Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the March 10th, 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 20th 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025
extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 3A section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Select Board is being conducted in person and via remote remote participation. Every
effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for it 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 158-9454410 conference ID 20386491
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 item of business is to establish a quorum. Miss Miss Davis >> present. >> Mr. Dykins >> present. >> Mr. Matters. >> Mr. Smith >> present. >> And the chair was present. Uh we have a very long meeting tonight. So we're
going to proceed right into with the minutes. We have two sets of minutes. The first are the minutes of February 17th, 2026. Do I hear a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. >> Is there a second? >> Moved and seconded. Any corrections?
The chair has several. Um, page five. Um, second to last paragraph, which begins finance chair, finance committee chair Steven Daniel. And the second line right in the middle, the word by should
be from from the finance committee. from the members of the finance committee. >> Yeah. Um second is on page six. Um again this is the second to last paragraph.
In the last line it begins Brian Phillips Chattam in the in the last line of that paragraph uh fourth word in should be to instead of of an increase. I'm sorry. >> Yeah,
>> it's it's correct as it is. I'm sorry. Right. It's correct as it is. Forget that. Um page seven. Um no, I'm sorry. Page eight. Uh fourth line down. The word
um it's the fifth line down. The word promotion should be promoting. With that, I'll take a vote. Um, Miss Davis, >> I miss Mr. Dykins. >> I, >> Mr. Meadows, >> I. >> Mr. Smith, >> I.
>> Chair votes I. So, those are approved. The next are the minutes of February 25th, 2026. Is there a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Any corrections? >> I have a couple. >> Yes. >> Page 11, the third paragraph down. Starting with discussion, return to the
to the board. I would like to insert members and I'll give this to you Kath. Members stated that the town had supported prior requests from neighboring towns to expend CPA monies for the development of affordable housing projects by the same for-profit
developer and asked why the select board would not recommend similar support for a project in their own town. And I'll get that to you, Kat. >> Okay. I have a knit on page 12. Towns missing on the community preservation historic annual towing is town meeting
number three. Town meeting just okay any others? I have three Stuart. >> Uh after you if I could >> Okay, >> go back to the 17th. Sorry, I missed >> um Okay. Uh so on page uh six
second line uh where it says recommended that she apply I I would sub strike she apply and insert recommended that it be taken up closer to June 30th.
Um then on page seven, I'd like to add this um language in the second paragraph after the word presentation. Uh and for his successful stewardship of the school district
during his time as superintendent, comma, let me read that again. And for his successful stewardship of the school district during his time as superintendent, comma. And then on page 11 um I'm sorry it's on page um yes page 11
um third line down right at the top strike the word citing and insert asserting and the verb after it I would just strike the s asserting concern.
And then finally on page 12 um second paragraph after the period strike the period insert a comma and add and about the limited 10-year period of of restoration viability and about the limited 10-year period of
restoration viability. Those are all I have with that. I'll ask Stuart, yours is on the prior one, right? >> Yes, if you don't. >> Okay. >> Um so I'll ask for a vote on this. Um, Mr. Miss Davis. >> Hi, >> Mr. Dikkins. >> Hi, >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi, >> Mr. Smith.
>> I the chair votes I Stewart. >> Sure. Thanks. I I miss Mr. Sticky here. So, on on page uh 13 uh on the 17th minutes um under grant match fund. >> Yeah. >> Um that second paragraph is is correct.
But I also uh mentioned that um those uh those RFPs and the grant should come before the uh select board before being executed. I think if you review the tape it'll see my wording. >> Do we have language? Do you want to insert a
Kathy? Can you u insert that thought? So I'll have to ask for a vote on this because we already approved that. I'll ask for vote a motion to amend the minutes to include that language that Mr. Smith just asked. Some move to >> second >> moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dikkins. >> Hi.
>> Mr. Meadows. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. Thank you. >> Chair votes. I. Okay. >> Thank you. Next, we have public announcements and agenda item requests. I have one I on the agenda. At the request of the chair of the finance committee, I'm going to take one item
out of order. This is under the business agenda Roman numeral 7 um paragraph C. um um small Roman numeral six the implementation of the residential tax exemption. I'm going to take that up first among all those articles. So it
will precede the airport article. Um any u agenda item request or public announcements from the board uh uh from the public? I understand there is a that Pette Failig wishes to make an an announcement. Pette, are you online?
>> Yes. >> Hi. Yes. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Hi. Um, Plet Fail, 274 Main Street. I'm with Cadam Recycles, and we are announcing our 14th annual book and media swap. It will be next weekend, March 21st and 22nd from 9:00 a.m. to
2:00 p.m. at the Chattam Town annex uh down the hill and around the back. And um we would like you to please come drop off your books and media only on March 18th through 20th. Uh that's Wednesday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and then come to the event on the 21st
and 22nd. You don't have to drop stuff to take. Um but we ask that you please drop off no more than two boxes or two bags per person per day. And please um all items should be in boxes or sturdy bags. No homemade videos or cassettes.
No encyclopedias or textbooks. No electronic devices as in VCRs, CD or DVD players. No moldy books, please. And please do not start browsing while you're bringing things because our volunteers need space to move around. But please come back on the weekend and
and browse to your heart's content. Um, also, please know early birds um before 9:00 a.m. on the days of the events. It's just not fair to the others, but feel free to bring books, CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes, cassette tapes, vinyl records,
jigsaw puzzles, as long as they're complete. I think that's it unless anybody has any questions. >> Thank you. Thank you, Pette. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good luck with that. Any other public announcements or agenda item requests?
>> I see none. Okay. The next item are three public hearings. Uh two involving Verizon New England. I'll ask u the first is to consider a petition from Verizon New England, Inc. to install a stub pole numbered P1S approximately 28
ft north of pole P1 and approximately 145 ft southwest of pole P8 on Morris Island Road to be located at the property address of 87 Morris Island Road. I will ask the clerk of the board to read the public announce public hearing notice. >> Town of Chattam Select Board public
hearing notice. The Cadam Select Board will hold a public hearing at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 10th, 2026 in the large meeting room of the town office annex 261 George Ryder Road Chattam Mass and remotely via Microsoft Teams
platform to consider a petition from Verizon New England Inc. to install stub pole numbered PIS approximately 28 feet north of pole P1 and approximately 145 ft
southwest of pole P18 on Morris Island Road to be located at the property address of 87 Morris Island Road. This work is necessary to support a heavily leaning pole. P1 due to a large transformer bank. The new stub pole
installation of P1S is to support a leaning pole as well as straighten pole P1. The public is welcome to attend the meeting in person and participate via link at the meeting's posted agenda. >> Thank you. I understand that Robin Lour
of NBC is available online to present the Ver Verizon request. >> Yes. >> Can you tell us a little bit about this and we'll >> um so so basically, you know, it's kind of straightforward. Um they're they're
putting in the poll. Um so it's in the public role except we're working on an easement with the um land owner because the anchor is 5t on his property. So, we got to make sure that he approves that um before they can install that anchor.
Um but it is directly across from the existing pole due to um support issues. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the board? Any comments or questions from the public? Okay. We'll take it back to the board. Is there a motion to approve? >> Move approval
>> in a second. >> Second. >> Moved in second. We'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> I. >> Mr. Dyken. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith >> I chair >> votes I next is a public hearing uh to consider a petition from Verizon New England Inc. to install one new pole
numbered 225 36 ft east of existing pole number 225 and 80 ft west of existing pole number 226 on Mil Pond Road and to install new conduit from the proposed pole numbered
225.5 southeast along Milpond Road approximately 180 ft to Mil Pond Road pumping station project. I'll ask the clerk to read the public hearing notice. Town of Cadam Select Board public hearing notice. The Cadam Select Board will hold a public hearing at 5:30 p.m.
on Tuesday, March 10th, 2026 in the large meeting room of the town office annex 261 George Ryder Road Chat of Mass and remotely via Microsoft Teams platform to consider a petition from Verizon New England Inc. to install one
new pole number 22536 feet east of the existing pole numbered 225 and 80 ft west of the existing pole number 22-6 on Mil Pond Road and to install new conduit from the proposed
pole number 225.5 southeast along Mil Pond Road approximately 80 ft to new Mil Pond Road pumping station project. This the public is welcome to attend the
meeting in person or participate via a link in the meetings posted agenda. >> Thank you Miss Lour. >> Yes. So I also have Marissa Jackson from Eversource because I know we have some butters that had some questions. Um so I
asked her to join as well. Um, so what they were doing, they're basically taking uh consolidating um the two existing poles 225 and 226 and putting um the new poll in the middle of that to consolidate.
>> Okay, Marissa, do you welcome Do you have anything you would like to add to this? >> Yes, thank you very much. Marissa Jackson with Eversource. I'm here to support Verizon this evening. So again, just to install that pole 22 over 5.5,
approximately 36 ft from existing pole 22 over5. And if there are any questions at all, we'd be happy to address those. >> Okay. Before we go any further, um I noticed in the joint in the proposed order um in the first full paragraph
that there is a I think an incorrect date. It says that the petition was dated the 29th day of July, 2025, but the petition we have on the packet is 29th of I'm sorry, the 27th of January 2026. So that should be corrected
probably. Um, any questions from the board? Stuart? >> Sure. I just had one um and it's it's actually for both of you. It's related to these polls, but it's somewhat outside of this specific issue. And that
is um is there a this has come up uh from different members of the public about the uh graffiti and the stickers stuck all over these polls and and uh that are either owned by Verizon or Eversource. Is that something you folks
maintain? Uh do you just do you do you do what do you have any uh schedule of maintenance for those types of things or cleanings? >> I can speak to that. Unfortunately, we don't have the, you know, capacity to remove that. You know, my suggestion
would be to reach out to your community liaison and see if there's something you can work out together or, you know, I don't want to push that back on the town, but I think that would be the town um responsibility >> at least to indicate what polls are of concern.
>> Sure. So if we indicated what polls of concern, maybe the DPW does that, you folks would address that because they're owned by you folks, not us, >> right? I understand. There would be no way for us to keep up with, you know, what's been put on our polls. No one is supposed to put anything, including, you
know, signs soliciting anything. Um, but please keep us in the loop and we can see what we can do to address that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, may I have >> Sorry. My name is Christian. Yeah, sir. Sir, wait. Please wait. Um
>> Oh, okay. >> No, that's f that's fine. Any other comments from the board? Okay. Uh um um Mr. um >> what's his name? Tribe. Miss Triber. Triber. >> Christian. Christian is fine. >> Yeah, that's fine. I know you wrote you
submitted two two um >> letters by email to us which we'll we will enter into the record. I was going to read one of them, but why don't I let you speak first and we'll see where we're at on this. Go ahead, please. >> You didn't mean to interrupt. Sorry. >> No, that's fine. That's fine. Go ahead. >> I appreciate it. So, first of all,
thanks for for giving us the chance to speak and my wife is on the is on the team's call as well. So, I speak on behalf of of both of us. >> So, we we bought the property in 24 and we renovated the cottage. You may recall there's a cottage and a house on there. And we wanted to maintain the footprint
as it is part of the historical space for for Chadam. And we we hired Arie Feldman who's very familiar with the with Chadam. He built many houses there. He built our neighbor's house. And um so we took it very seriously to put
something in a that you know fits the architecture and the the overhaul style of the location. So our our family has has deep roads. So my my wife's brother-in-law, Scott Yaw, and he grew up in Chadam and his parents
served on on boards in town. Uh one of her sisters, they became property owners in Chadam as well. So we really take it seriously and it really matters to us. So the layout of our house when we constructed is of course, as you can imagine, was based on the existing poles
that are in place today. And now the understanding is that we're going to get a poll right in front of the house uh in front of the windows which as you can imagine is it's nothing we really have a hard time supporting. Look, we fully support the pump station project. We
gave the workers crew use of our driveway at all times. No problem. Uh we know it helped the community. Uh fewer trucks on the street parked so they utilized that. Um all we really asking for is okay why can't the existing pole
not be upgraded um in this current space. >> Okay. >> Thanks for for letting me speak. >> Before we get a response from um Verizon and um Ever Source, I'm I'm going to read your you you sent two emails.
They're essentially the same. I'm going to read the the most recent one which is dated March 2nd. And we'll enter both of these in the record. Um, it's addressed to the members of the select board. We write as the owner of 70 and 74 Mil Pond Road, Chattam,
Massachusetts, to formally object to the proposed relocation of utility pole 205.5 on Mil Pond Road as described in the petition for joint or identical pole locations filed by Verizon New England Inc. and Eversource Energy dated January 26, 2026.
Our objection is based on the following grounds. One, the location change was requested by the town of Chadam, not the utility companies. No technical justification for this change has been provided in the petition documents. Uh two, no technical justification has been produced despite requests the town
has not produced any engineering report, utility assessment, or other technical documentation explaining why the pole must be relocated from its original position. If the existing pole requires replacement due to capacity for new equipment, the appropriate solution is to replace it in the same location, not
to relocate it. I would just interject parenthetically myself that um with respect to these first two items, it's really not a town poll. This is a this is an Eversource and Verizon, I believe Verizon owns the poll matter. So, this should those concerns should be directed
to them. Three, the proposed location directly impacts our private property. The work order plan shows the proposed pole P225.5 positioned immediately adjacent to our private hedge at 70/74 Mil Pond Road with a 12-oot anchor extending toward
our property. This anchor likely encroaches beyond the road layout onto our private land for which no easement has been sought or granted. Furthermore, we construct their home with window placement specifically designed in relation to the existing pole locations 226 and 225.
Relocating the pole closer to our property, house uh 74 Mil Pond, materially changes the conditions under which our home was built. For the change appears to benefit a private neighbor, not the public. The relocation of this pole serves no documented public purpose. The town's request to move the
pole appears to be connected to an arrangement made with a neighboring property owner in exchange for support of the Milon Road pumping station project. Using public utility infrastructure to benefit a private private party at the expense of an abuing property owner is not a legitimate exercise of municipal
authority. Again, I just interject. It's not the town that's proposing to move the pole. Um, we do need the connection of the uh the um um cable down to the the pond st the Mil pond pumping station.
Action requested. We respectfully request that the select board one deny the petition as presented and require the poll to be placed at the original at its original location. Two, require the town to produce all documentation related to the decision to request a change in pole location, including any
communications with neighboring property owners. Three, require a survey confirming whether the proposed 12-oot anchor falls within the public road layout and or on private property. Four, clarify plan for pole 225. Will it remain be located or be removed? We
intend to appear via teams and be heard at the public hearing scheduled for March 10th, 2026 and respectfully request that this letter be entered into the formal record. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Erin O'Brien and Christian Triber 70 and 74 Mil Pond Road Chatam. Okay. So, I'm going to ask
um whoever of the two uh company representatives wish to address the questions and concerns that Mr. Triber has posed. I did personally I live in the general neighborhood so I walked down there on Sunday to take a look at the locations in question so I have some
idea what what um his concerns are. So who wants to go? >> Um I know that my colleague that was working on that um sent an email. So do we want to start with all the questions or um with those answers or do you want to go
>> Well, let me let me ask you a question first. Uh he's uh Mr. Triber in in one of his concerns talked about the anchor being on his property. >> That's not the case. That will be in the public row >> just like the existing anchor is on 225.
>> Okay. All right. Why don't you proceed to answer his other questions? He's talking essentially about the location of of a new pole, I guess. >> Yep. >> To replace both these poles or just one? So, they're removing two poles and putting one pole in.
>> Okay. And the and the pole that's being put in is in his line of sight, I guess, >> understand. Is that correct, Mr. Triber? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, why um Miss Lour, why don't you address that, please?
