Heat. Heat. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the March 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Town of Cadam Select Board. 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, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during
the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general laws chapter 38 section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Select Board 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 in progress may do so by calling the phone number 158-945-4410 conference ID 203
386491 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072,
despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. First order of businesses to establish a quorum. Miss Davis >> present. >> Mr. Dyken >> present. >> Mr. Matters present. >> Mr. Smith
>> present. >> And the chair is present. Um proceeding with the agenda. There are no minutes for approval tonight. The next item is public announcements and agenda item requests. Are there any from the board? Stuart.
>> Sure. Thank you, Dean. I was hoping uh some future agenda. Excuse me. Um we could we could uh chat about have a discussion about the uh senior tax uh workoff program. Mhm. >> Um we're hopefully kind of chipping away
at uh small but chipping away at the uh affordability here in town and this is just one of those uh things I think is worthy of having a chat about. >> Okay. Uh are there any from the audience? >> Seeing none, uh the town manager has an
announcement relative to the blizzard. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to remind residents that you may dispose of woody debris caused by Blizzard Hernando at the transfer station free of charge through Sunday, April 5th. Stumps with root balls, construction,
demolition debris, and household hazardous waste will not be accepted under this waiver. This waiver is limited to residential drop off and does not apply to commercial haulers, professional landscapers, or tree service companies. Normal disposal fees
will resume for all materials on Monday, April 6. >> Thank you. I know we've had some inquiries about that. Um, and I believe it was also in the main sheet. I assume it'll be again in the main sheet this week. Uh, next item of business is a
public hearing. There are two public hearings. First is to consider an application to change the DBA for Uncle Tony's LLC from DBA Knots Landing Bar and Grill to DBA TK's Sports Bar for the business located at 1077 Main Street,
Cadam. This is continued from uh February 25th, 2026. And um I don't think we need to read the um notice, right? >> Because it's a continuation. So uh online I believe is Jamie Norcross
who represents the applicant. Jamie there you are. >> You want to speak to this please >> Mr. Chairman? >> Uh certainly. So this is a very straightforward application uh to change the DVA for the lency from uh NOS Landing Bar and Grill to what will be
the new name of the restaurant uh TK Sports Bar. >> Okay. Are there any questions or comments from the board? Mr. Chairman, I move approval. >> Is there a second? >> A second. >> Okay. Moved and seconded. Any comments from the public? It's a public hearing.
I don't see any. >> Okay. We'll call the role. Um, Miss Davis. >> I. >> Mr. Dykins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> Chair votes. I. >> You have the the uh name changed. Thank you, Jamie. Thank you very much. I know there's something else coming up in a
little bit. Um, maybe we could take that out of order actually. Um, actually it's on the consent agenda. I don't think this this is uh fairly straightforward as this is the entertainment license. Um, let me just
ask since uh Jamie, are you intending to hang around for that? If you if not, I'll just ask the board if they have any questions on that one. It's on the consent agenda, so we won't um discuss it unless someone wants to pull it off the that agenda. Any questions from the board on that item? Okay,
>> we'll take it up in the consent agenda. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Um, next is a public hearing to consider increases to the current list of town of Chadam transfer fees. Um, and
um before I ask the town uh I'm sorry, before I ask the board clerk to read the uh public hearing notice because this is a new public hearing. Um well, I guess I'll ask you to read the public hearing notice first and then I'm going to talk
about the rule of necessity. Stuart, >> thank you. Town of Cadam Select Board public hearing notice notice is hereby given that the Chattam Select Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in the large
meeting room at the town hall annex 261 George Ryder Road to consider increases in the current list of Town of Cadam transfer station fees as follows. 9 to 11 bags of garbage increase from
$15 to $20. Commercial garbage increase from $90 a ton to $150 a ton. Commercial single stream recycling increase from $110 a ton to $145 a ton.
Chair uh unapholstered increase from $5 each to $15 each. Demolition SLconstruction debris increase from $190 a ton to $225 a ton.
Mattresses and box springs increase from $3 $30 each to $50 each. Sofa increase from $15 each to $30 each. Large SLTR tires increase from $15 each
to $20 each. fire extinguishers increase from $2 each to $6 each and to consider establishing a new category of trans transfer station fees. Crib mattresses establish this item and charge $10 each.
All interested parties are encouraged to participate in person or remotely via the link in the posted agenda. >> Thank you, Stuart. So before we proceed uh under the conflict of interest law since um more than a quorum I I believe
uh from prior experience have um um interests that may conflict under this. So we are going to have to invoke the rule of necessity. So we'll each have to declare whether we have a conflicting interest and then I'll entertain a motion and a second to invoke the rule of necessity. Um I personally am a
customer of one of the local haulers, Mr. Dyens. and my son is a customer of one of the local haulers. Mr. Smith, >> I'm a customer uh seasonally of one of the haulers. >> Mr. Davis, >> uh the business I work in has is uses one of the haulers. >> Mr. Matters.
>> And my business is use the um commercial haulers. >> Um so is there a motion to invoke the rule of necessity to adopt the rule of necessity? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Miss Davis. Hi. >> Mr. Dikkins. Hi. >> Mr. Matters. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith.
>> I chair votes. Okay. So, I'll now call upon Rob Philly to the director of um public works who is presenting this recommendation for um trash hauling increases and other fees at the at the transfer station. Rob,
welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so, as presented in my June staff report, and I'll highlight again today, um there's a disparity between uh the solid waste disposal cost and customer fees at the Chattam Transfer Station. Over the past few years, the town has seen steady
increases in both disposal and transportation costs. Chadam's waste management fee structure needs to be reassessed to better align with fees from neighboring communities to ensure fairness to users and taxpayers and most importantly to cover the costs of disposal.
During the car course of the cast past year, sorry, I have collaborated with the board of health finance committee and economic development committee. I did receive unanimous support regarding the concept of fee increases and have gained widespread support for my
previously suggested rates. Not all committees unanimously agreed with the previous cost proposals. So, I took those recommendations into consideration with these new revised uh cost proposals. I previously proposed a fee increase of
$170 per ton for municipal solid waste. Um you can see um on the spreadsheet uh the blue column is what I had proposed for July 1st. Uh the first orange column was what I had um I'm sorry the blue
column is what was in place um 2020. The first orange column was what I had proposed for July 1st 2025. And the second column with the red text is what I'm proposing now. So you can see down where commercial disposal is. was $175
per ton for municipal solid waste. Um, which matches the lowest cost of a neighboring community, which is Haritch. Um, current cost to dispose of municipal municipal solid waste is $140.50 per ton
with increases every January and July. So, I propose an initial rate increase fee of $150 per ton to cover out-ofpocket costs. This was the lowest rate I felt comfortable proposing which was in part determined by the cost of
commercial single stream recycling. So you could see beneath uh the commercial rate is the single stream. Um that's a recycling effort where recycling materials are co-mingled and used exclusively by commercial haulers. The
town's direct cost for single stream is $144 per ton plus in-house trucking costs. It's important to continue to promote recycling in my opinion. Um, and if the municipal solid waste fee remains higher than the recycling fee, there is
at least some financial incentive to continue to collect recycled materials. requesting $145 per ton for single stream recycling and $150 per ton for municipal solid waste will cause these rates to be re-evaluated again next year
because we haven't built in much room to allow for additional fees. But what is proposed is the lowest financial alternative to cover the majority of out-of-pocket costs to the town. Other proposed categories remain largely unchanged. I think it was the only other
one was fire extinguishers. I had proposed $10 um last year and now I propose $6 which is our direct cost to dispose of fire extinguishers. Um I just wanted to make a note since July 1st um we have seen over 3,000 tons
of municipal solid waste delivered from the commercial haulers um that's been a direct out-ofpocket cost or a loss to Chattam of 141,000 and change. So, it's uh it's substantial cost. We're paying $50.50
out of pocket for every ton of commercial refues that comes to the Chadam transfer station. >> That's all I had for you, >> Rob. Um I think in your transmitt memo, you um said that if these changes go
into effect, we would see um a net increase to the town of $300,000. Do I have that correct? I assume much of that relates to the other charges as well. >> I believe it's around 213,000. Okay.
>> Um of of lost revenue we would recoup and then another 95,000 roughly of additional revenue. >> Do these um charges reflect uh and I'm focusing on the the commercial garbage and the single
stream. Do they reflect in-house costs, staff costs, or >> No, they don't >> parking costs. >> No, these are just out of pocket costs. >> Um, are those items are are those other types of costs something that could over
time be calculated or proxy for them? >> Yes, absolutely. >> If you were to come back next year, your recommendation is to is to um adopt these tonight. Is that correct? >> Yes. basically to to stop the bleeding to stop uh Chadam from having to subsidize um commercial industry.
>> And and you would come back a year from now with presumably a review of >> It would probably be before January of probably be December of this year. >> Okay. Um and I you know I we saw these numbers
last time for Haritch in Orleans. Do we know why why Orleans charges $240? That just seems >> they run their transfer station more like an enterprise fund. So they cover all costs. >> Okay. >> So they build in staff costs, handling
and all that. >> Okay. Um I intend to um call on the chairs of the two committees that were referred to this matter. But before I do, are there any questions to Rob at this time? >> No committee.
>> Okay. Um thank you. Um the select board uh back when we had this before us previously referred this to the economic development advisory committee which was about was in the process of being repopulated after a long a period of um
um non-activity and we we put new people on it largely and new chair and um we asked them to consult with the finance committee. they submitted a report I think on January 20 24th um which um I'll just read the
recommendations therefore um it was submitted jointly and this is in an email from uh chair Lucia Loose Quinn on behalf of her committee and on behalf of the chair of
the finance committee Steven Daniel one the transfer station direct cost should be covered by direct revenues as a matter of policy. Two, fees should be and remain competitive with surrounding towns. Three, commercial hauler fees should be increased via a two two-year
phased approach, beginning with an immediate increase to cover direct disposal and shipping costs. And four, all transfer station fees should be reviewed annually during the budget process. Um, I'll invite the chair Luch, do you want to speak to this at all? And
then Stephen Daniel is online, he can speak to it as well. Welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and select board. Um, as uh Dean said, um, at the very first meeting when we were introducing ourselves to each other and before we
had elected a chair, uh, we we received the request from the select board to um, make a recommendation uh, regarding these um, potential increases. Um between that September meeting and October, one of our uh committee members
who is also a certified public accountant um did a very detailed uh costbenefit analysis with the data that um he was able to secure and work with um in terms of the town staff. And at
the October meeting, we in fact um a very long meeting, but came up with the recommendations that Dean just read to you. Um at that point we were asked or misunderstood that we were to also um have a consultative process with the
finance committee. Um so Stephen Daniel and I met uh I went through the logic of our committee and the recommendations we were proposing. Um he was in agreement but felt I think appropriately that he needed to take it back to his committee.
