Speaker 1: Grant. Oh, thank you, Billy, for continuation of the main street design work. That's the grant that helps to support communities. We got notified of it earlier this week, so I'll send a note out to the board and we'll have a more complete announcement at the next meeting. I just wanted to be aware of that because you might see some press on that. Speaker 2: That's great. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Public speak, blah, blah, blah. And there's nobody here except us chickens, so I'm not even gonna, Speaker 3: Well, I wanna, I put, I wanna put the gun buy back on the record again.
Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 3: It won't take long. So, a week from tomorrow, a week from tomorrow, October 11th, Hartford Street, Presbyterian Church, thanks to the Natick Police Department, the Middlesex Sheriff's Department, and most of all, Metro West Health Collaborative for their grant. We're holding a gun buyback event from 10 to two. This is hosted by a Citizens Commission committee called Citizens for Safer Natick, and I'm part of that as a private citizen.
This is not sponsored by the Select board, so, but I did want to put it on the record, so thank you very much. Speaker 2: Sure, sure. I'm gonna do the public speak in case anybody does a inquiry on this. So public speak. Any individual may raise an issue that's not included on tonight's agenda, and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There'll 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. Any individual addressing the board during this section
of the agenda shall be limited to three minutes. Do we have anybody who wishes to speak? Seeing none. Let's Speaker 3: Donna, Donna has her hand up. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Donna. Speaker 4: Okay. We are all unmuted and we can't show our videos, so I just wanted to be sure that you knew that. And by way of public speak, I just wanna give a brief announcement that there will be a public forum on a public forum on our article. I hope I can say this, on October 16th, Thursday
from seven to eight 30 at the First Congregational Church. And everyone's invited. And we are c you know, offering fresh cider and donuts. Thanks, Speaker 2: Ms. McKenzie. Dr. McKenzie, I'm sorry. Okay, just lets move on Speaker 1: Just briefly. It's standard protocol for us to, because we've been zoom bombed so many times in the past, for us to only allow members of staff and or the board to be co-hosts, otherwise we have security protocols in place that are, are,
are the reasons why the prior speaker noted about their video and being muted. Okay. Speaker 2: Yeah. We don't wanna get photo bond. Speaker 1: Not that I'm accusing anybody who's currently on of duty. No, Speaker 2: No, no. Speaker 1: It's a security protocol that we have to, to apply to everybody or nobody. So it's kind of one of those, yeah. Unfortunately we can't selectively change that. Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Since Ms. McKen, let's go on to this discussion and decision. And since Dr. McKenzie waited patiently and then we cut her off on Monday night, I'd like to start
with Article 33. If, if Dr. Mackenzie has everyone here that she needs for, Speaker 4: I do thank you. And thank you very much for having us back. We really appreciate it. And again, I wanna stress that Article 33 is actually very conservative and a very reasonable ask. We are four reasonable, well-educated professional people who place a high value on children playing sports as part of the personal development of their health. We have looked at and listened to both sides
of the field issue and have studied the industry from product production to recycling at all stages of this product's lifecycle. We have grappled with the serious questions about its safety and impact on the environment. We have unanimously concluded that the concerns for human health and the environment are real and growing. The medical and scientifical scientific communities are moving towards a consensus regarding the harm. We believe this will emerge widely enough during a new product's 10 year life cycle to lead
to regulation of the product and its components. This advisory moratorium provides time for thoughtful consideration, not only for the players in their available hours for the schools and the park and recreation department, but importantly for the health and the environment as well as finances. The towns with artificial turf fields are already assuming the liability and cost for remediation and damages. And now what I wanna do is I wanna turn this over to Dr. Roger Luckman, who is online, and we have a choice here.
He has a very brief slideshow he can share with you, or we can move straight to questions. I know you have a very full agenda, so I'm gonna leave it to the preference of the chair. Speaker 2: Yeah, well let, let's, if we could limit it to five minutes, that would be great. I can, Speaker 5: I can do this without slides in about three to four minutes. I think you probably have had you, you guys have reviewed the FinCon presentation and have some of that materials. So lemme say the, the, the focus of this moratorium is mostly on two, two major concerns, harm to the public health in general of exposure to microplastic,
and also exposure of players to PFAS. So it's well established that artificial turf is a significant source of microplastic pollution, of air, of soil, groundwater, waterways in the ocean. Up to 8% of the grass blades are shed annually and break down into microplastic, which itself contains some harmful chemicals used to produce it. And they also pick up other harmful substances from the environment as they move out into waterways, ocean and air.
The fragments of plastic grass are really forever tiny poisoned pills. And they are like PFAS. They are a forever material. Unfortunately, microplastic enters the body mainly through inhalation of contaminated air and ingestion of particles in food and water. It's been found in all human organs, many body fluids as well, and also in the placenta from which it enters fetuses and so is present in newborns at birth, laboratory studies.
Many of these and a growing body of clinical and epidemiologic research point to what I say are probable serious human health effects of microplastic, including cardiovascular disease and the possibility of damage to organs like liver and kidney inflammation throughout the body, damage to DNA with possible carcinogenesis, all of which with serious consequences. And there are some other problems. And I would, I would just say the other day I just looked for how much medical literature there is on this.
And there there are 13,000 articles that I could come up with that haven't reviewed the ball. But there, there's an extensive body of research and a, a very high level of concern in the scientific community about microplastic. When harms to human health are confirmed and publicized, I expect microplastic will be identified as a serious public health problem. And efforts to reduce contamination of the environment and human exposure are gonna become obligatory like that happened with PFAS. Given the existing evidence for toxicity and studies underway, we expect this is likely
to occur within the next few years. A bill before our state legislature, in fact already proposes to ban plastic artificial turf. One reason for moratorium then is to avoid investing in a potential source of microplastic pollution that will soon be designated a public health hazard. Turning attention to, to PFAS, you're probably aware there are a class of so-called forever chemicals, thousands of them. And they're associated with adverse effects on human immune endocrine, cardiovascular and reproductive systems as well as to liver and kidney. The EPA claims, there is no safe level of exposure
and in our water we're allowed, I think, one part in trillion maximum. And we're struggling as a town to make sure that we can meet that standard. They're present in artificial turf and they've been found on the skin of children playing on artificial turf. There's other evidence for some exposure to players as well. Now manufacturers acknowledge that it may take until 2030 on average just to substantially reduce PFAS in artificial turf. So to protect both public and player health, a moratorium is the best approach
for avoiding installation of a toxic product before we have all the information about it that we need to make an informed decision. So time is needed to confirm and fully evaluate the health risks of microplastic to see if and when a genuinely PFAS free product becomes available to see when potentially new hybrid types of turf and alternative turf materials may become options. They're out there now at, at, at the high end being used in Japan for the, the next Olympics. And I think by FIFA and some others where this is gonna go
and when they'll become widely available is unknown. We also need to monitor state action on artificial turf. I'm not sure I where that bill is gonna be going. That proposes a ban. I i it, it's probably not gonna pass this session, but in the future it may. We also need time to allow the town to take a comprehensive look at field needs and options with input from all stakeholders. And that would also involve reviewing several other environmental health concerns related to artificial turf, including toxicity of the infills that are used,
toxic runoff in into town waters, significant lifecycle carbon emissions. We're all concerned about climate change. This is a contributor loss playable hours in high heat when turf fields can't be used due to burn risks. Need for replacement every eight to 10 years with limited or no recycling. And finally, there are cost issues. We find that it costs for artificial turf may be substantially more than for natural gas gas. So thank you very much. I'm happy to take any questions that you might have. Speaker 2: Thank you, doctor. Any questions from the board?
