Speaker 1: Good evening and welcome to the Wednesday April 9th meeting of the select board. Call this meeting to order at 6 33 at this time, those of you in the room who are able and at home, if you wish, please stand so we can see the pledge of Allegiance and pause for a moment of silence. Speaker 2: Pledge allegiance Speaker 3: To the flag of the United States of America Speaker 2: And to Speaker 3: The republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, defeat, and justice for all. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: For those of you at at home, if you are watching on Zoom
and you wish to raise your hand, that you'll find the hand icon under reactions. So I just wanted to let you know, for those of you who don't use it very often at this time, we'll move into public speak. Any individual may raise an issue that is not included on tonight's agenda and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There will be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting due to the requirements of open meeting law, this section of the agenda is limited to 10 minutes and any individual addressing the board during the section of the agenda shall be limited to three minutes while the board endeavors to ensure all interested persons have the opportunity
to address the select board due to time constraints that may not be possible. In cases where there is intense public interest in a particular topic, the board may schedule a future meeting to allow for further public input. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to address the select board under public speak? Yes sir. If you could approach the lectern, ensure that the mic is turned on, and if you could say your name and whether you're a resident of Natick. Speaker 4: The green light on. Yes. Green White. My name is Timothy Eaton. Past immediate cast, state commander of Ambe. Speaker 1: Mr. Eaton, that's an item on the agenda. So
Speaker 2: We, Speaker 4: I'm just letting you know I've been a member and a lawyer supported off the post, but I'm not a resident, Speaker 2: But Speaker 1: That's okay. You don't, you need not be a resident, but you can't address the board and public speak if an item is on the agenda. Okay, so, we'll, when we get to the AMVETS thing, if you would like to address the board, then I will open it for public comment. Sure. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Eaton. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to address the board under public comment? Yes ma'am. If you could approach the lectern. Speaker 2: Hello, I Speaker 5: Do live in Natick. My name is Gail Westin Roberts. I looked up the agenda for the zoning board of appeals
for their meeting later this month. And there are nine demolitions of single family homes appealing the building commissioner's decision so that they, so that single family homes can be built in their place. As some of you know, this has been a grave concern for me for several years now. I'll just keep it short. I think the fact that the Board of Appeals is based on the data is rubber stamping these applications at this stage. I really hope that you all will look into how
this trend can be ameliorated because we are not increasing housing availability in Natick. We are simply replacing houses that would have sold to home buyers for about five 50, 600,000 with houses that fill the lot and have a negative impact on the abutting properties and sell for 1.3, 1.5 million. My biggest concern that I hope people can look into is
why is it that when the state requires that the board consider the value of the existing houses, that that actually never happens in these hearings. The only representation of the houses that are being torn down is the bird's eye view of the lot with an outline that shows you what size, you know, what the footprint is of the existing house. There are now that it is very easy to create lots of images based on photographs and so on.
I think it would be good if we at least tried to meet the state statute for comparing the, with the value of the existing house in its neighborhood if, if that were happening that that might help. I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much for listening. Speaker 1: Thank you Ms. Weston Roberts. Appreciate your input. Is there anyone else in the room that wishes to address the board about an item that is not on the agenda? Is there anyone on Zoom who would like to address the board with an item that is not about an item
that is not on the agenda? Seeing none, we'll move into discussion and decision. Can we do announcements real quick? Oh yes. So does any, do any members of the board have announcements and then I'll do mine last. Speaker 6: Okay. I just Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to address a couple of events that had happened, community events that have happened over the last week or so. We have served Natick. A number of us attended the Serve Natick event, which was extremely inspiring with young people speaking
and sharing their talents and skills. A number of talent organizations like it's escaping me right now, but I think it's a Natick Service Council spoke and it was all extremely encouraging. It was also a Metro West event, so there were people from different places like Framingham, the C the president of the Metro, west Chamber of Commerce was there and it was just a really unifying event, informative event. We also, some of us attended the Spark Kindness event last night, which was really beautiful. It was their 15th year Spark kindness is 15th year
anniversary and it was extremely joyful, uplifting and unifying. Separately, I would say Mr. Sidney and I and Mr. Erickson, we also attended Sergeant first class year Monte's Memorial that he, there's a building, a research facility that's been dedicated to him and his service to our country and so busy, very busy. I'm sure I'm not covering everything, but just some of the things that we've, we've been to and, and moving forward I'm looking forward to the marathon, which is in a couple of Mondays on Patriots Monday.
But it's exciting stuff happening and, and and to come in our town. Speaker 1: Mr. Sidney, just Speaker 7: To add to what Ms. Pope said, the Serve Natick people started this started as a local high school initiative to connect students with organizations needed community service. They're going statewide now. It is extremely impressive how they're, you know, these are juniors in high school and they're starting a statewide program to support community service
in high schools all over the commonwealth. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Sidney. Are there any other announcements from the board? I would like to wish our Jewish residents and neighbors happy Passover Sweet Peoc and which begins at sundown on Friday or Saturday? Saturday. And I think that's it for announcements. We are gonna start the meeting with the Arbor Day proclamation. So if I could ask Mr. Goodine to approach the podium. Speaker 8: Hello everyone. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you to the board for your time tonight. My name is Arthur Goodine and I serve as supervisor of land facilities and natural resources for the Department of Public Works and I also serve as a town's tree warden here. Before you tonight ask that the select board proclaim Friday, April 25th as a day of Arbor celebration Arbor, excuse me, Arbor Day celebration in the town in ick, not only to celebrate trees and promote environmental stewardship, but also is a key component of our treaty city USA application.
This past June, the town of Naec celebrated 17 years as a treaty city USA and this proclamation would be used for our 18th year application. For those who do not know, the tree city USA award is award bestowed by the Arbor Day Foundation to communities that represent and demonstrate care for their public trees. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Goodine. Are there any comments or questions for members of the board? Thank you for bringing that before us. I'll thank you. Entertain a motion to designate April 25th as a day
of Arbor Day celebration for moved. Speaker 7: So do Speaker 9: We want somebody to read the proclamation? Gotta read it. Speaker 1: Do we have the proclamation? Yes, it's online. The agenda. Wow. Okay. Okay. So yes, Mr. Sidney, why don't you read it? Speaker 7: Thank Speaker 9: You. Whereas in 1872, Jay Sterling, Speaker 7: Oh Mike, whereas in 1872, Jay Sterling Mor Martin proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees. And whereas this holiday called Arbor Day was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska.
And whereas Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world. And whereas trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water cut heating and cooling costs moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce life, giving oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife. And whereas trees are a renewable resource giving us paper wood for our homes, fuel for our fires, and countless other wood products. And whereas trees in our town increase property values, enhance the economic viability of business areas and beautify community. And whereas trees, wherever they're planted are a source
of joy and spiritual re renewal. Now therefore, we the select board of the town of Natick do he right proclaim Friday, April 25th, 2025 as Arbor Day in the town of Natick. And we urge all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands. And further we urge all citizens to plant trees to gladen the heart and promote the wellbeing of this and future generations So moved. Speaker 1: I believe we have a motion. Second moved by Mr. Sidney, seconded by Mr. Evans. All in favor please say aye.
Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes 5 0 0. Thank you Mr. Goodine. Alright, Speaker 10: Thank you. Have a good evening. Speaker 1: You too. We just received an alert out water restriction, which is quite appropriate given our next item on the agenda. Do we wanna take a minute and get some chairs? 'cause this is gonna be, the amvets hearing is gonna be probably another half hour, 40 minutes. So Speaker 10: I want chairs are over here. Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Mr. Sprat. Speaker 10: Of course. Please. Speaker 1: Please. Aye. Speaker 11: Good evening. Thank you. We're here tonight
to ask the board as water commissioners to allow for a non-essential water use span. To be frank, this is a bit of a challenging subject because it's in the northeast region of DEP. Right now the Charles River is, you've driven by it, it's at full capacity, it's doing well. But we are in the northeast region of DEP and they have issued a stage two drought restriction specifically for the Essex River. And because we're in the northeast region, we have to comply. So just as some background on this, we are currently in a court case with DEP in about 20
or 30 other communities regarding this very restriction. So we are, we have to comply. If we don't comply, we could fall into non-compliance with our registered wells and ultimately that could lead to fines and liability for the town. So what this essentially means is it started yesterday, we posted on the website, it's for non-essential outdoor water use, essentially no sprinklers, but you could water gardens with a hose, handheld hose.
So just for some more background on that, it's challenging because we essentially sell water for the water department and this probably will have a three or $400,000 revenue impact for the town. We'll talk about that a little more next week when we talk about water rates. But to give you a little more background on that, I'd like to bring up our regulatory and compliance coordinator, Casey Chap, and she can explain a little more about the regulations and what that means. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you Speaker 11: Casey. Speaker 10: Just have a Speaker 7: Question.
Speaker 12: Thank you, bill. Thank you. My name is Casey Chacha. I'm the regulatory compliance coordinator. As Bill mentioned, DEP has issued us a registration for our water wells in this registration. They have required us whenever a drought is called by the EEA secretary to mandate a water ban. As Bill mentioned, they did recently declare a level two significant drought. I'm going to read off the exact definition of this so I get it right. All non-essential outdoor water uses banned except
that watering of ornamentals and flower gardens with drip irrigation, handheld toes or watering cans may be permitted. We are required to comply with this or we will be out of compliance with DEP regulations. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Questions or comments from the board? Mr. Sidney? Speaker 7: Yeah. In the note that was in the memorandum from Mr. Sprat, it says that they declared a level three critical drought, not a level two. Has that changed since the memorandum was issued?
Speaker 11: It has. They met yesterday, they meet monthly during a drought condition and they voted to lower the drought condition from a three to a two. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 13: What does that mean? Speaker 7: Yeah, Speaker 11: Three would be a complete outdoor water ban. Two allows the drip irrigation and handheld watering. Speaker 1: Mr. Evans, Speaker 13: Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted Mr. Spra, can you please describe the extent of the geographic area for people at home? Because they probably don't realize just how vast that area.
Speaker 11: I, I can describe it just in general, just from looking at it in, in my head in the map, but it's essentially the northeast region of Massachusetts. So going from say Salisbury down to the North shore and across west, probably two or three towns west of us. We're basically in the middle of the southern part of the northeast region. The, the communities to the south of us are in the southeast region. Thank Speaker 13: You. Speaker 1: Thank you for that. Are there any questions for members of the public? Oh, Ms. Slager, Speaker 14: Do we have an update on the status of the lawsuit?
Speaker 15: Go ahead, bill. Yeah, Speaker 11: So as of next week, it is an appeal and next week, I believe April 14th is the appeal date. Currently Speaker 15: We, we did, initially the courts did not side with us, so we are appealing their initial decision and by us it's the 20 plus communities that we mentioned. We're actually not the lead, the city of Springfield as the lead, but we, the board voted to sign on to that about a year plus ago. Speaker 1: Ms. Pope. Speaker 6: Thank you. How are we getting the word out to residents about this? Speaker 11: So, initially we posted on our website,
but we have social media, we will have message boards, the, the digital sign boards and other means of communication. Also, people that have signed up for Neptune 360, our new water smart, they will get an alert as well. Speaker 6: Okay. Are there penalties for people who don't apply, like comply with this Speaker 11: Technically? Yes. So do you have that information Kizzy? Speaker 12: I do. It will be $50 for your first violation and then 100 for each continuing violation thereafter.
Speaker 6: And is that measured by their water bill? How is that? Speaker 11: It would by observation. Speaker 6: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: And could you say a word about the enforcement mechanism? Is it the building commissioner who enforces? Is it the water and sewer department? Speaker 11: Casey, Tony. I honestly don't know the answer to that question. It's in the, we do have a bylaw for it. I don't remember the specific enforcement action on that. Speaker 1: That's okay. Thanks. Appreciate it. Ms. Slager, Speaker 14: Just to confirm, we don't track water usage in any way
to determine if somebody is, let's say, using their irrigation system repeatedly. Speaker 11: We do have data that could track that, yes. Speaker 14: But we aren't proposing to do that at this point. Are we? Speaker 11: We have data that could point to that. I believe our bylaw is for observation, but I'm not a hundred percent positive of that. Speaker 1: And that would be a board action as the water commissioners, we would take that action. So that would be something for a future board meeting. Mr. Evans Speaker 13: Also if, if you have an irrigation meter, it would be easier to track, you know, if you have usage during this period.
So Speaker 1: Yes. Are there any other comments or questions from members of the board? Members of the public? Yes, yes, Speaker 14: Yes I do. Speaker 1: Oh, Ms. Saga. Speaker 14: Sure. Just wanna point out that since this is something that's going to be on a regular basis, we are, unless we somehow win this appeal, we're gonna be having more consistent water bands. And with that, I received today a rain barrel. So I would recommend that if you, if you have a garden, an ornamental garden, not a vegetable garden, because that is, even if we were in the critical drought,
you still could water your vegetable garden. But if you have a flower garden, go to the DPW, you can get a rain barrel for a very reasonable amount. It's very nice and you can continue to water. Speaker 1: Thank you for that observation. Mr. Kaufman. If you could approach the podium, introduce yourself. Speaker 16: That's okay. I'm just gonna say maybe it's a good time to rethink the taking down of the so named dam because all this, you know, we're such an early part of the year. Mr. Speaker 17: Kauffman, please take the people. Can't hear you worse. Speaker 1: See you Mr. Sydney. Don't. Speaker 18: John Kauffman. Salt Main Street.
It, it seems like a good time to rethink the South Natick Dam. That's one big grain barrel right down in South Natick. And I know up in Medfield they're talking about their water, the depletion of the well water up in their aqua fires up there. I was reading about and now we're having the same problem and we got millions of gallons sitting above the dam. But Speaker 1: Actually Mr. Kaufman, we don't have the same problem as Medfield. We're under a ban because of DEP. And whether we have the dam or not or the spillway or not, we're still gonna be in, have to be in compliance with DEP. But thank you for your comment. Is there any other comments
from people in the, in the room? Are there any comments or questions from people online? Seeing none, I will move on to the next agenda item. Thank you so much, both of you for coming in tonight. Do we Speaker 13: Have to vote? We have to. No, this is implementation. Speaker 1: It's just an implementation. Okay. We Speaker 13: Do have to vote. Speaker 15: We do have, I think there is a request to for future implementation to authorize town administration or town administrator should there be the ability ban automatically or to do a ban moving forward for town administration to actually, I believe that was the last line of the memo that Bill put together. Speaker 11: Yeah, if I could, this could change monthly
to the good or to the bad. Sure. So if we could have the flexibility with the town administrator to alert the board but do it a little more proactively. If we need to change the levels, Speaker 1: I would take that as a motion. So Speaker 13: Moved. Second. Speaker 1: Second. Moved by Mr. Sidney, seconded by Ms. Pope. All in favor to defer decisions on imposing or lifting bans to the town administrator With notice To the board please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? It's 5 0 0. Thank you. Thank you both for coming in tonight. Thank you.
The next item I'm going to take out of order is the Town Administrator update changes to Trash Recycling Process Park and Fields to 2025. Since we do have Mr. Sprat here, if there are questions. Speaker 15: Yes, thank you. And this will be brief, I just wanted to have, while Mr. Spprt was here, just to have a chance to just highlight this and there's no action for the board today. Tonight it's more informative for the board and for the public. Heading into the 2025 season, which is basically our seasons from the field's perspective is spring through the fall. We're gonna work with our partners to implement an updated trash recycling program
at our parks and fields. These are both active and passive parks. There's a memo in the packet, but it's really been a complete group effort between the Public works department, art Good High and Brian Casey, as well as the rec and parks division with Angela Snell and Lauren Maria, our new director of Parks and Rec, putting together this effort to really work with our partners. They've met on numerous occasions with not only internally but also with Tic Beautiful and the youth groups to come up with this new approach.
It's an iterative process, fully iterative. We have to see how this is implemented. We're gonna learn from it and then tweak it next year or even during the year depending on how things go. And there's more detail in the packet. But the big takeaways are we're gonna en ensure that we're, we're simplifying waste collection at active sites. We're working to maintain and encourage, carry and carry out in passive locations. We're gonna improve signage. That's gonna be definitely iterative 'cause we wanna learn from the signage to see what is most effective with the youth groups or the other groups and, and groups that are less formal. I think that's a big part of what we're trying
to do here is develop those relationships with the groups that are a little bit less formal rather than the ones that are signing up. But the ones that are there for, you know, pickup games and things like that. And then we're gonna see how compliance works. We don't necessarily want to have a heavy hand, we want to have more of a collaboration and and really instill the partnership with the groups, whether they're formal or not. And then we'll do continuous evaluation throughout. Bill, anything to add to that front? Speaker 11: I think the only thing that has little context, we've had trash and recycling in various levels at different parks. Summer carry and KE summer carry out some recycling efforts that we've had have been essentially spoiled by dog waste
that gets put in there and then we can't bring it to the recycling center. So it's just a way to do our best to keep our parks and open spaces clean in partnership with our volunteer groups and make sure the, the parks that we've noticed that have had a lot of trash, we're gonna put specific bins out there and we're going to be monitoring those more frequently where maybe they were monitored once a week. This could be two or three times a week with the ultimate goal of not having trash in lit or around Speaker 14: Questions or comments from the board. Ms. Slager, thank you Mr.