They also did a very detailed costbenefit analysis. And in December, Stephen communicated to me um that uh the finance committee was in full support of the recommendation which included the recommendations being made
by Rob um for the increases. Um we did feel it was important to comment on the process more than uh pretend and expertise with the numbers. And so our recommendations are uh literally more focused on process. We were surprised
that the fees had not been reviewed for five years um when every other cost is going up. We would have expected those to go up. We were less surprised that we were not competitive with other communities, but think that we should be
thinking about that very hard um as well and that um at some point we should be able to cover the direct costs um incurred at the transfer station uh with the fees charged to the commercial haulers. As Dean read to you, um our
recommendation was to do it in a stepped process because we did feel that it was a very large increase to spring what at that point seemed um very quickly by now. Of course, we're almost a year later having the same discussion. Um and
so that recommendation um Rob has has worked with. I think the last thing that came up at the discussion we had um with Rob uh when we were looking for additional data was the fact that the loss that Rob was um just describing has
to be made up somewhere else in the budget and it's less transparent where the those losses are being made up from. um but they're clearly taken from other services that the DPW supports and
therefore we felt it was important to shore this up as quickly as possible. Um I can turn it to Stephen. He can add whatever he >> are there any questions for Lucia or do you want to hear from Stephen? >> Steve. >> Okay. Thank you Lucia. Stephen um I see
you're on. Did you want to add anything? those your your combined report the two documents will be entered into the record of this hearing. >> Uh yes, I did see that it was embedded in the um facts for the week. Um no, I
think Lucia Well, yes, but I think Lucia very um thoughtfully presented the uh the joint recommendations. I will uh make two observations. One is that uh because of the overage and sticker
fee charges, the taxpayers are to some extent subsidizing what could be characterized generously as an underage in the commercial hauler fees uh so far. And we didn't think that was entirely fair for that to be happening. Um, and I
would note to the question that uh that Rob addressed uh that um syncing funds for equipment equipment life cycle costs are not currently being covered. Um and you know I think my recollection is that
these machines that move this stuff around are rather expensive. uh and to not set up a syncing fund to to cover those things over time. Uh the replacement cost for those things over time seems a little imprudent. Uh but uh we're on board with what the EDAC
presented and um happy to field any questions. >> Thank you. Any questions for Stephen? Okay, I'm going to open it up now to the public public comment. I know the haulers were advised of this. I know they're the local haulers are present.
if they have any comments. Anybody else? Mr. Millie, then Mr. Nickerson or whatever order. Mr. Nickerson first, then Mr. Millie, then Mr. Phillips, and then Yes. Is that
>> Hello, I'm Ben Nickerson from Benjamin T. Nickerson, Inc., third generation owned and operated. Um, since our first meeting last spring, I've understood that the transfer station cannot operate at a constant deficit. We're not looking to be subsidized, but we're also not looking to pay more than what we should
be. I was reading through some of the numbers from the finance committee, and it reminded me of a conversation Graham and I had with Rob at the DPW sometime last fall. We were talking about ways to minimize loss revenue at the transfer station. If
my memory serves me right, and Rob can correct me if I'm wrong, I remember him referencing a small portion of the $150 residential sticker fee actually goes directly to the transfer station. A majority of that 150 goes to the general
fund. I think the number was 25 out of the 150, Rob. Is that what it was? >> It goes to the general fund. >> 25 out of the 150 goes to the general fund. Okay.
So 25 out of the 150 that is 16%. That means 16% of the sticker revenue from residents is going directly to the transfer station costs. $581,025 in revenue is what the finance committee
claims residential stickers generated during 2025. Did the committee know that 16% of that 150 goes directly to the transfer station when they did these this analysis? If that wasn't considered,
then that number is slightly misleading. If only 16% of the 580 actually goes directly to the transfer station, that number goes down to 92,964.
16% of the 581 is 92,964. With residential costs determined by the finance committee to be $261,165 in 2025, the transfer station as is at a168, $21 deficit just off residential
stickers. If this is true, it's a major oversight regarding the calculations. One, and two, why wouldn't more of the sticker fee go straight toward covering the cost of the transfer station? At the bottom of the finance committee's recommendation letter, it states, quote,
"As policy, direct cost of the transfer station should be covered by direct revenues." Um, one last thing, like we're not looking to be subsidized at all. I know keeping it at 90 per ton is essentially subsidizing us. Um, I think there should be a price increase for the commercial
trash by the end of this meeting for sure. I think it should be set slightly lower than the recommendations, but enough that the town isn't running a major deficit. >> Thank you. Any questions for Thank you,
Mr. Millie. >> Graham Millie, Millie Trucking. We've been Chadam's disposal company since 1928. Last week, I received a phone call from a local nursing home. They had lost power in the storm. Their dumpsters were full, and they were needing to clean out
the kitchen of spoiled food. The corporate disposal company they use told them 7 to 10 days to empty their current dumpster or to provide an additional one. My guys had spent the previous night hauling snow for the town of Dennis, 10 hours overnight. Instead of
heading home, they delivered that dumpster within 30 minutes, helping people who weren't even our customers, just good, friendly locals. Every time I stand up here, I give examples of how we provide community service and benefits to this town, going far beyond our
corporate competitors while still having to compete with their pricing, advertising, and extended reach. And every time I stand up here, I'm faced with policies and price increases that serve one goal. One goal. making your budget sheet look good. This goal has
been disguised at some points. Claims that corporate companies were utilizing the transfer station to save money. Claims like trash from out of town was making the transfer station smell. False claims and claims hiding the truth. The budget sheets all that mattered. So, I'm
glad that we've reached some transparency about that tonight. And I've said time and time again, price increases like this will push us beyond corporate pricing, and will be detrimental to my business, Ben's business, the lives of my employees,
local businesses that use us, and the residents alike. So, when we go home tonight, will we pat ourselves on the back for making that budget sheet look good? Will we be pleased when local businesses and residents are forced to use corporate haulers as Ben and I are
squeezed out of the picture? I hope not. I hope we go home tonight feeling good about supporting two great local longtime companies and allowing them the ability to compete and thrive in this corporateheavy environment. Cadam isn't a place for Walmart. Chattam isn't a
place for McDonald's. Chattam isn't a place for the dollar store. So, let's not make it a place where corporate waste management can outperform the local guys. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Phillips. >> Wait a minute before you start, Brian. Stephen, you have your hand up. I think
probably in response to something that was said. >> Yeah. I just wanted to um >> Sorry, I'm getting my camera on here. Um >> well, my camera's not going on. I just wanted to make a couple things clear
um with respect to comments that Mr. Nickerson made. Uh last line of the second paragraph of our note said the finance committee uh had not and has not been involved in any of the meetings or data reviews relating to the
transfer station pricing matter. Uh it goes on to say that said we did correspond with Rob Bailey to ascertain some of the f facts uh relating to the current state of transfer station pricing according to Rob and then we had the series of bullets that Mr. Nickerson referred to. So I just wanted to be
clear uh what what the role of transfer station was. And then lastly uh the recommendations that he cited were the recommendations as as the memo goes on to say as a point of reference the recommendations of the EDCR 1234.
So our role in this to be clear was very limited and I took the view initially that unless we think thought things were materially off track uh that would be supportive of the EDSC's work uh and based on the data received from Rob um
that's where we landed. >> So just want to be clear about that. >> Thank you. Okay Brian >> Brian Phillips 374 Orleans Road. So what makes Cadam special is that we're a village. You know, we're basically one
big extended family. So for example, uh Jeff's oldest son AJ and I, we grew up together. We were in the same class. We were brothers growing up. His >> who's his wife Julie was uh you know our um our class mom pretty much every year.
Stuart, your wife and uh her sister worked in my mother's clothing store when they were teenagers growing up. Shireen, your daughters were my babysitters growing up. Corey, when I used to go downtown and hang out at the A's Games, I used to go to your candy store and buy those little candy cigarettes,
you know. Um and I really I ended up smoking for 12 years after that. I doubt there's any correlation. Um but the select board's job is to protect this town and the people in it. If you raise the rates too fast, it will hurt people
like what like what uh Graham said, like the seniors on fixed income, you know, businesses. But more importantly, it will allow out of town corporate haulers to come in and do the Walmart effect where they come in and, you know, they'll break even or lose a little bit of money to put these guys out of
business. So, we really got to prevent that. You know, I know Ben doesn't want any handouts. We've had some extensive, you know, conversations about this, but we, you know, we got to keep the costs low. And I was hoping that, you know, it could be something align along the lines
of, you know, like a 10% increase and then maybe like the CPI inflation index after that to then, you know, get it up to whatever the break even cost is. Um, you know, it sounds like the the 150 or whatever is a lot of money, but it's not really when you compare it to our our
whole overall budget and you know how much it would affect this town if these guys went out of business. And I guess the one last point that I want to make is some of the other towns, you know, are known for places you can kind of just dump everything. you know, our dump and our haulers do a good job of only
keeping uh you know, household trash because when you put too much like wood and you know, uh refrigerators or whatever in the dumpster, it uh they incur fines and it and it drives the prices up. So, our dumping, you know, our haulers do a really good job of keeping, you know, our cost down so we
don't get fines. So, you know, I just I really hope you take consideration of what these will do, you know, these raises that the finance committee and these guys have, you know, approved will do to our commercial haulers in our community. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Kristen. >> Hi, Kristen Mueller. Um I'm here today as myself private citizen not any relation to the chamber or merchants as I stand here in front of you. Um I was here the first time this conversation came up for a different matter and I
happened to be in the audience and I was kind of shocked by some of it and I've followed the story since and a couple of things that have really caught my attention in this matter are that first of all as somebody mentioned none of these costs have been reviewed since
2025. So all of a sudden we're all in shock that everything since 2025 is exponentially higher, which has happened in all of our lives. But like you can't do that to you can't fix a 5-year
problem on these two haulers in a year or two. It's just not feasible. The you know, Ben said it well that like they get that they have to carry their weight. they they can do that, but if you do this to them, they're going to do that to all of their customers. And even
though we talked about the sticker fees covering a lot of their cost, which it sounds like maybe they don't in in retrospect, um, everybody who doesn't have a sticker employs these two guys. I was a client at my commercial property of Ben's for
10 or 12 years, and now I'm a a client of of Graham. If you do this to them, it's going to affect me. And as we learned, it's going to affect every single one of you. I went through this with my commercial tenants after COVID because rents all over the place went
crazy. But if you dump this on small businesses too fast, you put them out of business. I I worked on on lease negotiations with my clients after COVID to get back up to commercial rates. I
mean, uh, market rates over time. I did not make all my money back in the first year or two after COVID. I took the hit, but we got there. But you take a three, four, fiveyear staircase on that. You don't take a a 67% increase in year one
and then another increase right after that. Like it just doesn't make sense. If we're going to make up five years worth of shortfalls, we need to do that over time and we will get there and these guys will cooperate with you. But the idea that in a year or two we can
make all the numbers make sense just is not realistic. >> Thank you. Um I don't see anyone else in the audience. Uh but I do see two people online. So Elaine Gibbs and then John Hogren. Elaine.
>> Uh yes. Thank you. Elaine Gibbs. I'm only going to speak to two issues. Uh one is uh charging $10 for a baby mattress. Um, I think that you and that's a you're adding that as something new. I I think that that's really bad
optics that you would make somebody who wants to dispose of perhaps an old dirty mattress uh $10. Uh, if you got 30, that's $300. I don't think that's going to make or break the transfer station. I think for optics and the fact that, you
know, we all like little kids, we don't want them sleeping on dirty mattresses, so they should be free. The second is the fire extinguishers. Uh charging $15 for disposal. Like most people, I probably have seven or eight in the house. They're all through the basement.