Kristen just joined us just to let everybody know. Any questions from the board, Mr. Sidney? Speaker 3: Yeah. Two questions. The sponsors are requesting no action on motion A, is that correct? Speaker 4: That is correct, Speaker 3: Correct. Okay. And you submitted a, an amended motion V which could, could you kind of describe that motion in some more detail
and, and why the amendment you, you're proposing that the New Amendment, Speaker 4: I submitted a new amendment to allay the chair. The chair's concerns that he did not feel or think that the definition of maintenance was specific or precise enough. And again, this is only an advisory motion. It has really no legal muster. It has moral persuasion, however, but I thought that his concern, and he can change address this if it's not,
I thought his concern was that we have at least two fields who need significant work. It's possible that these art, we have three artificial turf fields. It's possible that these two artificial turf fields that need work may need the whole artificial turf replaced along with the infill. And again, this is a modest and relatively conservative ask from all of you. And we did not wanna stop so-called maintenance on that field. And I've, I have talked to so many athletic directors
and it is kind of the common understanding that this would not apply to new construction. We are only talking about new construction. We wanted to clarify the meaning of maintenance in case you, along with the chair, might be concerned with that meaning. Speaker 3: Great. So did Fin Tom, Speaker 2: Just, just to add to that, Richard, I, I think my concern was that it would come up town meeting and people would say, well, what about Paul? You know, they, they need to redo that field and
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I, I, I got it. Thank you very much. Yep. So did FinCon here this amended motion? Or, and, and what did FinCon do with do regarding this? Speaker 4: They did not hear the amended, amended motion. And again, it's just a specification of maintenance, but they did not give us a recommendation. So the, so the thank you motion is coming from the sponsor. Thank, Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Those are my questions. Speaker 2: Thank you, Richard. Anyone else have questions? Ms, Speaker 6: Thanks.
Just, just a question about why you feel this is needed now and you know, what you hope to get from the moratorium? Speaker 4: What we hope to get is thoughtful town wide discernment and analysis of the needs. The last playing field study was done in 2016. We learned at the FinCon hearing that the schools had put together a task force. The task force includes the Director of Athletics, Julie McDonough and DPW. And it like, bingo. It, there's nobody on there from the Health department
or Parks and Recreation or who can address the environmental concerns. We want a town wide conversation. We think we have a commitment as a town to sustainability and net zero. And this would address that in a believable way. And we're doing it now because we wanna get in front of it. We don't wanna come to a town meeting when a lot of work has already been done and speak against the proposal. If there is a good proposal. I, myself, and some of my members might disagree, but if somebody can come up with a good turf proposal as a result of this, that would be great.
I have no, I'm not gonna stand in the way of it, but we wanna get in front of this and we, this is the time to do that. There is no current proposal for a turf field on the 27 budget, although there was talk of one in using leftover money from the Kennedy Build project, but I haven't heard anything about that. Or even if you can do that or, but anyway, it's just, and it could involve, you know, Memorial, right? The rebuild at Memorial, or maybe somebody wants to put some kind of field in at
Johnson, I don't know. But it's just the time for a thoughtful conversation. And many other select boards actually, and other towns have put together a task force. And that would be your decision to do. But many, several other towns have done this. And it does include representatives from the medical field, meaning the health department as well as the environment. Speaker 5: The, the other thing that I can add to that is, is that the first time we had a strong evidence of potential serious health risk in a human study was in
2024, late 2024 when article came out in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that some folks who had microplastic in their arteries were at about 4.5 times the risk of serious heart attack, stroke, or death over a three year period. What's been missing from the study, despite 13,000 studies has been clear cut evidence in humans, hard to study in humans. And that's why we haven't had it yet, but we're beginning to see it that in epidemiologic studies and there's some underway now. So that, that to my mind is the reason for some urgency
to hold off as the, the information emerges from these studies that would give us a clear view of the, the extent of the public health risk. So the, the time is now for that. And just adding to that, I think the, the emergence of new alternative kinds of turf is a relatively new development as well. We don't know how quickly that will go, but could we feel it would be a, a better choice if we can avoid plastic and microplastic and still get the benefits of artificial turf? Wouldn't that be great? Speaker 6: I I, I'm still struggling a little bit to understand
how the moratorium accomplishes the, the larger conversation that I think you wish to have. It, it, Speaker 2: If I could jump in on that one. I, I, I think in talking to, I talked to the Julie McDonough about the task force that was on there. I also talked with Jamie about the updating the field study. And we would, one, one of the things
that Jamie said is, yes, we need to update the field study to get an act accurate picture. And I kind of said this hurriedly at the end of our meeting on Monday, which is this is one facet of a field, sort of field study plan update that we need to do. And I like personally the idea of a task force that is all constituencies involved and from the medical community, the athletic community, the clubs in town that use the fields.
