Heat. Heat. Good good evening and welcome to the January 13, 2026 meeting of the town of Chattam Select Board. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone
else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025's 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 38, section 20. Until June 30th, 2027, this meeting of the Chattam Select Board is being conducted in person and via
remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 158-945-4410.
conference ID 2033 386491 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simalcast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072,
despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. First order of business is to establish a quorum. Miss Davis >> present. >> Mr. Dykins >> present. >> Mr. Meadows >> present. >> Mr. Smith
>> present. >> And the chair is present. We'll now take up the minutes of January 6th 2026. Is there a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any corrections hearing? None. We'll call the role. Miss. Davis.
>> I. >> Mr. Dykins. I. >> Mr. Meadows. >> I. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> Chair votes. >> Any public announcements and agenda item requests from the board? from the public in person audience online.
I see none. >> Mr. Chair, you have >> who? Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Greg Burman, our director of natural resources has an announcement. I'm sorry. >> Great. No, thank you. It's good news. Like to share that. Uh you may have seen
in the recent main sheet uh but the town was awarded a fisc year 26 seapport economic council grant for $857,48.80. So this is another you know uh nice way of defraing the cost for the taxpayers
for 90 Bridge Street. Uh the project name was repurposing a boat house life-saving to learning and the idea is these reservation renovations will enhance the longevity and preservation of a piece of Chadam's maritime heritage. So another win happy to share
it with you. >> So Greg, that boat house is now in Fall River. >> Uh New Bedford. >> New Bedford. I'm sorry. What's the difference? >> It's on the way though. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Do do you know, Greg, do you
know when do and I'm sure it was said before, but when when was that going to be uh towed back to us? Do you have a >> uh to us? Um pending a weather window. >> Yeah. >> But um the work on the boat house is being done over the next couple of weeks. The pier should be ready in about
that time. So just kind of waiting near the end of the month, beginning of February. >> Great. Thank you. Good job on the grant. >> Thanks again, Grant. Uh we have no public hearing tonight. We have no items on the consent agenda. So the first item of before we get to the regular business
agenda is Chattam Wells PAS and drinking water testing and pumping update for December 2025. Call upon Rob Philly, our director of N our director of public works. Good evening. Rob Philly, director of public works. Uh just want to go through the Chattam
drinking water and testing pup update along with the drought update. So, um, month of December, wells have been pumping 3 to 5 hours per day, and we did not hit the low-level alarm. Uh, as far as the training field wells for the water treatment facility. I'll
flip through some of the photos as I speak. Um, we had finished grading around the site. Pavement binder course has been placed near the rear of the building. Uh, the generator has been installed on the concrete pad with the wiring complete. Uh the well pumps for
wells five and eight have been pulled and cleaned. Um and conduitent has been run to the pump houses. Inside the facility, the plumbing has been completed with the exception of the restroom fixtures. Uh the HVAC pipes are insulated and ready for startup. Uh the
chemical room supply piping is 75% complete and electrical work is ongoing. for an irrigation meter update. Um, this has been kind of a monthly update since August when our uh, letters went out.
Since then, we've now sold over $95,000 in irrigation meters. That's 475 irrigation meters. 417 have been installed for a total of,272 irrigation meters, uh, operable irrigation meters in town. Um since then
also 56 properties now have been um put on their own private well for irrigation. 40 properties have disconnected and 40 properties are on the exception report. As of January 7th, six properties still have not paid for a second meter and
have been fined $28,200 each. Um we were talking with uh uh Lieutenant Harris about um how we're going to pursue that and uh we we're thinking of taking it to the next level and uh and approaching the clerk magistrate and taking them to court to
uh to try to reconcile that at least get some action, but we're not even getting appeals or returned letters or any communication from those six property owners. >> Rob, um I'm going to just ask you a question that I asked yesterday at the water and sewer committee. So with
respect to the numbers, we started out with uh of of properties that were registered but hadn't purchased the meter, hadn't installed the meter. I think we were talking in the order of 700 or so. >> Um six yeah 635
>> and I think we're down to 100 approximately >> roughly 100. Yeah. And people are so we are starting to find people who who um paid for the second meter but haven't made an appointment. So they they got like a 90-day window. Um that 90-day window is now elapsing. So we're
starting to find those people again, but we are getting a lot of people at our at our window and uh making those appointments. So So it is working. You know, it's just it's just a lot of extra work on DPW, but uh the goal is ultimately being met.
>> That's pretty good progress in just a few months, if I may say so. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Uh so water sampling just ongoing um sampling nothing alarming to report. Um same with station maintenance, system maintenance. Um it's all pretty routine.
Um system is not stressed that much this time of year. So it's nice to get caught up on some of those things. >> Rob, excuse me. The uh the 28,000 that you mentioned just previous, I didn't hear you. Could could you explain that again? So, there are six property owners
that have uh they have a registered irrigation system, but they haven't paid for a second meter or whatever the case may be. Um, so they've been fined $300 per day starting, I believe it was October 6th. Um, and that just has been acrewing since then.