They're in the kitchen. They're on the different floors in case something should happen. Um and it it it makes no sense in my view. The fire department should take them for free because once we turn them in, we have to go out and buy them and they're not inexpensive. Uh
the other problem is if uh people don't want to spend that kind of money or can't uh to dispose of them, uh they they are inherently dangerous when they start to corrode. If they're old and expired, they can explode. So you've got
one or two issues. One, people don't turn them in and they have a houseire and find out they're not working because they forgot to turn them in, which makes absolutely no sense. Or the second is uh they actually are sitting in their closets around the house and one of them
explodes because they have combustible materials as they corrode. So I would hope that you reject both of these and that the fire department instead takes them and they can dispose of them properly because you can't just throw them out and that's what people will do. They'll go, "Well, I'm just going to put
it in a bag and throw it in the dump and that's really dangerous." So, I think these two things are are very shortsighted and I hope that as you move forward those two things will not be considered and the fire department will take expired
um extinguishers. Thank you. >> Thank you, Elaine. I just wanted to clarify that that the recommendation on the fire extinguishers is to increase from $2 to $6. So, I'm not sure where the $15 came from, but I um that's what is showing on
the in the chart and on the on the notice. Mr. Hogram John, sorry about that. I didn't turn my my speaker my mic on. Congratulations on making it through the storm up there. I had a tree that fell over my driveway up
there. So, it barely touched one of my cages. Anyway, um wanted to re revisit this as far as the mattresses. I had understood from the previous time we talked about this that there is a fixed
cost which I can't understand why all the mattress sizes are charged the same by whoever we had passed them off to for disposal. But I still come back to the fact that I have a twin mattress which is basically one quarter the
volume of a king-size mattress and yet they're going to be charged the same fee. That to me makes no sense. Okay. So if the transfer station has to pay the same, why not have a graduated fee for us? And I think by the fact that there
is predominance of larger mattresses, you'll end up basically coming out almost equivalent because if you charge 30 for a twin, 40 for a double, 50 for a queen, and 60 for a king, I think because the predominance of the larger
size mattresses, you know, there aren't maybe maybe as many smaller twin mattresses being disposed of. at least not when I've seen the mayor the at the at the transfer station. So, that would be my recommendation. And besides,
if I was to somehow be able to dispose of them as construction or demo debrief, um I could basically pay like less than 10 bucks for a mattress. That does also doesn't seem to make sense. So I was just, you know, like some feedback
possibly on that as a suggestion to make it equitable to people like me who have a bunch of little mattresses and not very many big mattresses. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, John. Um I don't see Yes, Lucia. I just wanted to clarify if I wasn't
clear that the view of the economic development committee was that a single increase was too steep and too surprising um particularly after a five-year gap of review of costs. We do think that um a
two-step is necessary. Um, we also want to be very um cognizant of the fact that unless we're reviewing this every year um as a part of the budget, we are going to continue to be behind because the prices are going to continue to go up.
Um, and separately, Ben, I just want to say I've been a customer for 20 years and um, I appreciate your service. Thank you. >> Thank you, Rob. Rob. >> Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to say, you know, um the town is customers of
Millie and Nickerson as well. We provide they provide excellent service to us. I pay the bills, so I you know, I see what the bills are every uh every month. Um previously when we had uh a deficiency in the uh transfer station budget, we
had a number of vacancies at DPW. So, we're able to absorb some of those additional costs. We're now fully staffed. So, we don't have the cap capability of absorbing any kind of um losses. So, either we have to go back and try to find additional revenue or we
have to look at starting to cut some services and we don't want to do that. So, we're kind of stuck in a in a hard spot here. So, just for consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> U Kristen, you can speak a second time. I don't see anybody else who wants to speak.
>> Followup question to what Rob was just saying. We we have been running deficits since 2020 and I know that we were understaffed but I suspect we were probably running deficits before 2020 also. Um it sounds like we have been for
a while. It doesn't seem like it all happened in one year. >> Um the question is like beside besides a couple of vacancies, we have to have been absorbing this somehow. So the question is where can we absorb it to to bridge that gap of where we are now and
where we have to get to and how long it's going to take us to get there because a year or two is not I mean even two years I just don't think that that's going to work. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes sir. Mr. Cree. Uh my name is Richard Cre and uh which
might >> either one. >> Okay. Um I'm speaking uh as a private citizen. Um I'm serve on EDAC with Lucia as chair. But uh um just a reminder that one of the things that one of the
challenges that the board of selectman faces that I'm sure most people know but I think is worth reiterating is the board of selectment is responsible for delivering services to the town. Transfer station is one of those valuable services. DPW, police,
fire, this all costs money. The other challenge that the board faces I think and correct me if I'm wrong Jill um is it has to work out how to fairly charge the citizens primarily through property taxes and in some cases fees as we see
with the transfer station how to fairly charge the citizens. So you've got to be very careful about this decision because um we talk of absorbing the cost somewhere else. Well, that basically means and I hardly dare use the word but I will overt taxing somebody for for
another service. So I just would like to remind the board that this difficult role that you play of of rendering the services that people want and people want lots of services and also charging them taxes and of course none of us want taxes. So I I I empathize with your
role, but I think it's worth keeping that in mind as you as you balance these tricky issues. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh if there are no other public comments, I'll bring it back to the board for conversation and discussion. Mr. Matters. >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just want to
throw a couple comments out on the discussions we've had tonight and some things that haven't been spoken about. Um just going to run down, you know, kind of our list here. Um first on the 9 to11 bags of garbage. Um, I don't know why we don't just have a $2 bag. Keep it simple. Someone comes in with six bags,
12 bucks, whatever. Um, commercial hauling this tonnage, um, 90 up to 150. Now, um, I'm in full agreement that we need to phase this a little bit. We need to go up. We We desperately need to go up. We should have gone up before. We
can't go back in time. Um, you know, my my thought is, um, you know, go another 50%. I I would I really would prefer not to go anything over 135. It's probably more than what everyone wants us to land on, but I'm suggesting 135 a ton for
this year. Reeval for next year, probably going to end up jumping to 150. Um, but I think we need to phase it to some level. Um, you know, obviously the single stream recycling our cost is 144 a ton, 145 a ton. We're not made to make
money, breaking even. Um, and the sad reality from my observation is people either recycle or they don't recycle. There's there's there's little little incentive these days. Everyone's talking about, you know, what really happens to this stuff. Um, the markets are are lousy in some of these products.
Plastics, you know, there's no market, there's no money. Um, very little of our recyclable categories actually make us any any any money sadly. Um, you know, the cost of of disposing some of these things, chairs, mattresses, everything, uh, it's getting
more expensive. It really is. Uh, I I I recognize it. Um, but when it comes to the mattresses, um, and this again, this is just my observation or my opinion is a lot of people are buying larger mattresses and they're buying them from companies that are delivering them and hauling away the old stuff. So I don't
know how many mattresses people are going to strap onto their car, queens, kings, whatever and bring to the transfer station on a regular basis. They don't want to deal with it. They rather, you know, mattresses are not an inexpensive item these days. So they just roll it into their purchase. You
know, they go to whatever company it is and um that company will remove it at whatever their cost is. So I I don't think um that is going to be a significant uh impact to our our total number.
Um, you know, the fire extinguishers, Miss M. Gibbs does make a a relatively good case. Um, you know, people don't like to pay for things. Um, they're going to wrap it up in a trash bag, throw it in the trash. At $2, $6, whatever, I don't think we're going to we put in more than a couple hundred,
you know, a year. Um, so if we could have a recycling program and properly dispose of them and not put them in the landfill, I don't think it's going to pinch us at all. I would rather see something that is done to to keep it out of where it should not be. So I I I just wave the fee and make turn it into a
collection collection program. Um crew mattresses I understand the the the you know the comments about you know the bad optics. I don't think they're going to we're going to create more than you know maybe 100 maybe 50 mattresses a year. So, I'm not going to, you know, rally to
to keep the or to add a $10 fee for that. If we could do it for five or we do nothing, I'd be content. Um, and um there were some comments about, you know, local local businesses supporting them. I mean, Benny Nicks, they they've been servicing my store
downtown for over 25 years. Um I share dumpster over at sweet um in South Chadam uh well West sorry West Chadam at Shabhoy with us dogfish and Milliey's services us with with that dumpster. Um I know most of us and um I'll speak for
myself but we don't want to entertain all these bigger companies. We it's not even a thought. You know they put flyers down, you know, we get the mailings, you know, bigger companies, all these shiny new trucks, whatever. I don't even think about it. I mean, I've just ingrained that these are these are the companies
that we've grown up with. You know, I've known your fathers, your grandfathers, you know, your, you know, the crew that have worked there. I have no interest in going to a bigger company. So, you're going to raise your rate. I understand it. It's a cost of doing business. I have no intention in pulling away from
you guys. So, thrilled to have you. You're an asset to the community. Um, but I wouldn't worry about these big companies knocking, you know, taking away some of your business. I think a lot of the locals are just going to stay with you regardless of where the money goes. I I really do. I just think it's just it's it's better it's a better uh
relationship to have than some of these bigger companies. So, I wouldn't wouldn't worry too much about that to be honest with you. Um but it's tough. We have we need to go up on the prices. We need to we don't need to make money, but we don't need to be losing money. Um but we don't need to do this as a one big
catchup. We have to phase it a little bit. Um and we're going to take a bigger hit this year. we should take a bigger hit this year um to get back to where we should be, but um I think we should just ease it up just a touch. >> Jeff, you were next and then Shireen, I think.
>> Thank you, Dean. Uh yeah, I thought the recommendations from the EDC were spot on in the finance committee. So, in terms of increases to the commercial uh rates, I would I'm in favor of a 90 plus uh 30 getting into a buck 20 first year and a buck 50 in two years. I think two
years is a reasonable approach to this. it gets us back close to market in a couple years. Um, so I would support that. I I want nothing to do with paying per bag of garbage. Uh, if you bring in 20 bags maybe or something, but I mean I got to count my bags and whom am I going
to pay and blah blah blah. So um, I guess we have in the books right now 9 to 11 bags of garbage you got to pay for. I'm not so sure I've ever done that, but I'm not so sure I've ever bought that that many bags either. Um, so I'm balent about that. I'm pretty certain on my commercial notions. crib
mattresses. We should not be charging for crib masses. God bless the people that had brave enough to have babies in this town. I think it's wonderful and uh I don't think we need to charge them for the disposal of their mattresses. I would like to ask Rob about was there any any veracity to uh Mr. Hullen
Hoggrren's uh notions of uh gradations on mattresses. I thought Corey brought up a great point that if you buy a new mattress, they usually take them away. But should we get twins, doubles, queens, kings? Um, are there different differences in cost to dispose of them? >> There's not to the town. And I I like
that idea. I think there maybe there should be, but we pay a flat rate for every mattress, including crib mattresses. That's why we tried to create a new category. >> We typically don't put those in the same stream. They go to Handup mattresses who, you know, state law requires all
all mattresses to be recycled. We kind of recycle it at the transfer station, which is labor intensive. We pull it apart. We try to use the best categories of recycling material to put every crib mattress. So there is no direct cost to the town, but there is a labor cost to
do that. So we're just trying to cover some of our mean to interrupt, but in terms of fire extinguishers, if is there a recycling program anywhere for fire fire extinguisher? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> If we return with the fire department, they don't know what they they wouldn't know what to do with them, right? >> Yeah. Not that I'm aware of. It cost us $6 to get rid of each fire extinguisher.
