Good afternoon everybody and hello. Welcome to the March 5 meeting of the Cadam Finance Committee. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the
meeting, plea, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. There being none, pursuant to Governor Healey's signing of the chapter two of the acts of 2025 extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of
emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. 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 the meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508-945-4410. Again, 945410 and enter conference ID 181231120 pound sign 181-231120
pound sign or one may conveniently join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. We are going to continue to march our way through the warrant. Uh
not a heavy lift today. Um but I will start with a roll call. Tommy Don, are you here? >> I am here in person. >> Barbara >> here. >> John Papado is absent. Joannnebra >> here. >> Thank you. Andy Young Christen is absent. Tracy Shields
>> here. >> Eric Whitley >> here. and I am present. So with that, uh, let's get cracking. The first thing we have is an easement for Boston Gas Company to provide gas to the new water
treatment facility on Trainingfield Road. Rob Faley uh is currently in a meeting, but is otherwise available if we would like him to speak to this. It seems like it's pretty straightforward. After having spent all this money, I think we probably want to energize it
through the installation of a gas pipe. So, are people willing to move move forward without Rob or let's say what's a lot of head nodding. All right, then I will take a motion to support the grant of an easement for utility service at 128 Training Field Road.
>> So moved. >> Thank you, Barbara. Support Tommy. >> Yes. >> Barbara, >> yes. Andy, >> yes. >> Joanne, >> yes. >> Tracy, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chair supports. So, what are we? One, two, three. Do
>> we have an artic Do we have an article number for that? >> Or uh not that I'm aware of. Carrie, >> I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question? >> Is there an article number? >> Uh, no article numbers yet. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um, actually Rob just jumped on. Rob, um, I was just going to send you an
email. You're all set. They just voted your article. >> Thanks for stopping by, Rob. Okay, that was easy. Thanks. >> Everybody gets a trophy today. >> Thank you, Rob. >> All right. Uh, annual time meeting
article review and vote to place and recommend overlay funding for the residential tax exemption. Carrie, I'm going to turn this over to you, please. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so this article is in preparation of
the um, residential tax exemption. Sorry, I want to make sure I say that correctly. Um, as you guys aware are aware that the select board has um, debated on doing a
residential tax exemption for FY207. And in preparation of that, there's going to need funding for it. Um, and the funding is if somebody applies for a residential tax exemption after
our tax rate is set and by April 1st, we still have to honor that exemption and the exemptions hit our overlay. So, in order to do that, we need to have
funding for this because it's estimated right now we're just estimating maybe 60% of people will apply. The additional 40% will apply after. We don't know what those figures are going to be. We don't know how it's going to lay out, but um
the amount of $500,000 to put into the overlay is what um this article is for. So, it has been addressed that a 20% residential tax exemption um potentially
for FY2027. Of course, they'd still have to vote it again. Um that would be an overlay exposure of about 1.5 million with um the 60% applying before the tax rate is
set and 40% not. Um we have reserves in our overlay now. So estimating using 500,000 of our reserves in our overlay would still leave a million dollars left over. So this article though it won't fund the entire million dollars, it's
it's a start. >> Thank you, Carrie. Comments or questions? Eric, please. >> Um, so I guess this is more of a question for all of my esteemed colleagues because I I I would like some thoughtful guidance on how to approach
something like this. So let's just say for example someone was very much not in favor of the concept to begin with. Um but it went through anyways. Now the town would then then this article is not really supporting
the residential tax exemption. It's re it's supporting the what happens afterwards. Is that >> generally correct Krie? Yeah, it's supporting the exemptions that come in
after if it does get supported. So, we need to um have a funding source for it. >> Tracy, please. But our approval of this as it's presented
at this year's town meeting might indicate to people that we're supporting the whole thing. Right. >> One might be able to >> as it's the only thing related to it that we are addressing. >> Right. So, the question came up uh
yesterday from both Barbara and myself um as to what would happen if this was voted down at town meeting and apparently Andy's got the question same question. So, Carrie, why don't you run through the answer you and I
discussed yesterday, please? So if it's voted down at town meeting and there's no funding source, our overlay would potentially become get in the hit basically be charged to and there would be a negative overlay amount and somehow
we would have to fund that and it's either we fund it through the tax rate somehow or we fund it in a previous year through free cash or um it basically with a deficit that usually
the do basically hits any extra revenues that come in. So our free cash that would come in above and beyond our budget, it would hit that. >> Okay, further questions? Tracy, again, please.