Sprat, can you talk about the rationale behind not having ke native beautiful containers at the sites, if they're collecting them, what is the issue with that? Speaker 11: So it's at some sites, not not all sites. So we're going the, the, the hopefully arts sent the different parks and the different levels that we're going to monitor at. Not Speaker 15: Yet yet, but I'm, we get back to the board after the meeting. Speaker 14: What it just, just, it says no other containers will be placed, including KMB will be placed at park field locations. Speaker 11: So there are four locations that we've decided on
that are our heaviest trash volumes. So if there's trash and recycling containers there or the keep beautiful basket, they are filled with dog waste, pizza boxes, things that can't be maintained. So the rationale is if you put a bin out there, it almost encourages trash. There are some smaller areas that should be specifically carry and carry out. If we put a container there, they just get filled with dog waste and, and other things that shouldn't be there. If there's no container there, people tend to take the, the trash with them.
So this is, this is based on data. So we've har did an amazing job putting together a spreadsheet and we evaluated this on a, on a weekly basis for the fall. And that data drove this decision and we partnered with Kinetic Beautiful to make sure we were putting our resources in the right places. Speaker 14: Did you consider maybe having a container or something with different signage saying something like bottles only, because that tends to be the common recyclable element at these games where people, they bring sports bottles, they bring bottled water drinks
to see if that might work. Or do you still feel that no matter what you say, people are gonna put trash? Speaker 11: We've had some attempts with better signage and even the keep native beautiful bins are open wire baskets that specifically say what goes in there and they still get filled with trash and, and dog waste. And it's, it's been a quite a challenge. Speaker 14: Thank you. Speaker 15: The other thing from just that perspective of working with our partners is how can we best utilize their resources as well and what might be a past utilization of resource might not be the best for moving forward.
You know, maybe we can utilize the in in the example of tic beautiful their volunteer and their other resources more effectively in, in other ways rather than the way that they have been in the past. That, you know, based on this updated program could actually benefit more everybody overall. It's not just keeping anything beautiful, it's also our youth groups and the like Speaker 1: Mr. S Speaker 13: Yeah. Just following up on this slager point, I have coached baseball and I have personally witnessed people taking dog waste in their little doggy bag and putting it in the clearly labeled recycling only
bin right in front of me. So I I I think signage is in the problem. It's public shaming maybe so, Speaker 1: So Mr. Evans? I've tried that. Yeah. And shame is in short supply. Speaker 13: Okay, well I, I, I understand that was somewhat facetious comment. My second question is for, for the larger athletic events such as Natick, when they have the soccer tournaments here where they have multiple people or on multiple fields, it's, it's a disaster to clean up. It's probably on a par with the marathon cleanup.
So is there a way to kind of get an exception to this standard procedure to accommodate that? Speaker 11: So the short answer is yes, this is scalable. Okay. So when we have registered events that we know about, we can scale up that. You can see it on the common. Sometimes when there's a big farmer's market or things like that, those little bins that are out there from normal activity aren't enough. So we, as long as we know about it, we can scale to that and give it the attention it deserves. Okay, Speaker 13: Perfect. Thank you
Speaker 1: Mr. Sydney? Speaker 7: Yeah, I just want to reiterate that one of the big changes to this is the recycle bins that we may be familiar with at the parks are not gonna be there 'cause they don't get properly used. If you are a recycling advocate and I hope everybody is, take your recycling out with you, don't put it in the trash because there is no recycling at the parks anymore. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Sidney, are there questions or comments for members of the board? No. Are there questions and comments for members of the public in the room? Yes ma'am. If you could approach the podium, identify yourself, and whether you're a resident of Natick.
Speaker 19: My name is Laura Forker. I'm a 31 year resident of Natick. That's the first time I've been to a meeting like this though 'cause I just retired recently. So finally have time to do this. But I guess mine is more of a question and that is, if there's a problem with dog waste and pizza boxes and things like that getting put into these recycling bins, is there an alternative container at these sites for this other kind of trash? Speaker 1: Thank you for your question and welcome to the meeting Mr. Sprout. Speaker 11: The answer to that question is yes. So in the parks that we have the significant trash problems,
there will be bins put there with red covers. We're gonna make 'em distinct for the parks. They'll be in an enclosure, they'll have signage on them and those are the ones that our trash teams will be picking up at, at minimum twice a week and we'll be monitoring what the needs will be. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Pratt. Is there anyone online who would like to ask a question or make a comment? Seeing none, Ms. Slager, Speaker 14: One more thing. As part of our communications plans, are we going to let all the sports leagues know so that they can let all
of their teams know through their own internal communications? Because this is going to be a change for some of them, Speaker 11: Yes, through the rec and park group they'll be communicating that. They already have registration agreements that say what they're supposed to do. But we will advertise the areas that are getting, not all parks are being treated the same. That's the list will provide to you. We'll show you what treatments will be done at what specific parks. Speaker 14: Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Moving on to the next agenda item, bill. Thanks Bill.
The, the Johnson School Building Next steps. Speaker 2: The Speaker 15: That's me. Speaker 1: You're up. Speaker 15: I'm up. So I'm gonna share my screen for the presentation that is in the packet and I do have Jay also here in the room who helped put this presentation together and can help answer any of the questions from the border, from the public. Lemme just make sure I get this up properly. Put it in presentation mode. Gimme one second. So the intent for this presentation is really just to run through a project plan and alignment meeting for the board.
Basically I'm gonna cover an intended set of next steps really to engage with the public and the board on framing an eventual decision of the board. Tonight's not the decision making, I just wanna make sure that the board is in alignment with what this proposal is because this will give us the direction to move forward with engagement over the next several months to next several years. There are a number of points where we will come back to the board to seek, are we still in this right direction or do we shift?
But those are outlined in the presentation. But this is really an initial alignment meeting with the board to make sure that we're all on the same page on how we're moving forward through these next steps with the Johnson School. And I'll go through a little bit of background once I get into the presentation just about the Johnson School for the public information. So the goal of the meeting again is really for process alignment and timeline alignment. Secondary is community engagement, just the input process for community engagement and engagement with the board to make sure that we're approaching community engagement in the way the board feels is appropriate. Project team, this rapid is really a, an outline
of who's got what responsibility, you know, recommendations as advisory committee if we get to that point down the road. Agreed. That's really not an applicable item because it's just, nobody will 100% agree on any decision that we make. But that's something that we just need to be mindful of. Performance, really up to town administration to do the performance and inputs are from residents and the decision is the board. So it just helps to set who's got what responsibility as part of this process, this big overview and we'll go into the details in the presentation just as a high level project plan, you'll notice that
it starts in the past. We had a listening session last May of 2024 and that listening session came out of a couple of factors. One, the fact that the school committee chose to close the Johnson School year early, earlier than they had anticipated. The decision was always the school committee's decision. The select board didn't have any involvement in that process or heavy involvement in that process. And that that process for the school committee started several years prior. They had voted, I believe it was about two, three years ago, to initiate a closure of Johnson two to three years ago
with an expected date of actually this upcoming June end of the school year. And then about a year and a half ago, they chose to accelerate that by one year. If you recall, when a school closes, the school department under state law has to, or school committee under state law, under state law has to go to town meeting or, or whatever the branches of the legislative branch of the, of the form of government to transfer the ownership from the school committee to, in our case the select board that occurred last spring. And that's soon thereafter is when we had that initial listening session.
That's when it officially transferred hands from the school committee to the select board. So now it's under the school, the select board's ownership. And that was a year early. So we town administration asked to put a pause on that because we had quite a bit going on over the last year with various things. And it was a year early. We didn't anticipate that transfer until this upcoming year. And so our staff resources were already tied to other commitments during the past year, but we're now at a point where we have capacity to initiate
and advance this work. And that's why we're here tonight. What you're seeing on this slide, and it's hard to read 'cause I know it's pretty tight and we're gonna go into the next slides in more detail, but the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, those are actually the lineup of the next steps we've completed. One tonight is two, which is select board alignment in April three and four are decision criteria and potential use case items. And those are, I'm gonna go into those in more detail. The big thing here is also looking at the timeline. In, in, in brief, the next two to three months is when we're going to be handling the bulk
of two, three, and four leading into public forums, which are gonna be happening over a longer timeframe, a six to nine month timeframe. There's also gonna be after the public forum, but before that advisory committee, committee component is where we're gonna have a, an opportunity for the board to say, okay, are we still on the right path here? Is this the right next step? So that's where we're gonna have a decision point. And then that's leading to basically a decision of the board about two years down the road in June of 27. To go into a little bit more detail, hopefully my slide will move. Apologies it's not letting me advance the slide.
There we go. When I mention about the flexible design, that is that point where after the public forums, but before the advisory committee is when the select board will then be able to say, okay, we've, we've heard from the public, we've, we've done some of the heavy lifting work of getting some engagement. Is the next step truly an advisory committee approach? Do we need to look at budget needs to look at whatever the next approach is? Do we need to rethink what, what, what is happening with this process? That's gonna be a time when, and it's down the road, it's, you know, probably may, maybe a year away where the board will be asked some of those questions.
But you'll have information to help fulfill or answer some of those questions for the board. So going back to phase one, and those are those one, two, and three that are part of that larger overall timeline. Phase one and one and two essentially lead to three. One is the potential use cases and two is the decision criteria. So when we talk about potential use cases, this is really just providing to the board all the potential use cases. This is not trying to narrow in on any one particular one, but there could be some that are just because of feedback or because of the reality of the site.
That might not be possible. So what we're trying to do here is through some survey work, which is with the community, that's that flash vote survey tool that we have. And through a select board meeting, seek an outline of really all those different use case use cases that can help provide some parameters around what then gets brought to future public forums that does have public input, but it's going to also require some select board input. And that's gonna be in the May timeframe. Then the decision criteria, and this is really just again, all the potential decision criteria. What should we be looking at from a decision making
criteria perspective, again, bringing that back out to the public with a survey through the flash vote tool and then coming back to the board to, to finalize some of that decision criteria parameter setting. And all of that will then be used in the public forum so that we have some goalposts as to what we're seeking from the public to get into a little bit more detail. Potential use case scenarios, again, these can be really anything and these are just very early on feedback is what we're trying to seek here. You know, anything from development to housing to open space to a community building to a town or natick public school building or a mix of those uses.
And that's really what we want to try to hone in on. And also through the flash vote, get some direction from the public who's engaged with the flash vote survey, the decision criteria, you know, what should we be prioritizing fiscal responsibility, preservation of open space, prioritizing multiple purpose uses or balance to shorten long-term community needs. These are some things and there might be others as well. But these are some things that we want to try to put some parameters around for decision criteria before we go out to the broader public engagement so that we can, can put some goalposts on that After we seek that from the board is when we're gonna be looking at doing
some of the community engagement and then following the community engagement, which is the end of phase one. That's when we have that inflection point to go into phase two where we'll be looking to the board to determine should we go with an advisory committee approach, should we be going with or a different approach when we, for example, establishing an advisory committee in and of itself can take some time. The target date for that should we go forward with this process as outlined is really January to February of next year. So 2026 and or a Johnson advisory committee which is a little bit more specific to the, the actual, you know, site itself
and putting together a working plan to be determined by a newly formed committee. And the thinking here is that it might be modeled after something like the DAM advisory committee, which brings in different levels of experts, different constituents to help provide informed feedback and direction to the board to eventually get to a decision. Again, we don't have to define those things now it's just looking forward as to how the approach might work. I wanna make sure that the board is understanding as to where we're taking some of the community engagement to help really define the committee charge to help define some of the member composition
and really put some definition around what that advisory committee or what the Johnson Advisory Committee would be doing at a future time. And then, you know, target date for June, 2027 of a select board vote. That advisory committee could theoretically take a good chunk of time to do their work. You know, once they get a, they get formed, they would need their own time to do that work in advance of getting formed is also when the board would, would be asked or, or think about whether or not we need to seek some funding to support the work of the advisory committee. Again, looking back at the DAM advisory committee, they did have some funding to help support their work.
We don't know yet if that's gonna be necessary. That's why we want to go through these initial steps over the next six months to determine what, if anything, would be beneficial for the process. And really what we're doing tonight is just asking the board to endorse this plan or, or give us your feedback on this plan and to get alignment to make sure that when we approach these next several months, but then also looking down the road we're in alignment with what the board is thinking, what the board is wanting really what, what you're thinking about this process and about this approach. And at the last slide here, there's a scan
where people can scan to sign up for updates. We have a number of people who have signed up for updates. For example, tonight's meeting was pushed out through people who are signing up for those updates about the Johnson School as well as the materials. And we encourage anybody who's interested to sign up for those updates. You can also just go to the town's website and sign up as well. There's a Johnson page. Any questions? I can go back to any part of the slide presentation. I'm just gonna go back to the, over the high level project plan. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Erickson. Comments and questions from the board, Mr. Sidney? Speaker 7: Yeah, I really like this plan. I like the ex, the significant
public input that it's, it seeks to get from the, you know, from the community and and from the neighbors. One thing that I think might be challenging between an advisory committee and a decision I in terms of timing, if the advice is to, in some way dispose of the property, we're gonna have to go to town meeting for that permission and that could introduce a delay and I, I hope that you would like at least recognize that in the plan, the select board cannot decide to issue an RFP unless town meeting gives the permission
Speaker 15: Fair. Although the select board can decide to seek town meeting's authority to issue an RFP, should that be the decision of the board? Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Sidney. Ms. Slager, Speaker 14: How'd you guess it was the, Speaker 1: It was the tapping. Speaker 14: Thank you. Thank you for all this work. I just have a question about the, the initial part where we come up with the use cases and, and I wanna be really clear that that doesn't mean that we're not going to be accepting public input on that. I'm just, I'm a little concerned that we're,
we just have one select board meeting where we're expecting people to attend to give us their input and a survey on potential use cases. And I do understand that what's in this is, is fairly broad in terms of the various potential uses for, for it. But I really would like to have some initial public input on that, maybe more than this because I know that's a big area of concern. I don't want anyone to think that, you know, it's somehow it's gonna be a done deal. I really wanna get public input upfront on this about what they would like to see for this area.