>> What was the question again? I'm sorry. That was the objection. The objection of the property owner is that the proposed new pole location um obstructs his line of sight. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, is that the only place you can
put it? >> I will have to go back to the engineering team to see. Um I can't answer that. I don't have the um engineering background on that, but I could request from Verizon that if they could do a redesign if um Mr. Triber has
any suggestions on where, you know, if he wants to move it a little more to the left or right, I would gladly take that in consideration and bring that back to Verizon. >> Okay. Before I turn to Mr. Triber, I'm going to ask our director of public works, Mr. Philly. He wants to say something about this. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did take go
out and take some pictures for the benefit of the board so you can see where the existing polls are and where the polls are being replaced. If you'd like show that >> I guess uh Bri, can you share? So that's the current uh Mil Pond pump station. Um that's the uh it's at the
corner of Mil Pond Road and Homestead Lane. Uh there's an existing pole right at the pump station. We with three transformers on top. that's basically in the way. We worked around it during construction, but still the we haven't finished the steps because the anchor for that pole is going through the middle of the steps. It's just creating
some logistical challenges for us. So, we wanted to relocate uh that pole and those transformers. This is just a quick overview. 227 is the pole down by uh the pump station. 226 is the next pole uphill on Mil Pond
Road. And 225 is the pole uphill from that. uh just adjacent to house number 70. Uh it's the house one one of the houses that >> that's the house in question. >> Well, they own they own both of those houses. >> Okay. 70 and >> so this is just a reference point for the three poles that are kind of using
as a reference. >> So again, here's the Mil Pond pump station. We're removing that pole and we are originally we had planned to move it to all those transformers to the next pole uphill from uh uphill of Mil Pond
Road. Um as you can see currently um two of the neighbors on the north side have a nice view of Little Mil Pond. um if we were to relocate those transformers there um we are making their view worse than it
is now. >> Um we're always under the belief that we need to leave things in better condition than we found them um and we don't want to impact the viewshed of somebody negatively. So we looked at um we looked
at some different options. So that poll would be coming out as well. And then our first selection was to relocate the pole to this location. Uh Christian mentioned he had some renovations done to his house. You could see in that
orange area he had a twotory window put in at his stairway. Um so this pole was, you know, he claimed this pole was right in the viewshed of his uh of his windows. We certainly didn't want to impact anybody negatively again. So, we
looked at some other options and uh the final third location we decided was the best option for all involved um was 36 ft down from the existing pole furthest uphill. Um um Mr. Tra uh Christian has a
6 and 1/2 ft uh hedge row in front. We moved it all the way up near the uh driveway to his cottage and we really tried to minimize any of the impacts for all the residents there. Keep in mind that anything from this pole to the pump
station, all of those utilities will be underground. So there will be no visual obstructions. So it'll be a benefit to everybody in that neighborhood plus the users of the pier. So that's that's what we're left with.
36 ft. That's what the proposal is now. 36 ft from existing pole 22-5. Uh with a new pole, I leave it to Eversource engineers to determine how they want to distribute their transformers on top. But this really doesn't impact the viewshed of of any of
the neighbors through that area. >> Okay. So, you're going to get rid of the pole that's right at the pump pumping station. >> Two poles, one at the pump station and the next one uphill of the pump station, and it would be replaced with this pole. Okay. All right. M Mr. Triber,
you come back. >> Yeah. So, >> do you have anything? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Yeah. If you don't mind. Um, so bottom line, there is no technical reason to move the one existing pole. Is that correct?
>> Um, did you hear the question? >> Yeah. The pole down at the pump station. >> No, the the pole at the pump station, I understand, needs to move because of the proximity to the pump station. Correct. The one next up, I think it's 226. There's no technical reason to move
this, Paul. >> Well, there's a thing called inverse condem condemnation that if we uh the view um the view those residents have of Little Mill Pond uh has a value associated with it. Some neighbors may call it a high value. So, if we diminish
that property value, um we may be uh liable to reimburse some of those property owners. So, um, they're protected, uh, for under the fifth amendment of the US Constitution that we cannot make their situation worse, uh, substantially worse than it currently
is. >> But wouldn't you move, so sorry. Go ahead. >> I was going to ask, >> but but it's not the town that's placing the poll. It's the utility companies. >> It's the utility companies at the town's request. >> All right. Go ahead, Mr. Triber.
So now we make it nicer for the one two neighbors and now we move it in front of our house. And if you don't mind, I would share my mockups and I admit they're not as pretty as what you have uh produced. So
>> go ahead. >> My apologies for that. >> Um I think you see this. This is >> Can we see that on the big Is it possible? Hold on. Can we get that on the big screen? Please. There it is. Yes, we
>> So, this is today's view. And again, my mockup is not as >> sophisticated as the other one. Yeah. Um that's what it look would be. Uh when you look out of the window, um that what it look like tomorrow. So, I think
putting it and look and I totally understand the neighbors. Yeah. Um, but now we put it in front of our house and I don't know why that's okay. If it's not okay to leave it at the other side. Um,
and again it's it's going to be a pretty big pree um or four. Have have there been have there been any conversations between among among the the two companies and and the Mr.
Triber? >> No, that the first um we just got um notice I think I think it was like on the 4th from him. >> Okay. >> Well, on July 18th, if I would not have been home and I look at don't take it the wrong way, I say it this way. If I
would not have been home, the pole would have been put into the location 225.5. If I would not have stopped the driver and the crew leader, Predto Blanco, who was really nice, we had a really nice chat. He said, "If you would not have
been home, that thing would have been up in 15 minutes without a hearing." >> So, so on that day, Christian did call me as well as two other adjacent property owners. um that pole was being placed in the wrong location and we had yet to have a poll hearing. So, we did I
appreciate him reaching out and we did stop the installation of that. >> Yeah, >> this has been going on since May of 2023. We got the first design from Eversource and we've been struggling to try to get an approved location uh since
then. Does this affect the uh does the delay here re affect the um operation of the the pump station? >> Doesn't affect the operation of the pump station, but it impacts the construction contract. We've had to put Robert B. Hour on hold. Uh they haven't completed
the project yet, so there's additional costs for construction oversight. Um we could face potential delays, but we haven't really seen anything yet. >> Uh this is a public hearing. Are there any other public comments? I don't see any any comments or
questions from the board. Corey and then Shireen. F >> the first question is for Mr. Triber. Um since you're the property owners of both 70 and 74 mil pond, is there a location that would that is along your property that you would be amendable to
considering if if from an engineering point wer but from your visual perspective or preference is there a location on your property that you would I guess recommend for consideration? Look, we have an existing pole. I think
it's called 225 if I'm not mistaken. Uh the one next to the cottage. Um and it has always been there. Yeah. But uh my understanding is that this distance is too far to the pump station.
And at the same time the one thing I think we also would like to understand is Robert you said they're going to be four transformers but just uh three can be on a on a pole. Um, so to answer your
question, yes, I can consider the existing pole that's next to the cottage, but now having all the transformers on there, I would be very interested in whether there's any uh any interference, noise created by the transformers, depending on weather,
etc., and humidity. Um, that would be something we could consider. >> Okay, thank you. And then a question for the utilities. If we were to send this back to your engineering department for consideration of a of the location that was just previously mentioned, the 20 uh location 225.
Um I know we're looking at potentially having some of this underground. How many transformers were actually looking at for pearl? What type of turnaround time would be required to uh evaluate that and come back to us for the uh response uh to see if any of this has any validity?
I could bring it back to Verizon tomorrow. Um, and hopefully the engineer could have something back by early next week >> or sooner. >> I mean, I'd be interested in kind of getting a response from the engineering team to see if we have any any options.
>> Sure. Thank you. >> I know they redesigned this a few times, so I know the options are getting limited on this. >> Okay, Shireen. >> Uh, Cory had asked the questions that I was going to ask. Thank you. Um I see uh JB on the screen. M Brooks. Jay Brooks,
do you wish to speak, sir? Or or ma'am? >> Hi. >> Hi. Yes. I'm um I provided the easement for the pump station. I'm a 39 homestead which is on the bottom. Uh there was a question of where the project was. I I believe Rob commented there is still a
large temporary electrical panel sitting in my yard on the opposite side of my fence uh waiting on these poles. So, anything on the board to do to expedite this once these planning comes in? I I do appreciate the appropriate planning and, you know, support the the need to
put poles where they need to be here. Um, but would have a similar question to Christian. Why are we moving poles uh when they already exist? Um, would be my my question. So, um, but either way, looking for the fastest, but I wanted to reference that that project still was
impacting my my property and the easement that I provided. Um and the panel is outside the easement. So I kind of granted that on good faith that it would be removed shortly. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Okay. M uh Mr. Dyus. >> Yeah. So I I agree with Cory's recommendation or suggestion that go
back to Verizon, remand it back to Verizon, but with a conclusion or another recommendation, you know, coming back to the town of Chadam and the select board with all dual accurrity. Seems as though uh you know, we have an issue here and it seems as though we could probably be able to figure it out, but we don't have a solution this
evening. Um, but I I I I I think Verizon ought to take a real good hard look at it again and come back, you know, next week or the week after so we can reconsider and we can uh get the uh panel out of the Brooks's property and uh make Mr. Triber happy with the uh
with the outcome and >> and Mr. Triber, if you have any suggestions on like preference, I would gladly bring that to Verizon >> just as I me as I mentioned. Yeah, as I mentioned earlier, I mean there's one existing one next to the um cottage
today next to 70. Yeah, I would I would really would like to understand if you put and I assume it wouldn't need an upgrade this pole as well. How many um how many transformers would go up there? And the other question I have is Robert
you mentioned earlier if if if you put the the transformers to the existing pole it has an impact material impact on on the neighbors. If you put it in front of our house and has a material impact on us. So um I don't know putting it from one to the other would be the right
approach either. Yeah. >> Well >> but again that's something we would consider. Let's include in the in the um in the further engineering some discussion and communication between the neighbor
that's affected um Mr. Tribra and the Verizon I guess in particular ever source if needed and our DPW and I would suggest I would entertain a motion to continue the hearing uh to a date certain do we want to make it one week
two weeks >> couple weeks >> March 24th >> I would say two weeks yeah >> so is there a mo Mr. matters. Are you making a motion to continue the hearing to March 24th? >> Yes, I am. So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Okay. So, we're
going to continue this. We'll take a vote right now. Um, Miss uh, Miss Davis. >> Hi, >> Mr. Dyk. Hi, >> Mr. Meadows. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi, >> Chair Bodai. So, thank you all very much. We will hopefully can come back with a solution that's mutually satisfactory.
>> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. Next, the final public hearing is to consider a request from the animal control officer, Diane Vyers, pursuant to town bylaws, chapter 115, section 6F, regarding complaints of a nuisance dog
at 33 Victoria Drive, and to discuss livestock compensation per Town bylaws, Chapter 115, section 6J. I'll ask the clerk to read the public hearing notice. >> 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 10th, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in the large meeting room at the town office annex 261 George Ryder Road and remotely through the link in the posted agenda to consider a
request from the animal control officer Diane Buyers pursuant to town bylaw chapter 115 section 6F regarding complaints of a nuisance dog at 33 Victoria Drive and to discuss livestock
compensation per town bylaw chapter 115 section 6J all interested parties are encouraged to participate. >> Thank you. Um so welcome Diane. >> Mr. Chair, I'm recusing myself. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Thank you. Shireen is going to recuse herself from this. Uh
welcome Diane. I um going to turn it over to you to present, but I understand essentially what you're asking for is that under our town bylaws, which was a surprise to me, um that the town would compensate
um Jade Skyler uh who was who is the owner was the owner of these um chickens $530.83. and also um ask that the board deem the
the dog of Mr. Nickerson a nuisance dog uh for which meridial measures are being proposed. So ask you to give us some background on this and then we'll have some discussion. >> Okay. Yes. My name is Diane Buyers. I'm the animal control officer for the
Chattam Police Department. Again, I'm requesting two things from the board tonight. One is a livestock claim of reimbursement, which is my first time also ever dealing with this. I can't remember or know of a time where a dog in town killed livestock. Um, and also
asking the board to deem Kenny Nickerson's dog a nuisance dog under Mass General Law, chapter 140, section 157. Um, so a brief synopsis of what happened here. On January 5th, 2026, Mr. Nickerson's dog Sasha was not properly
restrained and entered a chicken coupe located at 2058 Main Street, which is Chadam Pottery, owned by Jade Skyler. During this incident, the dog killed all 13 of Mrs. Shiler's chickens. Under town bylaw Chapter 115, section 6, when
livestock is killed by a dog, the animal control officer must submit a written report to the select board detailing the incident and the damages. The mo the board may then instruct the town treasurer to reimburse the livestock owner for the market value of the
animals lost. So following the incident, I documented the damage and obtained three separate appraisals for the value of the chickens. The first appraisal was from Leo Kunis. He is a local livestock dealer based out of Harwitch with nearly
30 years experience. The second appraisal was from James Rose. I believe he is more of a hobbyist um when it comes to chickens, but he is who Jade originally purchased the chickens from. The third appraisal was from Lisa
Wilson, who is the owner of Barnstable Farm and Pet. She is knowledgeable of the current retail prices of poultry. Uh as required by the bylaw, the claim is based on the market value of the animals. I averaged the three appraisals
to determine a fair estimate um which resulted in the total amount of 53083. >> So let's focus on that. Yep. >> First the the reimbursement. >> Um the um the number of chickens um I
thought was 15 but in the um appraisals they they were using the number 13. >> It is 13. Yes, >> it is 13. Um the bylaw says that no reimbursement will be made for domestic animals that are not raised for
food or pelts. So >> correct >> these chickens being raised for food or because I >> Yes. Um to not go into the specific too heavily into livestock. Um the the birds were pullets, okay?
>> Which are chickens who have entered their prime egg laying phase of life. It's when they first reach maturity. So the price of a bird is actually heavily dependent on its age and its ability to lay eggs. So these birds were in their
prime egg laying condition. Jade did purchase the birds to have eggs. Um, and of course, like a lot of other chicken owners, eventually they became beloved pets, but they were egg laying and producing eggs. >> Thank you. My final question at this
point has to do with um potential for reimbursement to the town, >> right, >> from from the owner of the the dog is I mean, there's something in there about the in the bylaw about the town. >> K,
>> pardon me. >> I think it's K. Okay. Yeah. The the owner of the this is paragraph K. The owner or keeper of a dog which has done damage to domestic animals shall be liable for such damage. And the select board may order the owner or keeper to pay such damages after an investigation
and appraisal by the animal control officer and an appraisal done by a person chosen by the person sustaining the damage and an appraisal done by a third person chosen by the other two. These three people shall submit a report to this select board stating the type of damage, the number and kind of animals
damages and whether any animals required medical treatment by a veterinarian to save them. So, uh I just really wanted to point that out because we uh don't know whether the owner of the dog is present either in person or virtually. He is not present and uh during
conversations with him I have not heard him offer to pay Jade directly or to pay the town. Again, this is my first time enforcing this exact >> paragraph of the bylaw, so I'm not ex exactly sure how it would work. Okay. >> Um but he hasn't offered any money.
>> Thank you. Uh any comments from the board? Stuart and then and then Jeff and then Cy. >> Sure. Um thank you Diane. Um, you know, under the bylaw J, uh, sub paragraph 2, it's it says, I mean, I
interpret it as two conflicting things here. Domestic animals so killed that are raised for food and pel are eligible, I think the word eligible for reimbursement by the town. Then you go down to the last sentence and it says after reviewing the written report the
select board shall instruct the town treasurer to pay the claim. So um is this a requirement? >> So I am reading it. We have town council in the audience if he wants to uh if if if we'd like to get a question posed to
him. >> I mean I I think it would be helpful if he's comfortable answering but >> do you want to come forward? That's the way I'm reading it. Steuart, I realize the first one has used the term eligibility and then there's a mandatory. >> This is a uh having spent a lot of bit
time in this type of business, this is a very unusual uh bylaw scheme. >> Yeah. >> That we may want to look at in the future. Then I have some more questions after. Thank you, Jay. >> Mr. Challman, >> so this is a first for me, too. This is
uh when I heard about this earlier today, Jill uh told me about it. I I was a little surprised that you have this uh bylaw. I suppose in some of the more rural counties we might see something like this, but it's the first time I've
come across it. Um I'm without too much familiarity, Stuart, I'm reluctant to like opine with a lot of firm conviction, but if I was going to you're we're supposed to harmonize all of the provisions of something. we can't rely
on the kind of maze and may be eligibles to the exclusion of the other language which that seems more mandatory. I guess if I was making my best off-the cuff legal opinion, I would probably say the may be eligible might apply to whether
or not these animals were raised for food. So making them eligible for that compensation and then marrying that to the provisions that make our compensation requirements more mandatory.
>> Thank you. Can could you maybe you can't because this is really odd. Um, why would the town be respon I mean I know what the bylaw says and it's a little bit of oddness there but why would the town be responsible for paying for
livestock that's lost we're not a party to this right we're not neighbor I mean it's not our chickens it's not our dog that did the killing >> I mean I I could speculate as to the origin of some of these things a lot of bylaws like this of course get copied
from maybe what another town did. But it's also possible that at the time it happened was spurred perhaps by uh some events and you know town meeting can can swing uh back and forth on things. So it
it could be either one of those things, either like, hey, this language looks good. We have a comprehensive rewrite or maybe at the time someone had lost a bunch of chickens to a dog and the the town maybe was trying to be reactive to that so that in the future people
wouldn't be out of pocket for those kinds of things. I mean, we do have the right then to go after the the dog owner for um the compensation or indemnification kind of so to speak. It appears based upon what I heard Dean citing in that language.
>> Yeah. Is that under K? Um >> yeah. >> Where you think the town can pursue not not the owner of the chickens, but the town has to uh has to pursue >> and and there's a complicated process there. Although I would argue that the
appraisals we've done should qualify, but >> it probably would. And then we get into the whole thing. We impose it and then maybe does it become a lean or a municipal charge under you know payment and permits for you know for um you know
when people don't pay what the what our obligations would be for future licenses and things like that. So it it tips then into a whole other set of >> remedial measures under different statutes. But there is some recourse it appears. Again, I'm there's a little
more off the cuff than anything else. But >> before for that anymore, >> I do, but I can wait till >> before I go to Jeff, I just want to ask Diane. I don't know if Miss Skyler is here, but has there been any communication between Miss Skyler and and Mr. Nickerson about reimbursement?
