>> Thank you. >> Sure. Just grab a microphone. We have talked a few times about this being a new process. So it is a process for uh the district side. Also um it is not typical for triad to have these topics come up very often. We have a very proactive payroll person who has made substantial changes and recommendations uh that we have implemented. One of those implementations was changing teacher pay because we could legally do that. and she said, "Why are we paying teachers 3 days um when they are entitled to be paid a full paycheck when they return on their contract?" So, those are the types of things that come forward in Triad um and that we discuss. They're the mechanics of working a payroll system and what we can legally and not legally do. And this item just came up under the guise of our guidelines or guardrails and also from the um the board direction to look for revenue sources.
Yeah. >> Right. >> Which is different, >> which maybe that's what they're looking at. So, >> maybe that's what it is. I don't know. >> Yeah. Kind of confusing. >> Yeah. Flag it. Yeah. >> Um, and then to the point where we were talking about the town owned land and private key sites, >> I think that needs to definitely be re-reed. you look at the Oregon road and um >> so I you know basically it's looking at Briasco >> right >> and the land in the town forest that is sort of an at risk parcel that we we've talked about yeah um and then they were talking about wetlands overall >> well the wetlands like that's not going to happen I mean it's just like don't put them in there if they're not buildable >> again it kind of goes back to like what I'm trying to figure out is how did how did those recommendations land on that map in the first place?
So it wasn't an attempt to not bring something appropriately. We don't have a mechanism to bring things to meet and confer. we don't have like a a deadline of well make sure like if we had had something like what Kelly's asking for uh we would have said uh oh well this would be a great option to bring in uh but we've missed the deadline to bring to bring things forward and so I apologize that it came forward in that way without an opportunity for people to ask the deeper questions and have the conversation on it. So if it had come up several meetings ago when we were in groups and it was something on the table, some of these questions could have been asked ahead of time and then we could have brought that information with it. So it was, you know, kind of sticky and I just appreciate you guys listening, but there was no intent in any way.
I I just want to find out like how we can proceed so we can get some viable recommendations. That makes sense. And so I I guess that that's my concern. Like I don't even know how that happened. >> Yeah. >> Um >> yeah, >> you know what I mean? And then other things like as I was going through it, like when we were looking at site four, which is the town center, it says three town owned vacant parcels. >> And I'm thinking it's probably Corner Spot, the Ashlin Farmers Market, >> right? >> And I think Yeah, >> I don't think I'd like them to like that. >> Yeah. So, I don't know if we want to >> How can we help here? How can we provide some assistance to make sure that we're looking at viable parcels here >> and then add Olive Street, >> right?
Um it is that we're actively looking for ways to save the district money to bring in revenues in a very very dark time of declining enrollment. And it and we just have to put our our eyes on that like uh and so it's happening at every level in every meeting. It doesn't matter what meeting it is. It's two people talking by the water cooler. Uh what could we do to save the money? What could we do to bring in more money? What can we do? What can we do? Um and like I said in operations, we have opportunities uh when we find out these things. And then we wanted to bring that forward because we felt like it was a benefit and it really lived in meet confer. So, it was an idea that our fantastic payroll person had and we said, "Oh, that sounds great.
Oh, yeah. Olive Street, of course. >> Street should definitely Yeah, that's exactly what >> that's what it was purchased for for affordability. >> Yeah, I think if you want to, you know, consolidate your comments. >> Okay. >> Yep. We will do that. that would be >> but I'm I'm saying like the comments are are one thing but the you know the actionable how it happens is another and my question is okay we'll offer our comments but how do we make sure that we they don't come back with something similar because they're following the same process that gave us this in the first place that's what I'm asking about >> it is it is a little troubling I mean we paid them to >> do this and to and did somebody look at a map and say look at there's no houses here >> so I'm trying to figure out how that happened and if we can be or the town can be of any sort of assistance to like let them know, you know, so that we can get a better better group of viable parcels so we're not going back and forth like this.
Let's take it to meet and confer and let's let's see." And we didn't dig deep into it. It It's something that other districts do. It's very common. It's not outside the box thinking. It's just something that's that's pretty common in other districts. And we thought, why aren't we doing it? Let's take that to meet and confer. So again, that was the only intent and the only reason that that discussion came up is because every single one of us as an individual should be looking for ways to save the district money or to bring in revenue and that is a direct uh um guideline from our board uh in our meet and confer process. So that's kind of how it came about. I I just want you guys to understand we're not doing things in those meetings. Those it's a working meeting to take care of working things.