>> So it would it would hit whatever was the free cash from fiscal year 2027 or no, because that budget would have already been done. So it would hit we would be it would hit 2028. That's
correct. >> Yeah. >> Barbara, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, prior to this being approved for 20 for the next year, our vote against this as a committee would indic or an individual vote
against this would indicate that we were not for the residential tax exemption. Correct. >> On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, we could be accused of fiscal imprudence for not providing for resources to cover
this in the event it went forward. the basis of my question. >> So, sorry if I may. In the event that it doesn't happen and this does get voted at town meeting and it it gets put into overlay um and the residential exemption doesn't
happen in the future and the town decides they don't want to ever do it or whatever um then what happens is the board of assessors can vote overlay surplus and then it will be voted out of the overlay and then we can use it for
other items such as funding our OPED or funding our stabilization or some other item that we need for the town. >> Thank you. Um Joan, I think >> yes, Mr. Chair, I would not vote for uh
trying to appropriate this amount of money from our taxpayers without number one, the the tax idea is is from my point of view bad and I wouldn't vote for that anyway, but it it it further
uh makes a question in my mind and surely in the taxpayers for us to take this kind of money when there's so many projects in this found uh extra generators, a community place for our people to stay when when we have a storm
like we had. So many places in my estimation that we need to think about uh asking the taxpayers to spend the money that this is uh to me absolutely no. >> All right. Thank you, Joan. Andy,
>> um, can this be funded if it occurs in the future from a reserve fund transfer >> that I I don't know the answer to that one. I don't know. um
possibly >> the financial committee, >> but I don't know if there would be enough funding in the reserve fund to fund such a high RTE like um it was recommended that um either a 10% or 5% to start because
we wouldn't need the funding, but the higher you go, the more >> exposure there is. Yeah, I think it's unlikely that the $100,000 in the finance committee reserve fund uh would make a dent in this thing.
>> Alternatively, you increase the reserve fund, but >> yeah, which we've talked about and the moderators encouraged over the last several years, but >> but I I just >> or for qualification, it needs to be unanticipated and non-recurring, >> right? I'm I am reluctant to
recommend approval of this article because the RTE is still um uncertain to put it mildly and um it may or may not survive president present intentions
and if it does not survive it then we have taken a big bunch of money and stuffed it into the overlay and you know the taxpayers don't otherwise get the benefit of it. I'm just reluctant to go because of that. >> Understood. Thank you, Tracy. And then
Eric, >> my I guess my other question is or is there a benefit to voting for this to draw attention to the taxpayers that this money is, you know, the exemption is still going to have to get paid for. It's not like our budget's going to go
down by the amount people get exempted. So this would be a this would be a stop gap for 2027, but ultimately th 2028 well no to pay for 2027's exemptions, but ultimately moving forward, we're
going to have to raise the tax rate so that we're not in that discrepancy again. Is that correct? It's only a one-time thing. It's to fund the first year and then hopefully everybody that applies, if they if this
goes through and everybody does apply, it's only a one-time funding for the first year. >> The program is not just for one year. >> No, it's not. But then every because you only have to apply once, right? But in the in the budget for the subsequent
years, we're going to have to make up that money. Not us, but like won't you have to then make your budget with the fact that less revenue is coming in? >> Not for the exemption? No. This is this right here is just a funding source for
the first year of implementation. And then the funding source for following years is it's already there. It's it gets exactly it's when you set the tax rate. So hopefully everybody that's going to apply applies in the first year,
>> right? after that there you'll have the same people because you don't have to apply again and that's how the tax rate is determined based on how many people have applied right I guess my point is just that to draw attention to the town
meeting voters that the other tax rate will go up like this there it's not like the exemption doesn't take effect on every other taxpayer >> I think a better way to think about it is that the deck is going to get reshuffled and
non full-time residents will see their taxes go up and >> town meeting. >> They won't Yeah, they can't vote at a town meeting. Uh how convenient. And the uh what the break even is roughly what 3.23.4 million dollars year round.
