Select Board Meeting — September 30, 2026

Yeah, yeah, she gave me a hand.

Good evening and welcome to the Board of Selectmen meeting on September 30th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Would you all please rise and join me with a salute to the flag and a moment of silence?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Okay, under Mass General Law Chapter 30A, Section 20F requires that any person recording must notify the chair at the beginning of the meeting.

All select board meetings are recorded via audio and video and broadcast live on CCOC Channel 96.

Would somebody like to read the board and committee Openings.

Volunteers are needed on the Capital Improvement Committee, 2 from the Select Board, 3 from the moderator.

Commission on Disability, 6 from the Select Board.

Economic Development Committee, 3 from the Select Board.

Energy Committee, 3 from Select Board.

Finance Committee, 1 from the moderator.

Historical Commission, 2 from Select Board.

Recycling Committee, 1 from the Select Board.

Okay, remember the priority matters.

Reading to the record the moderator's appointment of Dylan Ferreira to the Finance Committee.

For a term to expire June of 2029.

All right, next we have community speaks.

Is there anyone here like to speak under community speaks?

Sir, please come up.

Hi, good evening.

Joe Novenson, 100 Brown Avenue.

I'm here because Seconk has a chicken or the egg dilemma.

And yes, I'm talking about the Maderas Farm project.

Tonight's agenda includes Item F, pushing the Maderas Farm Committee to file a special permit with the Zoning Board of Appeals for an independent traffic study the Select Board voted down.

We've already rejected Howard Stein Hudson's bid before because it's unclear exactly what it's supposed to accomplish.

Because it's unclear exactly what it's supposed to accomplish, we find ourselves asking these questions: why are we here at all?

During their Wednesday, June 24th meeting, a majority of the Select Board insisted on a formal traffic study be conducted off the Maderas Farm Committee's informal master plan.

That plan, a conceptual guiding document as reiterated by Mr. Cadime, designated both the eastern and western halves of the Maderas Farm property for active recreation.

There would be a total of 4 rectangular playing fields that can be used for soccer, lacrosse, and other sports.

But the same exact select board majority of Sagar, Almazian, and Archambault voted on June 24th to ban active recreation west of Lincoln Street.

How then can any engineer be reasonably expected to conduct formal taxpayer-funded study off 2 contradictory data points.

The committee's master plan doesn't account for the select board's snap decision to eliminate 2 of the 4 fields, never mind that any traffic study needs to be checked against the updated layout of a finalized schematic for accuracy.

We don't have that schematic without a signed contract.

If we did, it would render Howard Stein Hudson's traffic study dead on arrival, unless the proposed traffic study was always a pretext for killing off the Meadows Farm project.

Besides, a traffic study came included with the design contract submitted by CHA.

I respectfully ask the Medeiros Farm Committee to not be complicit in the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars, that Mr. Archambault— Mr. Archambault continue to recuse himself from any discussion of the Medeiros Farm project.

We wouldn't be talking about a special permit if Mr. Archambault hadn't participated in an illegal vote against the advice of Town Council.

Farm Committee, they pushed you around on June 24th.

Don't let them do it again.

This community has your backs.

Likewise, I would also ask Mr. Sagar to recuse himself from Agenda Item D regarding the Brigham Farm 3 subdivision as it relates to his company, Sagar Services Incorporated.

Thank you.

Well, first of all, Mr. Novelson, I will recuse myself, but much of what you said is factually incorrect, and I will clarify that in my presentation.

But thank you for your time.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak?

Good evening, and you are?

Jeannie Stocker, 14 Washington Street.

Okay.

Uh, last week someone spoke wondering why you guys want this job, and I think another very appropriate question is why are all these people sitting here listening to this?

Because it's not like a— it's not like a picnic to be here.

I would rather be doing other things, but But I do find what's going on in my town to be very interesting.

Admittedly, I don't understand all the nuance of this Medeiros Farm situation.

What I can tell you is that I believe community is very important, and I believe that sitting here through these meetings to try and push something forward that's a community thing is important.

You know, I think we've lost sight of what it means to be a community.

The, you know, Facebook is not it.

The connect is not it.

You know, community is this.

Even when it's unpleasant, when it's adversarial, it's an important thing to be able to talk about things.

And I never had the time to do this before and I do now.

And I find it all very interesting.

I find it also very troubling feeling a lot of what's gone on around this Medeiros Farm issue.

I mean, I'd like to believe we all want what's best for the town, but I'm not so sure that is what we all want.

Um, and it's not for me to speculate entirely what's going on, but I think this is an important thing.

You know, the town doesn't have any, any place like this, you know, a potential place for community gardens and a place for people to gather, maybe farmers markets is what I was led to believe was a possible thing to happen here.

The other thing that I found very troubling was how last week's meeting ended.

It saw a bit of a pile-on that, that struck me as bullying, and I don't think it's appropriate for there to be any back and forth during community community speaks.

Um, I understand this is a tough job and everybody— things get heated, but I think it's very important that people be allowed to speak, and I think it's very important that people's votes are taken seriously.

The Medeiros Farm has had 3 votes that, that passed with a majority of people wanting this project to move forward.

Um, I'm sure I couldn't do this job that you guys are doing.

I mean, I, I have some empathy here for you, and I would just like it if, if, uh, there wasn't any back and forth.

It's, uh, not respectful to the people speaking, and, uh, I'm very grateful I have a chance to speak here, and I appreciate you all listening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Hi.

You're not wearing your pins.

I'm disappointed.

Your name again, please?

Martha Mano, 116 Reed Street.

It's on my bag.

It's on your bag?

Yes.

I don't like to put holes in my sweaters.

Okay, then they just get bigger.

That's interesting.

Um, I just want to say thank you for Ms. Elmajian's invitation to me to speak with her.

We spoke last week for, I don't know, an hour, maybe half an hour at least, at the library.

And I was happy to hear her say positive things about the Madero Farm Project, some of the things that she would look forward to having there.

The community gardens she spoke about possible music venue with a gazebo the way other towns have gazebos.

We do have a gazebo at the library, but one thing she pointed out to me which I hadn't thought about— so if you know the history of Seekonk, you know that we seceded from Rehoboth and we sliced off this skinny sliver.

So we're this long skinny town.

So if you live on the north end, you don't really see the people on the south end and vice versa.

And what Ms. Elmajian pointed out to me was that there really isn't a lot on the south end for community.

There are stores and, you know, Route 6 and all that, but there's only one of the schools down there.

The high school, the middle school are in the middle and northern end.

The library is in the middle northern end.

The senior center is north of Taunton Avenue.

So I thought that was a good point, and I wanted to just thank you for that and, and also put it to you, the committee, as well.

I think that tonight is an important meeting.

I had hoped even more of us would turn out, but I think it's a difficult timing thing.

People have They come home from work and everything else.

But anyway, but we're here.

Um, we really care about this.

We want you to do the right thing, as I said a couple of sessions ago.

Um, I thank you for your attention, and I hope that you will allow this project to come to fruition because I really think it's a wonderful project that will benefit the whole town and give a little boost to the south end of town.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Okay, moving right along.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Bonnie DuBois, 380 Prospect Street.

The first— I have 2 issues.

The first one is the issue of seeking payment in lieu of taxes from Wheeler School.

I have no way of knowing how often Wheeler has had to call on town services such as police and fire, so I don't really know what costs are being borne by the town.

I was unable to attend the last select board meeting, but I watched the video, and what really disturbed me was the tone that was being taken by Representative Howitt and the board.

I felt it was unnecessarily adversarial.

And threatening.

Also, several times it was mentioned that some universities such as Brown make payment in lieu of taxes.

Wheel-It is not a university.

I know there are people on surrounding streets, especially on Walker Street, who have to deal with speeding cars and trash, which they attribute to people using the Wheel-It facilities.

However, Wheel-It does let people use their tracks.

Whenever it's not in use by the school and walk the beautiful trails on their property, they are also protecting space, open space, and wildlife.

If there's to be a discussion of pilot fees, I hope the town would base any suggestions on a fair assessment of Wheeler's use of town services and not just on Wheeler's resources, which are not those of a university.

More importantly, I hope the nasty tone will change.

If the adversarial tone continues, Wheeler could completely close its grounds to the public.

If approached in a more neighborly manner, maybe Wheeler would be open to things like allowing some public use of their new pool.

Maybe they'd even be willing to send out student patrols to pick up trash.

I feel we should be able to handle this issue without resorting to negativity and bullying.

After all, you do more flies with honey than with vinegar.

My second issue is the Madeiras Farm project, and I just want to say that it appears that we need to keep repeating that the people of this town have voted overwhelmingly 3 times to move it forward.

It was understood from the beginning that the project would include playing fields.

With public input, a master plan was created and then adjusted based on feedback from neighbors.

The next step, as it has always been, is to move on to the detailed studies needed to determine what is feasible.

Once again, the town meeting voted to move on to this step, which will include a traffic study done at the appropriate time, not wasted on unknowns.

It is very disturbing that this process is being slowed and undermined.

I urge the select board to return to the original established process, sign the contract, and respect the work of the Madeiras Farm Committee and the directives of the town meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Paul Miles Matthias, 363 Ledge Road.

And I would like to speak about the automatic license plate readers.

Sir, you're on the agenda further down.

I would still— to speak on it or just to hear you talk about it?

No, you, you'll be part of the conversation if you want to wait till then, or if you've got something else you want to say before then.

Did you get a copy of the agenda?

It's at the very, uh, only as of late.

You're on— I— discussion on the use of flock cameras.

We put this on specifically because of your interest.

If you don't want me to wait until then, I will.

Okay, but I could give a little pretext to it and let you know what my thoughts are before we got to that, which I think might be important for the rest of the people.

I believe that when the board agreed to back the use of the flock type system of automatic license plate readers, that they had the best intentions for the town's safety, but I'm not sure that the long-term consequences and potential for harm with the use of these systems was taken into account.

Abuses using these systems have occurred across the United States in multiple areas.

Errors of readings of the license plates are common.

Apparently the system is a little more than 90% correct in reading these license plates.

And I would urge people to understand that the cameras collect more data than just license plates— cars, people, dents.

They— any stickers that you might have on your car are also recorded at that point.

I believe that it would have been a better idea to obtain public opinion at a town meeting discussing the installation of these cameras.

Since their installation in other towns around the state and the country, including North Attleboro, have halted their use and removed them.

I find it also very interesting that the state itself does not allow speed ticket cameras throughout the state, but flock cameras are okay.

I am unaware of the stated purposes of these cameras.

As put down by the town of Seekonk?

What regulations are imposed on the police and the town with the use of these?

Is there an overview of the police themselves as to the use of these cameras and where they use the data?

How long are the records kept of these films?

Who can view them?

What, what What other uses can the videos be used for?

Are there any penalties for illegal or improper use of these?

Is the system hackable?

And we have reports— we haven't had reports, at least that I've seen, that these cameras have actually been used to nab criminals or other perpetrators.

So I'm asking that Seekonk have a specific town ordinance governing these— the use of these cameras.

Massachusetts itself currently has no comprehensive statewide law regulating how the police departments can collect, retain, or share this data.

This data, if people don't know, is published— pardon me, is shared, can be shared nationwide, and will ultimately be a dragnet type of system from one end of the country to the next.

Last but not least, the real question I have here is, is there any way that we can vote on whether we would keep these or have them removed?

Okay, when we have— we'll have a representative from the police department here when we call you back up.

Good.

And so hopefully they'll have some definitive answers for you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, moving right along.

General business, public hearing, consider the proposal and adoption of an order to lay out the roadway Madison Court within the Madison Estates subdivision in accordance with the as-built plan and legal description.

I see the developer is here.

Would you like to come forward?

Excuse me.

Open public hearing.

Okay, so this is a public hearing, so we'll declare that public hearing open at 6:20.

So moved, Crazora.

Second, Michael Healy.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Okay, public hearing is now open.

And you are, sir?

Michael Acosta, developer, Acosta Development.

Okay.

And I believe everything here is in order.

Do we have a recommendation by the planning board?

Yes, yes.

Okay, so yes, it received a positive recommendation.

So the next thing— right, so the next thing is to go on to the town meeting warrant, correct?

You just need to if there's any, uh, proponents or opponents.

Okay, so is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of accepting Madison Court at town meeting?

Anyone in favor?

Is there anyone here in opposition?

Anyone here in opposition?

Anyone have any general comments or questions?

Seeing none, Do you have any further comments, Mr. Costa?

Nope, basically just here if anyone had any questions.

And close the public hearing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yep.

All right, so I entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

623.

So moved, Chris Orr.

Second, Michael Healy.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

And as to the matter at hand, uh, What's the pleasure of the board?

Make a motion to adopt, um, the order for the layout of Madison Court and forward to town meeting.

Forward to the— yes, with the 2 stipulations.