So I'm, I'm just, I'm just concerned that there's not enough public input upfront. Speaker 15: So what I'll say is the, the one and two is really designed not for the full public engagement per se. That's the public forums and that's where you're getting the full input upfront. The def the potential use cases is really just designed to, from the board's perspective, what are all the options. The flash vote is some public engagement, but the board might have some ideas as well as to what is really viable and what is not viable. Right. And that's really what we're trying to get
to is just when we go to the public to seek all their input. What are some of those, those go posts? Speaker 14: Yeah, I just for Speaker 15: Use case scenarios Speaker 14: Really clear though that that's, that whatever we might come up with may not be exhaustive. That there would be opportunities to add on at a future date to use cases if, if someone else comes up with something that they think is a, you know, really great idea Speaker 1: And it's, it's not, we don't have to have just one select board meeting during that potential use cases in the engage in that first on slide six, we can have
multiple select board meetings specifically only Okay. On potential use cases. That's it. Okay. Not on disposition. Not on, yeah. Any, any other part we can, we can narrow that down. Yes. Speaker 14: I'm just responding to what it says on the slide. Speaker 1: I understand. Yeah. Speaker 14: So where it says that, you know, a select board meeting that I'm con I was concerned that, yeah, Speaker 15: I mean I think what we're trying to also do there is put together a realistic timeframe 'cause in order for us to get to the public forum, start in the August through the December timeframe and ensure that we're trying to do some of this work,
keeping in mind summer months coming up, we're trying to just put some of those parameters so we can certainly adjust this. This is just the timeframe that we have. But if you, you know, take more time in any one of these, then it's just gonna push everything else down the road as well. And again, this is iterative so it's not designed to be sort of set in stone, but it is designed to give some parameters so that we have some target dates and some expectation setting with, for the public as well. Speaker 1: I I, I do think, I'll just reiterate in May, in May we can have an off cycle dedicated meeting for only use cases narrowly subscribed for the public
to weigh in and, and still meet this timeline. Mr. Evans, your honor, then you, Speaker 13: I agree with Ms. Bollock. I think particularly this issue is, is a very much a neighborhood issue and and getting them involved at the earliest possible date is, is vital. And, and, and I think if we can come up with, I like the idea of loath as I am to schedule extra meetings, but a dedicated meeting I think is in order to allow the public particularly abutters to
that area to weigh in on it, I think it's critical to the success of this program and to get the buy-in all along. I think all along every step of the way should have close involvement with that neighborhood. Speaker 15: Well if I may, there, there, there are designed into the process in the public forum very clear engagement with the Johnson neighborhood and just with the town wide public forums as well. So that is fully built in as well. Speaker 13: Yeah, I just wanted to, to emphasize that for the public for Speaker 15: For sure. Understand. Yep. Speaker 6: Ms. Pope, I agree with the additional public forums
and you answered some of my question Mr. Erickson about the timeline. I wanted to know one, how did you all come up with the timeline? I know that you have additional resources and bandwidth and capacity, but I wanted to know how you came up with it and then knowing that people are gonna see this, they're gonna have this and they're gonna say, you said you were gonna be done with it, or we should be what have you. And I know that this is iterative, how do we then I guess, keep the public involved if the timeline changes for whatever reason? Speaker 15: Sure. So the second point, everybody who's interested should sign up for updates. Yes, through the website there's a QR code at the end
of this presentation, they should sign up for updates 'cause we'll be pushing information through those updates to anybody who wants the information. That's a great way to stay informed about this project. Those are specific to Johnson. You can sign up on our website or again, at the end of this presentation there's a QR code. So I think that's a great way for people to stay informed, who wanna stay informed with regards to how do we came up with this timeframe. So we had a a staff level working group that included a number of people who have just engagement both with the public. So like for example, Jillian Wilson Martin was there. We also had just folks who were interested who, who just have some level of need for
internal engagement on this project. So we had, for example, bill Sprat from the facilities and DPW perspective, myself and a number of other people who, who we, we came, we came together and really brainstormed about how do we, how should we approach this? What approach from a public forum perspective, but also what from a timeline perspective, how can we have capacity? Amanda Loomis was there as well from CED, have capacity for doing the work that we've been charged with doing. Again, it came to the towns, to the select board about a year ahead of schedule. So we were anticipating this coming down the pipeline,
but we, we knew last year at this time that we didn't have the capacity. Really the, the first year's worth of work or maybe six months worth of work is, is a relatively speaking lower lift. 'cause it's about community engagement and listening. There's not a lot of heavy analysis per se going on. It's about listening. So it's really scheduling meetings and then being at those meetings to listen to the public and gain and gain feedback. It's after that public forum timeframe. And that's where the board is gonna have an opportunity to decide, okay, we've heard where do we take this? Do we go to the advisory committee front to dive even more deeply into some
of these potential areas of, of need? Or do we do something else? That's when I, I feel that the, the, the question of staff capacity is going to come into play and that's when we're gonna have that conversation about who's got the capacity to do this work. 'cause then we're gonna know what is the board going to be expecting at that point moving forward and what capacity and what needs do we need to put towards that. And that's also why we have the question about budget, because at that point we also need to understand what type of potential funding do we need to put towards some type of continue to work here. So right now we're, we're fine with capacity. We, we can schedule some public forums.
We can do the community engagement over the next two to three months, but also in the next six months. And then once we come, once the board at that point decides where to go, that's when we're gonna have the question about capacity. And, and that's also where we're going to see, you know, again, this is a timeline for from today's perspective, we're gonna have to update the timeline at that perspective once we know what the board feels is the next appropriate step. Speaker 6: Yes. I have one more question and that's about the use of the, of Johnson School now and over these next two years. I know there are people concerned about its use.
Can you just share what is the use of the building beyond Speaker 15: Sure. Right now beyond it's largely mothballed. It's not being used really. It's just been, we, we monitor it regularly. I believe from an interior perspective, there's typically a week every week somebody goes into the building and, and walks it to make sure that it's secure and that it's still from a, a safety perspective still safe. And, and and, and, and you know, there isn't a leak or there isn't water somewhere. And we do the same with the five Auburn site, which is another building that the town still owns.
And then the grounds are still being monitored by the DPWA Goodine was here tonight. He still does regular maintenance on the parks and regular maintenance on the grounds. So it's largely being unused right now. It doesn't mean that we won't have interim uses during these next few years as needed, but for right now, there's no intention of any sort of active use on a regular basis from the town's perspective or otherwise. Speaker 6: Thank you Ms. Speaker 14: Wilger. Thank you Madam Chair. I think there's a piece that might be missing here and it's either number four as part of engage or maybe something that's a prelude to the advisory phase.
And, and that's the select board's reaction to what has taken place at the public forums. And that might be to revise use cases and decision criteria because it looks like we've made our decision criteria in step two and then we've heard from the public in step three. But there's nothing that would say that the select board has to take any action, no feedback loop. Yeah. Subsequent to that. So to me that's either a number four there or something at the beginning of the engage section, but that we would revisit those before either going to an advisory committee or not.
Speaker 15: Well, I mean that is noted on this slide, meaning phase one, do the public forums to inform whether we move forward with advisory committee budget needs, weighted scorecard or other purposes. That's where the board will be asked after that phase one to then decide what MO is moving forward and give to the advisory committee, define the committee charge, define the member composition and recruit members. That charge is essentially where you're going to be defining what the parameters are for that, what
that advisory committee is gonna be doing. Speaker 14: Right. But there's nothing explicitly that says that the select board is taking into account the public feedback. And that's the part that I wanna make sure that everyone understands that we're not just getting this feedback and, and not responding to it by either updating use cases or decision criteria. It, it's just, I know it's implied, but it isn't explicit. And I, and I think that's important for people that might just be looking at these slides. Yeah, Speaker 15: That's definitely intended to be there, Speaker 14: What our process is. Speaker 15: Thanks for sure. Speaker 1: Mr. Sydney. The,
Speaker 7: A couple of things. I am a, a neighbor of Johnson. I don't know if everybody in the room knows that. And I do know that the neighborhood is actually pretty divided on what usage would be and I just, it's, I think this public engagement is really important to, to bring that out. And I just wanted to make sure that people know that we are listening to the, to the neighbors as well as, you know, not just talking among ourselves. I also, I did sign up for these updates and I do get regular emails when there's a change.
And so I wanna recommend anybody, especially in the neighborhood, sign up for the updates on the, on the town webpage. You will get emails when things change and when I did get a note about this meeting through the update page, so it's a good way to stay informed. Speaker 1: The only thing I would add to my colleagues' comments is that while this project is very important to the neighborhood, it's important to the town and I wanna make sure that town residents who live in other parts of town are also heard
and that there isn't necessarily a privilege of place in opinions because we represent everyone in 10 precincts. There are two hands up online, so I'll take Mara ter first please, if you could unmute yourself. Speaker 20: Yes, thank you. So my name's Mara and I'm, I'm relatively new to the town of Natick. Can you hear me? Yes. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 20: Sorry. I had a couple questions in my about Jamie's presentation and one was, you had mentioned something about transfer of ownership and I wonder if you could explain that, what that means and who owns the building currently?
Speaker 15: Oh, sure. I think it was probably in relation to how the school committee transferred the ownership to the select board. And it's a term, basically it, it's all owned by the town of Natick right now. However, under state law, when a building is an active school building, it's under the care, custody and control of the school committee, which is its own elected body. And they are governed largely by state laws and, and regarding schools, typically they're under the Department of Education and Secondary Education or desi.
And when a school building is no longer being used as a school building, they actually have the divest of that asset to back to the town from under their control and custody. And that divestments goes to the select board in the case of Natick. And that process is an evolved process. So they actually, the school committee actually to determine it, that it's no longer needed for their purposes. They make the determination, they submit a letter to Desi, the state, then we have to, we the town have to, or the school committee has to petition the town meeting, which is our legislative branch to actually authorize
and make that transfer of ownership from the school committee to the select board. It's very administrative and it really, to the general public doesn't really change much other than it's no longer a school and it's, it's under the custody and control of the select board, but it is a process that's required by the state when a school is no longer considered a school. It's all a decision that the, the determination of whether or not a school is a school is really the school committee's determination, not the select boards. But in order for it to be divested from one to the other, in either case, it has to go through a town meeting authorization process.
I believe that's what you were referring to when you asked the question about ownership transfer. Yes, yes, Speaker 20: Yes. Thank you. Perfect. Can can I ask one other just quick question? Sure. Or maybe it's really a comment and some of the discussion earlier about the select board, you know, first kind of determining potential use cases and sort of the timing of when public forums would happen and such. I, I just as a, as a resident myself, who maybe has a thought on a potential use case is, is there an opportunity to share that or is it really, is it, you know, would I be required to wait to that public forum?
I don't, I don't mean share that today necessarily. I'm just thinking if residents have thoughts that they haven't, you know, brought forth. Is is it, is it waiting until that public forum and, no, Speaker 15: No, that's a, that's an excellent point. So under the first point, the potential use case scenario, we do, we'll have a, a survey flash vote, and you can sign up for a survey flash vote. That's through our town's website. We do those more broadly, but we're gonna use that tool to help inform this process. And, and in that flash vote survey will be an opportunity to provide some feedback on use scenarios, use cases,
and there's gonna be a select board meeting on that as well, where it sounds like the select board will be seeking some initial feedback from members of the public. The public forums are absolutely also where that dialogue will happen. The intent though, is not to go into the public forums just without any directionist, is to try to have some level of sort of goalposts, so to speak, from the board's perspective on where to guide or at least help to frame some of the dialogue at the public forum. But absolutely in the upcoming month of May will be an opportunity for initial thoughts
to be shared with the select board as well. Speaker 21: Okay, Speaker 1: Thank you. And, and the select board often takes, you know, many residents write to the select board about issues. You're welcome to write select board@natickma.org and we will take those into consideration and also put those, the letters that the board receives are public record, so they will be put up on the agenda for the next, when we have that meeting. So if you were to write before we have the input in May, those letters would be posted and you know, we welcome, we welcome your thoughts. Speaker 21: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Jamie Basian Bason.
I hope I didn't put your last name. If you could unmute yourself. Speaker 21: Hi. Yeah, Jamie Bason. So I was curious how you would be assessing the need for open space in a park and recreation area in that neighborhood in Natick in general. Historically it's been used as a park by the community, so I was just wondering exactly how you would be assessing that need. And also how would you be putting together the cost for maintaining it
as a park as it is now. And then also with maybe updating, you know, the basketball courts and the baseball field possibly using CPA funds for that. And also too, using maybe open, you know, if as, you know, almost like an open space study. I know we haven't had an independent one of that, but, you know, taking into consideration variables such as housing developments, increased population, increased families, less open space, things like that.
Speaker 15: The excellent point, so this is where from a, an analysis of really any type of use case, whether it's open space or other uses that might come from the public forum process, this is where the board needs to provide some feedback after we get those initial public forums completed over the next six months, to then provide guidance to either an advisory committee or town staff, or maybe both. And then also help provide some funding to support whatever study is deemed appropriate at that point. In the case of, for example, the DAM advisory work,
there was some funding and, and they brought in some experts that looked at the various options from a more detailed level, we're still at the very much, the 50,000 foot level at this point. The public forums and the, the potential use cases and the decision criteria will just get us to like maybe 25 or 30,000 feet. Then the advisory committee helps us get down to that five to 10,000 square foot level. And that's where I can see some of the analysis and the studies come into play because there's gonna be more and, and a input from the public.
There's gonna be more direction that the board can provide to an advisory committee and, and potential for some budget to help do some of that work. So that's where I think some of those types of analysis and, and, and studies would come into play is really at that advisor committee phase stage moving forward. At this point, we're still at the 50,000 foot level. You know, we're still trying to, to, to really glean from the public, from the board, from everybody who has some level of input that input we're, we're seeking to do that over the next six to six to nine months.
On the question of the ongoing maintenance, a lot of the ongoing maintenance of the existing park space is built into our budget already. We've been doing it for years. We're gonna continue to do that for however long we need to be doing it for. It's gonna remain, you know, the, the, the playground's gonna remain there. The park space is gonna remain there. We do not currently have any plans to do major upgrades to some of the facilities. We'll obviously do continue to maintenance to the playground. That's a fairly new playground, relatively speaking. But the courts and anything else, we're not currently planning on doing any major upgrades to them at this point because we want to get through this process over the next
two, two years to then help inform what that space will become. Speaker 21: Okay. So if I understood you, the advisory committee, that's gonna happen regardless of anything else. And then at that point, you'll, you'll do studies based on, based on feedback or based on just That's the, that's where you're at in the timeline. Speaker 15: So I don't wanna say that the advisory committee will definitively happen. There's actually a point after these initial public engagement processes with over the next six to nine months.
Whereby with that feedback then the board will then determine if it's appropriate to do the advisory committee approach. That's really where we're going to in probably in January, December, January of this upcoming year, is where we're gonna have the ability, because we'll have, have feedback at that point to help inform the board's decision on whether an advisory committee makes sense to move forward. And that that's really where we're gonna have some of that advisory committee work happening after that point. Speaker 21: And if there, and if you choose not to do an advisory committee, will,
will you be assessing open space and recreational needs and also, you know, the breakdown of costs on, on maintaining that park and continuing to maintain that park with, in case the advisory committee does not happen? Would you still do that? Speaker 15: I think that really depends on the information that the board and the, and the, and and gets from the public over the next six months. So it, it, I don't wanna overcommit and underdeliver or, or really just commit to anything right now because we haven't heard from the public about this process, about this space. So once we hear from the public more in the coming months,
that's will help inform the board's next step of decisions. I mean, I will say that with all public spaces that, that the board or the public chooses to invest in, we bring those into our budgeting process to ensure that we can keep them maintained. Should the board decide that that's a need at this location, then that will be part of our future year's budgeting processes. Speaker 21: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 15: Yeah, excellent questions. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Mr. Evans? Yeah, Speaker 13: Just to, to add to what Mr. Erickson just said, there are two committees that are standing committees
that could be helpful in this. Whether we form a committee that's a study committee or, or not. One is the open space advisory committee, which on an ongoing basis looks at needs for open space and desires for open space. They meet monthly. The second is the community preservation committee, which will also be looking at various different projects. One of which one of the criteria is open space or one of the areas that they can invest in. So I, I think regardless
of whether the board decides on a committee or not and and even what kind of committee we get at a minimum inputs from those groups. And hopefully if we do form a committee i'd, I'd love to see membership from both of those committees or a representative I should say. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Evans. Mr. Gates. Speaker 22: There we go. Oops. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes, Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 22: Okay. If there, whether there's an advisory committee or not, I think it's important for the town
to understand the financial ramifications of whatever is decided on this. So if there is an advisory committee, I would recommend that someone with financial expertise and capable of doing financial projections and things like that, irrespective of whether there's a consultant that can do that, do that on behalf of the town. And, and in addition to that, I just hope, you know, so if you decide that no advisory committee is necessary, I think it's still important to show what the effects are as a result of whatever decisions are made in terms
of the financial aspects to the town. Thank you. Thank Speaker 1: You Mr. Gates. I completely agree. JR could you unmute yourself? Speaker 23: Hi Jim Roberts precinct five. Just a quick question. It's my understanding one of the major reasons for closing Johnson was that it wasn't a DA compliant, Speaker 15: I can't speak for the decisions on the school committee. That was their decision. I'd recommend contacting the school department on that front. Speaker 23: Okay. I'm pretty sure that was a major reasoning behind it. So if that is the case and the building's not a DA compliant, would the town have
to then do, if they do decide to use it or lease it out, whatever for use, would that then, then be, have to look into to making the building a DA compliant? Speaker 15: Excellent question. So I'll take that in two parts. If there's an interim use, which currently there's no planned interim use, but if there's an interim use, much depends on what that use is in the building and if it's open to the public or if it's something like that's, that's just less open to the public, that will determine what level
of compliance the building would need to come up to a future use. Let's say for example, there's a, his, there's a rehab of the building for un, anybody can name the use depending on the extent of those upgrades. And depending on that use, in all likelihood, yes, the building will need to come up to code compliance, not only in a DA but also in in other code compliance areas like fire code suppression systems, just fire general and all other code compliance. So yes, that is likely the case for future more extensive, more permanent uses on the property. Speaker 23: Okay, thank you. Yeah, Speaker 15: Good question.
