Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to the March 17 meeting of the Cadam Finance Committee on this blustery day. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing. and any smartphone, excuse me, smartphone or
tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. No notifications. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 2825 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 25 extending certain CO 19 measures during the state
of emergency. This meeting of the Chattam Finance Committee is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while progress may do so by calling
508-945410. 945 4410 and enter conference ID 181231120 again 18123 120 pound sign or one may join the meeting online via Microsoft team through the
link link good lord in the posted agenda we will post a record for this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible so we are going to continue our work today on wrapping up uh articles for town meeting and a um couple of transfers and a conversation around our
report to the warrant which I'm eagerly awaiting feedback on. Um, okay. So, with that, let's do a roll call. Tommy Don >> here. >> Barb Anderson >> here. >> John Papalardo >> here. >> Joanne Sprag >> here. >> Andy Young >> here. >> Christian Andrew >> here. >> Tracy Shields
>> here. >> Eric Whitley >> yes. >> Thank you. And the chair is here. >> Well, welcome everybody. So, first order of business is article review for a protective zoning bylaw amendment.
Uh Carrie, anything you would like to say about that or should we turn it over to Christine? >> I think we can turn it over to Christine. >> Okay, Christine, welcome. >> Hello everyone. My name is Christina Grady and I'm here with the chair of the planning board, Art Srew. And um we are
going to ask for your recommendation on the protective bylaw amendment for accessory dwelling units or also called ADUs. So basically, Cadam has had an ADU bylaw since 2019, and it was amended in 2022
um to deal with short-term rentals. That bylaw was superseded in February of last year by a state um regulation for accessory dwelling units. So um your bylaw is no longer uh being used or can
be used at this point. So that is the reason why we are bringing this um amendment forward. We are going to um basically replace the existing bylaw or the former bylaw in its entirety. Um this came about as a result of a state
um initiative for they called the affordable homes act which was taken in 2024 and basically um it was to help improve the supply of housing in the state through programs related to housing cost and limited housing availability. There are two components
to this act. The first one being the seasonal communities bylaw and the second one being the ADU bylaw. the seasonal communities bylaw. Um those regulations came to pass finally um in February of this year. So that is why
we're not moving forward with all of the pieces of that at this time. Um you did as a town vote to um accept that designation at town meeting last year and you will see a couple of um amendments to the bylaw or additions to
the bylaw for next year. In the meantime, we are moving forward like I said with the ADU one and again um that is because the current state regulation that you are um required to go under does not meet the needs of Cadam. Um
since Chattam um like I said had the ADU bylaw in 2019 and then changed it a little bit um it it meets the needs of of Chadam much better. We need, you know, we need housing types, but we need different from something that may be out
in the western part of the state or in Boston area. So, that is one of the reasons why we're pulling ahead. Um, this particular bylaw, as with your previous, it was for detached, attached, um, and then internal dwelling units.
So, we can have something above a garage, we can have something in a basement, we can have something on a on a second level or whatever. We can also have the separated ones. Um, again, it's for to provide an opportunity for all
types of housing types. Um, for all kinds of incomes, all kinds of family sizes, all kinds of age groups. Um, ultimately, we want to provide a strong, stable, diverse, year-round community here. So, we're we're making sure that
the um bylaw is fitted to not really open up an opportunity for short-term rentals, but addresses the needs of the people here in Chadam and the workforce here working. Basically, um the process of building an ADU when we have somebody come into
community development or to planning, you know, we want to give them some information about it. We want to help them plan so that they can go through the permitting process, build and move in. Um I'm sorry. Uh basically it is the zoning
districts are the residential zoning districts. So R60, R40, R4A, R30, R20, R20A and then the single uh the um small business and the general business districts. And the reason it comes into play in those districts is because that
is where single family houses are allowed by right according to the and this this acronym is a little bit awkward but the executive house office of housing and livable communities in the state. Um an
ADU must have a separate entrance. It must be half the gross floor area or the the principal dwelling or 900 square feet. And it's important it's whichever is less. And it must meet the local municipal regulations related to how uh
two-dimensional things mostly like setbacks, ma um height, massing, those type of things. Um, the state has given us guidance that municipalities can impose reasonable restrictions related to site plan
review, title five, dimensional setbacks, and short-term rentals. We cannot, however, require owner occupancy or family relationship. We can't require a special permit approval um require more than one parking space
um or any parking spaces that in that if if it comes in um within a half mile of a of a bus station. And a bus station is any place where it's not like a station in the traditional sense of like going up to a building and getting on, but
it's a stop basically any place where you embark on a bus. Um so again these are uh basically the same things just a little bit further explained um spread out the other other things that are included here or there
are no limits on the number of of ADUs that can be built or permitted constructed or leased in a single year. So that's really important because in your past bylaw you had something where you had a cap of 10 per year. You can't do that anymore. Um,
we also can't do it by by special permit. There is no limit on the number of bedrooms or people that can be in a thing. That being said, obviously the um building commissioner and the uh board of health play a play a big part in the
um in the um uh the limits on those type of occupancy issues. And there are no limits with a minimum lot size. So that's important. And if there's already an accessory, I mean, if there's already a preliminary dwelling on a on a site,
then they can have an ADU. If the site is not big enough for a prelim a primary dwelling unit, then they can't necessarily have a B AU because they can't build the the um the dwelling unit to begin with. Um, we go on to say that
we talk again about the parking like I said here. Um, we talk about which districts it can be in. we talk about ownership and then it's important to note that these um ADUs cannot be counted in density calculations for other types of housing things that may
come before you. Um the planning board when they did their um analysis and addition to the the ADU bylaw from we worked with town council, we worked within community development with the you know the building commissioner, all
of those types of things. um the planning board did look at it and so they did limit one ADU per lot um with no additional units. So that is something that they did kind of confirm. They also did not increase that 900
square foot um maximum limit thing and um something that came up at the public hearing a couple of weeks ago. Um it's not something that we had in the initial bylaw that we were proposing. Um, basically what it says is after the
short-term rentals thing, which is item three of section C of the proposed bylaw in your packet, um, it talks to in order to address the town's needs for housing for yearround housing in ADU shall be
actively rented and/or leased on a year round basis until such time as the ADU no longer meets the definition of an accessory dwelling unit as defined in section two of the protective bylaw. a one-year waiver may be granted for ADUs that are unable to be rented due to the
need for repairs or unforeseen circumstances. Um, basically we added this in um because uh the building commissioner and a couple of other people like me had sat in on something with that um housing and livable
communities um group last week and um what we found out was basically places like East Ham and a couple of other communities have had that gu that wording approved by the attorney general's office at the state. So that's why we felt it was important because the
um short-term rental thing is is a big concern of the planning board in particular. So that that's why that language was added at the last minute. Um and then the planning board also kept in that um the ZBA does have discretion to allow dimensional relief for ADUs
where appropriate. So they will they will be reviewing as needed. Um in addition to coming before you today, we are going before the um select board tonight and then um we hope to have a recommendation by you um in advance of
the for annual town meeting. I should also point out to you that at um at the time when your uh agenda was being prepared, we had received some guidance from uh town council that this this
particular uh protective bylaw will res will require a simple majority and not a twothirds vote. And the reason this comes about is because of um it was a ha part of a housing choice initiative um initiated by the
governor Baker and his administration. So again it is a simple majority and it says that on the the um uh the uh warrant article that you have in your packet but your agenda had said 2/3 which is typically what is required