So it's a, it's a, a big picture and we need to get all the people at the table that's gonna take time. We don't have all the resources to, to do that right now. I would be, what's the right word? I knew I couldn't introduce the idea of a task force right now because it's outside the scope of the article. But there's nothing to say if we decide to go with the task force to do, to put it on spring town meeting. But I wanted
Speaker 4: To also think about, I was, I was advised against, I was advised by the moderator not to include the task force in this article. I would've happily included it. This is the first citizen petition I have sponsored. I have been trying to get as much advice and to do this as well as possible. And it's been hard, it's been frustrating, but we are not going away. And if we need a springtown meeting task force, we pledge to you that we will put that on the ballot. And if, I mean the warrant, and if you prefer the task force, force
to come from town meeting, we're not diff I'm not a difficult person. I'm happy to propose that also. But as, as a select board, you also can put together a task force and then delegate it to somebody else too. I, I just, I just was taken with the symbolism of it coming from the select board. But that was a question I had in terms of the Warren article. So your question is good. Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm still, like I said, I'm still struggling with this. Nothing to do with the merits of your article and, you know, I appreciate everyone's work involved
and bringing this issue to our attention. I think that's good. I'm just not sure what passing an advisory moratorium does. So that's really my hangup on this. Nothing, nothing against all the, all the work that you put into it. And I understand on, it's, it's frustrating when you're trying to figure out the citizen petitions. It's, you know, I'm hopeful that you've gotten adequate advice, but I guess I would like to see this come back in the spring. Speaker 5: Yeah, just to say we, we think that town meeting,
voting an advisory moratorium sends a very clear message to everybody in the town that we need to do something now about this. And we think that message will be loud and clear. It will be read and responded to appropriately. And it's much better than just letting this issue lie dormant for another six months or more. So that it, it's the message that's really important here and the, the amount of time makes sense. As I said, we expect information to emerge over three years. So the three years makes sense.
The moratorium makes sense for everything we need. And the town meeting can send a message to everybody in town get to work on this. It's important. We need the time to do that. Speaker 2: Thank you, Ms. Pope. Speaker 7: Thank you Chairman Evans. My question is, is a two part question. It might also involve Mr. Erickson. So because the, the goal of this petition is to send a message. Is there plans, are there plans for a field study in the next three years? Speaker 1: Go ahead. Three. Sorry, I'm assuming the question's for me correct Bruce?
Yes. Yep. Three years, yes, it's on our sort of outer dialogue. We've already been talking about it for the last year, plus the need to do this field study. And we've just had quite a bit of turnover in the rec and parks and community services division that we haven't had the staff capacity to initiate that. We've also been wrapping up the community services study that they just, that was just presented to the community, I believe, last week or two weeks ago. So we wanted to be mindful of, of what we could reasonably complete as a team and,
and some of the, the other demands on, on, on town staff time to make sure that the field study, whatever we do as an update is most beneficial to the community. 'cause there's a couple different approaches that we can certainly take to that update. Speaker 7: Absolutely. Thank you Mr. Erickson. Because, and I think my question is also, so to add on to that, what is a sufficient field study? What is sub sufficient information to come out of the field study that then, let's say this ends in three years. What, what do you need?
What is needed to determine, you know, whether the moratorium needs to be permanent or whether that was just kind of a, a stop gap, I guess, what information is necessary over that three years? Speaker 1: So I I, I'll answer from a couple of different perspectives. From a technical perspective, a moratorium, let's say it was like a zoning, bylaw, moratorium or land use moratorium, which I would put this more akin to if should this go forward. Moratorium is typically one, A moratorium is not permanent. The moratorium is only there just to allow for the study
to happen depending on the focus of the study. And I've heard people talk about the public health concerns, but also from the field study perspective that wouldn't necessarily address public health. That would more address field usage and what is needed from a supply and demand perspective to help inform then what a more permanent, for lack of a better term solution would be regarding artificial turf fields for the community. In the case of the field study, what we would do is we'd look at the one from 2016, see
where there's been updates to be made, likely have to do some additional community engagement with the community, but also youth groups, sports groups, the schools, things like that to understand future trends, to help inform what from a field perspective we would recommend to accommodate the demands. Even, even the 2016 study though showed that we were over demand under resourced on fields and we've only gotten worse since that time. So we need to figure out how to do that. Speaker 7: Thank you Mr. Erickson.
I was also looking for that answer from Ms. McKenzie and Mr. Luckman. What are they looking for? Okay. To determine, you know, once the three years is over or during this period, what are they, what are they seeking? That's sufficient. Speaker 4: Lemme start by answering it and then I'm gonna turn it to Dr. Lockman. Okay. I wanna say first that we chose three years because it's the length of time that most other municipalities have chosen. Natick is the, not the first to do this. And the wisdom of three years is that it goes back to town meeting and the people get to decide.
We run our government, our government by town meeting, and it's the people who get to decide. I mean, we could have done a, a ba a moratorium with no time limit, but we chose not to do that. We are hopeful that there will be more solutions available. We see the turf field and an updated turf field as one necessary ingredient. So we can see how the needs and the demands for the field have changed. And I understand from my research that the need for field time is greatest with the park
and recreation department. And they, for example, weren't even included in the referral for this argument, this article when it was referred last year. So we have spoken to them, we went to one of their meetings and they told us that their needs are great. So an updated field study will be addressed that I'm assuming, and it's one important ingredient and we want more information. My background is in healthcare ethics and there is some discussion about whether artificial turf fields result in more lower limb injuries.
And just the other day there was a New York Times article on that, and the jury is still out turf, artificial turf gets better after the Paris Olympics. There's something called Paris Turf. And some of the schools like Smith and Wellesley College and Tufts are now using Paris turf. Before the expiration of this moratorium, we will have had an Olympic in Los Angeles. So there's probably pressure under turf PE companies to develop a Los Angeles turf
because we can really do better. My hope is that there would be better turf. There is hybrid of all now, but it, the cost is really expensive. There also, if for some reason people decided to go with natural turf, there are, the Community Preservation Act funds can be used for that. So there is a potential source of funding that could be applied for in the future. And this would be really helpful because one of the options is using the JV field by the high school, which abuts a lot of wetlands
and streams and it's gonna require a lot of creative permitting. So the cost of that is probably gonna be more like Kennedy, which had extensive wetlands and was like 2.2 million. So it's a lot of money. So it's just, we wanna assure residents that we will be providing the healthiest and safest and most fiscally responsible playing field for our children. Roger, Speaker 2: Dr. Dr. McKenzie. Lemme just interject here a second.