Speaker 1: Are there any other questions or comments from people online or in the room? Yes. Speaker 24: Hi, my name is Anne Gly. I live on Pearl Street about a block away from the Johnson School property. Long time listener, first time talker, speaker at welcome thing. So I've been thinking about this place a lot lately. Obviously the last year has been really busy with the, you know, the override and all that kind of stuff. So I'm excited that this came up as a topic for tonight. Excited and concerned. So this pan, this past winter, I took my 3-year-old son sledding on that hill over there
for the very first time. And last week my son and I were on the playground and we met another kid and they figured out how to climb the rock climbing wall together. The point I'm trying to make is that even though it's no longer a school, that it's that the building itself has been mothballed. The place continues to be very important to the neighborhood, the people in that area in the radius, including those like mine who never attended Johnson School Elementary. So I haven't asked, and I have two questions. My ask is that as you make decisions about what happens next, that not only does the town
communicate updates outbound as you have mentioned in your plan, but that neighbors are actively folded into the process as well that are, I think that Linda you mentioned that like it's one thing to, you didn't say this exactly, but my feeling is it's one thing to make a comment and have it be jotted down and put in a suggestion box, but it's different for that comment to be, to be used and weighed. So going on to the two questions. So regarding the survey methodology, I know that flash vote has been used many times for a lot of town initiatives and it seems
to still have limited reach. Sometimes people aren't even using Facebook aren't even subscribed to the list serves, even though they're really useful. The last few flash vote surveys invited less than a thousand residents and had about 500 respondents. This is only looking back to January, given that Natick has approximately 37,000 residents, 27 of which are assumed adults just on voter registration from a statistical perspective, will there be additional outreach methods including perhaps offline surveying to make sure that we're capturing a more representative sample of
resident opinions and input? Speaker 15: Jay, can I ask you to provide some feedback there? So I'd like, if possible I'd like Jay to provide some of the feedback. 'cause he's, he's helped to spearhead the flash vote survey tool and provide some background on the flash vote survey, but also how it's intended to be used. Speaker 25: Yep. So Jay Port Paddock talent communications director. So a couple comments on the sort of offline outreach that we might do. Number one, a postcard mailer would go to all 15,000 residents and hou,
or sorry, all 15,000 households. And that is basically to do a whole series of actions. The primary one is actually to sign up for the listerv of town communications. So once we get an email, once we get a a cell phone number, we can then translate people into flash vote. In the case of surveying, we are getting about a thousand panel and about 500 responses. So that's all accurate representation and statistical significance are two separate matters. So the idea that you can get a sample of five, 600 people actually models just fine from, is it statistically relevant from representation?
That's where hopefully the offline mailers in other sort of areas. But I mean, generally speaking it's, it's a challenge. We just had a override vote, we had a 30% voter turnout of the 25,000 registered voters. And I think that's always gonna be a challenge. The offline capabilities gonna grow the sample, the representation, we collect all the demographics. It's not normalized or balanced for those that wanna get into the details. But I think it's, it's a pretty powerful tool. Historically, Natick gotten sub 100, a small handful of a hundred. So that five to 600 sample of survey response on flash vote is actually
a statistically significant, but it's just subjectively large when it comes to engaging municipalities. But it's a legit challenge. It's not gonna go away and flash road's proven to be our best tool to date, but certainly take other questions. Speaker 15: Thank you Jay, on that topic. Yeah, yeah, Speaker 24: Yeah, Speaker 25: Yeah. I think we're Speaker 15: Good. Yeah, thank you. Speaker 24: And if I may, if I may, I have just one more question. Is that okay? Yes. Do you have time? Great. So I have a couple questions about the advisory committee. It sounds like it's not a sure thing whether it happens or not. If it does happen, I'd like to learn more about how the composition of the members will be determined.
Specifically. Will it be like a panel of experts in certain domains like finance and conservation? Will it be folks from around the neighborhood? 'cause while I agree, I agree that whatever happens to Johnson affects the whole town and all taxpayers, what happens to Johnson also has a, can have a stronger impact on the people who live right nearby. So I, I would want to stress that as we consider the advisory committee, that perhaps some neighbors in that area, abutters would be folded into
that process only because the impact is so much greater to people within a quarter mile within those precincts than someone on the other side of town. All due respect. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you very much Mr. Kaufman. And this will be the last comment on this tonight, so we can move on to the rest of the agenda. Speaker 18: John Kaufman, south Main Street. I just want to reiterate what the previous speaker said. She pretty much said it all for me. Johnson, the property itself is, is a neighborhood, it's the only green space we have, you know, if you want
to talk about Coolidge Field, you know, Natick was always divided. Neighborhood, navy, yard, squash end, and then the Johnson neighborhood and that the playground, the ball field, which by the way really doesn't get up kept at all. But it, it's all we have in that neighborhood. The sledding, you know, I I've, I've been watching it for 40 years now, so, you know, there, there will be an advisory committee. I mean, because the other three committees, you know, if, if we don't pick people from that neighborhood
where it means so much to, you know, the voices are gonna be a lot louder in that neighborhood compared to Wethersfield. You know, there's so much to say here and I think, I think you forgot one committee that's gonna have a big influence and that's the Natick Affordable Trust committee. And if we do build housing there and it's just affordable housing without mentioning veteran housing, without mentioning senior housing, that's gonna be a problem also. 'cause we have senior and veteran housing up at Cedar Gardens that is approaching 80 years old, you know,
and if we can't build anything for these gentlemen or you know, mothers and fathers including myself, you know, it's ridiculous. But Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Kaufman. Speaker 18: Again, it's, it, it, it's a big topic here and I'll be around for a while, so thank Speaker 1: You. Thank you. At, at this moment we're gonna take a five to seven minute break so that the board can review the documents that have been uploaded for the AMVETS hearing and we'll come back for that. Alright. And we are back. The next item of on the agenda is a hearing Amvets post 79 alleged alcohol
violations should be plural. I will start, the two violations that are heard are going to be heard tonight by the board is Amvets Post 79 has not submitted a correct change of manager application since the current one was returned no action by the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission on January 24th, 2025. And the second was Ambits Post 79 has not cooperated with law enforcement in producing requested video footage coverage. So starting with the first one, I would like to,
let's start with the commander if you'd like to address. We have, we have your correspondence with the bur with the board, but for the public's knowledge, could you address the first violation? Speaker 26: Okay, first of all, I'm Commander David Anderson and I'd like to acknowledge the veterans that are here. Could you please stand up? And those that are members of post 79, raise your hands. And we also have some veterans that are involved with state AM vets, could you raise your hand?
I and those with national. So we have a good representation here and I have people that advise me not only for post 79, but other AMBITS posts and we are trying to comply to the best we can. Now I've given you two letters of why and what we're doing, you know, and it isn't for lack of effort. I think the, the one that you got today identified that, you know, there was a change of, you know,
who was going to, you know, be able to get this, you know, letter of compliance, the DUA. And we have been going back and forth between the state. I have our club manager, Louis Torres here with me today and he actually has some hot off the press news, A-D-T-A-D-P assigned Mr. Saner as a consultant to our case. Just today A DP understands the urgency
and we're waiting on that one piece of paper so that we can submit and have a complete submission for the A BCC. We have the quarries, we have everything else. We're waiting on that one piece of paper. And I just wanna highlight, we strongly have nothing to hide. We believe in cooperation and transparency. You can call me or Louis Torres anytime. You can call me 24 hours a day. Deputy police Chief Lason has my number and we do want to cooperate.
And when it comes to our surveillance tapes, Speaker 1: We're not gonna talk about that yet. Okay? We're just gonna talk about the first violation. So the letter that you dropped off today on April 9th says that unknowing to the prior AMVs board or the present board, a former employee changed third party access from our payroll provider of over a decade to herself on November 6th, 2023. She also made other changes to benefit her control of amvets post 79 access to information. I have an email that I've submitted to the board dated today at 5 22 showing that on Wednesday,
November 6th, 2024, which is the time period for this current board that Catherine Young Lopez submitted to Rob Shi Bonier, the P-F-L-L-A, the DUI and all of the information needed to access mass tax and the mass.gov website with passwords. So in November this board had information to be able to get their DUA. We're not taking comment right now. No, Speaker 27: It's not comment. May, may, may I comment on on that, on that statement when I spoke with unemployment at the mic.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sorry. Identify your name please. My Speaker 27: Name is Louis Torres, I'm the post manager and when I spoke with the unemployment, they said that the only person that could access unemployment or speak to them directly was only Ms. Lopez. Nobody else could do anything else but Ms. Lopez. I had to get authenticated. It took me about a month and a half to get author authorization and authentication to even speak with unemployment for them to tell me actually that Ms. Lopez was the only person able to do anything with them and that Speaker 1: The post had this information on November 6th of last year. So the fact that it took you to the spring to get around
to finding out that you did not have access is not Ms. Lopez's fault. I'm looking at an email from her to Rob and I don't know what his role is, is Speaker 26: Our finance officer. Okay. Speaker 1: So the finance officer knew that the Department of Unemployment, the login for it and every everything else. So I, I hear what you're saying, it took you a month and a half to do that, that's fine. But last November before our last hearing on violations this post had that information. I'm not taking testimony right now though, so please have a seat further In this letter you stated
this was a disgruntled employee withheld information forming the board or the club manner of her actions. If I had had this in time, I would've had her here to speak because this letter's public record and it be smirch as her integrity and I find that disturbing and offensive. So A DP is going to be able to give you a DUA, which is the last thing that you needed. Speaker 26: We need a current DUA for 2025 according to, you know, the A, BCC. They do not want the one that was in 2024. Speaker 1: And when were you notified of
Speaker 26: That? In, in January. And we discussed this with Donna Donovan and she said when you have everything then submit. Speaker 1: Right? That's all she could tell you because she doesn't control the process. So yes, that she's absolutely right. The memo that we have on January 24th, which is more than two months ago, the last return, no, no approval from A B, CC. And I wanna be clear, I made the phone call to Ralphie Ralphie Smo, he is the executive director for the A BCC when the post notified Donna that
the website and what we could see on the website for applications does not require CO's for nonprofits. So I called him and asked him why Amvets, this isn't from the town of Natick, this is from the state. Speaker 26: And we did get CO's we we are I understand prepared to submit them. Speaker 1: That was you did and three members of your board resigned rather than sign a Cory, is that correct? Speaker 26: That's their prerogative. Speaker 1: Of course it is. I'm just asking if that's correct. Speaker 26: It's correct. Okay. Speaker 1: So I just restated some of, some of the facts with regard to the first paragraph of your letter.
I'm gonna open it up to the board for questions and comments. Speaker 7: Go ahead Bruce. Speaker 1: Mr. Evans? Speaker 13: No, I think the, the timeline is disturbing. You know, when you, when you have that information from November 24 and it wasn't acted upon immediately, you know, it, it seems like this process has just been stumbling around for some time. So I, I'm not sure what we end up doing with this, but it's clear that this is an ongoing issue that keeps getting almost to the goal line
and just somehow some way there's, there's a roadblock that takes months to overcome and that's just not acceptable. Speaker 1: Mr. Sidney? Speaker 7: Yeah. Do we have any, I know that we had a five day suspension held in Inance. Do we have any new violations at this point? Speaker 1: That five days was served January one to January five. Right. Okay. So there's nothing in abeyance now. Speaker 7: Okay. And the new violation is just, they haven't been able to get the A B, CC thing done? Or is it the CCTV footage as well? Speaker 1: We're not talking about that yet. I just wanna focus on the first allegation.
No, we, the, the video, it doesn't exist anymore because it was looked at a month after the request was made. So I'm assuming it's a 30 day retention. Speaker 7: Okay. Alright. I, the, the truth is here I am beyond any forgiveness on for Amvets at this point. We've been talking about this for two and a half years now, something like that. And if I remember correctly, and my memory is, can be faulty, but if I remember correctly,
my comment the last time we were here was if they don't get their act together, I want to suspend them. So I just want to put that out there, you know, we have, I think there's enough reason to do that. There's things we're gonna do, but that's gonna be the stance I'm gonna take tonight. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Sidney. We still have not found them to be in violation, so floating a penalty is not really helpful and premature. I'm not taking comments from the public right now. So does anyone else have any comments about dispersed alleged violation, Ms. Pope?
Speaker 6: I don't wanna waste time with remarks, but just that ditto that the timeline is, is, is concerning and it doesn't sound, I I have not yet heard why the timeline is what it is, and I think that's important moving forward. Speaker 1: A particular note is that the person who is now the alcohol manager is banned for life from the post. So technically the post has been in violation for over two years, has been unable to get an application in with a current manager of record Speaker 7: And will we find a violation.
Speaker 1: Ms. Wilker, do you have any questions or comments? Speaker 14: I, I do have one comment. It's, it's just very disturbing to see. I'm, I'm looking at what you got back in January from the A BCC where the first line says the majority of my last RNA instructions were not followed. I mean, I just don't understand why this is so difficult for Amvets when it is not for other organizations in town. We just, we don't have this problem with anyone else that,
you know, I understand that you've had some turmoil in your organization, but you know, it's been a couple years now as, as, as the chair said that you have not been able to get this unwound. And I appreciate you're very close to the finish line and I commend you for that. But it's taken a long time and it's, it's just very disappointing to see that it hasn't been fixed yet. Speaker 26: I'd like just to make a couple comments concerning that we're a new board, this was the first time that we had
to do it and some of the requirements were the first time that the Post had to do it, such as the cos and when it came to the, the letter of compliance, the, with the DUA, we have been trying, Lou has been since January, trying to contact the state to get that one unlocked. And you know, if they have their process, it may be a little byzantine, but I think it's designed so that they're positive who they're talking with. There was authentication and then
after they started talking with Lou, then we had to get a DP involved and they had to authenticate that a DP who's been running our payroll for over a decade was allowed to work with them. And we're finally there, but it is not Lou, how many hours have you, you know, Speaker 27: I've been on hold for maybe six hours a day out of eight hours trying to find out who talked to, to get the proper information to get, Speaker 1: Did the post contact Catherine Young Lopez, since they were the only people, that,
that was the only person according to you, who could talk to DUA or talk to a DP, did you reach out to her Speaker 2: Cooperative? Speaker 26: She's been uncooperative. Speaker 1: I don't find that to be the case. I talked to her today and I asked, I called her and asked her, had you, had she been, had a call from the post to help move this along? And she said, I have not heard from anyone. So I on face value, I just, I can't accept that Speaker 2: Your text, Speaker 1: Excuse me sir, if you have something to say, please approach the mic, identify yourself. Speaker 28: Steven Belcher army. I've been in contact with her.
I I actually have texts that can prove against that ma'am. Speaker 1: And you asked her if she could come and help with the A DP investigation. Speaker 28: I asked multiple times if she can help us flip over all the passwords, all the things I do. Again, I can put that into evidence. And she's been extremely uncooperative of one myself, ma'am. Speaker 1: So I have an email from her with all of those passwords sent to the post sent to Rob with the passwords and access on November 4th. Now, I don't know, I can't speak for someone else, but if I got a letter put in the public record that accused me of the things that are in this letter,
I might not be cooperative either. But I do have that email showing that she sent that on Speaker 28: November 4th, 2024 Speaker 1: Last year. That is correct. Speaker 28: Okay. Not 2023. Speaker 1: No. Okay. Speaker 28: Thank you. Speaker 1: I would, I'm sorry. Please approach Speaker 29: Chaplain Carolyn ssi. I have been a Natick resident for 12 years. I've also been a part of the AM vs. And I'd like to clarify if I may a little bit the timeline
as to why things have happened the way they've happened. What our commander has not shared is he's been, he'd been quite ill and he had had a number of hospitalizations. Lou has done everything that he could. And again, he also works full time. This is, these are volunteers, these are people that are doing this as a volunteer basis. They're not paid to do this. They're doing this on their off time. So taking care of his family, doing everything that he can for, for Amvets, trying to get these things done. And yes, there's been a lot of, I love Kathy,
she is a dear friend of mine. However, there has been some dece dissension between when she left and the communication here. So what is seen on face value is they've not communicated well. And I, I'm sorry about that. But the, the bottom line is why is this taken as long as it's taken. It's because we are a volunteer board that does everything that we can on our off time from our work, from our families and doing the best that we can. But again, this wonderful gentleman has taken,
been hospitalized and he is the one that is at the helm. And so there's a lot that doesn't get done if he has been in the hospital. So we need to give these guys the, and, and women that are veterans, the recognition that they deserve and stop beating them up because they are doing the very best that they can to make sure that you get everything you need. And that the things that, the last time we were here, we were told when Lou was put into the his role that you hoped that you would see changes
and changes have been coming. And yes, they have been slow, but all we have to do is look at what's going on in the world today and we know how difficult things are to get done. Speaker 1: So this may come, this may not even need to be stated, but we're all volunteers too. I understand. Nobody wants to sit up here and I would not say that we're beating you up. We've been extraordinarily patient for over two years with this post. I do appreciate that the commander and I do know that he was in the hospital and I am familiar with that. You have an e-board, you have people who, are you telling me
that nobody's in charge if he's not here? Speaker 29: That's correct. They, they, we've had people that have left the e-board. We've had three people that have resigned. He, Speaker 26: I'm the only person that knows the process right now to submit to the A, B, C, C. We don't have a big bench. The prior board, there was nobody there to show me how to do it. I've learned it. And we're waiting on that last piece of paper. Speaker 1: Mr. Evans, Speaker 13: I suggest that there be a plan developed so that the e-board can act on your behalf.