Residents who might otherwise qualify if their h their property is valued at more than roughly three and a4 million dollars will also see their taxes go up. So, this is basically to to K's point to kind of prime the pump for year one after which it's going to be paid for by
a re reallocation of the tax burden. >> Are there properties in town that are under $320,000? >> No. Three and a quart million. >> Oh, >> there's still a couple. I think >> uh Eric, please. Um, so I think if I
understood some of the the back and forth as far as the the concern that I had from my initial question of us not appropriately fiscally protecting the interests of the town if if I for example voted against this and
the town voted this down. I think I understood it that there that the free cash pullback is available. So, it's not like we're going to be out finding another revenue source. And, you know, there's probably worse things that free
cash get used for than this. And I think I, you know, I guess from my perspective, I'm very much, as people have already figured out, very much against the RTE to begin with. And I think I would not support this knowing that there is um some potential that
people could misconstrue that for support from this committee. Understandable. Um Carrie, so the numbers that we're talking about here are predicated on what underlying factors? One is a 20% or a 10% or a 5%.
>> This is um for a 20% that they spoke about uh in their January meeting. >> Okay. And it is further predicated on the assumption that 60% of eligible participants will take advantage of this.
>> You were estimating 60% will apply. And >> so if it's 100% what are we looking at? If everybody's what's what's our real exposure here? >> If if everybody applies before our tax rate is set in September,
then there's no exposure. But if you have um only so many apply when the tax rate is set in September and then after that all those additional people >> between between then >> 40% you're estimating 40% I mean it
could be higher than that. I'm just we're just estimating 40%. >> Um then that's where the 1.5 comes in at 20%. Right? If it was a 5% residential tax exemption,
there's still exposure, right? >> However, we have enough funding in our overlay >> currently >> currently to support it and could could do a 10%. >> With what's currently >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Andy, please. Um, how does the expectation that a number of resident properties are now held in nonconforming trusts and therefore would not qualify?
>> You know, that was on the select board meeting the other night. I think there was like 800 and something. >> Well, there's seven roughly 1764 properties held in trust. >> Yep. >> Of which 800 roughly are attached to Chattam zip codes. >> Right. and and they cannot be
>> not >> and they cannot be made conforming within the time proper time period for this consideration. >> Correct. >> Does that influence it further? Because presumably they will try to conform their trust for a future year.
>> So they have missed a deadline if this goes through for 2027. They miss the deadline. they have to revamp their trust and it would have to be done as of January 1st of um 2027 >> for FY2028.
>> So then there would be another trench of >> newly qualified residents >> all right who come in and look for that exemption >> and would that then affect the overlay
reserve for that future year? Yes. >> Okay. So, we're not just talking maybe a million five. It could be >> Well, this takes into consideration all of the all of the residents. It doesn't it when I did the calculation,
>> it I didn't take that out of the equation. So, >> okay. But it assumes the 60% will qualify. >> Yes. >> Okay. The 40% >> 40% not. And that includes the trusts. >> Okay. >> Mhm. Qualify or apply? Apply. Sorry.
Apply >> both. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Eric, please. >> Uh, what deadline was missed? Like I I don't I didn't understand that. >> So, if you have a specific trust, I don't know the exact details, but >> real estate nominee trust. >> It's only only the trust like there
isn't been a requirement for taxpayers to apply for the RTE here. >> No, the deadline is April. >> Okay. April 1st. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. Joanne, please. >> Mr. Chairman, thank you. But it seems like we're uh
spending more money to lower the taxes of some of our taxpayers when our concentration should be to strive to keep our expenses to the point and low enough so that we can
lower this tax rate for all of the citizen, all of the taxpayers in Chadam. We're devoting a an a lot of time to certain groups of taxpayers when I believe our mission should be to have
the lowest tax rate possible for all equally for all of the the taxpayers in Chattam. >> Thank you. As we have discussed, it's not remotely remotely clear what cohort or cohorts in town the
select board is seeking to provide aid to with this undertaking. So, all right, further comments or questions? Otherwise, I'll take a motion to support article xx overlay funding the amount of $500,000.
>> So moved. Well, I don't want to take Barbar reluctance. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh, any further discussion? >> Excuse me, >> Tommy. >> Question.