for normal um zoning changes. >> Okay. I don't know if you have any questions for Bart or I, but >> Bart, anything you'd like to add? >> Well, one of the things I um like to make everybody aware of, uh, this
actually applies to all three the ADU law applies to all 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts. The seasonal communities is a separate piece and it only applies to communities who are offered and actually vote on that. And
then the steps that you go through about what bylaws we would want to adopt as part of seasonal communities would be a completely separate issue that we'll need to bring forward to um you know finance committee select board and the
town for for a vote that will probably be next year but this is the first one that came out of the shoot that we thought was the most important that we had to deal with. >> Terrific. Thank you. questions for either Barbara.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. How many ADUs do we have in town right now? >> Do we know? >> I do not know the number to be honest with you. We don't have many. Not many. We don't have many. >> Not many people have taken advantage of this at all. And the since it was since 2019
and you could only have 10 at a time. >> I mean, there might have been some pre-existing prior to that, but really the numbers are very low. So, I'm not sure if I completely understand what we're voting on here is the only difference between the ADU law that we have now and the one that we're voting
on here to say that um they can't ADUs cannot be used for seasonal or for short-term rentals. >> No. So, some of the other it other things that I had said were um they can't be used for short-term rentals. That is that is a big thing. But, um you
know, this is it allows for more ADUs. You don't have a choice in that. You know, the superseded thing. >> You really don't have any. We have no controls right now. They can't be done by special permit. They have to be as of right. So, that's another thing that has
that is changed. Um, we kept the size we kept the size um the same as so you had 900 square feet before, you have 900 now. The state happened to go with that same number. So, that was very convenient. Um I think
to just make sure I didn't miss >> we we had specific criteria that says you can't contain two more than two bedrooms or two people per bedroom. So we had criteria in there that is again was uh not allowed in the new one. Uh we
required one off off streetet parking period. It didn't matter whether you were close to a a bus facility or or train train facility. Um we actually had much more o ownorous
criteria associated with u anyone who stays there. They had to have a a lease for a 12-month period of time. You had occupy it 10 months out of those 12. That criteria is all out based on the state law. Right.
>> Um, no, we had no minimum acreage required. We had different uh setbacks and criteria that now have to fall within the criteria of the state law, which essentially says that I think it's
either going to be a 10 10ft offset or a 15t offset depending upon the lot size. >> Okay. And that again could be a waable item that the ZBA uh could deal with on a lot bylot basis. But if a if a lot is
and uh we had special permit for a while I think in the original bylaw and I think we changed that in 2022 but now all ADUs are allowed as of right now. If you go into the GB or the SB
districts and the only way you get uh a single family residential in there is you have to have that first approved by the ZBA. Um we've had a couple of those that have come be before the town. If it's if it's approved as a single family
residential home, then that property can have an ADU as a right. they don't have to go for a special permit for it, but obviously the lot and the owner of that have to get approved for a single family home before they do that. So, there's a lot more relief than what we had in our
original bylaw. Um, we were at a point I was on the board when we first uh debated this back in 2019. Uh, we weren't quite sure what was going to happen with all this. We were really cautious. We got a lot of feedback from the public whether we want to do this, don't want to do this. So, we were one
of the early adopters of an ADU. Um, it the uh concerns by the public weren't weren't needed. We didn't have everybody rushing to do this. So, I think at least that part of the issue is uh is aside
for us as a town and as a community. I think we'll get ADUs that come in there and I think it'll be a little bit easier for applicants to come forward on it because I' I've heard it could be ownorous underneath the previous uh bylaw. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Further questions, please. >> We'll yield the floor to Andy. >> We'll yield the floor to you. >> Why? >> You said Mr. Chair. >> No, that was Eric. Oh, sorry, Eric. >> Why don't you go ahead and then we'll go to John, please.
>> All right. Thank you. Um, so for the we don't know how many there are, but for the ones that are existing now, um, do they now have to fall under these rules or are they still required under the previous rules to follow those?
>> Well, they are exempt by right. like they're already part of the process so they don't have to change to meet all of these new things necessarily. This is really important to all of you because you don't want to be under the state one. The state is made, you know, for
everybody. It's not necessarily made for Cape Towns like yourself. It's not necessarily made for, you know, towns way out in the Birkshares. this is something you've got something better here by having a little bit more control over it and a little you know if you
don't move forward with it at this town meeting you will still be under the state law >> um and again as Art had said the seasonal community is separate totally separate from the ADU bylaw so this is a step that we need to do this is the first thing that was brought together by
the state um so we we need to make this happen in order to get Chadam to where they want to be or to continue to have you be where you want to be, >> Eric. >> Yeah. So, I I think that that makes
sense and and um I I guess what I'm part of what you I think I understood Art to say was that the previous rules we were living under are a little more ownorous. you know, the occupancy and need to be there so many months, all that goes away even though they were maybe approved
under that previous previous um um process. >> Yes, that that was our previous bylaw was superseded by the state law. So, our our previous bylaw is no longer in effect. We are today uh underneath the
new state law provisions and this will provide us with some guidance of the way we um we've received input from uh uh several uh areas and I think it's uh helpful for us if we include a couple of
these different provisions. It doesn't make anything more ownorous in the state law. just give certain criteria guidance that we uh we think is important to include. >> Thank you, >> John. Please. >> Yeah, thank you. Um
two I have two items. One, um I'm interested in the durability of the ADU once property changes hands and wondering how um the intention is enforced. So that an ADU is still
available for year- round use or year- round rental. Um, thinking, let's say I'll use myself as an example. I have a four-bedroom home. There's only two of us that live there now. Um, I imagine without needing to change my septic
system, I could put an ADU on my property and remove a bedroom from my existing main dwelling. That's a potential. >> Well, um you that is the criteria that actually is in I think it's in our bylaw as well as the state law. You have to
meet whatever wastewater and domestic water criteria that you have. So let's just say your property has a title five system. You have three-bedroom home and your title 5 is only approved for three bedrooms. If you want an an ADU with uh one bedroom or two bedrooms, you have to
still comply. Now, you may have to upgrade your Title 5 or you may have to supplement it or do something else with it. That would be under a border of health issue, >> right? >> That applies no matter what. >> Um, so once you get into the point of actually transferring your ownership in
that, >> again, we as a planning board, we try to stay away from that. We we really have no control over whether it's rented, uh, like when an a complex comes before us at planning board. We can't tell a a a property owner or developer that you can
rent it or or condo or whatever. We have no authority to do that as as a planning board. So we don't get into those related issues. Those are generally pro property related issues that fall outside our purview. And I think I think for the town too
>> I would say another way to look at it is that basically the town by having town government you know uh municipal different departments those type of things like I like you said the board of health or like the building commissioner those are all checks and balances. We
are not part of the enforcement piece of this. um we have to move forward in the in the way that we have to move forward and they they will move forward as they do how people change things and do things after there still some of these basic
these basic items will will apply. You can't just turn one of your bedrooms into a an ADU because again you have to meet that separate entrance and those type of items. >> Yeah. and and if if you're putting a separate structure out there, you'll have to comply with all the building
code provisions that are that you have to fall under. >> I I understand all that. Let me try to reframe my question. Um the purpose is to create more housing stock in Chadam that is attainable or affordable presumably in part. Maybe there's other reasons as well, but I can very easily
see a way to um do that and comply with all the regulations that we know of right now. And down the road, those ADUs can turn into short-term rentals.