>> Well, there's, you know, I'm saying, >> well, the MBTA zoning committee looked at a lot of these parcels that were available for for >> So, I know Trish's Paul is listening as well, but I mean, there are some of those sites that could be added to that. >> Okay. Yeah, I mean that's the kind of information that the consultants could definitely, you know, utilize as they go through for recommendations, but that's what I'm looking for, Joe. Like, how can we >> how can we help here? >> Right. >> And there's there's properties right along, you know, Cotto Road and and Ponderosa Road for that matter that that are available >> for something similar. >> Yeah. I mean I do think if there are sites that you don't see that could be prime sites for redevelopment you know that would be something that you would >> so who has that planning must have a record of those sites right so >> can they >> that's what should be in here >> yeah yeah they should they should work with planning to get those sites >> okay I think um and I haven't really been involved in this project so >> alo has a lot of those u GIC maps available.
Um and we can absolutely have deadlines to bring things forward. What I would say is that if there is something that isn't of emergency nature, a legal nature, all of those things, there's no way to do that, right? Or if something is just so whatever, uh then we want the ability to bring it to this group. This group might say, "We missed the deadline or this thing is so important, we want to talk about it." I mean, I feel like you can have those conversations. >> I just wanted to be both sides like both sides like so. Say for example, CA has an idea they would like to bring with us. I have no problem with try I would like to know where things are coming from beforehand, but like the ideas like if there was discussion behind closed doors like that's something to try to admit on we discuss.
Yeah, I just um I I was a little surprised when I did look at some just because I I thought a lot of information was coming from the comp plan >> process too and there were some specific parcels I remember saying specifically like >> the other thing I find interesting in this as you're looking at some of the pictures and some of the parcels they keep bringing up the photo, you know, the overlay of the photovoltaic installation overlay district which prohibits residential use. So that must be them suggesting that we change zoning to allow residential use in those areas, right? Otherwise, they wouldn't bring those parcels up. >> Well, it's interesting because the because the solar photovote is an overlay. Uh meaning you know that the underlying zoning should stay. It's just you >> they're mostly industrial. >> Yeah. So that's mostly there industrial sites.
Also, I want it to be both sides. So if CA in one of our meetings with our members, we come up with something. We also want that option to say >> there's nothing that says we can. Well, we >> I I think what we have to do is moving forward, right? Is it because you did already come up with things through the survey, the initial survey back in August, September, October, whenever that was. That's the one I'm talking about. And you had you had overarching areas. So you had people put in some ideas, options if you will, positions, and then we take some of that and try to work it into the category of salary, the category of benefits, the category of working conditions. And so we did that. What we can be better about is saying, okay, as of this date, nothing else comes forward.
>> Um >> Yeah. Hey. And then the other thing I just want to make sure that you know what they were charged with is not providing you a recommendation. You know, this is what they think is is is the right thing to do with the understanding that there's going to be comments back. Well, no, this is what we think, you know, an iterative process in a way. >> Okay. >> Um, so I just I but I want to make sure that I'm capturing that I'm doing what you need me to do. So, so just just to be kind of >> just so for clarity, >> right? >> So, it seemed like at the at the planning board meeting, we were going to discuss our feedback here today. >> Yeah. >> And then it was going to get consolidated and sent to them. >> Do you need us to send individual comments or are you guys consolidating the comments?
Okay, and that's is what I'm hearing. Here's one more question that I have for Vanessa or I don't know who's the right person. If we were to how soon do you need the decision on this? >> We don't. So, so like if you >> needed more information and we table this and we come back in three weeks when we >> is that does that work? >> And does that give HR finance enough time to say how much are we spending on retirement payouts or or payouts every year? >> 8,000 last year. >> It would have saved $28,000 last year. >> Last year. One year. She was able to pull one year real quick and send it to me in an email. Okay. And that number would fluctuate year after year depending on how many people retire, right? If it's a high retirement, it could be more.
>> As we're talking now. >> Oh, I thought I thought you were going to put together afterwards. If you want to send it to us individually, we can consolidate them. >> Okay. Because I know Jen said that she needed things like tomorrow because like the tight timeline is the problem. >> Yeah. >> So you know the the parcel discussion like can't we just do it right now? >> Yeah. Can we >> That's what I thought. Okay. >> Because we don't want to all send that we don't go back, right? >> Because it could be quite repetitive and you don't want >> that. That's the other thing too. So, >> yeah. >> Um, sorry, I was out. I was out for some of this. >> Okay, Catherine's got >> Katherine is on the job. >> So, isn't >> Okay. Um, did anyone else have any other comments on the the the parcel thing or I have a couple other additional comments?