Depending on the size, doesn't matter. >> What would the fire department do with them? Do we know? They don't we don't again to the transfer station throw I mean facitiously throw them in the dumpster. I mean I'm sorry but I mean >> anyway those are my thoughts. I'm I'd
like to take two steps on the on the commercial the commercial rates and get them up to a buck 50 in a couple years. Um but the other major point that I think finance committee and EDC um expressed articulated is that we should bake this into the budget. Just for FYI,
I've been around long enough to remember when the transfer station was actually a profit center for this town, believe it or not. But that's years ago, but it was at one point. So, we can return to break even, I think, fairly easily. And but I do think we need to stay on top of it. I think that's an excellent recommendation. I think we should bake
it into the budget review every year. >> That's what I got. Thank you very much, >> Shireen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank um uh EDC and and finance committee for for their evaluation and Rob as well. One of the things that um becomes clear to me
is that uh and I think um you know we've heard it in in themes already this evening is that the um quality of life sustainability factors that go along with uh doing business in Chattam and the cost of that. Um I agree Jeff that
that a more phased foot approach on the fee for the commercial haulers would probably be best. One of the things that stood out to me is um we always we used to talk about it. I probably don't talk about as much as we should is um we've utilized technical assistance from the
Collins Center and out of that came um when evaluating budgets and plannings a rubric of for judging proposed projects and and and policies um against community goals and I think that um though I don't want to see us take a
loss on on you know on a department there is that sort of value benchmark that I'd like to see baked into some of this that helps local businesses um you know uh in a in a more sustainable way for the community. So um Kristen I think
you made a very good point of of five years and then upping a price though uh Lucia did and her committee did look at that and value it at two you know two phases maybe it needs to be drawn out a little more and that might not be such a bad hit for for the companies. So,
that's where I'm landing on this at this point. Thank you. >> Thank you, Stuart. >> Sure. Thank you. Um I I guess I had more maybe boilerplate questions, but uh you you're when you refer in the memo your
Jill and yourself um refer to the direct costs. Direct costs are uh does that include what does that include? That includes costs that we pay. We pay an outside vendor for costs out of the town's pocket. Not handling
costs, not trucking costs for, you know, that we do internal trucking. We we haul most of the recycle materials ourselves, but the solid waste we don't haul ourselves. We hire that out. >> So, it's so direct costs are more of a question, but it's uh all of your labor
costs to run the transfer state. No, >> no, no. We don't count any of that in any of our fees here. That's direct out-of- pocket cost where we actually pay an invoice from a vendor. >> Do do we know what those costs are for I'm trying to where I'm headed is because
maybe we I guess we still do it, but we're when we looked at budgets, we look at operating budgets and capital budgets and and I'm trying to figure out what is the what's the operating cost of the of the transfer station. >> It's it's a little more challenging. I mean, we could figure out the transfer
station budget and we can roll salaries into there, but then we have to do life cycle cost of, you know, those trailers. There are four new trailers. >> Well, that that that in my mind that's that's separate from like your operating costs. Uh, so I'm just trying to distinguish the two to try to back into
this. But I think that that's a question that would be helpful, you know, in order to set fees. It's I think it's important to know what does it cost to run the place? Um, and I'm not sure I know that at the moment. Um, so anyway,
that was one question. The other question is, and it may I don't know if it's for you, Rob, or some of the uh the trucking companies, but who um what percentage I'm sure we've asked this before, but what percentage would would you say are the uh local companies uh
that are represented here tonight? And then the non-local companies that truck in here to the transfer station, use the transfer station, and then dump here. >> The the primary users are are Millie Nickerson. Um, Barrows brings a little
bit and um, Trash Butlers brings a little bit as well. Not not the same scale. Um, by far it's it's >> about 90%. >> No, it's about 2/3 for all commercial haulers bring about twothirds of our trash in >> and the other Excuse me for
interrupting. And about onethird of the stickers, the residents, correct? >> But of the of the trash haulers of that 2/3, >> would you say that about 90% is Nichson and Millie? Yeah, out of like the 4,000 tons or roughly a little higher than that that's brought in every year, I'd
say less than 100 tons is other than Millie Nickerson. >> Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Stuart. >> Sure. Um the this kind of relates to that question, but the the 9 to 11 bags of trash. Uh so I get it. I buy a dump
sticker. I do both. I buy a dump sticker and I get I use some of the hollers. So when we say 9 to 11, those are those are the people without stickers that are paying. So >> typically people typically people who have rented a house for the week. >> It's a good question though because
>> it goes to >> it. Yeah. I I mean so I don't know how we could get rid of that per or we could lower you can't because they're not paying. So anyway, that's one comment. Um the uh you know in in
in the uh early summer I I raised the issue uh and it may have been related to this but I raised the issue of how does the town look at fees verse uh tax revenue in paying for their departments?
What is the policy there? And um I don't think we have one. Um so because some of these questions and comments are going to a very very yours Richard particularly goes to a very fundamental question and that is what do we want to do much more
generally and broadly with these departments because uh listen okay we can make we could we could make an argument that we're that we're uh subsidizing some businesses in town in almost every department. It's not just
this one. Uh I we can name them off if we need to, but I think we, you know, we all know that those exist. Um uh so it's hard to get into these fees when we don't have some of these broader questions answered um that I think are
are relevant. It somebody touched on it earlier. The uh some of the fees go to the general fund and some go into am I misunderstanding that? Some >> they all go to the general fund. >> They all go to the general fund. But what was the distinction that was being made earlier about >> I was sorry I was a little confused when
Ben brought that up. I I kind of lost the train of thought on the whole thing. >> Okay. Um All right. So all of the fees I think this is just generally the case throughout the town, but all of the fees uh go into the general fund and
>> but they don't go into a transfer station. >> They don't go into a transfer station fund. Okay. >> And then the transfer station is funded from the general fund. >> Sure. Sure. Um, one of the one of my it's not going to solve this problem completely, but I do I do think we need to have that broader
discussion on fees in general because that will help us decide, you know, how much of this how much of the transfer station should the taxpayers or do the do the taxpayers want to let's use the word subsidize. I'm not sure it's the right word, but let's use that word. Um,
how much do we want to support it by tax revenue and how much do we want to support it by fees? And um I'm not sure we've I'm not sure we've answered that yet. Uh the and lastly um as in other departments, I raised this earlier
during one of these earlier discussions on the transfer station, you know, we have resident and non-resident fees. Um so we have some of those fees that are resident and non-resident. uh you know the non-residents pay a higher fee in
departments on property that we don't even own and we're we're permitted to do that here. We do know we do own the property. We we fund the transfer station. We pretty much control it. So, um I think there's ample uh experience
within the town to have a differenting differential fee between the people who pay property taxes here and live here uh or live here um and those who don't. Um I don't think that that's unreasonable because if we don't have that disparity
then I'll use the Hollers as an example who who have companies here and who have their businesses stationed here. They're, you know, you could make the argument they're paying twice. They're paying their property taxes and they're paying um their fees to use a service
that we provide. And the non-residents aren't paying property taxes to support this. They're simply paying in in this case the same fee. I think that's an important discussion to have. Um, and uh, I don't know how to
I'm not I don't know if we're going to have a vote tonight, but um, I know we want to settle this issue. I I agree that any raising of the commercial rate um, you know, should be staggered. I get that. But I think some of these other questions we have yet to answer. I mean,
they're they're they're much broader questions. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Chair, may I address just for a second? I just want to make sure we don't confuse the the definition of benefit and subsidy. You know, there are a lot of uh businesses that benefit from
either a transfer station or say dredging, but it's not a direct subsidy to, you know, you're not paying a fisherman um to, you know, have a more shallow boat or whatever. I mean, it's it's a benefit. That's how you know a
community works, but it's not >> a direct subsidy to an individual business. >> No, I get it. And well, you know, point taken. Um, you know, however, uh, you know, non-resident fishermen do pay considerably more money, uh, to use the
harbors in our facilities. So, I mean, that's a good example. Uh, so, and there's other departments, I think the shellfish for their for their recreational shellfish permits have a similar program. We do at the town landings, we have a similar similar fee structure. And I don't know why we would
have uh a different fee structure here. doesn't seem that doesn't seem so I would I would like to see that before you know uh before we put this to rest. Thanks. >> Thank you, Stuart. Well, I'm hoping we can put it something to rest tonight because this has been lingering for a
while. Um >> Dean, you know, I just want to point out um you know, when we talked about this at the last two meetings, um I did bring up the resident non-resident. I'm I don't recall the answer specifically. I think it was left unanswered. Yeah, I
think you're right. >> Yeah, I think it was just kind of floating out there. Um, but you know, this is this is what happens when >> when we're when we wait five years to address an issue that we knew was was happening. Um, I had another comment
about, okay, if we raise these fees and we're going to make $300,000 more and it's going to cover some more of our costs, where specifically is uh are those uh monies that we've been using to
subsidize from the DPW department to the to the transfer station, where where are those monies going to go? because um I mean some of it's going to go as you pointed out that you're fully staffed. I get that. Um but that's not going to account for all of it. And I'd like to know in some degree of
detail as to you know where is that I almost extra money going to go. I mean I get it. It's going to go somewhere in the DPW department because you've been using you know you've been shuffling money around appropriately to to keep the transfer station going. But that that question, you know, it it says in
the memo, well, we're just going to we're just going to use it for the other functions was in the DPW. I'd just like to know specifically where that where that is. >> Well, you know, the town of Chadam and the taxpayers
subsidize, whatever you want to call it, benefit uh various parties all over town. Um, we subsidize the fishing community by maintaining the waterfront and improving the waterfront infrastructure
by dredging. We've got an article for $400,000 for dredging. We put it in every year. That benefits the fishermen largely. It benefits the recreational community too. We benefit the tour tourism industry
by maintaining the downtown. um you can go area by area and and we're doing it and the transfer station provides a benefit to the community because it makes it possible for the orderly and efficient
disposal of trash and recyclables. Um I haven't done any survey but I'm old enough to remember having grown up in a small city that the city collected the trash. I remember the days when there was >> they collected the garbage separately and the trash separately
>> and they probably still do that. They don't separate it anymore in the city where I was came from, but I think the city is still responsible for collecting the trash. Everybody participates in it. Every taxpayer pays for it.
Um, and I think we have to keep in mind that there is a communitywide benefit from this. Um, I don't know that we can ever get to the point where the transfer station can be or should be self-
sustaining. I think some of the points that Shireen has made tonight and previously are well taken about supporting local business. Um, and so
I think we have a broad mandate up here to try to balance things on every vote we take, on every issue, and some people are going to be unhappy on every vote we take.
So, um, I'm in favor of increases, and let's face it, they're going to be passed on to the customers. That makes sense. That's reasonable. But I I think we should have a phase in of them. Um I
don't know whether it's Mr. Meetter's uh amount or Mr. Dykan's amount. Um Jeff's um number was basically splitting it 50% this year and 50% next year.