>> Um well, it's interesting you say that. um if there is something that is passed in a future bylaw that uh provides for allows that, yes, that could be a major concern. One of the things that the planning board has been looking at every single
time that we do something like this is we're looking to put our arms around this short-term rental issue. I mean, our uh we were very forceful on coming up with ideas for um the draft West
Academy Center as an example. Um it's a tough thing to do. Uh I think with the seasonal community piece, that's going to help us a little bit with providing provisions for that. I think we're finally going to get a briefing from our um uh housing director Gloria uh next
week Monday to give us some background on this and how we can apply this because that we think that especially something like a village center or something like that. We don't want to um uh welcome short-term rentals. We want to limit those. We want to have people
living there as much as possible. So, I don't know what that criteria is yet, but I think it's an important element of what we as a board have been promoting with every one of these aspects. That's why we added this one paragraph in here after short-term rentals. When we picked
up on it, um with another community, which had a sign off from the attorney general on it, we said, "That's great. Let's add this provision in right now. We can always back off of it, but it's always tough to add something like this in afterwards." Well, thanks. My second question, I
think he sort of stepped into it um was on the seasonal aspect of things. It sounds like we don't have enough information yet to understand how that could apply to to this decision. >> Uh go ahead. >> So again, they are two separate issues. They have to be handled as two separate
issues, two separate initiatives. Um so one is not dependent upon the other. >> No, I understand that. It sounds to me, not knowing what what's coming, it sounds to me like those of you that have been working on this believe it will
have an impact on >> well >> well it the seasonal community won't have an impact until we until we start developing regulations I mean bylaws and passing them because right now today we
have no criteria at all for seasonal communities. the regulations for seasonal communities was just uh released I think in the um first or second week of February. >> Okay. I haven't read that. >> So, we haven't had a chance to really absorb that. We finally got uh Gloria to
do a deep dive into it. Um we've we've booked her twice. We had two storms to cancel us both out. Hopefully, uh third time's a charm. Next Monday, we'll get a briefing on it at 4:00. I think we're going to start to develop
how we can apply this to Chadam and that's always something that we as a board look at. Let's take what seasonal communities can offer and how best should we apply that. >> We have not flushed that part at all. There's certain criteria that within
seasonal community that we're obligated to do. I think it's tiny house uh tiny houses and tiny lots. That's something that we're required to do. Uh there's other things that are optional and we're Gloria hopefully will walk us through all of this next Monday.
>> I appreciate your response. Maybe I'll try to pay more attention to the seasonal aspect in the upcoming meeting. Uh I'll just end with if I might just saying that I'm fully supportive of finding ways to create more stock, housing stock that um can help this
community tackle some of the big issues it's dealing with. And I think the root of it all has to do with housing, giving people a place to to live and lay their head and keep their things um so they can be a productive part of our community. I'll just say though that um
enforcement is going to be an important part of that. >> Oh yeah. >> And enforcement comes with a cost and a commitment. >> And so if we're going to go down this road and create these opportunities, we need to be committed to enforcing it and paying for that enforcement or finding a
way to pay for it. So again, these ADUs are going to happen regardless of of how town meeting turns out, right? This is approved and it's going to be moving forward. There is still going to be the need for enforcement. There is still going to be the need for making sure
that they're not turned into short-term rentals. Those are all real things that will happen regardless of how we move forward, if you don't move forward or if you do. So, please keep that in mind as you go through the next few weeks. Good. Barbara, please.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, sort of piggybacking on what John was asking. If so, you in order to have an ADU, it has to be a principal residence. So, if someone has a principal residence with an ADU and sells the property to someone who's going to use it as a second home,
how do you take that away? >> Um, >> the ADU, >> you're not take you're not taking that away. they still have that ADU on that property. And >> so a second homeowner and if they purchased a property, >> right, they they certainly >> they don't they no longer have to you
don't have to vacate if they wanted to. I'm sure that there's a process that'll they'll have to go through on it, but uh because there's we we had criteria of having an inspection done previously uh on on a I can't remember if it's an
annual basis or not. Although those criteria that we had before, which are sort of the safeguards, they're not there anymore. But I but a homeowner could um vacate an ADU that had previously been put in there. So if there was a property transfer and that
new owner didn't want it anymore, they they could do that as part of their process. >> But if they did want it, they could also keep it there. >> They could keep it. Yes. Yeah. And as last um as far as you know, were
were there any people who applied for ADUs under our less lenient guidelines who were turned down who now may have ADUs? I mean, did we turn down anybody because we weren't as lenient as the new state laws are that you know of?
>> Uh I I don't have the background of that. Maybe Christine could uh that I am not part of that as well as part of that review process. I think that would come from the the ZBA if if they turn down anybody for any reason. Um >> I I do know that um we had one um at our
um public hearing uh there's one uh applicant who had applied with an ADU underneath our previous bylaw and they told us it's a very tedious and expensive process that they were put through and this would pro provide
relief. she she believed in it and it would be something that would encourage more ADU development in the community. So So we heard positive feedback associated with uh with the direction that we're heading in. >> Thank you guys.