We're already a half hour in and I need to be mindful of, of the time here. So if we could just wrap it up. Richard, you had to comment. Speaker 3: I have one, one last question, which is the sponsors suggested that there's a task force by the school committee to study this. Have, has anybody approached the task force to include additional people like Parks and Recs and the health department and so forth? Are they just gonna go on their own? And, and Speaker 2: I I can answer that. Speaker 3: Great. That's fine. Just want an answer, that's all. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Huh. I spoke with Julie McDonough and she wanted to move forward with this, but she feels that it can't be driven it, to a lack of a better term. She felt like no one's driving this bus other than her, everybody's got a small piece of it and it's not getting, nothing's getting accomplished. That's concrete. So she's amenable to the whole task force id that that integrates all facets. Speaker 5: Yeah, and I'll just say very briefly, the re reason
for the moratorium from the health perspective and the microplastic perspective is we're, we're waiting for a, an emergence of consensus that this is a human health hazard of significant proportions. We have tons of evidence in animals and, and other models and now evidence in humans emerging. And once that happens, I think it's a game changer. And we'll find that for the sake of public health and future generations exposure to microplastic is gonna be something we do wanna avoid as a town. Speaker 2: All right. Are we, are we able to get to the making a motion segment of this discussion,
Mr. Sidney? Speaker 3: Yeah. I'm wondering if we even want to take a position on this one. I'm willing, if the board wants to, but I'm sort of thinking that the, because this is a citizen's petition, you know, I'm, I'm kind of in favor of this, but I'm not sure it's something we should be directly taking a position on. That's just my thought. Speaker 2: Anyone else? Well, I'm gonna make a motion for favorable action
and if seconded, I'll talk about it Speaker 7: Second. Speaker 2: Thank you. So that's favorable action from me and Kristen, seconded. Here's, here's my thought process on this. I, I, I understand your, your issue with the fact that it's a citizen p petition, but I think it's a town wide issue and we need to recognize that we do need a pause here. We do need more data. We need a field study, a three year window to get a lot more information,
a lot more medical information, a lot more product information. I'll call it, it, it's advancing, right? And we need the, we need, it's a, it's a moratorium, it's an advisory. It's nothing. It's, I I think the proponents nailed it. It's an awareness raising exercise. And I think we, by us weighing in on it and saying, yeah, we need to take a pause here and reassess what we need for fields, what we need
to look at to address safety needs and so on. And comments. Do any you have any comments on that Ms. Pope? Speaker 7: No, I, well, I appreciate the opportunity to go get more information. I hear what Ms. Erickson is saying that we are, in 2016, it was clear that the demand was higher than the supply that we have. And that, I mean, it's, it that has to be addressed as, as well as considering how much we are doing from an environmental standpoint. This, this seems in line with that. And you know, I would just say in terms
of the advisory there, there does have to be clear goals as to what is to come out of this, what needs to come out of this. So at the, at the end of the three years, we are clear on, you know, what this was for the benefit, the impact of this moving forward. I, I, that just has to be, I I I would strongly urge that to be outlined and followed. Speaker 2: Yeah. And I, I, I think that's the follow up in the spring that, that we can, or, or the a citizen petitioner can do. But I think that takes a little organizing to do that.
And we just didn't have time right now, so. Oh yes, Speaker 7: Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 2: Ms. Wolfer, Speaker 6: Yeah. I'm not gonna support this and it's not because of the merits and I actually feel strongly with, with the sponsors about having a lot of reservations about turf fields. But I, as a longtime town meeting member, I'm just very uncomfortable with the idea of having an advisory motion that that doesn't accomplish something that's concrete.
I, I I think it's, you know, gonna engender a lot of conversation at, at town meeting to no effect. I would've been much more comfortable if there had been a concrete proposal about a committee or a task force or something as a result of this. And that's the only reason that I'm not gonna support it. Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you Linda. Richard? Speaker 3: Yeah. I think I'm not gonna support this directly. I'll make up my mind to town meeting. I will say that a six month delay to get a concrete proposal out for a task force isn't gonna harm anything because nothing's gonna happen between now and spring.
Speaker 2: Okay. So let's vote. All in favor say, aye. I shall we have to do voice vote, don't we? So, Ms. Pope? Speaker 7: Yes. Speaker 2: And Mr. Sidney, Speaker 3: No. Speaker 2: Ms. Wells Fargo? No. And I'm gonna be a yes. So we've got a deadlock of two Two and failure. Speaker 3: Failure to recommend. Speaker 2: Yep. So what that means is, it, it, I think Mr. Sidney summed it up well, is, is this,
this will raise the discussion at town meeting. I hope to have a robust discussion and I hope to have people talk about the need to formulate that task force. So I thank you for all the work that you put into that and I think it will be a very good discussion at, at Mr. Speaker 3: Mr. Evans. I would suggest that we not put the record of this in our town meeting recommendation, since it's a failure, it's a tie. Speaker 2: I disagree. I think we, we have to, we have to,
we have deliberated about it and I think it is, I think it's actually not a bad message because it just says, you know, there are pros and cons and we get it. So let's discuss it as a town, town meeting. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 2: I understand what you're saying. Alright. Thank you Dr. McKenzie and Dr. Luckman. All right, let's move on to article seven. Jamie, are you ready to go with that? Speaker 1: Sure, yeah. Article seven, collective bargaining. Pretty straightforward. This is the, the article
whereby town meeting ratifies, any collective bargaining agreements, their processes to ratify. What that basically means is they logistically they appropriate funding to cover the, the additional cost of the contract on the fiscal year budget for this town meeting. This includes the two contracts for the police department, patrols and supervisors that the, the select board entered into and agreed to. The article covers basically those costs, which is a transfer from a budget line that is part of the FY 26 budget was in the select board budget
to cover CBAs to the police department budget. It's pretty, pretty cut and dry from that perspective. Post town meeting is when we'll take the MOUs that were drafted and update the contracts to put them on the website. Speaker 2: Any questions from the board? Speaker 3: Move favorable action on the subject matter. Second Speaker 2: By Mr. Sydney. Seconded by Ms. Slager. All in favor say aye. Ms. Po Aye. Ms. Slager? Yes, Mr. Sidney? Yes. And on MS 4 0 0 on
to article eight, Speaker 1: This one is a placeholder one that we have every season. 'cause in August when we set the warrant, we never truly know exactly what we're gonna be asking for in this case. And there's a couple others that we that with as well. We had anticipated having a couple, but we decided to hold for now until the spring. And so we're seeking no action Speaker 2: And I'll take motions then. Speaker 3: I don't think we need to do that. Speaker 2: That's, that's what I was just wondering. Okay. Appreciate Speaker 1: Your non-support support Speaker 2: Clearly. No. Anyway. Okay. Article 10. Jamie, you wanna walk us through?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll, I'll walk you through this one. So this is the article whereby the school committee will be seeking funding to basically fund the next step in the MSBA process for the memorial school. In brief, the MSBA has invited the school department, the town of Natick into the process. But the next step includes an appropriation for essentially feasibility study and schematic design work for the memorial school process. The next steps in that we need to, as part of the town, we need to have the appropriation as a checkbox as part
of this next step to then wish the MSB will, MSBA among other criteria will then say, yep, you can advance in this process. We're technically not quite there yet because we need to complete a couple things on our end as the town including an appropriation of funding. The recommendation from town administration is to use, do borrowing for this. We explored a couple different avenues, including repurposing the Kennedy remaining funds as well as use of free cash for various reasons. Both of those are not preferred. In the case of the Kennedy funds, we actually got bond council guidance both verbal
and written, saying that that is likely a violation of our borrowing. So we should not do that. 'cause in theory, you're supposed to, in reality, you're supposed to be using borrowed funds for projects of the similar useful life. So Kennedy is 20 plus years. A feasibility slash study slash schematic design work is only considered to have five years per MGL. So that does not, that's not a qualifying use. And the use of free cash, a couple reasons. One, there's no guarantee that we're gonna have free cash certified by town meeting. So we didn't wanna put such an article up for that purpose.