And it's not single threaded where if you're not available for whatever reason, that no decision can be made and everything's halts right there. That's, that's part of the, the general problem. So I would like to see election a plan. Speaker 26: We, we, that says Speaker 13: You're, could I continue, please? I'd like to see a plan that spells out how you're going to delegate some of that responsibility to others. Speaker 26: We, we already have that in place where we have vice commanders. They're learning. We also at the suggestion the last time we
were here, developed standard operating procedures so that we don't have to relearn things. And what you say is very correct. You wanna have things that are not single threaded. I couldn't agree with you more. Okay. Speaker 13: Thank, thank you. None of that was visible to, to me as a board member. So thank you for that. Speaker 1: Are there any other comments from members of the board with regard to this violation only? Is there a motion? I move. We find a violation. Okay. Moved by Mr. Sidney. Speaker 13: I will second it for discussion. I'm not sure if I'm what I'm gonna do yet.
Speaker 1: Okay. I would suggest that we, Speaker 13: I wanna wait for part two. Speaker 1: Well, I, I'm not, all I'm looking for is a violation on this, on this one. Not, not, not looking at penalties or discipline or anything like that. Just Speaker 13: Then I'd Speaker 1: Say, because we can't do that until we find that there's a violation. Okay, Speaker 13: Fair enough. Then, then I support Mr. Sidney's. Speaker 1: So move by Mr. Sidney. Seconded by Mr. Evans. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. I'm a no. No. So that's three to two that there's a violation. Two dissenters, Ms. Slager, Ms. Pope. So I'd like to move on to the second alleged violation
not cooperating with law enforcement and producing requested video footage commander. Speaker 26: As far as the video footage goes, deputy Chief Loon never called me. And I have communicated with him when he wants to. He never gave a reason why he wanted the video footage. I was there at the Polar plunge as well as quite a few people here. Nothing had been done. That was wrong. And either it be a complaint or whatever. I came to the, the town office
and I asked, you know, why they were asking for video footage because they identified that the select board wanted it. Speaker 1: Who identified that? The select board wanted it. Speaker 26: One of the policemen. Speaker 1: So Lieutenant Della Hunte went through the post and asked for video, video on, I believe it was two 17. De the deputy chief is not required to call ahead. He's not required to tell you why. He's not required to discuss it with you. He's not required to sit down and have a conversation. It's a law enforcement matter. So he made a request that was ignored
until Lizanne reached out and said, can we get this? You are leaving to go outta town. And you said, we'll discuss the, when I get back, I'm paraphrasing on Wednesday, Friday of that week, there was no discussion. So that's the reason for this hearing tonight. Commander, Speaker 27: May I Speaker 26: Go ahead. Speaker 27: Louis Torres, post manager. When this, when I first found out about this, I explained to lieutenant that I did not know how to download the videos. They sent me a sergeant from the police department to assist me in downloading the video. My USB port did not have enough
salvage in it to download everything. The police sergeant did not have any with him to download anything. But on the day that we first found out, I did try before I notified even the commander or the e-board, that the police wanted something that we did make an attempt. I personally made an attempt with the sergeant to download and give them whatever they wanted because I wanted to comply because I don't believe we're hiding anything. And I don't know what they're looking for, but I was willing to show them anything they wanna see because that's what we're about. We're just trying to comply and be cooperative until everything went the way it went today.
But we did try the very first time with the sergeant of the police department came to the post. We looked at the videos, tried downloading 'em, had issues. He did not have anything on him. I asked the commander for bigger ports and that's where we are today. Thank you. Speaker 1: But the video isn't available for those dates because more than 30 days elapsed, is that correct? Speaker 27: That is correct. I did not know that. The videos don't last longer, but the sergeant and I did try downloading 'em that that day he came to the post when the first notice was given, given to us. But the sergeant, police sergeant did come to assist me in trying to download the videos.
Speaker 1: So the letter that was dropped off today says that I, it was explained that cameras are used to promote safety and security. Who explained that to whom? That's a passive sentence. I don't know. I need clarification. Speaker 26: We had a discussion at our e-board yesterday as well as our general meeting. We had quite a few members that were upset that they were on camera and we felt very strongly that the videos do support safety and security and we wanna keep 'em. Speaker 1: So you requested a request in writing
or call to you on your cell is what our members ask for in the future from the town of Natick, that is in violation of our alcohol policies, our alcohol policy state. A license is a permit permit. I have said to members and to other members of other clubs, you don't need a license from us. You could be a BYO club and never have to come here again. But if you're going to sell alcohol, you have to have a valid license. And this local licensing board has an 18 page policy that was sent out to all policy holders. And it clearly states that when a video is asked, you just produce it. There's no sit down, there's no phone call, there's no here.
We wanted to share with you what information we have. I didn't have any information specifically about why they asked. You called me and you asked me did the select board ask us. We don't do that. We don't do investigations. That's the police department. So I don't know what Lieutenant Della Hte meant or said that the select board had requested, but that's not, that's not what happened. Mr. Sidney, Speaker 7: I am extraordinarily concerned by the statement in these amvets minutes that the, that they say until they put what they're looking for in writing, this will be viewed as not a real requirement, but a fishing expedition.
I'm sorry, that's inappropriate. This is for law enforcement and Speaker 1: For, for clarification, this is AM v's. Post 79 March meeting, March 11th, 2025, 1900 hours reading the commander. Welcome Anne, a new member to the post. We had some resignations. We will not be filling these positions as nominations for the upcoming elections is in May relations with the A, BCC and the town are ongoing, challenging and confusing. The town and A B, C, C have differing requirements, which is not true.
This makes getting the required paperwork a challenge. The town is requesting to review our videotapes until they put what they're looking for in writing. This will be viewed as a not real requirement, but a fishing expedition. Our police department doesn't have time for fishing expeditions. And I'm sorry that this body and the members of amvets feel persecuted. I think that's a word that's used in one of the minutes. Mr. Evans, Speaker 13: Just a comment on the physical ability to produce videos. You would download that from the device, the video to A USB memory stick,
which can be acquired 24 7 almost at a Staples store. That's pretty within two, three miles of that. If they're not open, best Buy is another alternative. So I failed to see why in so long a time, if you knew there wasn't the capacity, or even if you had a memory stick that you put through your laundry accidentally, if you went out and bought a, a new one, you would have no issue at all downloading it. You just put it in, it looks like another drive
and you copy and paste. It's not rocket science. So I I I failed to see why that was a problem. Speaker 7: If, if I may in addition, you can download it to your local drive if you don't have a USB drive just to preserve it. Speaker 1: I understand that's a little sophisticated. We're not, we're talking about volunteers who are not IT specialists like you. So Speaker 13: Memory stick, Speaker 26: The the one stick that we did have already had things on it and it didn't have sufficient capacity. We can keep other ones, like you said, you know, purchase them and keep them there.
Speaker 1: Ms. Lauger. Speaker 14: Thank you Mr. Torres. I'm, I'm trying to understand what happened. You were unable to download it, but then did you decide that you didn't have to download it at what, what Speaker 27: No, no. I, I just, just hang Speaker 14: On on a moment, ma'am. So, you know, after that failed, how did you leave it with, with the police that they would come back for it or that you would, or did you just think it didn't need to be done? I, I'm trying to understand what happened afterwards. I get it that you were trying to be compliant at that point
and were unable to because you didn't have enough room on the USB drives. But then what Speaker 27: I called the commander and I told him what was going on and he, he told me that he would take care of it and speak with Deputy Chief Anne. And then when the sergeant and I continued to speak, we under, were under understanding that his deputy would be taking over his portion of it and my commander would be taken over my portion of it. So I was under, we were both under the understanding that now it went into hire our boss's hands, ma'am.
And that's where I left. It was at the commander's hand. And I stopped communicating with the sergeant and the sergeant stopped communicating with me and the post commander started communicating with Deputy Chief Lanne. That's, that's where I left it at that point. Alright, Speaker 14: Thank you. Speaker 27: Thank you. Speaker 26: There was a period of time that no communications happened until, you know, it was near the 30 day mark. Speaker 1: It was after. So the request was on February 17th and the email that we have from, from you said that you and Mr. Torres were attempting to download the video
and that was on the 28th of March. That's the email that you sent where you said today we worked on this Speaker 26: The 28th of March. That's Speaker 1: The email I'm Yes. You sent an email to Speaker 26: Because that was, that was after the 30 days we had, we had checked and it wasn't there. Speaker 1: Right. I'm I'm presuming because it only holds video for 30 days. Yeah, Speaker 26: And it was new news to me that it only did 30 days. Speaker 27: I apologize. I did not know that as well. Speaker 2: I, Speaker 1: The email sent to me and to Donna and to Brian on March 28th also said
that you've advised Mr. Torres to ask us where possible to identify the nature of complaints about our post, Speaker 26: The where possible is if it relates to the alcohol. I understand your right, but we have six acres and I would like to know why the police would be on there if it wasn't related to our canteen. Speaker 1: Well, you don't have cameras on six acres. You have them in the canteen. Speaker 26: We have 'em also outside in the parking lot. Speaker 1: Okay. Comments or questions from members of the board?
Speaker 6: I feel bad that there is admission to what you all are saying you did not know. And at the same time it's still, this still sounds like these things related to what we're talking about now still sound like a violation. I feel bad that you all didn't know, but at the same time I feel like there's been so much grace given over the last two and a half years and while I, I think everyone here acknowledges every man and women in here are veterans and there, there must be the acknowledgement for the, the two and a half years or
however this has been being worked on. So I do, I feel genuinely bad that there are a lot of, I didn't know this, I didn't understand that. And yet it's still, there is still a compliance issue that has to be addressed. Speaker 26: I'd like to make a comment there. It was surprising to me that the police could request our videos. I didn't know that that was happening with previous boards and some of our veterans and I think rightly so, they would like to, you know, have their privacy and I'd like to respect that.
So, you know, understanding the reason why they want the videos, I think is pretty important. It's not, it's not that we don't want to work with you. We wanna make sure that it isn't somebody who is using the police as a tool to make our life difficult. Speaker 1: Well, I can, I can speak Speaker 15: If, if I may maybe comment on that Madam Chair. I think the reality of the video is that if you're, if you're, if you're getting a license to serve alcohol, that comes with a responsibility for which video service is required for
ensuring compliance or at least if it's available, it has to be available for compliance. And so that's part of the responsibility. Being able to serve alcohol through a license issued by the board is one argument or counter argument to that point. So if, if there's a desire to not have to turn over video coverage, then figure out another way to provide the club without the need for a license from the board for serving alcohol is perhaps an alternative. Speaker 1: Mr. Evans, Speaker 13: I just wanted to raise a, a commentary on,
on another club in Natick where we did have an alcohol where related problem, which was the Natick Elks, which came before us a few weeks ago. And we had video, we had testimony, we had acknowledgement of the problem and we were able to come to an understanding of what needed to, to what steps needed to be taken. It's extremely frustrating to me to continually go through this exercise. I feel like Lucy is holding the football
and I keep trying to kick the field goal and this is just unacceptable. We have better things to do with our time. You all have better things to do with their time. I just, it it's extremely frustrating. I want to be fair to every veteran here. I respect all you've done for this country, but enough is enough. We need to figure this out. Speaker 1: Ms. Algo, Speaker 14: I'd like to understand the commander's position now, hearing about what's in our alcohol laws, because you did write on March 28th
that we have a new 2025 standard operating procedure to not release video coverage without the commander's permission. Do you feel after this meeting that that's still the case? Speaker 26: I think if it's related to our canteen and alcohol cell sales, of course. But if it's something else that is on the other six acres, I would like to know. Speaker 14: So is what I'm sorry. So is what you're saying, so if someone, if let's say someone comes to Mr. Torres again from the police and says we want your video, that until you give permission
that it won't be released. Speaker 30: I don't think we can do that based on what they're saying here. I think what they're saying is, Speaker 1: Ms. Alise, Ms. Alise, please no side conversations. Speaker 26: I I understand I need to release it for the alcohol license. Speaker 14: Right. Speaker 26: But are there other organizations that have six acres of property and let's say they get a complaint that's not inside the building, do they still have to release it? My my Speaker 14: Question is, if some, if someone from the police comes and talks to Mr. Torres, is he not allowed to do anything
until he speaks to you first? That's what I'm trying to understand. That's what you said. That is now the position. Speaker 1: The SOP Speaker 14: Yes. Because that's in violation of our policy. And and that's something that Speaker 26: We, we can change that, but I still would like the courtesy of why they want to come in. If Speaker 1: There's criminal activity, the police aren't gonna come and say so and so is being suspected of doing this and this is what we wanna look at. So it may not just be about alcohol. The police aren't, aren't, you know, they ask for video from different places Speaker 26: For different reasons. That falls under safety and security.
We're all for them to do that. Speaker 1: And when they do the investigation, that's when you'll hear what the, what the, what it was about. Not after. You don't inform somebody who's a subject of an investigation, what it is that you're doing. I mean that's standard police procedure. And I'm sorry if that's offensive. I'm sorry that the vets have cameras on in there. Nobody's asking for film. Trust me. Our police department and this body do not, aren't looking out to persecute AM vets Mr. Sidney. Speaker 7: Yeah. And I would point out that it's not just the canteen that has the alcohol license, it's the entire property.
If there's an alcohol violation somewhere else on that six acres and it happens to be caught on film, we need to be able, the police need to be able to get that to determine whether there was an actual violation. It's not a question of where the camera's from. It's not a question of why the police want it. They're doing an investigation. They get to do their investigations without telling you what they're investigating or why. If they ask for the video, our policy says you give it to them. Speaker 1: And just point of correction. The the license isn't for the six acres. The license is for an outdoor demarcated area
that has been demarcated. I also understand in some of the materials that I've read for tonight, that Amvets was denied a window permit or a permit to pass through the window. Is that correct? Because I don't know about that. That would be this board. I, Speaker 27: We haven't applied for any outside anything as of yet. Okay. The last time I talked, I spoke with Deputy Chief Za. He wanted me to corral the area first. I have not waiting for good weather to actually put up our fence. So have him come inspect it to Okay. To find out if we can actually have our area. We have not done any of that nature as yet.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you for that. Our, Speaker 26: Our discussion was let's get the license first and then work on the outdoor Speaker 1: Thank you. Board members Speaker 13: Move. We find a violation. Would you accept the friendly amendment? Sure. What? Well, we fund a violation and then we assess the penalty, right? Yes. Okay. Yes. Second Speaker 1: Move by Mr. Sidney. Seconded by Mr. Evans. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? It's 5 0 0. Now I'm opening up our alcohol policy
because that has the schedule of discipline Speaker 26: Before any penalty is assessed. I'd just like to highlight that we have many community activities and events planned. You know, either it be the state am vs. Convention or, or other things. For instance, we had St. Bridgets in on Saturday night, you know, and we would like to continue to be available for the community as well as veterans activities. Speaker 1: Noted. Speaker 13: May, Speaker 27: May I say something before you come up?
Yes, Mr. Tore. I'd just like to say that I'd like to thank everybody for your patience with us. I, I know this is very, very hard for everybody. We just came on, I've just been given the task to change everything and comply with everybody and we're doing a very good job. We're actually above water. We're doing very well. We're assisting the public. We have helping school children get their hours in for community service. We're working with the rail trail personnel as well. And we are doing a lot of good stuff with the veterans. And we also have a big drive going on for the California veterans. So we are doing a lot of well good things. We are almost at the finish line. We don't have Lucy pulling the football this time
and we are gonna make it there. Just give us a little chance and try to bear with me a little bit longer. Thank you for your time. Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Torres. Speaker 13: Ma'am, can I say something? Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. Belcher. Speaker 28: Ma'am, I'm also on the board as the second vice. I was appointed. I did not run for election this year. I have been on the board four times over the last five years. I'm a nurse in the community. Again, volunteer. I have no idea how to run a bar, which is why we had a bar manager. We've gone through three bar managers in the last year, which I believe is why the goalpost keeps,
keeps pushing back. I do trust in, in Mr. Torres. But that, that's really why, to answer your question, why are you following through the cracks? Because a lot of us, we don't know that. And, and that's the information that we're learning. As, as Commander Anderson said, we are putting that into the SOP so that way we can all learn and grow together. So that way the next board that will be elected in June will also be able to continue to kick the ball through the uprights. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Belcher? Yes, Mr. Anthony. Speaker 27: I Wade Anthony, past state commander, the Evans
and I'm also the alternate NEC of national. We depend on Natick post seven nine 'cause we have our state meetings there. We support Nat Na. In fact, Natick has the biggest membership in the state and US veterans. We to do a lot, especially with recently our passion plunge. We're doing it for 22 years. We raised money for the Special Olympics in Massachusetts. We're good partners with them and they, we were like the teams, teams with them and they, they negotiated, we start the Special Olympics fundraiser for, for the Special Olympics of Massachusetts,
but especially Olympics athletes. So I just wanna say we do a lot AMS post seven nine does a lot for the community. And like we said, Louis said, we're doing a fun drive for the fire victims in California. We're actually going through the whole state getting furniture and clothes and food and we're gonna have FedEx send it out to California. And that's one of our things we do do and we do take care of our own veterans. So thank you for your time. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Anthony. Mr. Speaker 13: For promotions
Speaker 1: Motions for, for penalty? Sure. Speaker 13: I would say, Speaker 1: Wait, I have a, I have two questions. The first question is, when are the, the state meeting is in June, right? No. State convention. It's the state convention's In June on Speaker 27: Is a weekend. Speaker 1: The second question wa was Mr. Torres, when do you expect that you'll be able to get the DUA certificate of compliance? Speaker 27: Now that I'm working with, now that I have a counselor working with a DP as soon as possible, I'm, I'm, we call 'em every day.