>> No. Uh, they have a very strange relationship. There is a harassment prevention order and a no trespass order from Jade to Mr. Nickerson. So any communication regarding that would be through me and again Kenny has never offered to pay Jade.
>> Is the Nickerson property abiding the uh >> it is across the street. >> Okay. Thank you Jeff. >> Thank you Dean. Yeah. >> Stay there. Stay there J under J2. I mean I frankly read it very similar to what uh Jay just described that if in fact uh domestic animals are raised for
food and chickens can either be eaten themselves or the eggs can be eaten. So I would assume that in this case they are being raised for food and therefore they're eligible for reimbursement by the town. If we abide by the letter of the bylaw then I the last sentence after reviewing the written report which is I
think was done very well by the way. I like the way you approached the the the uh the valuation etc. And I thought the report was very well written for for a first time out for all of us. I mean but I thought it was very well done. After reviewing the report, we'll pay the we'll instruct the town treasur to play
pay the claim if we we deem the claim to be eligible and that the facts are written up the way we find the way they ought to be and they were. So I I I think you did a great job in the absence of any kind of background or any history here and I I would I would certainly
move reimbursement in this case um given given the nature of our bylaw. Notwithstanding that the bylaw itself is fairly arcane. It was amended 61221 by the annual town meeting and I didn't go back and look at art article 5. >> I think that was just to insert select
board versus board. >> Okay. All right. Select board. Yeah. So anyway, those are my thoughts. I I I would I would move that we pay the average. >> You're making that a motion. >> I am. Yeah. >> Is there a second? >> Second then you wanted to go. >> A couple comments. Um first, if you
actually look at all our bylaws, there are some odd bylaws on our books. So, this one isn't so off the cuff to be honest with you. Um, mechanically, obviously, if we um want to entertain any type of reimbursement from the dog owner, that's going to be done through a
different public hearing process. Obviously, that's nothing we deal with tonight. So, there it's part of the conversation, but mechanically that would be another a separate action on another date through another process. So, that we don't have to deal with tonight. Um, as far as the reimbursements, um, I think there's no
argument about what has happened. There's no discrepancies. Um, we have the documentation, we have the three quotes. Um, I think everything is in place. Um, so I am supportive of the reimbursement process um, from the town. So >> yeah, I I agree with that. I I and I
agree with what Jeff said about the way this was handled that Diane, you followed the the letter of the bylaw and um it's very reasonable. The bylaws says pay it. It's if it were a lot more money, I probably would b at it a little
bit, but it's 500 plus dollars. Um, my inclination is that we should pay it um out of the town treasury and then as Corey suggested, we could consider uh seeking reimbursement, but that's probably going to cost us more than
$500, but we can talk about that. Stuart, you had some before I asked for a vote on this, you had further questions on this or >> Yeah. Um, go ahead. Thank you. The I just had a couple of questions maybe, Diane. Um,
in your report, um, you mentioned, uh, a citation number. Um, how much was the citation issued for? Was that the only citation issued? >> So, for this incident, yes, it was a $50 citation
for the dog for failing to restrain the dog resulting in the loss of the life livestock. >> Okay. And um, was that $50 paid? >> No. >> Okay. We we'll add that to the 500. So, um you
mentioned that um there was uh maybe Jade had some camera footage and it was going to be forwarded to Officer Spalding. Was Was that what was that for? I don't think that the actual act of the dog killing the chickens was
caught on camera, but when I arrived, it was very plainly obvious that the dog had gotten into the coupe and killed all 13 of them. >> Yeah, it looked like, unless I'm reading it wrong, but it looked like the dog was still in the coupe. >> Yeah, he was stuck in there. Yeah.
>> Any any speculation? I know you you say >> you say uh that um wasn't really obvious as to how the dog got in there, made entry, but any speculate. Was the door locked? I mean, I'm trying to >> um even the chicken coupe, it was a structurally sound chicken coupe and even that is within some fencing on
Jade's property. Um, so the only explanation I really have is that it's a husky and it had a prey drive and it somehow uh me and Jade thoroughly looked it over and we couldn't exactly figure out how it got in.
>> Wow. Um, that's a tricky dog. Um, okay. Well, the uh I guess I guess that was it. This is um you know, if Mr. Talerman is comfortable
with uh that we're required to pay this under this bylaw, then I guess uh that'll be my vote that we pay it. But um I I think we need to I I I don't think that and I'm a dog owner or have been. I don't think people who don't own dogs should be paying for this sort of
thing. And and it seems this seems really odd. So, I'd like to be able to review this or the board to review it and come up maybe the animal control officer or whomever could come up with some language that doesn't uh you know doesn't force people to >> make that a future agenda item. >> Yeah, I could put that on a future
agenda item that we discuss bylaw the animal control bylaw. >> Okay. Unless there are any other comments from the public. I'm going to take a motion on I'm going to take a vote on the motion uh by Mr. Dyken, seconded by Mr. matters that the town
pay the amount of $53. >> There it is. >> $3083 >> to Jade Skyler under the pursuant to the bylaw. I'll call the role. Um Mr. Dykins >> I >> Mr. Meadows >> I Mr. Smith
>> I >> and the chair votes I now issue number two the nuisance dog designation. >> Right. So in addition in addition to the livestock loss, there is a documented history of the dog of the dog running
loose. So last year in 2025, Sasha the dog had been confirmed running at large five times with complaints documented through the Chattam Police Department. Additionally, the dog has been observed by Chattam Police Department on seven occasions, tethered outside on a leash
while no owner or caretaker was present at the home. So, it's outside on a leash with no one around. Since this incident occurred in January of this year, Sasha the dog has been observed turning loose on Skyler's property two additional times. So, even after this, the dog has
been loose on her property twice. >> Jeff, so what's next then? How do we deal with a nuisance dog? So, just it's in your memo, but I want the public to hear it. >> Right. So given the history of the dog running loose um combined with this incident involving the killing of
livestock, I believe additional confinement measures are necessary. Therefore, I'm asking the board to deem Sasha a nuisance dog under Mass General Law Chapter 140. Uh the definition of a nuisance dog is as follows. A dog that
has threatened or attacked livestock, a domestic animal or a person. But such threat or attack was not grossly disproportionate reaction under all the circumstances. So again, I don't think this dog is a dangerous dog. I don't think it's aggressive. I don't think it's a threat to the public. It was
acting according to its prey drive. Um, and that's why I think a nuisance dog would be a better designation. If the dog is deemed a nuisance dog by the board, the board would have the authority to force Nickerson to take remedial action. I would recommend that
Mr. Nickerson be required to construct a secure fenced in area or a dog run measuring at least 8 by 12 ft 6 ft in height and dig proof. The run should also include an appropriate shelter. >> Okay. So, so the recommendation is both
to declare the dog a nuisance dog but also to uh adopt the the remedial measures that you just announced. Do we know if uh Mr. Nickerson would be receptive to those remedial measures? Have you had conversation with him about that? >> I have talked to him. He said that he
would be interested in putting a fenced in enclosure. However, given the history and knowing um Mr. Nickerson, I can't say that that if he was left on his own to his own devices that that would get done in a reasonable manner uh time frame.
>> How does this get enforced though if the board adopts these measures tonight? Uh, I believe that he could receive a citation after a certain amount of time if we agree if he had to do this say in 30 days, 60 days. I believe he could receive citations for every day that
that wasn't done. >> Okay. S Lieutenant Harris, do you have any comment on this? >> Just just further on that. So then if the citations were not paid or were not taken care of and he didn't address any of them, then we would take it to district court and he would have a
criminal it would turn into a criminal charge if he did not take action on what the board or what the animal control officer ordered him to do. >> Okay. So can can we have um just for the sake of moving this along, can we have a motion to declare the dog a nuisance dog
as and also to adopt these remedial measures? And I think we should be specific and I think we should assign a deadline. >> Sure, Cy. So, okay. So, for so we can have this discussion uh so I can cover this motion. So, I declare um I move
that we the select board declare uh the Nickersonson dog a quote nuisance dog and that the remedial actions to include a dog run of no of 8t by 12 feet or larger 6t in height
dig proof and provided a shelter um from the weather um be um constructed on the Nickerson property within in 30 days. Um, do we think that's enough time or do
we want more or >> I do and at least if he showed action that that was taking place, we would extend that if if needed. >> Okay. Okay. Within 30 days. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. The bylaw require the statute chapter 14 section 157 requires us to
investigate or cause the investigation of the complaint including an examination under oath. Well, we never do that at at a public hearing. Um, determine whether the dog is a nuisance dog. We've declared dogs nuisance dogs or
>> dangerous dogs. I think this is the third dog hearing I've been party to um in this manner. So, um, any discussion, Corey? >> Well, I I do think there's some, at least from some of the correspondents and conversations I've had, there's some concern that um, of the well-being for
the dog. It's not doesn't appear to be a dangerous dog or a threat. Um but there may um be some opportunity to provide some better care for the dog. I think this remedy offering a better location for the dog to be outside with with their own protection um I think is very
reasonable. Um and I think it's something that is um within arms reach of the owner being able to provide. So I I I can support this and hope we have a good ending. Maybe we won't. Um, but I think this is something that's reasonable and can be done uh without
much of a um hardship. Okay. Um, I just wanted to state for the record I'm entertaining I think we're entertaining this as a complaint from the from the animal control officer. Um, and also I think um I just want to
substitute the word deem that's in the bylaw for the word declare in your motion and the second that was given by Mr. Dykens. >> That's fine. >> With that, I will call the role. >> And unless there's any discussion, Stuart, did you have something? >> Um, well, I I just one and I was going
to get back to u what Corey had mentioned about the well-being for the dog. Um I read the I read Jade's um statement 40 complaints about this dog running loose and unleashed. Is that about is that about right?
>> So just like all things in the police department. Um there are complaints that come in but not all of them are founded. So the numbers that I include included like the dog being tethered without anybody there. Um, that was incidents that where complaints were filed and the
police showed up and confirmed that that was true. >> Sure. And uh and and and she goes on to say, "I found the dog outside in the cold, extremely thirsty and hungry. I personally witnessed Mr. Nickerson drag the dog by the neck approximately 30 yards and strike her." Uh, and she says,
"This is on camera." I don't know if this I don't know if this is correct. Um, but just to follow up on Mr. Meet's comments about the well-being of the dog. Um I I'd have a concern about that, but I don't know what else to do about it. >> Just that we also that we do document
all these cases to and if there is any animal cruelty um that will be documented and charges would be sought if that was uh determined at that point. >> Okay, great. Thank you, >> Jeff. So Diane, I just have a question about if if a dog if you thought a dog wasn't being cared for properly, was
left outside in the cold, you know, um etc. How would the town remediate that situation? Do you take the dog into the to to your kennel or whatever your you know your house and >> uh >> what happens? >> That would be a criminal charge and dogs
can be seized after a conviction of animal cruelty. Um there are some cases where if the dog was in imminent danger, we could take protective custody >> that that get that's what I was asking. >> Yeah. >> So is where's the dog now? Is it >> at home? >> Inside or outside?
to be determined. Okay, >> we'll see tonight. >> Okay. I mean, I I I share the same concern about the for the care of the dog, having read the the documents. Um >> and also, I just hope we stay close to it because I think there's some issue there are issues here, >> but we're not making a determination on
that. >> No, we're declaring we're only >> nuisance and >> deeming it nuisance build >> and um adopting remedial measures. So, with that, I'm going to take a take a vote unless there's anything more. M Mr. on on the motion. Uh Mr. Dykins. Hi,
>> Mr. Matt. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> And the chair votes eye. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Lieutenant. Thank you, Diane. >> Okay. And Shireen is rejoining us. Next is the there is no consent agenda tonight. So we'll move directly to the
report on Chadam Wells Pas and drinking water testing and pumping update January and February 2026. Mr. Fairley. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening again.
Bear with me as I get this loaded. So, I'm going to uh kind of similar to last year, we were pretty budget heavy in January and February, so we postponed this and we're doing a two-month update for January and February 2026. Thank you.
Um, so the wells have been pumping 3 to six hours per day in January and 4 to 7 hours per day in February. And the water tanks did not hit the low-level alarm during this period. Sorry, I lost my uh screen here.
Technical challenges. I'll just keep reading through it if you don't mind. Uh so, uh for training field wells five and eight, uh the permanent treatment facility, um most of the exterior building work has been completed with the exception of the roof mounted solar
panels and final paving. Um the refurbished well pumps for wells 5 and 8 have been reinstalled and permanent power has been run by Eversource and the building is under uh electrical power. We're still working with National Grid to get uh gas service uh for the HVAC
and generator that we expect to happen shortly. Uh interior work um the plumbing, chemical feed, piping is all continuing. A lot of the smaller things that don't really translate well in photographs, even though I've got a couple and I think you've got a couple
in your packet. Um thank you. still just bear with me. I'm sorry. It's not going as smoothly as I would hope. Uh here are some pictures. Um so we're working on the finalization of the site. Um we're looking to have a startup
schedule planned for midappril. It doesn't mean we'll be pumping into the town's system, but it'll be a startup schedule. are working with D on um on getting all the systems uh settled and approved. As far as irrigation meters, um again,
just a a quick update. Um we've sold over 96,800 or 484 irrigation meters. Um 488 have been installed. Uh so we right now have 1340 operable registered irrigation
systems in Chadam. um making great headway. Um there's still five properties that have not acknowledged any of our fines. We send the water bills to those addresses. They pay the water bills. For some reason, they're ignoring these. So, we are working with
Lieutenant Harris uh to take them to court and uh settle it that way. Um there's still 35 properties who've not made appointments. Um we've started new fines for them and they've totaled $13,800 so far. Um due to the snow um we've had
to postpone some installs but we have 81 properties uh with appointments with our department through May of this year. >> Good. That's very good progress. >> It is. It is. >> Uh water sampling. Um the notable item
is um POS. We did POS samples at wells uh 10 and 11 and also well 4. Uh PAS results for 10 and 11 came back at 4.17 which is still below well below the Massachusetts
uh limit but it's u it's higher than what EPA proposes which I believe is now postponed till 2031. Um so we are conducting a study with Weston and Samson to see the best path forward for that and we'll uh present to the board at a future date. Um for well four it
was no detect. Um just ongoing station maintenance um system maintenance. Nothing too outrageous here. Uh we did respond to several leaking water meters and burst pipes. Uh, as you know, it's been a pretty uh, cold winter this year. We
expect to see more of that type of activity as people get into their houses for the first time in the spring. Uh, we completed our tier two tier 2 chemical report which is reported to the fire department and um, and the regulatory agencies.
Um, sorry about the format here. I'll try to reduce it so it's a little easier to is that better. Um this is the January pumping comparison. January of 25 to January of 26.
Uh as you can see we're about uh 13.6% higher than last January. And I think part of that is because last year for some reason the flows were unusually low. Um later on we'll look at the 5-year average. Um, so we're only about
7% higher than the 5-year average, which is still higher. We're not really sure what's what that is attributed to. Similarly, when we look at February, um, this shows 37% higher than last February. February is typically a pretty low month, and you can see the 18
million gallons we pumped in February is actually less than we pumped in January. Um, but when we look at the 5-year average, we're about 10% higher than the 5-year average. We talked about this with Violia staff like what could be attributed to this.
The only thing we can come up with was possibly because of the severe winter there may be some households that have burst pipes in their basement and they're not yet discovered. Uh so we are looking at our data to see if we can discover any of that. We have caught a
couple of them uh in the early stages, but if they're not um severe leaks and using a lot of water through the meter, we may not detect them until those residents show up at their houses in the spring. Here's the pumping graph again. Um
hot pink is the January 26. Uh you could just see just daily fluctuations compared to last January. There is a point uh on the 28th that was just an error, a plotting error. Uh it wasn't zero. It was up around 550,000 or
so gallons. Here's the bar chart for January. Um the orange is January of this year. Again, a lot of daily fluctuations, but in large uh slightly higher pumping than
uh January of last year. Then we look at the bar chart. I mean the uh the graph sorry for February versus February of last year. The hot pink you could see almost daily that um the rate is much higher than last year.
Uh again we're still trying to figure out why that's the case. and the bar chart with the same information showing orange uh columns are much higher than the blue. And here's the January pumping report.
Uh they're showing the level of effort for each well. Um you can see the South Cadam wells around mid uh middle part of the month. We shut those down to do some maintenance. Uh winter time is a great time for us to conduct some of that maintenance, some of that needed uh annual maintenance that we do. Um
average daily is uh 592,000 gallons. And then we look at February again maintenance on the uh wells 67 and 9. Um average pumpage was uh 586,000
gallons. still lower than January, but since it was compared to a very low flow last February, um it seems like it's it's almost spiking, but it's that's I don't think that's really the case. Uh here are the the bar charts again,
January on top, February on the bottom. You can see um South Chadam again is is kind of truncated because of that maintenance uh in fe in January. Uh but you see a pick back up in February. And here is the year-to-date pumping report.