>> Mr. Phillips will approach the bench. >> Ryan Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Um, this is a very complicated and interesting thing. Um, been learning about. Um, I think to Joannne's uh point, we should be trying to make taxes lower for everybody in general. There
is, you know, a lot of spending stuff going on that maybe we can, you know, decrease to make taxes lower for everyone. But, you know, I I'm on the campaign trail right now and I'm out talking to all the people in the streets and it's it seems like it's
maybe one person who's against this and I'm not talking about some residents. I'm talking about just year-round residents. Right now there's about 20 people that are in favor of this. And you talk about who is this for? This is for all, you know, the locals that have been here forever and, you know, that have put a lot into this community. And
um and it I don't want to, you know, get myself in trouble, but uh you know, um some of the people that are against it, you know, have been profiteering off of, you know, um our our town and our our low tax rates and causing, you know, putting in large houses on little lots.
that's causing taxes for people, you know, in that neighborhood to go up. So, you know, some of the people that are complaining about it are raising the taxes for other people. I know this is, you know, a little bit divisive and this is very complicated. Um, but from what I'm hearing from the people
in the town that I've been talking to, they are in favor of this. Um, you know, I think do think there's a lot of things to work out. Um, one thing, you know, I guess I going to try and do a, you know, a cis petition because I don't know if they put it through, but there to do rental, you can do tax exemptions for,
you know, people that have rental properties, you can do tax exemptions for those that, you know, so there's I think there's more a little bit more we need to add to this. Uh, and um, but I do think you guys should support this. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brian. And I do want to do one quick fact check because my
understanding this is only for primary residences, not for incremental rental properties in one's portfolio. >> No, no. Yeah, this one this one isn't, but there is um in Orleene. Oh, sorry. Maybe didn't understand your question. >> No, it wasn't the question. It was a statement. I don't My understanding is
is that you have to >> uh it has to qualify for your primary residence and not rental properties. Right. >> That's correct. But there was um I was at the Orleans town meeting and they put something through uh so that they're for people that you know own rental properties here for year round rentals
they get a tax exemption. I don't know exactly >> that. Yeah, that's totally different with all due respect. >> Right. But I think incentivization with this I think would make things you know a little more uh fair. >> Okay. No, I just wanted to be clear though that this is only applicable to a primary residence. >> Understood. And I guess the one last
point, um, I do have, uh, you know, some plenty of summer friends. Some of them are mixed about it, but they, um, although some of them aren't thrilled about it, they do understand why it's happening. Thank you. >> Right. Thank you, Brian. Andy, please. Um,
at the risk of spreading more more misinformation, this is not the RT is not going to benefit all the residents of Chadam. It's plain and simple, right? There are going to be a cohort of Chattam residents who in fact have to pay a
higher tax as a consequence of this. It is not going to benefit Chattam town residents who rent their living quarters. Instead, the benefit will may acrue to the landlord depending on their
particular circumstance. Um, so this is this is a a very broad-faced hammer to focus on a very narrow problem. And I think we should be working on the narrow
solutions to fit that narrow problem, not this thing. Um, Brian, you're right. Yeah, Orleans has some good ideas. Maybe we should be adopting those. We should also be adopting all the other provisions in state law that allow the
assessors to increase the qualifications uh for Chattantown residents to receive the other kind of exemptions uh that are possible. But this RTA thing I think is garbage frankly and you
should be talking with town residents and giving them the full story if you can. All right, please. because it it's I believe there's a vast amount of misunderstanding. >> All right. Thank you, Andy. And just to to your point about those Chadam
yearround Cadam residents, again, the notional cut off right now is somewhere in the three and a4 million property valuation range. Everybody above that is going to see the taxes increase. >> So that's if you're a property owner, >> correct? But if you're a tenant
>> and you're a resident, >> you'll probably see your rent go up, >> right? I mean, >> uh, that's this is very much a mixed blessing. >> Yep. Eric, please. >> Yeah. And just to to to that was well said, Andy. And I think just to kind of
really hammer that one point, there's there's a lot of reasons to be against this in my opinion. I think one of the main ones is as um anyone that is a owns a property that is a rental is not going to receive this. their taxes are going
to go up and there's only one place where that increase goes toward towards the the tenant and that does not benefit round year round people and it doesn't benefit people that that really you know in many cases can't afford an increase.