The 2 stipulations as noted by the town planner and the planning board.

Yep.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Thank you, Mr. Costa.

Thank you, everyone.

All right.

License hearing, uh, consider requests for a motor vehicle Class 2 license from Primeline Motors and Repair LLC, 1853 Fall River Avenue.

George Elsaloff, his owner.

Jacob McGill, his manager.

You gentlemen, anyone here?

Yes.

Come forward, please.

How you doing, everybody?

And you are, sir?

Georges Alshalouf.

Okay.

So you tell us about the business you're going to be operating.

So it's going to be a used car and repair.

Okay.

And Chris, did you get your Yeah, it's all set.

It's all set?

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

And have you got a site plan?

I get a— everything is in here.

Yeah, they're there.

Site plan, parking plan, the last 2 pages.

It's all been approved.

Okay.

And the number of vehicles as shown on this plan, the number— 35?

35.

35?

Yes.

Okay.

All right, does the board have any questions?

If not, somebody want to make a motion?

Um, I'll make a motion to, um, issue the motor vehicle Class 2 license for Primeline Motors and Repair LLC.

Okay, a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Okay, sir, you're all set.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next, the license hearing.

Consider request for a motor vehicle Class 1 license for Blackstone Subaru Incorporated, DBA Pride Showcase Hyundai, 804 River Avenue.

Lisa Parasol is manager.

Hello, good evening.

Lisa Parasol, 11 Tottenham Ave.

So you'll be moving your operation from 44 over to the former Showcase.

Do you have a— just out of curiosity, do you have an approximate opening date?

Um, we are still shooting for our year-end potential finish, but it could go into January.

All right, everything seems to be in order.

Do you have any questions?

No.

No.

Okay, site plan has been approved.

All right, so I entertain a motion to approve the license request.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

With the force of stated by the planning board?

Yes, it would be included as part of site plan.

Yep.

Okay, very good.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Okay, skipping over item D. Thank you.

Best of luck.

Thank you.

Okay, item D, consider the proposal on adoption of an order to lay out the roadway Matsway within the Bridgeman Farm 3 subdivision in accordance with the as-built plan and legal description and refer to the planning board for their recommendation.

So at this time, we just really need to take a vote to refer back to the planning board for, um, their recommendation, and then it comes back to us.

So, okay, I have a motion.

Any questions?

No comments?

Okay, I have a motion.

Um, a motion to, uh, send this back to the planning— with the zoning board— planning board, right?

Planning board, um, for the special permit.

Wait a minute.

Nope, nope, nope.

Sorry, got the wrong paper in front of me.

No, I don't have that.

I don't have that either.

I don't have it.

It's to go back to the planning board for a public hearing, and their recommendation with— after their vote comes back to us, and then we vote to put it back on the town meeting warrant.

Okay, so move.

So move.

I don't have it in front of me.

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

All those in favor?

I will recuse myself.

All right, consider a petition for amendments to Section 4.2.2 of the zoning bylaws, refer to the planning board for a public hearing for possible adoption at town meeting.

Mr. Cadime, you want to comment on these?

Uh, so this is just a voter petition.

So typically we'll have— if there's any bylaw amendments to be made, it would be referred to the planning board for a public hearing and then sent back to us for a recommendation with their recommendation.

Um, so given that this was a voter petition, we're just now forwarding it over there.

We don't make any changes to the petitions that come in when they're on the warrant, so they're as is.

So just following the procedure just to forward it to planning.

Okay, so I understand a motion to forward the petition amendments for zoning bylaws to the planning board for public hearing and possible adoption at town meeting.

So moved.

A second?

I'll second.

Moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Okay, the next item is the Joint meeting with the Madeiras Farm Committee.

Um, you'd like to invite them up?

We got enough chairs.

You want me to— they can have one of these.

I can— yeah, I'm gonna have one of these.

Sure, okay.

Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna recuse for this.

I'll be in the, uh, I'll be in the bakery in the back.

Liz, you staying up there?

I'm gonna— I'll take that chair.

We have enough.

It might be tight though.

No, no, we have this chair too.

No, I'm saying space.

Yeah, yeah, I know.

I don't think it matters.

Thank you.

Yeah, we have plenty of chairs.

You can move tables if you need more.

Hello.

Do you want to put that over here?

Move that table down, we'll move this one over.

Why don't we do that?

This way you'll all just worry about the laptop.

One for you, one for Chris.

Yeah, I think we're— I think we're good.

I think we're good though.

Yeah, I think we can make it work.

Yeah, we'll make it work.

Don't go by me, I leave furniture where I put it for years.

Okay, now this is what this is, right?

Yeah, yeah, because just bigger.

Yeah, how you doing?

Yeah, this is— it's going to So this is what we got.

Same thing.

Okay, the laptop, it's over here.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Now see, that was me put it on the tab.

That's what— I already told them that.

Put it on my tab.

The wire so it doesn't get tangled Lucy, you want to run the lighting up for me?

I, I can.

Oh, I got, I got— is it a remote?

It's got a remote.

You can have that.

You— do you need this?

No, they got one.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Andrew, can you hit the spacebar?

Here we go.

So good evening, uh, thank you for coming.

Would you like to open your meeting?

Yes, just, uh, just being a joint meeting, we have to make this a roll call motion.

So would someone like to make a motion to convene the Madras Farm Committee joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen?

Just state that and then your name, please.

So moved, Andrea Rossiter.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, be a roll call vote.

Nicole, start with you.

Aye.

Susan Moulton, aye.

Willett Mason, aye.

Nate Sosha, aye.

Dave Sullivan, aye.

Andrea Rossiter, aye.

Elizabeth Dalmatian, thank you.

Who made the second?

Dave.

Just for the record, Mr.

Chair, Mr. Aschenbach left the room at 6:30.

He excused himself from this discussion.

He's not in the room.

Okay, very good.

Okay, so good evening.

So I wanted to get everybody together again and have a discussion about the farm and, uh, hopefully clarify the record so that we're all on the same page, um, beginning with one year ago.

It's a select board meeting on the 3rd.

There was a proposal by the owner's project manager to enter into the contract, and I at the time, along with former Selectwoman Posey, would not approve it based on the fact that we both wanted to see a traffic study and a petition filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals.

So in the minutes— and I'll just read them real quick— uh, Gary Segar expressed concern about moving forward with the project in its current state, citing significant unrest in the surrounding neighborhoods.

He emphasized that the town may soon find itself exposed to a legal challenge if the process continues without addressing the these concerns.

He further noted that the project will require a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and depending on the outcome of that process, site plans and designs could be altered.

He urged the board to pause the project at this stage and suggested holding a public hearing with the Board of Selectmen and Buddhas to address their concerns.

His intent, he clarified, was not to cancel the project, but to reduce the risk of litigation and encourage open dialogue with residents.

Residents.

And following that, Selectman Zorra questioned how a lawsuit could be filed when the project had already been approved by town meeting.

The project has not been approved by town meeting.

Town meeting has authorized appropriations for the purchase and for design criteria.

So the fact that town meeting has voted— all the regulatory boards are the ones that are in charge of this and will make their findings as the process goes forward.

I gave you a handout and you can look up on the monitor, if you will.

The areas outlined in blue is the Madeira Swamp and it's made up of of, uh, 4 different lots, actually 3.

There's one across the street at the corner of, uh, Lincoln and Elm.

Then there is the map signal Lot 540, which includes basically all the structures.

And then there's Lot 550, which the lot that has the number on it is part of Lot 550.

So, during different presentations and discussions, going back to the meeting that was held before town meeting, the Madeira Farm Committee voted to restrict Elm and Lincoln to passive recreation only, no active recreation.

And that came with a strong recommendation repeatedly of Mr. Cadime that no active recreation be on the corner of Elm and Lincoln.

Then following that meeting, there was a meeting in January when the board voted— the Midtown Design Committee, I should say, voted to reach out to the Board of Selectmen and seek some guidance on moving forward.

That never happened.

And then the next time we all met was in June when the contract came up, and it was was denied at that time.

So we did go forward, the Board of Selectmen go forward with, uh, a traffic study, and the specifications for the traffic study were put together by Mr. Kadeem, our town planner, and DPW's Mr. Abreu, who is a PE and his specialty is traffic.

And in another letter that the traffic company that was selected wrote, said, it is our understanding that the Seacock Select Board has already voted to conduct the traffic impact assessment, TA, that is intended to help inform design decisions of the project.

Absolutely.

Because the traffic study, I think, is paramount to any future development of that site.

And included in that, and this was based on, again, Mr. Kadeem, Mr. Orban, and Mr. Cabral, that they're going to be looking heavily at Taunton Avenue, at Route 44, Lincoln Street, Bradley Street, and there's also considerations in here that the DPW director wanted included, that included research as to if a wight on Route 44 at Lincoln Street is necessary.

So the— I don't know if it's confusion or But when you look at those 4 lots that are there, to go to zoning, it is, I think, is very important now as it was last year.

You can't, in my world, from my experience in construction and being on the zoning board, how can you hire a designer when he doesn't know what he can design for?

Because you can come up with all the plans in the world, build, and you can go before the zoning board, and the zoning board could kill the whole project.

That's in the extremes, but they have that authority to do it.

So if you would go to the next slide, Mr. Gadeen, please.

What I did was I took this out of the master plan.

I believe it's on page 5.

They're just using this for reference.

So I think the next one has them side by side, if you would.

Okay, so if you look at the plan, you see Elm and Lincoln and the other 3 and how it relates to the master plan that was done.

So if you take— and zoning is, I think, the next step you have to go— you can go there and say, identify with these 4 lots what usage you're looking for on each lot.

Now, zoning is synonymous with usage.

You don't have to have the definitive layout of what that's going to be.

That would be a step, the final step, which would be site plan review under our zoning bylaws, which is administered by the planning board.

The other thing that should be done in coordination before we get into a contract with anybody is we should get the special permit, the traffic study should be done.

And when you use the traffic study and you use the master plan as the reference, that would give you the worst-case scenario.

So if you reduce the scope of the project, that can always just be backed out.

So now is the time to do it.

And I would really think, from my years on the zoning board, we've done this quite often, we would require require it.

And if we would require that at some point— I know the planning board would probably require it.

Yeah.

All right.

So it doesn't make any sense to me to spend $550,000 with a consultant that's going to hire somebody to do a traffic study, and then he's going to charge the town, including in that contract, their fare, their fee, plus a premium.

We should do the wetlands ourselves.

Golf.

We should get the traffic study.

And keep to this whole project moving forward is the neighbors.

They have more say in this than this committee or this board.

And to include them now through the zoning process— we know where we're going, and you could leave the zoning with, as I understand it, the only active recreation that you're looking for at this park, and at this point is down on Let me see here.

Uh, Lot 540 at this point.

Yeah, right, because the other lot has a conservation restriction on it already.

Which one?

On the north half, top right here.

The top.

So you're looking at— okay, so that's faster.

So you're only talking about— so if you go to zoning and with the request that you want permission to do passive recreation on Lot 510, passive on Lot 550, but active on Lot 540.

Now you've established clearly the use, you'll get buy-in from the neighborhood, and then you can really move forward and start doing a lot of the hard work.

But as part of the zoning, I think you also need to do a traffic study because that could be an intricate part in their decision.

And at the same time, we should try to save as much money as we can on this project.

And instead of relying on the big consultant to do the wetlands, we should do the wetlands ourselves.

And for the delineation, you mean of the, the lot, uh, 550?

As far as— because I think that's where the wetlands is.

Is that the only one?

I believe so.

Yeah, yeah, I can chime in.

So the wetlands have been delineated already.

And none of the proposed work that's currently in the master plan is near the wetland boundary minus maybe a walking trail.

So that would be most likely filed as an RDA looking for a negative 3 determination.

That's correct.

So it would be within that area too?

But it wouldn't be within the 100-foot buffer of the wetland boundary is how we'd want to approach it.

So, you know, certainly we could do that as you're suggesting is what I'm saying.

Yes, so that would save money too and move the project forward.

And then once you get the zoning permit, once you get the wetlands delineation, you have the traffic study, then you should go to final design.

That would make all the sense in the world.

Nice.

Yeah, for Lot 550, weren't you guys talking about frisbee golf or something like that?

Yes, and then that counts as passive.

Okay, because with the trails and stuff, it's an active.

It gets into as we would think, right?

Active is the soccer fields, lacrosse, basketball, tennis, those kinds of things.

Passive would be walking trails, gardens, things of that nature, cross-country skiing, you know, quiet activities, right?

As a point of clarification though, you're suggesting that the traffic study be done off of the master plan, right?

But there has already been a note with feedback already from the neighbors that, um, the master plan is showing active recreation on the Elm Street side of the property, and there's— or like, it's already known that that's not going to be part of the plan moving forward.

So that is why it's confusing to me, like, to do a traffic study off of something we know has already changed.