Again, we are 7 million gallons higher than this point last year, which is substantial. Um, again, we were in a drought. We were in a drought last year as well. So, if it's if it's burst pipes, we'll we'll find out soon enough, but um not really sure if people were
were home uh during foul weather and they were using water more, but um really I don't have anything solid to point to to offer. Uh here's the pumping graph year to date. >> Rob, >> yes.
>> Question. Um, is it always going to be the house that or home that's going to impact the rise in water usage? Could it be underground pipes that would go undetected as having leakage? >> So, we have um devices that we put out
there. They basically listen for leaks and we've been using those all winter. We haven't a couple of very small leaks. A lot of the snow can hide a lot, you know, but now we would find like some damp or wet areas. We haven't really found anything yet. though. Um, it could
be on our end. We've been looking, we've been listening. Um, really nothing substantial so far. Um, and here's the unmetered water usage year-to date. Um, of course, the hydrant maintenance we expect to start flushing later this month. So, we'll see some of
those numbers creep up for the March report. And here's the 5-year average. This is for January. Um, again, 7% higher in the 5-year average. Not quite as drastic, but it's still uh the highest since I think I
went back to 2020, and it's the highest since 2020. And here's February. Very similar again, 10% higher uh on the 5-year average. Here's the BR the Cadam USGS report. You
can see this only goes to February. So, you can see that we're starting to climb and recharge the aquafer. Um, February was still frozen. You know, the recent melting and the rains we've seen, um, they won't be reflected until we do the March report. But still, even though
that may take months for that water to actually recharge the aquifer, all the snow, it's three feet of snow that we had, they predicted about 2 and a half inches of water in that 3 ft of snow. So, it's not as substantial as uh you may think at first glance, but the
good news is we are recharging. Just how high we go, we'll we'll wait and see. Uh this is a little bit more bleak. Um, we've always discussed that Brewster is kind of the bellweather of uh, observation wells uh, for the aquifer
and um, we're really floundering uh, towards the bottom there. Um, it's not recharging. It was so concerning to me. I reached out to USGS and said, you know, is there a problem with your observation well not reporting correctly? And they confirmed that it is reporting correctly. So, we're really
not seeing any recharge yet in the Brewster observation well. doesn't bode well for this summer, but we'll have to wait and see how the rest of spring goes. So, for the drought status, um this map is from uh February 11th with their
declaration. Um they met again on March 6th and updated the map. Um the general groundwater percentiles, the upper left is December. Um you can see the the Cadam observation well and the Brewster
observation well. They're the lighter color. Um then we go to January, they're still the lighter color. And this is for February. Um the two that we look at are still the lighter color, but then you see the other one in Brewster and it's uh it's a
level three. So um we just keep monitoring that and see um how it recovers. And here is what their recommendation was. Um CAPE would remain at a level two
designation. Uh they don't track evapo transpiration. That's what ET is or the KBDI which is a drought index that um that looks at um the saturation of soils in the forest. But everything else uh indicates that it
would be a level two >> and that was confirmed by their meeting yesterday as well. >> Uh yes, the the water and sewer advisory committee did vote to support a level two. Again, it's only draft until the secretary of environmental affairs approves it, but that's what the
recommendation for the drought task force was. >> Yeah. So, just bring that back to the board. As Rob said, the wire and sewer committee met yesterday to continue to recommend we follow the matrix for level two. I think we've been doing that for better
part of the year. Uh I don't think we need to take any action on that, but unless someone wants to offer a motion. Jeeoff, you had a question. >> Couple questions. Um the Brewster observation well matters to us because we draw from the same lens, if you will, or the same the same aquifer. we draw
from the same lens and that typically that Brewster observation well typically has the most accurate observation reporting. Um it has a more kind of real world conditions of what we're seeing with the aquifer, the health of the aquifer. >> And which well do we use for our our
observation well? >> We use the one in Brewster and there's one in Chadam at the bottom of Meeting House Road. >> Meeting House Road. Okay. And then on the overage for January and February, is there not a report that we can run that
compares utilization by by household by by meter, if you will, um with an inquiry and see where the where the overages, the average for the that house for, you know, over the last three or four years versus January and February
because that that may spark some investigative work by households if I mean, if I'm 30 or 30% over where I've been historically and we can show them data, then we say, "You guys ought to take a look because it's really if we're running water in the basement somewhere,
it's such a waste of water. It's awful." So, so I I would I would ask I'm asking that if we if there's a report that Biola could run to have him run it or you guys or somebody. >> So, so we run it in-house every month. So, just because people are build quarterly, we read every meter every
month. >> Okay. Uh, and we do have like a top 50, the top 50 water users. If you have a major leak in your house, you're most likely going to elevate yourself to the one of the top 50 water users. So, we do look at that every single month. Okay. >> That's how we've been able to catch a
couple of the leaks that we found. >> Um, but if they don't, if they're just under that, >> it's really hard to say. I think as the temperature warms, it may show us, you know, some more properties. I'm not going to tell you your business, but maybe run the top hundred. I don't know.
I'm making up. >> That's There's certain limitations on the software, too. So, unless we went through, you know, 8,000 accounts line by line and did a comparison. >> No, I don't want you to do that. I thought maybe you could run a computer, you know, do it via the computer. Thanks.
>> Well, I just would would echo what Jeff was saying. If it's possible to run the top 100, maybe should we could explore that. >> Yeah, we we will look into it. >> Okay. Any other comments or questions from the board or the public? Okay. Thank you, Rob. Thank you.
Next item. Um, public comments on the business agenda for anyone who want wishes to make them now or they can make them contemporaneously with the agenda items. Seeing none, we'll go right into the business agenda. The first is to consider special one-day alcohol
licenses and entertainment licenses for for the Chattam Historical Society for various states that are specified. Um, Kevin, welcome. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thank you for having me this evening. Um
so the Atwood Museum is having their fifth annual um music at the Atwood. Uh in addition to that, we're also talking about our annual largest fundraiser, evening to remember. Um I'll start with
the uh the music at the Atwood. Um uh I know there was some concern last year about, you know, how many programs that we're having. We have six concerts this year. Uh and they're sort of spread out. We're doing uh two most of them are
classical performances. Um, two of them will be held at the first congregational church. Uh, two of them will be held in the mural barn on at the property of the Atwood Museum. And the other two will be our outdoor concerts under attend uh
with um transportation to and from to to minimize the uh any parking issues that we may have for that. Um uh we've got it all set up. So, all concerts will begin at 6:00 with the doors or andor gates
open at 5:30. Uh, with the exception of the two outdoor concerts, they should all wrap up by 7:30. Uh, the two artto concerts probably around 8:00 is our anticipated uh ending time of that. Uh, we no longer uh are offering uh or
selling liquor at the indoor concerts. It's only the two outdoor concerts that we have things. And I think there's a map attached to your your packet that you can see where they'll be loaded located. Um so it's it's pretty much uh
fairly similar to what we've had in the last few years. Very successful and uh um we're very excited to be bringing it back again for uh 2026. Uh and in regards to our fundraiser, um
pretty much the same thing. It's our our biggest fundraiser. The biggest difference this year uh is uh we netted about $25,000 less uh last year over the year before. We're not really sure why. There's a lot of competition. So, the
biggest change is that we're moving it from a Saturday to a Friday night uh because it's less competition for that that particular night. Um, we still have the same uh CBI and WASET. Uh, WASA will be donating uh liquor for the two bars
at that event and CBI will be supplying food. Um, and then we will also have uh the uh Bart Wisman uh trio performing some light jazz background music at that event. So, any questions? So, so Kevin,
uh, in in last year, um, there were no neighborhood complaints. >> No, I know there was a complaint here before we started, but not not that I know of, you know. Okay. I mean, the second outdoor concert this year uh is kind of a a celebration of two different
performers uh for the 250th birthday of the of America. So, that's sort of the theme and it's not >> okay. >> Rockus. Well, it looks like a very uh uh fine program uh in your brochure. I know you had an ad on this in the chronicle. I saw that recently, too. Um so, um the
the dates will specify in the motion. I don't think we need to repeat them uh in the presentation. Is there any comments or questions or is there a motion that someone wants to read? There are two motions, three motions here. No, two. One for entertainment licenses and one for one day alcohol licenses. So,
>> Mr. Chair, >> go ahead. Sharie, >> um I move to grant a special one-day alcohol license for all alcohol beverages to Christina Kuscorez of the I hope I got her name right close. Uh of
the Chattam Historical Society, Inc. for the following July 10th, 2026 from 5:00 p. p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at 347 State Harbor Road. August 4th, 2026 from 6 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at 347 Stage Harbor Road.
August 6, 2026 from 6 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at 347 Stage Harbor Road. >> Is there a second to that? >> Second. >> Okay. Uh moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> I. >> Mr. Dyson. >> Hi. >> Mr. Matters. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> Chair votes eye. Next motion. Shireen.
>> Sure. Uh, I move to grant a special 1-day entertainment license to Christina Kascoris of the Chattam Historical Society, Inc. for the following. June 25th, 2026 from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. at 6:50 Main Street, Chattam for amplified live music. July 9th, 2026 from 6:00
p.m. to 7:30 at 347 Stage Harbor Road Chatam for amplified live music. July 10th, 2026 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at 3:47 Stage Harbor Roads Chatam for amplified live music. July 16, 2026 from 6 p.m. to 7:30 at 6:50
650 Main Street, Cadam for amplified live music. August 4th, 2026 from 6 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at 347 Stage Harbor Road, Cadam for outdoor amplified live music. August 6th, 2026 from 6 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at 3:47 Stage Harbor Road Chatam
for outdoor amplified live music. and August 27th, 2026 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at 3:47 Stage Harbor Road, Chattam for live amplified music. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dy. >> Hi. >> Mr. Matters. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith.
>> I. >> Chair votes. >> Good luck. Thank you very much. Is this your final presentation to us? >> Uh, yes. Next week will be my final day, but I'll I'll be at the concert. So, >> well, congrat congratulations. >> Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate it. Congratulations on your
service >> community. Thank you. >> Okay. Um next um consider as water and sewer commissioners the proposed grinder pump regulations revisions the water and sewer advisory committee meeting uh took place yesterday and there is a
recommendation from them. But I'll turn to Mr. Phy. Um there is a revised version which staff presented today. Um, and the water and sewer committee made one modest recommendation yesterday, but go ahead, Rob. >> Thank you. Sorry you have to hear me yet
again. >> So, this is simply to expand section 11 of Chadam's existing sewer rules and regulations to address uh recent decisions and to establish a path forward regarding the supply, reimbursement, and maintenance of grinder pumps. Uh, the language we had
we used to uh to develop the draft was similar to Haritch's language. We had town council review it and uh chair, Mr. Chair, as you mentioned yesterday, water and so sewer advisory committee approved the language with one modification. Um
the last sentence of the second paragraph, they wanted to strike the word electrical. So it would read um we'll also be eligible for a one-time stipend to help offset costs of installing a grinder pump. And >> that was voted unanimously. I know the
vice chair of the committee is here. if he has wishes to say anything or if anyone has any questions. Okay. So the board will rec you can stay there Rob. The the board will recall that about a year ago we adopted I think as a policy that we would provide a free
grinder pump one time to those uh property owners who are required to connect to the sewer system uh and need a grinder pump to do so as well as to um reimburse um um property owners who had previously
installed a grinder pump for the same purpose um in the same amount of money. And these grinder pumps are worth something in the order of $6,700 or $7,000. You're getting them bulk on bulk from >> That's correct. We actually received their first delivery already, so they're ready to go. >> Okay. And I would note also because we
did have a a communication from a property owner who had installed a grinder pump previously. It was a different make. It has failed. And um I I my reading of our policy and this particular regulation uh is that that
property owner that type of property would be eligible also um for a free grinder pump uh as though we were installing it a new. Secondly, they would get a $2,000 stipend to um uh compensate for the um installation
costs. We used as uh proxy the cost of electrical uh uh tie-in, which is about um $2,000. Um and with that, I have a question of town council, but I'll I'll ask u board members if they have any
questions or comments first. Jeff, >> the only comment I really have was we we we suggest in the second paragraph a onetime stipen and we know it's 2000. Why don't we just say 2000? >> Because it uh accounts for inflation. It's 2,000 in the first year, but it goes up a certain percentage every year
to account for inflation. >> Is it pegged to CPI or something? >> It uh it is I I forgot what the uh what the inflationary value was, but uh but I think we projected out 30 years. is we took like an average CPI over uh the past number of years but we did lay out a table of uh of the inflation
>> and then I would refer to the table and you know >> that was in our vote last time was the 2000 wasn't the 2000 mentioned >> 2000 for the initial for the first year which would be mentioned in our policy vote a year ago we mentioned a dollar amount >> we did 2000 >> yeah um do you want to offer some
language uh Jeff >> no I would just was substitute for the first year 2000 and then abiding by the the schedule that I believe we've if we've we've approved it or not, but the schedule that's been suggested pegged to CPI. Why don't we just Why don't we just say
at the end instead of referencing a specific number um add at the end after the phrase grinder pump strike strike the period and put a comment say as um may be determined from time to time by the select board.
>> That's fine. >> Does that >> that's fine. >> Town council, do you want to I do have a question for you, Jay. you have better a better uh phrasing for for that. Can we >> We're looking at the second paragraph.
>> Second paragraph of >> says one time stipen at the at the end. The last sentence um >> larger. >> Yeah. So the so again the the proposed
language that I heard you say Dean was >> as may be determined from time to time by the select board. So rather than specify a 2000 >> I would probably say after stipen put a comma in an amount as may be determined
from time to time by the select board. >> Okay. I like that. >> Good close comma and then Yep. >> And I have a question for you. >> Sure. So, from the version that we originally had that you were given to look at, it looks as though in addition to some other edits you made, which are
fine, you added um subject to appropriation, which I think is appropriate. But with respect to the $2,000 stipen, you also inserted I think this is from you as may be feasible. And I had a concern about that because when we adopted, and you weren't part of it,
but I don't I don't think we when we adopted the policy that we were going to give this stipend of $2,000 with inflation. I it really wasn't conditioned on anything. So, I feel like the phrase as may be feasible,
you know, presents the the town with the >> opportunity to weasel out of the payment. That's hate to use a better word, but that's a word lawyers use. >> Aren't you glad you have us around? >> Was there I just wondered if you could
explain that phrase while you put that in. making a commitment. I think it I think the the um the as may be feasible is was probably in recognition of the fact that it may not in all circumstances
be possible to provide the the grinder pump. So, and and I don't know what the technical issues. I'm trying to think about why because that that's certainly
my language added and just trying to account for all possibilities where where there there may not be um either the technical means to do it. I'm I'm fine if you strike it. >> Yeah. You know, I I put it in there because we like to have some flexibility
>> as much flexibility as possible because not all systems >> might be able to accommodate um a grinder pump, for example. >> Okay. Um Jeff, you had >> Yeah, I I would I would be in favor of
striking. I think we made a commitment. I would start the sentence with eligible property owners. Eligibility also conditioned on whether is it possible or not. I mean, sure that that's all >> I would keep subject to appropriation though. >> Okay. All right. >> Yeah, for sure. >> We can't do anything without that. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Um, >> I would agree with that, but I I think we made a commitment. >> Okay. Shireen, did you have something? >> I I'm agreeing with Jeff. I I think this is a commitment to help what could arguably be a very expensive process for
some property owners in in town. >> Stuart. >> Sure. Um, this started way before my arrival, but um, my understanding is the grinder pump issue uh, was or supplying grinder pumps to
these folks was uh, wasn't really new. It was part of the original plan. Okay, that's >> Yeah, there was language in the 2009, whatever it was. >> Yes, good. And um, for Rob uh, I had a question.
the what what do these folks do? Like the storm we had, we lost power for whatever days uh depending who you were. What do the these folks do with their grinder pumps? H they obviously don't work, right? >> Yeah. Unless they have generators.
Unless well obviously but if you don't >> there are companies that will go around with portable generators and and evacuate their their storage tank with the pump >> and okay >> they have a battery that gets keeps them going for like 24 hours.
