of that. And again, you know, we decide as a group. So >> I maybe we solve this by simply just amending to as needed and then it's just there and it's optional. >> Hey, to your point, let's look at the language. >> Yeah, I would like to strengthen it to be have pick a particular time frame. a lot of times
>> when I didn't >> time frame >> and to your point Amy I didn't enjoy how ambiguous it was that it was referring to the use of something that we know we aren't using. I think Ms. Lapier has made a really good point. This needs to reflect reality. >> Okay. Um I I mean I think we're
obviously going to be back here soon to go over some of these changes so we can incorporate that one as well and discuss it. >> Thank you, Kyla. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Kyla. >> Thanks. >> All right. So that I think that brings us to the town
manager report. >> So um I wait for Matt to return so everyone's here. Okay. Town manager report. Um so um in the report uh for this meeting I um
addressed the town employee tax refund issue that was um raised at the last meeting. So uh there are 24 uh federal tax refunds due to some town employees that have been delayed. Uh this does not appear to be occurring at the state level and only at the federal level. The IRS has not indicated to the town that
its delays are related to anything connected to the town's tax filings. The town performed its tax filings by the required state and federal deadlines. Uh there were some employees who were issued corrected W2s due to vision and dental coverage that weren't shown in the correct box and we discussed that at the time. Uh but that does not seem uh
it doesn't seem that the delays are related to that change. A few of the individuals uh who shared what they learned from the IRS regarding their particular returns indicated it was due to items unrelated to the town. Um and just you know adding that the IRS is a federal agency um they do their own thing. Uh the town has no control over
them their employees and news reports have indicated there's been significant layoffs at the IRS. So I don't know if that's a complicating factor but that's what we know about about the refunds. >> Hey through the chair. I really appreciate the followup on this. I I didn't mean to suggest and I hope it was
not heard is that the town had done something wrong. Rather, I wanted to show that we really did receive a number of communications about these and it isn't always easy for us to respond to them individually and we're not allowed to respond as a group to those communications. But I just want to show these things don't go into the void. We
really are asking and trying to follow up. And so I will ask one more question here before I just say thank you. From your perspective, is there anything that we can be doing or should be doing to ensure that moving into the current tax cycle that we don't see a repeat? And the answer can be no, we're doing
everything. I just want to ask so that we can say it. >> Yeah, I'll add that, you know, our finance department uh does the tax filings on the time. They'll continue to do that. Um they will continue to look at any changes that are necessary and their our state and federal partners are requiring different things. We'll
continue to monitor that, monitor that. Thank you. >> I just wanted to note that um we would like to help people with their individual returns, but we can't we don't we don't have access to people's returns. We can't talk to the IRS on their behalf. And it's it's unfortunate that we can't help people more. >> This is exactly why I wanted to talk
about it. >> As a followup, um again, I think I think you clarified like the refunds being held up is not necessarily directly tied to the mistake that was made on on the payroll side. Um but for this upcoming
tax uh season, didn't we move or are moving to a separate payroll provider? >> So January 1st, we went live with our new payroll system on the town side. The state, I mean, excuse me, the school is staying with our previous uh payroll and
munis. They preferred to remain with that, but we went live um this week with our new payroll system. >> Okay. and and can you just remind me um like what what what was kind of the thought process behind making that move to the new payroll provider? >> Um so uh we were not happy with the
customer service and other services that um were provided to us over time um and so we looked for a better alternative and we we think we found one. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> Yeah. through the just one other um
additional comment I would suggest can we put out some kind of tax advisory for our employees and um you know staff who might have certain challenges because of uh some of the some of the issues they
have experienced. I think anything we can do to help uh navigate help them navigate through this. Yeah, I think we've reached out a couple of times and inviting people to uh contact um Kyla uh to um perhaps they can talk to the IRS
together on their issue and so forth and some people have taken taken us up on that. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Couple of times. >> That's good to know. Yeah, I think as much as we can help, of course. Thank you, >> Amy. Any thoughts? >> Yeah, for the um the corrected W2s due to the vision of dental coverage. Um has
that been identified where that problem happened and that so we can avoid it next year? >> Right. So, it turns out that that had been occurring for a number of years and nobody noticed it and that's another reason why we changed vendors. Um, but it's corrected now going forward, too. >> Okay. Correct. >> I'm just going to say as someone with a
kind of complicated last name, I've had W2 issues in the past. And it turns out if your middle initial is wrong, you can still you can still submit it and it works. But if they spell vertic without the C, then it it does not it gets rejected and then I get slayed. >> Yeah. So, anyway, it happens.