>> Yeah. Keep in mind that if we want to include the in-house costs and some proxy for maintaining our equipment that's going to factor in probably next
year or the following years. So I'd like to see something done. I think Stuart, you make a very valid point. I don't know the answer to the question about whether we can charge differentially. I would uh think if we took a look at the town manager reports over the course of
12 months, much of the trash and recyclables are coming in the summer months. Um when differential rates might have a a difference, make a difference and and maybe they buy stickers. I don't know
what they do, but um um you know, I think it's important and and I'll I'll be adding to whatever motion uh to address that. >> Okay. hopefully. >> So, um I think we we need to, you know, bring this to closure. I'd like to see it brought to closure tonight because
we've had long discussions of this. We've had discussions uh on on the whole issue of out of town trash, which is now, I guess, before the board of health. Uh and um um so I I'm going to ask for
I guess two sets of motions. one on the the larger fee which is the commercial garbage um and I guess we have to have one on this on the recycling single stream recycling but no one has really proposed a differential there uh and then we'll
take the individual categories in term in terms of whether there should be something to address mattresses and fire extinguishers I I agree with um Lane Gibbs' point that it would be ideal not to have a charge for for them But I
don't know what the fire station would do with them. Um, so does anyone want to offer a motion? And I'll ask the hollers when the motion is on the table. Um, what impact whatever the motion is might have on on them considering all the
conversation and discussion we've had tonight. >> Uh, Jeff. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, I move uh uh to um increase the commercial garbage rate from $90 a ton to $120 a ton ton year
one and fromund uh $20 a ton to $150 a ton in year two. So that would be for next fisc for I don't know if it's if we if we uh do that immediately and or um we phase that in um >> July July 1. >> July one. Okay. So as of July one July
126 is the first one and then July 127 is the second. >> Correct. Okay. Yeah. So that's that's a 30 bucks a year. >> Is there a second to that motion? >> It's basically taking the EDC recommendation. >> I'll second it but I want to make some discussion. >> Okay. Go ahead. It's been moved and second this.
>> Okay. So on the the the second phase, the up to 150, would you consider amending to have it reviewed for confirmation because we I don't want to set something so far in advance and have analysis done. So we're we're fine with
this year at one 120. I'm fine with that. It's lower than I was going to propose. So um shut my mouth. Um is that an amendment? >> But but I think I don't want to get ahead. Yeah, I would like to amend it so that the second tier is a review and then then it can be confirmed at that stage. I don't want to I don't want to
set it in stone so far in advance. >> Subject to review. That's the >> I just want to comment that as part of a a secondary motion would be our review every budget year of fees set in the transport station and perhaps elsewhere. But usually the parking w comes to us. >> Yeah. Agreed.
>> But so that would therefore address that concern. >> Yes. Agreed. >> Okay. So, so I think we qualified though that that the second year would be subject to review and you're adding a a >> larger review annually >> and I will certainly agree with Mr. Matters because it's going to be included in >> Okay, I'll second uh the amendment Mr.
Matters amendment. Is there further discussion on on Jeff's motion as amended? Stuart, >> if I could add to the motion. Yeah. um that non-resident users of the transfer station be charged
a rate three times what the resident rate will be. Uh I think that that is permitted by law. Um and uh whatever that rate might be. >> Now um >> I have no idea. >> Ask a question. >> Yeah.
>> Not to split hairs. Is that is that particular discussion um um >> is it gerine gerine to the >> are we are we covered into having that level of discussion at this particular public hearing or should we have a separate public hearing to address that
to have proper notice. I'm I'm fine having the conversation. I just I'm just looking mechanics of it. >> I think I think there are two things going on here. Number one, we're talking about the um hauler rates right now. So not sure. >> Well, so for instance, as an example, um
you know, we would vote for these hauler rates, but non-resident haulers, nonpropy taxpayer haulers would pay three times that rate. >> Okay. Now, Corey's Corey's point, I think, is well taken. The the adver the
advertisement the public notice sets um a number. I don't know that we can go higher than that without a subsequent public hearing with notice. >> All right. >> Correct.
>> I think I think we have to re >> Yeah. >> I have no problem with considering it to be honest with you. Um >> you think we have to have another hearing? >> I think we do because we've set numbers here. I think we can reduce but I don't think we can increase. >> Yeah. I I won't make this more
complicated than it needs to be, but in a perfect world, it would be >> advantageous for us to take that >> that extra revenue that we're going to make from the non-resident use and reduce this rate. I don't know if we can do that because I'm not sure we know
those numbers well enough. Um, but we probably will. And >> interesting idea coming. >> Well, we could we could have a public hearing fairly quickly on non-residents. We only need two two uh notice to publish on that. We could do something this spring on that.
>> Okay. Um and >> sorry, just to declare, so you're talking about >> commercial haulers who are not taxpayers in town, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Okay. Do we need to have that looked at legally?
>> We do. >> I would suggest it. >> So >> I would too. >> And that's fine with me. When that legal opinion comes forward, I want statutory regulatory references as to the argument, whatever the opinion is. I
don't want to see an opinion that says I believe this. Uh those, you know, that drives me crazy because I can't read what it is they're saying. >> I'm 100% with you, Stuart. >> So, it's very important. And um we do this as a matter of routine in other departments, and I I won't beat a dead
horse on property that we do not own. It's owned by the Commonwealth. this property we do own. It should be easier. Thanks. >> So, let's let's get that legal opinion. We want an anal legal analysis to support the conclusion. >> Um and um >> there's been a motion in a second.
>> There's a motion in the second on the 120 150 with the qualifications. Any more discussion from the board on that? I want to just ask that Mr. Mil Graham and and Ben, do you have any comment on that? Can you is this because you talked
about the effect on um US locals versus outside uh companies coming in. >> I um I kind of alluded to that before when we were talking with the board of health on their concerns about uh out of
town haulers utilizing the transfer station because of the um the cost and certainly there is the incentive there. So obviously eliminating that incentive would be beneficial for the town as well as us because that um inherently does
give us a small competitive edge against the big corporate guys. So it would be appreciated. Um but um >> but I'm I'm talking about I I appreciate that information and if Ben if you have anything to say on that fine too but I wanted to ask about the 120 150 phase in
that's that's currently >> Oh I mean I'm certainly in favor of of a phase in if any increase at all. Um you are right that it will um our customers will will bear that cost. obviously our our fees will go up and I I hope Cory's
right that I mean we appreciate you all as customers as all we appreciate all our customers in town and we hope that loyalty remains. Um obviously there is a breaking point. Everyone only has so much income and these businesses are in it for income as well. So where that
breaking point is uh my guess is as good as yours but I hope the loyalties remain >> as we increase pricing. Ben, did you want to speak to either of those issues? >> So, yeah, the 150 or no, the proposed 120 on the commercial trash, we can definitely we can definitely work with that. The phased in approach is
obviously preferable to give us time. Um, putting the single stream to 145, not a big issue in my eyes. It's one of the more profitable streams that we have. So, we could, you know, we could eat those costs a little bit better and not put as much onto the customer. Um
that's not as much as the case with the commercial waste, but like I said, the phased approach doing the 120 and then the 150 to be reviewed would be uh preferable for sure. >> Thank you very much both of you. Rob, did you have anything you wanted to add? I mean, obviously this phase in is going
to present some budgetary considerations for you and the town manager, but we'll have to deal with it. Yeah, I just wanted to put the the board's mind at ease um because we have multi-year contracts with both CMASS and our trucker company and um in July of 2027,
which would be two years, the our fees would be $148.30, we still be under the 150. So, if you wanted to go ahead and propose that now without revisiting at least the commercial hauler costs, we would probably, you know, we would be okay with that.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, we have a motion. Um, I don't think we need to read it back. We could, but it essentially is 120 uh
for 2026, July 1, 150 for July 1, 2027 subject to specific review for the for July 1, 2027, and to general uh review annually um of these rates. and we're talking about the the commercial garbage
rate. >> I'll call the role on that motion. Miss Davis, >> I >> Mr. Dikkins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Matters. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> And the chair votes eye. Uh and subsidiary to that we will get an opinion of town council on non
residential commercial haulers. And when that comes in, if it's positive, then we'll schedule a public hearing >> three times. Even if it's negative, >> even whatever we we'll we all right.
>> Um and so now we have um these other categories. Does anyone want to >> extract anything from here? >> Uh recycling? You want to stick with commercial haulers recycling rate? >> Yes. >> Yes. I was just going to suggest we we treat this almost like a consent calendar. Extract anything that we want
to change. >> I was just going to do that >> and then we'll take a vote on the whole rest of it. I'd like to move I'd like to move or would like to move accepting all the other rates as um presented or suggested this evening. Um but I would
like to uh delete crib mattresses uh establishing that item and charging $10 uh each. I would like to delete that. So I'll accept all the other rates except for the crib mattresses. >> You want to do anything about fire extinguishers? Delete that. >> It cost us cost us $6 to get rid of them and we should cover the cost to get rid
of them. >> A second. Okay, that's been moved and seconded. But Rob, what did you want to say? >> So what first I want to address the mattresses if you don't mind. But can that be part of the motion that there would be no charge or else we'll be forced to charge? >> There'll be no there'll be no charge for
Okay. And and then the other was the commercial haulers. Just a point of clarification. The out of town commercial haulers would only be Barrows. Um or are we talking about non-residents that are dropping bags of garbage? I don't think it was >> wasn't clear to me. >> Commercial haulers. commercial walls.
>> It would only be Barrows we're targeting which has maybe about 3% of the transfer station trash that they bring in from Chattam residents and businesses. >> Yeah. I mean for the resident non-resident discussion uh it would be for any as I mentioned anyone bringing
uh trash to the transfer station. Anything to the transfer station. >> Oh, I misunderstood that. I >> I was addressing it. Don't they? What? What? What is already? >> So, someone who is a non-resident visiting in the summertime, rents a
rents a house or whatever >> and rents one of Mr. Hogram's cottages, for example, and decides to drop something off at the transfer station. What do they do? >> We charge them by the bag. >> They show up and >> or we typically are cleaning up the beaches every weekend because people are
dumping their trash there for free. But when they show up at the gate at the transfer station, they don't declare I'm a resident or a non-resident. They're all charged the same. >> Correct. You have a sticker. >> How much I mean it's going to be something difficult the police in terms of I I
should think, you know, when someone's a resident, a non-resident, and how much I don't know how much difference it's going to make. That's all I'm ask. I >> I don't either. I mean, you know, I think it's going to be to trial it and see what the difference, you know, see what of a um, you know, what those
numbers are. Um, but, you know, we we we >> we routinely police resident and non-resident at at far more unsecured areas. >> Let's widen the the increase to town council to include more than just the commercial hollers, but all any non-resident.
>> Yeah. Any >> what >> any users of the transfer >> rate for any non-resident. So the numbers are in the spreadsheet. Um 1 to three bags we had 4,800 a year. Uh 4 to eight bags we get 500 a year. And 9 to 11 bags we had 50 a year.