Plus, even if we had free cash certified, our recommendation would be to not use that the, these funds free cash. We, we'd like to preserve that cash for other purposes. And this borrowing can be assuming the town continues through the process and it goes to a debt exclusion voter, a vote of the voters. These funds can then be wrapped into that much larger borrowing at that time, which then seeks to get that reimbursement from the MSBA process at about 44, 40 5%. So these will be eligible for that reimbursement assuming this process moves forward through the MSBA
and the town approval process. And it, it's, it's actually a much better financial decision for the town to have these be wrapped into those financials for the project down the road, at least from our opinion on, on from town administration. Those are the details from, from from the town's perspective. The schools also present, presented this to the finance committee earlier this week on Monday, and I trusted the board either saw or reviewed those materials. So I didn't think it was necessary for, for them on a Friday to come to this meeting. So I apologize if you did want them here, but I'm, I can probably answer most questions
that the select board would have. Speaker 2: My understanding is that it was unanimously approved by the finance committee. Correct. I think the only thing they unanimously approved was the sun comes up in the east typically. Speaker 1: And even that can be questionable. Speaker 2: Mr. Sidney. Speaker 3: Yeah. I just add one other thing. I was actually at that finance committee meeting and one thing came up that I just want to put in the air, which is that there's a time limit on this. And in fact, that time limit expires in the middle of town meeting, we're likely to get an extension,
but if we don't approve this at this town meeting, we fall out of the program and have to start from scratch. Speaker 1: So the time limit is not a town time limit, it's the MS BA process. It's Speaker 2: An msba. Lemme lemme comment briefly on that. That is something that we have petitioned SBA about. We are still awaiting getting it in writing. They had, they had told us informally, yeah, we understand you've got fall town meeting and we'll extend it to, I think it was December 1st, Jamie, if I'm remembering correctly,
Speaker 1: They first asked to extend it to I think October 31st and then perhaps December 1st was part of the conversation as well. But I haven't, I personally haven't been on part of those conversations. I know Melissa's done a great job of keeping me in the loop, but I know the intent is try to get up past the town meeting season. MSBA is very, very knowledgeable of the, you know, town meeting processes throughout the state. So while we don't, I don't believe they have the official Okay. Yet, my understanding is that the dialogue has been, you know, pretty understanding as to how the local processes need to work.
Speaker 2: Just a quick comment on on that. Is it worthwhile for us to do a procedural motion to say, let's take article 10 early? Or does it not make a difference? It's just a close of town meeting that matters. Speaker 1: It's a close meeting that matters. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: So if you wanna a procedural motion to put all the agenda items on a consent agenda, that's what that would help. Speaker 2: There's idea, there's a capital idea, there's Speaker 1: Mole, I'm not sure that would be supported by all of town meetings. Speaker 2: Yeah. The AG might not Speaker 3: Like that one.
Speaker 6: So Speaker 2: It's mole. Speaker 6: So assuming this, this passes town meeting, when would we anticipate borrowing Speaker 1: In talks with the school department about their understanding about this particular timeframe from MSBA? It could be anywhere from six to 18 months. We would not borrow and we would not borrow for the full amount. We'd only borrow for what would be necessary in the next step, which the feasibility study when it's needed, it's at least six months. It's probably more likely potentially even 12 months. Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: So it, it's, it's not like it's an immediate need.
That's another reason why we didn't wanna think, we thought free cash was not a preferred option because we didn't wanna tie up Right. That amount, amount of free cash when this borrowing it, it's down the road. It's not an immediate need. The immediate need the is the authorization from town meeting. That is a checkbox that's needed by the end of October by the, the school committee for the MSBA process. Speaker 6: All right. So, so let's say for example, if it is 12 months from now, and for some reason we decide that borrowing isn't a good idea for whatever reason, we could potentially come back to town meeting and, and,
and change the source of funds. I mean, not that, that, my, Speaker 1: My understanding is yes, we can do that. Okay. Speaker 6: I just wanted to know Speaker 1: The spring town meeting. We could do it next fall. Yes. Speaker 6: Okay. So that we would have that Speaker 2: Or, or we, if needed, could fall a special town meeting to do it if it there was time. But, Speaker 6: But that does not, cau would not cause us any trouble with the MSBA if we change the source of funding after the approval. That, that's my question. It wouldn't Speaker 1: Already has good experience with this. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 8: Mr. Chairman, if, I'm sorry just to, I I've been, I'm gonna fly on the wall here, but just kind of just, just wanted to, to a point with one thing out.
It is interim, in the near term it would be interim debt as well. And, and the thing about interim debt is because it's interim debt, it's an expectation that you're f financing over a long term. You're just paying interest only. And so that would extend the, the op the, so the operational flexibility even further than the initial debt period. Speaker 2: So that would be a ban then? Speaker 8: Yes. Yeah, it would be ban, yeah, it be ban. Speaker 3: Yep. And then the ultimate borrowing could go into the project, which is the 20 year life. Speaker 8: That would be the intention. You wouldn't, and then Kirsten would be offset and, yeah, exactly. Speaker 6: All right. Great. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thanks. Any further questions?
Speaker 3: No, favorable. None. Speaker 6: Second, that Speaker 2: Was Richard and Linda. All in favor, please say Aye. Ms. Er? Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 2: Mr. Sidney? Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 2: Ms. Pope? Yes. And I'm a yes. All right. Let's move on to article 11. Speaker 3: So Ms. Mr. Chairman, we did vote 11 and 12 favorably on Monday night. I did get some feedback on Tuesday about some of the citations being incorrect. I've since done the research.
