Tri-Board & Select Board (January 21st, 2026)

001Good evening and welcome to the January 21st tri board meeting. I'll open the uh session up with the select board. I know we have uh the school committee and fincom committee they each have to uh open up their their meetings as well. So Mark turn >> school committee meeting to order as well. >> Thank you. >> And I'll call the finance committee. >> Yeah. Make sure those of the speaker have your mics on. >> I'll call the finance committee meeting to order. Thank you. >> And if it wasn't audible I called the school committee meeting to order as well. >> Thank you. >> Joe, I think we're going to have an extra mic here. you want to slide around. >> Okay. Uh before we begin tonight, just a just a couple of uh house house

002cleaning uh things that I'd like to if someone would like to speak here. That's that's in if you just raise your hand so that we can we had a little issue at our last meeting when somebody was talking. I didn't know who it was and I'm looking up at the board and there was you know and it turned out to be Makita who was two seats next to me you know so if you just raise your hand and acknowledge the the chair you know from each board that they want to speak just make sure your your chair is is acknowledging you and so that way we don't have that again this was a little embarrassing I mean I can take a broad shoulders but you know didn't look it didn't look too good and you

003know protocol is nice you just don't interrupt people while they're talking so that's that's the other thing too so So, if we can all do that, I greatly appreciate that. Um, well, tonight we're here to talk about uh the budget and um appreciate all the work that's being done and has been done so far to date. >> Sure. >> Um, just a quick question. The second documents that we got, the the green, we have some folks online that um probably did not receive that. Is there a way that we can make sure that they have that or is that for tonight. I'll just put it on the screen. Share the screen. >> Yeah, >> okay. >> I could scan it and email it to them. >> Okay. >> All right. >> No, that that's fine.

004That's fine. We just want to make sure that everybody has the information that uh that's needed for a healthy and complete discussion for all parties that are concerned. We have some members of uh several of the committees that are here that aren't here physically, but they are uh here virtually and um it would be nice for them to have that information as well so they can ask questions if if need be. So, um I know Mike's I take it that Michael is going to speak first. Uh Jim or >> he was okay. >> Yeah. So we we'll we'll take a >> So can I just while we're waiting for Michael um what is our process tonight? I know both Michael and Jim are going to be doing presentations. I expect then that we'll be able

005to have discussions conversation. Are we expecting to then ask for input from the public tonight and see thoughts and what they're thinking or if they have questions about the information that's presented that they can ask questions about the information we discuss? >> We could do that. We could do that but I just don't want it to break down into a you know because we have another meeting right after this. So >> right we we have a a regular select board meeting starting at 8. So I would say then if there's people from the public that has questions, we ask them to keep it to questions specific to information that's presented tonight. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And if not and if they don't feel comfortable doing that, they can email us. >> Yeah. >> Any of

006any of the members that are here tonight, either the FINCOM or school committee and or us. Okay. cut you down. >> And again, I know this is like our third meeting like this, but I would expect there might still be people in the public who are watching who don't know who everyone is sitting around the table since we have time anyway. Would it make sense? >> I mean, I think school board and select board are a little bit more visible. Finance committee, do we want to just go around the table and let people while we have time? >> We can do that. Michael is Michael's here. No, he's not. Okay. So, why don't we go around the table? Start from uh far right and go [clears throat] right around to to the left. >> Yep.

007Just grab if you can grab your the mic and slide it down, identify your name and the board you're on. It's fine. Hey, uh my name is Rohitura. I'm on finance committee. This is my second year with finance committee. I've been in Ashlin for about five years now. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um >> good evening. Uh Jack Walsh, finance committee. Ed Hart, finance committee. >> Oh, okay. Uh Jonathan Moore, finance committee. >> Shantal Kokarum, finance committee. >> Joe Manyani, select board. >> Brandy Kensman, select board. Claudia Bett, select board. Yolanda Gre select board. >> Paul Kendall, school committee. >> Mark Terry, school committee. >> Tina Fatanity, school committee. >> If I can, >> there's some members online. We have others out that are out there virtually. So, >> if there are any select board

008um FINCOM school committee members online, if you could unmute and introduce yourselves, please >> unless you're driving and you can't. So, >> yeah. Yeah, we don't want that to happen. >> No one's No one's unmuting. So, just people know Makita Keegan from the select board is sitting up there. Marcy from the school committee is there, I think. And Lori is there from school committee and Ken Early from finance committee is also online listening to the conversation. >> Okay. >> Where did you take a picture of it? >> Okay. So, we're here to discuss something that uh is on near and dear to us and we make sure we we do it and [snorts] do it right. And I know to to answer part of your question uh Yolanda with respect to you know having people

009you know ask questions and stuff I know that we plan on getting out there and putting that information out and meeting with people and having uh discussions and forums other than these types of meetings as well. So um I think that'll be part of the discussion tonight as to how we want it and where we want to do it. No, >> just a procedural thing. Um, Marcy texted me indicating that the host was not letting people unmute. That's why they weren't able to respond. So, >> probably not a big deal for introductions, but maybe we get that squared away before we get into >> They're trying to get Susan. So, >> managing. Okay. >> Yeah, they're trying to they're trying. >> Thank you. >> We're working on it. So, we we will turn it over

010to our first uh guest speaker this evening, Mr. Herbert, our town manager. >> And I know we have a little bit of techn uh technical difficulties with respect to uh unmuting uh folks that are virtual. So, [snorts] we can we can we don't have to wait, but they're working on it now. So, >> yeah, we'll be good here. >> [snorts] >> Oh, thank you. Easier said than done, folks. Right. My understand is it may now the unmuting may be working now. just coming in from cyerspace somewhere telling me that. [laughter] >> Sorry, it's just not reading the reading the drive right now. Jim, this happened to you last time, didn't it? Look at that. Thanks for being patient. Sorry. Right. One last. Okay. Sure. All right. Do we have Ah, yes. As Doug would say,

011victory. All right, folks. Um well, again, want to thank you for uh coming together tonight to um continue to talk about uh the override and the FY27 budget for Ashland and the Ashland public schools. Um, I think tonight will be uh less I think uh the superintendent and I speaking and really more I think uh the board's uh discussing after hearing from from us tonight. uh just basically how you want to refine this option that you chose to move forward with, which is what we were calling option three, which is an override amount between 2.7 and or two, excuse me, 2.75 and $2.99 million. That's what you asked us to come back here with a number between that. Um and then with regards to $750,000, moving that from um inside uh the levy to outside

012of the levy to free up internal capacity of $750,000 to distribute amongst municipal departments. I think we really need to have a discussion tonight and really you need to have a discussion and make a decision about how you want to treat that explicitly um and how you want to um address maybe any issues of fairness or transparency that you feel or perceive may come up. Um, so those are really, I think, the main things that we want to talk about tonight is refining option three and getting a final figure between 2.75 and 2.99 million and then um how you want to treat the $750,000 um in terms of of moving forward and quote unquote appropriations and permission. Um, and then finally, while I'm not going to ask you u to explicitly put a vote on

013the ballot tonight, um, as the select board would be required to do if you wanted to move forward with an override, um, I I have drafted language, um, and basically going to ask you to support that language. Again, not putting it on the ballot at this point in time, but uh, support that language. And I I really feel like that is the kickoff I think for our process moving forward both internally and um if uh residents choose to form uh something of like a ballot campaign committee um I think that would be a strong signal that hey we are moving forward in this direction uh and this is what we plan to do. So does that sound good? [clears throat] >> Okay. Um, and just real quickly, uh, I'm not going to really get into

014a lot of numbers tonight. We've reviewed a bunch of numbers or the last couple of times we've been here, but just, uh, succinctly, the challenges that we're facing is that rising fixed costs, specifically health insurance, um, is is going up, um, along with other fixed costs faster than our revenues could keep up. Um, and there's a multitude of reasons for that. Uh, we've talked about things like new growth, which is kind of a wild card moving forward. It's really hard to predict where we're going to land on that. Again, um, but again, that's essentially the problem. This is not it doesn't mean it's it's a simple problem. It's math. Like, you've got more money uh going out than you have coming in. There's really only two ways to address it. you either cut what's going

015out or you bring in more revenue. Doesn't mean it's easy, right? So, um, so essentially that's what we're faced with. Um, and I've gone through and I'm not going to, you know, go over again tonight all of the ways that we have saved taxpayers money over the years. Things like the health insurance savings, energy efficiencies, uh, reducing positions uh, when appropriate, etc., etc., etc. So, with that in mind, I just want to be clear about what tonight is. It's really more of a structural policy discussion, a framework discussion, and really a values conversation as you refine option three. Um, what it is not though, it's not a final budget with departmental line items and details. Uh, I know Jim has done a lot of work on that. We're still refining some of that, although I

016do have some directions that I can talk about coming in. Um, it's not a complete financial plan tonight. Um, and it's also not what we call final tax rate math. Uh, that's done in December. That's when the budget actually is finalized even though you vote on it or town meeting votes on it in May. Um so again we can go to our spreadsheet um and I won't go through these line by line and you will thank me for that. Um Michael, while you're pulling it up, and I know you're going to explain this, but as I look at this, I see the headings at the top, >> 2027 level funded budget, and then there's three headings that are all the same, but the numbers >> I think under >> it's cut off on the print.

017>> Oh, okay. So, it's a good thing you're you're you're showing it to us because >> your print out cut it off. Cut off. All it says is level budget across all three of them on the printout. >> The first line cut off. >> Never mind. >> Okay. >> Well, thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. Um so just really quickly right now um with a level funded budget uh would be that like the levy limit that we would be projecting would be 62.8 million. Um, again, what we're talking about is, uh, a tax package, and that's what I'm classifying this as, of a $3.5 million, um, because that's going to be the number that impacts the tax rate. Um, but of $2.75 million right now, that's what I'm carrying um, in uh, an

018override specifically for the Ashland public schools. And then you'll see the excluded debt amount increases by $750,000. Again, that's moving that 750 from inside the levy to being paid outside the levy. And so ultimately, when you add on the new growth figures and you add on the 2.5% increase, you come up with a um 66.3 million tax base for FY27. Um and then again, an override uh that we're talking about. So even though it only the vote only happens and it is the additional amount on that year, it then becomes part of the base moving forward. And so that 2 and a half% that it compounds each year grows on a larger base than it would otherwise if an override um was not part of that. The $750,000 is not treated as an operational override.

019It's treated as a debt exclusion. And so that goes basically in accordance with the bond payment which is uh basically flat but then it does not increase 2 and a.5% each year. Furthermore after I think 23 years Cindy somewhere 23 or 24 it will fall off completely um and so that tax impact goes away you know dedicated to that project. So that's how we get the al uh the resulting tax um tax levy. And again, >> Michael, just before you go off, uh can you just explain the excluded debt and why it continues to increase? Is that relative to our estimated bond payments that we need at those times? Just >> correct. For for simple math, it would you would seem like we should increase it by 750 and it should be relatively static, but

020but it's not. increases by 300,000 and then you know 6,000 or whatever it was. >> Yeah, it all depends on like how the structure of the of the bond was created. Um sometimes you know because we try to make it as as simplified as as accessible as possible. We talk about it almost as like um either like a straight line mortgage type of amortization or even a declining uh amortization. In reality, if you do like a 30-year bond, it's actually a series of 30 different bonds, um 30 different CQIPS, um and each one has its own rate. And so it's blended. That's how you know we end up getting um you know, an interest rate and then you subtract other things that we get in terms of revenue like a premium. That's how you get

021your true interest cost. It's probably more detail than you wanted to know about bonds, but hey, we learned something tonight, right? Um, and again, each year, each subsequent year, and I'm looking at a three-year period, 28 and 29, um, that that tax levy amount only grows by 2 and a half% plus the amount of new growth. So, we're not planning on an additional override amount um in 28 or 29 at this point. Um total state aid, we have uh very modest growth um projections put in place um which is consistent with the analysis that Steph has done. Uh so we feel pretty confident about these figures. uh with the new revenue uh consensus estimate that came out of the state. This is about in line um with what they're um with what they're talking about.

022We should find out more at the MMA conference actually on Friday. Uh we'll find out more about the state's budget picture. Um local receipts which uh again are really the the category that fluctuates the most with the economy um are made up of of a number of different categories like building permits, motor vehicle excise tax. Sometimes not very much connected at all uh in terms of subject area. Um but uh again based on Steph's analysis uh through each of the different items uh we've got you know relatively uh modest projected growth going through there. Um you will see that I used in uh FY27 $196,000 of stabilization fund money just to bring this number to zero uh or when we get down to the balance to zero. Um, and I'll explain a little bit more

023about the deficits and the plan moving forward when I get to the bottom line. So, that's revenue. Any questions? I'll pause right there. Any questions regarding the revenue? >> One question um, regarding revenue? I see chapter 70, but isn't circuit breaker separate from chapter 70 as revenue? Okay. >> Okay. So, I'll move on to expenses. Um, and just general appropriated expenses. Um, again with the increase of $750,000 or moving that to excluded debt, that frees up $750,000 of capacity inside the levy, which is distributed amongst the general government line items, various ones. That's something that we're still working on. Um, the Ashlin public schools would increase by $2.75 million. Again, under this model, >> [snorts] >> um, Keith Tech is kept level funded. There's probably going to be some movement there. Um, not necessarily sure

024which way though at this point. Um, I'm actually meeting with Superintendent Evans. >> Yeah. Next week. So, we're looking at potentially an increase there. >> Um, >> excuse me, Michael and Jim. What >> what would you estimate the increase be roughly? I know you're being conservative, but just to give us an idea. >> So, I'm not 100% sure, Joe, exactly what it's going to be. John Evans, I was with him today meeting, and he just said there's going to be an increase. He didn't give specifics. >> Okay. And is that based on the number of students that come from our town to Okay. >> Um, thank you. >> Yep. Non-excluded debt service, you know, follows the schedule as does the excluded debt service. benefits and insurance. That's the killer. Um and again, we're we're projecting

025that to continue. Um and then um obviously the other expenses stay the same. So total appropriated expenses and those are the ones that town meeting votes on are 87 million. U not too much in the way of changes in the nonappropriated expenses. So ultimately um we have a um a total budget of 88 million uh for FY27 moving forward in FY28. Again just projecting expenditures going up uh based on Steph's analysis and the 2.5% on the municipal end and the 3.75% on the school end. uh we would be looking at a deficit based on this model of uh 750,000 and then in the subsequent year FY29 uh that grows to uh 1.3 million. So I think what we're going to have to do is as much as we're going to want to see that zeroed

026out, I think we're just going to have to take a bit of a wait and see approach as we see what happens on the development end. And then as long as our stabilization funds are healthy and we continue to follow our policies, I think there's probably going to be a balance between that and then, you know, maybe obviously we're continually looking at ways to be efficient, be more efficient, get more with less, find grant funds, etc. And we'll continue to do that. Um, but uh but that is why I have not taken money out of the stabilization fund to, you know, zero it out. I think there's just right now a little bit unknown. >> Okay, >> so um thank you Michael. I wanted to just on the the point of deficit I understand to

027some degree you're you're projecting far in the future and there just a lot of variables there. Um but I am certainly if we're going to have a conversation about an override, I don't want to be having another one a couple years from now, right? And um I I guess I just want to have a sense in terms of these potential deficits that you're I'll call it projecting and estimating whatever the right word is at this point. Um are those is there a trend that you see developing that isn't going to be something that can be solved by management right where that if if I looked at this and just saw two years I say oh we're down we got a $750,000 deficit in 283 you know what is it that trend keep looking like are

028we looking at some sort of thing that's just cyclical and and you know kind of will to some degree resolve itself as the projects come online or what have you just want some level of um or some sense if you can as to sort of what what that might be as a long-term concern. >> Yeah, I think Mark on the revenue end in terms of development. Um so we have you know three largecale projects going through the 40B pipeline um which includes going through the ZBA. Some of those projects have received permits through the ZBA. Now they must go through the conservation commission. In addition to that, we've already got approved uh project under construction um at Homer a which is certainly not the size of some of these others but would provide a little

029bit of of revenue. Um but then the 340B projects could provide substantial revenue. Obviously there's some offset, you know, some costs associated with that both in monetarily and and you know potentially in terms of quality quality of life. Um but and then you know there's a couple of other bigger developments Arbella you know um over at Munko. Um so it's just really so hard to see as they go through the process. Even if they get their permits marked I can't guarantee that they're going to build. I mean Arbella had has had their permits for gosh five years now. >> Um they still haven't built. >> So it's just so hard to tell on that end. Um, we know roughly what we've got in the stabilization fund now. We kind of know our cadence in terms

030of what we take out now and what we can put in. I think we've got the tools, the exact blend, exact recipe. I think we'll have to wait. So, I wish I could give you more definitive answer. that that level of of detail, just even understanding the the variables that you're looking at, the projects you're looking at, helps me understand that this is this isn't necessarily a trend, and that there are things that may potentially offset that as well that are realistic as opposed to wishful thinking, you know, and that's that's really what I was hoping to understand. Yeah. Thank you. I think um and I think on the expense side, you know, the only the only huge reform I see is um is looking at health insurance. And I'm not talking about changing plans.

031I'm talking about actually shifting the cost from, you know, where it is now on more onto the employees, which has a different kind of cost. Um, you know, obviously that's a financial impact on employees. It impacts their decisions on where they want to work. Um, etc. There you go. >> The new growth that you're talking about, is any of that included in here or only here is kind of estimates and you're not banking on any of the ones you just mentioned? >> Yeah, it's it's an estimate. It's a blend after talking with Don and after talking with Doug. Um, and it it is it is a little conservative, but not it's not like 50% of what we're really thinking. >> Okay. >> You know, there's no $3 million numbers hanging in there. >> Michael, did

032building permits expire? >> Um, it's a good question. Building permits, believe they do. I know like planning permits, you know, those typically have a two or three year window. building permits though. >> So, I think you said Arbella, right? Has is it Arbella that's already had for five years their building permit? >> Um, they haven't had a building permit. They've had a comprehensive permit. >> Oh, okay. >> And they can file for an extension, which I believe they have while they're still >> Yeah, that's right. >> Well, it's it's what they call toll, meaning is held while it's during it's going through its court appeal right now. So, that time is that clock hasn't started ticking yet. Okay. Um, I'll move on. This was Yeah, I'm sorry. >> So, in looking at the expenses, is

033there are you using a certain percentage for every single expense line to forecast what we're seeing here for the loss for year two and three? >> Correct. >> And what is that percentage of expense increase that you're thinking? >> It varies depending on the line item. So, like with health insurance, I know we have 8%. It's around 8%. >> Okay. >> Um >> I see it now. Okay. Oh, again, not on >> but you can't see it on your sheet. >> Not on our printed. >> Okay. Um >> Oh, okay. Now I see it. Okay. >> It's in white. >> Yep. >> And then the debt service is just based on the schedule. >> Y Okay. >> Okay. Um, all righty then. Jim's chomping at the bit. >> Hold on. Just stay with me here.

034Um, so we talked about that. We talked about the high hybrid approach. We've talked about the reason for why. Um, let me actually Jim, why don't you jump up if you want to? And um, >> before Jim does, are there any other questions for Mike? Uh, at this point, >> I I'll come back up, but >> All right. >> Yeah, >> Jim can talk about the impacts of this. >> Sure. Thanks, Mike. Good evening everyone. >> Good evening sir. So, I don't want to spend a lot of time either um belaboring the point of of what's necessary and every single scenario that that has been drafted at least internally with uh the Ash public schools and our entire team. Uh we have a meeting February 4th with the school committee um for a budget workshop.