>> 50. >> And are non residents eligible for a transfer station sticker? >> No. >> No. So it's just so I guess we're we're seeking clarification. Is it a person coming in or is it a house in Chattam
who hires a a non-resident commercial hauler as a separate rate? >> Yeah, it's both. It's any any users of the transfer station just like any users of our waterways gets there's a different fee for resident and non-resident and this would be the same thing. This is a secured property so it
should be easier to police. Um, so any users whether it's by bag or by fire extinguisher or by the haulers. >> Okay, we'll get that information and then we'll take it back. >> Determine where to go. Okay, so right now there's a motion on the table.
>> Uh, it's been seconded, I believe. Has been seconded. Um, to adopt the rest of the the recommendations with the exception of the crib mattresses. >> Mr. Chair, can I rob one quick question? >> Yes. >> Um, sorry. Before
I like jump on my D on my sword with the fire extinguishers, I know like you know we find things that get put in bags thrown in the in the blue building that shouldn't be there. We found those with lawn chairs. We were popping tires. We ended up getting that metal bin that gets collected, you know, that people
don't have to pay and they have smaller items and I think it's been a a wonderful asset to the to the transfer station because it's usually full and it's stuff that you're not finding in the blue building. >> I know. Do you think people are throwing away any extinguishers in the blue building? You think that's an issue or it's really
the $2 or $6 is going to be a non-issue? >> I'm I'm sure it happens and people, you know, whether it's $2 or $6, uh, people are going to try to get away with something. It's a it's a creature of habit. I mean, we could make it so um it's a free service to the community. We're only talking about a roughly 100
fire extinguishers a year, right? >> So, it's not a huge cost. Um, but do you want to open that up to possibly other, you know, people cleaning out um commercial buildings and dumping all the fire extinguishers there? I mean, I don't know. It could open it up, but ju just for my two cents, I'm looking
around some of like my, you know, my dad's old workshop and stuff. There's old fire extinguishers there and I'm thinking, oh, I don't want to do it or honestly, if there was it's free, people are going to do it. It's not a big number. I'd like to see the recycling program that we collect them for free.
get them out of people's garages and basement and stuff and it's not going to really pinch us that much. So, >> I mean I I can second that if that's a motion. >> Yes. Yes. And and I would that's fine. >> So, we're we're amending the motion to include the to exclude fire extinguisher. >> Correct. There'll be no charge on charge for fire extinguisher.
>> I I'm in agreement with that. I I had to dispose of a fire extinguisher. One time I took it to Haritch because I thought it was um >> you know >> hazardous and they said no, you have to go back to Chadam with it which I wound up doing. There is uh someone who wants
to speak online before we uh so that so that amendment was made and seconded. >> Yes. >> Um I don't know who seconded it but somebody did. >> I did. >> Okay. >> Uh Kim Buren, I think you wanted to speak. I saw John Helgren with his hand up again too. I'll let Miss Buren.
>> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Please speak. I just want to be sure that as you go forward, you clarify what you're referring to as resident and non-resident because, as you know, there's a conversation in your
future agenda items about resident, non-resident. And as a homeowner, there should be no difference in what I'm paying at the transfer station versus someone who is considered
uh resident. And and this is where you're using a lot of terminology about resident, non-resident. Um that would be a very different proposal if you're saying that people who have
homes full-time property owners are going to be charged differently at the transfer station than someone who is a also property owner is a full-time resident. >> Very very well taken. We have we have um
for example at the Aldridge garage uh if you are a property owner >> but not a year-round resident you can park for free. >> Yeah and I had mentioned maybe not loudly enough that property owners in this case and I think in the rest of our fee cases are considered residents for
fee purpose. >> We will certainly keep that in mind um thank >> for consideration. Thank you John Hogwin. Your final comment please. Yes, I would appreciate very much being not having to pay for fire extinguishers because I got off I have to buy new ones
every six years and I have a few of them stacked up that I would love to get rid of. I wouldn't mind paying two bucks but six bucks not so much. Thank you. >> All right, so everybody understand the motion before us? I will call the role. Miss Davis >> I.
>> Mr. Dykens. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> And the chair votes eye. We are done with this I think tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone. Thank you to the two committees and uh we'll proceed now with the rest of the uh
agenda for this evening. Uh we have a consent agenda uh uh two items. One is uh reissuing the 2026 annual entertainment license to Uncle Tony's LLC. This has to do with the DBA name change
and also to consider the request to use town property from Castlebury Fairs on July 11th to 12th, August 1 to and 1 and two, September 12 and 13, 2026 at 702 Main Street, Shadam. That's the community center. Um, does anyone want
to extract anything from this? I think I had a question for clarification if I can find it. Yeah. On um Kathy on the uh second one on the Castleberry Fairs, I'm not proposing to extract this, but um
the answer to um the on the facility use application form, will goods be sold or raffled? I'm assuming that goods are being sold or raffled. They checked no. Um they're selling arts and crafts there. So perhaps that could be
clarified with the applicant. >> That is correct. And I will clarify. >> I think the applicant is actually online, but >> um they host the craft fair and vendor. >> So that's probably why they said no. >> Exactly. They they organize vendors at the craft fair.
>> Answer should be there. So does anyone have a motion to approve the consent calendar with these two? >> Move to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. moved and seconded. Um, call the role. Miss Davis, I >> Mr. Dikkins. Hi. >> Mr. Matters. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi.
>> And the chair votes side. Next are public comments on the business agenda if anyone wants to make them now or we can take them when the various items are brought up contemporaneously. I don't see anybody in the audience or online. So, we'll proceed with the
business agenda. The first item is um town manager appointment extension and amendment to the employment agreement dated December 6, 2022. This is calling for a vote. This is for board discussion. Public comment will not be accepted. This is um a personnel matter.
We are required to consider this um for vote in public session. Uh let me just say a couple of things um to introduce this. There is a memo in the file from the town manager. Um the town manager um
yes um uh came to me and asked um if the board um could consider extending or renewing her contract which currently as town manager and her appointment which currently expires
um on June 30th, 2027. I I um asked if she could put a request in writing and told her I would put it before the board for consideration. Um, as indicated in her memo, her her um
reason for requesting this was related to her own personal professional retirement planning um and to the continuity of town management um and governance in in Chadam. Uh the the
select board conducted two executive sessions um to consider the town manager's um um request uh under the um provisions of the open meeting
law which allow for such. Um and we have before us a form of an amendment to the contract um which is before the board for consideration. the town manager uh has indicated her
agreement to the amendment. Um and associated with the extension proposed for the contract u under state law and under the charter uh if that is approved by the select board uh we would
also need to approve an extension of her appointment as town manager. I do want to clarify that um the town manager's annual evaluation
was not the subject of the executive session. That is a separate business item and that will be taken up in usual course uh this spring. Um so um because the matter was con discussed in executive session under the
open meeting law um uh until the minutes of the two executive sessions are um prepared and adopted um which they would be open for um once the purposes of the
executive session are concluded. Um the board members tonight are not permitted to discuss the contents of the executive session. However, um I expect
um that we will have before us a motion to consider the approval of the extension and board members are free to discuss here openly um and deliberate their views
on whether to approve or not approve and whatever reasons they might want to give. Um so I is that clear with it for everybody? Um so with that I'm I'm going to invite a motion so just so we can
begin the discussion. Um there is a suggested motion. Um and I think it probably should be combined. There are two parts to it. Let me put the motion on the table and I'll ask for a second and then we can go into discussion. I move that
the select board uh a vote to approve an appointment extension of um for Jill our goalsmith as town manager from July 1, 2027 through June 30th, 2031 and to approve the amendment to the town manager employment agreement dated
December 6, 2022. Is there a second to that? >> Second. >> So that's been moved and seconded. So now I'll just throw it open for discussion. Whoever wants to speak first if there are any comments. Corey,
>> lucky me gets to go first. Um I don't want to over over complicate my position and I and I'll and I know we can't really go into the executive session discussion. So um you know this is not my the first time I've participated in uh a contract negotiation with the town manager. um
completely understand um you know through discussions why the um request was made um as early as it was but because it is early um I've I've had
concerns with optics um traditionally we would be looking at probably talking about the negotiation somewhere in the fall Septemberish um in fairness town um labor council has had discussions with and certain suggestions said that maybe
it would be better to do it more in late May, June. Um, but that's not February and March. Um, I I think there's elements of the contract that are worthy for just for for validation. I think
some of the things are, you know, components are reasonably requested. Um, but I have a uh I've had a significant issue uh which I've expressed both um directly to the town manager and and you know in our discussions um with the
timing of it. Um I think um we have an election coming up. Uh I think this is um it's a little unusual timing wise. While I understand why it was asked, um I'm not comfortable with taking it taking this action this early, which is
why um I guess well I abstain from the moving forward with endorsing it and um I will continue that position um tonight. >> Yeah. I just wanted to clarify that the the labor council, Mr. Clifford, was not in our executive sessions. Mr. Dykins
and I met I asked Mr. Dykins to help me to review um uh the draft amendment which the town manager asked um um uh the labor council to prepare for us uh
for our consideration uh and um >> just to clarify Mr. Chair. So the ask was understanding that labor council does not represent me. That's correct. >> Form of agreement was requested by the >> Yes. Yes.
uh and um so I asked Mr. Dykens to uh review that document with me uh and we uh Mr. Dikkins and I met separately with the labor council and um um the changes that he's proposing to that are being
proposed to several paragraphs in the current agreement come from labor council as um sort of um clarified with input from Mr. Dykens and myself. I think that's a fair summary um
Jeff and um so that's what's being presented. I just really wanted to clarify that that Mr. Clifford was not in the executive sessions, but he did he did say that um typically um it is advantageous to
um begin review of um town manager or town administrator agreements a full year ahead and that's so it would have been earlier than September but he acknowledged that this is somewhat early. Okay. Is there who wants to speak next?