>> Joanne, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I'm trying to figure out where the tiny house fits in on this. Have we have we >> doesn't fit in on this at all? Uh, do we have uh the zoning laws or planning
board laws for tiny houses yet? >> Nothing. Nothing. It the earliest that I can see that all happening is going to be May of 2027 because we haven't even put it on our agenda. We just got the regulations a couple of weeks ago. >> Okay. >> From the state. And so we're just trying
to absorb what that criteria is. We get that briefing next Monday. But I do know from the from reading the law it says in the regulation that that is one of uh I think a couple of items that is a requirement that we have to
um move forward on. >> Yeah. >> The others are optional. >> I'll learn more about this after Monday. >> Okay. >> And I do my deep dive with Gloria on it. >> Yeah. I think that's interesting. Thank you. >> Yeah, >> Tracy, please.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think my understanding is we have, you know, right now it's wide open with this the state bylaws. So the only thing we're voting on today is to fine-tune it just a little bit. Um so it's not like if
anything this is I think moving in the direction that that most people would want. Moving back in the direction the town meeting approved. Um right. >> I I think you're right. And uh we attempted on our first goaround on this
to include language from our previous bylaw that dealt with the rental part of it that it was leased for 12 continuous consecutive months and you had to occupy it for for 10. That was kicked out almost immediately said we were not
allowed to do that. So, we tested a few different things, but um this is essentially where we ended up with, which which is um uh what we've been advised. We'll get through not not just if we pass it down meeting, but it'll
get through attorney general's office because they have to review everything after we pass it as a town. Okay, further questions? I've got a couple at the risk at the risk of getting into the weeds a little bit. Um there was a point
presented that uh an ADU must present a separate ent entrance. How does that >> do it if it is an internal I think Christine was your characterization internal unit. You have to have a separate entrance through the uh and >> you could have if it's on the third
floor you have to have a staircase going outside that was separated from the house and comp uh completely isolated so that but it could be a a combined entrance way separate doorway for here. Okay. >> Separate doorway and even if it has a
stair going up separate doorway. >> Okay. That's helpful. >> And speaking to the um building commissioner firewalls and those type of things come into play in that particular area. Yep. Okay. Um I think to piggyback on what John said, everybody's piggybacking on John today, but the um
my question was how do we police the short-term rental use? But I I think you've addressed that. Um maybe a little tenuous it sounds like, >> right? >> But um ultimately not the planning board's
carriage. We had much more um specific criteria about enforcement in our previous bylaw and all of that got thrown out. Not allowed to do any of that. >> So, this is going to be a challenge. Of course, we'll see how this is all going
to work out. Um um we always as a board are are nervous about this 31day short-term rental. Anything it can't be anything less than that. So, I'm not sure how that all plays out on this once this goes into effect, whether we want it to or not. Right. It's in effect.
>> Yeah, understood. >> Um, okay. Last question was there was a reference to planning board language. Um, quote, until until the unit shall no longer qualify as an ADU, uh, is some of your new language. What would cause a an ADU to no longer
qualify as an ADU >> if the definition changes at the state level or something like that and we are forced to change the definition. Right now the definitions that are in the um the article before you those come from uh the state guidance the state models.
Um again we have reviewed everything with town council. We have reviewed everything with all of community development all of the different departments. So, housing, building, you know, health, all of those things. So, it it would change as if something changed there.
>> Okay. So, it sounds as though it's had a fairly thorough review. Tommy, question, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there a packing requirement for the ADU? >> I'm sorry, a parking requirement. >> Yes. >> So, under the old the 2019 one, you had
one spot, at least one spot for everything. Now you can have you have one parking spot unless you're within a half mile radius of someplace where the bus goes. >> Thank you, >> John. Please. >> Um,
if there's a property and there I know there are several properties that have um single lot, two dwellings already on it. Can they add an ADU to that lot? >> Yeah, >> they can. There there's no restriction once this is in effect or it's actually in effect right now. There's no
restriction on having at least we're asking for allowing only one per lot. The state uh law allows you to go with more than that and you could add it as a special permit. Again, we didn't want to put our toe in the water with too many things too quickly. Uh so uh and we
didn't want to run into this whole thing with with we're still dealing with short-term rental of 30 anything um in less than 31 days is not allowed. But a lot of times people rent for a whole month at a time. So uh we're not quite sure how that is all going to play into
this. But so this is sort of like let's let's deal some of this but not go whole hog into it. >> Okay. Anything further? Sounds as though it's been thoroughly considered and vetted. I I think I understood that the select board has not voted on this yet.
>> 5:30 tonight. >> 5:30 tonight. Okay. What I think I would like to do is if there's an appetite for it on the committee given our calendar to have a springing vote uh in the event that the select board does endorse it, our our vote could come into effect
without further meeting. Um I see a lot of head nodding. Everybody good with that? Okay. And then in that case, I will take a motion to adopt the protective zoning bylaw amendment regarding accessory accessory dwelling units as presented. >> So moved. >> Thank you. Thank you. Tracy Tommy support. >> Yes.
>> Barbara, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Joanne, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Tracy, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chair's in favor. Nine to nothing. Thank you guys very much. >> Thank you. >> Well done. All right. I go on now, I believe, to a
petition article submitted by petitioner Christopher Paul Richard Ray. Uh, which has been reviewed by town council and the town clerk. And Mr. Ray, would you like to edify us, please, on
your proposed petition article? Carrie, anything you've got for context or >> I'm not sure if town council has reviewed this, too. >> He's reviewed it. He's reviewed it twice.
>> He has. Oh, okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I guess he has reviewed um a draft. >> So, >> well, if I misspoke, I'm happy to retract my comment that count town council has reviewed it, but >> a a draft. >> Okay, >> he's reviewed a draft.
>> He's reviewed a draft. Okay, Mr. Ray. So, thank you very much uh for the opportunity to present this. I'll be on later with with Dean and Co. Um this I hope is uncontentious for you guys
because um uh it's simply a request that when there are these things that don't have to go through town meeting that they get at least some kind of treatment that explains why we're doing them. Uh and I know full well that this
is the view of this committee in relation to this issue. Um so um it's the ideas themselves are borrowed from as I said in the note that went out from the office of management budget and the
federal level which is to say what a regulatory analysis is and broadly speaking it's three things. It's an analysis of the need uh it's an establishment of the options and it's an evaluation of the options against the need. So, it's pretty straightforward
really. And I should imagine it's I've deliberately not tried to tide myself or your or yourselves to um any more complex legislation. It's simply uh a framework
uh which could be lightweight for a small initiative, could be heavyweight for a big initiative, whatever. But it's a um it just seems to me like good practice. and and ironically it's it's it's what you're actually engaged in in
relation to the AT RT which I think is great and I'm delighted that you've you've taken that up um voluntarily. I'm hoping this will make it a little bit more formal. So I'm happy to take questions.