035Uh and at that point, more specifics will be um relayed to them. Uh, I think it's only appropriate here to give you the the 30,000 foot view of of where we are and what really our charge is and what our charge was from this group. Um, and my charge to the the um, principles, directors Chris Matthew and Mike Kyra, John Murray, etc., our entire team. I I think it's critically important that the the stance I've been taking with this is that if we're going to ask for an override that I'm committed to working towards a number that helps fix the structural deficit, right? I don't think it's appropriate to be asking our community for x amount of dollars without really taking into consideration what it is we need to do to fix the problem. There

036is an inherent problem right with funding for education for towns etc. and Prop 2 and a half is part of the problem. The chapter 70 formula circuit breaker uh those are parts of the problem and we are not in a position to necessarily fix those right from from a local standpoint other than an override. And what I'm trying to do is present scenarios to this group, but to the school committee that one has the least amount of impact on children. Uh that still provides uh the Astron community with the best possible educational opportunities uh that exist. Uh two, do this in such a fiscally responsible manner that I'm not back here in two years asking for more money for another override. three that we are looking at specifically every single year, which we do now

037anyway. Uh we look at line item by line item every year and try to tie that back to our strategic plan and looking at enrollment numbers consistently. What does it look like at the K through two level for instance at the Warren School? Are we do we have enough staff or are we overstaffed at times? So yeartoyear that can vary. So if we've got say 175 students coming into the kindergarten class uh and 100 and 220 at the first grade class, we may have different different amounts of teachers at each level. And what does that look like to prepare uh our students to move to the next level? So what we've done is we've prepared what six budgets [snorts] I think six budgets thus far. Um and are continuing to refine those six budgets. Um,

038and there's there's a term which you're going to hear me speak a little bit about and it's that it's called strategic financial realignment. It's really taking that level service number that we've talked about uh that that it's a 7% increase to take what we're doing this year and I and just copy it into next year. That's about a 7% increase on a yearly basis. That being said, there are pieces of that that are not part of the budget, our continued reliance upon revolving accounts, one-time funds that are operational in nature that should be a part of our operating budget that it's not. So, so we we started our approach by saying, okay, let's take that level service number and then really analyze every single position, every building, every department and come to some resolution as

039to if we had to make decisions, what positions themselves could we reduce, what other structural pieces could we reduce in order to come to a number uh that is not going to dramatically impact um the Ashlin public schools. And so I'm going to share with you just a couple. You have this information um in front of you, but the first one I'm I'm relating to is because I think what folks are going to ask first and foremost is how many you know how many staff members are going to be lost? What how many are you reducing in all of these scenarios? And it does vary, right? So just a strategic financial realignment is a 4% increase. Right? So if if I was to come uh to Michael and say we need 4% next year, that

0404% is, you know, a still a reduction of $1.3 million. That's what would exist here. And the challenge is what you're not seeing again is our our reliance on one-time funds. The the necessary evil that we're in to use school choice to supplement our budget and pay for salaries. There's not one financial, you know, good financial person would say to you, it's really appropriate to use one-time funds for recurring expenses. doesn't make good financial sense because you can't rely on those funds in future years. So what I'm trying to do again is fix the issue. And so we look at this, it's 14 positions, varies across all departments. Um like I said, I will not be getting into specifics here uh other than we've identified positions in schools. So what would happen for instance with

041an override that 1.3 million of reduction? We're still going to reduce $337,000. like we're still looking at it from a a standpoint of okay, what can we remove on a yearly [snorts] basis or on this year's ex the FY27 budget that we currently have in the budget from a level service standpoint that we could actually remove in perpetuity moving forward, right? I think that's a really good exercise to take is to say, okay, we've got these positions that are on the books. uh we haven't filled them andor um for instance maybe a paraprofessional in in in a school that that we had a need for a child who moved in and who is no longer in our system we can remove that position something of that nature. So going from 14 positions down to three

042with the override. Okay. But part of this is so it shows reinstatement of about 988,000. Part of the issue is what if we don't get an override? What happens then? Right? What structural issues are going to exist and how are we going to navigate this? And and I think that's where the six budgets that we're preparing are taking those things into account. And and again, I have not shared this with school committee yet on a on a on a deep um level. Um but so the 3.75 number is what we typically have worked off from from an assumption of of policy. That's the increase in our our budget year-over-year. That's our starting point typically, right? That would still result in >> question though or comment. So, you don't really need that full 3.75% because you

043just told us you have about $300,000 that you know you can pull out. >> We're going to get to that. >> Let's >> Okay. Yeah, you're you're jumping ahead, which I appreciate, but um what I'm telling you is there are other pieces, Yolanda, that that 300,000 we're spending 680,000 in school choice funds for salaries that are not reflected in that 3.75 or in that um strategic financial realignment. Those monies are going away. And I'll get to that in a second. Okay, it's a really good point. I'm just saying I could reduce my budget by 337,000 right now. Sure. But you're not fixing the problem. And the problem is we've got a million $1.1 million in school choice funds that are going to have to be used to balance the budget. And those funds are gone

044now. And in a year without an overwrite, we we're going to come back and say, "By the way, we're going to cut another 30 people because we don't have that 1.1 million anymore." But good question. I'll get back to it. So, a 3.75% is a 17.6 reduction in personnel or 1.678 million. That's how much we And this is from a level service budget, mind you, right? to get down to that 3.75. Once again, what you don't see here is $1.1 million of school choice funding to supplement and to pay for salaries and supplies and other operating expenses which should be a part of the operating budget. We continue, as you know, obviously when you reduce the percentages, a 2.5% increase over last year's budget was is a $2.2 million 24.9 staff. And then the initial

045ask from Michael at the beginning of the the the budgeting season was hey start with a level funed budget. Okay. So a level funded budget gets us to 30 almost 31 personnel of reduction. And again, this would require an additional I want to be clear, an additional 450,000 of of revolving usage to get to a level funded budget. Because you'll notice that number, the 2.770 isn't from a level service down to the level funded. It's off by about $450,000. I'm saying we can't cut any deeper than what we've cut here at 31 people. We have to figure out a way to to fund the additional people through revolving. So what that looks like is, hey, by the way, here's the here's where Armageddon starts setting in in a year or two. that school choice number

046beginning balance anticipated now these are anticipated numbers 1.7 million 1.78 million to start FY27 anticipated revenues of about 250,000 which has been pretty consistent and then our re our expenditures next year at a level funded I just want to be clear this is at a level funded we would need to spend and 1.6 million of the revolving account, thus leaving us with an anticipated 437,000 in school choice going into FY28. We are currently spending op for operations Chris correct me if I'm wrong about $1.1 million yearly out of school choice. Okay. So, what that means is we would need to to reduce staffing in FY28 as well because we wouldn't be able to afford a million dollars worth of salaries in addition to the 400,000 in supplies that we use. It just doesn't work. Now,

047we can say, hey, you know what about building rental? Yeah, we can reduce some of these other revolving accounts as well like building rental and school bus revolving. Now, school bus revolving can only be used for transportation to offset transportation costs. The building rental can be used for buildings. Now, what I'm telling you is this. We're using building rental. We don't have other [snorts] than the the work we uh and the collaboration we have with the town side, the general government side for capital, we don't have capital lines. We don't have we have very few maintenance lines for deferred maintenance general maintenance when something happens. So when we have a tremendous leak today at the high school in the storage room of the drama area and it's flooding with water in the roof that is

048being paid for out of things like school choice rent revolving building rental. Yes, that did happen today or last week when what was the number? 75,000 for a heating element, >> right? >> New w the wing at the high school. That's not coming out of capital. That's coming out of my either the operating budget that was approved or we're utilizing the revolving accounts again, depleting them and potentially then impacting staffing, right? because those funds go away. So again, my charge I think if I'm going to stand before a community and say we need an override is to fix part of the problem. That's what I'm trying to to do here. So hence this how will I anticipate an override of this being used 2.75 again I my goal and our goal as a team so

049you know simply put is to maximize the use of an override to ensure financial stability lessen the impact of of a system that builds in structural deficits as you know Michael just showed shared with you for the next three years there's structural deficits built in it just that's the nature of it allow for less reliance on onetime funds, ensure the highest quality of education, meet the needs of this community. In the override of that 2.75, it reinstates about 889,000 of those initial cuts. Then it incorporates a few things. $1.1 million that we're spending in revolving school choice right now that are 100% operational and are continuous expenses grant funds. There could be some wiggle room here. I don't know what the grant funds are going to look like from the federal government. I'm trying to

050again be thoughtful and conservative in my approach. building and operations, we spent about 134,000. So adding those in, so what does that allow us to do? It allows us to start planning and having an opportunity to take one-time funds if they rebuild, if you will, if you start to replenish some of those. It allows us the opportunity to remove operating expenses. it's not going to be complete but to utilize them for what are appropriate onetime expenditures and I can give an a few examples and this is just these are just a small you know um set of examples that that we have to have the ability to have flexibility to be able to utilize these funds that are not meant for continuous operational expenses for instance uh in two years, you know, we're in the

051process of looking at a literacy program for the National Public Schools that are aligned with and approved by the Department of Education. While you may think it's, oh, it's simple to enact, it's it's 750,000 minimum for the for the cost, for the professional development, for for all the ancillary material, whatever. That's the way that's for one program. That's that's just ELA K5. How do we pay for that? Would you prefer we utilize those onetime funds? I would. I think that's the right approach. vehicle maintenance, air quality assessments, a best asbestous abatements, all these list of things that we have to do on a yearly basis that are not built into and we do not have a capital line. We have a very little deferred maintenance line, probably 100 100,000. By the way, in 2007, we

052cut all supply lines in the schools. And by supply lines, I mean textbooks, I mean paper, I mean pencils, go to the elementary schools, tissues. Those were all cut out of the budget. Guess where they landed? School choice. That's how we've afforded them. So Chromebooks, computers, technology equipment, those are recurring, you know, expenses, not every single year, but replacement that should be part of the flexibility that we have in my opinion and how I'm trying to structure an and make take an approach that's thoughtful of the community, but thoughtful of our entire operating budget. Again, even 2.75, one could argue, you know, we're still going to have to dip into those onetime funds. It It's probably not enough, but I think it's appropriate. And then I know Mark has asked me this question, and you

053should. What does it look like for the next five years? What's the percentage increase of your budget that would be needed? And it's about 5%. That's a, you know, Michael's estimating 3.75, but there are certain things that are again out of our control. Special education costs, costs of utilities. While we have tremendous offsets with a number of of credits um for from the solar, it's still not keeping up with the pace of of electrical costs, technology costs, etc. uh human capital. You know, we are at the end of our five negotiated contracts. So, next year we will begin a new for another round, right, Mark? Have fun. Um, right? Because those three years go by quickly, >> right? So, we're in year two of a three-year negotiated contract with five different bargaining units. I think

054Michael's right around the same And those are factors that have to be considered as well. So that's really where we are. I I think I just, you know, I just want to leave you with this piece here. No override. We're definitely looking at $1.6 million of use of of school choice and then depleting it significantly. and and all it does is push down the road for another year, right? And that's a level funded budget. The numbers clearly would go down a little bit if it was a 3.75 or a 2.5. This is the worst case scenario, a level funded where you have to pick up an additional 450. It varies. Yeah, Shantel, sorry. >> That actually gets to a question I have. So if we wanted to distill this, if we're talking to people, you

055know, what is the impact if there's no override to schools, >> which of these strategic financial alignments without override is the most likely? Is it the first one that's 4%. >> I think that's the conf conversation we have to have. Right. I don't I I don't have a direction. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so typically what we do uh with the school committee is we will come up with a budget that we propose and that they pass and that we push along to the finance committee and to the the the select board. I haven't had that conversation in fairness with the school committee. I just decided to take an approach that says, okay, here's level service. >> Y >> here's really okay. I call it strategic financial realignment, but there are some pieces in there that

056that with an override I would absolutely want back in. >> But if you said, "Okay, hey, well, you can work with this number that's a 4%." Then then those positions that I would want to pull back in don't exist, right? They go away. All of them go away. >> So ultimately, I think we'll all want it, but it'd be great if we could say at some point like a little elevator pitch. Yeah. if we move towards this like okay if we don't have an override yep >> minimum year one right >> 14 positions lost but because of the dipping into >> one-time funding year two it's >> so and I think it's an it's an appropriate conversation and one >> need to distill it >> right it has to get to a point where and

057I said this to Mark and Lauri yesterday at a meeting we were having I just need to be told >> to a certain extent what it is you want from me >> and where you land and then it's our job to figure that out and then the talking points can come from there. Right? Because I I and again I I'm I shudder to stand here in front of you tonight and give you specifics when I haven't had specific conversations with my 400 employees, which I think is critically important to do um before anybody hears it. It has to come from me first. So >> Jim, I just have a clarifying question on the on the last um page. >> Yeah. um when under number one you say reinstate salaries is that more kind of maintaining

058salaries it's not new positions it's not kind of bringing back old ones it's reinstating from the potential cuts so I just wanted to clarify that >> yeah yeah it's the position so if you go back to that first page of here where the financial realignment right of the of the 3.0 central office staff the 2.0 facilities, one of those positions for central office would would m would stay if an override passed. Um, and then a facilities someone there, right? So, it's just pulling one of them back in. I I I'm just saying one could argue, okay, maybe the terminology isn't what you're looking for. Um, if the seven the 4% the financial realignment existed, we're still going to have to dip into that school choice money significantly. I just don't know what it looks like

059yet. >> I just wanted to clarify for anybody listening that we're not talking about bringing on new positions. >> Sure. Sure. No, no, no, no. This is just reinstating positions that were that were identified. >> Yeah. [clears throat] So just just to clarify as I'm looking at this document the first page you know strategic financial realignment without an override y >> so you're saying that if no override happens >> right if if we decide not to move forward I mean we're moving forward if it doesn't pass >> that or even if it does you are taking stuff from this first page and removing it from your budget >> whether the override passes or not. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then if the override passes, there's stuff from there that you would then pull back into

060your budget. >> Correct. >> So my question back to my earlier question is if these are things you've identified that you could pull out of your budget, but then you're going to pull some of them back in if the override passes. >> Yeah. Are these then things that when we start looking at deficits in in in year two and three that you would then look at again? >> It depends. I and I I'll clarify that um only because >> we're looking at it as of today, meaning >> teaching positions based on enrollment projected for next year. >> Right? >> If you ask me that question in a year, Yolanda, I may say nope because we had an influx of additional 100 kids. >> Okay. The other question I'm going to ask and I you know

061I remember one of the first presentations you gave >> about sports >> y >> and how sports has a deficit >> correct >> every year. >> Yep. >> And I I I look at that and I go then we have a lot of sports and I understand a lot of kids participate in those sports. Y >> do we ever consider reducing some of those sports to help reduce the deficit of what we're spending on sports to help the bottom line of the budget of the Ashlin public schools >> besides we before we start looking at cutting electives for kids in our high school and and in our other schools. >> Yeah. >> I think it's a value judgment based on what we're going to have to hear from a community. Right. So 70% of our

062kids do participate in athletics. It's pretty valuable apparently, right? And and we have the highest user fees across the Tri Valley. We are that's that's those are undisputed. Um the the challenge is yes, we could look at reducing opportunities for kids. It's not something I'm necessarily in favor of. Am I in favor of reducing opportunities academically? Absolutely not. But can you sit here and can I sit here and say it's appropriate to have five students in a in a class for an AP class just to run the AP class? And the answer is no. Right. I mean, we could all agree to that. Right. Right. So that's those are the things we're looking at. So when you're talking about reducing opportunity academically, it's why are we reducing those opportunities academically? Is it because we have

063very low enrollment in very specific classes? Therefore, we can reduce that. Uh we have more kids participating in athletics year after year. We also have opportunities for our kids, you know, who are um the better conversation would be at the middle school level to be honest with you, right? Because we have so many youth sports and opportunities for kids at the middle school grade level than we do at the high school level. Um, and I know, you know, Chief Rossy would sit here and say, "Listen, I don't want the kids on the street. If we can provide them an opportunity, let's get them an opportunity, right?" Um, we have reduced, we actually have, we don't have as many teams. Um, so for instance, JB girls basketball, Mike, we had to pull up eighth graders this

064year just to actually have a program. I mean, so we're getting less and less opportunities by attrition, right? More so than than but we've got a 100 kids that play football. We've got a hundred student athletes running track. Uh it's those are costly. So the ones that are costing, right? I mean, you think about it, it's lots of kids are playing in those sports. They're it's just expensive. We haven't really given much thought to in 16 years. Guess what? the cost of officials, the cost of transportation have all risen dramatically, but the number of kids playing has also done that. We just don't have the the wherewithal to pay for that because we never put that in the operational budget either as we should have. Similar with band, and of course, I met with the

065National Music Association this week. They're beyond the moon that we now have a band program at Mendes. Hundreds of students, 200 plus students participating. If you went to the concert, lots of excitement. That's a guess what? Running a music program is really expensive. We don't have that accounted for fully in the operational budget either when parents and are funding 40 $50,000 a year as donations to our schools. >> Yeah. And Jim, just to address the question, >> I think you alluded to it a little bit. We we do routinely have conversations around the programs that we do service and >> some of them we've said, okay, >> do we really have to have all of these because we have an extra bus because we're so we've had those conversations have conversations around some of the

066middle school programs and and whether we have the right amount of participation whether we can afford that. So that is something we do on a routine basis have those conversations. Um but I think to to Jim's point, the overwhelming majority of the programs are uh well used, right? They're they're they're they're desired and and they're fulfilling their uh their purpose, right? Um so but those conversations we do have them are extremely Yes. >> I'd just like to add um a little bit about sports and and uh you know, I haven't always felt this way, but I certainly feel stronger about it. I think uh the older I get in terms of um what a critical role sports play and and all extracurricular activities play in a child's education because not only is it does it

067do the two-dimensional thing of either they play or they don't play, but it adds so much value to who they are in terms of um giving them connection with other students. something that we really struggle with today with with electronics and um the ability to be out there with other people learning to play together, learning to collaborate, learning to win, learning to lose. Um there are so many skills associated with it that it's it is just remarkable. Um and it isn't just sports. sports is probably the hugest extracurricular activity or the largest extracurricular activity that services our students, but it it really is any extracurricular activity. Um and and the other piece that I think we forget is, you know, and you touched upon it, but the um the fees that parents pay and we

068talk about, you know, our property taxes and everything else, but parents are literally if you have two kids in the school system and you're paying a bus fee and you're paying for that child or children to pay um to play sports or another extracurricular activity, you're talking literally multiple thousands of dollars. a year to for the girls to play hockey at the high school. It's $450 fee for them to play. That doesn't include a bus. Their home ice rink is in Hopedale. They have to make arrangements. They have to figure out how they're going to get there. >> Tonight the girls are playing in Canton. Usually they have an away bus that takes them. No way bus. They all had to figure out how they were going to get there. Um, so you know, frequently

069they're driving with other students there. There's all kinds of things that they, you know, it it's a skill, right, as they navigate through it. But, um, that they are already paying um, a significant price. >> Yeah. I think it I mean, from my lens, um, and is that any opportunity in the in in a public school system, um, and that includes drama. We used to charge We used to charge activity fees for drama >> when I first got here, music. No, >> we don't anymore. We took those away. We just kept it for athletics. >> Um and and I don't believe we [snorts] used to have it for student government. I don't believe for a moment we should be charging any family for our students to participate in activities within the public school setting. That's

070just my personal belief. Mark I'm I'm a little concerned we're getting deep into the weeds [laughter] from um from the problem we haven't even really started to discuss as a room. So I want to try to come back to the question I think Shantel was posing which is >> if there's no override like I >> we've obviously had enough conversations to know >> one of the things that we have to look at as a a source of a short-term solution is increased use of onetime funds. Right. Yeah. But as the last chart shows, if you're looking at school choice, that balance is going to be gone in a couple years. So at best we can patch a hole for a year maybe. Um >> that's in a level funded one >> and I understand that,

071right? But if we're talking about level funding, level funded being what we're dealing with if there is no override, and I don't know if that's where we are or not, >> I I think we need to sort of put a number on what what happens in terms of the overall value of costs that we have to make if we're talking about level funded budget, right? Which is I think this chart, right? The one above the the um the revolving use fund chart, right? you come out with a a cut of 30.9 >> people >> and a 2.77 figure. >> So I guess just in terms of sort of trying to create a concise understanding for now, right? I mean this is just a conversation. Is that a number that we need to be saying, look,

072if we're level funded because there is no override. This is the dollar value that we need to come up with and that might because we obviously as a school committee haven't had the discussion about where we're cutting that might be something in the order of 31 people. >> But is that really what we're talking >> we would but we would not be level funded, right? We don't know that even if the override does not pass, we have 2 and a.5% increase in our levy, >> which is $1 million, right? That's 1 million that has to be spread across, >> right? So it >> but we also used $2.3 million in the last year of Right. So I Right. >> I don't know. And that's why I'm saying I don't have a number. I need I

073mean if you said listen if Michael says Jim go back what we could let's assume override fails here's a secondary budget I need you to prepare at X that's what I need right that's the information I need to say it's X then I can have a better understanding of how much we're using for revolving how much and how deeply are reductions so can I just follow >> Yep sorry just go ahead >> so if if we use that right to Y's point we're not talking about low fund. We're talking about 2.5 >> that becomes the $2.27 billion figure >> kind of potential cut of just under 25. >> Correct. >> Based on what you got, it's >> still going to happen. Correct. >> Okay. >> I mean, I think that's just >> feel like we

074got really deep into the weeds of possibilities and a lot of options, which is helpful to understand. But I think in terms of the conversation tonight and talking about an override, we probably I'll speak for myself. I don't want to speak for anybody else. It's helpful to me to really think, okay, if this is the way we're framing it, >> then we are probably talking about cutting 25 positions because we're talking about two and a half% increase and therefore we've got to account for reductions to 2.2 2.3 million. >> Is that am I kind of just >> plus dipping into the one-time funds >> plus an additional whatever it might be, >> right? Which I know is hard to add to the distillation, but >> Right. Which to summarize that we would have a painful

075first year that we could fill in using the one times funds that pain would only grow and we would not be able to >> augment much of that in year two. >> Correct. [clears throat] >> Right. So, uh, so just >> and that doesn't resolve the problem that Jim was trying to explain to us is that he would like to see at some point this whole process stopped to the point where you don't want an operational deficit every year, >> right? >> And so [snorts] you're just continuing that that pattern down the road and without any insight as to when it's going to stop or how it's going to stop. And those funds are going to be depleted year after year after year. and you're not going to have those funds available anymore and then

076you really have to creek without a paddle >> in both those scenarios in year two that's gone. >> Right. >> Yeah. Right. And I think absolutely >> year two they're gone in in both those scenarios we talked about. >> Yeah. And with more housing there's less school choice money coming in. Just be clear, right? The more students who live in Ashland, we will not open school choice seats because we don't have room at the end, if you will. So therefore, we're not having those funds. and the money we receive from the state is not equivalent to what we would need but per pupil. So >> Mr. Chairman um >> that's that >> chairman of the tri board. How's that? >> It feels like I mean unless there's something else Mike or Jim want to share.