I'll be glad to, Mr. Go ahead. Yeah, I I echo your your summary of the conversation with with Attorney Clifford, >> who works for us, not Jill. Um, and he made the I think a salient point that um we should be reviewing town manager contracts at least a year prior to their
expiration. Reason being is that um it gives both parties if you're if we're not intending to renew, gives both parties uh time to look for another job. In the case of the town manager, you might be replacing and then also for the
town to um hire to vet um hire consult and vet candidates and hire a new town manager within a year's time frame. So I I I buy into that notion um you know to you know to a fairly well. Um I think
that's good counsel. So, we might be two or three months uh in advance of that if we were to start the the search, if you will, if we weren't pleased with Jill's um management. We'd start it. And we can argue perhaps that we're two or three months early, but um I'm not
uncomfortable with that um because our town manager asked for us to u duly consider um an extension of her of her contract. And um I I did vote um in executive session. will vote again this evening to support her continued
employment through 2031. Um, and I'm not going to sing praises this evening. I'll be, but being said that, um, the town is in good hands and it's running well. Um, we're from a fiscal standpoint, from an
employee standpoint from, in my mind, um, one of the finest IT departments, uh, in any municipality across the state. We stay on the forefront of it all the time. Um, I really appreciate the senior management team that Jill has built here. Um, including Kathleen as
the new assistant, um, and Greg Burman and Rob Phley and, um, certainly Carrie and then her appointment of Candace I think was was well done. The smart move, Jason Holm. home. I mean, I can can list virtually every senior manager in this
town is exemplary and that's not without Jill's direction, input, guidance, etc. So, she's got a great team and she's managing it well. Is any is everybody perfect? No. But, but I am extremely comfortable with with having her um on
board um for another four years after the three years after the expiration of this contract. I am four years I should say after the expiration of this contract. I I I've I've been a select board member for 12 years and I will be for 15. And I I I look around at the
difficulty that other towns have had and are having with replacing their town's manager with a true professional and I see many struggling and I won't name the towns but there have been recent regional towns next door neighbors etc and the outer cape that have really
struggled with having professional management um in place. So, um, again, I'm not going to repeat myself, but I'm extremely comfortable with Jill's extension and I look forward to working with her for the balance of my term um, for the next two years after this year. Thanks,
>> Stuart. I think you wanted to speak. >> Yep. >> And then, >> um, >> and Shireen after that. >> Sure. Uh, I'm I'm not going to support the extension of this contract. Um, I've outlined uh my concerns um to the board
uh uh in executive session, but primarily um it's due to the fact that this is highly unusual, unusually early. Um I've uh you know, I've had the privilege of being on the board now for
eight or nine months and um I served for 39 years under three different town managers. um um uh during my career I have a different perspective than Mr. Dykens. Um and it um uh there's there's some
good and there's uh but it's not all good. Uh um and uh I haven't had the opportunity to do an evaluation. Um I think that you know um
why we're doing this early uh has not been explained um well enough for me. Uh it's being done before uh the next election in May. that's that's going to be in uh now an open seat and uh it's
before our evaluation process that I haven't had the opportunity to take place had to do and that usually takes place in uh April. Um the the last one I think was April 29th. Um so um
I would uh and I expressed this that um this issue should be postponed until uh early to midsummer so we can address it uh properly and how it has been done uh historically and in the past and um I'm
not I'm not going to support this extension. >> Thank you Shireen. >> Uh thank you Dean. Uh so this process and agreement um provides important continuity and stability in the leadership of our town and I think it ensures that Chadam continues to benefit from Jill's experience, her
institutional knowledge and steady management. equally important. Um I think this extension and and working on this at this time uh this particular board has institutional experience working collaborative collaboratively with her
and it reinforces our commitment to stable professional governments govern governance um and I wanted to thank you Jeff and Dean for your work through this structuring this process. For those reasons, I fully support the vote to approve the extension and amendment to
the town manager's contract. >> Thank you. Um I'm going to support the u the motion as well. Um I've been on the board for 11 years along with Corey. Um, I respect what, you know, Stuart said
about his not having done an evaluation, but Stuart certainly is in a position to have from his unique perspective as a former staff member um um his views on
um on the town manager's um performance in office. Um, I'm not looking to have a new town manager. Um, our town manager, I think, is the third in seniority
among all the 15 Cape Towns. Am I right on that? And her salary is right in the middle, number nine of the 15 towns. Um, I've done 10 evaluations. Corey's
done 10. Jeff, you've probably done 11 or 12 and Shireen maybe eight. >> Eight. >> Um, and I know we have an election, but I think a new person come June
is not going to have very much to say in terms of direct experience uh, working with Jill as town manager. So, you know, I don't want to belabor it. Um obviously it's going to be um you know a split vote. Uh I respect
everybody's uh individual views on this. Um but I personally think it's in the best interest of the town to uh to approve um this appointment and this extension. I think the language in the in the
document protects the town. Uh and um I think everybody on this board is acting in what he or she perceives to be in the best interest of the town. I respect that. So with that, unless there's any more discussion, I will call the role on
this. Miss Davis, >> I uh Mr. Dikkins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows, >> I abstain. >> And Mr. Smith, >> no. >> And the chair votes side. So it's three two I'm sorry, 311. 311. the 311 >> 311
um Jill, did you have anything you wanted to add? >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um I wanted to thank the board. I respect the discussion this evening and I remain committed to working with each of you in service to the community. As I shared in
the report, this is going to be my final employment agreement and retiring for public service in 2031. After 30 years of service in local government and 15 here in Chadam, I feel both grateful and very proud of the work
we've accomplished together. My goal over the next several years is to um is to support the board's policy direction, strengthening the organization, and ensuring that the town is well positioned for the next
generation of leadership. It's been an honor to serve the community, my home. So, thank you very much for your vote. >> Thank you. Okay, we'll u proceed now to this next item on the business agenda, which is the residential exemption FY2027
subject of trusts. This is continued from our meeting on January 13, 2026. We had asked um our director of assessing um Candace Cook to um give us a report on the properties held in trust. This is
not a general discussion of the wisdom or nonwisdom of the residential tax exemption. I just want to get that clear. Go ahead. >> So, good evening, select board members. So, the question that had been proposed at the last meeting at January 13th, um how many properties were held in trust?
So, when I ran my report and when I ran the report, I did exclude all of the vacant properties as well as exempt because if I do include those, it would be around 2500. but excluding those that put puts it down to 1,764
properties that are held in trust. And then you wanted to know the breakdown between resident versus non-resident. There's no way to determine exactly. So the best way is to do it by zip code. So when I did a Cadam zip code, stratify it, it was 802 properties had a Cadam
zip code and then there were 962 properties that had that did not have a Chadam zip code. And then the other question that was raised was what were the assessed value ranges? It was starting at 159,600 all the way up to 12,924,500.
That 159 is a condominium. That's why it's a little lower. Now the other question that was proposed um we wanted to know about that January 1 deadline. Is there any way around it? Um, unfortunately the applicant if there is a trust that's involved, they have to
be listed as both a trustee and a beneficiary or they have to be listed as an owner as of January 1st. Um, we did consult I consulted with the um, Department of Revenue lawyer, John Ganon, and unfortunately there's no exception um, under the law. It is that
January 1 deadline. I did reach out to the um province town assessing office to determine how they handle properties that are in trust when there's an applicant that files a residential exemption and they just said that if they're not listed as both a trustee and a beneficiary, they wouldn't qualify for
that year. And then lastly, um just to let you know, corporations and LLC companies, they are not they do not qualify under residential exemption. >> Thank you, Candace. uh you included um two documents one which was an
explanation I don't know who prepared it sort of I think you called it um RTE 101 um of how the RTE works and then there was the legal opinion from uh division of local services of the department of
revenue dated April 20 uh April 2022 uh which I read I assume my colleagues read it as well. I thought this was very interesting because with respect to the whole issue of trust, this is what it deals with. um it's far more expansive
uh and provides greater opportunity to qualify for the trust than the previous opinion that I remember seeing that either you or Dale or both of you showed me sometime in the past which I think dated from 2016
>> which was very arbitrary >> right so I think what you're referring to is the scheduled beneficiaries that is obviously the easiest way to be able to determine if they have a a beneficial interest. But with reading this, we're realizing that there's other things that
we can look at within the trust documents because we know that not all trust documents are the same and not all of them have the schedule beneficiaries, especially with the mass general laws um chapter 184 section 35. They actually eliminated the requirement to have the
schedule beneficiaries listed. >> Yeah, it's interesting. And they do say for example um I'll just quote from the paragraph on under question four this is on the second page um this you have to show that in
addition to being the named trustee >> you are also a beneficiary uh of the trust and they refer to that as having needing to have a sufficient beneficial interest and it's it says can be judged by determining
if the applicant in fact occupies the doicile and therefore is a presumably a beneficiary. >> Correct? >> So that's one way you could qualify. So I could show up I have to show you my trust agreement. >> Correct.
>> But I can show you my or you check the town clerk to see if I'm a registered voter. >> The tax returns most likely would >> So and that would answer the question, right? >> Yes. And then there's other options. >> There are others. That's or the trust documents show
>> any of the following. The applicant is named as a named beneficiary in a recorded certificate of trust. Sometimes they are and sometimes most of the times they're not. >> Right? >> Is a named beneficiary in the trust instrument. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's
not. Or reference schedule of beneficiaries. has an express right to occupy the doicile under the trust instrument or has one a right to manage or benefit from the trust assets such as the power to amend or terminate the trust direct
the trustee and the management of the trust or the right to receive distributions of income or principle and two no one else has a beneficial interest in the property that is inconsistent with the applicant's occupancy of the property as a doicile under the trust instrument. So there are
various ways. Now that's going to call for interpretation by examination and interpretation by the assessing department and with the advice of town council I would imagine. So >> I I I submit that it's better than it this reads better than the older
version. >> Mhm. >> But I'm not sure it from my standpoint it provides a clear black and white for everybody in town. So >> probably not. There's going to be some research. >> I'm going to throw it open for any questions or discussion you want because
I have a suggestion. But go ahead. >> I I thought be honest with you, both documents were excellent. Um I I think they ought to we ought to get them out there. Um whether they're part of the assessor's um >> they're on our website. >> Okay. All right. That that's what I wanted to be certain of. And I think the
fact that even if you're out there isn't a schedule of beneficiaries, if you're a trustee, you have a trust and you're a trustee and you're in doiciled in that I think that's as you say pacy evidence that you know you're a resident and you should be you should be included you should be you should uh be approved for
RTE for residential tax exemption. But I thought this was this is very simply laid out. And >> yeah, speaking of >> thought was very good >> attachments. The memo also included I guess a sample of um a postcard I guess you're planning to send out to everybody
in town. >> Um >> it's in the staff report. Okay, here it is. Yes. >> One quick one quick followup that April 1st 27 is the deadline. >> That is correct. 27, not 25 correct because you wouldn't have necessarily
your your uh 25 tax return if you will done. >> Right. And that's why we're thinking about sending the postcards probably around April because you do have to April 15th to file your 2025 tax returns. >> Right. And your status as as a beneficiary and trustee has to be
established as of January >> January 1st, 2026. Correct. >> If if this goes into effect for FY 2027. >> Yep. Anybody else have any questions? I I did want to mention that
the finance committee has submitted um a proposed article for the select board to consider placing on the warrant that calls for a one-year delay so that the issue can be studied more
and perhaps alternatives developed. Um I told uh the finance chair that uh if he submitted that I would put it on the agenda. I would probably have it on the agenda as early as next week or the following week. So just wanted because the subject of delay
for you has come up. It's been mentioned in passing here. So I don't know what you want to do with this but if anything but at the present time it's up to you guys if you want to discuss it further. Yes, >> you should put it on our agenda
>> and we'll take a look. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Sure. I think that that would be helpful to have it on a an agenda. Um I mean, looking at this timeline, it
looks like we still have some time. I mean, I I'll be I I support the residential tax exemption for all of the reasons of trying to make this community more affordable for the people who have lived here. And I mean, it's we're
losing this battle and we need to stem this tide. Um, however, there's always a however or but the January 1st J 2026 date deadline is problematic.
that date has passed. The you know the the the the public had four months to get their >> documents survived >> documents together. I don't know whether that's a sufficient amount of time. I don't know whether the town you know
advertised this as because it was new to people. Um uh so um but we can still ponder that at the next agenda. >> Yeah. I mean, as I as I understand, uh, the article from the finance committee, and they're not the only ones requesting
a or urging a delay. I know the summer residence committee is moving in that direction, too. They're asking for town meeting to give its advice to the select board to delay this. That's what essentially their article is.