It's, I believe they say within another two weeks week, I'm hoping pushing them for another 72 hours. But once again, it's, it's, it's really hard trying to get one department to work with another department. 'cause they have to authenticate each other. And now that we actually did that and we have a counselor working with us with a DP, I'm hoping it's gonna go a lot smoother and faster. And it's, and and this still Speaker 1: Receive that from the state though, right? I mean, the, the, Speaker 27: Correct. The DII go on i the line every day and as soon as they give unemployment, they go ahead. I can print it and sign it, but every day I go on it, I still get my little rejection
notice because a DP is still trying to understood, pass all the wages and details information to the unemployment department to give us our certification of compliance. Speaker 1: The, Speaker 26: And, and by the way, we, we actually have a credit. It's not like the money hasn't been taken out. It's one of those things that are like on bill pay. Speaker 1: So the next question for me is, over the next month, what events do you have scheduled and the dates Speaker 27: We have every weekend booked and a few weekdays as well. We also have the Rail Trail Committee
coming in to do a cleanup. So we're pretty much booked through, I'd say July right now with volunteer works and the committees and parties coming in. A lot of baby showers, a lot, a lot of church activities going on, on Sundays and stuff. And just on the weekends, we basically just have our normal rentals going on. We have a state convention, we have the women's auxiliary feeding veterans, but mostly all of our weekends are pretty much booked. As of right now, I've been doing my due D to get our name out there and we've been doing really well with our customers. So we're really, we're we're moving pretty well, I could say.
And we're helping a lot of veterans, so we're actually doing very well. We're no longer under the block, really. Speaker 1: And com And Commander, my next question is for you. Are you certain that the DUA is the only thing holding you up and that the application you have is accurate and put together? Yes. The officers match. The officers on the State Secretary of State website. I have Speaker 26: Everything here. Speaker 1: Okay. And the officers who resign? Yes. I'm gonna need to finish. Speaker 26: I I have the new board and what remains of it in this new revised application? Speaker 1: Okay, that wasn't my question.
My question is, has the Secretary of State's website been uploaded? Because that's the first thing they're gonna look at. Speaker 26: It has been. Speaker 1: Okay. So it's been updated. And that's in order, correct. Thank you. Speaker 13: Motion for motion? Speaker 1: Sure. I'll take a motion. Speaker 13: I will move to have a three day suspensions held, held in abeyance for 45 days. Speaker 1: Is there a second? Speaker 7: Second? Speaker 1: Is it seconded? For purposes of discussion, let's discuss. I'll go, Speaker 7: I I'll go along with this. I'm, I'm willing to give 'em 45 days. I'm getting freaking pissed off though. I'm willing to go along with this.
Speaker 1: Thank you for sharing. Speaker 7: I mean, I, I wanna support the veterans. Everybody, all the veterans here know me, know, know that I support veterans. My dad was a veteran and a POW. But this is beyond the pale Speaker 1: Ms. Wilger. Speaker 14: I think we're being generous here, but I think everyone on this board wants to support the veterans. I mean, we understand that AM VTS does a lot for our community and we understand how important this organization is for everyone. My husband's a veteran, but, You know, we keep hearing it's gonna get fixed.
It's gonna get fixed. And I understand you are all volunteers and I know what it's like. I've been on a board of an organization that had issues with various compliance things. It's hard. I get it. But I am really hoping that we don't see you again. And it's great that you all are coming out to support everyone. But you know, it sounds like there's still turmoil in your organization. You know, you've had board members resign. You're gonna have another board show up in, in June. You know, I would really like to feel more comfortable that this isn't gonna happen again. That, that I'm hoping
what you're doing is documenting these procedures and understanding everything so that, you know, the commander isn't the only one that knows how to do this. That, that there's something written down that everyone that can get passed through your organization so that you know next time, next year when your license comes up, that you have the ability within your organization to support the application and to get that done. So I I think my colleagues are being lenient, but I'm okay with that. Speaker 1: So I move for 15 days suspension held in abeyance till the end of the year.
If there's another violation, the post will be closed for, for 15 days. So I move a 15 day suspension held in abeyance till the end of the year, 12 31 20 25. Speaker 7: I'll second that too. I can do that. Speaker 1: Moved by Coughlin, seconded by Mr. Sidney. The first motion is the one we take first. So the first motion is a three day suspension or three day, yeah. Suspension held in a bands for 45 days. Mr. Speaker 15: All right. Can I ask a quick question just for the record? Yes. Is, so there's two
violations that have been found by the board. Different votes, but two violations that have been found by the board. Is this for both? Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that for the record. Yes, Speaker 13: Good point. Speaker 1: And my, my desire for, or my opinion on a 15 day had a lot to do with the communicated both in writing and oral attitude from the post about not responding to the police, not going to give video until we sit down and have a conversation. Not going to do this, not going to do that. And this, the, the pervasive commentary at the post about
the town persecuting the post. So that is in stark contrast to when Elks came before us and said, we really screwed up and we're willing to accept whatever it is that, and, and they did. They, they had a really bad violation. So we imposed what I think is appropriate. We imposed on them more than what this first motion is seeking to do. This first motion isn't e this is less than what we in the last time levied in. Yes. In, in the end of the year. So I'm happy to hold it in suspension.
I want you guys to, to have your conventions, to have your events. Sounds like you're going to be making money, which is a very good thing for the post. So I I support that. I also don't wanna see you guys back here again. Speaker 13: Ever? Yes. May I make an amendment to mine? Speaker 1: You may. Speaker 13: I'd like to increase it to five days. I'll take that as a, Speaker 1: So we have two motions. The first motion is, Speaker 13: Is that's the same as the Elks Speaker 1: Training. Five days to be held in a band. Well, we also required, they all do tips training every single person for the Elks. So the first motion is five days held in a band moved
by Mr. Evans. Is there a second for that motion? Speaker 13: I, I had seconded it. Yeah. Speaker 1: Well he just changed it. One. Yeah. No, and I said so moved by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Sidney. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. Na no. So that carries three, two. The dissenters are Sidney and Coughlin. That's a five day suspension held in a, a obeyance for 45 days. So if anything happens in the next 45 days, the club will be clo The post will be closed for five days. Speaker 13: Offer a comment, please, Speaker 1: Please. Let's move on. Speaker 13: I just wanted to very quickly say, I'm, I'm
uneasy making this recommendation, but I feel that I'm very impressed with how Mr. Torres answered our questions tonight. He answered them completely and honestly, and, and didn't pass the blame on to someone else. He took it on. And I respect that a great deal, and I appreciate that. However, if, if there were this were any other organization, we'd be throwing the book at you. Yeah. Honestly, we're not persecuting anyone. Right.
We are trying to do right by both the amvets and, and in our capacity as alcohol licensing authority. This cannot continue. I feel good that Lucy is no longer holding the ball that we, we can move forward on this. I, I'm pretty confident that Mr. Torres is right on top of this. And I felt the 45 days gives enough leeway to get this resolved. The next time I want to see you guys is at am VI don't want to see you in this room.
Nothing personal, Speaker 14: Mr. Sidney. Speaker 7: Yeah. I want to echo one thing. There's no persecution here. We have, in my opinion, bent over backwards to let you guys, we, we renewed your license last December without a question because we assumed you would get this fixed far in advance of when you have. So I think we're bending over backwards. We're not persecuting you at all. I know that Ms. Dunoon has spent hours trying to help you through this process. So this board and this administration have been working as hard
as possible to, to get you through this. And the fact that you keep having problems and keep coming back to us is very frustrating to us. Not persecution. We're trying to bend over backwards. But I don't wanna see this happen. I don't wanna see you guys back here again. Speaker 14: Any other comments by the board? Speaker 2: I have none. Speaker 14: You can do it. I see a hand going down. Well, did you wanna speak? I just wanna say, I mean, for the public, anybody that's listening, I know that we've gotten complaints that somehow are beating up on veterans, but in the last year we have probably,
and I, I don't have the figures, but we've probably spent 10 or 20 times the amount of effort on AM vs. That we have on all the rest of our alcohol licenses, licenser licensees combined. So it's, that's our source of frustration that no one else seems to have this, this trouble. And like our, my colleagues mentioned that when the Elks came before us, they took full responsibility. They didn't say, oh, you know, it was because of this or because of that. They owned up to it right away.
It was a short, it did not take very long. It wasn't a very long meeting. And, you know, we keep getting excuses. I don't wanna hear any more excuses. I just wanna get it done, please. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Thank you all for coming out. Appreciate it. Thank Speaker 10: You. Thank you. Speaker 1: We'll move on to the next item of business. I'd like to, I can dispose of the Mepa letter relatively quickly. Speaker 10: You run a good meeting. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. You guys be safe out there. Bye Mr. Anthony. Speaker 10: Congratulations. Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
So I'm gonna skip down to item F, letter two, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act office regarding the 9 27 interchange improvement project. My recommendation to the board is that we not send the letter, not because it's not warranted in my opinion, but given the uncertainty at the federal level with funding and uncertainty at the state level, moving this project off by even a month, and we're looking at an 18 month process, means it may not get done and it's a dangerous bridge. I'm not happy about the responses that we got,
but we did get responses. And my recommendation to the board is, is to not send a letter Mr. Mr. Evans Speaker 13: I agree wholeheartedly that the, the, the ultimate objective is to get this done. To build it. Yes. We the process of of doing it. Yeah. Should they, they had an, have an environmental review? Yeah, maybe, but that was in dispute. But I think the overriding concern now is just getting it done, getting it off the ground.
Once we're on the tip schedule, I'm hoping that those are earmarked and already funded and and assured. And I think one of the things we are asking is how much federal money is allocated to this project? What I wanna see is this thing start to break ground and start to move forward. And, and you're already seeing signs that it's doing any impediment to that process is, is, you know, were it two years ago maybe, I'd say, yeah, send a letter
and let's figure this out. But in today's climate, I don't think we should, Speaker 1: Ms. Wilger. Speaker 14: I, I know that previously we've asked and we've been told that this project is fully funded. But, you know, given my colleague's comment, do we know where that funding is coming from? Is it committed and is it available in the state or some of that also federal funding. Do we, do we have a good sense that this money really is fully committed and available to us or could it possibly disappear? Speaker 15: So my understanding is a couple things. One, this is a design build project, which is unique,
but that also means that the mass DOT has fully signed a contract with a contractor. And like the town, they cannot do that without full funding allocation for a project. So from that perspective, my understanding is that yes, the funding is fully committed, fully available, fully there. The breakdown of federal versus state funding in this particular case, I don't know if it involves federal dollars, like through a TIP process or an, which is transportation improvement program. For those watching from home, typically those are 80 20
roughly split between federal 80 20 state. But in this case, because of, I believe this project got advanced beyond even outside of the tip. So that means that it could have a completely different funding mix of federal and state. And I don't know what the breakdown is for this particular project. Yeah. Speaker 14: Is that something that we could find out? I Speaker 15: Can ask for sure. Yeah. Speaker 14: Because it's, it, you know, even if we do have, even if there is a contract issued, if there's no money that's behind it, Speaker 15: Well they can't sign a contract unless there's money behind it. Speaker 14: Well, there could be committed money,
but it doesn't mean that it's something that it couldn't be Yes, retracted. Speaker 15: Fair, fair point. Yes. I I and I don't know the details to that level for this project. Speaker 14: Yeah, I I think that's important to know. I mean, the, the worst thing that could happen is, you know, we get to a certain point, it gets half built and then there's no more money that would Speaker 1: Mr. Erickson, could you reach out to, could you reach out to the district three? Speaker 15: I'll send an email after this meeting, probably Thank you. 10 later tomorrow. Speaker 14: But I also ag agree at this point. I, I think that, you know, Mepo has been made aware of this.
I don't think that we need to push it further. Speaker 1: Mr. Sidney? Speaker 7: Yeah. First of all, I, you know, I, I have, this project has started. They, they're actually working on it. So, you know, it's not that it isn't started. I do agree we shouldn't send the, send any letters. I actually took some heart from some of the responses that I read where, you know, there's, there's actually appears to be some back and forth between Mast and Mepa still going on. Which means that if me Mepa is pretty well aware of what's going on.
So I think that's okay at this point. If Mepa needs an environmental review, they'll get it. Even as this project proceeds. And, you know, I totally agree. I don't want to see this project half done and stopped installed. There are other parts of the country I've, I've been in where, you know, they have built a project and the funding goes away and there's a big beautiful piece of highway that just ends in a drop ends. Right. And I'm, I'm hoping this project does get done. We need something there.
And so I think, I think we're in good shape. I think that we've done the communication we need to do. Speaker 6: Thank you. My, my only question was, Mr. Erickson, how in, what's your communication flow like with DOT? Yes, Speaker 15: MEPA, I've not engaged with, but with DOT District three has been through throughout the years, has been a great partner with na. They're responsive. They're, they look out for us Through the years we've been able to work with them on a number of initiatives that actually add additional resource to the town. Good examples of that are, are some of the connecting pathways that we're working,
still working on along like Route nine to Hartford Street for the CRT and some other things that they're taking the lead. We sort of have the idea, but they've been great to work with. In this particular case, they've been responsive. I even had more regular contact with the head of the district, which is, which is great. This is their largest project in the district. So there's good reason for that. And, and for this particular project, we've had excellent, good communication with them on getting updates and working with our communication and DPW teams on a regular basis.
So our DPW teams meet with them, I believe, on a weekly, if not every other week basis, just in the details. Not about this type of stuff, but on the really details of the project because of all the coordination that needs to happen with the town. And that's not unique to this, that we were, we had good collaboration and coordination with DOT and the district on the North Main Street project. They were fantastic to work with. There again, trying to be proactive, looking out for the interests of the community. Same with, although it's technically MBTA, but same with the, the Natick Center Station project. I'm in regular contact with them about details on that project.
And they're responsive when we bring up a re a, a, a concern or an issue that we see. Or if we just say, look, you should have given us more, more time to do X, Y, Z. They're like, okay, yep, no, we hear you. We're gonna do better next time. And they, and they do work to do better next time. We also have to keep in mind that, you know, they're experts in engineering. They're experts in a certain field and we, we might have a different perspective or, and I always try to give that perspective to them so that they can understand where we're coming from as a community. In, in this case though, they actually did hire also a firm to work on communications for them for this project.
'cause I think they recognize the scale of this project and the limits of their ex of their experience and expertise. So overall, both on this project and just in general, DOT District three has been great to work with. And I've worked with three or four different districts in my time. District four, which is more other parts of Middlesex County, also good to work with the district outta Boston. I think it's just scale is a little bit more challenging. Not because of want, but I think it's just scale. You know, the Boston is just such a its own entity. I think that's district one, technically. Thank you.