077It feels like given the time constraints I didn't realize you guys have an 8:00 meeting. >> Um if we could start to maybe get into conversation around the table about >> what we're doing. >> That's fine >> with the problem. >> That's fine. I just wanted everybody to have an opportunity to hear what they had to say. Yeah, of course. >> You know, and appreciate the dialogue between, you know, Jim and Mike. So, um, we we talked about option three, >> um, as being a a more suitable approach to take with with this this override matter. And, and I don't know if there's been a change. I know we voted at at at our last meeting to use that as the the approach to take and and really, you know, drive that that impact, you

078know, to the public in different forms and whatever. And I thought we that's part of the things we were going to discuss tonight, part of the discussion tonight. So, Michael, um, with respect to that, I did you you said you had some additional information with respect to option three that you wanted to >> Well, I do, but you have you have two two things to work on tonight. >> Yep. >> So, you asked us you said you wanted to move forward with option three, but you wanted us to come back with a number between 2.75 and 2.99. >> Right >> now, I believe the superintendent I don't know if he has like a recommendation um you know for a number u but that's one thing that needs to be hopefully decided tonight. Uh the other

079thing is how you want to um address the $750,000 uh redist redistribution of of that uh that debt. >> Well that was part of the option three process. you know, one went hand in hand and it wasn't, you know, we just eliminate that from the discussion. That was part of option three and we agreed to that. So that's as far as I'm concerned anyway and I I'm speaking for myself and not for the board or boards. Um I would say that you know that that's a it's a must that has to be part of that discussion and we it has to be part of that that bottom figure. I I believe Michael's more talking about how we go about handling it like >> not not that we would talk about removing it or not, but

080>> moving forward bringing it to town meeting as a as a warrant article the the logistics of how we want to approach it. Yeah. So I'm happy to offer a suggestion on maybe how to move forward for the rest of the night is that if you want to discuss you know isolate the deciding that final number between 2.75 and 2.99 I would offer that you focus on that right now come up with that figure then we can move forward if we have time to discuss the other aspect this you know the treatment of the 750. Um, if we don't have time, we'll have to schedule another meeting. >> I agree with that. I do just think that at least >> what I've heard percolating is some frustration >> uh about the $750 and promises that

081were were not made. And so I and I know that's what you're alluding to. So definitely we'll have to talk about it again. I don't want anyone to think that we're just brushing it under the rug. >> Yeah, good point. Good point. >> So yeah. >> So just uh just a It looks like from from what Mr. Adams put together, we're looking at a $2.75 million override on the school side and that fixes well the strategic financial realignment. So that is the number that >> getting us closer to where we need to be. >> Yeah. So, so first of all, thank you for doing the work because I think it's really like you said, it's very important for us to take a take a look at it and see to make the best make the

082best decision and have the least financial impact to taxpayers while still fixing the problem. Um, and so, you know, I think one of the reasons that we were going back and forth with that number was whether or not that was going to be what was needed for the schools. And it sounds like that should be the number that we're targeting for an override unless anyone else has any >> I have a thought question just maybe refresh my memory. Um thank you Brandy. >> Um why aren't we going for like 3.5? I mean I'm just looking at the math here. Um, and I understand >> optics. >> The optics. >> Okay. However, I'm on the finance committee. >> It's my thing. >> It definitely brings up to me not to do if we left with the

0832.99 as the cap. >> Yeah. >> I don't know why we would not do that. >> It's because we already had the other conversation and it landed where we are. Yeah. Regardless of what we we think. >> Yeah. But not to do the 2.99 when we have the opportunity right now. We've all said we're comfortable with that as the cap. That seems like a real missed opportunity to me. Doesn't get close to 3.5. >> No. >> But that would feel really silly to me to do 2.75 when we could do we already know it's not going to leave us in year two with tons of extra money. So I think it would be a missed opportunity. I mean, if I if I may, I don't want to speak for Jim, but >> I think he's

084trying to strike the right balance, right? It's it's not just a math problem. Yeah. >> Um it's it's it's on balance, right? We don't we we could use 3.5 for sure, right? And it wouldn't be wasted. Uh however, we we really want to be cognizant of the asks we've asked the community uh over the last five years, we'll say, right? Um we've done a lot of great things in the community. Uh but all of our tax bills have gone up over the last few years significantly. So uh you know the the building projects are starting to fully hit all the different things that have got gone on. Right. So, um I'll let Jim speak for himself, but I think the attempt was to try to strike the right balance of something that um is a

085reasonable ask. Uh that starts to I won't use the word fix, but it starts to address the structural problems. Uh to fix it means that we wouldn't be talking that we still have the issues going forward. I think we will, but just to a lesser extent. But this allows and I I also want to thank that most people don't understand the time that the whole team has spent doing this. Uh several weekends all day in the office uh putting together the six budgets. Uh you know, really a lot of lot of work has gone into this as you can see from the detail. Um but and I'm in the same boat. I I want to strike that right balance. I want to be cognizant of the the asks we've already asked what communities has supported

086us. They've supported us uh tremendously on on some of our our previous asks for the building projects and things like that. I think striking the right balance. Um could we use the extra money? Of course we could. Um, but I think Jim looked at the and the team looked at this and said the 2.75 helps us address a good portion of the issues. Um, and and and that so I would support the the recommendation, but if the group wants to go for a higher one, I'm I'd be fine with that as well. Um, I just I don't like to arbit I don't like to do things arbitrary. More is better. Sure it is. but more, you know, we're asking a lot of the community. So, they've done the work and said that the that 2.75

087is a number that they're comfortable asking for. And so, um I'm good with whatever the group says, but I I would rely on the work that's done as opposed to just saying, "Hey, why don't we why don't we just ask for more?" >> I just want to Sorry. >> Oh, I didn't see that. >> Go ahead, Nashi. Um if you can unmute yourself. >> I did. I think I did. Um, so I would just, you know, I do appreciate all the work Jim and his team has done. I guess the one thing I'd remind everyone is Jim and his team, we've also used one-time funds for many years in the schools. And um, you know, we've done a good job of replenishing one-time funds, but but the bigger risk in addition to using one-time funds

088is we're dependent on external funding. And I've said this in a couple meetings. And so while I appreciate, you know, being cognizant of the community, I also want to be cognizant of what is potentially at risk. And if we only have, you know, one bite of the apple here for to set us up for success in the future years, I'm, you know, as a finance person aligned with what finance's suggestion here to go for, you know, what we think we could get. I I just as a community member, I'm not sure that a $200,000 difference makes that big of a dent in whether the vote is going to go one way or the other. Um that's not a material change in the dollars per person that we're asking for. So just raise that as a

089consideration. >> I just want to make a comment to kind of understand so the community can understand where I'm coming from here. um when I'm thinking about just what we're asking for and just like what Marcy said, if we only get one bite of the apple because I I think um I think we're going to be back having this conversation again sooner than everybody would care to really admit. Um and one of the reasons I believe that and it's kind of just history just being some indicator of the future. I've been on the finance committee for 10 years and I would come out of the meetings with Jim 10 years ago. We do budget review and I'd be sick to my stomach. I'd be like, "Oh my god, how is this going to work long

090term? How is this going to continue to keep up? But then I'd look at the 10-year Treasury rate and I look at the rate of inflation 10 years ago and it was 1.9%. Okay, the the the 10-year Treasury is 1.9. Inflation might have been three and it was outpacing a bit, but it wasn't astronomical. Now the 10-year Treasury is at I think today 4.3 and and on average inflation is 200 basis points above that. So So we're not going to keep up. Just we're not. And unless we have some sort of a protracted economic downturn, which is the big fear, and if that's the case, then I guess what I'm saying doesn't matter. But um I I just I I believe that that things have changed. We're in a different space now. And um and

091for those systems and institutions and forces to reverse and come back down to earth, down to earth code, so to speak, it's not going to happen. barring some catastrophe in which case again what we're talking about whatever it's fine doesn't matter. So um you know I'm I'm looking at this and saying and again I I guess it's somewhat of a challenge to the community. You don't know the the the miracles that have been worked on your behalf. I know hear you Paul with the things that you guys have done but but truly they they don't know what what we're facing. So, if there's an opportunity to get more buyin from the community, to get a bit more help here. Um, I mean, I I think I said at the last meeting, I was more along

092the lines of I think it was option one. Let's go for more stuff for everybody. >> Okay, we're not going to do that. And I understand the optics of that, but we'll probably be back here talking about it again in the not too distant future. That's just the compromise we're all making. I think prioritizing schools is is the right thing to do, okay? It's the biggest part of our budget. Um, but to the degree that we're only going to do 2.7, I mean, geez, it's not enough money. I I don't think it's anywhere close to enough money. But I understand the concerns. I'm just putting it out there and I'm happy to be challenged on the issue. >> Well, going back to the old school way, a half loaf is better than none. And if

093you put a higher a higher value out there for the people and if they vote it down, now what are you looking at? You're looking at major deficits, major cuts. you know, I I would rather and and believe me, I understand. I I don't want to see anybody, you know, losing their jobs or anything like that, but the town's people take that vote and they vote it down. >> It seems I agree, which is why I understand we're not talking about the 3.5. As a voter, it seems to me unlikely, like what Marcy said, that yes, they would have voted yes at 2.75, but no at 2.99. I think there are there are no or Maybe I'm underestimating that's just such a small dollar amount when it's extrapolated. >> But you know, if you add

094that particular point >> to all the other things that have come across in time with, you know, >> that that the tax rate that and >> the evaluation, the home evaluations and the prices have gone up, tax rate went down, but the evaluations went up on the homes. So you're paying a higher tax rate, high higher taxes on the property. So you you add all those together, that's that's one pie and there's not many pieces in that pie that everything go around. So we have to make do with what you have available. And again, I I go back to that old, you know, a half a loaf is better than none. And if we if these people and and you've we've seen how people vote in town when it comes to overrides and the old

095Yankee thinking and I understand that the demographics [snorts] have changed in town. One thing hasn't changed in town is that and I think I've said at the last the last meeting, you know, they can tell you folks whatever you want, but when it goes in when it goes to the ballot and they have to vote on it, they vote their wallet and they and they they're in that ballot box and they're there by themselves and they know what they can afford and they know what they can't afford. And we have to be we have to be very cognizant of that. And again, that's why that's why we put that that distance between 275 and 299. Yeah, granted, if it was 325, sure, that it gives you more service, but at the same token, it's not

096a heck of a lot more services. And and Jim, you made a point that, you know, you could you could work with those numbers, and it's not it's not ideal, but you can work with those numbers. Um and and again it's a it's not a warm and fuzzy feel. I don't think anybody around in around this table hates to see you know cutting out cutting off at a number that we know is not going to be suitable for everyone or everything. And um I would just and I'll open up to everybody else. I'm not trying to sty the conversations here but I just >> when we took that first vote, you know, >> so I I mean to Shantel's point, people are either going to say yes or no, whether it's 2.75 or 299 or

0973 million. And I don't know about what other people are hearing. And I know I listen I have different constituents in the town than some of you. Most of the people that I'm talking to are like there's no way either one I want to support this or two that I can afford it. So I I don't know that there's going to be much of a difference of a 2.75 or a 299 or a three. I do know one of the questions that many people are are concerned about is that 750,000 and how is that going to be handled if the override doesn't pass? Does that then get done separately and do we still move that to excluded debt? in my mind and from what I've heard from people is like those two things are handinand.

098If the override doesn't pass, you don't move the excluded debt because if the override is for the schools, the 750 is for the general government side. So, either you do both or you do nothing. So, I mean, I I keep going back and forth on the number. I um I don't know the right answer. Do people want to give us input? I don't know. >> Um, but >> that's where I'm at. >> The only thing I would say is that we are going to have to make a case for all of this. >> Yeah. >> And I can make a case for the 2.75. I don't know if I can make a case for 2.99 just because >> because >> except that you're talking about the 750 as well, right? >> Well, yeah, the 750

099is going to be on top of that, right? So we're talking about we're now we're talking about you know you know closer to 3.75 because you know the 750 you know the only reason in my mind that we're going option three was because it the the seven because you know possibly a school override has a better chance of success. And second because the you know it doesn't become part of the permanent levy and it will fall off. But that to me it's a technicality like and that is how we should approach it. We are asking taxpayers for $3.5 million. Period. However we slice and dice it that is what we're asking for. And that 750 is going to add to everyone's taxes. >> So when we talk about 2.99, now we're really talking about 3.75.

100So, I want to be able to substantiate every single thing that we're saying and we are in good faith saying that that all the numbers are solid and if we based on the best projections know that for the next three years the schools are going to be realigned in a way that is at least sustainable based on best best knowledge. That is what we're looking for. And if we have to come back here in three years and rehash all of this, then that's what we do because that's our jobs. But I I don't want to say, "Oh, it would be great if we got more money because we're going to have to make that case to everyone." And so I my my my thought is two things. one that we stay to this 2.75 and

101second that you know we are all in this together and this is not this this you know to Yolanda's point we this is this is not a this is not a well if the the override fails then we can still move the excluded debt like to me it is a package deal we all need skin in the game and so if you know whether that is, you know, we have a we have a warrant article that specifically talks about the 750 and how that's [snorts] how that's used. I also think we should have some language in there, you know, that says if the override doesn't pass, this doesn't go forward. Like it is like there's we have to be as transparent as possible with this. It can't look like a technicality. We can't sell a

102technicality. >> Excuse me. >> And it's not about selling. It's really about communicating. So just >> providing all the information that they can make a sound decision. >> You know, unfortunately, I think the $750,000 really complicates things. And you know, we spent a lot of time at the beginning of our last meeting talking about we were all together, all for one, the community as a whole. So, um, you know, we did decide to move it out. Um, I I spoke to Michael almost immediately afterwards about my concerns about all of a sudden it was schools and and general government and and it just doesn't ring right for me. Um, so I would have to say that since we're moving forward in this way, that 750 needs to be tied to the override passing. And however

103that gets worded, it gets worded. But it this is a community, you know, and and believe me, I, you know, certainly have a love for the schools, but we're all in this together. It isn't just the schools. It's the the entire community and what we all mean when we come together. >> I disagree. Go ahead, M. I I really want to echo, [clears throat] excuse me, [cough] echo the sentiments Randy and and um Claudia are articulating because that was a real concern that I did voice in our last discussion about it felt very much to me like this override was just being going to be a school issue and and for all the reasons that you've both said quite um articulately, I think that's really really important, right? And it's not about the people around

104the table, it's about the community. And I think we probably all have can recall when prior overrides have failed just the divisiveness that feels because everybody's either this camp or that camp. Never mind what it would be if we have one that's solely school focused, right? And then, and I know this isn't what what's being discussed right now, but if it were to shake out that there was no implication elsewhere because of the 750, um I think that would be really really concerning. And I I'm I'm concerned that the response of a parent community would be to do what has happened in other communities, which is pack a town meeting room and, you know, move a budget that's going to make a real mess for everybody. Um, I agree with you, Claudia, that the I

105think 750 makes it complicated. I don't know have the answer to that other than to say I think you're right. Um, but I think to Brandy's point, we really need to make sure that the communication about this whole thing is >> It's one package. It's maybe the vote looks a little bit different and I really concerned about how hard it's going to be to simplify this. Um, but I'm I'm concerned enough about those elements, the the impact on the community that I think I'd have a hard time supporting something if they're not tied together, >> right? And if there's not something that gets everybody to participate, right? So, I'll cut it short here in a second or cut it off at least. Um, you know, I said last time when we were talking about police

106and fire potentially being involved in uh option one, I think it was where everybody had a little bit there's a lost opportunity there from people who are committed to this community because they live here and they work here to also be a part of conveying the message, right? And if we don't if those folks um and folks who utilize the senior center and folks who use utilize the library aren't also looking at this as hey there's something that's valuable to me that um I think we really hurt our chances of passing this. I think some however we're going to get there I think it's got to be broad-based even if it kind of has two component parts that don't look that way. Sure. >> Well, while it's here, um, I agree with with everything you

107just said and with everything mentioned by both Brandy and Claudia. And, you know, the way that I look at this is that like Brandy said, we are asking for 3.5 million, assuming we settle on that 2.75 number. Um, the financial mechanism that we're using by using that 750. And I am not a guru on on town accounts and all of these things. So, please somebody if I'm if I'm misunderstanding this, please correct me. But the way in to use that 750 in essence um ultimately saves the tax is a financial mechanism to save the taxpayers money because the whole 3.5 doesn't go to our base tax rate. That's correct. >> Um so ultimat so so so the method of using this while yes it's broken into different pieces uh it in my mind is is

108a way to decrease the overall impact on taxpayers. Um, but it does need to all be tied together because we are in this all together and this isn't just about the schools. While we've broken it down in terms of of the financial mechanisms uh of where the money's coming from and and kind of where it's going to, if you will, if this passes, um, they're all tied together. Um, and so if this doesn't pass, we're we're all we're we're all suffering together. This isn't um, you know, just a scenario. And kind of one of the the things that um you know I want to is is a concern to me is to make sure that that that's that that everybody's on that on that page. Um and I'm happy to hear um you know from