>> Thank you. Questions for Mr. >> Oops. Thank you Chris. questions for Mr. Ray? None. I note that the chair of the select boards in the room, is there anything you would like to offer in respect of
this petition for consideration? No need to, but do I need to vacate the podium or >> not quite yet on this tonight anyway? It's coming before us. So, I can't speak for the
select board. Um, I can tell you that I personally oppose this. Um, not because of its intentions, but I I believe there is a serious legitimate legal question as to whether
it constitutes um an impermissible encroachment on the authority of the select board under the charter and under state law because in in the case of what uh Mr. is calling a local option. I'm not sure that's the
correct term. I think town council disputes that term. But let's take for example the the RTE statute. And I think I can speak with some credibility on this because I I am the only select board member who has consistently opposed the residential tax
exemption. Um but in fairness, you have a state law that says to the select board, you can you can adopt a residential tax exemption. There's no qualification. There's no condition. It
says you can do it. You don't have to go to town meeting. We have a charter that that sets up the town meeting as the legislative branch of government. It's not a superior branch of government.
It's a coordinate branch along with the executive branch which cons which consists of the town u the select board and the town manager. And the charter goes on to say that the select board is the executive authority in the town and makes policy.
So the the intention of this bylaw is to impose on the select board um a condition as to how it should deliberate when it is considering
adopting something that the state legislature has given exclusively to the select board. So that presents to me a legal question. I uh the question was asked to whether town council has reviewed this. I know he reviewed the draft before the signatures
were uh obtained because Mr. Ray was looking for that information and um there was a communication sent where town council expressed some legal concerns. But anyway, I just you all need to do what you think is
appropriate. U but I just in response to your invitation, I wasn't sure whether I was going to say anything. I really wanted to hear the conversation because I think that's important for me for tonight's meeting, but and I can't speak for how the other select board members
uh feel about it, but I respect what what um Mr. Ray is um proping uh attempting to do, but I just think it does in my mind present some sort of concern on the legal side.
>> Again, thank you, Dean. Uh, Andy, please. >> Um, I think I'll be satisfied with the state attorney general's review of this >> with I think I will be satisfied with the state attorney general's review of this after it passes town meeting.
Um, I mean, isn't that correct? These things, if they're passed by town meeting, they have to be reviewed by and approved by the state attorney general. They're all sent to the They're all >> right for conformity with whatever the state regulations and laws are. >> Yes.
>> Which would definitively answer the question that you're raising. >> Unless unless a future select board and and let's let's be very clear, there are two types of um local options. Most of them go to town meeting. Most local
options statutes as you know Andy from your experience a small number of them vest vest that authority in the select board a future select could say you know like the president of the United States says and series of presidents have said
we don't believe the war powers act is constitutional we're going to ignore it as future select board could ignore it and the matter could be litigated or a future select board could could seek an injunction against it if they felt strongly enough about it. But you're
right, it it goes to the attorney general. We had a bylaw that was sent to the attorney general last this past year in the airport and the attorney general rejected it. So I mean intuitively this article or the the intent of this article appeals
to me. In my opinion, this board has been cavalier in its lack of consideration and judgment on the residential tax exemption. This does not specifically address that exemption, but it does address the
process similar to the way that the select board is also expected, you know, have probably posted public meetings and report minutes and do all these other things uh under state law. Um I think it'd be kind of fun if the state AG said, "Yeah,
this looks good. This conforms with state law." That was all I said. Well, now we know what Andy's definition of fun is. Tracy, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my concern is more like there could potentially be
a financial impact to this if like a a particular study has to be done. Is that right? And then every time there's a variation in in how it wants to be, it's the whole new process begins. And um you
if you if we need to gather quantitative data on the groups impacted that could be another length of time and money. Um so I'm inclined to vote no.
>> Um Joanne please and then Eric. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh this is similar Mr. isn't it to what this committee is trying to put together and it all is us trying to tell the selectman to do due
dil diligence when essentially they don't have to. In other words, even if the town passes all of this, the selectmen have the right to to put this into practice. Am I right? >> I would I would think so if that's what
they chose to do. So that's the problem. How do we get the selectman? Even if the town says yes, you need to do the study and we tell them they need to tell us what other aspects of this we're going to look like. The selectman can decide
not to do it and that's our problem. >> Well, that's the law. >> Yeah. So I think we have a problem, Mr. Chairman. perspectively. All right. Thank you. Uh Eric, please.
>> Um maybe it's a question for Dean or maybe there's someone there. Other than the RTE, what other things fall under the category that the select board have the direct authority to move forward with um
without going to town meeting or some other process? I can't think of a one other than the residential tax exemption. And it surprises me when I it surprised me when I first saw this statute that the
legislature gave that authority exclusively to the select board without the need without the requirement to go to town meeting on that cons considering how important it is. I suppose uh when it was 1981 or so when it was adopted, >> it was it was adopted around the time
when I think we began to see a push for um remediation in communities uh on the on the housing side on on the on the financial distress that people were were feeling. So they didn't want
it politicized at you know in public discussion. and they just said, "Let's give the the executive and the town the authority to make this determination." That's my hunch as to what happened, but I can't think of another one. There may be some.