If it's less, it could be less. But in general, okay, >> last year was 13 people. >> And then Vanessa, did we get the answer to Ariel's question about the um >> she's she's still working on that one. I haven't gotten the answer for that one. Okay. >> But if But again, I get that we brought this and there was no prior warning and no thought process to be able to we wanted to bring the presentation in. >> There was no malicious intent. I think it's >> so I mean I don't think it's unreasonable to say table it while everybody gets their questions and then we answer the question. >> Is everybody okay if we table this until our next meeting so we can get some of these things answered and then we'll revisit it then. Okay. We're still >> and and we will definitely pay attention if we want to do that and set deadlines and you know it it's just trying to >> bring the good stuff.
>> Go for it. Okay. Um, on page 48 of the document. Um, let's see. Hold on. Sorry. Um, oh, so we talk about Ashland is because it's it's talking about um people employed um like employment opportunities in Ashland and the jobs and such. And it says Ashland is situated in a strategic location within the regional economy located between with easy access to 90 and 495. The community offers proximity to significant regional job centers. I think we also should should include that we're on the commuter rail and that has been a significant >> reason for um just access to the commuter rail has been a has been a big thing. >> Um >> it's been a great addition to the town. >> Oh yeah yeah yeah. Well, it goes to explain like what why they're like well there seems to be a mitchmatch between like you know what you know the the imbalance between local jobs and local residents does not point to a clear cause.
Right. >> Okay. >> All right. >> And can I just hear from you Alexis because there is still some seemingly some confusion. Ariel focus in here. Um, any group at any point can bring options to the table outside of the survey even as we've seen as long as it's within this deadline that we decide to set up. >> Any group can bring an option, >> an interest, an idea of of something. >> I I would maybe if you again, let's say we're going to talk about benefits today, right? You've got insurance. you got a committee that has looked at this, they've got some ideas. Um, they're going to put that on the table. Now, if this group were to add another option that requires them to go back, then that's different, right? That would take more time and I think there's a deadline. But your your job after you see that survey is to say, okay, we saw that compensation was the number one concern.
Well, you know, you got the commuter rail. That's why, you know, there's there lot it's proximity. Yeah, it's approximate to why people are >> people choose Ashlin to live and then they may be choosing Ash choosing Ashlin so that they can get get into Boston or Worcester easier. >> Y >> halfway between both >> and then sorry I don't want to cut. Did you >> I was just going to this is sort of a different point but you know it talks about expanding um home ownership opportunities because it builds stability and everything like that and yet >> in reality we're faced with you know the the fiscal reality of of that type of development isn't attractive to a lot of developers and then all of our 40b projects are not homeowners. ownership or don't don't expand home ownership. >> So again, you you know and you are it does decrease stability in the community when you have more transient populations, right?
So within so when we are looking at options, right? Right. I'm looking through this lens of what I got from the feedback on the survey. If we talk about the workload one, you guys generated a bunch of options. What we decided was we weren't going to bring any other working condition options at that time. Remember, we went around, I asked for consensus. We looked like we had tackled things on the survey. So, at that point, we're done. We came to consensus around that. But your job as representatives at the table are to generate options that address the issue that was identified. What I would be careful what you should not be doing is because you somebody said it. You walk out of here and if 20 people come up with 20 more options and you say we want to revisit that and do that then you're right.
>> Is there anything here in the in the and I can't remember because I read it a few days ago. Is there anything in this plan that mentions that >> expanding uh >> expanding home ownership? Yeah. Yeah. I can't because I remember talking with them about it, but can't remember what page. >> 23 number 15. >> Number 15. Okay. >> Oh, yeah. That's right. >> Yeah. >> I thought I saw that. I mean, it's there's there's a lot in here, it feels to me, that aren't >> necessarily something that works for us or >> Yeah. I mean, so >> some of it is very generic, right? >> It is because it it's it's >> not something that we're going we're not going to implement every single little thing that they put in here. >> No, it's It's suggestions and it's, you know, >> it's and and I like the way that they um talk about like like staying in safe harbor is like our number one, >> right?