109from many people that that seems like we are um in terms of the number you know between 2.75 and 2.99. Um there's there's not that much of a difference. So so I hear the argument that you know like let's just just go for the for the full boat. I don't know that that additional $250,000 is going to stop us from potentially being back here in a few years. So, I don't know that it's going to um to change the trajectory of when we may need to come back to the table. It's not a significant in my mind. Again, I'm not a finance person, but um you know, I think given the the work that that Jim and his team have put into it um with the you know, looking at the budget and looking at

110the 2.75 number um as something that will be s create a budget that will be sustainable um for the next few years. I'm comfortable with that number. Um, I don't know that uh, like I said, those additional funds are going to change the trajectory of our need to potentially revisit this in a few years. >> Go ahead, Mike. >> This this has been fascinating. Um, no, no, really. Um, I think first of all, I I just want to give you kind of an illustration of what I'm hearing from the community, and I talked to a lot of people. Um so I was at the community center today and you know there's about 10 people and I was uh you know answering questions and the override came up and um you know I was explaining the

111particulars and what the impact would be and [snorts] you know one person said oh you know I I I think I can handle that that doesn't seem you know too bad and then the conversation continued and then another person said I I'm going to have to move out of town and you know so we talked a little bit about that too and and um you know like what what are the alternatives for somebody um and and they're not that many. So for some of us it probably doesn't necessarily seem like a lot. Um and you know when we use terms like a lot, we have to make sure we're talking about what the comparative is. A lot compared to what? A lot compared to what it was 10 years ago? Absolutely. a lot compared to

112some of our cor surrounding communities. Not necessarily, but it all depends on your perspective. For some people, it's going to be unaffordable. For some people, it's going to be relatively affordable. Um, just regarding kind of So, that being said, I also want to echo what a lot of people have said because I've watched a little a little bit of Jim and his team working on this. Um, I think it's really really important that everybody knows that they they are taking this and we are taking this seriously as a chance to restructure things. This is not a smash and grab, get some money and go on our merry way. You know, things stay the same. We're talking about a fundamental restructuring that going is going to have costs to it. Essentially, what we're doing is we're

113taking a one-inch hole and we're trying to make it maybe a quarter of an inch right now. Let's be honest, that's what we're trying to do. And if that means in three years we're back here having this discussion, so be it. Hopefully, we'll try to keep that from happening. But, um, I I I would go with the the superintendent's recommendation just because there's a plan around that. There's detail around that. So that that's my thoughts on that. Regarding the 750, um department heads will tell you, you know, the intent when we left that Wednesday night was that, you know, basically the the 750 would happen through the appropriations. There wouldn't be a separate vote. There wouldn't be an explicit tie to it. [snorts] And you know afterwards like I felt good because I felt it

114was like a really good plan because it checked off a lot of boxes. You know it had a taxpayer component to it, savings component, you know it was balanced, etc. Um, but something was just, you know, gnawing at me. And then Claudia and I had a conversation the next night and Claudia brought up some points. And Sue Roby, I had a conversation with her just immediately after who also brought up some similar points. And it started to not feel great. And I know Jim and his team were in the office on Saturday because I call him that Saturday and say, "What did I say the first thing?" Like, I just don't Yeah, I'm sick. this just doesn't feel right. Um, and I went to the department head meeting. I'm like, you know, I'm really struggling

115with this because this seems like the smart thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing. So, I think what you've come to, it sounds like, is general agreement that there's a specific tie-in related to the ballot vote. I don't know how we can shape that, but um, we can figure that out. I did not I I would be remiss if I didn't say I don't like that option obviously, but I can see why it's the right decision. >> So, Michael, a question on that. You're saying from what I just heard you say that we could do the 750 and move it to excluded debt without a vote of the public. >> Is that what I just >> No. No. No. it would happen through. So, boy, I had it all in a slide

116presentation, but you you got there without >> without me having to do that. >> Okay. >> Um I was really looking at three different options. So, the first one is that redistribution of the 750 goes into departmental appropriations which have to have a vote. So, that's one way of saying it's being voted on democratically. Another way to do it that's a little bit more clear is having it would still be in the appropriations but also having an explicit town meeting vote that authorizes or or endorses that move. Right? And then the third option is tying it explicitly to the ballot vote and saying okay if it doesn't pass at the ballot we're not going to move that and redistribute that 750. >> Okay. So again going back initially your thought was there would be no

117separate vote to put the 750 into excluded debt >> right it would just be through the departmental appropriations. >> Okay which interestingly enough I nobody has brought that up when we've talked about the override like the technical details they they want to know how much how much is the tax. I think for a lot of people they don't think about the technicalities, right? They're concerned about the number and what the impact is going to be for them. >> Exactly. >> So that's, you know, that's, you know, so >> so Michael just quick question. So, when we were last talking and we chose option three, the the the cost differential between option one, which was like an all-in number, >> versus option three for the taxpayer was, do you know how do you remember how much

118approximately? >> I want to say it was about $5,000 cumulatively over like a 25 year period. >> Okay. All right. A savings of $5,000. Okay. So, if it was just if the 750 was just moved to excluded debt, >> no, just moved as an operational override item, it would >> it would be it would cost half $5,000. >> If it if it went in as part of the operational override, it would be an additional $5,000 over >> over 25 years. >> Okay. And if it was moved into an excluded debt, it would be >> $5,000 less. >> Well, you just wouldn't add the $5,000. So, >> okay. >> I'm just going to what I want to just like talk about is just how much that is and if it's worth literally separating it out or

119if it's much more cleaner, straightforward, easier if we just bake it back in. That's and I and I know we're going backwards and I'm not meaning to go backwards, but >> we're tying it together. Anyways, >> you found those numbers at the last meeting you had. Here's what the 2.75 is. It's like 500 I'm making this up. $500 for their average home. Yeah. And then another $100 for the 750. >> And then it also changes the language. >> Okay. >> Of the vote. >> Am I right? >> Not just the Ashlin public schools. >> The 750, >> right, >> on its own is about a $100 >> for the average for the first year for the average home >> cost if it's done >> As excluded debt. Yes. Right. And the and the so you

120think of like 500 and one of the distinguishing things as to why we went with option three is that 750 >> if we move it moved it to just excluded debt it would eventually drop off >> right that's the ide right >> but there is an increase of the monthly >> but there is an increase for the 20 for 23 years >> yes >> fixed so so That's the So year one they're identical, right? It's 750 onto the levy. >> The difference is every if you do it as an operational override every year that 750 compounds, right? >> Whereas when you do it as excluded debt, it's the debt schedule, right? Um, so that's that and then then it drops off, >> which is which is one of the reasons why at that first meeting

121we said let's go with option three to not have that long-term compounding of the amount. >> So >> could I make just one suggestion or in >> I was just going to say so I think >> it was only $5,000 difference. >> Well, I think we didn't have that >> 25 years. >> We didn't have that information when we made the vote. So I think we have to >> I I mentioned that I did >> the okay but like cumulative >> so think about this whole like globally not even really holistically. So what we're trying to do is we're trying to basically continue with the services that we have and in some cases expand in alliance with the comprehensive plan and the desires expressed there. Okay. at the least expense possible. And so to do

122that, you've got to approach it from different angles. Jim has already talked about all of the look all the restructuring they're looking at doing, finding efficiencies, um you know, rebalancing different things to to basically free up capacity in certain areas while it's drawing down in other areas. We will be looking at doing the same thing. Okay. the impact on the negative side is not going to be like as you're not going to see as much in the way of personnel impacts but it's going to definitely be an impact. Okay. So, so that's one leg. Okay. Another leg is looking at okay this is another way we're saving taxpayers money by going ahead and doing this part as excluded debt as opposed to adding it on to the base. So think of it as as almost

123like a a storyline like but globally the whole picture. Um eventually we will start talking about tax relief measures expanding that making sure people know about the tax deferral program. You know the 41c and a half program maybe expanding that a little bit if we can. You know it it it's all got to go into a package. So, I just wanted to make sure everybody's kind of thinking about it that way and not necessarily the silos. >> Um, so one one thing to sort of I think this kind of to Brandy's point I'm I'm what I'm thinking about is we're putting an override question on a ballot, right? What does that read like and how complicated is it? And I'm curious whether you've um worked with council or whoever drafts that for you to to

124talk about what's impacted because I think if we're talking about a narrative now and it's complicated even like for all of us and we've been talking about it for a while talking about that 750 and the 2.75 and it's really three and a half all that stuff. it if people show up at the ballot and the ballot question doesn't align with the narrative with the conversation about what we're doing and it's not simple um I'm just concerned about it and in some ways it would kind of go to Bry's point of it's just better off to say 3.5 rather than this other stuff >> and so my just knowing a little bit about ballot questions my sense is that the way it's going to be framed is in the form of a traditional um traditional

125override question which would say something like 2.75 for the Ashlin public schools. Right. >> Exactly. >> And so I think that's that's just something for all of us to think about. I don't know what the right answer is on it, but I am I am concerned that if we're talking about this being a package, right? And we know that it has to be a package and there are all sorts of elements to it. It does complicate things and right and it it's for the most of the community that is not going to be spending the time on this as we are. Um there is some wisdom I think in keeping it simple in terms of allow how we talk about it. Um so just my thought on that. >> Fair enough. But also to the

126point we already we've already talked about this. We've made a decision about that. You have made a decision on that. We've moved forward um and built models and and everything based on that. Um we can't go back at this point. >> But but it's the same amount of money. >> Yes. Exactly. >> So, but but just you know, yes, we kind of talked about that 750, but I don't think >> that was locked and loaded to the point where we knew because because we need to tie this together. >> Think of it from a communication standpoint, >> okay? >> And think of it as how we are going to be able to communicate. I mean, anyone, even those of us that are living and breathing all this stuff all the time, it's complicated. It's complicated

127to say, "Okay, it's going to move from one bucket to another. It's still going to add tax money, you know, to a taxpayer, but it's going to be less over a 20-year period." It it's complicated. >> Does that have to be said, though? And I'm not saying to not be transparent. I'm saying to be >> simple. Yeah. >> Could it say >> three? You know, I don't know what the language look needs to look like, but this is we're asking for 3.5 million. >> A is for the schools, 2.75. B is 750 for [clears throat] general government. >> You're saying no. >> I I I don't believe you can do it that way. I think because because we're moving money into excluded debt, >> it has to be I because we're not asking for a

128full $3.5 million. >> No, I believe that's what people are putting on the >> No, no, I No, I No, they're they're putting that forward because they don't want because we're concerned about how do we communicate out that we're asking for 2.75 million, >> but we're also going to do this other thing with the 7. Could you say could you say this is about increasing our budget by 3.5 million? A is for an override of 2.75 that's going towards the schools. B7 $750. >> We're not increasing the budget by 3. That's the thing. We're not increasing the budget by 3.5 million. >> We're taking money from one bucket that's part of our current budget >> and we're going to move that to excluded debt. We're not we're not increasing the budget by the >> 17.

129And that's the that's the hard part to communicate. >> No, I get that. Point taken. I'm just saying could it still be fairly simple while accomplishing what we want to accomplish, which is not is adding the least amount to the permanent levy. >> Just trying to strike a balance. >> You will get very little help if you go down this road because it's not just as simple as it's the same amount of money. >> No. And I'm saying still do what we're saying. >> I know I know that's not what you're saying. It's a little frustrating, I think. Um, [clears throat] [snorts] >> because I I I do think this is a really valid concern about it being complicated, even though it on paper it's not complicated. >> So, I'm wondering how we can bridge

130the gap. >> Yeah. I mean, I mean, I if I may, >> I think it's a communications problem and a challenge that we need to that we're not going to solve >> off the top of our heads two hours into a conversation. Um, I think it's still the right way to go. What we've been talking about, um, because it's all the thing, all the benefits we've talked about, they're complicated benefits. Everything we talk about is complicated. Municipal finances are complicated that 95% of the people, even if you spend an hour with them, are slowly be like, I walked out of there. I don't understand a bit of it. Right? >> But that's our job. And so I think our job after this is to figure out how to package it and create the sound bites

131for the people that understand, hey, what is all I want to know is what is my impact. What am I getting out of it? Okay, great. And then you're going to have another person who wants a little bit more information. You got another person who wants to >> just deep dive into it. And our our job once we say go is to figure out how to construct the right messaging, get collateral that we can all use and that anybody we talk to can use that when somebody talks to Joe or they ask me the same question, they get the same answer uh almost verbatim because we're we're putting forth the work to get that information and we just you probably do it at work. You say, "Okay, I have persona one, persona two." You you

132you design things to personas, right? And that's what you do here. We want a person that wants this level of detail that they care about this, right? And we have to craft those things. And just going back to the the number part of the reason I'm com more comfortable with I think you made a good point, Brandy, on we have to be able to provide all that detail. Well, the de the work's been done to that number, right? and that and those people have said that they're comfortable with that number. Uh and I think the other thing that reason I'm comfortable is if you look at the lever I mentioned levers last time, right? You look at all the levers we've been pulling, right? $2.3 million is general stabilization this year. We've been using the

133revolving funds, all those things. What what the forecasting does, we're not using them either at all or anywhere near the levels we have. It kind of resets those levers that we have been using over the last several years. I think you mentioned, you know, 10 years ago talking, you know, Jim Jim in a budget meeting saying, "Oh my god, how how was this sustainable?" And all the factors you said have changed. So, uh, those help to make it more sustainable even though it wasn't sustainable. Uh, but we've reset those levers, right? That's that's kind of the restructuring that Jim has talked about. Um, and that was with that number. So we can we can articulate it because the work's been done to that number. But for me, the part of the reason and I would

134feel the same way was as you if it wasn't resetting the levers we've been using and that three years from now, should we need it to say, "Hey, we need to get past this year because we think that, you know, uh some projects are going to come on, we're going to have new growth in the following year, we can temporarily pull these levers, right?" Um so to me, that's where that that balance I talked to really sets in for me because I was really concerned at the last meeting about what happens when we pull all the levers. we don't have any levers to pull. And that's that's that last page in Jim's thing. It's like we pulled the levers year one. Year two there's there, you know, we have $400,000 to play with, right? We

135don't we don't have anything to to to that would do that. So for me, as far as numbers, that's that's one of the other reasons I felt comfortable with it. We can articulate. I think that was a good point, Brandy. Uh and also it resets the levers we've been using. But I think the relative to I think we still go with what we talked about and I think we take on the challenge of how how do we how do we measure it? It's it's it's not trivial otherwise we'd already solved it, right? But but I think it's work we need to do and >> and and I would say I mean just to say it's not that simple. So like now that you've added it to the base you're going to have an additional growth

136amount. So where does that go? you know, it's it's not going to be that much, but the amount of energy we'll have to spend to figure that out compared to the impact is going to be very very small. Um, and again, I think like we've been operating under under a certain construct. I think to change it back now, I mean, does that mean we're, you know, we could potentially change it back later? It puts us kind of in limbo. um and uh understand, you know, the challenge uh that that you certainly have. Um gosh, if it was easy, everybody would do it, right? You know, so no, I I just um you know, to be clear, I think that the the 3.5 was is the right number. Um I think that it's going to be

137very challenging um to explain it to people. It it's you know it's beneficial to some extent to people because it doesn't fall into into our tax levy every year but it doesn't fall away for 23 years. I don't care that it people [laughter] do any >> what happens in 23 years. But um in any case, I I you know and I feel that it's important that people know that there's still an impact. Yes. >> You know, goes to debt exclusion. Just going to a different bucket that is still going to raise your your taxes. So, um it's it's complicated and and uh >> I mean, it's not so complicated it can't be explained to people, but >> it's it just I want to make sure people truly understand it, too. I don't want to walk

138away thinking that they're only paying on 2.75, right? >> I'm just wondering if we need to, and I know probably not tonight, have a conversation about uh the story of that 750,000 and what it was originally said was going to happen to it versus what's happening now. Just to kind of nip any conversation in the bud, >> oh, I I think we'll have to like repeat what we said at the last at the last meeting. We need to have a conversation about that of >> Yeah, >> it's a change in what was said was going to happen to that 750,000. >> And and I think that's the tension that I I was like, you know, we need to talk about >> not just that it's complicated, it's a change and we need to own that

139and be transparent about that or else I think we lose credibility. And that's why the vote was, even though you could do it, you know, that's why the vote was, you know, however you decided to do it, whether it was through appropriations or whether through a town meeting vote or, you know, tying it to this. >> Yeah. Which is why it should be tied because it is a change in what people thought was going to happen to that. This should absolutely be tied. So, >> I think that's a fair I think. >> It's a fair point. Chantel's Chantel is Hold on one second here. Chantel is absolutely right. And I've some of the people that I have already spoken to about this. The first question was, "Wait a minute, that was public safety building >>

140issues, you know, and it it was it was attached to that project in some way, shape, and form with respect to the vote that was taken." And um again, transparency is is is a key with respect to that. And I I don't disagree with anything that you said, but I think at some point part of that conversation has to be part of where did this money come from? What was it originally for? that way people have a better understanding as to that because it's already been was voted on at one time. >> Yeah, it's a it's a clear I mean we talked about it in detail um at the last meeting. I think it's something that that we do have to you know have to talk about. That being said, you know, one thing I'll

141I'll I'll offer I think uh Brandy you might have said, you know, you know the details and it's still complicated. I think sometimes it becomes complicated because we do know the details. Um, most people all they care about is how much is 3.5 million going to impact their their wallet >> and what are they going to have to not spend it on? What are they going to have to give up in order to pay that? And is that in alliance with their values or congruent? >> Absolutely. Yeah. So I'd like to recommend I think you know as as multip you know as a group as the tri board we made the vote for the 2.75 and the 750. I think based on the work that we've that our department you know our our management has

142done I think we keep moving forward with that. Um I would also then say to them to you know as we move forward you're doing two budgets. You're doing a budget with an override you're doing a budget without an override. You're doing a budget that moves the 750 and you're doing a budget that doesn't move the 750. And what I would ask Michael to do is to work with Lisa and have language that ties the two together. Based on what I've heard from everybody is that that's what we want. If the override doesn't pass, we don't move the 750. It's going to be hard, but I think then we're we're feeling it completely as a community. And I think when we do the conversation and the information to the public, >> there's that everybody will

143feel pain should this not happen. >> So Tom eating is before the >> Yes. >> Right. So you would my understanding is we would vote the unovered. No, we what we've done sometimes is we've waited and done a second town meeting after the election to vote the budget. Right. Is that what we would >> not since I've been here? We've always done the town meeting first and did the contingency budget and then did the ballot vote. >> Um >> uh for for an operational override >> um >> when we did when we did the operational override last time, I'm pretty sure we had two >> town meetings scheduled and we had one where we passed we voted one budget and then we had the ballot initiative. Okay. >> Because I think the override passed at

144town meeting. >> It did. >> And then failed at the ballot. So, we had to go back and do the second town meeting to vote the updated budget. >> That's what >> Yeah. >> Is that Is that okay? Gosh, it's been a while. >> I I think >> we got time to figure that part out, >> right? I would just leave the logistics of it. The intent is clear, right? The intent and >> by all means, we've had a lot of people that haven't spoken, right? Uh are are we in agreement on two 2.75? I mean, do we want do we want an actual vote of the tribe board or we want consensus? What are what are we looking? >> I would think a consensus probably would be >> because we already did take >>

145we already voted forward with the 2.75 and >> that vote only gave a range, right? It didn't have the ties. I would suggest a vote that all three boards take >> which I think has to be three separate votes, right? Correct. It can be. No, >> no, we can do it all as one group. >> Vote because we're we're it's a tri board meeting. Even though we're three different boards, we take the vote as the >> group. Okay. >> I wasn't sure about the logistics of that, but Okay. >> So, so I mean, I'm happy to make a make a motion. I think captured everything if if if we're ready for that. I want to respect the time because I know you have a meeting that's supposed to >> That's all right. Quick, just go

146around the table. You folks okay with that? >> Yeah. Okay, we're good with that. All right, then I'll entertain a motion. >> I I move that we uh ask the administrators to move forward planning for a $2.75 million operational override for the schools. uh and figuring out also how to uh tie a $750,000 uh uh debt transfer from our general operating budget to uh debt exclusion and tie those two together so that uh they both have to pass in order to go forward. >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> So I would recommend that because we have members online, >> we have to do a roll call that we do roll call. Okay. All right. So, roll call vote. We'll start left to right. >> I have you have to state your name.