I sent out an updated motion with corrected citations. We got a referral from finance committee on 11. I would anticipate putting the main mo the main motion on the floor myself, since I am a town meeting member. If, you know, if anybody sees any further updates, let me know before I send this stuff over to the moderator, which I'll do probably next week. Also, I believe I'm on early next week, Mr. Chair, unless you're taking it to discuss these two motions
in the Pegasus Chat thing? Speaker 2: Nope, that is all yours since you're intimately involved in it. Okay. So we, we do not, I'm sorry. Can Speaker 6: We, can you just talk to the changes, rich? I mean I, I I see that, you know, we have the red line posted and I, and I have to ask him. I apologize. Are we sure that it's right now? Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm gonna send it over to Karis again with these changes and yes, I've gone through every single one of these to make sure they're right. So for example, there is no requirement in MGL for an audit advisory committee.
Excuse me, just as an example. So I've, I've, I have reviewed every single MGL l citation top to bottom to make sure they're right. One FinCon member also suggested moving this ke tech school committee down into the regional appointments, which I think is accurate. Speaker 2: Yeah, makes sense. Speaker 3: So I'm happy to have anybody else go through them again. Well, Speaker 2: Here's a question that, that I'd I'm throwing out is do we want to revote this giving the, given that it's a
changed motion, or do we just wait to the see the movie at town meeting? Speaker 6: I, I think we should revote because what we're voting is something different. Speaker 2: Yeah, that's, that's my thought process. Okay. Does anybody else have questions on the changes? Speaker 7: I do have questions on the changes. Where did we plan Mr. Sydney with the, the either collapse or integration of the cable advisory and I'm, I'm, Speaker 3: That's, that's article 12. Okay. Which we got a referral motion from
and did not take up again with the finance committee. Okay. That's another one where I plan to move the repeal at town meeting. We also have a procedural motion to put Article 12 in front of Article 11 so that if Article 12 fails at town meeting, we can insert the reinsert the information systems advisory board into this motion through an amendment. So that would be my intention. It's, you know, I I, I can tell what Tom meeting's gonna do.
We had one member of the finance committee call this hole change a, a power grab by the select board, which I think mischaracterizes it, but Speaker 2: That might be, Speaker 3: But actually some of the other members who had been against it at first felt much more comfortable with it last night from, as opposed to the prior hearing. So at this point, the whole thing, you know, we could, we've already effectively merged those two committees and the cable advisory board is not required by
state law or bylaw. So we left it out of this table and the information systems advisory board is up for grabs at town meeting. Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you Mr. Sidney. Speaker 2: Any further questions? Speaker 6: So the only, the only thing I would say, rich, is there's a few typos that it looks like some of the ones in the last column are eyes. So if you could get that. Yeah, Speaker 2: I was noticing that. Thank you. Speaker 3: I think they're all ones. I'll double check. Speaker 6: Well, they may be different fonts then, but they're, I Speaker 3: I think, I think they're different fonts is what it is. Yeah. Speaker 6: Well, okay. If we can just get that fixed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just clear that up. So we'll call that scribner's error. Okay. Speaker 3: Yeah. By the way, I've al also you in the, in the packet you also saw the procedural motion and the amendment that would go in front of town meeting. Speaker 2: Yes, I did see that Speaker 3: For different, you know. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 7: Thank you for the time that you've taken on this Yes. In the back and forth with income. Thank you. Speaker 3: No Speaker 2: Problem. Thank you. Thank you for saying that Ms. Pope. Speaker 3: It's, it's just what's required. Speaker 2: No, that's well beyond just what's required,
but I agree with Ms. Pope. Okay. Do I have a motion Speaker 6: Of approval? Speaker 3: This is for 11? Speaker 2: Yes, this is 11. Yes. I'm sorry. Yep. Second and all second. Kristen second. All in favor? Excuse me. A Speaker 7: Aye. Yes. Speaker 2: Aye. Ms. Er Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 2: Mr. Ney? Yes. And I, yes. Also on 12. Do we need to rewrote that? Speaker 6: I don't, there's been no changes, right? Rich? Yeah, I don't, Speaker 3: It's just a repeal. Speaker 2: Yeah. That's pretty straightforward, I'd say. Okay.
Speaker 3: And Mr. Chair, did you get my comments on the email that, in email that I sent you? On the, Speaker 2: Your Yes. Speaker 3: Proposed report. Okay. Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. Okay. What else do we have today? License fees. Speaker 1: So annually the board needs to, basically the requirement you, you can just reissue the annual license fees if there's no change without having to go through a public hearing. But if you feel it necessary to modify the licensing fees, then there's a requirement to hold a public hearing.
And so this is just a, a dialogue for the board whether or not the board feels it necessary to hold a public hearing because you feel it appropriate to change the fees for context. The, the fees from last year and the year before, I believe are, are, I believe it's two years worth of fees are on the, yeah. Two years worth of fees. 24 and 25. We did a pretty comprehensive review and update last year to these. And that also necessitated a public hearing process. But if you choose you, you can always just issue the 2026 fees with no changes without going through a public hearing process.
The public hearing is only required if you are choosing to modify the fees. And these are for, for largely the ones that the board can amend or adjust are some of the alcohol fees. Many of the fees are actually set by state law and or a few I think are even set by town meeting. So in the case of for example, common Vic or Lodging House or some others, those are actually capped by state law by MGL. And I believe we're already at the maxes for many of those.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was my impression. Oh, Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Yep. Speaker 2: Go ahead Mr. Sydney. Speaker 3: Mr. Wolfer had her hand up first. Speaker 2: I'm sorry, I'm going between documents. Go ahead Ms. Wolfer. Speaker 6: So a question would, if, I don't remember what article it is, but would the town clerk fees be added to our schedule if, if that should pass? Or is that not something that we would set Speaker 1: That what that, that is the intent of the article is to have the select board be the one.