>> Okay. Um, next, um, town department position vacancies. Um, so requesting, um, approval to post a dishwasher position at the senior center. Uh, the vacancy resulted from the promotion of the current dish dishwasher to food service worker position. Um, and this
helps the town to maintain kitchen operations at the senior center, uh, where they serve, uh, meals daily on weekdays. Um, ensuring sanitary conditions, maintaining compliance with health and safety standards at the senior center. Uh, so it's a budgeted part-time 19-hour week position. Uh, and
posting it will allow them to continue providing uninterrupted services to the senior residents in the community. And when we're short a dishwasher, other employees at the senior center have to uh be dishwashers. >> Thank you. >> Just mentioning that >> I don't have any issue with that, but I
think we need a motion. So, >> makes sense. I move the motion to uh approve the position vacancy of dishwasher at the senior center. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any thoughts? >> Happy scrubbing.
>> All those in favor? >> I I'll abstain. >> Okay. Three and one abstain. >> All right. Thanks, Elaine. >> Uh next, um talking about annual town meeting articles. At the next meeting, uh you'll be voting on submitting articles into the warrant. So, I just
put in here uh some of the articles that I've talked about uh at the last meeting and the list of the regular recurring articles that will be um coming up at the next meeting in case you have any questions or suggestions uh as we move toward the next meeting.
>> Uh the electric bicycles uh bylaw just mentioning that. So, um, we had come up with a a brief draft, um, and sent that out to, um, a couple of folks who expressed interest in helping us with that, who had raised questions and concerns. So, uh, getting some feedback on that right now.
>> Thank you for doing that. >> Okay, >> perfect. Um, >> and then nothing uh to update on the main street project as it is winter and nothing is happening. >> All right, perfect. I think that brings
us to liaison reports and board invites. Shel, would you like to start? >> Uh, nothing on the committees at this time. I think um, one thing just point out. Give me
one second. I have a couple of events that I wanted to highlight. >> We can come back to more. >> That would be good. >> Yeah. Real quick for me, I just I had an opportunity to check in with one of our appointees on the Voke Tech school committee. So, we've divided ourselves across uh tax and the new school
building committee over there. So, that is something I want to highlight in open meeting is that Keith Tech is beginning the process of thinking not just thinking about they are going to build a new school. They already own the land. It's going to go where the football field is. So ultimately I think in a few
years that will potentially come here in terms of what it looks like for Hopkin to support that and then potentially questions about aortionment which I teased here previously. Does Hopkinson want to have dedicated seats at Keith Tech and what would that look like? But those are not on fire yet. So just continue to highlight that they're
coming and things are changing and happening over there. >> Perfect. I feel like we've gotten a lot of invites lately in the last week, but um we've got something to the winter's farmers market is having a visit from the state, I think, from the Department
of Agriculture on March, >> the indoor farmers market. I was going to talk about that, right? >> Yeah. So, we might want to attend that. And then, um the HCA, I got an invite um I'm not sure it was from the HCA or from HOP organizing for prevention having a dry January event at the HCA. I think I
think it's this weekend. >> I think it's this Friday night. >> This Friday. >> Yeah. So that like sends a nice event for people who maybe um overindulged over the holidays and want to do it by January. And then for the um Revolutionary War anniversary, there's the Knox Trail um 250 celebrations and
we got a long email with many events throughout um the region that we can attend and learn about that history. >> Perfect. Thanks, Amy. Um, just I think Amy, you may have mentioned this, the Drug-Free Committee Coalition, they have
a event on um, Friday 6:30 p.m. at Hopington Center for the Arts in honor of dry January. So, it's 6:30 to 9. Uh, sounds like a fun and very meaningful event. So, feel free to join that. And then farmers market, the indoor farmers
market opens this Sunday and there's an event at 11:30. Um and I'm planning to go as well. Uh obviously our farmers market have been a tremendous success and I did