147>> Sorry. Tina Patannities. I >> Mark Terry. I >> Paul Kendall. I >> Yolanda Greavves. I >> Claudia Bennett. I >> Brandy Kensman. I >> Joe Manyani. I >> Shantal Kokarum. I >> Jonathan Moore. I >> Edard. I Jack Walsh. I >> Rohitura. I >> Early I >> Marcy >> Nikita Keegan I >> Marcy Culverwell I >> believe Lori dropped off. >> Okay. >> All right. So that's that's everyone. >> That's unanimous. So we have we have the vote. >> I mean not good but >> yeah we're good >> that you feel like you take motions to adjourn. >> I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn the different groups. We are going to stay in session. No, we stay in session. >> For the school committee, can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> So move.

148>> Have a second. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call. Marcy >> I. >> Tina. >> Hi. >> Paul. >> Hi. >> I for me. We unanimously adjourned. >> Jim and staff. Thank you so much for all the effort and work that you guys have put in. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> We did. Okay. >> Motion to adjurnn. I >> Is that what I heard? >> Excuse me. Sorry. Was that directed at me? I apologize. >> Motion to adjourn. Uh I or nay >> I. >> Thank you. >> Yes. I too. They were taking pictures. Thank you and welcome back. Um we are continuing with the uh select board meeting for January 21st, 2026. Sorry about that. Um it is now 8:15. Um we just had a tri board meeting and we have continued our

149select board meeting. Uh as a result of it, uh the first thing on our agenda is citizens participation. If there's anybody in the room or anybody uh on virtual meeting room, uh if you would raise your hand and I'd be happy to call on you. And there he is. That's the person I was hoping to see. Mr. Done, if you would be so kind to unmute yourself. How you been, young man? I haven't seen you in a while. >> Okay. Well, I'm not going to put my camera on, so you can't see me. So, >> that's okay. >> I think that's a good start of the year. I'm doing all right, Mr. Sherman, and and boy, good. Uh, happy new year. >> Same to you, man. >> I am settling in. I am settled in

150in in my 119 Main Street place. I got a lot of lot of friends and we talk things over and get things socialized and all that stuff. That's the reason why I haven't been really on time to get myself um activated, but I would like to come on. I did watch the tri board meeting. That has that is one of the better trib I have ever heard. Everybody was open, transparent and and very um collective in their thoughts. I'm glad glad to see that happening. My eyes is very happy about that. But I'm going to say why the last time I was on was at a ZVA meeting and I have commented before and I was commenting again about the how the states kind of run this town with the housing laws and stuff like

151that. This town is looking somewhat desperate to to get ahead, but if the state can't help and only think of housing that this town is going to be going basically stagnated if we can't get any economic businesses. So, I've been paying attention. I have set my salutations during the holidays. I came in I I did revisit the vote. So, I am I am now a a voted member of the town again. And I I'd like to say that my myself I'm happy to see the board together business-wise and economic wise and people-wise. It's all worth the time that is watching. And if things can get better, hopefully we can we can work the summer with a bright bright outlook. Got to see what happens down the road. But it's good to see you all and

152I'm very happy relaxing where I am and to all denominations. I I am happy to know that in my place here I got all the denominations. So I have every single angle of personalities and they they're teaching me basically even though we are people we can still socialize as all. Have a good night. Thank you, Mark. Appreciate it. And happy new year to you. Nice to uh be able to hear you and that you're you're doing well. Thank you. Anybody else for citizens participation uh that's on the board? Uh uh Joan, sorry I didn't see you. Joan, if you would mute yourself, please unmute. I'm sorry. Are you there, Joan? >> Yes, I'm here now. It wasn't letting me unmute. I'm sorry. Um, I just have I know you've had a long long day, guys,

153so I just have two quick questions. Joan G Friday um on the historical commission speaking as an as an independent resident. Um, I just have two questions. Um, have you gotten an answer from legal on Mr. Wrangler's application answers? >> I have not. I don't know if Michael has. No, not yet. >> Not yet. Okay. But is that is it being asked? >> Is it being looked at? I guess >> it was asked. I we just haven't received any uh formal uh reply back. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Maybe maybe we could uh prompt them, Mike. Um just because I know I think Mrs. on Friday had asked quite a while ago and then I think I >> you mentioned it >> asked a couple of times in the past 10 days or so.

154>> We could we could we can follow up on that Joe. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um and is the town doing a water sewer study including all of the proposed projects? >> That I'd have to defer to Michael. I'm not sure. >> Okay. Not that the town is aware of. No. Okay. All right. Um, is there a reason why they're not going to do that >> for each individual uh project >> for the all of the projects total? This is what this is my concern is that each project is getting done separately as far as I can tell, but there's been no no study that includes all of them to see what's left at the end. >> You mean for the gallonage that's available? >> Yep. Sorry about that. >> Uh, from what

155I'm aware of, I don't believe there is uh is that information. But I don't have a problem asking Doug. You know, I guess when you think about it, not necessarily just um based on the 40Bs that are currently before us, but maybe because of all the approved projects that we have in town, it might be good to just think about all of them, not not even just the 40Bs and >> Right. Right. >> Is there the projects in town that we looking approved projects, right? >> Yeah. >> Right. Exactly. I mean, my my calculations and I'm sure they're not, you know, 100% correct by any stretch. Um, but it's concerning, very concerning. So, I think I think it's something that the town really owes the residents just in general, not as as Claudia just mentioned,

156not just 40s. Well, Joan, I can tell you in in years past, and I'm sorry I didn't mean to uh interrupt you, but in years past, I know when uh the condominiums were being built off of uh Captain Ames and Alangquin down in that area years ago, um the developer actually went to another town and bought the gallon, it's from another town. So that is that is a viable if so if we're if we don't have the gallantage available it would be up to the developer to um seek that because I know that's what uh FRE did many many years ago. >> Okay. But that I mean I'm not saying that's not an an option but what I've seen of the peer reviews it sounds like they're doing each one separately. So that looks like

157everybody has enough when you add it all together. I'm not sure that's the case. if that makes sense. >> We we can we can talk to Doug about that as well. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. Look at >> look at all the not just the 40bs even, but look at all the potential. I mean, I guess we should just look at how much capacity we have remaining. >> What we have available, [snorts] right? >> Yeah. And if we don't have it, uh, again, it already precedent has already been set in the past by somebody having to go to another town and purchase it so they could have their project completed because the town wasn't going to purchase it. Now, I don't know if there's been legislature that >> somehow

158that doesn't sound like it would fly, but >> Well, it it did. >> Okay. >> It did. Okay. Thank you, Joan. Anybody else? Oh, Tony. Sorry about that. You're way behind my head, so I didn't see you. >> You can unmute yourself, Tony. Hello. >> Hi. Can you hear us? Yes. Can you hear us? >> Yes. >> Hi. Good evening, everyone. So, this is it's Tony Quatron and Susan Thorne together uh 181 Cross Street. So, we're here to speak briefly about the Franklin Road solar project, uh, and the importance of protecting the 1.8 acre Ashland parcel that was designated as open space as part of that project's approval. Um, this is a topic we've discussed with the Ashland Open Space Commission and the Conservation Commission, both of whom support the town of Ashland taking a

159coordinated action with Hopkin to encourage the transfer of the full parcel of open space land, both Hopkin and Ashland to the Hopkin Area Land Trust. Um it's clear to us and it's understood that Hopington issued the special permit for the project and they are the ones that need to enforce Agilityas Energy making that transfer. Y >> that said, Ashland should have an interest in asking Hopington to enforce the conditions that impact land in Ashland. That designated open space land in the project is meant to offset deforestation for the solar array, which was mitigation that justified the solar project's approval to begin with. preserve wildlife habitat, maintain trail connections between Ashland and Hopkin, and protect the watershed and the downstream resources. So, we're here um to raise public awareness and we're respectfully ask the town of

160Ashland officials to coordinate with Hopkin to monitor the progress of the open space uh transfer of land to halt and to reinforce Ashland's expectation that that Ashland parcel will be protected as open space per the special permit and in the interests of the Ashland community and candidly the the greater Ashland and Hopkin community. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. I know that um I've had conversation with uh several individuals uh and some from the conservation committee as well and um and and I understand the the need to uh protect their property. And again, you're absolutely correct. It's up to Parkmington to make sure that they uh abide by what they voted on uh several years ago and to make sure that that land is done right. So, I was going

161to sit down um with town council, which I didn't have the opportunity to do today, to uh sit down and probably draft a letter to the Huckington Planning Board and Zoning Board with respect to this this incident or this matter and uh make sure that uh they don't forget that we're interested in making sure that land stays as open space. Now, they can deny it. they can, you know, they can tell us no or whatever because it's it's under their purview, but as long as they uh you do as long as they, you know, uphold what they voted on a few years ago when it came to that. >> Can I Oh, sorry. >> Two things. Um, we did receive an email from Becca Solomon. >> Yep. >> Uh, this afternoon regarding the space, regarding

162the property. um they so there there had there is conversation happening and then um through a connection that I have with Hopkin I've reached out and I was connected with their assistant town manager >> regarding this and we that just connection just started today. >> Okay. >> So let me hear back from him and then I can communicate out to the board and see where we can go. I mean I think also if you want to work with Lisa that'd be great. I don't know. >> I think we have to take a multi-prong approach. >> Yeah. And how about how about we plan to put it on the next agenda so we can discuss sort of how we're going to approach it before >> before we go too far down the road without knowing how.

163>> I'm not sure if there's a uh time frame when this action is going to be taken by Harper. So, I don't know if we're under the gun to to make sure that uh >> So, I I I did attend the Conservation Commission meeting last night or at least a portion of it and I know that they did um vote a motion to support um these efforts and and I had reached out to Yolanda because somebody told me she had some connections in uh Hopkin >> um which she has engaged now. Um but I certainly would be interested in um you know that as formerly from the select board that we uh >> send a letter. Yeah, >> I I don't have a problem with that at all. I think it's something that's well worth

164doing >> and and certainly I think if we need to vote a motion, I have the language um from the motion that was used last night at the conservation commission. >> So save it. >> Yeah. So that way when it comes time Oh, do you want to do it now? >> We can't do it now. We can't take a vote today, but we can um I think we put it on our agenda for February 4th as BR as Brandy said >> and we do some research till then and then make a decision as to how we're going to support this. >> Yeah. And if and even if like if there's a draft of a letter that you want to write and we review it and that's part of our discussion too, that's I think that

165would >> that's what you want to do but I was going to ask town council to write it. So if you want to tweak hers that's fine by me. That works too. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Tony. Appreciate that. Thank you. >> Thank you for your support. >> Not a problem. Thank you, >> Tony. Was there was there a time frame as to when they were they were going to make a decision on that uh that one p that piece that piece of puzzle. >> Um are we off mute again? >> Yes, you are. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, what I know from talking with Agilityas Energy is that they have a purchase option contract with a company called uh JK Cross LLC. It's a Hopkinon and Hollistbased land developer. But from further

166research um into this, it doesn't appear like Agilitas has the legal right to even sell that property because they are bound already by the terms of the special permit. And as long as that special permit stays in place, they don't even have the option to sell it. So it's >> okay. That's >> it's bizarre, >> right? >> Okay. >> And we already have a relationship with Halt >> for the Valentine property, so I would think we can >> work on that. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Tony. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um old new business. Discuss um the citizens action group. Um, I think what we I would like to do is table this uh because we've had we've had different uh discussions with respect to uh uh

167this matter. I spoke with Rob about it. um they they were here uh at our last meeting and uh they wanted to do a subcommittee and I and I think and I think we're probably all in agreement that probably a subcommittee is not probably the proper thing uh thing for them to do or for us to do. But I would think that where they came up with this proposal that they form a committee on the by themselves and we could have a selectman or select board uh liaison to that group. So that way we don't have to worry about open meeting laws and things of that nature. So I' be open up to that. Nikita, I know that uh you had some concerns or you would be were interested in being part of that group.

168I know I did as well and I see Rob's hand there. But Makita, what what are your thoughts on that? >> Well, I mean I I I I do want to hear what Rob has to say. Yeah. >> Um because I think he he had his hand up and then happy to um happy to continue the discussion from there. >> Okay. Rob, unmute yourself if you would, please. >> Um, yeah, I just want to say I thought I thought we had um that the the purpose today was for you guys to pick one maybe two members to meet with us so we can work out, you know, some kind of uh joint statement or uh proposal for the select board to take action. Uh, I'm guess I think we're just that's what the committee was

169expecting based on our past discussion that you folks would be thinking about it and be prepared to step up and and do this subcommittee or something very much like it. So, I guess um, you know, I just I'm kind of surprised that you would table it without any action. Uh, you know, we would just like to keep things moving. Um, we're looking at Springtown meeting. If if we think that you guys don't have the time or the inclination to really work with us, then we'll just have to go back to our original >> original thing. So, that's what I was hoping that we'd take some concrete step today to get started. We have uh actually you know we've been doing our research and uh Ed's prepared uh you know some information about envir uh you

170know ESG standards for state purchasing and investments uh and social media standards. So we're ready to get going and we're prepared to uh put together a lot of documents and work with somebody one or two people from the select board and keep moving on this. So that's what I guess what we were hoping and expecting would happen tonight. >> Okay. I [clears throat] I don't believe we are going to have a subcommittee. I think we would feel better with you folks taking charge of this and we having uh a liaison or two uh to sit with you folks. So, are there any dates that you folks would uh email to us and uh and I could spring it out to the uh the other board members who would be willing to uh be part of

171this discussion and and work with work with your group? >> We could certainly do that, I guess. But if you want to have somebody to agree to do that, wouldn't you have to do it at this open meeting now? Like see if someone's willing to do it? I guess, you know, otherwise we're waiting till the next meeting. Um, you know, and it just kind of goes on from there. >> Okay. Um, >> are any members willing to do that? What? We just need one or two. Um, and >> I'm sorry, Rob. I don't mean to talk. Sure. Go ahead. Happy to, you know, to Joe, happy to, you know, less between us and this particular group on this issue. Um, and if there are any of my other colleagues on select board who are interested

172in doing the same, you know, we can do that, you know. Um, >> and I I don't have a problem doing that as well. I could be the alternate. Makita could be >> Okay, that would be good. Yeah, because it shouldn't hinge upon >> if you're not available at some point or whatever. Yeah. >> Yeah, I think that makes sense. >> That answer your question, Rob? Yeah, I think that would well, you know, I see Susan wants to uh say something, but I would think it would be agreeable to the committee if we had at least one liaison and an alternative alternate and okay, >> as long as you folks took some action tonight, we'd be I I think, you know, at least I can't speak for everybody, but it seems like a reasonable uh

173course to take. >> Yeah. So, you you have you have a way you have a way of contacting Makita and myself. So, if you have some dates that are available that work for for everybody, uh, we could set up >> to the subcommittee, which we did name. Could I ask that you that Susan uh say what she's thinking there? I see Susan's hand is up. >> Yep. I'm sorry. I don't see you behind you. Yep. Right Sue. I'm sorry. >> Hi. That's okay. Um, do you need me to say Susan Brush Jensen? >> Oh, I I forgot to introduce myself. Sorry. Um I guess it it would just be helpful for me to understand the reason you know the change in thinking that you all have like what's the pros and cons from your perspective

174about that? >> There hasn't been a change. Um there hasn't been a change at all. I mean, I I gave you folks the opportunity to come in front of us and speak uh to do what you needed to do and the door was still open to for dialogue and and to do what needs to get done. I guess I guess I don't understand the difference between the being a liaison to the subcommittee and >> because the board has decided not to have create another subcommittee because then you'd have to go through the open meeting laws and schedule uh and post meetings. Um and and Rob knows that. So I that's >> so it's just simp to simplify it, >> right? that that's that's a great way of uh putting it simplifying the process. >> Okay.

175>> The other thing too I just want to add if to create a subcommittee um you know we we would probably want to then offer it out to the public to participate and talent >> through the talent bank forms and that as opposed to just having a group come to us and ask us to create a subcommittee. So, it just seems like having a liaison is just a much simpler um solution, you know, to trying to get to where everybody wants to get to. >> Okay. So, that would still allow us to come to bring a proposal and have the board take action in the future. >> That That's correct. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I just understand. >> Hey, Rob, are you good with that? Yes, I think that's so you're going to

176pick a liaison and an alternate tonight. >> Correct. And I think we did. I unless there's anybody else watch. >> We just did Rob. We just said [clears throat] >> and because it's not any kind of official committee from our perspective. You guys are creating this. You're deciding to do this and we have said we will provide a liaison, right? >> And that it's it's just like any other group that forms in Ashland that then looks for a liaison. It's not an official committee from our perspect I mean we do not appoint it. It's not listed anywhere. If you guys want to post something, if you want to become a nonprofit, whatever you want to do, that's fine. That's not tied to the select board, >> but Makita has offered to talk to you about

177it. [snorts and clears throat] >> And when she's not available, I am great. Yeah, I would characterize a little more formal than that, but you know, we all can have our different viewpoints, but certainly wanted to thank Makita and Joe for stepping up for this. We appreciate it. And Makita, I hope you I hope you're feeling better. You sound like I do. So, [laughter] >> I hope you feel better too soon, Rob. >> Yeah, take a hot tide and go to bed. >> Yeah, I would. Except I'm at this meeting. I don't know. You guys have to keep going, though. >> We're going. It's only what? Hour two. That's all. Hour two and a half. It's Yeah. Anyway, well, thanks. I'm I'm gonna stop this filibuster, >> but you've just made a you've kind of

178discussed it. So, >> I think we're willing to go ahead on that uh that basis. >> Thank you. >> I don't see anybody uh anyone objecting. So, >> no. >> Okay. >> Thanks, Rob. >> Well, thank thank you very much, Ben, and good luck with the rest of your uh meeting. >> Feel better. All right. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thanks you guys. To you. >> Thank you. Okay. Next on the agenda, uh, review the no hunting bylaw. Uh, this is on the agenda. We had some, we had an incident up at Warren Woods and um there there is actually there's no discharging of a a firearm in in the boundaries of Ashland. Uh if you go look at the uh the town bylaws when it comes to hunting and or shooting a rifle uh

179it there is it's restricted uh to the property owner allowing permission. Uh but then again there's also rules and regulations. One is discharging a firearm 500 ft from a dwelling or residence. So um and this individual was actually he used a shotgun and um actually u was hunting a deer actually turned out to be a dough apparently. And um the unfortunate thing is he had GPS coordinates that were provided to him by a uh uh GPS site for hunting in Massachusetts. And lo and behold, Warren Woods is is out there. So, um I drove by there the other day and noticed that there signage could be better uh for no po for no hunting. But I think if you look at our bylaws, the bylaw states that there is no hunting in the town forest.