>> Not unless it's something part of the house's electrical system. >> Okay. >> And um who's maintaining these pumps? home owner, >> the property owner, >> the manufactury warranty provided that the licensed
utility installer has gone through the certification process. Oh, yeah. >> Which we brought FR Mahoney into town uh last month to certify a number of LUIs. >> Oh, okay. So, there's there's >> beyond the 5-year warranty period, it would be on the property owner, >> right? And there's a there's a cadre of
folks that can do that somewhat locally. >> Absolutely. Yes. And that's um and are those uh are those listed uh those maintenance folks are they listed on our website? >> We have the LUI listed on our website and most of them would be capable of um doing some maintenance on it
>> doing some so um >> and Stuart on on that issue we you know work with Rob and his team because we have to be careful not to necessarily be promoting one or the other. >> Sure. We we were comfortable with where
Rob ended up on this. You know, we've been battling to find the right line to be able to provide this amenity while still um being on the right side of the anti-aid amendment. And I think with Rob's team and some other good examples
around the Cape, we're able to find a good balance that addressed all those issues without us getting involved in promoting one entity over another, for example. >> Right. And but but putting this is more of a question. Putting the a list on the town's website doesn't give us any
>> I I didn't have a super big concern as long as we were just providing it for information's sake and we weren't favoring one or over the other. And if others show up and say, "Hey, I do this work too." I would be inclined to recommend that we >> Sure. >> that we add them if they're local.
>> Yeah. And the um uh the requests for pumps, I remember some months ago I had asked about this. Is is that something folks can now come into or or they can fill out the request form online or they can come into your office and >> uh either we haven't put it online yet.
We have to wait for this to be adopted into sewer rules and regulations. But yeah, I would imag Yeah. They fill out a form at your office and they that starts the process. And for those folks out there that um
uh may lose power, they may want to uh get a plan together for um getting a generator because they're going to if if if there's How many pumps do you have out there? Couple hundred. >> Uh there are already um probably a hundred in town, people installed on their own,
>> right? And then the prospect is for upwards of a thousand >> over the next 30 years. Yeah, there'll be over a thousand. >> Yeah, I I would be getting on Word to the wise. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. I uh if there's nothing else from the board, I see Elaine Gibbs. Um you have a question or
comment, Elaine? >> Uh yes, I do. Um I have been very vocal about this grinder pump policy and that I believe that it's selectively uh giving financial benefit to certain groups when there are many different situations regarding the sewer system
that affect all of us that have resulted in huge bills that are not being remedied. I would also ask, I missed it at the beginning so I'm not sure, but if any of the select board members are going to be receiving grinder pumps, uh people have rec select board members
have recused themselves uh for far less where there's no financial impact. So I think for the public, we should know if any of the board members are going to be receiving grinder pumps. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I don't see any other public
comments. Is there any more discussion from the select board? >> Is are you going to respond to that? I'm asking the question and if you don't want to answer it, >> I I mean I leave that up to the individual members. Uh, Elaine, and I'm
not here. >> I mean, I'll respond. I >> Mr. Dykins is getting a grinder pump and he shouldn't miss Gibbs, if I might. Um, I' I've consulted with town council and other council on this issue and and I applied
uh with a a sewer plan years before we ever did a grinder pump plan. So to think that I am going to sit here and and pass a grinder pump policy to endure to my benefit is ridiculous. I my my plan my my my plan was my plan was was
was applied for years before we even considered this. So, and and I need a gr and I need a grinder pump just like anybody else in town. I need a grinder pump and and you know Jay, you you can speak to this issue as well, please. >> I'll I'll speak to it only briefly and
only because you you >> well perhaps asked me to, Jeff, but um you know, in the in the basic sense of things in terms of ethics, I'm just going to speak to it in basic generalities. when a when there's not a
peculiar or unique benefit then and the benefits are spread more widely then there's not really a conflict issue there that's like similar to the tax situations where we vote on taxes that apply to any number of people. I'm not going to comment on specifics of Jeff's
situation because that's highly confidential, but I, you know, I I I certainly supported Jeff's uh approach to this and we did look at it very carefully and Jeff looked at it very carefully even outside of speaking with me as well. >> Okay. Any any other comments from the
board? Stuart, did you >> Corey, did you have anything? >> Well, I didn't know for I mean, I guess just to clarify, no, I I'm not getting a grinder pump. I'm actually on my own IIA system. So, thanks for >> Well, then I'll clarify. I'm not getting grinder pump that I know of.
>> Okay. Um All right. Um so before us is the is the proposed um uh amendment to the uh town sewer regulations as recommended by the water and sewer advisory committee and the DPW director
and uh as uh further edited this evening uh with the language that town council offered. I won't repeat it but I think Kathy you have it. And um that had to do with the the stipened
uh amount and also we will we will strike the phrase as may be feasible and and we will introduce that sentence with subject to appropriation. So with that I'll ask for a motion >> move approval >> and move has been moved and seconded and
I'll call the role. >> Miss Davis I >> Mr. Dyen. Hi >> Mr. Meers. Hi >> Mr. Smith. Hi. >> And the chair votes I. >> Thank you. Next item. >> Next item. Was I off line when I called the RO? >> I I didn't notice.
>> Uh well, I we just called the role on that um sewer item and it was five to zero in favor of it on a motion by Mr. Dyken, seconded by Mr. Smith, which included the um revisions that um were presented this evening.
Next um is to um consider 2026 annual town meeting articles for review and uh vote to place and or recommend and I'm going to take out of order as the first item number six implementation of the residential
tax exemption delay. This is an article submitted by the finance committee um and a memo dated um March 2nd and I believe the chair of the finance committee there he is Steven Daniel is there to uh offer
this uh article for the board to consider placement. Stephen, welcome. >> Thank you. Thank you all. Um first I'm going to beg your forbearance as I spent too much too much time in an MRI tube this afternoon. I'm still a little
wobbly. So, um, bear with me. Um, so, um, I think, well, I'm certain you all have a copy of the language and I think we foreshadowed this, um, variously at the budget summit and I
think a joint meeting of both uh, committees. What we are uh seeking is uh for select board support for a an article that was um put forth by the uh a unanimous vote of finance committee
um to see if the town would delay implementation of the residential tax exemption for at least one year. purpose is to allow more time for the town government and residents to learn about the financial and legal costs and opportunities involved with adopting the
residential tax exemption and to evaluate whether a more targeted means of providing tax relief to full-time resident taxpayers in need. Um, tangential to that, um,
I have created a working group, uh, that's modeled on the work we did on attainable and affordable housing back in January of 2020. Uh, the intent of which to thoroughly study this issue and and present thoughts and recommendations
um to the select board for their consideration. Uh members of that working group include Barb Madison, Andy Young, Eric Whitley, John Papalardo, and myself. And uh we're going to get going
once we uh drop our report to the warrant toward, excuse me, towards the end of the month. Um, I think it's pretty clear since the September tax classification hearing
that things have come up that weren't necessarily fully considered uh at that time including the impact on the overlay perspective impact on the overlay uh the challenges presented by the RTE to uh LLC's uh limited liability corporations
and their beneficiaries. the impact on the roughly 1,700 homes owned in Chattam by trusts and uh the impact prospective impact on uh year-round renters as their landlords seek to recapture
um any perspective increase in their taxes as a result of the RTE. Um, we're also slightly concerned, having heard concern expressed by local 501c3s about the perspective impact of the RTE on
not for profofits in town. Um, so with that as background, uh, we are seeking, uh, your support to post this to the warrant. I will add that uh if you elect
not to uh extended to us as a courtesy that we do have a petition article signed by all nine members of the finance committee uh Rob Stello and uh Mary Beth Daniel uh that we're prepared
to submit uh for consideration uh in the event you elect not to to extend the courtesy. So that's what I have. Happy to take any questions. >> Thank you. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Stephen. So, this is a request from a committee of the town asking us to put something on the
warrant. The article that is being proposed uh asks the um town meeting to request the select board to delay implementation of the residential tax exemption for at least one year. Um I I'll have some comments on it in in a
moment, but I wanted to just ask the board members if they have any questions or comments. >> Stephen, let me just jump in very quickly. And to be to be clear, this is not binding. >> Yeah. >> On a select, it would be a sense of town meeting, which you guys can >> treat as you wish. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Stuart. >> Sure. Um I don't have any trouble uh supporting the placement on the uh of this of this petition if if you will uh to to uh town meeting on the town meeting warrant. I don't I think it's kind of silly if people get 10 votes.
They don't need to go through that exercise. I don't have any trouble with that. Um, so, uh, we can disagree on, uh, on on, uh, the merit's mind's clear, you know. Um, I'm I'm doing whatever I can to assist those people that are
trying to live here and stay in their homes, and those are retired folks, workingass, what have you. This is one of those statutory opportunities that, you know, is it's not real prevalent. you know, we it's rare we get this type of an opportunity to help these folks
like other communities on Cape Cod um have have chosen to do. Um the the other thing and then I'll I'll let some others speak but the other thing is we have one more step in this if I'm not mistaken right
>> in September when we do the classification hearing. Yeah. we haven't formally >> right >> adopted it FY27 but >> right so um I guess where I was headed is it's going you know while we're moving forward the the the final
decision will be in September and um so those folks have you know a fair amount of time to come up with those arguments you know I hear the the words like at least one year that concerns me um so like I said I I I I can go into detail
at you know the appropriate a time on to why this is why this is uh helpful to those people who are trying to stay here. And um like any statute, there are shortcomings. Uh there's no perfect statute out there. We just saw a bylaw that's less than perfect. Um so um
that's that's where I stand. But I do support uh putting it on the warrant. >> Corey, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I mean mechanically I have seen no need to do this through petition. Um I'm happy to support it to place it on the warrants. U no issue. whatsoever. Um, and probably
you probably shouldn't even say this, but I'm I'm kind of more on the fence of being one of those at least one year delay because we've identified some areas of concern. Um, this is a this is a very divisive dis, you know, topic. Um, and I at the very least I want to
flush out some some of the identified um items better. uh get more clarity, understand the impact um to get a crystal clear picture of what this could do or and then uh you know move it along appropriately. But a year delay is is is
definitely an appropriate thing and I would support uh both placing and and recommendation um for this article. >> Any other comments from the board? Shireen. >> Um I too are fine with putting it on um on the warrant. Uh however, I stand by
my belief that this is a um a benefit to the town. Um and that the decision will be made in September. Um and I think we'll be surprised as to what the vote will be, you know, in the positive at town meeting. So I will not be
supporting the article. >> Jeff, >> yeah, I I certainly support its placement on the warrant. I I don't you know the the esteemed and stalwart members of our finance committee needn't submit a petition certainly we can we
should place it and and the the the language in in in this bothers me a bit that at least one year that the least bothers me um and uh I I think that um it is a tool in our toolbox and uh I will be very interested to hear um town
meetings opinion their vote on this knowing that this is not a binding petition. Um but it's indicative. Um so those are my thoughts. I certainly would would vote to place and I will I would vote not to recommend um at this
point. That doesn't mean that um the efforts of the subcommittee and the finance committee looking at other perhaps more targeted means of relief for our taxpayers uh would certainly u get a warm ear here. Thanks. >> Thank you. Um, I'm certainly going to
support this um given my position in opposition to the RTE. Uh, and I'll support recommendation as well if there's a motion seconded to uh take that particular vote. Um uh and I I
would encourage uh your working committee um to consider something that I know Stuart, I'm sorry, Stephen, you and I discussed um when I posited that one other approach that I think might be more targeted would be for the town to
file a home rule petition with the legislature to expand the purview of the tax assistance committee beyond just helping um those property owners that have disabilities or are elderly to include
anyone in financial need. Uh I would think that would receive um favorable support up on Beacon Hill. But that's that's seems to me another tool that's that's a process that takes a year or two to probably at least two years to get done. I don't I don't think it's an
impossible idea anyway. So I think there's sentiment here to to place it. So, I'm going to ask for a motion to place. >> Move to place. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded to place. I'll call the role. Um, Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dykins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi.
>> Mr. Smith. >> Hi, >> Mr. Chair. Vai. I'm sorry. I I neglected to I don't see any public comment. I'm sorry. Yes. If you'd like to come forward. >> So, it is placed unless somebody
>> I appreciate that. I know the the committee will appreciate that. And I do have one comment after this. >> Yeah. >> Public participant speaks. I'd like to render, please. >> Mr. Stello and then Mr. Phillips. >> Yes. Uh, hi Rob Stello. Um, 159 Tide
Lane. Um, a few things. I understand I had two of you make concerns about um, you know, you have a problem with this thing waiting at least a year, meaning it could go longer. I find it very disturbing to hear last meeting they were going to go 30%, then they go down to 20%, and then I heard the comment
that we could go as high as 50%. On the other side of this coin, it's very disturbing to hear that to be honest with you. I think this is again very decisive. I find a situation where you just blanket say anybody from a certain point down is going to get a tax break. Not everybody needs that tax break. The
people who really need it should get it. people who, you know, we should sit down, search them out, and I don't think anybody's got any problem with doing that, but to do a blanket thing, it just really is not the right way to go. One comment I'd like to make is um
because this has come up with the um sewer just now with Mr. Dyens on the sewer. I've heard this thing in the last meeting I was at that someone criticized about people in the board getting a break with a tax break. I just like to say as a citizen I find that very embarrassing and I'm kind of even ashamed that people would even bring
that up that you're our board, you vote on things. You guys are citizens of this town and I don't see anybody doing anything for good for a personal reason. And I got to tell you, I I'm really upset even hearing people even making that comment. I feel that's very personal and I've seen this attack
happen many times. You wonder why good people don't run for office is um that's it's just bull to be honest with you. And um I just can't believe that anybody without the nerd even bring that up. You guys are right here. It's an open meeting. Nobody's walking out with millions of dollars in their pocket. But
you know to make comments like that I just have to tell you I find degrading. But I still go back to this issue that I feel like you know as a whole I think we're all trying to do good. We want to help the people here. Um but I see it on one end going one way and one end it goes another way. It there's a lot of
factors that should be looked into waiting a year especially with this finance committee. I think do do a great job. Um it it doesn't hurt to sit down and try to do it the right way or making sure we cover all the bases and um I would be really disappointed if we don't
do that because this has been thrown in. I realize that everyone wants to do it in a hurry. But you know what? There's a lot of things to consider here. So I just hope you take that earn adisement. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Phillips. >> Uh Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Um
there is like a lot of misinformation and um not understanding of this that's creating uh some tension. Um initially it was put out there that you know the break even the 3.4 million or whatever uh those people that are year- round residents would not be getting the tax
exemption. All year round residents are getting the tax exemption. So if you've lived here if you are year- round tax resident um and your house is worth 4.2 2 million, you're going to be paying about $1330 less than the um than the
summer residents or the non-residents. Um so that was the first, you know, that was the first concern I kind of heard from the um >> That's not correct. >> That's not correct. >> There there is if you're over the the tipping point, you're going to pay even if you even if you are a year round
taxpayer. I I just stopped by the uh assessor's office and this is what she told me and she did give me a give me a print out >> but that's well I don't know about that but that I can't I can't speak to that but it's not accurate. There are there are there are people who are year round residents that are going to pay if their
value of their property is in excess of what's the figure was it >> 3.4 million. >> I thought 3 3.425 I thought it was it depends ultimately on where the the exemption rate is set. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> Okay. But it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.2 to 3.4.
>> Yeah. There you go. >> Right. Right. Now, >> so there are some that are going to be affected. >> If you're real round and your assess and your assessed value of your home is north of 3.5, call it >> say 4 million. >> You're not going to get a you're not going to get a tax break. >> I was just at the board of that's what she told me.
>> You're not I really don't want to confuse the issue even more by being confused. >> You're going to pay more. You're not going to get a break and you're not and you're going to wind up paying more. It's not a great high number of people. I'm just telling you that >> Okay, that's just my >> I just wanted to
>> I apologize. Maybe we should look into a little more because that's how it was explained to me. I think >> Did you have anything more? Um, and I guess, uh, I was, you know, addressing other concerns as I went to the finance committee about, you know, raising the rates of, uh, rentals and, um, I'm going
to be doing the home real petition, submitting what Orleans did, giving, um, you know, people that rent out to year round people, uh, the same sort of tax breaks u by from the board. So, that was the two things. >> This is the lease to locals. >> Uh, Brian, we have that on our agenda.