Nope, because if you went to zoning and you showed them that map, just the map on the left, and explain to them that that use has changed, that's now going to be passive, and that's— that would be— that would suffice.

Would the traffic study be based off of of that side of the lot being labeled as passive, not active?

Correct.

The big factor with traffic in that, when you have active recreation fields, that's going to be a big— that would be a big problem on that, especially on that parcel.

When you have people parking down below and walking across the street, that could be a real problem.

Correct.

And I mean, we talked about mitigations and options during our community sessions to address crossings and things of that nature.

And part of that would have been requested of any traffic study that we would have proctored.

And I would hope it would be— I didn't look at the scope of work in this one on the contract, but I would assume that that's all included in this one as well that your board proposed back from the June meeting, correct?

Yes.

And Sean, you were very involved in that with Dave Cabral and John Auburn, and that was all— Yes.

So the only thing I just want clarification.

So the traffic study was based on the master plan, which has active recreation.

So we were taking the worst-case scenario.

So I think you just asked the question, right?

So the traffic study would be based on active recreation on Elm, not passive.

So to do that, if I may, just how does that— to that point then, if we go in front of the zoning board, if this board directs us to go to the zoning board because we're subordinate board to you, so you tell us where you want it to go, that's your vote, not ours.

But the process goes, how do you want us to— if we go into the zoning board and say our traffic study addressed worst case and say you need to, in your deliberations then, need to understand that the usage is going to be shrunk.

And they can do that within their board and understand that the traffic and the parking needs are going to be less because there won't be any type of active on that side?

The contract hasn't been signed, and so I think you could amend it to reduce it down, right?

No, no, we could, yeah.

I would just need clarifications.

What we put out there was— it would be based on the massive master plan.

So, right, right.

If, if we want that to change and not be active recreation, then we can, we can let the, the engineer know that it's going to be passive.

Okay, so it would be just amendment to the terms of— yes, of any, any contract.

That makes a lot more sense.

Thank you.

Okay, I think it was 25, like 25 or so on that side.

Yeah, Andrea just asked the question, how many, how many parking spots did we have allotted under the master plan on the Elm Street side?

And I believe the number was around 25.

220.

20 altogether total.

But on the Elm Street, you just make— can you make sure she gets the mic?

Yeah, but you would have to— if you took active recreation off the Elm Street, then you would— that would— that drove at least 80 or 100 parking spaces if there were 3 fields over there, right?

I was just looking specifically.

Uh, I understand that the parking on the other side may change.

But if we leave the parking alone at the 25 stalls on this side, uh, I think that that's reasonable for the passive— well, that would be something that's for the traffic study, looking at people like turning right into this parking lot.

But that would have to be addressed as part of the usage after the fact.

The traffic study would take into account the flow and then the usage based on any vote.

So then that traffic study would address potentials, okay, and then come back I would think possible mitigation of sidewalks, devices, crosswalks, whatever the case may be, which is something that I know our committee talked about going right along with this several times.

That's, that's something we were going to direct be any part of any study.

So if you go to the last slide, Sean, please.

So just so everybody's familiar with what the special permit has to be satisfied with.

Special permit that is issued and has taken final effect that allows a use that would not be appropriate generally or without restriction throughout the zone, but which, if controlled as to the number, area, location, or relationship to the neighborhood, would promote the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.

Such uses may be permitted in such zone by special permits if specific provisions— specific provisions for such special permit uses is made in these zoning bylaws.

Special permits shall be issued only for uses which are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of these bylaws and only upon subjecting the specially allowed use to general or specific provisions set forth herein as appropriate.

Special permits may impose conditions, safeguards, and limitations on time and/or use Every special permit should be duly recorded before it expires in order to take effect.

So, if you went, the process would be a special permit through the zoning, the traffic study, and then conservation, and then any designer would know exactly what he has to work with as far as the area and where the different uses would go.

And then once that is all done, then it goes to Mr. Sullivan's board under site plan review, and that's where they really have the, uh, the right to limit or make sure that everything is to where it should be.

And as far as applicability, we, we changed this several years ago to make sure that when an applicant requires Zoning Board of Appeals approval and site plan approval for proposed use structure development, the applicant shall first obtain the required zoning relief prior to appearing before the Planning Board.

And it also says where an applicant requires both Conservation Commission approval and site plan approval for proposed use, structure, or development, the applicant shall first obtain the required conservation approval prior to appearing before the Planning Board.

So the Planning Board would be the final step, correct?

Yes.

One point of clarity on the conservation.

I don't think we'd be able to get approval with the conservation before we developed a permitting set.

So I think we could have like a conversation that we don't see any impacts, which I think is aligned with what the master plan is showing.

But we couldn't actually go through all the proper filing and paperwork until after the plan was— So who did the wetlands work?

Because I— if I misunderstood him, I had a conversation with your agent and you said nothing's been done out there.

Uh, so nothing's been filed.

So the way the delineation process for wetlands works is the consultant goes out, delineates the wetlands, right?

Um, we have that information And at that point, we design around that with that understanding.

Sometimes the consultant will work with the agent to review the line for some level of understanding.

And then eventually when you get to permitting, so when you have a full understanding of the design, you would then apply for, you know, your actual formal permit.

And that's when you would get your RDA process or an NOI and your— Could you explain what those were for folks who don't understand what that is?

Yeah.

So, 2 different formal filing processes.

For a Request to Determine Applicability.

It's kind of like a lesser permitting process where you're basically coming in front of the Commission to understand whether or not you're impacting the wetlands.

And a formal process would be an NOI, or a Notice of Intent.

That would be where you are actually impacting the wetlands and you want to work through if you need any variances or anything like that.

And by impacting the wetlands, I mean doing any work within the jurisdictional area.

Um, we talk about the buffer zones and the no-disturb areas and things of that nature.

Yeah, so we just wouldn't be able to finalize that till we got to construction documents, I'd say.

And by us, I mean the town, like we did with the traffic study, like we do with the wetlands, and like we do with the, um, special permit, that number, that, that final number of $550,000 should be greatly reduced.

You know, it makes no sense to me as a businessman that we spent $150,000 on a master plan and now we've got this next step be almost 4 times as much for something that should be less.

Yeah, I mean, I could, you know, expand upon this a little bit.

If it's helpful.

So, you know, we have— what's the total acreage of the area?

40 acres.

So the biggest components of the project now, the passive area, the complex of buildings, there's a lot to do with that, the sports fields, and then kind of the passive trail systems, right?

So those are kind of the major components.

So So let's talk about digging into the athletic fields.

I think there's an 18-inch water mainline out in the street.

We'd have to tap into that, bring water and irrigation into the area.

We'd also have to bring more power into the area, potentially a 3-phase electrical service or single-phase depending on what's out there.

We have to make some determinations of whether we want to irrigate this place because we have athletic fields, we want them to stay green.

So we're going to do it with town water?

Do we need to try and tap a well?

To see if that makes sense.

And then from there, there would be some substantial grading, right?

And so there'd have to be some determinations of where's the bedrock and do some studying allowed for that to make sure that the grading as currently designed in the master plan would actually work.

And then, you know, growing the fields, planting seeds, things like that.

For athletic fields today, they use fairly high-tech equipment, level laser graders on pieces of equipment to get down to like super accurate levels.

We have parking areas.

Those, we're going to have some studies of the soil to ensure that the parking areas will sustain whatever the weights are.

The sports courts and things like that.

And so that's kind of like that little athletic complex.

I think the passive recreation trail and the disc golf, that's a pretty light lift.

That's like clearing some trees and things like that.

Perhaps there might even be some type of community group that may engage in that that we could do internally.

Not committing the DPW because I know they're very busy.

The, you know, the buildings themselves, I think that's a really complicated thing.

I see a lot of community groups here too.

I feel like there needs to be a little bit of programming to kind of built in, like, how are we going to use these?

We've just kind of scratched that surface, right?

So the big farmhouse or the big henhouse— I hope I'm saying that right— I think that's going to be like the big point of community, right?

We're going to have that be a 3-season type space, and there can be programming in there.

Maybe it's like a farmer's garden of some sort.

Maybe some type of class could happen in there.

I think there's a lot of opportunity.

We haven't really dug into that yet, but certainly there'd want to be some conversations in terms of how the design would reflect whatever type of program you want into.

And then we have this abundance of other buildings and where there was conversations about, you know, is there a tractor museum happening and something like that?

You know, maybe there's even an involvement with some of the schools in some manner to think about how that program could happen so you could communicate what the intent is with, you know, so it could be even the history of the community could be relayed through the schools and all that type of stuff, I think is something that everyone's pretty interested in.

And then, you know, that passive recreation part that we're now talking about that's changed from active recreation to passive recreation.

Again, getting some water over there so we can have irrigation of type of farms.

What are those elements that are in there?

How would you set that up?

A community garden does require plots and some type of community participation.

So if some type of friends groups was involved, maybe they would manage that.

I guess those are the the big pieces in my mind.

And that would all come out part of the design sequence, and we see what we get into.

All that was going to be done at that, at that phase.

And so my point was that I thought the $550,000 price we got was very, very good for the amount of work in my head that I had to see had to happen to get this thing to be successful.

But I think by us doing a lot of legwork, that number is going to be reduced, potentially.

Potentially.

I think adding time to any project is also like— we all have seen it in our, you know, personal expenses.

The longer you push out the start of a project, the more expensive it gets.

So I think that should also be considered, because if we do it for a slightly reduced cost but now we've expanded the project another year or 2 and continue to push it out, it's— we're going to end up paying more.

So I think that needs to be considered too, the time in which we can do these things piece by piece.

Sometimes it may seem cheaper initially but ends up costing more in the long term just because costs generally do not come back down.

We've seen that over— maybe a little bit here and there, but that's not how the trend lines go.

The traffic study, I think start to finish, Sean, is like 6 to 8 weeks.

Weeks, correct?

Yeah, yeah.

Zoning, you could file with that tomorrow and they could start the hearing process.

And you with your— so we're already, we're already talking a couple of months, we're not talking years.

So I think there's a lot to be gained by us doing it and try to save as much money as we can, because this project, I've heard different numbers, it's like $15, $16 million if it was the full build-out.

So that's a lot of money, and so we got to save we can.

So my, my suggestion to you is— we haven't taken this vote— I would like to request that the Medeiros Farm Committee file with zoning and move forward with the traffic.

Sean can amend it to fit the circumstances now.

Well, that kind of really boils down to you guys, right?

Because we can't sign a contract that we can't take action.

That has to be your vote.

You can make a recommendation to us that that's what you want to do.

We would have to appropriate the money for the traffic study, and that's like $23,000, I think it is, Joe.

Yeah, contract.

Yeah, that would be the biggest part.

I mean, going to zoning is not going to cost you hardly anything.

There's no filing fees, right?

No filing fees.

Town use, so there's no filing fee.

But I mean, to me, the concern is, is after what we've seen happen with some of this stuff already up to this, it really— well, if we make the recommendation or not, how is this— how would you open board going to react and be— and what is, what is your deliberation going to be as far as authorizing us to proceed with this?

Because you have to authorize us, you have to authorize to sign the contract and move through.

So how are you guys going to react to this?

Because, well, it's on the agenda.

So if you vote tonight, yeah, to move forward with zoning and the traffic study, we could do the same thing if that's your recommendation.

Mr. Chairman, if I could.

Yeah, go ahead.

I think I, I think I misread the agenda because I thought they already filed it.

It says discuss their filing with the Zoning Board of Appeals.

So you guys haven't filed anything?

This is just a request, right?

Okay, so that's question number 1.

Question number 2, this proposed zoning bylaw amendment for town meeting that we just sent to the planning board, this would eliminate the need for a special permit, correct, if approved at town meeting?

If approved at town meeting.

If approved at town meeting, which is what they're shooting for November, Correct?

Correct.

Okay, so that would, that would null and void part of that, this process that's going on.

Secondly, the design services bids that we got, are they still good, or are they, are they good?

No, we'd have to go back out, out to bid and do it all over again, which if we did that would entail a new contract, correct?

Correct.

Which we could put in there the, the issues that came up, uh, during our discussion when the design and services contract came up.

Um, all the documentation wasn't available, correct?

Right, for the most part.

Uh, we didn't— people didn't have everything that they needed to make a good complete decision on it.

Um, it didn't include verbiage in there for a traffic study, correct?

I know there was an addendum.

Yeah, so it was, it was part of the RFQ.

Yep.

Yep.

Okay.

Yeah, I guess where I'm going with the whole thing, I this conversation about this committee and where it's going, and this whole project is kind of going like in a long windy road.

And every time it seems like we're trying to get something done, there's another roadblock.

Well, what if we're going to go this direction?

We're going to go do this, we're going to go do that.

The people voted for a project, right?