I saw the discussion on um record that we had on LNG. Um but wanted to bring that up maybe in the next two that um we want to uh start thinking
uh I started the topic as a committee for LNG but it doesn't have to be a committee it can be that's the discussion we should have it can be a committee it can be a framework it can be a policy that we want to do to provide more oversight and regular uh
reporting on that and uh we were um discussing with our state rep Rosa and we're going to continue the discussion along those lines that with state and with town what type of framework would be appropriate yet and we can come back to the board uh with some kind of
proposal outline. So um that's a little bit of update and also request to keep it on the radar of our agenda item in the future. >> Those are the few. Thanks. >> Thank you so much for mentioning that. I had forgotten I had had the opportunity to have lunch with Mr. D. Rosa in followup to our Eversource conversation
and I do look forward to partnering with you on that based on your experience here. >> Okay. Okay. So, we we can kind of bring that into I think we have that on as a future agenda item, >> but so we can just kind of go if you want to continue with other Do you have any other
>> future agenda items? >> Uh, no, not at this time. That was the one I was going to bring up again. Yep. >> Okay. >> I have one, but I think based on what I want to ask, I'm going to choose to ask about it in private as a potential executive committee item.
>> Okay. to think of two other items if it's okay. I just wanted to mention the commission on disability uh got a grant really recently that was in the town manager's um newsletter I think about um to do a study of the town's needs for accessibility which we hadn't done in a long time. So that
>> so that can help um guide us for what capital projects maybe we can move forward in the future. >> Totally agree. And Amy, on that note, did we hear back from the disability commission if they have any proposal or outcome? I really don't they have not been meeting too frequently and I really
don't think they're ready to come do a presentation. So >> we weren't we going to have them in like the summer and they weren't ready? >> Yeah, they we hardly met uh we only met a few times this year really to be honest. So um or I mean in last year so we are working on things behind the scenes here and this having this grant
will help because then we can kind of move forward in a direction but um yeah they're not ready yet but I will we'll bring it up. And the other thing is someone mentioned to me or Parkerhap that um there's a possibility um of a class action lawsuit against firefighter
about firefighter turnout gear that had used to have too much PAS in the past. So I mentioned that to Alen to look at just at um and the fire chief in case that was something we would want to get involved with like we've jumped on to some other class actions in the past. >> I reached out to town council so he can address it with the board. >> It would be worth it. Okay.
>> Perfect. >> Perfect. Um, I think we talked like just to formalize it, we talked about um, one, we're going to continue our financial management policy review at at
our next meeting. Um, but also two, you know, we're going to look for an update on some of the new information we got and how that impacts our uh, license process. So, just so that we can capture those, too. Um, but I think otherwise we're good. Um, and with that, the board
will consider convening in executive session. So, I'll look for a motion uh pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 30A section 21A purpose 3 to consider strategy with respect to negotiations with the DPW and fire unions because an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of
the board pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 3A section 21A purpose 6 to consider the purchase exchange lease or value of real estate land at map U19 block 54 lot D map U8 block 48 lot A and 280 Cedar Street because an open meeting
may have a detriment rental effect on the negotiating position of the board and to approve executive session minutes 111825. Um, and I think we had to, >> if I may offer in addition to also allow Elaine Lazarus and Lance Delpior to
participate in set executive session and not to convene an open session at the conclusion of set executive session. >> Perfect. >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. >> Yep. >> Um, so this has to be roll call, right?
So, Shel Man, yes. Matthew Kizner, yes. >> Amy Ripish, yes. >> Joe Clark, yes. Thank you everyone. Have a great night.