This is a rather unique area. >> All right. Thank you, Dean. Uh John, please >> Dean, if if I could ask you a question. >> I'm sorry I came. >> You have to behave. >> No, that's all right. I really wanted I wanted to I am a leazison and I really
wanted to get a a rehearsal for tonight >> you outside Dean >> wanted wanted to hear what what the discussion was. Go ahead Sean please. >> The your angst on the on the article. Is it >> the entire article or is it the second part of the article that says that the
analysis shall be presented to the finance committee at least one meeting prior to a vote of the select board for implementation? Is it that requirement in the process that gives you angx or is it the entire idea? >> I think it's the entire idea because
basically town meeting is saying or bylaw would be saying to the select board this is how we want you to deliberate and I I find that problematic just philosophically problematic in general. >> Okay. >> So it is that. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> All right. Other comments or questions? Well, not surprisingly, I have a couple. Um, I'm sympathetic to Tracy's point. I'm sympathetic to to Mr. Ray's motion. Um, I too first sprang to what what would
this practically mean for the finance committee for its workload, you know, for getting projects done or moved forward. Um, which is to say, what's the cohort that something like this might be applicable to? And I respect uh the select board
chair and his perspective that not a lot of things. Uh but I would worry to some degree that we would kind of become a roadblock or a break on things that the town might otherwise be doing. At the
same time, um, I have taken as chair of this committee a what I think is an intellectually rigorous view of our responsibilities and obligations both under uh, town
balls and charter and also under state law which essentially says as we iterate in every one of our versions of the town of Chad Emanual report that the we have the essentially the the opportunity the even obligation uh under state law to
investigate, explore, whatever, report on anything we wish to do. Um and I'm sure to the annoyance of some um that's the kind of approach we've taken. Um so I can I can kind of see both sides of it. I think I'm inclined to go to Andy's
view, which is I would be curious about kind of a higher legal authority. I again I totally understand what Dean's saying and and I would get that. Um but I just don't know enough about how the law would respond to something like this to take a definitive stand. Uh so I
would welcome further guidance I think from my perspective. So Joanne, please. Uh I think from from where I sit here, we're trying to explain to the the selectman what what would have to
happen, what would have to be studied, both we and the petitioner before they make this suggestion. So, I think it can't hurt to have this uh on the warrant to give the the people
a chance for this petitioner to give the people a chance to vote on what they think is important and as well if we come up with our article of what we think should happen. I find I would vote for both of those and see what the see
what the town's people say to us because we can't hurt anything by this and it still remains that as it stands now that's it's been looked at by the the town legal officer that they have every
right to go ahead and make this decision and all the more protest we can put out there or questions or suggestions I think to me are the better. So, I'm going to vote for this one and ours. >> All right. Terrific. Thank you. Other comments or questions,
Tracy, please. >> I guess I guess my concern is that what can hurt about passage of this and then it's adopted and and it gets through with the AG and it's considered legal is that down the road there could be more
of these rare items that fall into this category. um and say there are some that are, you know, make a lot of sense and that's why they're, you know, that everyone sort of is wants to adopt as quickly as possible
because of whatever is happening with the current events. we would then need to go through this process and spend money and town employees time to to um
to adhere to it. So I think it is it is limits the flexibility of clearly the flexibility of the select board um to respond to uh things that are collectively viewed that
are viewed as as important enough to warrant an executive decision as opposed to a legislative decision. >> Thank you. Um Christian please then Andy. Um I am sort of torn on this but um I
appreciate what Tracy's saying and I think I'm leaning towards that and also to um what Mr. Niccastro has said. Um it seems to me this is more of a political issue to Joannne's point. Um, I think the finance committee has been trying to
get the attention of the select board for many years to take into account more of our opinions and concerns about certain issues. Um, but I also don't want to see more I don't know if it's bureaucracy or more, you know, kind of
hand tying and requiring because we we all know that is the bottleneck of government. every time you've got to do an extra study or have some review or um so it this seems to me to be a culmination of the fact that this select board and the finance committee maybe
needs a better relationship um more communication and I think we always have the option of the ballot box. >> Barbara or Randy, do you want did you want to go? >> Okay, Barbara, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, um to with
respect to what Krishna has said, I think giving the ballot box to town meeting the legisl the legislative body if they don't like something that um the executive committee is doing is the right thing to do. So, I'm inclined to
vote for this. >> John, please. Um, putting Eric Whitley's question aside, I mean, I I I'm not aware and Dean couldn't rapidly come up with alter additional
um powers that rest solely with the select board. Um, at least none that rise to this this level. um and reviewing the language once again on what's being asked for
um or suggested here. I I would think that any executive body would want to the avail the the presentation of this information to make these types of dis decisions with respect to the the RTE
decision um and thinking about Tracy's concern um spending money which is certainly in our in our wheelhouse right that's in our domain I can't think of an issue that we should spend shouldn't spend
money on more than figuring out uh taxation on our community. Um we spend a lot of money on a lot of studies, but um I think we should truly understand what a change like the RTE would mean to each
pocket of our community. So, I'm inclined to support it. Um I understand it may get shot down ultimately but um I'm I'm gonna vote yes. Right. Thank you. Others I guess the only thing I
would just point out for context for those who may be watching or listening is um to the extent that we flex our muscles beyond our statements and shout outs and whatnot in the report
to the warrant. Uh this is I think arguably the second time in 5 years we did it with respect to housing in I think January of 2020 maybe 21. Uh but this is the first time that we really have staked out ground and and said we're not have you the way this
process has gone and we're going to make some noise about it. Um so just for context uh if there's nothing further I will take a motion to support Mr. raise town meeting article uh with respect to
analysis, costbenefit analysis and review ultimately by the uh finance committee. >> So moved. >> Thank you. Tommy >> second. >> Support from Mandy. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh Tommy support. >> Yes. >> Barb, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Joanne, >> yes.
>> Andy, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> no. >> Tracy, >> no. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chair's in favor. 7 to2. Thank you, Mr. Ray. >> Thank you very much.
>> Budget transfers for storm related expenses. >> Over to do we have any of those over to financial director. Although I do want to say before we start, I I really want to tip my hat and I think I may have done this a week or two ago to
our town employees who I think did such an amazing job and continue to do such an amazing job uh in mending this community after the storm. Uh, I thought the conditions of the roads on Tuesday morning after it was
howling at 74 miles an hour and God only knows how much snow because since it was all going sideways, uh, was remarkable. Uh, I think the work crews I've seen all over town this morning. They were out out in front of the community center sweeping up, breaking up, chopping up,
and I I really think they've done a superlative job and they got a lot of work to do. Uh but um I just wanted to acknowledge the work that the our municipal employees have done in this context. So with that, Carrie, over to you, please.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so, as you all know, we've had a um a different winter this year than we did last year or the year before. Um quite a few snowstorms um and obviously one major blizzard. Um,
so this is a um a request. It's recommended um to do a budget transfer to our snow and ice um line. So we budgeted 95,000 for FY26 and we've
already um over expended that line item um by 28,000. Um and then obviously we had the uh blizzard um in February and the estimated costs um collectively gathered between um multiple departments, the
fire department, police department, DPW, natural resources. Um they have an estimated amount of 300,000. Um and we go through this process when there's a blizzard.
um the governor declares a state emergency and then what we do through every blizzard is basically we start collecting all of the data and one of the things that I started was collecting the expenses and um so all of the
overtime for the fire, all of the overtime for the police, the overtime that the DBW put in for the snow and ice, the costs for the snow, um the I'm sorry, the the salt for the roads. Um and then additionally the cost to clean
up um the debris. We know there was a ton of fallen trees with the blizzard. Um there was also some um expenses to damaged uh a damaged generator. Um refueling costs for
generators. Um then there was also the navads that we usually appropriate money for. They were all damaged and lost. Um and there was just some other small little expenses that we incurred. Um so
when I went through the process, the initial damage assessment report um that I had to send into the state, it came to around uh $300,000. Um, so with that said, um, I did my, um,
third quarter review of our budget and, um, I worked with the treasur collector and I had noticed that we had some extra money left over in we're going to have extra money left over in our, um, budgeted amount for our our debt. And
the reason for that is because we received um preliminary debt schedules for um for loans for um the from the Clean Water Trust and they didn't actually close until this year. So when they closed,
we got new debt schedules. So um we budgeted an amount for 26 that we're not going to have to pay out. So, with that said, and I also have some extra money left over in um our insurance line.