And there was progress between the committee, the neighbors, Mr. Qadim and the neighbors, this board, I think, and the neighbors.

I think most of us agreed that we were looking at making changes to the Elm Street portion to accommodate the needs of the residents.

I do think that somehow, some way, we could actually— if it has to be put in the contract that way, that that's only going to be used for passive recreation, then okay, that's— that we can move forward.

In my opinion, I think we need to go back, revote the designer services portion of this thing.

If we have to get a rebid, let's get it out there, let's get it done, let's get it back in front of us.

If all the— if all the concerns of everybody on this board, our board, is met in that contract that covers everything that we've been discussing, why can't we just approve it?

May I?

I just— the amendment, it's the special permit that I was— was my hesitation.

That was my head.

So we don't know how that's going to play out, and my whole thing is just get the special permit.

And I, I want this to go forward.

And I think the meetings that— I spoke to you at length last week, I spoke to Ms.

Manna last— at length, I spoke to, uh, Ms. Pru.

Um, I want this to move forward.

And I think if everybody gives their blessing with what we're all working together towards, I don't think it has to be an either-or.

I think just— the quickest way to move this forward is for us to do the zoning, the traffic, and the wetlands ourselves.

See, my, my, my concern right now is we don't know how the town will vote on that zoning issue.

So we don't know how anybody's going to vote on anything.

No, exactly.

But, but my point is, that's why I wanted— I'm more concerned about the special permit and And with designating those areas the way you just proposed, I think we're more inclined to get the special permit without any, you know— Just one piece to that though is the traffic— if we do the traffic study, if your board votes to direct us to do the traffic study and administer that and work with it, it's going to take 6 to 8 weeks to get done.

So we won't be able to look at going to zoning without the data until probably Christmas-ish.

Finish in December, January time.

So the town meeting had been long gone, so we don't know what that's going to be.

So to say that through the special permit— special permit probably isn't going to be applied for or sat in front of the zoning board for a hearing until December, January timeline, long after the vote is taken either direction in November at town meeting.

How long will the bid process take for designer services?

So we would have to post it a minimum of 30 days, that would come in, and then I'd say probably a month and a half, 2 months, because with interviews, looking at a couple of months anyway, right?

But so to proceed, I mean, traffic study is one piece.

I think that the other piece is the zoning, right?

It's just A and B.

Traffic study, we can— if you vote to do that tonight, whatever you do, you do, and we'll run with it.

But I, I think the piece that's really going to be important here is we don't— you're going for the special permit.

We can't file for the special permit it as a town— I say we as everybody for the town, not just for this committee, but for everybody— that until we have the traffic study results, because the traffic study results are going to tell us what kind of conditions and how and what kind of— what all the discussion points everybody's going to have about sidewalks and parking and all that kind of stuff and mitigation efforts.

So we won't have that.

So there's a lot of what-if here until the decision happens on November— what's it, November 9th, I think, is town meeting that Monday night?

Is that the 9th?

So until that vote happens, we don't know either way, right?

But you folks, we're subordinate board to you guys.

So if this board tonight, your board tonight votes to do whatever you vote to do, we'll do it.

We'll go with it.

I think you were going to ask them to vote, right?

No, we want your recommendation about moving forward.

I think really we'll take whatever direction you want to give us.

I mean, and I think everybody wants to move forward collectively, but I think it really boils down to what you want us to do.

Because you're the board that's— it says at the direction of the Board of Selectmen.

So give us your direction, tell us what you want us to do, we'll go do it.

And if it means doing the traffic— you guys vote to do the traffic study and it passes, we do that.

If you think, as Mr. Healy talked about, go back and revamp the designer services and do some of this other stuff, you vote to do that, we'll do that.

It belongs to you guys, not to us, and we'll take whatever direction you give us.

I'm looking at cost and time.

It's going to be quicker if we move forward on our own with the traffic study, with the zoning, and the wetlands.

You can file with zoning, they can open up the hearing, and if they're waiting for more information, they'll just continue it.

But you can get it in the pipeline, which is fine.

But again, if that could all be moot November 9th and November 10th, we won't need to do it anymore.

Well, I'll just tell you, if history is a guide, guide.

What they're proposing has been tried twice in the past and it's been solidly refuted.

So, okay, okay.

So that takes us back to the beginning again, which is a traffic study, and, and you have to vote to award that contract or not for the town to do an enter into funds with a contract.

We can't do that, you have to do it.

Correct.

So you can vote to do that and direct us to administer it.

That's your choice.

I brought you here so that we could all get together, right, like I did in June.

I want your committee to make a recommendation to us.

Well, my opinion is I think you're trying to deflect your, your role here to us.

No, we've already voted, right?

But we can't override your vote though.

But the vote went nowhere because it was 2 to 2.

Understood.

So now we, we want to all work together.

I want this to move forward, so please give us some direction.

I mean, respectfully, I think, and I can't speak for the whole committee, but I know personally, um, this committee did a lot of work to get that last thing brought in front of you, and it was just shot down.

So it feels like by passing off the next thing to this committee when there's already a 2-2 vote on, um, the traffic study, it kind of feels like we may go and do more work and that it's gonna come back and still not move forward.

And I think that's— clarify though, we— I got that contract literally a half hour before I was supposed to vote.

All right, I need more time to look at things, and I'm sorry, that just comes— that's— no, I'm just saying I think that that should not be— I understand that, like, I— if you feel you need to vote no to support— I didn't feel like— because I wouldn't want to vote yes on a contract I didn't feel like I had time to thoroughly read.

I'm not, um, but that's faulting you for doing that.

I'm saying that there is a concern what's been reflected, that Liz doesn't want this project.

And that's not— that could be— and you can ask Miss Mano, I spoke with her for an hour.

You can ask Miss Pru.

I want this project to go forward.

I just wanted more information in more time.

That's all.

I think there's just a concern that, um, the last time the committee took the lead on something, it felt like it was brought forth and not passed.

And therefore, you have more authority than we do.

Why not just pass it yourself?

Ourselves now, and then we'll go and do the work, rather than doing the work, bringing it forth, having it fail again, and feeling like we're back in the same spot with no— but there's no work for you to do.

But we've already voted on that, 2 to 2.

So what I'm asking you is, you can't redo that vote either.

I mean, you can bring that up tonight as part of the agenda to discuss that and take that action for Traffic Star, the award, the contract, and direct us to do You can do that.

That's within your— I mean, unless you're giving us the authority to override, which we can't, right?

Like, that's not something that we can do here.

So, but why does it have to be overriding?

Why can't we all just work together?

Well, no, that's not— that's not— I don't think that's what Nicole is saying.

Well, that's what I'm hearing, right, is that the process was the process before.

I understand.

I do understand.

You and I spoke at length last week.

I do understand.

And I'm going to say this as I said to you.

There have been a lot of arguments.

There have been a lot of angry people.

There have been a lot of hurt feelings.

We're adults.

We need to leave that in the past.

For the good of the residents, we need to move this forward.

And that's going to mean getting rid of a lot of stuff that has transpired.

I would agree with you.

I mean, you guys— I want to do what's right for the residents and move this forward as quickly and, and, and financially as possible.

And I think by designating areas, passive versus— that does take some time or work away from the design contract and gives them a little more to work with.

Well, some of that's already— that's already been addressed, right?

So that's done.

So that's done.

And again, I think because— and I understand I want to speak, so I'll be quick.

Um, the— that boils down to is you— your board needs to make that decision to tell us, because we've already said it, we've expressed several times here that we're willing to work with— with your board and to get the project moving and do what we need to do based on the actions we've already taken, which is passive recreation on Elm Street, work with what we need to work with on Lincoln Street side to get all of that incorporated and do what we have to do when we get to that design specification phase with a designer firm.

And if your board wants— direct— wants to direct us to take a traffic study on through your action first, then you have every right to do that, and we'll do it.

And we've already said we'd do it.

We want to move the project forward.

So go ahead and vote.

Do what you need to do.

Direct us to do it.

We'll go do it, and then we'll come back with those results and move on.

Andrea, did you want to say something?

We're, we're all here.

We're all here right now.

So whatever vote needs to happen, we don't need to worry about, uh, them, you know, doing work and saying no or whatever.

Let's go.

Whatever So why I'm asking you— get to the brass tacks here.

And I want you to take a vote of your committee, and if you're in favor of moving forward with the traffic study.

So I'll put it to the committee.

Is there someone who would like to make a motion?

Again, it'd be a roll call motion so that we would recommend to the selectmen to proceed with the traffic study independent of design services.

And you can make that motion.

It would be a roll call motion.

So moved.

By who?

Got it.

Willett Mason.

Is there a second?

Second.

Andrea Rossiter.

Okay, with that, any other comment on the motion from the Madeira Response Committee?

I'll make one comment and I leave it up there, and I just say that a TIA for a traffic assessment is a very, very, um, thorough traffic assessment, and with the area becoming passive recreation, I would ask that we proceed thing but to consider a reduced traffic assessment if it's warranted, if it saves a little bit of money too.

So as amended, this was— the motion has been made and seconded.

There's a roll call vote.

So Nicole, we'll start with you.

A yes vote is in favor of the motion.

No vote is no, is not in favor of the motion.

I'm going to abstain.

So will I.

Yes.

Yes.

And Dave Selvedge.

Andrea Roster, aye.

Elizabeth Elmazian, aye.

So then it's to you guys to make that decision.

Okay, so based on a recommendation of the Menderes Farm Committee, I'd entertain a motion that we move forward with the traffic study by— what's the name of the company?

Um, I'm sorry, it's, uh, Howard Stein Hudson.

Howard Stein Hudson.

Okay, I'll— well, can I just— just for the record, uh, so if you're gonna vote— yes, I can't vote.

So you can either vote for with the group or with the board, so you just gotta pick one.

Can I withdraw?

Okay, so her vote doesn't count for you.

Abstention?

Yeah.

Okay, abstention.

Okay, sorry, I forgot what hat I'm wearing.

So that's your motion?

Okay, I'll second it.

Uh, roll call vote.

Chris Orr, aye.

Elizabeth Dalmatian, aye.

Mark Daly, nay.

Harry Segar, aye.

Okay, so we'll move forward with the traffic study.

Okay, now as far as the easy one would be applying to the zoning board, that's a no-cost, which would be after we get the results.

I mean, can we start now?

You can do it concurrently.

Can, can it start now if it takes so long for it to get in?

It just reserves a spot and gives the case number, really, though, right?

It doesn't mean anything.

Well, no, they could open the public hearing, you make your presentation, and then be waiting for information.

That would move the process forward too.

So potentially get a conditional approval based upon the traffic study or something along the lines of that?

Well, they'd probably want it.

They're going to want to see the results of how it mitigates conditions.

Yeah, no, that seems fair.

I mean, if we have to get in line, we might as well get in line.

Yeah.

And if when our turn comes up we don't have the information yet, we can say we don't have it yet, you know.

Quick question, is there any like regulatory paperwork that the town could assist the committee with that's required as part of that submission?

Well, I would think, uh, and then who would be responsible to submit it and sit in front of them and do make the presentation?

Because we don't have an engineer, we don't have an OPM, so who's going to do that?

Well, I would reach out to the town planner to work on our behalf.

Okay, town planner to make the presentation.

Yeah, why not?

Okay, and I don't know how that would fly, but okay.

I mean, that's his specialty, that's his job.

Well, I think that really, again, direction would have to come from you folks to the town administrator, not from us as a committee.

We don't have that authority.

So we'll, we'll figure out who, who presents.

Can I just get clarification?

So the vote that the board took was to approve the contract that was submitted, is that with the amendment of the change that they wanted on the passive?

Okay.

All right, so again, I would ask for your recommendation about going first to vote for zoning.

I don't think we need to.

I think it's already done.

It just— you guys just need to do what you need to do.

As far as I'm concerned, we don't need to vote again, and then you guys just go ahead and take your action.

Do what you need to do.

Direct us to take action however you want us to take action.

But I'd rather have you on the record like you did for the the, uh, traffic.

Fine, check it.

Got it.

Yeah, so should we like to make a motion to that effect?

So moved.

It's a roll call motion, so you have to move.

So moved by Andrew Roster to proceed with the zoning board application for a special permit.

Yes, uh, to proceed with a zoning board application for a special permit for the Majerus Farm project.

Is there a second?

Uh, can I ask a clarification?

If you want to second, then we can have discussion.

So I would like to make a second on that motion.

Second.

And that was by Willard Mason.

Nicole, your question?

Um, so my question is, if the warrant article regarding, uh, zoning changes or use changes, uh, passes, would that like kind of trump this process, or how does that work?

Like, if this is sort of up in the air still when town meeting comes around, if there is, um, a town meeting vote to permit the use.

Am I making sense?

Proposal to make it a by-right use, not a special permit, as we discussed earlier.

So if that passes, Mr. Kadeem, would that be— yeah, make it move?