So I will say, just add a little bit to this, that they do have a public meeting. We just got word today that they're planning a public meeting at Wilson on the night of June 4th. So that'll be the next public meeting for this project that they'll be doing. We just got word today. I literally got an email from Jay at I think 4 57. 'cause Jay's working with their comms team. So probably not fully out there yet, but you'll see announcements for that coming out soon. Speaker 1: I don't think we need to vote this, Speaker 13: That's pending a letter. Speaker 1: We are up against a deadline for the FinCon recommendation book. And so given the hour, I think that we need to vote the SPRINGTOWN meeting warrant articles to get
that report to the fin com. I told him that we would get it to him tomorrow. Mr. Sydney, could you forward the form that you used last year to Kristen and to me? 'cause I don't have it in the form of a, a form that, that Speaker 7: Yeah, it was just a, it was just a word table with information. But I'll, I'll dig that up and forward it to later tonight. Speaker 1: That's great. Thank you. Mr. Evans, Speaker 13: Just in terms of process, are you looking for inputs from us on any, Speaker 1: I'm, I'm looking to see if the,
the board has any recommendation, pro or con against the listed article or warrant articles that are okay. Listed on the agenda. So the first is unpaid bills. Speaker 13: Okay. I, I, I would say there are a couple that I probably want to weigh in on. Probably really Speaker 15: Specific two unpaid bills or another article. Speaker 13: Another article. Okay. Sorry, I'm, I'm not go through one at time. That was fine. Are you're gonna go through it now? I thought you were. Okay. Let, Speaker 1: Let's, yeah, we'll just go through it. We'll do one at a time. Speaker 13: I understood the process. I'm sorry. Speaker 1: If the board is supportive of article five,
I'll entertain a motion. Speaker 13: Move to approve Article five. Second. Let's pay them. Speaker 1: Moved by Mr. Evans, second by Ms. Slager. All yes. Speaker 14: Just to be clear, we have to pay these bills so Speaker 1: It's, it's understood. Let's just, Speaker 14: Just so the public knows just Speaker 13: Calling out. Right. Speaker 15: That's our take as well. And just for the, I think the motion or the, what's gonna be noted in the letter will be support favorable action or recommend favorable action. Yes. Speaker 1: Recommend favorable action. Yes. Okay. So we have a recommend favorable action from Mr. Yes, we do Evans, seconded by Mitch Wolf Logger. Unless I got that backwards. All in favor, please say aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye. Article six revolving funds. Speaker 14: Can we just briefly just Sure. Point out the changes from last year? I know you said that some of them have increased and Speaker 15: Yep. And, and I'll apologize. I might, I I'm going to do my best from what the materials are. 'cause my notes on this are actually downstairs. But we are seeking a number of, just more, well one is a cleanup because there's been a number of changes over the last three to five years that we're sort of resetting these items. Meaning you'll notice towards the bottom
energy efficiency and, and clean capital program that is still on there. I think next time around you're gonna see us remove section 11, which is the energy conservation renewable energy projects. There's only $5,000 remaining in that. Mm. So that's why that limit is there. But remember we, we added 15 a couple years ago and now we're starting to shift into using that. Similarly, the recreation and parks program maximum, that's actually been increased of the recommendation or the rec requests to increase that. That is also been shifted the last couple years
to go from one type of account to another type of account that was voted on by town meeting at a prior town meeting. The constituent rail trail maintenance and enhancements, $75,000. That was actually voted on a couple years ago. We just, the last, I think last year, it just didn't make it onto the actual vote. So we're just making sure that it's on there. And then outside that the increases, I believe the rail trail was actually initially set at 50,000. Now it's at 75. I mentioned the rec and parks programs. I believe that went from one to, or 1.2 to 2 million is our request.
The community senior center programs has been sought to increase the one 20, $120,000 and the DPW vehicles and equipment that I believe was two 50 prior. And now that's at 350. That's right. I think all the other ones, I believe are the same numbers, are very close to the same numbers. Yeah. So it's part cleanup and also part some increases here and there to better accommodate the needs.
And also our expected revenues, obviously with all of these, for the, for anybody watching from home, these are just expenditure authorization limits. That's right. But these are revolving funds. So funds come in, funds go out throughout the course of a year. If we don't have the money in the accounts, it doesn't matter what the limit is, we can't spend it. That's important to note. Speaker 14: Yes. Thank you Speaker 1: For that. Mr. Erickson. On section 12, tax title takings or tax title foreclosures, maximum expenditure, $100,000. Is that for engaging legal work outside counsel? This is for foreclosures and takings,
Speaker 15: Correct. Typically. So we have an outside firm that does our tax title process for us. It's a law firm. I think almost every community that I've worked in uses the same firm. They're like experts in it. Dam dambrosio Brown, I think is their name. And then there might be some other consultant work that we might need over the course of a year to support that work. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion Speaker 14: I move to recommend favorable action on article Speaker 1: Six Second, moved by Ms. Slager, seconded by Ms. Pope. All in favor, please say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? It's 5 0 0 stabilization funds and ope, and I apologize, I'm looking at my phone because my computer died. Oh, okay. Before that, sorry. Oh, that was me and my, it's okay. I forgot to bring the charger. Speaker 15: So, stabilization funds, these are the appropriations per the, the budget that we've proposed to, if you recall, the free cash, the free cash spending plan, spending plan, roughly 2.8 plus million in free cash for cap stabilization. And that'll help support capital
projects going into fall town meeting. This is our way to capture that for fall time meetings still within this fiscal year, but at fall town meeting or a future town meeting really. But, but the intent is potentially to use a good chunk of that at the fall town meeting. And then 287,293 for Opep Trust. That continues our commitment to investing in our opep trust at nominal, but still a decent, and Speaker 1: We zeroed the other two. Speaker 15: We, we don't correct the other two stabilization accounts. Were not proposing this to fund at this town meeting at this time. Speaker 14: All right. So this is not affected in any way
by the overlay surplus. Speaker 15: Correct? It's not affected by the overlay surplus. Okay. Speaker 1: Mr. Evans, who to recommend favorable action on article seven. Second move by Mr. Evans. Second, but by Ms. Pope. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? It's 5 0 0 school bus transportation. Suby Article 10 move. We recommend no action. Speaker 14: Second, Speaker 1: Just pulling it up. Speaker 15: If I can provide just a little bit of context. Yes, please. The intent here is that this has been a longstanding article on town meeting floor. We wanted to be very transparent with town meeting
with FinCon, with everybody involved that our intent is town administration and school administration. This may be the last year we see this. We've wrapped that subsidy into the budget for the school department. That was a very conscious decision by administration, both school and town. And that also was something that we had heard through the years from some members, not necessarily universal, but some members of FinCon and others to, to look at. So our intent this year was to have it on the warrant, but to seek no action. So we are supporting the seeking. No action on that as well. Okay. We being town administration and school administration.
Speaker 1: So we have a motion and a second for no action. All in favor, please say aye. A Aye. Any opposed? It's 5 0 0. Article 11. Capital equipment and improvement capital plan. Update Speaker 15: That you had seen a believe at a prior meeting by John. Yes. Speaker 1: Move Speaker 13: Approval. Speaker 14: Well there's motion. Multiple motions. Oh yeah. A, B, C, D. Speaker 15: Yep. Maybe just do a slate. Speaker 14: Yeah. Speaker 7: Just recommend, Speaker 15: Recommend, recommend. Favorable action on the slate of capital. Slate. Yeah. Speaker 13: Yes. Speaker 14: Thank you. Or a motions. A, B, CD, A Speaker 13: B, C. I was gonna enumerate Speaker 7: Or on the article, Speaker 15: We did have one shift, the subject Speaker 7: Matter of the Speaker 15: Article. Just one note on that one shift that came
after the presentation, that has already been reviewed by the finance committee. So it's gonna be in the recommendation book. We had to shift one item, which was our greens mower onto the capital program. It was actually funded this current fiscal year with the funding with operation funds. And now we need to replenish those operation funds. So we shifted it to their, their version of free cash, which are retained earnings. Yeah. Speaker 14: So it's not part of the enterprise fund, the golf course Speaker 15: It is, but it still has to be a capital item. So,
Speaker 14: But the funding source Speaker 15: Is retained earnings. Retained Speaker 13: Earnings for the enterprise fund golf course. Speaker 15: Yeah. Yeah. It's not, yeah, so I don't recall which motion it, I think we might've added it to the retained earnings motion. I just forget what, which Speaker 7: One it was. I don't, well I think you, you, there's Speaker 14: Golf retained earnings in here. Speaker 15: Yes. I think we added it to that. Speaker 13: I think it's d Yeah. Speaker 14: So that's, but you said it's a mower, Speaker 15: Correct? Greens mower. It's a greens mower. Speaker 14: Is that in here? Speaker 1: It's, yeah, it's, Speaker 13: Don't, it's that Speaker 6: What you're saying. It might not be in there. Right. It's gonna be So this was bad. Speaker 14: I get it now. Yeah, I was gonna say
I didn't see that in there. Okay, so this, so there's an additional item. Do you know how much that is? Speaker 13: Like 20,000 Speaker 15: Or something? It's not much. No, I don't even think it's that much. It's, it's, yeah. I, I I can look it up. I apologize. Okay. Speaker 14: Alright. Speaker 7: So Speaker 14: It's added to motion. D there's some additional expense for the mower Speaker 13: Motion. A, B, C, and E as printed D and D as amended. Speaker 1: I don't see an Speaker 14: E. There's no E. Speaker 13: There's no E, no. Well, who told me E earlier, Speaker 7: Why don't we just say, you know, approve the subject matter. Speaker 15: Yeah, Speaker 13: That works. Speaker 7: So you moved it. I'll second it.
Speaker 1: Move by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Sidney. All in favor of the multiple amended positive action motion. Speaker 7: Aye. Aye. Speaker 1: Aye. Any opposed? Speaker 13: Move. Speaker 1: Article 15 CPA. Speaker 7: Move recommendation? Speaker 13: Second. Speaker 1: Ms. Wilger, Speaker 14: Just a question on this about whether or not it's makes sense for us to be weighing in on this. I don't know. I mean, I don't necessarily have an opinion, but this is new. This is the first time that this has come before us. And is this something that we feel like the select board should be taking a position on?
It's kind of like second guessing the committee's decision. So I, I just don't, you Speaker 13: Know, I, I view it a little differently. Okay. I view it more as supporting the Speaker 7: Position. Yes. Speaker 14: Yeah. All right. Well that's if we recommended it. What if we Speaker 7: Didn't? Oh yeah. Well if we don't, but we can always be silent. The choice is recommendation are silent. Absolutely correct. Speaker 1: So what is the will of the board? I see it as a support. Speaker 7: Yeah. No. Speaker 1: So is there a motion for favorable action? Speaker 7: Yeah, I move favorable. And Mr. Evans seconded. Speaker 1: Any other discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? 5 0 0.
Article 22, which is the water. Speaker 15: Correct. This speaks to what we talked about earlier today about the requirements that are being placed on towns like Natick. We're obligated under the updated rules and regulations to make these adjustments to our bylaws to comply with our, basically our permit for our wells. Speaker 1: Oh, and there's the penalties. Yep. Speaker 7: Move, move. Recommendation Speaker 1: Ms. Wolf. Speaker 14: So is it, if for some reason we're very lucky and we win our our lawsuit and appeal, would the sun be reverted?
Speaker 15: We can look at that, yeah. Speaker 14: Okay. Speaker 15: For sure. All right. I mean, it wouldn't automatically revert. We'd have to come back to the meeting and talk through that and go through that process. Speaker 7: It didn't look like anything really was gonna be impacted by it Speaker 1: In section three definitions. Would love to see that amended from Speaker 14: Select board Speaker 1: Town's, board of select and to town select board. Speaker 7: Well the red lines weren't very good. Deletions weren't all clearly deletions. Speaker 1: True. Okay. Is there a motion for favorable action? Yes, Speaker 7: I just did. Sure. Speaker 1: Move by Mr. Sidney. Seconded by Mr. Evans.
All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Speaker 15: I see we're looking, that's actually existing language. I'm sorry that that's existing. I believe that's existing language, but I get your Speaker 14: Point. Yeah, they could have cleaned that up. Speaker 15: Fair. We were focusing on what we need to, what Speaker 1: You needed to do. Yeah. Article 24, which is bylaw changes. Speaker 7: Is this the CBRC stuff? Yes. Speaker 1: So there is Article 21 a, article 41, article 81, article 80. Article 22. And for purposes of clarity, I would ask that whatever motions are put forward, our specific to the article, Ms. Mr. Evans,
Speaker 13: I would move no action on Article 22 and if seconded, I'll speak Speaker 1: Second Speaker 13: To me. This is the formation of a shadow planning board, which is not necessary. We have an A. Speaker 14: Which article are you talking about? Speaker 1: 22 2 22. Speaker 13: Article 22. The last one. The article 22 modifications in Article 24. Yes. It's 24 slash 22. So Speaker 14: Are you talking about Speaker 13: Which town council and new bylaw section. Speaker 14: Okay, so article, article 24 has multiple parts,
Speaker 1: Right? We're not there yet. We're not there yet. We Right. Speaker 13: I thought we were talking about, Speaker 1: Oh, I see, I see what you're Speaker 13: Saying. Article 24. Yeah, article. Speaker 14: Article 24. Speaker 13: Then Article 24. Article Speaker 14: 24 has motions A through F, Speaker 13: Right? Yeah. So which motion is my only contention is with Article 22 of Article 24. Okay, so Speaker 14: That's Speaker 13: Town council and 24. Speaker 14: Section Speaker 13: F Speaker 1: 24. Motion. F Speaker 14: 24 F. Motion F. Yes. Speaker 13: Sorry, I didn't go down far enough. Yeah. Yes, that is correct. Speaker 14: So if I can just say what happened at finance committee on motions A, B, C, and D?
There was the unanimous support for favorable action and ENF were both referrals to sponsor also unanimously, I don't know that that needs to sway our vote, but just that's what happened. Speaker 13: Well I started with F so I, I can also see motion E as a no action, both of them. So why don't we do the, the first part first and, and say, support favorable action. I'll make a motion to support favorable action on motions A, B, C, and D. Speaker 14: Second.
Speaker 1: Any discussion on those motions? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Mr. Evans, were you gonna, are you gonna address F, Speaker 13: E, and F next? Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 13: Probably more F I'll let Linda do E. Okay. Speaker 14: Okay. Motion E. Because I did listen to the finance committee discussion on this one. There's some discussion about how it was worded. If you look at section two A, it says this bylaw shall apply to all underground fuel. So the question was, well, does it not apply to above ground tanks? So there was just some confusion about how this was worded.
So the referral was gonna go back to the sponsor because fin com didn't wanna massage it on the full on the floor. They wanted to really consult with some of the experts that were involved with this. So that Speaker 13: Makes sense. Speaker 14: Not an issue with Speaker 1: Substance necessarily. Speaker 14: Well the substance, but also, you know, just clarification, who was involved with this? And there was some discussion about, you know, all those, this was something that was report proposed by the board of Health. There's other town agencies also involved in this discussion. So I think that, you know, I think there was also maybe some sentiment to reach out
and, and talk to some of the other groups as well. So, so you're Speaker 1: Suggesting referral to sponsor? Speaker 14: I'm suggesting referral to sponsor. I'll second Speaker 1: That for E, n and F, Speaker 14: E. Just e. Well let's just do, just do E let's do E separately and F separately. Okay. Speaker 1: So, and I'll second that. Refer to sponsor motion. E moved by Ms. Schlager, seconded by Mr. Sydney. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. And I'm an aye. So any opposed? All right. Motion. F Speaker 14: Okay, let, let me just start out with this. This is, this is only for special counsel.
Okay, Mr. Evans. It's, it, it doesn't talk about another body or committee. It just mentions that if there is one, so this does not form another one, but there were a number of questions asked and it was decided that more work needed to be done on this one. Speaker 1: I move, refer to sponsor, hold on. Or indefinite postponement. Speaker 13: Yeah, let, let me, let me Sure. Make a comment on that. This has come before town meeting in several forms. You know, while they may not be asking for a body right now,
asking for access to special counsel is the precursor for anybody that could be constructed at, at a future date. And I reiterate that it is the planning board's job. Statutorily, statutorily, it must be getting to make recommendations on zoning. They are the expertise, they are elected and they're accountable. What happens when you have a advisory body that conflicts with something that the elected board says?
Who, who do you listen to? Who does town meeting listen to? Right? And I think that's a conflict that that needs to be avoided. And so, in principle, I don't believe they need access to council since I don't believe they need to be a, an, an advisory committee. And I'm firmly of that belief. So Speaker 14: You're gonna go ip. Speaker 13: So I'm gonna go IP second. Speaker 1: Ms. Wil, did you have Speaker 14: A comment? Yeah, I, I think the issue with this, and as part of the the FinCon discussion, and I totally get your points, is that a number of
unfortunate mistakes were, were made in the past that might have benefited from special counsel who has knowledge of our bylaws. And that's how it, the CBRC presented this. But you're, you're correct, it's not, this council would not just be available to the planning board or the finance committee. It's also available to, you know, they do include at this point the standing committee, a special zoning committee. And, and, and that's being put in there as well. I think that there was a lot of support for having additional expertise with council.
Could be our town council. Part of this was just that the select board would have to appoint this, but you're right that, but that was not part of the discussion at the finance committee about, you know, actually having another board available to look at zoning. So Mr. Erickson, Speaker 15: Just a couple comments. 'cause having been in the role of the CED director and then now as town administrator working with council on various zoning items, the select board currently has the ability, the right to, to hire specialized counsel to review zoning
and has in the past on multiple occasions. 'cause I've requested that from the board myself. Yep. This is actually saying shall annual report not may, which is also something to be mindful of from a policy standpoint. That's just something to be mindful of. 'cause it's not, it's not a, it's not a a a suggestion option or a suggestion. It's a requirement. And I, it's, it's, it's to advise a lot of groups that aren't necessarily inclusive of the people who are actually doing the hard work. Like staff. Much of our zoning is written by staff
and this is to advise boards and committees, which is extremely beneficial, but it's not necessarily to advise the staff. That's probably gonna be the ones doing the heavy lifting or the work of drafting some of these zoning. So those are just some components that I would, one, is it necessary, given that the select board already does have the authority to hire specialized counsel as it sees fit for things like zoning and has in the past? We did it for cannabis, we did it for review of, of the proposed zoning amendments from several years ago. And we've done it for a number of other zoning
articles through the years as well. You already have that authority and given the shall and who has access to or what entities have access, I think there's some policy questions there that need to be, that the board in town meeting and everybody in town needs to be mindful of. Speaker 14: Yeah, I just wanna point out that the, the cannabis example was used by the proponent of this article as someone that we had counsel that was skilled in this one area, but they weren't familiar with our bylaws. And so therefore there were a number of errors
that were made when coming up with the, the cannabis bylaw that were, because they didn't understand how it interrelated to the rest of our, our bylaws. So that was part of the rationale behind it. Was that it you wanted we wanted somebody on a permanent basis. I'm just quoting this. I'm not Yeah, I certainly, I'm not agreeing with it. I certainly don't want to on, on a, on a permanent basis that somebody would have familiarity with all of our bylaws. Speaker 6: I have a question, Mr. Evans as to why you are thinking IP versus refer to sponsor. Speaker 13: Because I view this as, as more than something having access to counsel.
