Read more here: www.progressivemass.com/senate-votes...

22. Passed
23. Passed
24. Postponed
25. Passed (purchase of the property next to the DPW)
26. Failed (Mederios farm funding recision)
27. Failed (Mederios farm committee recision)

Final minutes will be posted here when they are approved: www.seekonk-ma.gov/566/Town-Mee...

17. Failed (sale of firefly)-the main objection was transparency and our ability to control what happens on the property
18. Postponed
19. Passed
20. Passed
21. Passed

15. Failed (sale of the old town hall)-the main objection is why would we sell a building with this much history or other potential uses.
16. Passed (sale of county st fire station)

1. Passed
2. Passed
3. Passed
4. Passed
5. Passed
6. Passed
7. Passed
8. Passed
9. Passed
10. Passed
11. Passed
12. Passed
13. Passed
14. Failed (TIF for Darling Development Corporation)-the main objection was giving tax relief to a corporation.

2. For those of you who stuck it out through the end and did maintain order-we thank you. The moderator had to work through what is a difficult set of circumstances to ensure the will of the people is accurately reflected.

But that’s not why you tuned in-here are the results.

te

The commitment is about an hour a month and it’s a good chance to get experience in all of the parliamentary quirks of our democracy.

The major concern is that the development started before the TIF agreement was signed. This is apparently due to the change in the law which occurred last year.”
We don’t completely understand TIF agreements historically or current, but we did find out that the law changed on November 20th, 2024.

not the whole complex. The agreement is over 5 years, going from 20-100% of the value. The taxed value in the first year is similar to the existing property. This is because the property increased in value by developing the lot.

We missed FOIAing the agreement, but realized one of our officers was in the finance committee meeting on the topic. We picked his brain and here’s what we got:
“The agreement is only for the hotel going in next to Whole Foods,

Even basic topics like-what is the impact to the operating budget are left to question.
So what is it that we’re authorizing for sale? We’ll discuss that tomorrow.

. At the time it was seen as a primarily defensive move, which makes the move to sell it odd.
The plethora of executive sessions on the topic and lack of discussion in the 10/15 meeting makes this even more confusing.

exchange, lease, or value of real property of 320 Fall River Ave.” that there is some plan for the property. Unfortunately, further clarity around this or any other protections appears to be lacking from current public records.

lynchpin against residential development the town was trying to prevent in the first place.It is clear from multiple select board executive sessions regarding “the purchase,

That status change may have been the topic of a dispute with the previous owner asserting that “until the end of 2023, the property was classified as recreational”.
If sold-the 61B s9 process would serve as the only

The town was able to purchase the land as a first right of refusal under statute 61B s9. This occurs when the owner tries to change the status of the land from recreational. Moving forward-the first right of refusal would only apply if the land is still designated as recreational under 61B.

(they are linked below-please keep in mind they are DRAFT), KP law suggests that a new vote be taken. This may date back to 2014 when there was serious consideration by the Wampanoag to buy/lease the property.

Primarily this applies to water retention systems, but we’re not aware of instances where this has become a problem and needs to be enforced. If you are-let us know!