It's called lease to locals. If you look down into the agenda, we had talked about it. >> It's coming up this evening >> like three weeks ago and we're going to be putting it on the warrant. So stick around and >> Well, I've seen it and I've seen it. This is just a little bit different of a program. >> Okay. Well, we'd like to hear from you. >> All right. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you, Stephen. You had a
comment. >> Um yeah, I guess predominantly I think what we just saw is emblematic of what we want to try to clarify. Uh because Jeff and and um Dean, you're
correct and and I appreciate Mr. Phillips got his information, but he's that that information is not correct. So I think one of the goals of the working group is going to be to really try to put this thing in in real relief so people can fully understand what the
issue is and how best to think about it. The one of the primary concerns uh of the finance committee is that nowhere uh and I and Stuart I would refer back to your language. Uh nowhere
has we have we seen that the select board or the assessing board has defined who we're trying to help here. Is it single moms with kids under 12? Is it 80 year olds who are on a fixed income? Is it people who've been here
for, you know, 100 years? What who are we? Who who are they? And and our sense is that to create a blanket policy that will affect one way or the other the tax rates of 7500 roughly homes and down
without having defined what we're trying to achieve with the policy is not a great way to create policy. Um these the residential tax exemption was
originally started and intended for the benefit of residents in large cities. Legislative history never contemplated realistically that it would spread to a kind of small rural community such as Chattam. Obviously it's uh it's spreading it's spreading out west in
Great Bington. Um but um we just look forward to the opportunity to really try to dive into this thing and it's going to include you know conversations with uh with the select board too to to understand the thinking and and is there a way to sharpen this tool uh so it's not so such a blunt instrument.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> So so that's what I got. >> It is placed and uh this is the point where I would ask I don't want to embarrass anyone on the board. I mean I'll make it awkward for people on the board. I I will entertain a motion to recommend
and a second if someone wants to offer it. I could offer it myself, but again uh I know the sentiment of you know a majority of the board is in the opposite direction from me. But >> I just I just had one >> Yeah, go ahead. >> If you don't mind, sorry, I had one comment to Mr. Dan uh Steven. Um
I I understand what you're saying. Um I I what I I I'd like to point out is the select board for years uh has enacted this policy in other cases where we give um we give I'll call
it grants to uh folks using our elementary or preschool. We just give them blanket grants um and they're not vetted for need. They simply get a a break. So, this isn't new. Um, and we've
been doing it in other cases uh for some time, but I I understand your points. Thank you, >> Corey. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I think we're all adult adults up here, and I think we're all free to have our own opinion. So, I'm going to make a motion that we recommend the article.
Um, is anyone I'm going to I'm about to second it, but I don't want to I don't want to place anyone in an awkward position. Does anyone have a concern about it? >> Okay, I'll second that motion. No one's going to be in a >> So, it's moved moved and and seconded to recommend and I'll call the role. Miss
Davis, >> no. >> Mr. Dyus, >> no. >> Mr. Meadows, >> hi. >> Mr. Smith, >> no. >> And the chair votes eye. So, it's two to three. >> Yes, Carol. >> Great. Well, thank you all. I appreciate uh we appreciate the uh
>> Stephen. Stephen, can you can you hold please Steve for a second? >> Can I just say sure? >> Yes. Car Sure. Caroline, I'm sorry. I didn't didn't see you. >> Carolyn McClullen, South Chadam, I just want to say something in respon. I mean, we've been working on this for a while and a lot of different opinions, but
just in reference to something that Stephen had said in regards to the history of this type of uh policy being meant for bigger communities, but I I did want to point out that it is part of the seasonal communities act. It's not mandatory, but it's it's listed as an
option for the specific reason that the people that live in these kind of communities that have accelerated growth, the the year-round local population has that burden of coming up with that money for their you uh increased value on their properties whether they have it or not. So, it's
definitely meant for relief of people in these types of communities because it's unprecedented in terms of their financial burden right now. Just wanted to point that out. >> Thank you, Carolyn. Stephen, I I had cut you off, but >> yeah. No, that's fine. I just wanted to thank you all for for listening to us and for the courtesy extended to the
committee. So, we appreciate it. >> Thank you. So, it is placed and the recommendation is two to three. Um, okay. Next item is the Chattam Municipal Airport federal fiscal year 2026 capital improvement plan CIP a design aircraft
study. was this is continued from the meeting of the February 10th and um who is presenting this? Is it Huntley? Welcome Huntley. >> Good evening and thank you for having me
back. Um I appreciate that. The uh reason I'm I'm here is because it was essentially tabled last time and I I'm looking again for your your support and recommendation of this article for the
warrant. Uh I think as we all know that excuse me over the last few years the operations of turbine aircraft uh has increased to a point where we have decided that it's
important to have a uh a study done to see what kind of mitigations or changes might be necessary at the airport uh for safety reasons and to also uh reduce the
uh the possible possibility of uh liability uh should something unourred happen uh based on the the aircraft coming in. Uh we have waited to do this because we wanted to look at the average over the
last four years to see where this number of operations that the FAA suggests which is 500 operations. uh anything in exceeding that um
triggers uh a lookie uh the uh fact that we have been exceeding that and over the last few years uh is you know raised the issue of bringing of of
you know having this study done. So I'm asking uh for a variety of reasons. One is the liability issue that we want to protect ourselves and not ignore this that you know we have these number of
operations which by the way just to review 500 operations is really 250 flights 250 aircraft because one operation is a takeoff and a landing is another operation. So that I think people have to understand that it's not
500 airplanes coming in, it's half that. Um, so I I I would ask that for the $7500 and by the way, there was a nice summary put out today uh of the article. I don't
know if you have it in your packet because it was I just saw it late this afternoon. Uh, and I sent an an email back to the town manager saying that I have I I think it's good. I think I approve it. Oh, there it is. Okay. And there was an edit that our consultant
Matt Karen made uh in there to issue uh a change. I don't see where it is here, but it's it's >> 500 annual. >> That's where the change was made. >> He added the word annual. >> Annual. Okay. Yeah. Instead of 500
operations, it's over five years. It's 500 annual operations. U so I'm again am asking that to protect ourselves from liability for safety reasons that uh you support this and recommend it uh for the
warrant. >> So this is uh this $7,500 would be the match. it would be our local match, >> our contribution to to receive 142,500 in state and federal grant monies for this study. I wanted to ask you I like
this uh reddraft which the town manager and and um Kathy worked on. I think um I think this is much better than than the version which was in the packet, >> right? >> Which I I found very confusing. Um, I wanted to ask you a question which might
lead to a further edit on this. um in conversation with you maybe a month or two ago or shortly after you presented this for the first time and I think even that night um back in February um you I
think you saw this study as offering the potential for um um possible accommodations that might uh lead to some restrictions as a possibility uh on these uh flights
from these larger planes, whether they be time restrictions. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Um I think you were possibly talking about that. We could conceivably think about noise restrictions. Is that how you view this study as well? It's not just to it's basically a safety study, right?
>> Yes. >> And and so you've got these planes coming in and you want to make sure the airport is safe, correct, >> for everybody. Um and that may re lead lead to some that could lead to some recommendations to to
make some adjustments at the airport. But um not just on the side of I'll use the word accommodating these planes to make it safe for them to land and take off. Um, but also could it include
um the potential for restricting things like time or noise? >> It would all be up to the FAA. Those airplanes, as for any airport, if an airplane can land at that airport, it's allowed to
land. and restrictions would have to the only as as I see it there could be geometric changes physical changes that they might recommend. Uh we're we're very
restrictive in that sense that there's no not really any room. We can't expand anywhere. Um the other might be operational changes that could happen. uh timing, not time
of landing, but just timing of approach and departure uh type of things. Um and there might be some other types of mitigations that that well could happen. >> Well, what I what I was thinking of and if you look at the in the paragraph that
says, it's up on the screen here, um it's the one, two, three, fourth paragraph. The study will exam >> yeah the study will examine current operations, airport geometry and safety
areas and document how existing conditions align with FAA safety guidance. The results may confirm the airport's current design aircraft classification or identify operational proced procedures, mitigation measures or other alternatives for the FAA and
the town to consider. I was just wondering if after the phrase mitigation measures, you might um just so it's clear to to town meeting what they're voting on uh whether you might include language such as in a
parenthesis including um possible time or noise restrictions. >> I don't think we can do that. >> Okay. I think as I said it would it would be up to the FAA to make determinations of that sort.
>> Shireen, >> I I understand that they it it would be up to the FAA to make the determinations, but we are the town and we can definitely voice our concerns or what the public is actually. So, in saying this at our town meeting and I
would imagine when the um when this study is done that feedback would be from the airport commission itself that has listened to the community about some of these things about you know time of
day landing and whatnot that would if we don't say anything the FAA is going to probably do the most ultimous thing they're going to do but if they know that the town has specific concerns or wants certain things addressed, at least it's in the document for the FAA to
consider. And I think that that, you know, it having dealt with government authority on a lot of regulatory processes, if you're not putting it in there, if you're not saying it, it's not going to be considered. So I I think what you're
what I'm hearing from Dean is if we actually put the language into the the the warrant article, it informs >> better. >> Yeah. What what >> Go ahead. I >> No, no, I'm sorry. >> Informs better the public, but also can inform how the study is framed for
recommendation to the FAA. >> Yeah, I think that's that's important. I I um yeah it it is in the explanation of the Warren article which is not the action part of the article but I'm inclined to support the the article uh because it's a safety oriented measure.
>> I I don't believe I don't believe it's an intent to expand the airport. I really don't believe that. uh and uh at the same time I really would like to be able to sell this to town meeting and I think if they understand that this is
kind of an open-ended study and it's not just hey let's do everything we can it it's not at all let's do everything we can to make it possible for these large planes to come in. >> No that's not not at all what it is. No, but it but it but it includes it
includes >> considerations such as might lead to uh any FAA approved restrictions that we might want to propose. So, I don't want to give the the citizens
>> any kind of false hope >> that if you put wording like that in time restrictions or uh whatever that they think, oh well, if we pass this then the FAA is going to put time restrictions on or anything like that. So, I think the wording I'm fine but
with it, but I think the wording has to be very carefully placed. Well, maybe we could say something like m mitigation measures or or restrict or possible restrictions. Just leave it like that without specifying time. I think Jeff was first and then Steuart. >> No, I I I I would suggest you insert
language like that. I'm very much in favor of it. I think ultimately >> is car. >> We'll we'll have a a notion of of what we can do given given the fact that we have 500 operations from larger craft. What can we do to make it a safer place because we can't stop them from coming?
>> Right. So, so what can we do to mitigate the the and and and having language that reflects concerns by the town's people and by Chadam itself I think is important. It's important for the FAA to know. So somewhere I think we got to say restrictions or possible restrictions or
something of that ilk. um and and terms of time of operation and noise comp I think I I view that more as a purview of the airport commission itself rather than the FA and I >> but I I I'm not an expert here but >> I will say that we've been so far very
successful with our fly friendly program and with the the charter operators not coming in between 10 and 7 in the morning 2 p.m. and seven in the morning. More successful. Not completely successful. >> No. No. It's okay. I get it. >> Thanks. Thanks, Hunley.
>> Thank you, Jeff Stewart. >> Sure. Thanks. >> Is is Matt Karan on on on the line? Is he >> No. Okay. >> Sorry. >> I was wondering if >> No, he's he he had another >> Okay. meeting >> Stuart. Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Sure. Um, you know, I I just I just got
this uh Well, I guess it was today four o'clock. uh the the new explanation over the old one after I just finished reading the old one or the previous one. Um you know, I think we're just uh I kind of want to
follow up on what Shireen's concerns were because I think they're they're spot on to what we're trying to get our hands around with this airport. And um I'm not sure we're all on the same page, frankly. and the um that RFP
the RFP that we're the well the airport commission will be developing to for this study needs to come before this board so we can ensure that the concerns that have been brought up here are actually put into that document because
this is all this you know um this is great for explanation but uh it doesn't require anything and um we're simply not getting this problem solved and the problem I'm mentioning is the neighbors
concerned on the expansion of the airport some things you know you know it's not like as I've explained before it's not like we're expanding I hope or or lengthening the runway but the expansion of the operations and these planes using this airport more regularly
than they have in the past and impacting the people who live here. Um, you know, I think Shireen's correct. The the uh the FAA um is going to read that RFP, the last draft I saw, and think that
we're okay with the way that airport runs. And so I think that that RFP needs to come before this board so we can make sure we're comfortable with it before we endorse something to go on uh on the uh town meeting warrant. I didn't I didn't
support uh this. I felt that the funding should come out of the um the revolving fund and now that we put $50,000 extra into the revolving fund this year that we can we can accommodate that. But you know, frankly, unnegotiable on that. if
we can see that RFP and ensure that our concerns are um are met there. Thank you. >> Yeah, I guess I would respond this way. I've been on this board for 11 years. I don't want to be an airport commissioner. Um that's why we have an airport commission. I I really don't
want the board functioning. We don't run the airport. They do. I I think you know you serve as our liaison. If this board has concerns or recommendations, they can be communicated either in the form of uh a document, a memo from the select
board to the to the airport commission or through you as liaison or whoever is the liaison. So I I don't really feel I need to see the RFP. I don't really think that's my job. That's how I >> Well, and I'll just respond. We have gotten ourselves in this situation by
accepting grants that nobody here reviewed. The airport commission did, but the airport has an impact on this entire community. Not only on the neighbors, but what's you know, there's legitimate concern that it's going to turn into a Nantucket airport
accommodating the the folks that come here for the weekends at CBI and charter airplanes. And you know, my perspective is, and I think it's accurate, the historical normal use of this airport is a single engine propeller-driven aircraft, which everybody, I think,
supports. So, um, you know, I I think that not looking at the RFP is paramount to not looking at any of these grants and understanding what we're getting ourselves into before we do. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Stuart. Uh Jeff, >> the fact the fact is andly correct me if
I'm wrong, but we cannot prevent the larger winged aircraft, the the the 500 operations that we're concerned about um from landing at our airport if they can do so safely. What this is requesting is a study to ensure that that those are
going to continue because we can't prevent them, but to make sure they do it without utmost safety. That is what I think we're asking the town to approve for a poultry $7,500. I agree with Dean. When we're not the airport commission, you guys are the airport commission and
the RFP. However, listen to what Stuart's saying and and Shireen is saying that the RFP ought to reflect some local concerns and not not just a rubber stamp of the airport commission saying, you know, it should reflect local concerns. It should. It should.
and and that's and I agree with Dean. We're not we're not we shouldn't be in the business of reviewing, you know, RFPs for the airport commission. We're not in that business. But I'm going to support the article because 7,500 bucks is is small potatoes to to buy an opinion from the FAA on how we could
improve perhaps augment the safety in our airport to accept these planes that are coming anyway. They're coming anyway. >> Yeah. >> What can we do to provide the utmost in safety for their arrival? we're not going to prevent them. So that that's where I land on this thing. Thank you.
>> It seems fairly black and white to me to be honest with you. Not withstanding local concerns. Notwithstanding local concerns because it's loud and noisy and hours of operation have been have improved. I can I can testify because I live in the neighborhood.
You know, I speaking of the RFP, we do have a scope of work for this which has been I I think it's in one of our minutes from earlier this year, not this year, but fiscal year, I think maybe back in the fall. But we do have a scope of work uh that was presented to us,
which which was also discussed with the FAA and MASDOT. Uh I can send that to the board tomorrow if you'd like u so you can read it. Well, the the the scope of work would have been helpful to see it here. Um, so
we so we know what we're getting ourselves into. Um, I disagree. The airport is their statutory responsibilities are clear, but our responsibilities is not only to the airport, it's to the entire community. And and so it's not as though we can
just say airport commission's job and we don't have any role in that. We do have a role in that. We absolutely do. We we appoint them. Um, so I would suggest that we delay this until we can at a very minimum see the scope of work to
ensure that we're not opening more of Pandora and making a bad situation. >> The only thing that this study will do will determine whether or not we stay as a design group one airport or a design group two airport. That's all this study
does. Uh, I want to see that in a piece of paper that has some legal standing other than this because it doesn't have anything. Even the explanation at the town meeting warrant doesn't have anything. >> I think if any board member wants to see it, they as as Huntley said, he can provide it. I'll say one other thing and
I'm going to turn to Shireen and then Corey. The town manager has to sign any contracts for the airport. So, if the town manager who listens to us every week um thinks there's a question or concern, she can bring it to this board.
But again, this board has spent too much time on the airport in the last 11 years. And I'm not going to spend the rest of my two months as chairman dealing with the airport. This is going to be just voted on tonight one way or the other. That's how I feel about it. Shireen. Well, then I'm going to have to
abstain from it because I think that um more information would be helpful and I I think that for me, Huntley, um I'm I support what the airport is doing, but again, I think we have to we we can take a stronger lead in what we say to FAA,
MASDOT, and the other people that are funding uh the grants that we get and and whatnot. And and if we do, then it it it at least gives the public the idea or it actually can explain better to the public,
>> hey, look, we we told them we want this, but this is way the way it goes with FAA. I just think that that's um >> I I just think it it's it we have this is going to be a tough vote. I I I mean, last time last year we
had a couple of tough votes. getting a lot of tough folks >> and and I think that it the more that we can explain to the public and assure them that yes the commission is working towards the big the greater good for the community as well as advocating for aviation and and uh you know in in the
town then that would be what I'd like to see too. So um I'll vote to place this but I I think I'm going to abstain from recommending it unfortunately. >> Cory, you wanted to speak? >> I'm going to try. Um so yeah placing it
no problem whatsoever. The recommendation to support it there's a couple hurdles that I see coming forth. One is um you know you've got group A that thinks that we're asking a question to truly understand better the safety the functionality of the airport
in the true spirit of what a lot of people have feel that you know support the airport. You got group B who thought that you were asking these questions to get around some other hurdles that will allow certain elements of the airport to maybe expand or be used in a way that
people have objected to over the time. There's a there's a there's a trust element that have that we've been hurdling for years now. >> Oh yeah. >> Um we see that at town meeting. Um personally I would like to I I am going to support it because I do think getting the data um is is going to be
beneficial. uh and hoping it it falls in line with more of group A versus the group B. Um that we can have some a better informed conversation. Uh I do think we should have some say or we should be you know provide our input. Um we've heard concerns for quite a while,
you know, for I've been on the board for quite some time and you know there's a lot of concerns. There's legitimate concerns. It should be part of the conversation. Uh but I guess my my question is there's no guarantee this is going to pass town meeting. I think for the 7500 I think we should pass it and
move it forward and collect the data. >> Yeah. >> But if town meeting says nope no go thumbs down where do we go from there? I you know I >> I don't either. Mr. Harrison rationale for them to defeat it would be
I mean to find out and get the information to me seems tantamount to rejecting it. Would it be clear if we town meeting rejects it because we're asking for 7500 for our share 142,5
you know granted to us. If that fails if we wanted to do the study does that mean then we as a town would need to fork over 150 out of our own pocket or are we still eligible to fund that 725? Well, I I I think I could take it out of the
revolving fund if I had to, but this this fell under the the uh because we're dealing with the FA and Masdot, it fell under the the capital >> piece of the legislation. So, you know. >> All right. Well, thank you.