So, I'd like to transfer the money that we've already budgeted and appropriated to be used to cover the cost for the snow and ice budget instead of raising and appropriating that because that would increase our taxes for next year. We already have the money. we want to
use it for this cost and then cover the costs um for the blizzard. So that way if we do receive money from FEMA, we won't get the money for it could be a
year or two by the time we get the money. So I'd rather cover the costs now with the funds that we already have instead of um not Thank you, Carrie. Um, just for the sake of clarity, could you please, when
you're referring to debt, >> your member says debt service, I'm assuming that's what you're referring to. It's interest principle and interest. >> Principal and interest. Yep. There >> it is. Is PNI? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> Okay. All right. Questions for Carrie?
>> Is this going to be enough? >> Is it going to be enough? I hope it is going to be enough. >> Remember the April Fool's Day blizzard? >> Yes. Let's not talk about that. >> Oh, can be a fleeting thing or >> if it's not then I we can always change it, I suppose.
>> I suppose. Okay. No, >> Mr. Chair. >> Carrie, how did we end up with an extra $100,000 in the insurance >> um >> budget? Uh that is a good question. Um
I assumed that we would have some um the transfer station was coming on for the new building and we also have a mill pond something mil pond something to do with the um >> pumping station. >> Yes, thank you. Mil pumping station. I
assumed those were both going to come on this fiscal year, but they haven't. So they'll be on in 27. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> You're welcome. Eric, please. >> Thank you. Um, when the money does come
from FEMA and we've already funded it, uh, this way, the FEMA money would then land where. >> So, um, when we receive the FEMA money, if they'll go through everything, they'll look through everything to see what is eligible and what is not
eligible. And then we only get 75% back. And when we get them funds back, it will go to the general fund. >> Okay. Further comments or questions? Um just um I think I would like to point out in the in the proposed FY27 budget
uh the here to for wofully underfunded $95,000 for snow and ice removal has been increased to >> 150,000 for 27. So, we better pray we don't get any snow next year because that too will be wolffully underfoot.
We're now learning. So, um do your weather dance. Uh all right, further comments or questions. Okay. You know, I did actually carry ahead of a question. When you refer to Navage, are we talking about oceanbound or airport bound? >> The oceanbound?
>> Oceanbound. Okay. Thank you. All right. If there's nothing further, then I'll take a motion to support the transfer of $510,000 from these various accounts onto uh the cost of recovery snow and ice. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Tracy. >> Second.
>> Second. All right. Support. Tommy, >> yes. >> Barbara, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Joanne, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Tracy, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Thank you. The chair supports nine to nothing. >> Thank you, Carrie. >> So, the next Thank you, everybody. The
next item on the list is um for a reserve fund transfer and also in my third quarter review I'm looking at each individual line item under departments and where they've gone over and what they can absorb through
their other expenses. And one item came out. There was a couple of them that actually popped out at me, but this one more in particular was under parks and um parks and grounds. and they have over spent their um vehicle and equipment maintenance line by um almost $18,000
over. Um and when I started really looking at it and then asking the DPW questions about what line items are over and um there was other ones that didn't kind of they weren't like unforeseen unexpected costs. Um but this one was
more like an unexpected cost. Um they had a lot of um repairs that needed to be done for mowers. Um, and when I say mo, they had like transmissions that needed to be replaced, engine parts, and different parts to their mowers that
actually I couldn't believe how much it actually costs, but um I didn't add up every single item in here, but some of the larger ones I picked out. And that's why I'm only asking for um a reserve fund
transfer of $9,63629. um because some of them I didn't feel like they were unforeseen, but some of them I did. So, um I know it's not a lot of money, but um the reserve fund has $7,561
currently in it, and with this transfer, uh it would leave still a balance of 60,925. Comments questions for >> comments or questions for Carrie, please. Andy, please. >> Even after the transfer, this is still going to be underwater.
>> Yes, but they should have they still have enough money in some of their other line items that they should be able to absorb some of these other costs. These were just the unforeseen ones. Like I said, like um they had a couple of different transmissions that they needed to have
done. One of them costs like $2,800. Carrie, I understand that part. I I just, you know, so in other words, they're allowed to remain underwater >> in their they can go so they have their expenses all of their expenses add up to a bottom
line. So they're allowed to expend until their bottom line. >> Okay. So they they inter interline transfers. >> Correct. Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. That was all. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Carrie, uh, my understanding historically of the reserve fund is, uh,
unanticipated and non-recurring. >> That's correct. >> So, are you confident that maintenance of lawnmowers is going to be a non-recurring expense? >> Well, these items I don't think were um
occurring. They're not like oil changes and um normal maintenance. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure >> they were like breakdowns that they weren't expecting. >> We're doing the right thing. So, >> yeah. >> Uh, not that I would expect anything less of you. Um, okay. So, the last question I have is
how did we get down to $7,561? What was the $29,000? Whatever 300. >> So, you had 29,000 that was transferred for the airport article. >> Oh, yes. Yep. >> Okay. Further comments or questions? If not, I'll take a motion to move
$9,63629. >> So move. ask reserve funds. >> Second. >> All right. Thank you. All All in favor of Tommy? >> Yes. >> Uh Barb, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Joanne, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Tracy, >> yep. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chair supports.
>> Thank you, everyone. >> Thank you, Carrie. >> Um, >> all right. Delay of residential tax exemption implementation. I personally think this is the best article we are going to be voting on this year.
kind of put your thumb on the scale there. >> No, just, you know, it's home team. Um, all right. Well, I think we've we've spoken about this a lot. Uh, happy to speak about it some
more, but this is essentially uh asking town meeting to provide a sense to the select board that we would like to defer implementation of the residential tax exemption for a year. uh allowing um further opportunity for for study and
for consideration and um uh evaluation of prospective alternatives. Something that perhaps if Mr. Ray's article had come to pass uh would have already been on the ledger. Um but um so um comments, questions,
observations, we've exhausted the topic. >> Some move. So moved. >> Second. >> Um, okay. Eric. >> I'm going backwards. Tracy, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Joanne, >> yes. >> John, >> yes.