It would.

Obviously we've got a 10-day window that we've got to hold off on after all the votes from town meeting, right?

And that would require Attorney General review as well, I think, because of the type of action it is.

But at least we'd be in line.

Okay, yeah, so it's— so yeah, doing this isn't going to stop us from being able to not— from that moving forward if that moves forward.

Okay, that was my question.

Yeah, any other questions?

Are you going to be prepared for a vote?

So again, be a roll call vote.

Nicole, I— Moulton, I— Nathan, I— uh, David Sullivan, no.

Andrea Rossiter, I— okay, so we don't have to vote on that?

No, no, no.

So that would be an action totally of the Banderas Farm committee.

The committee can take that to the zoning board on its own.

Yep.

Okay.

All right, all right.

Does anybody have any other questions?

I'm just happy to see that.

I think we're making some progress.

Anything else?

Motion to adjourn.

Roll call.

Motion.

Motion.

So moved, Andrea Rossiter.

Is there a second?

Second.

Aye.

That's okay.

Nicole, there's a second.

A roll call vote, please.

Nicole Amey, aye.

Sue Molden, aye.

Philip Mason, aye.

Ed Sosha, aye.

Bib Sullivan, aye.

Andrea Rossiter, aye.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for coming.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Okay, moving right along.

Uh, oh, here he comes.

Cake for me in the back.

Cake?

There's cake back there.

Cake.

Item G. Item G, consider accepting a donation in the amount of $500 from Betty O'Neill for the Human Services gift and donation account.

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Consider accepting the donation of trees— tree trees along Commerce Way from Market Basket.

We have a recommendation from the DPW director.

He does.

Yep, he approves.

He approved the trees that were being donated, so they are straight shade trees, shade trees along Commerce Way.

Okay, uh, so entertain a motion to accept the donation.

Yes, to make a motion to accept the donation of trees along Commerce Way from Market Basket.

A second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

All right, discussion of the use of block cameras.

But we need another chair.

We can pull one up.

You want this one?

So welcome back, Mr. Mathias.

So we're joined by Deputy Chief LaFleur and Captain Jardine of the police department.

So, good evening.

How are you, Ducky?

Okay, so you had some questions you'd like answered, sir?

Yeah.

One, does the town have any, uh, written down regulations about the use of the flock cameras or any to— when I say flock, I mean any automated— yes, license plate readers.

So the town does through the police department because it's under our department.

So we have policies and procedures.

Are they published?

They are.

I believe those are accessible for public records requests.

They're not secret.

I don't think that we put them out anywhere.

Do you know if we Yeah, yeah, it's probably— it's probably— yeah, so we can— the captain's actually put together a little presentation.

Um, it might be better to have him do that, and that may answer a lot of your questions instead of going down list by list.

That's Well, I was just hoping when, when something like this is established, one would expect that there would be a list of uses, purposes, regulations, who's in charge of it, who oversees it, rather than a presentation.

I would expect that there'd be paperwork on this.

Is there paperwork on this?

That's a available to the public?

It's all included in the policies, which are public record.

I'm sorry, they're available how?

That is included in our policy, which is part of public record.

So how do I get it?

How do I get a copy of this?

I've looked for it, I can't find it.

You can request it from the police department.

Okay, can we please see the presentation the captain put?

Maybe that will answer a lot of the questions, like suggested.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gideon, members of the board.

Um, so just real quick, I hope to not take too much of your time.

I hope to answer a lot of your questions, sir.

Um, automated license plate recognition is the official term, called ALPRs.

It's not new technology, but it's become more widely spread.

Uh, the department, as far as having our current Flock system.

This was approved by the then Board of Selectmen, now the Select Board, back in January of 2023.

I would say approximately it took us about 6 months to get up to speed.

So about 3 years we've been using the technology, um, to great benefit, not only to the police department but to the residents of the town of Seekonk.

So first and foremost, I think it's important to understand what the technology actually does.

These are not video cameras.

They're essentially still cameras that are mounted on fixed poles.

As a vehicle passes, they take a picture of a license plate and the vehicle itself that it's attached to.

It's essentially not processed through the FLOCK system.

We as police officers have law enforcement databases that we can then get information called from that.

It simply provides us with a picture and a timestamp and a location.

It does compare the plate that it records against a national database.

It's called NCIC.

So, for instance, if it was a stolen vehicle, there'd be an alert.

If it was a missing endangered person, there'd be an immediate alert, I should say.

These things come up as alarms in the dispatch center if the officers have the program active.

These will come up as immediate real-time alerts.

But the system itself is not running people out.

That is the job of the police.

It does not know who the registered owner is.

It doesn't know who's driving the car.

There's no facial recognition.

It's simply, in simple terms, it is a camera.

It doesn't have, at least the ones that we have, have none of that fancy aftermarket type things.

That's literally what it does.

And it does record every vehicle that it reads a plate or detects a plate that goes by.

And I'm not going to lie, it's a lot in the town of Secaucus.

We probably average about 200,000 reads a day.

It is quite a bit.

Now, it might be multiple cars at multiple locations.

It's— but that is not because of the cameras.

It's because of the traffic volume that we have in the town of Seekonk.

And I think people would be surprised about the amount of traffic volume that we have in town and that the Seekonk Police Department deals with on a daily basis.

Like I said, I kind of told you what it alerts to.

What it's not— it's not video.

It's not issuing anybody citations.

It's not speeding cameras, not traffic cameras.

Those are currently illegal in the state of Massachusetts.

And it has a ton of safeguards that are built in.

First and foremost, most of these scans that I'm talking about end up being a bunch of nothing.

If it's not searched by a law enforcement officer, the data is retained for a 30-day period and then it is erased.

The data, by the way, is owned by the town of Seekonk.

It's not owned by FLOC.

It's in our contract.

So it's not like FLOC has this information to give to X, Y, and Z.

It is the police department's information.

Outside agencies, only under certain agreements, are able to access different databases.

We have access to others.

Some have access to ours.

I can confirm we do not share our database with any federal agency.

That includes, you know, the DEA, ICE, any of those types of things.

Evidence that's procured from it is then retained under an evidence schedule, which is guided under match under law for evidence retention if it's used in a particular case.

So it's not that officers can search whatever they want.

Every search requires a documented reason.

There's a dropdown menu, so you don't have free text that you can make up your own reason for searching.

It has a category.

In fact, it was presented to you folks not too long ago in the form of that policy that we generated.

That policy, by the way, was just to really best practice tighten up.

FLOC has become a thing, and we responded in kind and made sure that we were doing the best practices.

Prior to that, we ran FLOC under what we call CJIS rules, which are guided by MGLs and CMRs, which is the same rules that when an officer runs your license plate.

It was considered under the same umbrella, and I thought that that was sufficient enough, but I don't negate the fact that we can, you know, go one step further and provide that policy.

I think if you guys read it, and the chief was here to explain it a few weeks back, there's a lot of checks and balances in there with audits and everything else.

In addition to the physical audits that the command staff will do, again, that's laid out in the policy.

FLOC has kind of stepped up its game, and it actually has an AI-generated internal system that may detect what they consider behavior that should be looked at.

Okay, it'll give us us the different plates that have been run for the command staff to then check.

I can tell you, since this was instituted and it kind of backdated itself for a little bit, we had to check 53 things from Flock itself that said, just take a look at this.

I can promise you today that every single one was a valid search.

The Secaucus Police Department has no complaints on the use of Flock from any outside agency, any outside individual as far as misuse.

And we have had no internal findings of any misuse whatsoever to this date.

And again, we've been using this for about 3 years.

I will tell you that under Commonwealth v. Starr, which was a Mass Appellate Court decision— and I'm not sure if everybody knows this, and I guess it's worth sharing— the appeals court held— and this has been forever and a day, I think it was a 2002 case, but this has been kind of the model mantra since MDTs and the cruisers have become a thing, that random computer checks of license plate do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

So in plain speak, any police officer for any reason can run the plate that's in front of him with no reasonable suspicion of a crime or a traffic violation.

It's documented by law, and we run by what the courts dictate us to do.

So in the same sense, that same mantra, these cameras are doing no wrong either by capturing license plates.

And again, not every single one's being run because I just told you the massive amount that, you know, it stores.

We're not looking for that.

On the same level, there was another relative to ALPRs.

There was a Commonwealth v. McCarthy.

It was a 2020 case.

This was a Supreme Judicial Court case.

And there was, you know, not to get into the details of the case, but ultimately the court held that the use of ALPR data does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment of the United States, nor Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

We always abide by what the courts tell us to do, and that is the current standing.

Could it change?

Very well could.

I have seen a lot of technology that we've used that has become more scrutinized, and ultimately it will go through the process of the courts and we will get different directives.

You know, just as an example, pole cameras, when they first came out, great.

It was a great tool for us to use for investigative purposes.

At the time, you could just do it, and then eventually the Supreme Court said nope, if it's fixated on a person's residence, now it requires a warrant.

So there's always going to be movement.

I will definitely say that, you know, the deputy and I have some years on, and the technology has improved over the years.

Many, many, many different facets of this job job, I can honestly say that the ALPRs, and particularly the Flock system that we utilize, has been the most prominent piece of equipment that we've had to solve crimes in a real-time fashion and things that, quite honestly, we otherwise would probably not be able to bring to a resolution.

If you don't mind, I did make a little bit of a list of some incidents that we've had that we've utilized It is not a total list.

There is much more than this, but I can't stand here all night and, you know, provide you with every single time.

But just a few.

We had a stolen vehicle hit.

The vehicle was ultimately located on Commerce Way, and when the individuals were approached, they were actively involved in a separate crime of a $5,000 larceny.

So besides the stolen motor vehicle, we also caught them committing crime in real time.

Herb Chambers, they were getting smoked for real wheel and tire thefts.

The Detective Division utilized Flock and then were able to identify the suspect vehicle involved, ultimately a suspect.

We had a hit-and-run in the North End that involved a juvenile on an e-bike, and I think most people are aware of this.

Flock cameras were used to identify and confirm a suspect vehicle.

After investigation, detectives were able to charge that subject.

We had an elderly town resident reported as missing endangered.

FLOCK located her vehicle on Route 6, multiple activity.

We inundated that area with our resources, multiple officers.

We came across her vehicle.

We were able to stop, provide her medical aid, and that ended as a positive outcome.

It also gives information like that to where we can generate where to put resources that we might otherwise not have that information for.

We had a beating to a resident where occupants were assaulted.

The only description we had was a vague description of the motor vehicle.

We were ultimately, because of the time of night, able to identify a suspect vehicle and ultimately the perpetrator.

The Cranston murder suspect happened to be a town resident.

Flock was used to locate him.

We had a B&E to Champion Motorsports, able to identify a suspect vehicle, ultimately the suspects.

They were arrested in Suffolk County, New York, and rendited back to the state of Massachusetts.

Visits.

We had a drive-by shooting not too long ago on Woodland Avenue.

Detectives developed suspect from flock camera information.

Multiple incidents of hit-and-runs where town residents actually were the victims.

Flock information assisted in identifying the suspect vehicles, bringing the appropriate charges, and being able to provide the victims with proper insurance information from the striking vehicles.

If nothing is not more simple than that, to be able to provide somebody, you know, that's in a hit-and-run that otherwise we may have never found the other vehicle, just to even get the insurance information to make them whole is a big deal for a quality of life issue.

Within the past week, we had a hot list hit out of New Hampshire.

That's one of those alarms that I was telling you about for a vehicle that was involved in a violent domestic case.

The car was located by our officers.

The registered owner had an extraditable warrant out of New Hampshire.

The individual was locked up as fugitive from justice.

Not too long ago, East Providence Police Department were involved in an incident where a vehicle struck and nearly ran over one of their officers.

Through FLOC, we were able to narrow down our search because they fled towards Seekock, ultimately located the suspect at the Ramada Inn within a short period of time.

We had a road rage incident that turned into assault and battery.

The victim literally had his teeth broken, it was so violent.

The only description was a description of the vehicle, no plate We were able to, again, investigate that incident through the use of Flock.

We did identify the suspect vehicle, and we arrested the suspect shortly thereafter.

We had a stolen car hit that was also located at Target.

It was unoccupied at the time, so the officers sat on the vehicle waiting for suspects to come back out.

When the suspects returned to the vehicle, they were arrested and found with a juvenile who was reported missing.

So in this one case, because of Flock, FLOCK recovered motor vehicle, 2 subjects arrested, and recovered a missing juvenile that otherwise probably would have went undetected.

I'd be remiss if I didn't say that FLOCK can also be used as exculpatory evidence.

It has sometimes— eyewitnesses are not always the best.

FLOCK is a camera.

It helps us out.

There have been times we've been able to exclude people who were once thought to be involved with things, and it has been used to help help clear people in a much more rapid fashion.