And this is for, this isn't in town Clark, this is for dog licenses, I believe. Speaker 6: Dog license. Well, right, that, that's what I meant. So it, if that Speaker 1: Fee, that would be a select board set fee. Whether it goes to this process is a different story. So the select board also sets, for example, building permit fees. Those aren't on here necessarily. And dog license fees, we can choose to put 'em on this schedule so that they're reviewed annually. But this, these are more, these other fees that are set more by mg, not set by MGL L but are are required for the review
by the select board because of MGL. So like the alcohol fees, the Common Vic fees, the one that people have to renew every year. No. Yes. Dog licenses are similar to that or dog kennels are similar to that. But the licensing authority is the clerk, not necessarily the select board. You're just setting the fees. But these are for items, these are for licenses that the board is issuing. So similar to like building permit fees, you're not issuing the building permits, you're setting the fees for dog licenses and dog kennels. You're not issuing the licenses, you're just setting the fees. This schedule is the ones that you're also issuing the license.
So you're the license issuing authority. Speaker 6: Right. But if we were to change those fees, there would be no requirement for a public hearing on them. Is that correct? Speaker 1: For like dog kennels and such? I don't believe there would be a requirement. It might be good practice, but there, I don't think there's a requirement. Correct. Speaker 6: Well the reason I'm asking is if, if we do have to hold pub, you know, public hearings when we change these and it might make sense to gather them all together. Speaker 1: Yep. That that could certainly be a practice Us for sure. With that said, you know, right. We need to, we need to know basically in the coming few weeks
before town meeting is over what these fees are gonna be because we need to start getting people in the queue to reapply. 'cause it takes several months to get through that process because a lot of these are the calendar year basis for the reissuance. So that's why we need to know sort of now if, if the board intends to make changes to these fees, and if you do, then we have to hold the public hearing to do that. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: But yes, for next year, for example, we can certainly add dog licenses and dog kennels to this list or at least to the process.
But they are slightly different from this list. I'm not sure. I'm not sure how much we'd be adjusting those fees on an annual basis either. Speaker 2: I Speaker 1: Know. So I, I mean the truth is even with these, many of these fees are, are set or there's a not to exceed set anyway by MGL and we're already at a lot of those maxes and the ones where you do have more discretion for more of the alcohol fees. In our analysis, we're, we're on the upper end of of the market. We're not above, well we're probably right at the top, but you reviewed those last year as well and we didn't,
Speaker 2: You just adjusted them. Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 2: Yep. Ms. Powell, Speaker 7: Thank you. Notwithstanding, any major changes similar to what Mr. Wilger brought up? One of the things that I remember from our comprehensive review last year was a comment about how small business owners really prefer for bees to stay stable, for them to know their fees, for them to stay consistent. And one of the things that I think, I mean I've seen with, with businesses is when they're updating their terms or things of that nature or fees,
it usually happens like at a five year or a 10 year process, maybe not as far as 10 years, but maybe in the five year realm, unless something dramatic happens like the pandemic, I would not be in favor of adjusting these fees considering the comprehensive review that we had last year. So I just wanted to raise that. Speaker 2: Thank you Ms. Pope. Mr. Sidney. Speaker 3: So the FinCon, when they reviewed Mr. Gore's request to remove the fees from the bylaw, recommended that dog license fees be heard in front of a public hearing.
Now if it gets passed by town meeting that way, and we wanna include dog fees in our table of fees for next year, we're gonna have to have a public hearing for that. Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 3: So I that's, I mean that's the only reason for me to see a public hearing, but I think we need to at least propose the public hearing. We can always close it without doing anything. Speaker 2: That's true. That's true. That's a good point. Do we want to just have a placeholder to
discuss it and then Jamie, you and I and Linda can work out whether we want to add it to a future agenda or, or maybe we can just, Speaker 6: We'd have to, we'd have to set a date, right? If we're gonna hold the public hearing, we have to. Well, Speaker 1: You, you mean for, for should town meeting pass the fin income recommended version of the motion, which I'm not, I'm I'm not saying I'm post, I'm just saying the motion that presented was without a required public hearing fin income requested that there be a public hearing component
to the motion, which is a bylaw, not a state law. It's a bylaw. So your question, Bruce, is we should, I mean, I think we have to wait to see what town meeting chooses and then after town meeting, like hold hearing to set the fees at that time. Speaker 2: Yeah, that makes Speaker 1: Sense. And then for future years we can get it on a similar or same cycle to what we're doing right now. Speaker 2: Yeah, that makes sense. And Speaker 1: This is already standard practice for us to, to at least ask the board, do you feel it necessary to hold a public hearing because you feel it necessary to change fees if you choose not to change the fees?
My, under my recollection of this fin income motion is that it's, you don't have to, you have to hold a public hearing, but you don't have to change the fees. You, it's only if you're changing the fees you hold a public hearing. Right? Speaker 3: Yeah. Except that I think it's practicing the, the fees would be new fees as far as the select board's fee schedule is concerned because they'd be coming out of the bylaw and into our fee schedule. Correct. Speaker 1: So after county, assuming it passes, we'd also have to wait until the ags office reviews it anyway. So it's probably gonna be a good months down the road before.
Okay. They use approval. We'll hold a hearing at that time and then get it on this annual cycle. Speaker 2: That makes perfect sense. Yep. Okay. Speaker 3: Yeah, I just wanted to raise that issue though. 'cause I think, you know, that's, it seems likely that town meeting will pass that, so, Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you Richard. So right now we'll just do a holding pattern pending town meeting. Okay. All right. Speaker 1: So just for, for our rec, for, for, for me to take to Donna the board
and maybe this could be a vote is not recommending to hold a public hearing and therefore keep the FY 26 fees the same as the FY 25 fees or the calendar 26 fees the same as the calendar year 25 fees. Speaker 3: You want that a vote? Speaker 2: Yeah, Speaker 1: I think that's a good idea. Speaker 2: All all in favor, please say aye. All. Speaker 6: Oh, I just, I just wanna say one thing first I think Yep. We did do a very thorough job on the alcohol fees last year, but I think some of the other fees, you know,
I'm not suggesting we revisit it right now, but I would like some clarification on, you know, what, what the, the limits really are, I mean, like for example, the fortune tolerance says not to exceed $50. Well, why do we charge $2? I mean, that can't even be the cost of, you know, processing on that. So I just, you know, I'm fine with not reviewing them this year, but, but I do think that, that at some point we ought to look at the other fees and, and maybe a little bit greater detail than we
did last year. That's all. Speaker 3: May maybe, maybe we do that when the dog licenses come up. Yeah, Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. Yep. Speaker 1: There, there are. You can also see the number of establishments we have here. Yep. We have one portion teller. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: But yes, that, that is a valid point. Speaker 3: So I'll make the motion to recommend the fees. Stay the same Speaker 2: Second. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Ms. Pope. All in favor? Mr. Sidney? Yes. Ms. Pope? Yes. Ms. Slager? Yes. And I, yes.