So that alone to me makes this not a good idea. And you've hit several other and I know I know there's other reasons as well, but just to kind of hammer that point home that uh that information that it about rentals is being was was very
unclear the way it was the previous speaker said it and it's not this provision is not good for people that are renting in Chattam period. >> Thank you Mr. Phillips. I do understand and respect your opinions. Thank you.
>> Thank you. All right. Roll call. >> Mr. Chairman, would you repeat the motion? >> Joanne, >> repeat the motion, please. >> The motion is to see if we will transfer from the available funds the sum of $500,000 to fund the town's overlay account uh for the implementation of the
residential tax exemption. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Roll call. Ty Don. >> No. Barb Madison, >> no. >> Joann, >> no. >> Andy Young, >> no. >> Tracy Shields,
>> no. >> Eric Whley, >> no. >> Chair votes no. 0 to 7. And we will talk a little bit in a minute about excuse me about um a point that Andy made about the the planned
working group of the finance committee to tuck into this a little further. Um, all right. Let's move on to Mono, Monoy Regional School District, uh, and PEG access funding. 61,413 requested,
uh, of which Chadam shares is $14,274. Carrie, anything you'd like to speak to with respect to that? >> No. >> Okay. Well, I think the information that received in the package was pretty straightforward. They're requesting equipment um for the uh for from the PEG
fund um to tune up some of their broadcasting capabilities. So, comments or questions? >> Okay. Uh if not, then I'll take a motion to support pulling $14,274 out of our PEG access fund.
>> I make a motion to support. >> Thank you, Tracy. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Thank you, Barbara. Uh okay. support. Tommy, >> yes. >> Barbara, >> yes. >> Joanne. >> Did you say me? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Andy,
>> yes. >> Tracy, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chair supports seven to nothing. All right. The Monoy Regional Middle School roof project budget and debt authorization vote
carry. This is for a roof project for the middle school in the amount of 11,81,239 which will be split between Harwitch and Cadam and it will be applied to our assessment each year. um
roughly around 29 point something% for Chadam, whatever the three-year ruling averages. Um they're going to be getting a grant reimbursement around 3.7 million and the full amount will be $8 million to
replace the roof on the middle school. This is kind of similar to the windows and the siding that were done last year. Okay, sir. Uh, comments or questions? Eric? >> Um, very minor, but on your sheet that
you gave us, I think you just cut and pasted the wrong thing at the top. Just it's it used to have the siding uh and trim project. Um, >> good call. Thank you. >> Just don't want you to miss that as you move it forward. And then um so
um I'm on the subcommittee for the siding and um roofing project. So there's been several I've been to multiple meetings on this and seen the the project as it's starting to come together. Um it needs to be done. I
think the the need the the the cost is a lot. Um some of that is driven by requirements of the um MSBA and we did ask questions and reviewed
options if we you know what would we save by not doing some of the things that are really driven by MSBA and some of it is it's just hard to explain why they even want you to do it but they make in order to apply for the money and to get the money you have to
do things. A lot of it is about solar ready and solar and things and things like that. Um and some other material type based things. Um but through the discussions and the analysis that was done in the in the in the um working
group on this um it's better to have the state participate than not. And so uh you know I'm supportive of this. I will I am going to support this. I I it's kind of feel like we're in this box of what MSBA
requires and you can't fight our way out of it and and win. So, we need a roof and they're going to contribute and we we do benefit more than not by by using their guidance. So, if that makes any sense. >> Thank you, Rick. Um further comments or
questions? If not, then I'll take a motion to support uh a 11,81,239 million debt authorization for MRSDs to pay the cost for a roof replacement project at 425 Croll Road.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Quick question before we s um Carrie. So um is there are there specifics on what Chadam share of this would be? >> It's around 29 something%. It's based on the three-year rolling average.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. >> That's 29% of the 8 million figure, right? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Yep. >> Okay. Motion seconded. Tommy support. >> Yes. >> Barbara, >> yes. >> Joanne,
>> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Tracy, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chair supports seven to nothing. All right, we are back to our old friend the assistance resource center with
some further information um from hack. Um this to just to remind people is uh the um stumping up $100,000 for the purpose of funding a new assistance resource
center providing shelter and services for homeless individuals as recommended by the community preservation committee. This is a facility over in Hyannis. Uh and we have learned through car's efforts that citizenship is not checked.