You know, I don't want to take away the diligence and the good work of the officers and the detectives that I have working for me, because this is a tool.

It is not an end-all be-all.

We solved crimes before it, and we could solve crimes after it.

But I am telling you right now, we would not solve as much and with the efficiency if it wasn't for this current tool.

You mentioned McCarthy, if I'm not mistaken, Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 484 Mass.

point 493.

There are a couple of problems with that, that the SJC rejected the broader proposition that motorists have no privacy interest in movements on public roads.

So this is— I've heard the argument that if you're in a public space, you have no expectation of not being spied on by a flock camera.

The Supreme Court said that that is not exactly the case.

They also said that with enough cameras in enough locations, the historic location data from an ALPR system en masse would invade a reasonable expectation of privacy and would constitute a search for constitutional purposes.

So, agree that your use of this and the use of the Flock cameras is wonderful in many respects.

It is not 100%.

No, sir.

There's a 7 to 10% error reading on the license plates, and it's not just license plates that are read by these cameras.

Am I not correct?

What do you mean?

Meaning if I have a sticker on my car that says— it's a picture of the back of the car, right?

So whatever's on the back of the car.

Okay, so it's not just a license plate you're reading.

You're reading dense color.

You can— from what I understand, the systems can also do facial recognition, not only of the driver but of other people in the car.

Well, maybe not yours.

Just clarify that the cameras that we have only take the back of the vehicle, not the front.

So there's different types of camera systems and products that Flock has.

There's your basic ALPRs, which just take a camera Uh, just take a picture.

There's not facial recognition.

There's— they're actually set up not to get people in the car.

They're set up to get the back of the car down low so you get that part of the car.

Now, because cars are moving distances, you, you do get different things in that picture sometimes.

They're not set up for that.

We don't— it does not recognize people.

Now, Flock does have cameras that are, uh, facial recognition that do track people moving.

That's a separate product.

That's not the product that we have.

Again, and that's not what we are interested in.

The, the movement from one to the next is obviously there, and, and capabilities, uh, of purchasing that would be available to you.

Yes, the capabilities, but we have no intention of doing that.

Well, again, we had no intention of buying these things in the first place until you came up with them.

Right?

Well, we didn't come up with them.

They, they were a tool that was out there, uh, for law enforcement.

And these don't take a picture of the front of the car?

They may if the car is— I mean, coming in, there's another car coming.

I mean, if there's a car coming the other direction, you're going to get the front, which means you can see the driver, you can see a passenger.

You may.

Most of the pictures do not.

You can't see the driver.

And a lot of times with the angled windshield field, you can't see into a vehicle during the day or at night anyways.

So I also want to interject that I think we're giving the cameras a little bit too much credit.

Everything has to be verified by a law enforcement officer first before any action is taken.

So it— there— it doesn't— FLOCK doesn't say this and we automatically have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do that.

It has to be confirmed by a law enforcement officer through our data systems like the Constable That person's still wanted.

So it's not like we are taking law enforcement action based on FLOC information by itself, and I just want to be clear about that.

There are still steps in between that happen before anything— Is there civilian oversight of the use of this with it through the police department?

No, we don't have civilian oversight.

And what is to prevent the police department and SEACOC from hooking up with the rest of the flock cameras around the country?

They are hooked up with the flock cameras.

In other words, you have a dragnet system.

It's a system that— This is a dragnet system.

If you can— I don't know what you would call a dragnet system.

This is a system of cameras that allow people to find a place in different places.

If it hits a certain place, it'll pick it up.

It's not a dragnet.

There are many of these that hit in that we go looking for and we never find.

But if you were hooked up to Rhode Island and Ohio, and you are, so it's a nationwide system.

But there is interstate crime, so I understand that, but I'm just saying, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's a very small step from that to being watched no matter what you do.

I mean, there are instances, and I can show you these, in Ohio and Virginia where cars were traced from political rallies and the people in them were cited for this stuff and were investigated by the police over that.

Do we want the capability of that?

We also have— so there's also been cases of the police themselves looking for certain people through their vehicles.

You know that as well as I do, and they've been prosecuted for that.

Yeah.

And I assume that under those circumstances, there would be a civilian agency that would be involved with the police department regarding that oversight.

So the police department— can I, can I ask just a quick question?

So there is always a cost-benefit analysis.

So everything that they the captain just listed off.

So are you suggesting that we do away with the Flock cameras and potentially lose all the benefits that were just attained by the police department for the last— From what I understand, how long is the contract with Flock System?

It's a yearly contract.

It's a year's contract?

I don't want to misspeak.

That's more of the chief's lane.

I mean, I read that it was a year's contract with about $3,000 per camera.

And supposedly there's close to 20 cameras in town.

Am I— am I in the ballpark?

I, I don't want to misspeak because I understand.

I'm not going to hold you to it, but I believe the chief is more apt to speak on the budgetary side of it.

So yeah, it's a year's contract and it runs about $50,000 or $60,000.

Again, there are towns right next to us where these have been voted on by the people and have been pulled down.

No, I, I recognize that.

I, I guess for— I can tell you it's 20, it's 20 cameras.

Um, we spent $100,000 for the 20 cameras that was approved by the Board of Selectmen, uh, using federal monies.

Um, and then it's a $60,000 a year contract for, for that.

So I guess when we start talking about the cost-benefit analysis, all the benefits that were received by the police department, in my mind, well exceed $60,000 when we're talking about saving people's lives, finding crimes, people with home invasions.

I understand the timeout, but I would say, as one resident, and I live in a city that has flock cameras, I absolutely support flock cameras if they're used for the appropriate purposes.

It's like any technology that we have can be misused.

We have policies in place.

We actually had the police department take the initiative to come back before us.

We were governed by CEJIS.

We have an additional policy that was put forth by the police department to strengthen what we just heard from the captain, to strengthen the oversight that the police department has on individuals.

We have no claims whatsoever, and if we had any claims against any police officer, I'm sure that Internal Affairs would do an immediate investigation with regard to that.

Regards to that, and appropriate action would be taken.

And if it was that significant, you know, it would be forwarded over to POST.

The POST Commission would take a look at it, and if there was any need for decertification of a police officer's right to be a police officer, we would absolutely take that.

I would just argue, and I don't think that you could convince me otherwise, that FROCC has a significant benefit to the town of Seekonk, and I personally support that.

I hear the concerns.

I think the police department has done a phenomenal job of making sure.

And I think, you know, I'd put up our police department against any police department in the Commonwealth.

I think we have— that is not— the cost is never— if you remember, I never brought up the cost, okay?

The cost is immaterial.

I'm talking about personal individual rights, and I'm talking about overseeing this by a civilian civilian agency to make sure that it's not abused as it has been in many other places.

We do have a civilian agency.

We've got the Board of Selectmen who are elected by the town, right?

That's a civil— and you oversee, you oversee all the, uh, the use of the, uh, flock cameras by the police?

Ultimately through the chief.

I delegate my authority to the chief.

And you've had meetings about the, uh, these and everything?

Of course, we've had conversations.

All right, well, the rest of us haven't seen what the regulations are.

They're not posted anywhere that I can find, and there's no evidence that I can find as to who is in charge of this system.

That's all.

Yeah, it's ultimately the chief of police.

Yeah, would they post them?

Would you be— would you— would you be opposed to posting the— we had it, the policies about the use and who's available for the public document.

Okay.

And the last question that I will have, and I will wrap it up very shortly, is, is this something that we can bring up for a town vote?

Well, to what, eliminate them, or to eliminate them, or keep them?

Choice.

That's a vote of the select board.

Pardon me?

I believe that's a vote of the select board to remove the cameras, to institute them and to remove them.

Am I right?

Correct.

Unless— unless you're creating— bring up a warrant article to create a bylaw.

If you're looking to create a bylaw, that would be town meeting.

Create a bylaw to eliminate or keep flock— I mean, I'm looking for a yes/no vote, but rather than to put in a bylaw that says there can be no flock cameras.

I mean, maybe people don't want that.

I, I don't know.

I'm a bit of a naive person when it comes to how this stuff is done, and I had originally posted that in my question as to what we would have to do to put this to a town vote.

Yeah, so the only way to to put it through a town vote would be able— would be to create a bylaw, whether allowing flock cameras or some type of language around that, or, uh, you know, not allowing them in town like that.

Okay, that answers my question.

But that would also— and again, the bylaw would have to be reviewed by the AG's office, so there's got to be legality behind it.

So, and I would say, to reiterate Reiterate what Mr. Cadime said.

The documentation— most of the things you were asking for a little bit ago, all the data and the policies, as he said, I think it was 2 weeks ago, wasn't it?

The general order that Chief Enos brought forward was the policy that both of you have been speaking about.

Most of those things you were asking were in that policy, the documentation, which is accessible to you.

Where?

You just You probably have to just do a public records request.

Go online and put in a public records request, or can he do it manually?

Or— well, I think the captain or the deputy will be more than willing to— I think we'll print a copy and mail it to him.

Yeah, or drop it off at his house.

I mean, would that— I mean, would you want that?

Well, I, I— to me it would be— it seems that it's seen as you're looking at everybody's card, it goes through Seaconch.

There should be something that I can turn my iPad to and go, what's the policy on Seaconch flock cameras?

Shouldn't that be— shouldn't that be available easily rather than going through a public— on the police department website?

I'm sure we could find— well, yeah, it goes through the town.

Yeah, so, okay, well, we can look into that.

That was approved, but we voted on it, right?

He could— why couldn't he get a copy right from the police station?

He can.

Oh, he can.

You guys got a lot of paper here.

The rest of us use these kinds of things.

I get it.

Okay, do you have any other questions?

No, I've been very— your question's been answered within limits?

Yes.

Okay, satisfied, uh, personally or or systematic.

I thought they did a— I think they did a marvelous job on their presentation.

And if you remember correctly, I started this whole thing by saying I'm sure it was the board and the police department's idea that this would keep the town safe.

I'm not arguing that.

Okay, I'm arguing who's in control of it.

Deputy Captain, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm sorry, I thought there was a community speak.

I would like to also have some areas.

Yeah, we get another community speaks in a couple minutes.

In regards to the block, anything you want to talk about?

So they won't be here to answer any questions I have?

Yeah.

Okay, okay.

Discuss a request to the Historical Commission for certification location of the new Manavanel Cemetery in accordance with Community Preservation Act guidelines, which will allow Community Preservation Committee funds for rehabilitation of the cemetery.

Um, I don't have that either.

There's no documents.

Yeah, okay.

I didn't know if it was a document.

Sure there wasn't.

So, um, Mr. Cadime has begun some work on this with his staff.

I have, yeah.

You want to— yeah, yeah.

So, uh, you know, at the request to be able to get access to Community Preservation Act money for historical purposes, I did task, uh, Catherine Testa in our office to draft the application.

Um, so the first thing you got— we need to do is get the historical recognition for Newman Ave.

Cemetery.

We need to file that with the Massachusetts Historical Commission.

So there's a form that needs to be submitted.

With that, there's a lot of documentation that just needs to go there— some narratives, pictures, assessing.

And so we're working on that currently.

Catherine has already begun to put together a historical narrative.

She's working with the town clerk to get a map on the burial sites, a list of names, trying to identify verify with the assessors, um, the purpose of the property being turned over to the town.

So if we can gather that, uh, we'll, we'll include that in the application.

And then she'll be going over to the library, see if there's any other historical documentation that might be there that we don't have access to.

And then we'll submit that to the state for their review.

And then once we receive that, then we can begin to use CPA monies for the historical purpose.

So it's only for renovations.

It's not for the upkeep.

So we can't use it for digging up graves and things of that nature.

So it's very specific on the money.

But hopefully we'll have that submitted.

I just don't know what the turnaround time is with the Historical Commission in terms of— Do we need the assistance of the Historical Commission?

So once we get everything included, we'll probably send them a copy and try to meet with them, give them a presentation of what we're going to be submitting, and then we'll go from there.

Okay, that one goes back to 1890.

Is that what it was?

Uh, 18— yeah, I think the chairman of the Historical Commission did.

You want to say something?

60-something, right?

Yeah, you can come up.

Hi.

Hiya there.

So we haven't heard about this this, but we would like to be part of this if you need the local historical.

We actually have to have a public hearing as the local— we have to actually have a, uh, a public hearing as the local historic commission to designate, um, like a local landmark or anything like that.

It doesn't go through the Massachusetts Historical Commission, goes through your local historical commission, and then we send our information with our recommendations up to the state level.

No, I, I recognize that.

So we're just in the initial stage.

So we got the form from the Mass— so state— we also met with Michael Markley, and we wanted to just to— if we could put it on an additional meeting about cataloging some of the artifacts that have in the basement or in the vault or wherever it is, we'd like to be able to do that.

But we haven't gotten the communication back to be able to do that.

About being able to go into the vault or the archive or whatever so that we can catalog.