180Maybe we should look at changing the bylaw to add no hunting on town property, period. Town owned property for open space. Makes sense. >> Yeah, this was >> I'm sorry. >> Oh, I was just gonna say it was talked about at the conservation meeting on the 12th and that's sort of how it ended up on our agenda. um because >> they were talking about amending the bylaw, which obviously is something that would um affect us and you know just in general what we can do as a town to kind of help promote that there's no hunting in town, whether it's social media, whether it's on our website, you know, more information on that. Um I think in general it's probably good to put that out there. Um, and also what to do if you see

181somebody that is hunting because I had talked to Becca Solomon and she said that, you know, the environmental police are the ones that are involved in in those matters that people automatically call Ashlin police, which they should continue to do, but um it's the environmental police that are that are um involved in this >> and they would turn the the APD would turn that over to the uh environmental police once uh you know action needed to be taken. And so they would call them, but APD would respond first because by the time the other agency responded, it would uh you know those people would be long gone. >> But I do think might be worth doing. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Yolanda. >> No, it's Makita. >> I mean Makita. I'm sorry. >> Just a couple

182things folks 100% agree. Uh but a couple things we just might want to keep in consideration. According to our website, specifically around uh Warren Woods, there's a conservation restriction held by Mass Ottabbon that says hunting and trapping are explicitly um explicitly prohibited. Um, [clears throat] one thing that we might want to consider and uh, consecration comm may want to consider as we're looking at the bylaws is, you know, um, if if something does occur and if there is a someone does hunt um, on that land and they they they do have a a say trophy or a kill um, they should be uh, prohibited from being able to take that. You know, I think that should be left up to the d the ter determination of what whoever you know, it's the environmental police or

183maybe the Ashlin police like what happens to that carcass, but or what h but you know I could see a scenario where people could say like oh I didn't I didn't know you know blah blah blah and then they end up >> taking what they should not have been killing in the first place. The the other point I just wanted to make is that so [clears throat] far as these apps are concerned I think it would be helpful and maybe we we could talk to to legal about this but um to find out like where you know I don't know where those apps are getting that information and it's entirely possible that they could be saying you know that they have that have that information saying that it's legal or whatever but I don't know

184what the town can do to get in touch with any of those apps those hunting apps to basically they, you know, either say that they shouldn't be providing information or directing people towards our website and or our bylaws um because that's an issue as well. Just wanted to say my two two cents on >> Yeah, Makita, I did have a conversation with Doug Small about this because it has to do with the GPS mappings and um the unfortunate thing is they haven't been updated to that to that magnitude yet. So, uh, I know Deb was going to look into, uh, updating those GPS sites and coordinates with respect to that and like you said, putting it on the, uh, the town website and getting, uh, additional, um, signage up and around that area and any

185roads that lead into Ashland, you know, saying no hunting or trapping in within within the boundaries of Ashland because we used to have them. I used to remember them. So, go ahead. >> So, a couple things. One, I think we definitely should look at the bylaw and make it make sense for all town owned property. That's the first thing. The second is I'm going to disagree with you, Makita. If someone Granted, if someone shoots it and they're not supposed to, let's find them because if we don't let them take the meat, it just gets discarded and that to me is a waste. We find them a certain amount of money and we put that in the >> in the bylaw. in the bylaw >> and we should find them. I agree. But I think that

186the the point is though that they shouldn't be allowed to keep what they what they what they kill. And if if we take it, it may not go to waste. We you know, we could easily take that to a processing center, you know, donate it to what depending on what it is or what it's not. I mean, but that's something that we could look into. >> I don't but I don't think that people should be awarded for breaking the law. >> They're not being awarded. They're they're being fined. I think it would be good to touch base with legal and see. I mean, I I just think that if yes, if they shoot it and they're not supposed to, they should get fined. I would hate to see it go to waste >> is the

187thing. >> Well, that's why we should it shouldn't go to waste. But I say, but I don't think they should take possession of it. >> So, then we have to have someone who's willing to take possession and do whatever is needed. So, I think that's for another discussion. But, >> right. So, and resources. I think we need to I think we need to update this bylaw, work with the conservation, work with Becca to get this updated to have it reflect, >> of course, the other thing I always think about is should we allow bow hunting, but I know people don't even want that. So, >> yeah. >> And again, bow hunting actually is allowed in town on private property as long as you have the owner's permission, >> right? >> Which is part of the

188bylaw that we currently have. >> Yep. [clears throat] >> Okay. Um, any other further discussion on this? >> So, are we taking any action on it? >> Well, I I I would have no problem sitting down talking with Lisa about, you know, the steps to take, you know, doing the uh the bylaw uh change or [snorts] tweaking the bylaw. >> I would I would think that there's probably other by I mean, I don't know. I mean, may maybe Lisa has something that she could give us pretty quickly and easily to basically all we're doing is expanding this from just the town forest >> to all town owned >> open space. >> Open well, I would say all town owned property, not just open space. You don't want them going and hunting on the fields of

189the school or at the or senior center or anywhere. >> This is true, >> right? So, it's all town- owned property, no hunting. >> Okay. Well, basically, yeah. Okay, that works. All right. Thank you. You good with that, Mikita? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh discuss the housing production plan meeting uh from last night, which I thought was uh very interesting and um who should I turn this over to? >> I Yeah, I I I would say a few words. I think that there's a survey that's going to go out um in the newsletter this weekend. I would suggest um people um you know take a few minutes to fill it out. >> I think that um what's interesting is the housing protection plan doesn't tie you to having to do any of those steps that

190you might include in your plan. um the its mere existence helps um create you your ability to deny uh to provide some protection from 40b developers. Um so I think that's the the critical point. Um the the presentation I thought was very good. Um you know I struggle with a couple of things. I I struggle with um you know the terminology that was that was used from the comprehensive plan. Um I'm sorry. Yeah, from our um what was it again? It was um New England village. Um that people in our community want a um to keep the feeling of comm community of a New England village. Um, and you know, I frankly don't think that any New England village that I'm aware of has, you know, six-story um, apartment buildings in downtown with 250 units.

191So, I I struggled with that to some degree. And the other piece is there is one section that asks um you to look at land, town land, and how it might be developed. And I was talking to Joe. I'm going, "Well, how much town owned land do we have that isn't, you know, uh, conservation land at this point and, um, protected? It It just doesn't seem realistic. Do we have a few acres off of Olive Street?" >> Um, so I'm not really sure what >> it's like pretending that there's something that there's not. And um so I just kind of struggle with with some of it as being kind of I don't know if pie in the sky is the right word, but just not realistic for what we're living um and and day-to-day at

192this point in time. Yeah. And the other piece of the other I'm sorry. The other piece of property that uh potentially will become the town's property at some point and that we're talking about uh try >> and I don't know when that uh will happen. I know there was discussion. >> Okay. So, a couple of years that'll become town property. So, that's a potential area that could be used for growth. >> I think you're limited. Sorry. I think they limited on that site to municipal use. >> Municipal municipal or recreational use, I believe. >> I'll have to check. >> Okay. I wasn't sure what the fine uh the fine details were with respect to that when they were handing it. Pretty comprehensive agreement, I think. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> So, the only thing

193I just wanted to add is just some background on on what the housing production plan is. And we went through this process five years ago actually with MIPC was our >> and 10 years ago um to basically you know they do a needs analysis and then um come up with some strategies that we can potentially implement. Um we are working with JM Goldson who did the comprehensive plan and had done a lot of the background for the needs analysis as part of the comprehensive plan. Um you know just just as a comparison point because we did this five years ago in the middle of COVID which all you know you think about like a whole virtual housing production plan process. Um and then looking at what Goldson did for us um so far and then

194even like last night with the interactive because it was an interactive um participation wanting some feedback from people and one of the things that you know we were talking about [snorts] was do the strategies that were listed five years ago still make sense? And so that is kind of what we were um giving our feedback on. And also um you know it was interesting Goldson did an exercise at the very beginning where they asked you know what is the heart of the issue and the feedback from everyone was really like it was it was it was it was a good I think it was very honest feedback which is which is great. The presentation last night at the community center was videotaped by by WACA. Um, and like Claudia said, there's going to be there's

195a survey and an exercise. So, you you know, I would suggest people watch Goldton's presentation because it's really good. It gives more information about what the housing production plan is and talks about a lot of the acronyms that we talk about a lot which is um SHI subsidized housing inventory and we talk about the 10% and that's really what's driving a housing production plan is really the state's mandate that towns work towards 10% affordable housing. And so until you have 10% you are subject to 40b. And one of the things that they were sharing with us last night was that, you know, we have three large 40B projects in the pipeline. And when assuming those are permitted, um, which you don't always assume, but assuming they're permitted and built within a certain amount of time,

196they will count towards our our subsidized housing inventory and get us over that 10%. >> I don't even think we need all three of them to get us over the 10%. But between that and having a an active housing production plan, we will be able to um save ourselves from having to accept 40D projects. >> Put us in safe harbor. >> It'll will be in safe harbor. So, it's it's a good exercise. Like Claudia said, you don't we don't have to implement everything that's in the housing production plan. It's really strategies that you want to look at and say, "Okay, does this make sense?" And it all has to tie back to the comp plan because if it doesn't tie back to the comp plan, we're not going to we're not going to >> if

197anything tied back to the comp plan, a lot of things would be different. Unfortunately, the comp plan is great in the in theory. >> Oh, absolutely. >> As is the housing production plan in theory. Unfortunately, we do not have the power to do what we what people in this community want to do around housing. >> And it isn't that people don't want to have affordable housing. It's just that they want some control over it. >> So, I I missed the meeting last night. I do look forward to going and watching the video. Um, I would ask that it gets put in Michael's newsletter, the connection, you know, the the link to the video, the link to the survey, um, who they should go to if they have questions. So, housing production plan, if it's in

198place and we're moving things forward, we can be in what's called safe harbor. And even if we get to that 10%, unless we stop building here in town, right, as long as our numbers of houses keep going up and we still have some open space for single family homes and we still have some other projects that are in the books that have no affordable housing, right? So, it's one of those things that we need to make sure once we get to our 10%, our goal then is to stay at that 10%. As well as andor have things in our housing production plan that helps us stay at that 10%. Because if you drop below the 10% and you aren't doing things to go back to your 10%, that's when you're open to 40bs. And the

199other part is to to Claudia's point, we were in safe harbor as a community. We were in safe harbor with our housing production plan that we passed in 2020. Unfortunately, two, and we all know this story, maybe not everyone in town. There's two projects that were going to keep us in safe harbor. One didn't go through because they were in a lawsuit, and one didn't go through because the developer felt financially it wasn't the right thing for him. So, with those two projects not going forward, we fell out of Safe Harbor, and that's how we got the 40B. So, I know people are like, "Oh, well, as a as a community, we keep wanting the housing. We keep wanting the housing." We've done what we can to not get the housing and to not have

200to have 40bs. And we I know there are people who've been like, "Well, we need to complain to the state and all the the state wants more housing. The state all the housing reports are showing that we don't have enough housing and we don't have enough affordable housing in the state." So, >> and then that's and that's and that's another topic of discussion. Oh, yeah. what what is affordable and that was part of the discussion last night that I thought was very interesting because uh the speaker uh that who presented it uh was talking about the percentages um your average income for two people and I and I'll use this because this is what I remember and I was going to take the sheet and didn't take it with me um if you were spending

201more than 30% of your >> total salary towards towards housing costs. It was okay. It it you know you it's livable but right now in Ashland it was over 70% >> of the base salary Yeah. going to housing which is >> so one of the issues that Ashland has is one our income is high >> but two our SHI at 80% is tied to Boston income >> right >> and I had this discussion with someone the other day is if we could if we could be tied not to Metro Boston for our SHI and we could have a lower SHI it then our cost could potentially go lower because we then wouldn't, you know, we wouldn't need people with as much money and and our and our cost, our affordable housing cost could potentially be

202lower if we were tied to Worcester or Framingham or and not Metro Boston. >> And that that grouping get tied in with the insurance companies. >> Yeah. >> That's how we get grouped in. Why we got grouped in that way, I have no idea, but that's how we get grouped into it. So anyway, >> but anyway, >> regardless regardless >> of any any of those things, >> 40B has been around since 1969. >> Yep. >> Housing is still a crisis in this state. >> Y >> or affordable housing. And it hasn't done what it was supposed to do or what it needs to do. >> And I mean, that's the bottom line. Doesn't matter who you're tied into or anything else. >> It should be tweaked. >> But go ahead, Michael. So So What are

203you all going to do about it? >> I mean, we have the same discussion like, >> well, I don't know. I've been asking to have our attorneys be a little more proactive, and that hasn't been the case. So, um, you know, I've I've written to the governor. I've written to our state legislators. Um, you know, housing is a huge issue in across the state. >> And did she did our governor get back to you? She did not because she's running for reelection. I'm surprised she didn't. >> So, you know, I mean I I uh >> No, I mean I mean do you feel like do you feel like having the conversation that you're having is is productive? >> I think part of it is >> Michael >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Go ahead. No,

204it's just like Well, first off, I just wanted to back up when you're like, "What are you going to do about it?" I just needed you to clarify what do you mean do about what specifically? Right. I think that's >> if we're are we so I just want to get clarification on that before we start talking about solutions because I'm not sure what that it is. >> Yeah. So you can define what you're talking about >> and then we can kind of go from there. >> You know that's a very good question. Um, and I think probably the the best it is how do we move from the stuckness that we just keep, you know, the community seems to be in. Um, you know, >> well, it's it's a it's an emotional topic right now

205and everybody is upset because there isn't anything we can do about it. >> We've been having this discussion since I've been here. >> Well, well, I would I would say that we did do right. We did what we thought would help us, right? We did our first housing production plan and we moved we moved the needle forward a little bit. We did our second housing production plan. It didn't quite move the needle partly because of some of the things that happened to us because of two projects, but I would say it's because not everyone in town supported pushing for affordable housing units in every project, >> right? I mean, we have projects where it's only 10%. And the other thing I think to your point, Michael, is going back to the state and saying, how

206do we adjust one, what our SHI is because it's not realistic necessarily for Ashland and for this area and the costs of what it is for housing in this area and try to work with our surrounding communities and other people to try to push back. We're never going to get the 10% removed. I mean, from what I'm hearing, they're looking to increase. They're looking to increase that, right? Um I think it's continuing to have the conversation and try to reach out to other people who are having the same struggle that we are because the other thing is Framingham, who has all this housing, has empty units, >> right? They have vac I was in a meeting last week and they showed um a listing of the units that they have and even though some of

207them are affordable, they have vacant units because they're not affordable enough for the people who live in in Framingham >> area. Right. >> Well, you know, I just I just think it's, you know, if if you as an individual community are going to reach out to the state, it's probably not going to have an impact. But if you do band together as communities and you actually leverage >> Yep. >> It's almost like efficiencies of scale, you you'd have the, you know, probably have a little more of a voice. I think >> he's talking about strengthen numbers. >> Well, we could have teamed up with Falmouth or Manchester by the Sea or worked with some of those attorneys and we chose not to. >> Well, that's looking back looking forward. >> I think it's a regional.

208I think what what Yolanda and I think what Michael pending at is like approaching this problem regionally, you know what I'm saying? Instead of town by town, it that's what may yield the best results. And like we see sort of like the unevenness, you know, like the said, they've got empty units in Framingham >> because, you know, they built all this stuff and it's too expensive. Nobody can can use it. And that's a direct result of, you know, basing, you know, basing what's affordable on Boston prices, right? So I I think the the answer to your question, Michael, has to do it's it's multipronged, right? It's that there's a there are some policy solutions regionally that we have to take a look at. Um you have to kind of band together and come up with

209some creative solutions. I think during the conversation that we're having around this housing housing production plan can be very helpful for us to sort of determine what those other avenues could be. And then during this process, we should operationalize uh some of that organization so that we can band together as a community, try to figure out at band together as a region and try to figure out and get some housing solutions that make sense for our region >> and for our the people out our way and not people in downtown Boston. >> The other idea is reach out to Goldson. They're writing our housing production plan. They do this with other people. What other communities have they worked with that are facing similar issues that we're facing that we can say okay how can we

210work together to do something about this right there >> did they ever mention that during you know you guys spent a lot of time and and effort multiple meetings did that conversation ever come up >> I offered last night to do an analysis because people were saying look you know this these this data doesn't this the way it's analyzed doesn't include include or isn't really who we are. It's because we're in this huge group of towns. I think it was 130, but um it was either Anyways, it was up there. It was over 100. And so what they said was, you know, for a cost, we could um have them look at a smaller target area >> and give data, similar data for that. But for what reason? You know, it would be interesting to

211learn and know some of the things that we know that we really don't fit that 130 town model. However, do we really want to spend money at that? I I don't think so. But >> so is there any action uh related to this that we need to move forward with? I think the action that we that's taken has already been done, you know, unless you start taking a step backwards and, you know, rehash what what's already been done or what's already been said. >> Oh, yeah. I was just thinking on that and I don't think that's going to be productive. >> The whole housing production plan, we're still on track to basically complete this in Marchish. And the plan is to then present that to the select board and the planning board. And then it

212we get sent to the state for certification and and it's important that we do it because it it does provide us >> it's a tool. It is a tool right in the tool. It's a tool, but once again, it's a tool, but it's it's kind of like a technicality because we don't have to follow any of the I mean, it's it's it's maybe an important conversation to have. And if we really had some control, it might give us some suggestions on how we could move h our housing production in a affordable way. But, you know, it it's uh >> well, you have to make you have to make progress towards the goal in order to utilize that tool. >> Right. Right. you know, you have to it's it's half a percent or 1%, >> right?

213You have to you have to show that you're making >> you can use any strategy to get there. So, if something changes in the next five years that it's a better approach, we could >> One of the things that was talked about last night, which I thought was really interesting is we were talking about inclusionary zoning, which we've talked about for eons. Um, and one of the things that she was talking about is that there's ways to structure inclusionary zoning that doesn't necessarily um when we worked with MAPC, we were basically told that if if there was inclusionary zoning and we said just say for our sake of argument 10% townwide for affordable housing that there had to be a give up. like we had to make concessions to developers whether it's a density bonus

214>> or something like a parking >> reduction >> like there needed to be an incentive and the requirement and last night when we were talking it didn't sound like that needed to be the case. It sounded like we could incentivize in certain ways that may not be density. Maybe we figure out a different way to incentivize. >> Well, I think one of the things that she said was that Ashlin is the market is not so strong here in terms of a developer profit margin that it doesn't put us in a strong position to negotiate incentives, right, with developers >> and requirements. So we can't we could not say >> everyone that that comes in needs to have 25% affordable like lights out because the market doesn't support it. >> Right. >> Yeah. So >> and

215we and we felt that during the the discussions when u 100 Chestnut Street was being discussed that that was that was a topic of conversation when you know I met with the developer. >> Yeah. The first thing I said was, "Well, we're looking at 25%." And he started laughing. He says, "You'll be lucky if you get 10%." >> Well, but I but I think as a community, we had talked about that would have been a strategy, right? It would have been a strategy to push back at him and say, "We need 25%." >> Oh, believe me, I did say that. >> Well, but it didn't get You might have said it, but it did not get followed through on by other by other boards, >> right? And also, you have to be educated on that,

216right? You have to be educated to know that if you say 10%, you only get 10% of the units and that's all you can count. Correct. If you [clears throat] if you push for the 25%, you can then count all of the units in that rental building. Right? So, it's it's it's continuing that education, it's continuing as a community. If that's what we want to support and push for, then that's what we have to support and push for. >> So, there's like a little history. Um so when the town went through the process of reszoning a lot of different properties and allowing these high density >> by right yes um like downtown and 126 >> it was because with the amount of density that was currently allowed it wasn't attractive to the market to come

217in and actually redevelop. So >> you increase the the density to make it attractive for a developer to come in. Obviously that has tradeoffs, right? So, um, you know, we we put a lot of focus, I think, on the on the mill project, rightly so. >> You know, the So, actually, it's less dense than what is allowed under the ADD district. >> Right. >> Significantly less dense. >> Yeah. because that zoning that was passed in 2006 and I will say unanimously um allowed >> are you talking about the rail transit? >> No, I'm talking about the Ashland downtown district that allowed for a floor area ratio of 2.0 >> on properties. So floor area ratio is it's a percentage it's a multiplier of the square footage of the land. So you could have twice as

218much land in square footage in building area. I mean that's seven acres. It's almost eight acres. Yeah. 43,000 square feet an acre. 320,000 square feet times 2 6 whatever that is. It's a lot more than 300 which I think is what it is now. So, so that was the reason why the town went through the process of redevelop reszoning everything to make it high density to allow for develop to incentivize developers to come in, >> right, for in certain areas of town >> in certain areas. And you know, it's it's funny because when we did the 126 study, you know, some people will point to what residents said and what they wanted, but then if you look at what Cecil, you know, the the >> the design, >> the expert said, >> you know, they're