Massachusetts is a right to shelter state and is against the law to ask. Uh however, it's estimated that 85 to 90% of the visitors are US citizens. How long can people stay in the shelter? Is there a time limit? No, there is no time limit. However, the main goal of the ARC
is to provide emergency shelter in conjunction with a structured program to get people the help they need, which is by large permanent housing. Uh Patty also noted that visitors cannot stay at the shelter during the day and in fact 55% in offseason are employed
and do have jobs they go to every day 75% um of the residents in the summer. So that is background. Further comments or questions? Tracy. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I I still think
it's important to support this even if there isn't a you know citizenship requirement. I mean ultimately it is to the community's benefit to not have unhoused people that are on the Cape
wandering around their community or living in the woods. And it doesn't really matter if they're undocumented or not. We would prefer them not to be there, let alone the humanitarian cause. >> Thank you. Other comments or questions?
>> Okay. If not, I'll make a motion to support $100,000 to be directed towards the assistant resource center. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Joanne. Second. >> Second. Second. >> Thank you, Tommy. All right. Support. Tommy, >> yes. >> Barbara, >> no. >> Uh Joanne, please.
>> Yes. >> Andy, >> yes. Tracy, >> yes. >> Eric, >> no. >> And chair vote support. So, five to two on that one. All right, Carrie, I think that's it. If you would be so kind just to confirm
or correct. >> That is correct. We've gone through the agenda um for the votes, the overlay, and the Boston gas. And then you have your discuss the finance committee report for the annual town meeting. >> All right. So, um we're getting ready
for the big show. The warrant now closes I think on the 27th. It was extended for a week, uh which means that we all need to get cracking both on kind of topics that we want to call out and um I need to pick up the pen or the keyboard and
start typing uh things. So, I would like to request please input as we always do on this report. Um, both any general comments, uh, commentary on kind of the budget,
the budget process, things that stood out to us that we'd like, dislike as usual, uh, and then specific topics of note, uh, that we always kind of finish up with, six or seven or eight or nine things that we specifically call out that are before the town. So, if you
guys can get those cards and letters coming, I would appre appreciate it. So, we can try to get ahead of it a little bit. Um, so let me start with that comments or questions on that. >> Are you are you likely to follow
approximately the same format as previous years? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think we've got a form that works. >> Uh, the feedback I get from people in town is that it's it's extremely informative and >> helpful and >> cleverly written. I mean, good, you know, good graphics
help. >> Good graphics help. Carrie's going to assist with the good graphics and the data data uh data scrubbing. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, I was thinking about turning over to AI. I mean, we'll see what happens. >> Um Tracy, did you have a question?
uh more just offering up one that occurred to me before emailing it to you, but also maybe in front of Carrie to be sure that um Terry andor Jill included some
explanation of why we can't have bids in hand. you know what the risk is to the town's people if we pay to have a a real plan done that can be bid on before we actually have
town meeting approval of the project itself that risking that that financial exposure without the approval I think if we want to if that's not really explicit in what they end as their verbiage that I think it would be useful for us to
maybe highlight for the town. Yeah, that's a great idea actually. So, thank you. Bunch of head nodding. That's always good. >> Uh, okay. So, I'll uh I'll I'll scrub my inbox frequently and see what's coming
in. Um, so that's that. And the the last thing I have is um reverts back to the residential tax exemption. I think as we have spoken about on several occasions um we are going to propose an article
town meeting to provide the sense of town meeting that we think that action on the RTE should be deferred for a year pending further inquiry and studies and definition of who we're trying to help and are there better more specific
less uh hammerlike I think to Andy's phrase um solutions to this problem. It's going to begin with a definition of what the problem is and who we're trying to help. Um, so I my understanding, my recollection is that we voted n nothing to support
going down this path. I had circulated some draft language for um a petition article. Uh we are waiting to see if the select board is going to grant us the courtesy of putting the article on the warrant themselves which
is certainly within their per purview and is was done for example with the West Cadam zoning stuff last year. >> They did it as a courtesy to the planning board. So I'm waiting to hear on that. Uh, but if offender don't get you, the lightning will, I'm going to
submit a petition article. Um, so it lands on the warrant either way. And we'll be circulating after the close of this meeting. Uh, pursuant to my email yesterday, uh, the form for people who want to ink it up to add their name to the petition.