It's part of our job by Massachusetts law to catalog and seek out any historical objects or papers or— So you go through Mr. Kadima on that.

Okay.

Yes.

Well, thank you all very much.

Thanks.

Yes, we want to also— we're gonna start a plaque program, so we want to be put on a program eventually to start our historic plaque program.

Okay, so very good.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Item K, accept the warrant for the 2026 state election.

Uh, I don't think we have that, John.

Oh no, it's here.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we got— there's a— let's see how they put it— there's 2 of them.

Um, so we've got one for the state election and then we've got the the one for the municipal ballot question.

So we've got 2 that needs to be signed.

Okay.

All right, so this is at the request of the town clerk.

All right, so I'd entertain a motion that we execute both these documents.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

That's the warrant for the election.

It's just a ballot question.

9 questions.

The 9 questions, and then there's one town question, then fire station.

Okay, next we're going to go through the town, the town meeting warrant.

And we're going to assign more articles.

Yeah, uh, so do you want me to go through them first and then go back, or do you want to do them as I go through?

Why don't you do this to save time, right?

Go through them.

Okay, so Article 1 is committee reports.

Motions usually just made on town meeting floor.

Article 2 is the appropriate of free cash.

Sent the board an email just letting you know that the Department of Local Services certified our free cash for fiscal year '26 in the amount of $2,691,900.

So per our policy, 60% is broken down into the various categories that we have here.

So $403,785 going into each of these accounts, the stabilization Account, Municipal Capital Stabilization Account, Building and Infrastructure Stabilization Account, and the other post-employment benefits.

Okay, so, uh, we want somebody to present these all, right?

Right.

Yes.

Okay, who wants to do our— I'll do Article 1.

I'll do 2.

Mrs. 2.

All right.

Art, you do 3?

Yep.

Okay, so, and then recommendations for— so I only need a recommendation for item 2?

Yes, I'm sure.

Yeah, that's, that's the policy, right?

Yeah.

Yep.

Okay, so we're recommending?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, sorry.

Article 3 is the appropriation of the free cash portion of the school department portion.

So if you recall, any amount that they turn back at the end of the year, we give back to the schools.

So of that $2.6 million, $700— I mean, $772,191.

I know the schools would like $700,000.

It was only $772,191.

The superintendent is going to use what they've used in the past, so 2/3 going to the school capital stabilization account, so that's $24,064, and 1/3 going to the special education stabilization fund.

Okay, so Bob, you're going to do that?

You said Article 3 at town meeting?

Yes, yes, yes.

Okay, and that's recommended, right?

We recommend that.

All right, Article Article 4 is the funding, uh, for the first year of the supervisors' collective bargaining agreement, uh, in the amount of $40,000.

I'll do it.

Okay, Mike.

And with a recommendation, right?

Article 5 is the collective bargaining agreement, uh, funding $25,000 for the first year for clerical.

Undo that, Chris.

Sure.

Okay, and that has a positive recommendation, right?

Yes.

Okay, Article 6 is another collective bargaining agreement with Public Works in the amount of $43,000.

I'll do it.

Okay, Michael, and that's got a positive recommendation, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Good.

Article 7 is the tax exemption for the National Guard.

This has to be done every 2 years.

I'll do this one.

Okay, go ahead.

No, go ahead, Liz.

And that has a positive recommendation, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Article 8.

Okay, uh, Article 8 and 9, um, revolve Well, regarding the PEG, so the Public Education and Government Access money, so the Article 8 is for the schools.

The schools have requested $89,000 for PEG purposes.

Article 9 was submitted by Secon Cable Access.

Their original submittal was $142,000.

They've since amended that to $84,000.

As the board's aware, uh, the general law for the special revenue account only allows us to appropriate, uh, the balance at the time.

Uh, so for our appropriation, the current balance is, is only, um, $84,779.

So I've made the schools aware and then TV9 aware that we don't have enough funding to fund the 2 articles.

Uh, so it's really up to the board, do we want to keep Article 8 Uh, keep Article 9, do a combination, uh, of the two.

Uh, for, for our balance, the FY26 ending balance was $32,769.

We're anticipating revenue of $208,000 for the entire fiscal year.

Uh, so we average about $52,000 per quarter.

Again, that can fluctuate, uh, depending on the number of subscriptions that we have, uh, from Comcast.

Uh, so the the total anticipated, um, revenue for the end of the fiscal year is $240,769.

So that's what we anticipate.

Uh, so that being said, that would also create somewhat of an issue coming— come May if, uh, the school department still is looking for, uh, the amount of $89,000.

Uh, we, we will have some discrepancy between funding requests coming in from TV9 versus, um, the requests coming in from the, from the schools.

So, so you're gonna combine the 2 articles?

Is that what you're saying?

No, he wants to know which way we want to go.

Just from my standpoint, I'm in full support of supporting the PEG Access cable to provide our shows and record town meeting and things like that.

I think it's way too important.

We lost that once before.

Not many people like that experience.

I think it's extremely extremely important for us to keep that.

If the schools have to wait till the spring and we have— maybe have to find another revenue source for them, that's fine.

But I'm not going to support cutting the local access channel again.

All right, Michael, then you are the liaison.

Yeah.

So you want to do Article 8?

I'll do both articles if we're not willing to pull Article 8.

If the board's not willing to pull Article 8, I'm willing to pull Article 8.

He's supporting Article 9.

I'm supporting Article 9.

So, all right, so Article 8, we either pull Article 8 or you can just make a, uh, not a favorable recommendation.

Yeah, so it's up to the board.

Non-favorable, that's fine.

Okay, cool.

Mr.

Chair, where would the money come from?

Not favorable, but for 8, you mean?

Yeah, if we don't have the money in the— so there could be an amendment on the floor.

So this was submitted by the school department, so an amendment on the floor could be made, uh, by the school department, and then it's ultimately up to town meeting how they want to fund it.

So we would just have to articulate that all we have available for an appropriation is $84,779, which would be included in the fund balance that's provided to town.

So you're in favor of— you're not in favor of 8?

I'm not in favor of supporting number 8.

Um, I am in favor of supporting article number 9, where they've reduced their request from $142,000 to $84,000, correct?

Correct, as of today, correct?

Right.

So you're going to redo this Article 9, right, to be— I'm going to amend 142 to read $84,000.

84.

And Michael, you're gonna do that one and you support it?

Yes.

Okay.

And for number 8, we're gonna say we don't support it or we're going to pull it?

It's up to the board how you want to handle it.

So if you present it as is is you're going to need to know where the money comes from on Town Meeting 4, correct?

The school's going to have to provide that.

So, so we're aware, where can potentially that funding come from?

Unless you want to provide, uh, stabilization account, but it's— I mean, they're, they're looking for PEG access money, right?

Yeah, educational.

That's my stance.

Programming.

Can I ask you a question?

Where has— we're getting $52,000 a quarter.

How has that been trending with— because if I got it right, we get 5% of the gross revenue on subscriptions.

That's how we get the $52,000.

Yeah, it's a pass-through.

It's not, it's not revenue sharing.

How has that been trending over the past few years?

Uh, so the average— we've been averaging about $50,000.

So it— yeah, yeah.

All right.

Do you think it'll be confusing if you leave Article 8 on there?

I think it will be because there's no— yeah, if there's no money for it, then I think that could create confusion.

And what if people vote for it and then— I'll make a motion to remove Article 8.

Second?

Aye.

Okay, second.

All in favor?

Aye.

So you have to— we just have to renumber everything, correct?

All right, and then Article 9 is amended to be $84,000 rather than the $142,000.

Right.

Okay.

Article 10 is submitted by the school committee for the MSBA feasibility study.

So we'll let them present it, right?

Yep.

We won't take a pot, okay?

Are we making a recommendation?

No recommendation.

Uh, it's theirs.

Do we want to make a recommendation?

I don't know, I don't think I'm— they're going to present it.

All right, how about we can put to be determined on town meeting?

Town meeting floor.

All right.

Article 11 is the zoning bylaws for the data centers that were presented by John Aubin last week.

And this is in line with the recent changes the legislature made to Chapter 48.

You want me to take that one?

Sure, I'll take that one.

Well, they— this planning board takes it.

Well, they— are they going to present this?

They present all this.

Okay.

But I think I think what Liz's point is, is she can read the motion, right?

And then John will speak to the actual article.

I think that's where you were going.

Yep.

Recommending?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

You want— if you're going to do the zoning, you want to do 12 also, Liz?

Yes.

So I'll just read the motion and, yeah, he'll give presentation.

And we stand behind it.

We recommend it, right?

Yeah.

All right, Article 13— I'm sorry.

No, you're good.

Article 13 is the roadway acceptance for Madison Court.

Questions?

So I'll read that, and we have a positive recommendation.

Any recommendation?

Article 14, in speaking with the chairman of the building committee, he'd like to change that 9.5 to 9.750.

Okay.

All right, I'll present that if that's okay with everybody.

Is that a recommendation, or— um, I'm gonna know.

The chief still stands by more staffing over a station has a priority too, right?

As far as I'm aware, that's what the department has recommendation is.

As far as I'm aware, yep.

Hey, Michael, I'm gonna know.

So it's a 3-2 vote.

3-2.

All right, and then Article 15 and 16 have to do with the DBW 911 parcel, or complex if you will.

I wasn't sure where the board wanted to go with this, so Article 15 is a feasibility study which would allocate $43,500 to do a feasibility study for the complete complex And then Article 16, uh, is $100,000 that's being appropriated for, uh, what I've, um, I guess described as a reno slash infrastructure, uh, based on requests.

So not sure if you want to keep both articles or you want to do— I definitely— for me, I like to definitely want to do Article 16 because I've I brought Liz and Bob over there with Jim helping, and they were impressed with the building and they see the potential.

But what do you expect to get out of a feasibility study?

Uh, just so really just coming up with a plan as to what the buildings are going to be used, how to use the buildings, potential locations for— because we need a new gas system, the shed.

There's going to be some traffic studies that will be done just trying to figure out exit and try to make a connection into the actual feasible— the actual site that we currently have now.

Okay.

All right.

I'll go along with both.

So we're going to do the feasibility study, then still throw money at it to do a renovation, get the offices open.

Yes.

So you're doing 15 as well?

Oh well, you want me to do 16?

I'll do 15.

Mike's gonna do 15.

Okay, and you'll do 16, Bob?

Yes.

Okay, and then recommendation on both?

Yes.

Is that going to be from the building committee?

There is no building.

No, there's none.

No, I think you got a quote.

Didn't you get something from, uh, that's what the— that's the court is.

Yeah, yeah, he was, he was asking about the building committee.

Yeah, no, yeah, yeah.

Okay, okay.

All right.

And then, I'm sorry, uh, 16 was Bob?

Yes.

So Article 17 has 2 options.

This is with regards to the Wheeler School location and the payment in lieu of tax.

So the Article 17 Option 1, which I sent to the, to the board, this language is generic in the sense that it doesn't identify the Wheeler School.

What the home rule petition would be looking to do is tax nonprofits that own more than 100 acres or 100 acres and more more.

So that would be one option to approach the home rule petition.

Article 2 is specific to the Wheeler School.

So I do the first option.

That's just me.

Okay.

You like the first?

I was lost reading all of that.

I mean, no, no, I know.

But instead of just making it particular to one property, why don't we just make it like a blanket policy.

That's my take on it.

If we're looking for success, I think the— that you got a better chance with option 1 than you do with option 2.

Just my personal opinion.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

Are we better off waiting for— Mr. Donahue said that they're looking at doing something at the state level for all nonprofits.

Said that they were working on something.

Well, I concur with you, John.

Option 1 does seem to be better.

They didn't think they'd get this fast to governor, even if they got there.

Is that possibly your opinion?

You want me to do Article 17?

If you would.

So we're doing Option 1?

Yes.

Yeah.

What do you make?

Yeah.

Right, so we're going to take option 2 out.

Option 2 is gone.

Yep.

Okay, and that's a recommendation, right?

Yes.

Article 18 is the roadway acceptance for Matt's Way.

Yeah, I can take that, and then we'll do— we'll hold off on recommendations because we haven't had a public hearing Uh, the rest of my voter petition, right?

Correct.

Uh, so Article 19 forward are all, uh, voter petitions.

So Article 19, uh, is the zoning bylaw changes that were— we discussed during the Medeiros Farm discussion, and we were forwarded over to planning for a recommendation.

Uh, so no changes, these appear as they were submitted.

Uh, Article 20 is looking to create, uh, a Medeiros Farm Legislative Oversight Committee.

Uh, Article 21, uh, is to see if the town will vote to enable the Medeiros Farm Legislative Oversight Committee with authority to continuously oversee the Medeiros Farm project, uh, and take action to support the votes taken at town meeting.

