Residents press Select Board for transparency after MassTrails application and missing meeting recording

Open‑forum speakers raised transparency questions about the Beewalt (BWALT) trail planning effort and a recent MassTrails grant application.

Joanne Aramini told the board she had been unable to find or obtain the January 13 Active Transportation & Safety Committee meeting recording, although the committee website contains recordings of other meetings. ‘‘I’ve been waiting to see that and have not seen that at all,’’ Aramini said and asked whether the board or town manager had listened to the recording and could share a link.

Kevin Barry, a resident who attended recent ATSC and joint meetings, said attendees were shown a capital project slide on Jan. 16 that listed a roughly $400,000 cost for a 25% design study. He said that less than two weeks later an application for a MassTrails design grant was submitted listing a $625,000 total (a $500,000 grant request plus $125,000 match), which he described as a 56% increase from the slide presented to committees. ‘‘We were all presented this slide, this information, and it changed within two weeks,’’ Barry said, adding that committees had not been informed of the application or the larger cost estimate.

Paul De Otis urged more public outreach and asked whether project planners had consulted public safety agencies; he also read a community report naming staff who have worked on BWALT, including the Community Development Director and the Director of Planning.

Town officials acknowledged inconsistent posting practices across committees and said recordings are not an Open Meeting Law requirement. The Select Board suggested updating the committee handbook to set clearer expectations about posting recordings and agreed the matter merited follow‑up. Planning staff said the assistant planner had applied for the MassTrails grant and that timelines and match requirements can create short application windows. Board members asked staff to coordinate clarification about the grant amount, the source of the match, and whether the planning department or other town offices had authorized or been made aware of the submittal.

The Select Board did not vote on any action related to the project during the meeting; members directed staff to provide clearer documentation of the grant application, any associated match or in‑kind commitments, and to consider a joint update with the Planning Board and ATSC so residents could ask questions at a public forum.

Ending: Town staff and Select Board members said they will follow up with the planning office to provide the requested grant documentation, investigate why the January 13 recording has not been posted, and consider committee handbook updates to clarify posting practices.