Any other, I want to do that. Sorry, lost my agenda for the moment. Any 10 administrative notes or updates? Weekly. Speaker 1: Ari has officially started. John has officially fully retired and it's going well so far. Ari's jumping right in. Great member of the team, so if you have any, any thoughts or questions, just bring it to our and Ari's attention. So you're gonna start seeing him a little more often, which is good. No other major updates to share with the board at this time,
but you can always contact me and, and I can provide, we, we are working on a number of things with, you know, the end of the fall construction season with roadway improvement projects. So I know folks are getting questions from residents about some of those items. Please feel free to keep sending 'em to me and I'll get the answers back to you. We are looking at ways for future projects to have more direct line of communication between residents and the management team, like the engineering team. That's gonna be an off season sort of goal of ours to try to just continue to improve some of those items.
We've already started doing some things like the engineering division does. They, they've flyer the neighborhood beforehand with information, contact information. But something that's more like while the project is happening is there's a way that we can have like maybe some signage up at the project or something along those lines. So we're exploring those things. Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah, Speaker 6: I think that's great. I think, you know, maybe even some FAQs about what to expect because it's clear that I think we do a good job of updating people about what's upcoming, but they don't really have the full grasp on the entire project and, and you know, people can, you know,
really get upset during the interim and you know, we've certainly seen that this year with the number of complaints. So anything that we can do to Yeah, make sure that doesn't happen going forward is very welcome. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. So I've, I've enlisted Jay and Bill Sprat and the team to, to brainstorm in the off season so we can see it'll, it'll be probably a, a a few trial and error years for us to get, get sort of a system down, but we're, we're hoping to make improvements. The other thing, just a reminder, we have our Johnson workshop on Tuesday, Thursday next week.
So that is a, lemme confirm with Billy that we posted that meeting. That's a posted meeting of the board because you're gonna be also doing some components as, as dialogue and debate for that evening. If you have any questions, obviously reach out to, to me Jay in advance. Jay's more leading a lot of the coordination on that. So, and if that the Kennedy, so we'll see you Wednesday night. Speaker 2: Yep, sounds good. Okay. Any select board updates? Speaker 3: I have one. Speaker 2: Okay, go ahead Speaker 3: Mitch.
So as chair of the audit advisory committee, I've been monitoring the audit. There were some more document requests which are being fulfilled. Some of them have already been fulfilled. We're still hoping I talked to Ari by email. We're still hoping to have a draft report and time to get the auditors in for a meeting before town meeting starts to see what we can do better. But that's still up in the air. Speaker 6: I have one too. So yesterday the economic development committee met
and we heard from Stacy David, who's chair of the Metro West Visitors Bureau and we talked about the upcoming World Cup and some of the things, and I think, and I don't know Jamie, this may be from you, I don't know if you heard from Amanda after the meeting, but I think Natick right now, they're planning on having within Metro West two week essentially events in various metro West Cities, Franklin and Marlboro and Framingham,
although the preferred location would not have been in Framingham, it would've been at Flutie Pass and in the parking lot across from a MC simply because one, it would get more visibility on Route nine then the proposed Framingham location, which is either boat field or Shoppers world, which comes with its own set of issues because there's existing businesses there. But I think it was our understanding that they wanted some money from the town, which of course we don't have, but that might change. There's money that's available in the budget in,
and I, and I forget what they call it, but essentially, and I don't have the right term, essentially the holdover budget from last year, that there's money that's been dedicated for this from the state that the Speaker 1: Budget, yeah, Speaker 6: The what Speaker 1: State budget? Not, not the towns budget, the Speaker 6: State, the state budget, not the town. I'm Speaker 1: Not aware of a holdover line. I I wish I had one, but I don't, no, Speaker 6: I, I, I think, I think there is money that is there and I think Stacy felt that there would be money available to the towns that we might not have to come up with any. So I'm just suggesting that, that if,
if things aren't set in stone that this could be a great opportunity for Natick as long as we don't have to to pay anything for it. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah. I'll briefly just provide a little context. Yes. They were asking for funding to the tune of, of a six figure number, which we were just, Nope, sorry, we can't do that. Right. We were actually at the front lines of this with Stacy because we're both Amanda and I are big soccer fans, so football fans. So, and just for the record, flute Pass and that parking lot is in Framingham, it's, the Flute Pass is actually not in Natick at all. With the irony of it, it's none of Flutie Pass
and only a small portion of that parking lot, which is where the flower shop flies at one point. Yep. Right. Is Natick the rest of that parking lot and all of foodie passes technically in Framingham. We were just more intrigued by the idea of that proximity to the mall and Natick resources, which is why we were also in favor of that location. So it can still be on Flutie Pass, it can still be at that location. We simply said, if you're asking for financial resources from the town of Natick, we can't provide that. We're still willing to be a partner, we just aren't gonna provide financial resource. Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm not sure Stacy quite understood that
because I think she thought that was Natick, but that's, Speaker 1: That was, that was explained. But we can explain it further. Speaker 6: Yeah. Further. Yeah. It's just, it's going to be a, a really good opportunity. They're planning on having fan zones with watch parties and, and a number of activities. And it's next year from June 11th to July 19th. Speaker 1: Yeah. And there's other opportunities too for, for nit or even any community and any business to get involved beyond just the more organized fan zones. So you can also do things at establishments and other things.
So we're, we're, we're also looking at ways that we can work with some of the local business establishments to also do some things. Speaker 2: That'd be okay. Thank you Mr. And Mr. Erickson. Anybody else have something? I have something now. Just a reminder on the same Marks 40th anniversary is tomorrow. I forget whether it's three or 4:00 PM I have to look that up. But everybody signed the proclamation, so I'll pick that up and head over tomorrow. Thank you. Is anybody else gonna be there? Speaker 6: No. Speaker 2: No? Okay. All right.
I'll take this things and arrows now that I turn down their water abatement thing. Speaker 3: Move to adjourn. Speaker 6: Second. Speaker 2: Thank you Mr. Sydney and Ms. Wal. All in favor, please say Aye. Mr. Sydney? Yes. Ms. Walser? Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 2: Ms. Pope? Yes. I think she's muted, but I think she said yes. Yes. Okay. And I'm a yes, it's 22, 23. We'll go with that. Alright, thanks everybody. Have a great weekend. Appreciate you. Thank you.
Same to you all. Thank you Bruce, twice this week. Bye bye everyone. Bye bye.