Article 22 is to see if the town will vote to direct the select board to carry out the May 12, 2025 spring town meeting vote appropriating $825,000 from the Community Preservation Fund undesignated reserve as requested by the Madeiras Farm Committee for designer services for the Madeiras Farm project at Elm Street and Lincoln Street.

Including authorizing and executing a contract for such designer services within 60 days of this town meeting, and to prohibit the select board from using the appropriation or other town funds or resources to avoid, replace, delay, or otherwise circumvent the contracting of such designer service or take any other action relative thereto.

Does town council vet the petitions?

Uh, so if it's a voter petition, we don't— they I don't vet them.

So there's discussion at town meeting, and then, uh, somebody can ask his opinion, and they'll— or whoever town council is there.

Good.

All right, so we go back to Article 10 for a moment.

Yeah, you said we're going to hold off on making a recommendation.

Can we talk about that some more, about us making a recommendation for this?

I mean, we voted with the MSBC.

I mean, we went forward with this.

Is he wrong to make a recommendation on this now as the board?

Well, or is there no appetite for it?

We can take a vote on it like we did the other one.

It was a 2-2 vote on the other one, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, um, you're right, we could just say we'll make a recommendation on the floor.

Make it on the floor.

How's that?

So be it.

Are we all right with everybody?

Okay.

All right.

So you're gonna make the changes?

You want us to sign it now?

Uh, no, I'll make the changes if we can just approve as amended.

Yeah.

Yep.

So town meeting warrant is to entertain a motion to accept the November 9th, 2026 town meeting warrant as amended.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Okay, now what do we got?

Consider the adoption of a contract approval policy.

This was submitted by Dr. Bolt.

It was refined or expanded by the town administrator.

Yep, I sent it out to the board.

The only, uh, changes that I made, obviously, uh, besides the verbiage that's up top, but the main points— there were 3 main points.

I added items 4 and 5, so just to capture if there are any changes prior to approval, that obviously the board would get those changes.

And then I just had exceptions in there in case there's any emergencies that would arise, so the board has the ability to deal with those contracts that may be emergency.

Okay, is it agreeable to everybody?

Yes.

Yes.

Would you like to make a motion to accept?

Yes.

Motion accept the municipal contract review policy.

Second.

All right, any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Uh, nay.

So voted.

Accept the resignation of David White from the position of patrolman from the police department.

All right, is there a second?

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Accept the resignation of Gloria Hernandez Cruz from the position of emergency telecommunications dispatcher.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Consider accepting the open session minute meetings of September 9th, 2026.

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Okay, community speaks.

Anybody want to come up and speak?

Hello, I'm Shawnee Lagore.

I live at 34 Applejack Lane and I oppose I apologize, I'm new to all of this, so I wasn't really sure if I should come up when the other gentleman was talking about the flog camera or not, but I appreciate you staying.

So I just had a few additional questions, and I also couldn't hear very well, so I apologize if you repeat a little bit.

But, um, when asked where this information goes, I didn't hear— is it eventually like looped and then deleted after a certain amount of days?

After 30 days, if it's not hit on for something like an investigation, it gets deleted.

Yes.

Okay.

And then I heard something about AI-prompted inquiries.

Could you elaborate on that?

There, there are systems out there.

I think all, all camera companies have those options.

The ones that we have do not have that.

That's not as— that's not part of that.

That's like a picture Um, I guess I don't know all the functionality of it.

They may have a functionality of like identifying certain parts of that, that picture, but it's not facial recognition.

Deputy, I think, I think her question is regarding FLOC instituted an AI review of, I guess, the database, right?

So that's on— oh, okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Um, so yes, they, they came up with certain parameters or certain things that would be questioned, that may be suspect or may lead to— may have been indicate some improper behavior.

So if those things are targeted, those are picked up, it will flag it and say, hey, you need to look at— somebody needs to look at this and see why this was done.

One of them may be repeated, somebody repeatedly running a for something.

Now, that could be somebody trying to look up their girl— ex-girlfriend, or it could be an officer that is trying to find a vehicle that was involved in an incident.

And if it's not in one of those hot lists, we have to do a query to see if it's come up, to check again, like, to see if it's there.

So they may do that more than once to see if they can get an update on that for that case.

That's why there needs to be a reason why you're doing that.

Inquiry.

Okay, because that was one of my concerns, was that if there is potential— I mean, we all have or hope for the good faith of our officers, but, you know, there have been some cases where women have been tracked down with the use of flood cameras.

I at least read 2 news articles about it, not locally but nationwide.

And so when you reported that, you know, there's been no incidents of misconduct, I wanted to know, or I was curious how you go about, uh, finding— like, who's going to report that they're looking or using it inappropriately?

Yeah, and that's what— that's why FLOC initiated that AI protocol, and that self-scans it to look for, for something that may be needing further review.

And that's why the officers, the one of the command staff, or somebody that we designate, will go through and at that if it's flagged and say this is legitimate law enforcement purpose because we can see the cases.

We can say, yeah, this person might have done it, but these other officers did it too because it's part of this, this case, right?

So that's what it is, as opposed to there's no reason why they should have been running this plate.

Okay, so all officers have credentialing to use when it— yes, whenever it's done, it's, it's tied back to that officer.

Every time they query something, there's a record of them querying it and when they query it.

It's almost like a fingerprint, so you know when they're— people— and someone's reviewing that, the chief, or someone's taking note of like one officer maybe like dinging a certain video or a picture more.

Yeah.

And then part of our policies is, is, um, a set time frame of reviewing, uh, like random sampling, but also doing the AI.

Okay.

And then after 30 days, you say that most of it's wiped out, but is there a case where you transfer some of these files to be stored?

If they are to be used in a case or investigatory purpose, then we have to flag them separately to keep them from being deleted.

Just like that gentleman was saying, I also went online to look for the policy and I couldn't find it.

So if it is uploaded, I think that would be— Yeah, we'll work on getting that in a place that's easy to find.

Okay.

And then the only other thing I would like to say about this is just a statement, is that, um, you know, we live in such a technologically fast-forwarding country right now, and it's like, I— if I didn't want to be on surveillance or on video, I can get rid of my cell phone.

I don't need my cell phone.

I can get rid of any social media accounts I have.

I think the issue with this that makes it feel so personal is that we don't have the option to not be on a flock camera, and that's, I think, what a a lot of people take issue with.

But I do appreciate the ability to see the policy and have it readily available for people to refer back to with their questions or concerns and also meetings like this.

Okay.

The only other thing I had a question about is, I don't know if you all got my email.

I sent an email after the senior real estate tax exemption.

I did hear back from Chris.

I sent it out to each individual, um, board member.

That's okay, maybe went to your spam.

No, no, I just— we're having a problem with that system, we really are.

Oh, so we didn't ignore you, we just didn't— yeah, probably get it.

Yeah, he just sent us an email, all of us, because not all— and not everyone got it.

So not you, Chris sent it.

Yeah, right.

I did reply to you.

I, I'm surprised you didn't get it.

I did not.

I just got Mr. Zorro's, so I appreciate Um, you're replying.

Uh, I was hoping to go to that follow-up meeting because I believe you said it was a public meeting, but it was canceled.

Do you know where it stands with further, um, public comment?

That initiative is through the Board of Assessors, so they're the ones that would be initiating that and probably coming back to us.

Okay, so more to come on that, but no date on like a public hearing or anything?

Can you, can you call the office tomorrow so the Board of assessors has a meeting scheduled.

I just don't know what it is.

Okay, they're gonna have some type of discussion.

It was today.

Oh, was it today?

Yeah, maybe.

Sorry.

So maybe they have an idea when— oh, it was already today, maybe.

Oh, but if I call tomorrow, will I be able to find out an update from them about that?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, community speaks.

Anybody else?

Nobody?

Okay, thank you.

Uh, other business, discuss other topics not reasonably anticipated by the chair 48 hours before the meeting.

Uh, I don't believe we have anything.

Nope.

Okay, town administrator's report?

Nothing at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Okay.

Select Board liaison reports and comments.

I'll start over here with Chris.

Nothing at this time.

Okay, Michael, TV9 has a meeting Friday night, 5:00 PM, at the studio.

I cannot make the meeting unfortunately, but if someone wants to go, I'm sure you'd be more than welcome.

Okay, if anybody from the board wants to go, it's Friday night, 5:00 PM, at the studio.

Are you taking comments too.

You just want to— oh yeah, good.

And the only other comment I have, the other day, I know most of the board members are aware that Mr. Gadeem sent out an email about the Bristol County Retirement Assessment coming forward and the increase that we're gonna sustain for next year.

Oh, try to.

I think that's probably gonna chew up probably about 60% of our— 64%— 64% of our are increased just based upon the 2.5% we increased, right?

Correct.

And that doesn't include any other fixed costs.

So I just want everybody— I just want to throw that out there so everybody going forward— it's going to be a very difficult budget year, I believe, just with that number being thrown out, because I think it went from— say, uh, it was just, just over $800,000, uh, and then it's an additional $500,000 in FY29.

Uh, so it's not just Bristol County.

I know Plymouth County has also just had their actuarial So there's a lot of administrators just walking through this, conversations about how the MMA can try to assist with us, and it's not really a lot there.

I am starting to kind of put some ideas together.

I'll send something with the board, just doing some research on a couple of things in terms of potential options that we would have.

I think we're going to have to pay the assessment, but there is a Zoom meeting.

I'll share the Zoom meeting with everybody once Bristol County County Retirement has that link because they'll go through the actuarial.

The biggest concern obviously with the actuarial is just the investment income, the percentage that they use.

They usually use a lower percentage of 3%, so I'm not sure where they use for a percentage where the actual real percentage is anywhere north of 6% on a given year.

So that has significant impacts, you know, to the tune of $1 million on any, any given evaluation.

So I'll share that with the board, but it definitely is significant, especially when you're looking at the budget.

64% of our revenue is already committed to pension.

So yeah, I just wanted to get out there early.

I know you're probably bringing up during the quad board meeting, which is coming up, and then any other budget discussions.

It's just that that's a serious increase that we have to like absorb.

Yeah, it's massive, and that's all to fully fund by 2034, correct?

Yeah, retirement.

So they voted in Bristol County 3% COLA up to $22,000.

You know, that it's just a massive number.

So we'll end up what, with a financial cliff in 2034?

Mm-hmm.

But between now and then, we're going to get crushed.

Yeah, I think— I haven't seen the numbers.

I was just doing it based on a percentage but the total Bristol County payment was like $62 million in '28, and it's going to $72 million in— I'm sorry, '29, and it's going to $72 million in FY '30.

So that's still another $9 million payment for us.

Extremely aggressive.

You know, I was involved in retirements in Attleboro, and we did many over over the years, actuarial evaluations, and you come up with a big number and the city would scream just like we are.

So if we are raising this red flag, I think a lot of other communities are.

And we need to— what they've done in the past is that 2034 is an arbitrary date.

They have in the past put it out another 5 years, you know, which they moved.

Oh yeah.

And you know, it's When they talk about the unfunded liability, that's the amount of money you would need if the town went bankrupt tomorrow to have all the money to pay the benefits.

Well, that, you know, and I think we're about 65 or 70% funded, right?

Correct.

Yeah, so we're in good shape.

So yeah, don't change.

I would think you're going to have municipalities all over Massachusetts forced into overrides.

Yeah, well, it's It's not sustainable.

Yeah, it's not.

No, it's nice if all the— everybody that's— would get together and really raise the arrow because it's— all right, Michael, you also— I'm good.

Okay.

All right, Liz, we had a nice meeting this evening and I think we made some progress, so that's my report.

All right, Bob.

Yeah, I had a couple people speak to me about speeding.

And because I travel that way off Lincoln and Byelm recently, a lot of aggressive driving, people passing on the left, blowing off that stop sign.

I have seen— we've got police officers between Medeiros Farm houses over there.

But it's becoming a real raceway going over If we could get more of a police presence there.

And the other complaint was Lake and Lincoln, they're just flying through that stop sign.

And I do see it all the time.

They just— I know it's almost like you get into a rural area there, but people are flying through Lake and Lincoln.

If we get a little more presence there.

Okay, is that Is that it?

Also, all right, I don't have anything else.

All right, so I would entertain a motion that we adjourn and to go into executive session to reconvene in open session for potential contract approval.

Item A, to discuss a complaint brought against a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual per Mass General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21A1.

1, and B is to conduct strategy sessions with respect to negotiations with the building commissioner zoning enforcement officer per Mass General Law Chapter 30A Section 21A, as having the discussion in open session would be detrimental to the litigation or bargaining position of the town.

So moved.

So moved.

Second.

All right, roll call vote.

Robert Ashborough, aye.

Elizabeth Almazen, aye.

Chris, all right.

Gary Segar, aye.

Gary, if you just want to note the time, 8:29 PM.

8:29, okay.

All right, folks, thank you.