>> Yeah. I think Andy Young was hinted to that. >> Yes, exactly. He did. Yes, he did. Um but uh there's there is uh we talked about sort of the more I'll call it more generous options for establishing beneficiary status but there may be some
people who are going to have some difficulty establishing the legal um status as a trustee >> depending on the circumstances. So, anybody I have anything they want to do here or further discussion? We This
isformational to us. >> So, we'll I have a I have a a what if >> Candace assume that the uh the resident year- round resident has a trust um that doesn't comply and the beneficiary is
difficult to ascertain. And so one would think one would um conclude that they they are they don't satisfy the the the requirements of the residential tax exemption as of 11 126. But say I go to work on my my trust documents or I
change my trust and I do have them in place at 11 127. Would I not then be um would I not be able to get RTE until 1128? you would be eligible for the next fiscal year which would be fiscal 28.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, so okay. But it would still be a year hence calendar year-wise from 1127 wouldn't be to you know 7128 where that year that I would would get the reduction. >> That's right. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Thanks. >> All right. I don't see any public comment either. So, all right. Well, thank you Candace on this one. Um we'll um probably have a more general discussion when uh when the finance committee article is put before us
uh in a week or two. Um next we have um several articles for town meeting review uh to vote to vote to place and recommend I guess as well. Um first
is um the overlay funding for the residential exemption. K Carrie Carrie Mazerell our director of finance. Welcome. >> Good evening everyone. Um so I thought this was um kind of the place to put
this right after this discussion. Um, so as mentioned in January, um, we need a funding source to be able to, um, support the RTE. Um, and it was
discussed that, um, at the time that it would be a 20% residential tax exemption. And it was stated that um there was a overlay exposure kind of there for the
20% in the amount of 1.5 million that we'd need to be able to fund if um not everybody applied for the RTE right away when the tax rate is set. So, say 60% of people apply and they get the RTE, the
additional 40% we'd still need to fund if they applied for it and they were eligible. So, as stated in January, we have we can use our current overlay balance of 500,000 to cover the 1.5, but then
there's still a funding gap of a million. Um, and it was mentioned that we could use $500,000 of free cash to cover a portion of that. I know it's not the full amount, but it's something and
it's something to get us started at least. Um, so I know that um if there is a delay um we still want to be able to prepare this when it is implemented. So,
>> so Carrie, let me let me just ask um because I I I I don't support the um the exemption. Everybody knows that. >> Correct. >> But um if if the money is voted um by town meeting to go into the
overlay and and it's delayed, you'll still have that money available. What if what if the determination is made by the select board not to not just delay it, but to not do it? What happens to that 500,000? Does that stay in the overlay account? >> No, we can um have the uh board of
assessors vote for overlay surplus and then we can um put it towards something else. We can put it into a stabilization or we can fund our oped or okay, >> you know, whatever we want to do with those funds, we can do with those funds. Um but each year we we would normally do
that at um we would normally have 150,000 voted for overlay surplus and put it into stabilization or OPED, but we just did not do that this. >> Okay. So we have before us an article that's being proposed to place on the warrant to fund the overlay in the
amount of 500,000 and we're being asked to place it and recommend it. Does anyone want to offer a motion and we can discuss it? >> I move to place. >> Second. >> Second. moved moved and seconded to place. Any discussion on that? Corey? >> Um I'll just make one comment. I appreciate that your previous comment
about what would happen if actually to the chair's question if if it was not um recommended by the uh select board about the exemption, what would happen to the funds. >> Um I'm looking at it as kind of a placeholder. It's not like we're going to waste the money. We're just kind of categorizing it.
>> If it moves forward, we use it. If we don't have a use for it, we can utilize it in another manner. So, um, that gives me some confidence in actually supporting this because my my position on the, uh, uh, original tax exemption has, uh, evolved. So, thank you.
>> You're very welcome. >> It gives me the same comfort because I wasn't sure which way I was going to vote on this. All right. Any more discussion? If not, I'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> I. >> Mr. Dikkins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Matters. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> And the chair votes I. So, is there a motion to recommend?
>> Move to recommend, Mr. Chairman. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Moved and seconded to recommend. I'll call the role. Miss Davis. Hi. >> Mr. Dyik. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Uh, Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> And the chair votes eye. So, it's placed
and recommended. Okay. Now, we have um several articles dealing with um um these are basically veterans exemptions except Massachusetts general laws chapter 59 section 5. There are three different clauses. We can take
them one by one. This was in response to the board at Mr. Dykan's initial request. Um I think Mr. Taylor was involved in that too uh to consider various exemptions. You looked at them. You've coming you're
coming back with three that relate to um the veterans. One of which would benefit the veterans I think in the >> RTE. >> But go ahead. Why don't we take them one by one? The first is clause 22G. This is from the bra the brave act. So, in your
memo, you'll notice that there was a recommendation from the board of assessors to adopt both the Brave Act and the Hero Act. So, under clause 22G, this would allow a municipality to grant a property tax exemption to a disabled
veteran if their property is held in a trust. However, they're not listed as a trustee, but they would still have to occupy the property as their primary residence and they would still have to have at least a 10% disability rating as noted by the Department of Veteran
Affairs and then have be honorably discharged. The other changes is the resident residency eligibility. It used to be five years, now it's reduced down to two. And this is a local adoption that has to be adopted. >> And this has to be passed by town meeting.
>> Correct. Um, so this one, uh, as I read it, um, am I correct? This would allow a veteran, uh, who meets the requirements to, um, qualify for the residential tax exemption, if we have a residential tax
exemption, even though they're not named as a trustee. >> You know, I'd have to look into that to see because they might be different requirements because this is specifically related to the veteran exemption. >> Okay. All right. Well, then I withdraw what I said. I I've read that to assist
veterans in extremist act. This is the brave act veteran clause 22G. We're being asked to and there's a draft article. >> Yep. >> And we're being asked to uh place and amend uh place and recommend this. >> Mr. Chairman, I I move to place the
Brave Act >> 22. 22G >> 22G. Yep. Of Mass General Law Chapter 59. >> And Steuart seconded it. So I'll call the role. Uh, Miss Davis. Hi, >> Mr. Dykins. Hi, >> Mr. Matters. >> Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> Chair votes. Is there a motion to recommend?
>> Move. Move to recommend, Mr. Chairman. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Call the role. Miss. Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dikkins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Matters. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> Chair votes. >> Next is clause 22i. This is the Hero Act. >> So, we're going to do 22i and 22J together. They kind of relate together.
>> I and J together. Okay. So the hero act is honoring, empowering and recognizing our service members and veteran act. Now these clauses expand local property tax exemption for qualified um disabled veterans and their family. So for 22i,
what this allows is for a cost of living increase. So it provides a local option property tax exemption for disabled veterans and the qualifications are still the same that you'd have to have the 10% disability and be honorably discharged. they have to own and occupy
the property as their primary residence and there could be some cir circumstances where the surviving spouse would qualify. So, by adopting the COLA, because this is a local adoption, what that would do is it would increase the exemption amount per the cost of living
yearly, and I'll give examples in a moment. >> And we have approximately 63 qualified veterans that would benefit them for this. >> And we have something on the screen here. Um,
>> do you want me to go back >> because this is 22 I? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Any questions on this? >> All right. And then go to the next slide. Would you, Candace, please? >> So 22J, um, this is another enhancement.
They kind of work together. 22I and 22J. It's another tax relief for the disabled veterans. Again, um, you do have to, you know, own occupy the property as their primary residence, have that 10% disability, and be honorably discharged. Now what this does is the board um the
select board does have the discretion to go up to 100% and as I mentioned the board of assessors did recommend that full 100% but you can do a lesser amount um and that would increase the amount of the exemption. This is a local option as well so it does have to be voted on and
in certain circumstances surviving spouses would be eligible as well. >> Okay Mr. Chairman, I I move to place the Hero Act, both uh uh clause 22I and 22J on on the warrant. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. I'll call the role.
Um Miss Davis, >> I. >> Mr. Dykins, >> hi. >> Mr. Matters. >> Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> And the chair votes I. Is there a motion to recommend? >> Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend it as well. Second that. >> Moved and seconded. Call the role. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dikkins. Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I.
>> And the chair votes I. >> Thank you, Candace. Thank you, Carrie. >> Yeah, thanks you guys. >> Following up, >> the last item on the agenda is the Boston Gas Company easement 128 training field road. Um, who's presenting this? Mr. Philly.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, just quite simply, this is a gas service proposed for the new PAS treatment uh plant on Trainingfield Road. Um the gas service would provide heat and uh power for the generator and it would come in. It would
be a 2-in gas line coming in through the driveway closest towards Old Queen End Road. The the only question I had Thank you. Um the article, the motion authorizes the grant of the easement. It doesn't
identify the grantee by name. Is there a reason for that? I mean, it looks like Boston Gas Company, which I guess is technically is still a legal subsidiary of National Grid, is would be owner. I didn't see that in there, and I I'm happy to prove this tonight. Um, but we
should clarify if there's something missing. Who >> Mr. chair. Um so last year when um looking at the easements that were put in last year, town council recommended not naming the company should it change
names. Okay. >> And that way, you know, should it be assumed by a new company name? Okay. >> Um his recommendation on LA and this this um was modeled after last year. We had three easement grants at on town meetings last year and this was this
article was based off of those that form. >> Um but I can double check with town. >> We should check it. I mean it could say Austin Gas or whatever it is or their successors >> and assigns just this clarify that for when it's placed for when it's acted on.
Stuart, did you have a question? >> Ju just a brief one. um these types of agreements, does town council typically review them and give some sort of a okay? It used to years ago used to be on a piece of paper. >> So um as indicated in the staff report
and um director FY when it initially came in it these initially come in as an easement and then typically what we do and what we did in this instance back in October is town council reviews the easement. We request a license in the interim so work can commence and be
completed and then um it because the easement requires town meeting action. Um so town council has reviewed the easement that is in your packet and he was okay with the forum. Director Phley also expressed um he was okay with the format of the easement. So yes, they are
reviewed and the license that was granted back in October was also reviewed. >> Yeah. Okay. And I see that under the staff report. I just remember years ago it used to be part used to be with the signatures here but whichever fine. Thanks.
>> I I will tell you from my own experience there was always a phrase on documents approved as to form. >> Yeah. Right. That's what I'm signed by the city solicitor or town council or the assistant attorney general. >> Um okay. Is there a motion to place this on >> Mr. Chairman? >> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. Uh I'll call the role. Miss Davis. I >> Mr. Dykens. Mr. Meadows. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> And the chair votes eye. Is there a motion to recommend? >> Yes. Move to recommend. Move to recommend. Yep. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Miss Davis. >> Hi, >> Mr. Dyken. Hi, >> Mr. Meadows. I
>> Mr. Smith, >> I. >> Chair votes I. >> Okay, that completes the business agenda, the entire agenda for tonight. Um, I'll entertain a motion, the final motion of the evening. >> Motion to adjurnn. Mr. Chairman, >> second. >> Moved and seconded. Call the role. Miss Davis.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Dykins. Hi, >> Mr. Matters. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> And the chair votes eye. We are adjourned at >> 7:4 >> 7:41 p.m. >> Good night, Chadam. >> Thank you. >> So close.