I view this as a Trojan horse to get a shadow committee in place. It has been on the wishlist for a number of people for a number of years. And I don't believe that it's necessary. Number one, it's questionable from a, a standpoint of where you have differing opinions on zoning and, and zoning is a, is a specialized expertise that is developed. Right. Many, many people. And, and I, I would put myself into that department
or, or that characterization when I was on the finance committee. I thought I understood zoning, but I really didn't understand zoning and I would take votes on it thinking that I understood it and realized afterwards, after the vote had been taken that I was at least wrong in some aspect of it. So I think it's, it is best left to the, the, the people in CED who understand the zoning bylaws and where things are, and they are the ones who are in it day to day and understand how things have moved around
and aren't starting from square one to analyze something. I also think that it's an unnec undue burden to put on CED staff and the planning board who are, these people are already flat out that department and we're in a situation where having, which is a good problem having growth in town, but they're flat out and, and if we add one more thing to them, you know, we're, we're, we're we're going to risk losing people, we're going
to risk mistakes happening. And I just don't want to see that happen. Thank Speaker 6: You. Speaker 7: If, if I may, I I would also say one of the problems that I think I see here is that there are people in town who think the planning board isn't doing a good job and if they don't like the job they're doing, let them run for planning board and do try to do the job better. That's number one. Number two, the having a special counsel that can be bugged by almost anybody in town that isn't the either the policy making board, the planning board
or staff who have the expertise risks causing problems at town meeting. So I just, those are, Speaker 1: It also risks huge financial Yeah, huge bills with no guaranteed outcome. Speaker 7: Exactly. It's, Speaker 1: I'm, I'm no controls. I am, I very much support IP Speaker 7: And ip. You may not, you're not a town meeting member. IP is a way for town meeting to say, you know what, this is a bad idea. Don't even bother bringing it back. I Speaker 1: Understand what IP is. Speaker 7: Okay. I wasn't sure. Speaker 1: Thank you. That was for you. Okay.
Did you, did you wanna speak sir? Speaker 31: Phil Roberts West Avenue? No, actually all of the discussion. I I would just very much e echo Mr. Evans remarks that it seems unnecessary and I won't even go into the detail, but I, I don't know that I fully understand the issue, but it, it sounds to me like the creation of a superfluous body that would be based on the wording, particularly susceptible by to capture by policy entities which have policy interests that may be contrary to the town as a whole. That's all
Speaker 1: Very well put. Thank you. So we have a motion for in definite postponement by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Sidney. Is there any other discussion? Oh, Speaker 7: Move by me second. No. Move by Mr. Evans. Right. I had it backwards. Speaker 1: Seconded by Mr. Sydney. Ms. Slager. Speaker 14: Yeah, I mean, I'm not necessarily against this, but I, I think the fact that we have the ability to appoint a special counsel if need be. I, I think the, the one concern that is when it's a citizens' petition, not when it's, you know, something by staff that, you know, we,
we can't expect our staff to weigh in on, on citizen petitions. And, and in that case, and, and I know that town council is sometimes reluctant to do that because it is, you know, it's not part of the town. So I do see some benefit potentially in this for dealing with citizen petition articles. So I, I don't Speaker 7: Know. Well, it's a zoning zoning motions have to go through the planning board anyway. Well, they'll continue. Speaker 14: I understand. Yeah. Understand that. I I I just know from past experience on the finance committee that when you're dealing with citizen petitions, it's often very last minute.
It's at the end you don't have the time and you, you don't get the input from town council. I mean, that's just, just how it is. So I don't know that I'm willing to quite do ip. I am open to this in some, in some fashion, but not as, as stated here. Speaker 1: Okay. Do you have a different motion? Speaker 14: No. 'cause I think everybody else is gonna support ip. Speaker 1: Okay. So all in favor of indefinite postponement. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Speaker 14: Oh, Speaker 1: So it's 4 1 0 Ms.
Ger is the no vote article 25 stabilization funds Speaker 7: Move we recommend ip. Speaker 1: So I have a question about this. My question is, should we be weighing in on, I am not sympathetic to this article at all, but that's kind of irrelevant. Should we be weighing in on Speaker 7: I think, I think we should because this gets to policy decisions that we direct the town administration to make. We direct them how to set a budget. This goes into, I mean, town meeting says these are for this, but we're the ones that give, we're the policy makers on
how the town administration puts budgets together. And, and, but, but Speaker 14: That doesn't change with this, we could still have in our financial policies whatever we want, but this gives town meeting the ability to override that Speaker 13: Which they already have. Speaker 14: Well, no they don't because it, they cannot vote, right? Speaker 7: Hmm. Yes, they can. Dealing with Speaker 13: The two towards vote Speaker 14: No, no they can't because they only can use the stabilization funds for the purposes for under which they were formed. So if that,
Speaker 7: That's not actually true under state law. They can Speaker 14: No, this is, this is according That is true. That is true. That is Speaker 13: True what she's saying. Yeah. Speaker 14: This is Speaker 13: A, she's saying two different things. Speaker 14: Yeah. So according to if, if, if the stabilization fund is set up for specific purposes, then the money has to be used for those purposes. And so that's what this seeks to change is to add, you know, any, whatever it is, whatever the terminology is, you know, any allowable, any lawful municipal, lawful municipal use, lawful municipal purpose. So that town meeting then has the ability to override.
So I think that's a a good point. It, you know, I think it is in some ways independent of how we wanna do that and how we wanna set our policy and direct the town administrator about how to use those funds. This really is just, is, it's giving a town meeting more authority. More authority. Speaker 6: Linda, can you, I'm sorry, Ms. Ocker, can you share what the recommendation from FinCon was on this? Speaker 14: It was unanimous favorable action. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 13: Okay. Alright. Speaker 14: Mr. Evans. Speaker 13: I would, I would be more amenable to
accepting this if it wasn't specifically calling out the FY 26 budget. Because in my mind it is an end run around the budget that it has been proposed, carefully vetted, carefully explained to the voters who voted by a 60 40 percentage for it. And to me it undermines that there are two stabilization funds that were explicitly untouched in this. The other stabilization funds were funded, most notably capital stabilization funds.
The, I can't recommend this going forward. In addition, the second part of this where it says, and to see what actions the town will take to adopt revenue raising provisions of the Municipal Empowerment Act. We've already gone on record as a board to say we will implement any and all executive or municipal empowerment Act revenue generating items. And if they become law prior to the dissolution
of 2025 spring annual town meeting, I'll make a bet now and I will buy drinks at, at a bar of your choice if that actually happens. Speaker 14: I, Speaker 13: I think you have given the, the state legislators, legislature's recent past, they've got a lot of things to, to fry. I just don't see that happening. I Speaker 14: Think you have to look at the actual motions, not just the article language, because the art, the two motions are only changing the stated purpose of, of the capital stabilization and operational stabilization funds. Those were the only two motions.
Speaker 13: I thought they were changing the threshold. No. Also from 52 thirds to 50%, or was that Speaker 14: Removed? No, no, no. There's only these two motions. All Speaker 13: Right. So I must have, Speaker 14: Yeah, I think Speaker 13: Earlier draft, Speaker 14: Yeah, you probably saw something earlier, but this is what, what the final one is. Speaker 7: One, one of my problems with this from a, just from a policy standpoint is that if we, if this passes, it will be much harder between the finance committee
and town meeting for the administration to hold to our financial management principles. Because finance committee can say, well, let's just rate stabilization instead of using whatever. And I think that having those legal limits in place on these stabilization funds is, you know, it supports our policy standpoints, which is why I think we should I agree. You know, not support this at all and actually recommend ip because we want, we want
the administration to not have to struggle to hold to financial principles and policies that we set. Speaker 1: So I also, there's a, a factual error in the motion and in the, the capital stabilization fund was not created under Article two of the fall annual town meeting. It was created in 1960 Speaker 15: For this No, CA capital was created in, Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sorry, not capital. It's the opera Speaker 15: Gen, general stabilization General, it used to just be called stabilization. We, and then we added a term general, even though it's still technically, gen stabilization was created in the sixties.
Oh, okay. Or 19 60, 19 60 Speaker 1: Town meeting. And then Speaker 15: Operational was added in 2011. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. I I, I don't support this because, well, for one, I mean, I understand the motion doesn't include the MEA. We've agreed to support and send a letter to the legislature supporting the Municipal Empowerment Act. Right. But this board has not agreed to an, an act additional local option. Motor vehicle excise taxes. We haven't agreed. We, we want, we wanna support the act
Passage passage so that we can do things locally, but we're not gonna necessarily, we have not voted to adopt what, what aspects of MEA allows us to collect extra taxes. And I'm, Speaker 14: That's not part of Speaker 1: This. I understand that. Speaker 14: It's part of the, it Speaker 7: Could, it could be introduced on the floor though, because it, it's in, in the scope of the motion, but, Speaker 14: But we're only, we're only dealing with what's been being presented, the Speaker 1: Motions. So I I, I don't support the motions. I, I, I, I just don't, I think that I su what Mr. Sidney said. I mean, we're charged with fiscal responsibility and policy.
And I think that allowing the stabilization funds to become a pot that people pull money out of, especially now when we don't know what's going on with our investment income, which is our single largest local option section of our local option taxes. We don't know what's happening on the federal level. We don't know what's happening locally. We know people aren't gonna be spending as much money. We know that there's a water ban, so that's gonna drop our revenue because, you know, our water systems and sewer systems still needs to be maintained, but we're not selling water. So there, there's a lot of financial unknowns.
It is the body, it is the responsibility of town meeting to appropriate money. And it is the policy setting board that says this is the purpose of these funds. And so I, I think it, it, I reads to me like a raid, just reading the motions. Speaker 7: So I move, we recommend ip. Speaker 13: I'll second just for discussion. I'm Speaker 14: Not sure. Alright. Just playing devil's advocate here. Although I do support what everyone has said. It's being framed as you don't trust town meeting. Speaker 1: Well, they don't trust us. They don't trust Speaker 13: Us.
Speaker 1: So, so I'm looking forward, I'm very much looking forward to the next 20 years where we develop a one Natick, a true one, Natick where fin com and town admin town meeting and the select board worked together and not at odds not fighting the battles that took place 20 years ago before any of us were here. Yeah. I mean, we talk a lot about one Natick, but there's, there's been a lot of Molotov cocktail throwing from that side of the bench. So do they think we don't trust them? I can't help them with that. That's for a therapist. Speaker 7: Yeah. They don't trust us.
This is the problem. They don't, they Speaker 1: I have watched a steady erosion, I'm sorry, Mr. Mr. Sip. No, that's, I have watched a steady erosion coming from that side of the, OR attempt to erode this bo this body's authority. And it happens every town meeting, there's just one more thing they have to throw over the fence. I'm looking forward to that ending. So I, I, Speaker 6: Go ahead. I get your devil's advocate, Linda. The interesting thing is may, because I, as you stated, Mr. Sidney am not a town meeting member, I don't have that personal, can I just take it as though I,
it's something I, I don't support because of our position, not because I have a trust issue one way or the other with town meeting, I, I see it as it, I don't support it for the position that we sit in, but not because I don't trust them. I think we have a fiduciary, a fiduciary responsibility that we have to manage and I can separate the two. Speaker 7: And, and that's where I come from because I am a town meeting member and as a town meeting member, I don't support this, nevermind as a policymaking body, but as a town meeting member, I don't support this
because it actually flies in the face of what town meeting said they wanted when they created these. And it's also, it flies to me, it flies in the face of the fiscal conservatism. The town meeting has expressed in the 20 odd years I've been on town meeting. So as a policymaking body, it flies in the face as a fiscal conservative, it flies in the face. It's, I don't wanna zero. Those accounts out there important. Speaker 1: They're important for our bond rating.
They're important for whatever happens in the next year. Yes. Speaker 13: Yeah. The bond rating is gonna be critical over the next year. Yes. Speaker 7: It's, yeah. Especially, especially if Speaker 1: Tax free munis are Speaker 7: It become taxable Speaker 1: Suspended. Right. Speaker 7: This is gonna cost a lot more to borrow money. Speaker 1: That's a very real concern I have. Yeah. So we have a motion and a second for ip. Is there any other discussion on this? All in favor? Please say aye. A Aye. Any opposed? It's 5 0 0 Madam Clerk, Mr. Sidney's gonna get you a form seconded that you're just gonna fill out with what we did.
And I, I can send this to you in, in terms of positive action, no action. And then these motions and how we voted. Okay. You'll fill it out and send it to Todd after he, after you get that, just give me a call and I'll walk you through it, Speaker 7: Okay? Yeah. And I sent you the one from last fall. So the articles, numbers, and names are wrong. You get them off the current warrant. There's Speaker 1: A form like with a table where we can put Speaker 7: That. Okay. If you need help, let me know tomorrow, let me know. Oh, I can't do it tomorrow 'cause I've got Academy Day tomorrow night. I could do it if you need help. Speaker 1: I told Todd we'd get it to him asap so I can asap I What's ASAP right
now. As soon as possible Speaker 13: Minutes, I can give you Speaker 1: A previous letter. I'll have it in there. I, yeah, can you do that? Give that to, okay. It's not last year's, but it'll be the years Speaker 7: You'll Yeah. It wasn't the letter I sent 'cause I didn't write the letter. All I did was create the table. Speaker 13: Simply a table. Yeah, it's not, yeah, that's all. It's not that complicated. I'll just, I'll get you Speaker 7: The last two. It's in your email already. Speaker 13: Okay. Yeah, it, it, it's much, but there's, we're making it sound much harder than it is. It's not hard. Speaker 1: So we're It's more than just a table. Okay. Right. It's a, it's a letter. We are not going
to have executive session tonight and so we'll go to the consent agenda. It's 10 o'clock at night and I'd really like to wrap this up. So we are going to have to move the discussion of the fiscal governance task force to our next meeting. Board members please come prepared to talk about composition term and charge and what you'd like to see this committee do. This is one of our commitments. Oh yes. So. Alright Madam Clerk, if you could read the consent agenda. Speaker 6: Our consent agenda reads as follows, to approve meeting minutes for January 15th,
February 3rd, February 13th, February 19th, may, excuse me. March 5th, March 26th, March 27th, and April 1st, 2025 B. Item B approve common requests. The Natick resident Curl Sova to host an immortal regimen on Saturday, May 10th, 2025 from one to 8:00 PM Natick Health Department to host the annual health and Wellness Fair on Saturday, May 31st, 2025 from 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM in conjunction
with the NA Farm Natick Farmer's Market. Charles River Rotary Club to host the annual scoop of palooza on Saturday June 21st, 2025 from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM item C. Appoint Richard Sydney to the Audit Advisory Committee as the select board representative for a term ending June 30th, 2026. Item D, accept resignation from Elena d Danay from the Council on Aging. Item E approved planted collective one day alcohol licenses on April the 23rd, 2025 for plant bingo.
And June 11th, 2025 for paint A planter. Does anyone wanna pull anything? I want to pull the meeting minutes from March 27th. 2025. Speaker 7: Have to pull the whole item and then, yeah. Speaker 6: Okay. I wanna pull item A and specifically the meeting minutes from March 27. 2025. Speaker 1: Okay, so I move items B through E. Speaker 7: Yes, Kristen? The clerk usually makes the motion. I have to make Speaker 1: The move. Okay, I'm just trying to get us out of here before 10, but go ahead. Sorry. Sorry Speaker 6: Christian. I move items B through E.
Speaker 7: Second Speaker 1: Moved by the clerk seconded by Mr. Evans. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? And item A for discussion, it's Pope. Speaker 6: Yes, this was the meeting that I sat on Zoom for. I haven't seen these minutes and I want to, okay, Speaker 1: So would you move approval for all the other minutes? Yes. Speaker 7: Second. Speaker 1: Moved by Ms. Pope, seconded by Mr. Evans. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So, Speaker 7: No, we're not going into SEC session.
Speaker 1: No, I just said that we're not having executive session tonight. Moved by Mr. Evans. Second. Speaker 7: Second please. Speaker 1: Seconded by Ms. Pope. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you.