>> Barb, >> yes. >> Tommy, >> yes. >> Eric, you back? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Can't go backwards like that. >> I'm just seeing if everybody's paying attention. All right. nine to zero on that one.
Then uh we have two which are the school budgets. Uh Carrie, I don't know if you want to address these specifically, but the first one is Cape Deck. >> Uh yeah, so the um >> Go ahead. >> Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um the select board has already voted on the
Cape Cod uh regional technical high school um one. They both of these don't get voted on by their school committees until after we close the warrant. So, I wanted to bring them forward to you to vote on. Um,
like I said, the Cape Cut Regional Technical uh one um it shouldn't change. It should be this amount. We've been uh informed that by the school. Um they were supposed to vote on these in February, but have they their mediums were postponed due to the storm. So, um,
uh, it's $560,313 for, um, the assessment for Cape Cod Tech, and that includes the, um, 145,522 for the, um, for their debt service. >> And for context, this um, addresses the
attendance of 19. >> Yes, that's correct. 19 students. Yep. which has been a kind of an admirable increase over the last u seven to six to 10 years. Uh comments or questions for Carrie? If not, I'll take a motion to support.
>> So moved. >> 56313 for Cape Cod Regional Technical High School. >> Second. >> Thank you. Tommy, >> yes. >> Arb, >> yes. >> Don, >> yes. >> Joanne, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Casey, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chair supports. Then on to MRSD
11,893,165. Uh, has the select board voted on this? >> So, this one will be brought to them um on next Tuesday. However, I'm not sure if we're going to have a meeting next Tuesday. So, I want to bring this forward now. I mean, you're welcome to
wait until Thursday if you'd want. Um, this should not go up. This should if anything, it will go down, >> right? Yeah. I don't um >> springing vote. >> Yeah, I think we'll do a springing vote. I don't see much likelihood that this number is going to go up in the next two
days. So, um Eric, hands up, please. >> Um um I am supportive of this. Um any sense of where Haritch is select board finance committee? >> Um so, um their new town manager started
yesterday. Um and I know he's been talking with the um with the school department. >> So, short answer is no. We really don't know where they were. >> I don't know. I know that we were supposed to get some feedback. Maybe we'll get some something.
>> Yeah. And and again, just for context, uh Scott Carpenter and the the leadership of the district had requested a 7.2% 2% I think roughly increase and the town of Harwitch is nearing its uh
overlay limit and was only willing to spend 4.2% of memory serves uh on MRSD. Um unclear what they think the alternative would be other than programmatic cuts um landing on our
kids. Um, so, uh, to be determined on that front, I guess. Uh, but that's a good question, Eric. Thank you for bringing that up. Uh, Tracy, >> what does that mean in terms of our approving our approving this, the
select board approving this, but them not? Does that still bind us to paying this much if they're only going to pay 4%. So um what will happen is if um it goes down then our assessment will go down as well. It won't go up any higher
than this because this is the budget that the school has already basically put in place and then Haritch was the one that said they wanted to decrease it. So if anything if it does get decreased our assessment will be decreased. So, do we have any visibility though in the into the regional
agreement and what happens if a budget goes down in flames in one town and gets supported in the other town? >> No, I don't know. That's a good question. Should look into that. >> Probably should look into that. >> Mhm. >> Eric, please.
>> I think it it's u there's a probably a couple steps in the process, but you get to what they call the big tent where you kind of have a combined town meeting about it, I believe. All right. Well, I guess time will tell on that. In the meantime, why don't we do a springing uh springing vote um both
relative to our select board's action uh but perhaps more importantly the action to be taken by Horowitch and what the implications of that might be on a going forward basis. Does that make sense to everybody or anybody? Okay. Lena nodding uh to a motion to
support 11,000 11 million 11,893,165 for Chattam share the regional education and school expenses and charges. >> So moved. >> Thank you Tracy. >> Second. >> Thank you Tommy. Support Tommy. >> Yes. >> Barb, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Joanne, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes.
>> Kristen, >> yes. >> Tracy, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chair supports nine to nothing. Thank you. >> Thank you, Carrie. Um, so just looking at the scorecard
to try to get a sense of where we are. >> Did I send you a new I sent you guys a new one last week, right? An updated one. Okay. >> Yeah. This is uh Kathy's from Well, it says May 12, but I'm assuming
that must be March 12th. Yeah, >> that's two days after town meeting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um, sorry. There's a hold article. >> Which one? >> Um, the page scorecard. It looks like it's
>> what is it? 54. Third page. We haven't heard anything further on that, have we? Uh uh uh >> sorry, which one is it? >> 54. The outstanding tax lean for 330 Cedar Street. >> Actually, no. This one says, "Hold
tenative property acquisition, no funding source, local share." >> So that's interesting. So actually, well, I'll address this later, but I was sent last year's scorecard. >> Oh, okay.
>> I don't think I got one, >> which isn't terribly helpful. like all to ask it specially. So, >> okay. >> I just I >> carry article 54 has a hold on it. >> Yeah. Apparently, >> you know what that is? >> We just did the 80 is something about a
property acquisition >> which I assume was just a placeholder. >> It was a placeholder and it's been since removed. >> Since removed. >> Yeah. We're not Yeah, >> we don't have to act on anything. >> Correct. And then the last one which was
uh Seth Taylor's 41C and a half. Is that coming up? >> Yes. So those two are coming on Thursday. >> Okay. >> So he'll be here to present those to you. Um I will there's a new scorecard. >> Some question.
So has Mr. Taylor been confirmed? >> Yes, he confirmed with me. He would be here on Thursday. >> Um All right. So, not having the um the help of a current year scorecard, is
there anything other than Mr. Taylor's two articles that we have to weigh in on >> as of right now? No, not that I'm aware of. >> Are we expecting any more articles for town meeting? >> No. >> Okay. All right. So, we'll have a short
meeting because I think the only articles we'll have on Thursday are Mr. Taylor's. I have received some inputs from some of you. I wouldn't declare it a majority. So with that as a bit of a prod, I would welcome uh hearing from you because I am
starting to put pen to paper. Um having already selected the quote for the top of the report um courtesy of Ketta Scott King this year. Um, but seriously, if if if there are things in your mind minds, I really need to hear about them because
it's a lot of work to pull this together and I want to make sure we're really reflective of the entire committee and not some cranky old guy who's, you know, sitting in his office howling at the moon. All right, motion to adjurnn if there's nothing further.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> All right, Tommy, >> yes. >> Barb, yes. >> John, yes. >> Joanne, yes. >> Andy, yep. Kristen, >> yes. Freezy. >> Yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chair supports. Thank you. All right, guys. Thank you very much. Well done.