219like, well, actually, you should modify your overlay and get rid of the affordable housing requirement, include increase the amount of density, get rid of the open space requirement because that's the reason it's not being used. It's too restrictive. >> Right. And I'm not I'm not advocating for that. I'm just saying those are the things that >> Right. But but those are those are the things that people >> they wanted the open space for the for the projects around it, right? They wanted the affordable because we didn't have enough affordable, right? And they I think part of the unfortunate thing right now is when you say affordable, right? You look at because we're part of the Metro Boston I I pulled something up as we were talking, right? for the metro Boston area, 80% um is

220a $92,000 income for one person. So, if you're making $92,000, you can afford $2,300, $2,400 for a one-bedroom apartment. But if we were in another area, in another part, I mean, Worcester, it's 69. Springfield, it's 51. So maybe our work should be not, you know, fighting the whole thing, but saying pull us out of the metro Boston area for our for our AMI. You know, you you could look at there's a number of different strategies. I think it's not it's really not that complicated. I've heard two things from the I've heard one thing from the community. Excuse me. I've heard two things specifically from the community over the years that I've been here in terms of affordable. >> Number one, affordable is not affordable enough, which is actually what JM Goldson is saying. We need

221deeper affordability. We need housing for seniors so they can sell their homes and still find a way to stay here. And then actually there's a third one. We need to have smaller affordable starter homes. There's your strategy, >> right? >> There you go. Unfortunately, right, for the the you know, un unless pe unless we do what people ask us and say, can can the community can the town build homes or can the town buy properties and build stuff, you have to find developers who want to do that? And h, you know, even developers who live here in town and who do work here in town aren't willing to do any of that. They don't want to build smaller homes. Right. >> Right. And we'd have to change our zoning to allow for smaller homes and

222smaller lot sizes. >> You could work with a habitat, >> you know, a habitat [clears throat] for humanity. >> That's one house at a time, right? >> They've actually changed their uh format a bit um because they've been in contact uh with affordable housing trust >> that they sit on >> and um there's going to be a discussion in February about the olive street >> olive street parcel. That's good. and uh because I I know that Beth is going to be invited to this uh meeting with economic development and uh you know they they saw the site we showed them plans that we had originally >> they thought it was fantastic >> right but even even those homes were two and threebedroom homes >> correct >> right multi-level two and threebedroom homes >> but they

223were small they were small and they were actually not homes they were duplexes they looked like single family homes but you know one door in the front, >> but you know, they don't want to get >> the Robert Hill way model is actually a pretty good model because you've accomplished through that >> you've you've accomplished giving seniors affordable housing and it's at a deeply subsidized rate and all of the units are that way. It takes a lot of work on the town's part because the developers got to go for litex. There's got to be a town contribution to that. That's how you can leverage some of that, >> right? But but to your point, Michael, there are seniors who don't want to go live in an apartment. >> That's true. >> Right. They they want

224they'd love to go back to a Cape, right, to a starter home. >> Yeah. Or an ADU type or an ADU, right? And we have available. >> We're losing some of our capes. I mean, I live around capes, right? And a number of the streets that have capes, they're now two stories, >> right? They they take, you know, someone comes in, they buy the cape, and they do a beautiful job. It's now this twostory home that has, you know, beautiful windows and stuff, but there's goes the the 250 $300,000 home. I mean, not not that that's the price of a cape anymore. I'm seeing capes for $500,000, but it becomes, you know, something they bought at $450, if they even if they stay there or if they try to flip it, they're almost getting twice

225the price. >> Yeah. So, but again, this was, you know, someone else I had a discussion with about something else is how do we get the mentality of the public to say it's okay to move it back to a smaller home? And two, how do we get developers to do it or how do we as a town, we don't have time to, you know, if something with habitat would work, that'd be great. >> Um, but again, could we >> I don't think you have trouble with the public wanting to get to small. I think there's plenty of people who are interested in a smaller home whether it's so that they can get started in home ownership or if they want to downsize or or whatever. I think the issue is developers and and always the

226only thing they care about is their profit margin >> goes back to workforce housing. >> But but the other thing that I've asked a couple of developers, why are we doing rentals and not condos? Right. Ashlin was I mean think about all the condominiums that we have but now they're all rentals because there's more money in rental market. Yeah. That's why it's again it's just >> profit >> which you know also that it's also has to do with market conditions of what people can afford. There are a lot of people who don't have the wherewithal to have or the means to to put down down payments on anything like even a condo much less a small house at this point >> you know. But what but what I think might be valuable for us I

227mean this is a this is a key community issue that we have to consciously kind of steer towards solutions. I think the housing production plan is a good start for us to maybe start you know strategizing putting more more time and attention towards strategizing specifically around um addressing these issues and some of the issues that we talked about tonight [clears throat] may end up being part of that solution. But I I would suggest to my my colleagues here that we maybe take a look at um you know putting some concentrated time and effort into you know uh even after the as we launched the housing production plan like how do we operationalize our ideal state of housing in Ashlin and and and try to figure out like what resources and time and what we need

228to do over the next few years to to make sure that you know we're driving in that action. >> Yeah, >> good point. Good point. Well, I thank you ladies for all the work that you've done with the comprehensive plan and the housing production plan. That's part of that process. So, appreciate all the work because it's not it's not it's not uh a job that brings a lot of praise, just a lot of sweat sweat equity. A lot of sweat equity and a lot of late nights. um discuss the select board office hours. >> Go ahead, Brandy. >> Okay, so um couple things. One, we've talked in the past about tying in especially in the wintertime our select board office hours with the library >> book sale, >> which is the first Saturday of every

229month. And so we have confirmed that we are able to um be at the library for uh February through May. And we have to figure out exactly what hours we want to be there because we haven't talked about that. Um so I guess that's my first thought. Um and Makita had um made a suggestion which I think was really good um that wanted to bring to you guys you know, as we go through this um budget crisis and override issue, it's a good idea to make ourselves more available versus less available. >> Um and Makita had suggested um >> on the third Saturday, so like that we would hold alternate office hours possibly at like Dolce de Leche or some place like that. So um so I'm throwing it out there for the group to

230appine and then let's commit to something so that you know we can have the communications team put together some social media and stuff and a plan to put it in Michael's newsletter so we know that people will [snorts] know that we're there. Can we put a calendar together that we can sort of plug into so that >> um it's not like oh yeah I can do this day and we have to keep track of but there's a calendar that we can say okay I'm going to do this day from this time to this time or >> split up the date like we used to do at the time we did so what I'll do is I'll put together a signup genius. >> Okay perfect people can put in the dates that they can do >>

231um so does that sound good to do the the first and first and third Saturday. Sure. Yeah. >> Okay. What time do we want to do? >> So, I also mentioned it to Jules today. >> Oh. >> Um and you know, he was he was fine with it. And >> Jules, >> yeah. >> And um you know, I I don't know. Do we only want to think about Saturdays? Do we want to think about other alternatives? Um >> I I I think that's a good idea, Claudia, because um you know, one thing that we want to consider might want to consider is that Saturday mornings may not be okay for a lot of folks. There are a lot of folks who worship on Saturday mornings, you know, um, etc., etc. So maybe like something a

232weekday morning and a Saturday maybe like just to spread it out so that we can get different people with different schedules. I don't know. >> Yeah. or even, you know, weekday late afternoon or um evening. Uh, you know, Jules is open till 9:00, so we could certainly go there. And and I mean, I guess the other thing is we could maybe have some standard times and then maybe try some new times out to new times and days if anybody wanted to do that and throw it on the calendar. Okay. And then if it if it felt like it worked. I mean, obviously it would be nice to have something that people would expect so that they would know where they could find us and when they could find us. But maybe we need to kind

233of >> do we see what works. >> Also want to like do a visit to the senior center either with Michael or on an opposite week from Michael. Um, you know, tie in to the Monday lunches or the Lions senior breakfast >> upstairs so that you know I can Okay. >> Yeah. You know, make that part of the when I'm up there, you know, and then I can get >> So, you're the leazison to the council on aging. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Oh, it's still blank on the sheet. >> It is. >> Yeah. [snorts] >> Really? >> Did you not go in and add it yourself, Joe? >> I can do that. [laughter] >> I'm looking at my ke. Look at the green. Okay. >> Yeah. So, I think I I like your idea,

234Brandy. I think if we can and and same for you, Claudia, you know, if we can mix it up and stuff and >> Sure. Yeah. No, that's No, no, that sounds good. And then I think, you know, as part of our outreach as we kind of get into this override anyway, that will, you know, that'll be another discussion. That'll be a whole another discussion. So, um Okay. So, let's How about >> So, February 7th would be our first time at the library. >> Yes. Um, >> I can commit to >> And do we want to say 10 to 12? Do we want to say 9 to 11? >> I think I think 9 to 11. I think they're early people. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. So 9 to 11 at the library. And

235do we want to pick a a a date and time for the Dolce? >> Yeah. What about uh what about Wednesdays? First and third. >> Yeah, first and third. They can [laughter] >> first and third. We'll just blow the whole day. >> Um, I can't be there, but if you guys go down the board, >> I'd be willing to do something like Okay. >> I currently can't commit. I mean, unless really early, like, you know, an 8 to 9 or something, I could commit to that. >> Us retired folk, >> I can't commit to >> We could do that. >> All right. What time? >> I can't do mornings, but usually I'm free. But >> yeah, I'm I'm a Saturday person. If you know it, if during business hours, I'm first of all while occupied

236for the most part, but I'm a Saturday person. >> We just can't do Tuesdays, that's all. >> Do we want to say Wednesday afternoon then? >> Yeah. Okay. So, Wednesday 3 to 5. >> 3 to 5. And then you can get to come here and >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Continue the conversation. >> Okay. >> And if that doesn't draw, you know, and then we could change it up. >> Okay. Sounds good. All right. So, I will put together a signup genius. >> Okay. >> And that way we have all the dates and >> and and I would also say if you know if only one person can be there. I mean it's certainly much more fun with two of us, but if only one can do it. >> Yeah, >> that works too. >> Okay.

237All right. Anything else that you guys Good. >> All right. So, and I will I will work with the communications folks to >> get that out there. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Perfect. Thank you. Thanks Brandy for doing it. Appreciate that. Uh update on 40B projects. >> Not a problem here. That's okay. Um we'll say actually pull it up. Okay. So, on 61 Waverly, the 20-day appeal period has passed and so there hasn't been an appeal and so they are before the con conservation commission. I'll give a little bit more detail about that. Um, but they're still anticipating they're months away from completing with the concom. Michael, would would they be the one that would be appealing when you say the appeal period has passed and there's been no appeal? >> That is correct. >> So,

238they would have appealed maybe some of the conditions that were set. Okay. >> Correct. Correct. Um 10 to 60 Main Street. So, that decision was filed with the town clerk and so the 20-day appeal period is going to be over on January 30th. Um so, they haven't applied yet to Concom. Um but I believe they're anticipated to do so by March. Um and then 55 West Union, that's still before the ZBA. Um just completed the storm water peer review. U there's some concerns after the civil peer review. Um so I think I know they're really really concentrating on uh the sewer placement and where it's going to be and I know they're looking at doing some test pits. Uh, and so it's also in front of design review. Um, and and I don't mind saying

239this. This is just my personal opinion. I think it's it it is is a horrendous looking building. So, I'm hoping design review does does um has has fun with it. Let's put it that way. >> You talking about 61 or >> I'm talking about 55. Okay. >> Um, but anyway, that's that's really more on the planning and ZBA front um with conservation. And um I know that there was a specific issue with 61 Waverly in regards to a pipe and and a collapsed pipe. >> Uh and so the applicant has been very very resistant in terms of um replacing that pipe. >> Um and so my understanding is that the applicant has changed >> his mind and is now willing to replace that pipe. that last night. >> So, um yes. Um and there's been

240a a lot of significant concern, I think, just about storm or groundwater. Yep. >> Not necessarily storm water, but ground water. >> I don't know if anybody drove by the other day when we had that >> heavy rain. >> And Waverly Street is all flooded. >> It was completely flooded. >> I know >> it was completely flooded. Thankfully, it hadn't frozen over because it would have been a bone of contention and accidents up to the zoo. Seriously, that's how bad it and it's been like that for years. Been like that for years. >> And and the point of that, the groundwater issue is we're taking, you know, what is currently impeous material, the ground, right? and putting impervious >> correct >> structure on it. um creating less place for the water to be absorbed >>

241other than being run off right into the right into the >> Yeah, but again >> as part of the design can't they becau I mean storm there's a storm water and conservation review they can say you have to do certain things to either store the storm water or mitigate the storm water um as part of the process right >> yeah and usually I mean what's interesting is is who's going to be respons who people consider responsible for that. >> Where we usually get into some I I don't want to say hot water but maybe a pickle um and conservation issues is a lot of times or I shouldn't say a lot of times but sometimes the D will disagree with what our conservation >> commission [clears throat] >> because we go a little bit further

242than some of the DP state regulations. Right. >> Yeah. I think there's you know some room for interpretation there. What's interesting about this uh project is that D is in pretty much alignment I think with a lot of what the conservation commission is concerned with >> for Waverly or >> for Waverly. Okay. >> You know, specifically runoff, you know, I think the the the laws say you cannot have any additional runoff. So I think you know the applicant put in something like 0.00001 or something. It's like no. Yeah. Can't have any. So >> um one of the questions that came up in one of the emails regarding 10 to 60 Main Street is regard to they go to build and then EPA doesn't give them the change of the ADU right so that they can't

243have anybody living there >> like walk away >> what concern I mean is there concern there do we feel like Angler the developer has looked at that for I mean and thank you for those of you who have been paying a little bit more attention to this which I you know I really appreciate that but that's just one of the questions that came you know that what I'm thinking of is like we're going to take these buildings down we're going to potentially build something and then for some reason if it's not approved that for people to live there we're then going to have potentially an empty building like do we really is that a true concern or or not or >> I mean I would say it's it's definitely like in the realm of of

244>> possibility like it's feasible um realistic I I I don't know I'd probably have to do a little more research on >> okay >> what that would look like >> it doesn't seem as though you know it would be realistic to think that >> the developer >> is going to go that far >> would go that far without feeling pretty certain that >> D is going to say I mean >> I it's hard to imagine right >> yeah yeah >> also there's going to be like um um what like a licensed >> person LSP on site >> and so they're going to be working with them and >> so hopefully they'll be testing and stuff as the buildings go down so that if something changes if like if because they've taken the buildings down there's

245more flow of the natural gases coming out of that they would then stop >> they'll have to do I believe it's two rounds of air testing >> okay >> um before they'll be able would get occupancy permits and that that air testing must show that you know there's no it reads within the acceptable levels for the different chemicals. >> Okay. >> Thank you. question >> in terms just to add about 61 Waverly um and the runoff and that and I think I was late getting to that meeting because I'd been at the housing um production plan meeting but um you know I think they said something about the rock being pvious and the or I'm sorry impervious and therefore >> they weren't really adding to the imperous nature of the of the >> talking about

246the ledge. Yeah, they're talking about the ledge. They're saying they were kind and maybe I like I said, I got there late and so I was >> but it was like, oh, so they were arguing that it's already impervious. So, we're not going to make it worse. It was just >> as long as you don't improve increase the runoff. >> Runoff. >> That's the that it doesn't matter the impervious or pvious. It's if you're increasing the runoff the site. Yeah. They're just saying if if they're not increasing the impervious nature of the property that they wouldn't be increasing the runoff. But he doesn't want >> was an interesting. >> So I do have a question um regarding Waverly and 10 to 60 Maine. Now that those ZBA hearings are closed, is town council still working

247on the projects? Are they is is council involved in conservation? Like because you know it was interesting because like you know Joan was asking questions at the front end >> and I actually was like thinking >> is council still working on these projects or or is like council >> talking about Brian? >> Yeah. Yeah. like or are we making additional requests of Brian that fall outside of what he's currently working? You know what I'm saying? >> Um my assumption is that he is still involved with like the next step. So like Waverly is at the Conservation Commission. I would believe they had requested Brian be part of that. Good. Um and then um my understanding is when 10 to 60 would file the >> same thing. >> Yeah, same thing. I mean I think you

248would want >> to make sure Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I do want that. >> Can we just verify that? >> Sure. >> Because the word assumption and I want to make sure that we know that >> they're still involved in in making sure that our Yeah. Well, and and that the the best interest of the community is still >> being looked at. >> Yeah. Certainly we should have some legal counsel supporting con, right? >> Yeah. >> Um I think that um two of the questions that I think Joan raised were and then I that have gone to council were regarding the the application that from Mr. Angler and one of them was like you know is there are you aware of any restrictions on this property that he responded no to? Um has there there

249was one maybe about um just the the uh the rest not the restrictions but the air quality or the potential for some kind of contamination. But so there were three or four questions that she had pulled out of his application >> that certainly >> were not correctly answered and that that that was indeed you know something where that Mr. Angla had been um I believe you know faced some um suspension from a suspension from the uh from mass housing previously >> that that was >> oh yeah and then there was something where the his suspension expired >> as of January of 26 but we've been pushing and questioning this for the last 6 months. >> Well, so I think his it suspension ended prior to that time. What happened was when his the date of

250his sus the ending of his suspension um there there had also been some requirements put in place that he had to follow certain steps in any project that he became that he applied for in within the three years following the end of his suspens actual suspension so that he could continue now to be an applicant and a developer in 40b but he needed to do these additional steps. >> Mhm. So what I've asked is and and through public records requests with Mass Housing have gotten a copy of a couple of letters. One that we already had which was just the suspension itself and one that set these requirements um as of and they were that letter was November um 18th I think of 22 in any case. So, his application to us would have fallen

251within that 3-year period, I believe. Um, and then so trying to see who's enforcing this. Has it been enforced? And and this is Brian spoke with an attorney from um >> Executive Office of I'm trying to think of how the letters went. >> The letters >> um so yeah u executive office of housing and livable livable community. Sorry, used to be economic. >> How could we forget livable communities? In any case, so and that attorney um told him that she would inquire. She didn't know readily, but she thought everything was res done as of January 1st, 2026. Right. So, >> okay. Well, that could be the case. That might be the end of it. But what did he perform during that time? >> Yeah. >> So, that the answer to that was supposed to happen

252sometime this towards the end of this week, I believe. Okay. >> Okay. >> We good? >> Yep. >> Any any other 40bs we want to talk about? >> Thankfully. >> No. No. Thankfully, >> I I am, you know, I will say just real quickly on 1060, I I've been spending some time pulling together, um, a pretty comprehensive report, I think, kind of going back many years, uh, with this project because we've been dealing with it for many years. Um, and it's pretty interesting. I think I think we've all collectively kind of forgotten about a few things, a few steps. Um, so yeah, I'm looking forward to finishing that and putting it together. And I think >> yeah, it' be interesting to find out what you think we've forgotten about. >> Oh, um, well, I think

253like the like 2017 site readiness application we put in. >> Yep. you know um you know how we really pushed back on the demolition of the granite buildings. Yes. I mean back in like 2020 and all that stuff. >> Yeah. Before co Yeah. >> Okay. >> Push back on them being >> completely completely expect so right. >> Yeah. >> And yeah. And how was before the planning board at like two 195 units? >> Um well they wanted 180 and I think that's kind of was That was one of the things that then the economics didn't work, you know, especially because it was just during co and expenses went up and things like that. What's going to be really interesting I think in [clears throat] terms of 10 to 60 is not necessarily continuing to get

254stuck kind of where we are but it's what are we going to learn from the process definitely >> to where >> how can we use that moving forward as a community >> when we are starting to push back really hard and developers give me signals that hey you know this isn't working what do we do >> right right you know Michael it's not that I'm not ready to move forward forward on this. Um, I guess in some respects I'm not quite because I'm not 100% sure it's it's hopeless. I guess a lot of my dissatisfaction um or has been the struggle around, you know, our as a community not taking action that I feel like we should have taken. >> And so I think that that's, you know, that makes it hard sometimes for me

255to kind of just uh put it all behind me. Um, and that along with really that [snorts] I feel like, okay, you never know, maybe something with the conservation commission is going to um be able to help us here or or something. I I don't know. >> And and Claudia, I'm I'm sorry it I realize it probably did come across that I was saying this about us and I was really speaking more about the community, but I think your perspective is that, you know, we might not have done enough. My perspective is we've spent six or seven years working really really hard on it. Um and actually putting this report together I was I was a little disappointed actually a little bit angry that we worked so hard to get it a nice design. um

256you know, a little bit under 200 units and that wasn't good enough and the you know, people calling it Herbert Town and and everything and then um yeah, you know, kind of seeing what we end up with. It's kind of sad actually. >> Yeah. And I and I mean I think that's part of it, but I mean maybe you need to move forward from that because what what I'm talking about is what is before us today. Yeah, I don't >> maybe I don't discount what has been done in the past, the efforts that were made. I feel like there's been um you know certainly the letter that you wrote with with input from people and boards was tremendous and um you've got a meeting at the you know Senate President's office with Mass Housing. So

257it it's just that you know I' I have felt like we should have taken some next steps in this in this process. And so for right for right now I'm just thinking okay so we'll see we'll see what happens with the conservation commission. Um but >> you know >> in any case >> I hope I hope one day we can all look back and say we did the best we can we could and feel like that's true. I hope one day we can all get to that place. >> Absolutely. All right. Are we good? >> Yep. I move that we approve the consent agenda as presented on the agenda. >> There second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> thank you. >> All right. That's 5. It passes. Uh top manager reports.