>> I I just would point out that I think it was just last year was the first time that an airport request was rejected at town meeting. uh >> in the prior >> two years >> twice >> prior nine years every time >> y
>> I mean we heard from vocal opponents of those those previous articles they passed overwhelmingly um okay anyone else did I is there a motion on this to place >> Mr. Chairman I move to place >> is there a second >> second
>> moved and seconded to place call the role Miss Davis I >> Mr. Mr. Dykins. >> I >> Mr. Matters. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> And the chair votes. I Is there a motion to recommend? >> I move to recommend. Mr. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Moved and seconded to recommend. I'll
call the role. Miss Davis >> abstain. >> Miss Mr. um Dykins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> No. >> And the chair votes size. So it's 311. So it's recommended. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you all. Thank you, Huntley. Um, uh, next item is the home rule petition to allow year-round housing occupancy restrictions and attainable housing restrictions to be held in perpetuity under Massachusetts general laws, uh,
chapter 184, section 31. And this is going to be presented by Gloria McFersonen. Is Gloria There she is. Welcome, Gloria. Hi everyone. Um so I have four housing related warrant articles before you tonight. The first
one which is a home world petition um really derived from the fact that the town of Cadam accepted seasonal communities at the last town meeting. Seasonal communities allows us to do attainable housing restrictions and year-round housing restrictions, which
were not really enabled under Massachusetts general laws until seasonal communities. Um, and so while that's really great for the community because we really do need a range of housing opportunities, including um attainable units up to 200% AMI and um
year-round units that don't necessarily have an income restriction. Um the one issue with that is that um typically under Mass General laws, unless it fits in with an exemption, a restriction has
a term of a maximum of 30 years. And so as we see the chop properties um restrictions um becoming um becoming up for uh you know to expire, it becomes a little bit more important when we start
thinking about doing these new types of restrictions like attainable restrictions and year- round restrictions um so that we can um guard our public investment. So if we put town money into it, we want to know that we have um these restrictions in
perpetuity. And so this home rule petition would actually seek to give attainable and year-round housing occupancy restrictions as defined in seasonal communities which was accepted by the town. Um the same rights and
benefits as the other restrictions that are enumerated in Mass General Law Chapter um 184 section 31. um those same rights to be held in perpetuity. And I have actually, if I can share my
screen, I actually have um some updates to Can you guys see that? >> Is it showing up on your >> Yes, we can see it. >> Okay. So, there were a couple of edits that were made by town council that did not make it into the packet. Um
it's specifically um I think you can see like a couple of uh red lines over here um which are just um kind of minor minor things. Um when I wrote section one I actually took it word for word from the
section of the statute that allows affordable housing restrictions to be held in perpetuity and just changed the language to make it for attainable and yearround. And then town council added section two. Um, just to clarify that
even though we're asking for affordable for attainable and year- round housing restrictions to be able to be held in perpetuity in Chadam, that we would not want them to be um necessarily um held or um endorsed by the EOHLC, the
Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, which is the agency that's in charge of affordable housing restrictions. So, it's just a way of differentiating these from the process and procedure of the state um approving
and and holding these restrictions. >> Could you uh Gloria, could you we can't really read that from the screen. Could you read the the edits? There was one above two words I think >> in the second line. So, so um uh section
one, notwithstanding the restrictions set forth and defined in Mass General Laws chapter 184 section 31, the town of Chattam may expend funds for the purchase of or otherwise acquire. And then what was added was or may convey >> okay
>> year-round housing occupancy restrictions and attainable housing um restrictions. So the or may convey and then there's a a brief part right here that says um originally the language said whether or not stated in the form of a restriction easement covenant and the or not was stricken. I don't think
that matters one way or another. The or not's in the original um language anyway. >> Okay. >> Um so section two which is the brand new part that was added by town council. Maybe I can make this bigger on your screen. >> Is that is it making it bigger? is that
is that is bigger but I think you should read it still. >> Okay, I'm happy to do that. Um section two, which this entire section is newly added, any restriction contemplated and executed here, shall not require the approval or execution of the Executive
Office of Housing and Livable Communities as successor to the Department of Housing and Community Development as may otherwise be required under section 32 of chapter 184 of the general laws. Okay. The only thing I would also if you drop down the motion,
I think what's printed as the motion is incorrect. It's the motion I think that was carried from another article. >> This has to do with the acceptance of property. So, >> I don't think that that motion will have to be uh revised. But there it is. There's the article. Unless you had
anything more in this, Gloria, we'll we'll take questions or >> Okay. Any questions or comments from Gloria? >> Move. Move to place. >> All right. Moved to place. Moved and seconded to place. >> Uh and I'll call a role on that. I don't
see any other comments. Um >> Miss Davis. >> I. >> Mr. Dykin. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> And the chair votes I. Is there a motion to recommend? >> Move to re move to recommend. Mr. >> Moved and seconded. We'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dyken. Hi.
>> Mr. Meadows. Mr. Smith. Hi. >> And the chair votes I say. Okay. So, we're we're done with that one. Next, Gloria. This is accept um acceptance of a bequest from the estate of Priscilla Ford of the of the property at 63 George Ryder Road. I think you're presenting
this one as well or >> is that it? Yeah. >> Um I was planning to, but if someone else wants to feel free. >> It has you down here on my notes. So, this is the Pat Ford's property. >> So, I just wanted to call to the board's attention. So, there is an updated
version that was uh handed out tonight if you want to look under your >> Where is that? >> Yep, I got it. Okay, thank you. >> Where is the updated version of that? >> It's in. >> Yeah, I don't I don't think I got that. >> So, I have the updated version on the screen here. Yeah.
>> Um you can and I'm happy to read the additional language that was added. Um, so very briefly, um, Pat Ford, Priscilla Ford, um, passed in 2023. Um, I think the report says May, but it
may have, it may have been April, actually, um, of 2023. It took a full year and a month for the will to be adjudicated in um, probate and a representative appointed. And then it
took um another year for the heirs to um you know take their personal items out of the property um do a little cleanup, make sure that they had everything they wanted. I understand they lived across the country so it was a really difficult thing for them to fly in and do a little work and then they'd fly home and then
fly back. Um so here we are a couple years later um getting this on the town meeting agenda. Um, so the bequest was made to the property to to the town for the property at 63 George Ryder Road.
Um, the property consists of a of a house that's there. There may be other improvements on the site. Um, the property was given to the town with the express desire or restriction actually that the property be used for affordable
housing purposes. further as the select board shall deem them to be in the town's best interest. So, it's to be used for affordable housing. The exact way it's going to be used for affordable housing would be up to the select board.
Um the will is also really clear that there's no condition that would restrict the town from um removing structures or renovating structures or moving structures. there's nothing um you know precious in the will about like keeping
it as is at the time of the bequest. Um the language that was added to the motion actually um also authorizes the town to convey or lease the property and further to authorize the town to accept and or convey affordable housing
restrictions on the property. Um, and that was added because it's possible that the town through the select board may choose to retain the property. It's possible that the town um and the select board will choose to sell the property
and in order to further dispose of it, we need this authorization. So, that's the section that was added by town council. >> Okay. So, this is the property of the late Pat Ford who I believe served on the uh housing authority. Is that correct? and um she was a great advocate
for affordable housing in town and she's left her property and whoever drafted this will I think had in mind 127 Old Harbor Road because it it's very explicitly uh and abundantly excludes the types of restrictions that were on that property.
So Corey, you had a comment or question? >> Yeah, I I remember Pat making a comment how she wanted to take this action toward the town. She was very passionate about providing this opportunity and she went through you know um you know the process of of >> putting this you know giving this the
town an opportunity. >> Um I am I guess this is the point where we have these conversations about what are our intent is because we're looking at um the open language that allows you know the structures to be torn down, renovated, whatever. Um, but then we
have this new language that just got brought in tonight that was not in our packet. Um, because for all transparency in the dropbox. We I think we are all aware that the town has been approached to sell this property at market value. >> That's what you have. >> Yes, we have there. It's in the It's in
the letter. It's in the drop box right to you know that little box to the left of our we there's been correspondence from a party who has shown interest in it. They were willing to pay market value for it. Um, we are obviously we don't own the property, so we don't have anything to respond to them for. I mean,
we we we don't respond, but we're not in a position yet. Once we once we take this action, then we could probably respond to them yay or nay. But I just want to be clear of what's on the table. My my sentiment is this parcel was meant for
affordable housing, >> structured, whatever. um the contemplation of selling it. I don't think at least my interpretation is is what Pat was thinking, but I guess I just want to put this on the table now before we move forward. But this these
are the facts that are on the table now, the pieces of the puzzle we're going to be working with and if we are contemplating selling it, you know, let's have the conversation now because there is a party, at least one party that is interested. the uh I think that the will
was broad enough to do anything. >> Um she says, "I do not impose I do not hereby impose any condition or restriction with respect to the preservation of any structures or improvements existing on the subject property at the time of this request.
The town may remove, renovate, alter, or reconstruct any such structures or improve improvements as it seems appropriate solely in furtherance of its affordable housing objectives. She says it's to be held and dedicated to the use by the town for such affordable housing purposes as the seglect board shall deem
to be in the town's interest. You're right to raise the point, Corey. Um um and I I guess I would turn to town council on this, see if he has anything to offer about the language that he's proposing. I would want to mention I do want to mention one other thing. There's
a $47,000 lean on this property by the state Medicaid >> uh 42 and then there's another $10,000 >> back taxes >> for for under 60,000 to obtain a piece of prior. So that's a bargain. So I I have no I have no issues with
>> that. But there there was a suggestion in the packet that that could be paid for out of the affordable housing trust and we wouldn't have to go to the general um revenues >> possible. I think the the the50 whatever thousands is is is a very reasonable fund that we could kind of clear up at
some point um to obtain the property. I don't have any concern with that. >> Jay, do you want to just speak to the language that was added to the article um about selling or conveying the property or imposing resour? I added that uh language because very often
because we're not necessarily in the business of developing affordable housing, we will convey to an entity like Housing Assistance Corp. or Habitat for Humanity and they would do the development for us and then ultimately we may choose even if we decided to
develop it on our own or do an RFP or whatever, ultimately someone may want to we may not use it for rental purposes. we may want to sell it to someone with the affordable housing restriction on it. So rather than going back to town
meeting if that was a requirement later on, I figured we would add that re um allowance now. You're not required to, but we could do it all in one step now. >> Well, I'm just looking at Corey's concern.
>> Can the language that I'm sorry >> to just to follow up if if I can. Sorry that that addresses there basically in our packet on page three there's three kind of options of where would this could go and what you just spoke on address basically option B at least my impression but then we have option C
that says selling the property as is with no deed restriction with the proceeds being transferred to the affordable housing trust fund funds which is are required to be used solely for the affordable housing purposes. So the the property itself under you know these scenarios could be sold at market
value. >> I don't see that by way of the language after >> it's >> the underline language in the article where we're stating that it's going to be for affordable housing purposes. >> I'm referencing option C on page three.
>> He's looking at the Cory's looking at the um memo in our packet. >> Yeah. I'm trying I'm trying to balance what's in the will versus what's in our packet for explanations. >> Corey and Katie. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so Gloria
prepared the staff report. Town council wasn't involved in the drafting of the staff report. So I think that if we may want to ask Gloria to respond to Sure. >> Sure. Whomever. Oh, yeah. >> Um, Gloria. >> Third option. >> Sure.
So, so yes. So, this was Oh, thank you. I scrolled on my screen, but I couldn't get down to the um Oh, that's the staff report, not the explanations. So, the options are in the explanations, too. So,
I spent a lot of time with town council on this, not not Mr. Talerin, but um another um attorney from his office. Um, we spent a lot of time figuring out um, what the town could potentially do with the property because it made sense to
have all of our options laid on the table before we made a decision about accepting it. Um, just like we had to get all of the information about the leans. Um, so through discussions with town council and obviously through
looking at the will, they did determine that we had really three options. So, one of the options, of course, is we could retain the property. So, we could accept the property, we could retain the property, um, and we could use it for affordable housing purposes. We could
potentially, um, develop a rental unit that could be, you know, restricted to employee housing or something like that. But to me, the only way the only reason it makes sense to retain the property is actually to keep it as a town rental. um we would never retain the property,
develop it ourselves and then sell it. So you can retain the property, use it as a rental. The second option is you can um sell the property with the intention of developing it for affordable housing. So you can you can
uh tear the building down, you can renovate the building, you can build more buildings, you can do whatever you want, but basically you would be selling it to someone like Hack as as Mr. Talerman mentioned um and they would be um doing an affordable housing um
development project on that property. And then the last option also involves selling it, but in this case we would sell it and not have an affordable housing deed restriction on that property. would sell it um at market rate
and take the money uh received from that sale and deposit it in the affordable housing trust fund and that depositing it in the affordable housing trust fund would meet the terms of the quest for affordable housing purposes. So, so the plan, >> so we have those three options there.
And two of the three options involve resale. And um I'm getting ahead of myself a little bit, but the Stepping Stones Road property, which we're going to look at next, um when the town originally converted the use of that from um school to housing, we actually
had something in the warrant article um that mirrors the language that was added here, which um allowed for the use to be converted. and then further allowed the select board to dispose of the property. So, it's not unusual to add that language. I just forgot it in this and
um our town council caught that and added it. >> So, if there is a sale at market, um the party that buys it can do anything they want with the property. doesn't have to be used for affordable housing or retainable housing or
anything like that, but the proceeds have to go into the affordable housing trust fund. >> That's that's the intent here. >> Does this language accomplish accomplish that? Jay, >> my feeling based upon the the Warren article itself is that if we wanted to
include that as a possibility, I'd probably want to expand on this. >> Yeah. I mean, I think you can reason to that conclusion from what comes later in that article, but I think you're probably correct that it would be best to um after the word there under add
some language express. >> I'd read the language as it stands right now to not have that option C. If we wanted to keep our options open with option C, I would want to be more clear on that. >> Could you propose some language on the
spot right now for that? Um, I could come back. I could, but I I'd want to sit down with >> the concept is the concept is that the proceeds would be >> I would want to probably include some language or, you know, alternatively
or or in the alternative the select board shall be empowered to convey the property at market value provided that all such proceeds shall be dedicated for affordable housing purposes and add that kind of language. okay >> to it and I I think that would be fine.
That's as I read the article that was presented to me which I then added on. I >> I don't think it would it clearly um says that that is uh an option here. I would say we can either develop it under this language or sell it but with
an affordable housing restriction on it. >> Okay. to try to move things along. We we could have this revised and brought back to us next week and then we could have that discussion that you're talking about, Corey, but whether we want to sell it or not, want to have the authority to sell it or not, or we could
vote on it tonight and subject to >> I'm not support of selling it for market myself. I think the I think the intent was, >> you know, this is one of those things I can speculate what Pat's you know, Pat Matt, someone else can speculate differently. This is one of those discussions, but I just want to have it
early in the process because we're now gonna I think it's wonderful that we get this piece of property. We got to figure out what is the best way to utilize it. Um, so I don't want to over complicate it, but I just want to put all the pieces on the table so we understand what we're doing. >> Well, we could have that discussion
tonight and if the vote is not to uh take it with the option to sell, then we would strike this part of this language that's been added. I don't know what the pleasure of the board is tonight. Stuart, did you want >> Well, to to be clear, Dean, I think that
the language allows us to sell it, but only with an affordable housing restriction. So, I don't think we would strike what I added. >> Okay. >> I think that language is essential to allow us to sell to an entity like uh
HAC or Habitat for Humanity. And that's a key component. And if you combine it with the said bequest language there, I think it's clear that we could only do so with the benefit of a restriction for affordable housing purposes. So I don't think you would have to strike anything
to accomplish A or B. >> I think you would have to add something if you wanted to have the option for C. So I think >> okay >> if if if the board followed Corey's lead here and said hey I don't have any interest in going the market rate unit and then just pumping that money back
into affordable housing purposes then this does that right now and keeps your options open fully for A and B. >> Stuart and then Shireen I think I had that order. Uh well, maybe Jay's answered my my
concerns, but um um like to reiterate what Gloria had mentioned that we keep our options as wide ranging as we can. Um I agree with Corey that uh that we want to be able to do that. Um I don't think I support that, but nonetheless, we should
probably be able to do that. Um you've said Jay that uh or Gloria that this would allow um a Habitat for Humanity type structure. >> I like that concept. So if it allows that, >> great. >> Okay, Shireen. >> Well, we also have the factor of the
affordable housing trust in their recommendations of what they would want to make on this property. So, I feel like leaving the options open is probably the best course to take because I think that as um the trust itself develops its planning uh going forward,
um they'll be looking at many different scenarios with the property as well as other, you know, potential things that might come our way. So, I'd prefer to keep it in. Um, but I I'm not going to, you know, like
be hardcore about it, but I I think it would be best um in giving it giving the options to the affordable housing trust to be able to work um through whatever pro programs they want to do with this property. >> So, you're you're in favor of keeping keeping option C available?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> And I I that doesn't mean I approve of it. >> Yeah. Yeah. But I think I it is I think it's a it's an option >> for further for >> further for the forum for for consideration with the trust and what they want to do with the property. >> Jeff and then Cy.