>> Tracy, oh no, she was since you asked. Since I had my hand with my pen in the air, um I would just offer up that I think the point started by Andy and then elucidated by Eric, I think is an
important one in terms of why more time would be helpful because targeting people that are renting year round in town are people I think that we definitely do want to serve in some way
and that it's absolutely correct that if the even if the landlord gets the benefit, there's little likelihood that it'll decrease the rent, but certainly if they have an increase, the tenant will have an increase.
>> Y agreed. Um okay, so that's it. It was more just point of information. So if uh one one way or the other, we'll have this article on the warrant. Um, so, uh, with that, uh, any comments or questions? Tommy, please.
>> How did the selectman vote on this? >> Well, they voted to institute it four to one, if I remember correctly. I think Dean stood down, but everybody else was in favor. >> There was another round. They they um
>> they talked about it. recall was >> particularly focused on the um past date for a qualifying trust. >> Yeah. In their January meeting and they had sort of more of a discussion on it which they they dealt with on again on this past Tuesday night.
>> Uh they had a further conversation on the plan. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. >> So I >> I missed that. I should watch the rerun. >> It's available on Chattam TV. Channel 8. >> That's good. So they still have to every year vote on
this at the tax classification hearing. So their vote is really not really valid until that date >> which is sometime in September if I'm not mistaken. >> Yep. >> But you have to know in advance because you have to plan for these things. It
can't just be done when we set the tax classification hearing because again I hate to say it but our overlay exposure would be very large if we just implemented it in September and our tax rate is set
to start over going to be overwhelmed to begin with but >> yeah it has to be planned it has to be planned out and that's why this article is there just you know planning wise >> yeah thank you Carrie >> you're welcome >> Tracy please enjoy >> is it not something that they can
approve for fiscal year 2028? Like if if they're going to vote on it, can it not go into effect until there's time for everyone to have applied? >> Oh, yes, they can. They can do that.
But again, they still have their final official vote, which be September of that year. >> Joanne, please. Then Barbara. Nope. Barbara, >> so assuming that this if if they do approve this and it does go
forward for next year, do you anticipate having to hire another person for the department? It's in the budget for a part-time person for 2027. >> Thanks. You're welcome. >> Okay, Joanna, >> I remember what I was going to ask now.
Have we uh set a potential tax rate yet based on if everything is approved on the warrant? >> Oh, for this for this year. >> Mhm. >> Yep. I have that information. >> You do have it? >> Yep. >> What is it? >> Mhm.
>> If everything on the warrant is approved, that is an expenditure. What do we think it will be compared to last year? >> On my sheet, I have $3.85. 85, but I think it will be less than that. >> I I didn't hear that.
>> I said on my sheet I have $3.85 compared to >> $3.67. um any defense of that or reason for it or >> Well, it it obviously embeds everything that we've reviewed and voted on and the
town town meeting will have the opportunity to do as well. So, with dredging, school budget, affordable housing, etc., etc., etc. I mean, obviously, you know, everything we've gone over. I just think it's good
for the before we go to town meeting for the taxpayers to know what they're approving and and what the result will be. >> Well, and and that hopefully and ideally is the purpose of our report to the warrant. >> Okay. >> So,
>> thank you. Thank you, Carrie. You're welcome. >> All right, Tommy, please. >> Do we have any incurred expenses because of this storm? >> The town. >> Oh, boy. Yes, there's incurred expenses because
of the storm. Any >> any ideas? >> I don't have the final number yet. Sorry. >> It's not going to be small. >> No. >> Should have asked Rob while he was online. >> I know. Gosh, we have exceeded our snow and ice budget for the year.
>> They probably don't even know yet all the things going to cost. >> So, we can get an update on that, I think, in time. >> Tommy has hand up. Tommy, please. You done? >> Okay. >> All right. Everybody any further
comments, questions? Otherwise, I'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> So move. >> Thank you. Second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Barbara, support. Tommy, >> yes. >> Barbara, >> yes. >> Joanne, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Tracy,
>> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. Chair supports. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Carrie. >> Thank you.