258It says 30 minutes. I'm going to give you 30 seconds. Fair enough. Um, so if you're if you're looking for colleagues and peers uh that want to talk about overrides and housing and [snorts] challenges and insurance challenges. Um, if you're going to MMA, you will certainly be in good company. >> Um, so that starts tomorrow. Uh, goes through Saturday. And uh I know I know several of you all are planning on going. But um yeah, it's it's always an interesting time to hear from our colleagues. Um budget update. We we talked a lot about the 27 budget. I had um intended and what I had hoped to have was the 20 our current fiscal year like the update. Um but I don't have that yet. >> Okay. >> Next meeting >> and the next meeting

259will be fe Yeah. and I'll we'll talk a little bit about the [clears throat] fourth meeting >> and then um >> I'll turn it over to Katherine about update on the citizens academy. Then I just got a couple more things. So, we held our first um session for Citizens Academy for 2026 and we uh changed some things up based on um some professional development and just some goals that we had had um to make it more interactive, more um engaging. And so, uh, our first session was sort of our test run, uh, with the new, um, program that we had set out and the feedback we received was really positive and actually mentioned some of our goals as far as engagement and the the interactive nature of the course. Um, so that was really promising

260and our second session will be next week. We meet the second and fourth Wednesday of each month and they'll meet with members from our >> just to make sure you have something to go on Wednesday night. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> And how many residents are in it this year? >> 16. >> Oh, wow. >> And it's a it's a great group. Very engaged. Um, all seem to have um some knowledge about what's going on in town, which is really awesome to see. >> Age group. >> Yeah, I'm going to ask the same thing, Joe. Um, what kind of age distribution are we talking about with >> We didn't take ages. We actually um asked for how long they've been in town, and so we did it that way. And so we have, you know, some

261new residents as well as people who've been here for decades. So really, really cool. >> I I can say for sure our youngest is in early 20s. Um and just cuz he's son of a resident I know. And then the older one is um early 70s. >> Wow. That's good. That's a nice range. >> It is. I I have a question for Yeah, I have a question for you, Katherine, actually. Um, you know, uh, you you might need the second and fourth Wednesdays. I'd love the opportunity to come in and sit in on some of those sessions. Could, uh, select board members, uh, you know, kind of the range of due on maybe selected sessions to come in and sit in and just see see what's going on with the residents and how they're absorbing

262all this great information. >> Yeah, sure. Um, and so we we have a whole schedule, so I'm happy to share that with you if you'd like to see it. Awesome. Um, and next >> week. Yeah. So, next week they'll be meeting with our HR team and some members of our finance team. >> Nice. >> Awesome. >> Yeah. Very good. And we'll be So, it's it's interesting. We we kind of, you know, based on some of Katherine's um input and things that she gathered. Like I said, we try to make it more engaging and less of a of a lecture type of format and really kind of let them in some ways drive the subjects of the discussion and then we use that as opportunities to bring in like local government structure and and how all

263that works. But two things that came up, housing 40bs and uh and finance and overrides and stuff. >> Interesting. So yeah, it was um it's it's definitely, you know, >> sounds like people are talking. >> Yeah, >> it's good. >> Great. >> Absolutely. >> And then did you have any anything else, Catherine, on that one? Um and then did you have anything else? >> Okay. Um >> thank you. >> And then I just Yeah, just wanted to update you. Um, we did get notified that we received a $25,000 vaccine grant to help pay for our vaccine program. So, Raj, Board of Health, >> Laura, and that whole team, >> they're doing great. >> Sounds good. >> Yeah, >> especially right now, flu season's flying. >> As I can well attest, um, Michael, I have a

264question for you. U, could you talk a little bit about the sewer rehabilitation project? Yeah. So, um, >> yeah, sewer re rehabilitation project, you know, and what exactly is that? Sounds, um, sounds involved, but really um, and I'll just explain a little bit of how the sewer system works. You know, basically, they're pipes that are butdded up against each other and and so what happens is that it can get leaks in them from groundwater. And so groundwater gets into the um the sewer system which impacts our capacity number one. Uh number two, it also impacts our cost because we we pay for the amount of flow. So you know any and so what the rehabilitation project does is it seals those leaks. >> Well that's under the INI, right? >> INI program inflow and infiltration.

265Correct. >> Okay. >> So currently they just go like this. >> Some of them do stilling them up. Yeah. >> Yeah. Just kind of buted up against each other. Yeah. >> Not what you'd expect out of. >> Those are the old school ones. The really old school ones. >> But we still have a lot of >> Yeah, I was going to say >> stuff. >> How many areas in town are targeting? >> I don't know. It's a good question. Um I don't have I know we have the number, but I don't have that right in front of me. >> Yep. >> Cool. >> Yeah. Does that answer your question, Makita? Give you enough detail? >> It does. Um, you know, I think also I think there there are some folks who are going to be

266uh impacted by that, right? Um, in some neighborhoods that there's information on the town website. Um, I think January and February. So, sounds like there might be a couple things people should watch out for. >> Yeah. We'll continue to put that stuff in the newsletter and and out on social media and stuff. And the work on Fruit Street, that's uh electric is a gas. I mean gas and that is seems to have stopped for now. >> Yeah, just until like the weather warns a little bit. Yeah, >> but I think we're getting them to do it pretty much curb to curb. I got I got to before I promise that, let me double check on it. When And when we say curb to curb on that, can we make sure they fix the curbs? Cuz

267right now some of the sidewalks just sort of roll into the street. >> I'll do my best. [laughter] I'll do my best. I can fix the grains. You know where that water's going to go. >> Yeah. The lowest point. >> I'm thinking more of people walking. It's like not >> Yeah. >> No, I know. >> Um [clears throat] but yeah, that's uh that's it. Okay. brief >> only because I know we can't do it in uh 3 minutes. I'm making a motion to go past 10:00. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> Thank you. >> Go. Makita. >> Yes. >> We'll start with you. >> Oh, why are you starting with me? >> Board reports. Uh well, not much to report. Um, I did uh get out last night for uh in

268it for the housing production plan meeting and I do want to take a minute to thank every uh resident that came out and um and participate in that process. There are a lot of really great questions and as uh I think Brandy said and Yolanda said earlier um that's recorded for WACA. So if you if you missed that last night, please take a look. uh make sure that um that uh that that you get a chance to see that presentation and to fill out the survey. Um I did catch the last few minutes of of conf conservation commission last night as well. Um but I came in late. Rather, I was I was watching it late. So um but other than that, unfortunately, I've been uh a bit under the weather and have not been

269able to make the rounds about town like I usually would like to. So, I'm looking forward to office hours and um getting to see uh uh the public as well. And I oh, I will report that I did miss the historical commission meeting because I was under weather. Um so, I'll be circling back with them uh to uh to find out how I can be of assistance. Thanks. >> Thank you, Makita. Feel better. >> Thank you. 11. >> So last week I had a Metro West regional collaborative meeting and I'm going to get makita I'm going to get you some information. So at a previous meeting we were given a presentation by a his a group that does historical training on historical districts and things like that. And as a collaborative, we've said that we

270want to go forward with this training and they're going to allow three members of each committee, I mean of each community to participate. So Makita, I thought um I'd pass that on to you if you wanted to attend and then if there was someone you wanted to invite or if we had a staff member who wanted to participate and that timing will be happening sometime this spring. I am also attending MMA. I am planning on being there from tomorrow through Saturday. uh tomorrow there's a women in government that I want to go listen to because I find it interesting that you know they talk about women in government but it's people who are in positions not volunteers um and I think it would be great to sort of increase that conversation between the staff and

271the volunteers and then uh I'll be heading to the Wimo lunchon on Friday not on the WEIMO board so I'm not participating and then on Saturday we have our mass select board association meeting in the afternoon and we're doing some forget what we're talking about but we're having a roundt discussion about issues that communities have and maybe brainstorm some ideas that we can share and that would then be for all select board members in across the state. So it could be interesting. So I'll bring back anything >> you'll be talking about overrides >> most likely. I know cuz um from the MMA perspective, they have their whole financial, you know, the financial wave and issues and their recommendations and things like that. >> Um >> be a good read for sure. >> So, should be

272a should be a good meeting >> and some good speakers. And I think that's all I got for now. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Claudia. Uh well, I was on the same uh agenda as as Makita last night going from the uh housing production plan meeting to and to going online to finish up with the uh conservation commission. Um and I do want to say that the the housing production plan meeting, it was very well done. Um the interactive nature of it certainly appealed to me as a former educator and um and you know there was good information there even though I I know that I have a lot of frustration around all this but um it was it was well done. Um uh you know then I I do want to offer a couple

273of uh kudos. one for our BBW for the work that they've done in the past uh couple of weeks in terms of snow removal and and that ice, you know, that freezing rain we had. That was a mess. Um and what a nice job. And I know this morning um my husband complained to me that he was awakened, that he didn't know that it had snowed because he heard the truck outside and apparing >> he was a light sleeper. [snorts] It's going to be okay. >> So, um but in any case, they were widening the road and clearing things a little bit. So, um so, you know, kudos to them. Um we had a little thing with um one of my family members cars was leaking gas and I had some questions and went down

274to the fire station. I didn't really want to call and end up with lots of lights and then we've certainly had that enough. So, I was trying to avoid that. and uh firefighter Hayes came out and talked to me and um he was very helpful. Gave me lots of information um just real easy to tea talk to really you know put me at ease um so that I could just tell the kids to stay away from it but um and deal with it um you know with putting some kitty litter and sand down and we put something underneath to catch some of the gas until the morning when it could be towed. So, so thank you to firefighter Hayes for um giving me that sense of u safety. Um and then I Joe, I did

275add you to the uh the liaison signup sheet here under >> Thank you. [laughter] >> under council on aging. So, you're good to go. And um I did contact the both the storm water committee and the um community preservation committee. I I stumble over how many different things we have that begin community or conservation or community preservation. I I it it's a lot and so um like [snorts] am I going to say like okay act the anyways so I contacted both of them um unfortunately they both meet on the first Tuesday of the month so >> oh >> I I don't know I might either try to trade with someone or um or maybe I will just maybe >> skip everyone >> wait >> yeah I could do everyone >> community preservation committee had to

276pull it up so I get the you know and storm water Okay. >> Oh, in any case, um, so I can always, you know, meet with somebody off cycle, uh, you know, just one of the chairs or something or to them every other or whatever. I I I don't know how much attention um, they need, how much love, but I'll try to make sure they get appropriate amount. [clears throat] So, that's uh, it's all I have. Thank you. [snorts] >> I'm up next. Okay. So, um I also did my committee assignments the last couple weeks. Um I joined the sustainability committee on uh I guess it was about two weeks ago. Um and one thing that's really interesting about them is they are considering a warrant article um for town meeting uh that's called Skip

277the Stuff. So, which I had never heard of and they were talking like everyone heard of it and I'm like I don't but basically what they're trying to promote is for takeout food that instead of the the default thing being, you know, when you pick up when you pick up your food from a restaurant and they throw in um silverware and napkins and all that And yeah, all the you know that that you take you come home and you're you don't really necessarily use you throw into a drawer and all that stuff. >> So they're looking to change the default option from throwing it in to having it be like as a as requested. >> Would you like to have it? >> Yes. >> Right. Rather than just Yep. That makes sense. >> More like

278skip the stuff. So >> and and why would they want to come to town meeting? Can't they just like promote that? Mhm. >> Well, I think that they want it as as a I don't know if it's Yeah. publicity and >> um I don't know if it would be considered a bylaw or if that would be I don't know how it would be written. So, but but they're considering bringing it to town meeting. So, I think mostly >> for publicity my sense but >> 8 by10 frame do you want? >> Yeah. Well, I know I know like um you know, >> we shouldn't discuss too much, but Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, um so that might be coming down the pike, so we have that to look forward to. Um I was at the conservation

279meeting on the 12th, um like a regularly scheduled meeting, and we were talking about the hunting issue. Um I was at the ZBA meeting. So, those are my three. >> Yeah, I was too. >> Yeah. Yep. That feels like forever ago, too, doesn't it? It does. Yeah. So um >> so your three are ZBA ZBA commission um conservation and sustainability. >> Yes. >> So [snorts] um so yeah. So I'm not going to be able to make every meeting for all of them, but you know once a month at least will be my my goal. Um >> trade you uh for >> Do you want my Do you I'll trade you I'll >> trade you two Pokemon. [snorts] [laughter] >> Yeah. >> No, no. I'm learning. You know what was funny? Like so being on my

280on on conservation and I haven't to in full disclosure I haven't been to a lot of conservation commission meetings >> but I just have to say the the technical knowledge of the group >> is there fantastic amazing. >> So I mean it's like another it's literally like another language and and kudos to Becca for for like wrangling them all. like she's awesome. So, >> she's awesome. >> Um, and you know, she's even like included me on their packets and stuff, which is really kind of sweet. Not I shouldn't say sweet because that's not but it's it's thoughtful. So, as a way to to make sure that I'm getting the information >> watching her last night and I've been to a couple of conservation meetings, >> thank you to 40 bees mostly, but um and and

281she does a remarkable job. She uh she really does. She wrangles them as she keeps everyone way of saying it. >> And I thought >> we are fortunate to have her as our conservation. She's great. >> Yes. >> So um so just thank you to to uh to her for you know and I talked to her like that after the conservation meeting like we had a call and she was super good. So um >> yeah it it shows right. >> I think that totally does. I told her that. >> Yeah. So, um, and then I was also at the housing production plan meeting last night and, um, we didn't really talk about it today and I don't know if we should have and I was kind of hesitant to talk about like the next steps

282with with the budget stuff and how we're moving forward, but um, I think Michael, you might have mentioned the whole, you know, like um, a ballot committee and that's going to be sort of like the next step. So, um, I've offered to to help out with that with the with the campaign. Um, and so I I'm pretty much I had to I talked to Paul Kendall um on school committee and u John Moore on FinCom and both of them are willing to kind of be this like threeperson steering committee with me. Um, and actually, you know, my thoughts are, you know, there's there's a lot of like state law around this. So, >> it's a pack, right? You gotta be >> It's It's It's not a pack, per se. It's It's >> Oh, yeah. Not

283like a blue. >> Yeah. >> It's a ballot committee. like there's a whole ballot committee >> form that I got to fill out and we got to put through and >> and we have to be very careful what we talk how we talk about it at a select board meeting and things like that. So >> So it'll be an outside >> activity um training with Lisa >> next week >> before the before our February 4th meeting. >> February 4th. >> So two weeks. >> Yep. Two weeks. So >> at six, right? And we meet at seven. >> So but um so more to come on that, but that's that's the plan as of now. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Um just a few few quick things. Uh we had a uh traffic safety study

284committee and we talked about some of the things that were brought up tonight about [clears throat] 40BS and traffic flows and things of that nature, but we also talked about sidewalks and budgeting for sidewalks >> and people that that's one of the biggest things that we're getting right now is, you know, complaints about when are we going to get these And and so we've conjunction with Kevin Langmire and Douggee, you know, responding to these folks, um we've had Chief Rossi at our last couple of meetings along with um uh Sergeant Rocky and um it's it's worked out well because now they're responding to different calls that need to be done and it's and it's very very it's very very good. As a matter of fact, um I don't if you saw the email link, but

285we've had tractor trailers uh a lot of tractor trailers uh using Ral Street and um the unfortunate thing is they're all coming from Frammingham. Framingham does not enforce it, nor do they have signs, uh restricting or saying that Ashland restricts the the weight size of of of the tractor trailers coming into our town via Badger Road. >> Right. So, um, we're I I actually put a call into, uh, Charlie Ziski's office to see if I could sit down and talk with him about that. and uh the MBTA uh issues with, you know, the two new stops every hour because Firmingham and Ashlin are the two towns that are going to be greatly affected by this because we're the ones that have them coming through our town, you know, center of town per se with like

286>> we're the only communities that have atgrade crossings. Correct. >> Right. So that's the issue. So that's what we're, you know, I hope we can sit down and go over that and try to get a resolve or work together. Sometimes they say strengthen numbers. So hopefully we can we can do something with respect to that. The other thing is uh after our last meeting uh with the uh board of health, we had a discussion. We all discussed the possibility of and and requiring uh having voice of the youth in our community as part of this uh nicotine-free gener uh generation discussion. So I put an email out to uh Berlin Ashwash and he uh called me back and they're going to be meeting on um Holy Mackerel. >> That was today. >> Oh yeah. >>

287Who did you put a call out to? His name is Berlin, >> the new decisions at the he's the new he's the new coordinator. They had a >> youth prevention council >> and um they have a youth prevention council up at the high school and it's like they have like seven uh students up there right now that are part of this and they're very proactive. So, uh, we'll be meeting with them on February 2nd, uh, 2, uh, 2, uh, 2:45 to 3:45 up at the high school and talking to these kids and get their, uh, perspective about >> uh, February second. >> Did I what? >> Oh, yeah, absolutely. I'll send you I'll send you the link. >> Yeah. And, uh, be happy to do that. So, that's part of that. And the other one

288is uh again we um affordable housing trusters will be meeting and hopefully we can sit down with uh Habitat about real affordable uh housing projects in this area. So that's it. The other thing I'd like to remind everybody is that u we have a possible major snowstorm coming up this weekend >> and Yeah. >> More snow. Yeah. Well, they're talking >> Monday. [laughter] Well, I I said I said, "Yeah, I said that to Jim out in the hallway." He says, "No school on Monday." He goes, "Oh, yes, there will be." [laughter] >> Um, so just do do yourself a favor and you just, you know, check on the your senior citizens, make sure they're okay uh during this time frame because I guess it's going to be a an all weekend snowstorm and it's going

289to be the heavy stuff. It's not going to be >> like into Tuesday. Like it's going to be a couple of days. Last last I heard was it's going to be a couple of days >> and by the end of it we could have like a foot of snow. >> Yeah. >> That that was the last thing >> foot of snow really isn't that much. >> No >> that they don't understand how we used to have to walk to school and back you know >> uphill both ways. >> Do you remember what was it the um 2014 >> 2013? No, 2015. The winter of 2015 when we had a total of seven feet of snow period of time, right? From middle of January till end of February. >> Yeah, that was that was a that

290was a classic snow. >> Oh, yeah. It was almost over. >> Almost over. >> Okay. >> Um, so with that, also, by the way, just remind everybody that there is a no parking ban, especially with the uh snowstorm coming. Make sure your vehicles aren't parked on the side of the road between the hours of 1 and six. Uh and if you have a snowstorm and no parking at all on the sides of the road so the plows can do their jobs. So with that uh be safe. >> Uh >> I move that we adjourn. >> Is there a second? All those in favor >> I feel better my my friend. >> Hi. Nikita says I and thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good night. See you all. February 4th.