>> Yeah. And as do I I think keeping all the options open is a smart move. I just want to also just, you know, recognize Pat and her generosity to the town and her and her far her her vision of of and she's such an advocate for affordable housing and I just don't I don't want to
forget that and uh we won't mess it up. No matter what we do, we'll make sure that it goes to affordable housing in some way, shape, or form. So, I don't know if we want to uh I I move to >> Well, I think Cy >> Okay, but I think I would move to place. Uh >> thanks. >> I'll second that.
We have to keep >> it's been moved to moved to place. Is there a second >> as is or or not? Well, >> as is or with an additional amendment to allow option C, Jeff, I guess. >> Okay. Then then we should include option C. I want to keep all the options open.
So, >> do you want to see that before the >> I think we should see it before we we place and recommend. >> Let's let's get a clean version. So, let's if it's the consensus of the board, we'll we'll defer this to next week. We'll ask Jay to
>> Yeah, I'll insert the I'll have language for you next. We'll take a look at preserve option C. >> Okay. >> Draw my motion. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Next is um appropriation for the attainable housing
special revenue fund. This attainable housing ownership housing at Stepping Stones Road. Gloria. Um um so before you you see an edited um version of this and it's actually um
you'll recognize the language that's being struck out. So it was originally added by town council um and now we're taking it out because as I mentioned earlier, we've already enabled the town to dispose of the Stepping Stones Road
property when the use was converted to housing. So, we don't actually need that language um in this article. So, it was added in um and that's what's showing in your packet and now we're taking it out because it's unnecessary. Um so, that's the particular um warrant
article language. The warrant article is really for accessing those attainable housing funds that are um to be used for attainable housing projects and purposes um programs, things like that. So, those
funds are derived from 1% of the short-term rental tax revenue. Um, it's automatically placed into the attainable housing fund on a quarterly basis. Um, comes directly from do. So, anytime we ask for an appropriation from this fund,
um, first of all, it requires um a majority vote at town meeting per the um legislation that created that fund. Um, and secondly, it's never going to put um any kind of impact on the townwide budget because this is money that's
already in a dedicated account. We can only spend what's there um and a certain amount is accumulated um specifically for this project. It can also be used um in the future for 127 Old Harbor Road. Your next article you're see you're going to see, we're asking for more
money from that fund for lease to locals. anything that can go to support attainable housing um development or programs can come out of this fund. So the ask is for 2.1 million and I want to give you a little explanation for that.
You may have seen the proposal that was submitted by Hack for the the project on Stepping Stones Road. It's 14 home ownership units in um seven duplex buildings. So everything's a duplex. Each one has two units for a total of
14. Um, in order to get that density on the site, we have to do a 40B. So, 25% of those units or four of the 14 are going to be affordable. Um, the money that we're asking for will not go to subsidize those affordable units. Um,
the other 10 out of 14 units are attainable and will need a subsidy from the town because of the lack of state and federal um, funding sources available for ownership um, housing and housing at this income level. Um, so the
overall a ask for hack was 2.1 million proportionally for 10 out of the 14 units. It's actually less than the 2.1 million. However, as we're going through the process of negotiating the LDA and as we're thinking about the things that
the town might want, um it's possible that the overall ask um gets bigger. So, there's about a $500,000 cushion to this ask of 2.1 million from the fund. Um, and that's to cover things
like if the town wants solar panels installed, the proposal didn't have solar panels. If we want them, that'll be an additional cost to the town, things like that. Um, so that we don't have to go back and ask for more money. Obviously, all of the money that's spent is going to be spent in proportion to
the types of units. So, if the overall expenditure for the project is 2.1 million, then four out of 14 uh 44s of that will come from the affordable housing trust fund to cover the affordable units and the remainder will
be coming from the attainable housing fund to cover the attainable units. Those two funds don't overlap. They each have their own purposes. um they're each going to cover that. And if we don't actually use the additional funds that I'm requesting, um if we don't go up to the 2.1 million, um it'll be uh
converted back into the fund. >> So the cushion would be even greater if, um if instead of 14 units, you had 12. I personally favor 14, but I know there's been some discussion on the board previously as to whether it should be 12. That will be worked out. Um, but I
still favor getting the 2.1 million just to cover ourselves because the money the difference between what is actually spent and um and and what and the 2.1 goes back into remains in the fund. So anyway, I'll just throw it open. Corey,
>> no, I was going to make a very brief comment because I mean I think this project um kind of panned out better than I expected to. You know, I am of the opinion I think we should shave one of the units down just not so much because I want to in favor of eliminating any, you know,
opportunities. I think there's some site deficiencies that if we were to remove one of the units, um, we have some opportunity to address concerns that were brought up during the workshop and and that will be discussed further. So, we'll see where that goes. But um the
2.1 million in in return for the units that we're going to get I think is very very very reasonable. Uh so I think this is this is really you know a a good investment in our community. Um you know I think it's has some fine tuning to
still do but um for 2.1 million I I I cannot see not supporting this. I think we definitely move forward with this. So Shireen, >> I I was just going to make a motion. Sure. We're all in agreement on this. Uh uh I move to place the award article
requesting appropriation of up to 2.1 million from the attainable housing re special revenue fund to support the development of of ownership housing on the town owned Stepping Stones Road property uh on the 2026 town meeting warrant. >> Second.
>> Moved and seconded to call the role. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dyken. Hi. >> Mr. Me. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> And the chair votes I. Is there a motion to recommend? >> Motion to recommend. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. We'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dyken. >> Hi. >> Mr. Mats. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi.
>> And the chair votes eye. Okay. Um, thank you, Gloria, on that. And we have the last one for you is the um uh appropriation from the attainable housing special revenue fund. This is the lease to local program. at least a local program which
Shireen had proposed a while back. >> Turning to you. >> Okay. So, so no edits to um anything on that Warren article. Um town council reviewed it. It's fine as is. So, what's
in your packet um stands. So, from a funding perspective, this is exactly the same as the stepping stones asked. So, it's coming specifically from a fund dedicated to attainable housing. Um, it will not have an impact on the budget.
Um, I don't know how detailed you want to get you want me to get into this like we just reviewed that the resol program just a couple weeks ago. Um, so the >> I just wanted to ask a question. Does the program administrator um which would be part of part of the
process here? We'd hire one. might use the I can't remember the name of the firm that the other towns are using, but do we have to um have an annual appropriation for that position or that service?
So, we would So, this is this is one year of funding for the program. Um it doesn't renew automatically. Every year, we'll have to go and ask for funds from the attainable housing fund to cover this. Um, I think that realistically the
ask this year, which would cover, um, the program administrator, the startup fees, um, and also the rental subsidy to, um, potential landlords, um, up to 20 units. I think that we're not really going to hit those 20 units in the first
in the first year. I know that East Ham and Orleans didn't. They only hit nine units. Um, so I don't think that we're going to be using the full 312,500, but that amount would fund the entire program up to 20 units um for one year.
>> Okay. Move to place. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? Okay. Call the RO. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dykins. Hi. >> Mr. Matters. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> And the chair votes. Is there a motion to recommend? >> Recommend. Mr. Chairman. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. We'll call the role.
Mr. uh Miss Davis. >> I. >> Mr. Dykins. Hi, >> Mr. Matters. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> The chair votes I. >> Thank you, Gloria. >> Thank you so much. >> Last item is the Cape Cod Regional Technical High School uh FY27 operating
budget and assessment. Uh Jill, do you >> Yes, I I can take that, Mr. Chair. So, um, as you know, you had the business manager, Aaron Orchid, come before the board from the Cape Cod Regional Technical High School on February 24th, and, uh, she provided the anticipated
FY27 budget. The school committee was scheduled to vote, but it happened to be the week of the blizzard where they were using the site as a regional shelter. So, I spoke with her last week. She said that it is scheduled or rescheduled for
the school committee vote on March 24th, but said that it's not changing since the presentation. So, she expects it to be adopted as was presented to the select board. So, the >> Go ahead. >> So, the Warren article in your packet
has those figures of what the town's assessment would be. We're going to have something similar with respect to the Monoy because they're they're not meeting until after we close the warrant. Also, >> uh there there's a meeting that's scheduled on um March 16th with the
internal finance team and I think they're meeting that night with the select board. >> So, what we do know is that it if it does go down after the warrants already posted, we're fine. There's no anticipation that it's going to be increased or higher than the amount
that's in the warrant. >> Okay. I just wanted to point out in the explanation on this, there was one typo. It refers to 20 and then a parenthesis 19 shadam students. So it's 19 that we one student reduction. >> Um is uh there a motion to place this in
the >> place. Second. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Call the role. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dyken. Hi. >> Mr. Matters. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I >> and the chair votes I. Is there a motion to recommend? >> I move to recommend, Mr. Chairman. >> Second.
>> Um moved to second to call the role. Miss uh Miss Davis. >> I. >> Mr. Dikkins. Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> And the chair votes I. >> All right. The final item on the agenda is to consider the release and approval of executive session minutes. Um these
were the minutes that related to of meetings that related to the recent decision on the town manager's uh contract extension and appointment. Um and there's a memo in the file. There were two sets of minutes. Did Kathy, did
you want to speak to this? this memo essentially came from you that there were two sets um which I personally edited um and in the first set um they were drafted um by the town manager because she took notes
and the second they were drafted by Mr. Dykens as he took the notes and um I reviewed and edited them. So >> yes, that's correct. So um as is practice um once the uh matter of that is the subject of the executive session
has been completed and is um is finalized uh the board may uh decide to release those executive session minutes uh to the public. So what the board has before them are the two sets of minutes and as that contract was ratifi um was
voted or the extension was voted publicly last meeting uh that matter is considered complete. So the board is able to now release those minutes. Um the minutes once they remain confidential until the board votes to approve and release. So once released,
they will be posted both to the meeting where the executive session took place as well as to tonight's meeting um as an attachment to the minutes to tonight's meeting as well. >> Yeah, customarily we have uh approved executive session minutes in groups quarterly, but we're pretty well caught
up. I thought it was important given the subject matter that we get these done uh quickly and we're required by law to get them out. So is there a >> Mr. Chair, I move that we approve and release the executive session minutes of January 13, 2026 and February 17th, 2026. >> Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Any discussion, Stuart? >> Sure. Uh, thank you, Dean. Um I see that on the first executive
session minutes um it it uh states that um Miss Goldmith um submitted the uh the minutes that's at the end and that um Mr. Dykins did the minutes for the second um set of uh of the second
executive session. That's my recollection of what took place. >> Yes, >> there's two things I wanted to point out that I made a point of. Um there were a number of things, but the two most important things were that I uh
objected to the renewal of the contract. um due to the fact that it was coming uh uh earlier than has been typically done and it was being uh done prior to the uh annual evaluation that I had not had an
opportunity to participate in. >> I'm sorry to interrupt you. We've lost connection to the team's meeting. So >> thank you. >> Okay. I mean I gota save for a minute. Is it the broadcast? >> We are working to restore the meeting.
So if you are online Everyone should be off to bed or having dinner. No one's waiting for us. Who's Michael? >> How do we proceed if she can't get us back on? Go ahead. >> Sorry.
>> How do we proceed if she can't get us back on? I think probably have to defer to next week. >> It says on the announcement that we make our best effort, >> right? >> Yeah, that's true. >> So, I think we keep going >> or accessible by phone. >> I don't want to wait.
>> Are we still accessible by phone? Kathy, >> I would imagine. >> So, you're the broadcast. No one watching it on channel. >> This happened when I was remote and you can hear you can talk to each other. >> This one's different. Okay, >> that one the picture only went out. This
one the whole thing went out. So the people who logged in can see like we can we can all talk to each other but >> so people who have logged in on the computer can see it. >> There we go. >> Looks like we're back. Are we >> We're back. >> We're back.
>> Okay. Wait for the high sign here. >> Okay, we're back. Stuart, you were talking about um you you uh stated uh uh something you reiterated something that you had stated at either or both of
these meetings. >> Yeah. Um on the first executive session minutes uh um Miss Goldmith uh took the minutes and has submitted it. Says that at the bottom of the minutes and on the um second set uh the second meeting uh
Mr. Dykens took the minutes and that's also stated in the right here. I want to point that out. Lastly, um I I I just want there were a number of things stated at the executive session that I know we don't capture everything. Um but
I did want to point out that I objected to the renewal of this contract um uh due to its timing being earlier than is normally done. uh it was being done before the election and it was being done before uh I had the opportunity or
anyone else to do an annual uh evaluation that is typically done in April and that's all I had. >> Did you want to are you proposing that as an amendment to the minutes or >> to both sets? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Did >> because I I said Yeah. >> Yeah. Did you do you want to suggest
where you want to place that >> um language >> the uh in the first set of minutes? Um it can be done in the um
page one of the minutes at the bottom. So you would add a separate paragraph. >> Yeah, you can put it there. And on the second set, uh Mr. Dykens took the minutes. Um it could be done on the second page at
the bottom. Okay, the second page. >> Could you clarify where on the second page at the bottom because I have a carryover paragraph, so I just want to make sure I'm in the right. >> Yeah. Um, okay. Mr. Niccastro then requested the
board consider compensation. Um, and uh, it can be you could >> you want to have it after that paragraph? >> Yeah, that would be fine. as a separate paragraph. >> That would be the easiest thing. >> Let's make sure we get the sentence. So, >> or or might I Okay, because that's the
vote where you oppose. So, you want it following the vote or prior to >> No. No. And it would be on page three of my version anyway. Page three, >> maybe after the first >> right after the first two lines. It would be a separate standing paragraph
>> in one sentence, but a freestanding paragraph. >> Do you see that, Kathy? So on my page three, I I had the very first paragraph. As Chair Niccastro then requested a vote to approve the contract extension, vice chair Dyikens moved to approve the contract.
>> No, it would go before that. >> Okay. >> It would go >> so between the carryover paragraph. >> Between the carryover sentence and and the that's okay. Let's let's hear the sentence. I I think we know the sentiment, but let's make sure we >> uh are youware?
>> Clerk Clerk Smith objected to the renewal of the contract due to the timing of the request being earlier um than >> normally done and um prior to the election and
prior to the evaluation. >> The annual evaluation. >> Annual evaluation. >> That's okay. That's your sentence. Yes. >> Okay. Um with that correction which Kathy will make unless there is anything more. Well, I'll we have a motion.
>> Motion to approve. >> It was moved and second. >> Yes, we have a motion and the second >> or we moved it. >> Right. >> You seconded. >> Seconded by whom? >> By me. >> All right. And it will include the language that Steuart added to both >> amending the lang. >> Excuse me. I'll call the role on um the
approval and release of these minutes. Um Miss Davis. I >> Mr. Dikkins. >> Hi, >> Mr. Meadows. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi, >> and the chair votes. I >> thank you. I just wanted to point out um the reason why I I asked Jill to
prepare the minutes for the 13th because um I she had u with my either at my request or my acquiescence taken the notes because I was running the meeting. So I didn't want to take the notes at the first meeting.
In the second meeting, I had asked Vice Chair Dykins to take the minute take the notes and then I asked him to draft the minutes. And I I inserted it's unusual to to have this, but I inserted in parenthesis reviewed and edited by me as chair because I wanted people to know
that I independently looked at them. Um but that's fine. I just wanted to get that on the table. Okay. A final uh me uh motion to >> motion for the meeting moved and seconded to adjourn. >> Uh call the role. Um Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dykins. Hi. >> Mr. Matters. Hi.
>> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> Cheer votes. We are adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Good night. Chadam.