>> And the that so the 28,000 is the total of the six folks. >> Total 300. We we excluded some holidays, you know, just to be fair, you know, but that's what it And the next step is well typically it's uh well either you pay the fine you don't pay the fine and if
you don't you go to the clerk magistrate >> correct >> as a complaint. Yeah. >> So we want to um we want to just bring it to that next level. Maybe we'll get a response at that point. >> Yeah. Great. Thank you. >> So this is a chart showing December 24 versus December 25 pumping. Um, we're
about 5% lower than last December, which equates to almost a million gallons. Again, a bar chart, I mean a u a graph showing the same thing. Um, we're still seeing more moderate daily fluctuations um from last year. So, we're just seeing
a little bit more steady use. I'm not not really sure what that is attributed to. I know we saw the similar pattern last month. Um anyway, just an observation. Here's a bar chart showing the same information.
And the uh monthly pumping report for the uh daily pumpage for each well. And you can see we're at um 18 and a half million gallons. And here's the pumping graph. same information just in a different form.
And this is the year-to-ate pumping report, which would really be equal to the year-end pumping report. So, you can see we pumped 458 million gallons um compared to last year, a little over 14 and a half or so, roughly million
gallons less than last year. I think some of that has been attributed to the drought conditions. um people have been pumping less. Probably some of it can also be due to people um drilling their own wells or not irrigating quite as much on the
system. And here's a a bar chart showing the same information. It's slightly skewed because it shows the year-end results in that um that like aqua blue color. So, it does skew all the information. And so it looks like it's um a lot smaller, but
um you could see uh South Chattam Wells are pumping 140 million gallons by themselves. So um just information for your use, >> Rob, I just got a quick question on I always kind of ask about 10 and 11, but there is some variability by day during
the month of December. We do we run them both some days and one another or um some days we pump 30,000 and another day we pump 194,000. So how do we decide what we're doing in 10 and 11? And and are they both active right now or not?
>> They are both active. I'm not sure where I'm seeing that that much fluctuation. I see about 8 8.8 million is the high point. Um remember 10 didn't come online until July I believe it was. >> I'm looking at the month alone. You're not looking at the
>> I'm looking at the month alone. Mel Hill Road, Wells 10 and 11 month just the month by day. >> Age six. >> 86. Sorry. >> Age six. >> Sorry. >> 86. >> Sorry. >> So, you know, we did um we did neck down well 10 since the POS numbers were
higher. So, we're blending that with well 11. >> Okay. >> Um it's just daily fluctuations. You know, it depends on uh the usage and the time that the wells come on. The other question I had for five and eight, the treatment plant, is that that given the great progress, is it online?
Is scheduled? We're on schedule. >> We are scheduled. We're still working with the utilities to try to get power and gas service to the building. >> It's a beautiful project. Looks looks great. >> The only the only delay we are seeing right now is with solar panels on the
roof. Um, but I don't think it'll affect the overall schedule. Okay. >> Thank you. And then again, this is more of a a year-end tally for unmetered water usage. You can see 21.5 million gallons.
Um most of that's due to um flushing and blowoffs. And then again, same information in a different form. And here's our five-year pumping comparison. You can see the pumpage hours uh in
yellow which is December 25. Um the hours are high. >> Um not really sure why it's so much higher than the previous five years or four years. Um you know certainly the usage isn't higher. So um it's not sure.
It's just one of those uh one of those things. It's not like um the wells have been substantially down. They've all been pumping. It's just um I think maybe they just been have dialed down their flow a little bit so they're not working so hard. Um
and here's the Cadam observation well. You can see we are starting a seasonal recharge, but it's uh it's a little bit slow and we are a little further behind than I'd like to see this time of year. Um certainly we've had some rain and snow recently. Um, but this is just
really looking at uh December. And it takes a while for the groundwater to fully recharge after a rain event. And here's Brewster's observation well. Again, it's not much different than last month. You can see it's um it's kind of stagnant. It's trying to get out of that
trying to get to that recharge level, but it's um not quite there yet. Um, again, this is the bell weather for uh Outer Cape, so time will tell. It's not it's not looking promising for a uh a lack of a
drought coming up. So, it's um just just to prepare yourselves. Um we did meet with the water and sewer advisory committee yesterday. They recommended that we remove the sandwich boards around town that say we're underwater conservation and put them back out in the springtime, maybe April or May, just
so it people don't become complacent and just seeing those in the background. I thought it was a great idea. Just wanted to put that in front of the board um for either input or um you know any advice that you'd like to to see. >> Yeah, I this came up yesterday as Rob
said, I think they took a vote on that. Uh, so I, you know, I don't know if that the board members are inclined to raise any concern or objection to it or do you want to take a vote of any kind, Corey? I I I see the point of people being complacent to it. You see a sign over
and over and over again, you just kind of ignore it to some point. So in the wintertime, I think putting the signs away um actually make a whole lot of sense. So >> plus plus the what those signs ask you to do are >> things you wouldn't be doing anyway. You're not watering your lawn right now,
for example, >> or washing or washing your car. >> I don't think we need a vote. >> I don't think unless there's any We're fine with it. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Rob. >> And so the Massachusetts drought task force met on Friday. Um they looked at
uh rainfall in Massachusetts. It is uh it is still lagging a little bit. Um they recommended that the cape remain at a level two. Um they recommended the focus of this time of year should be on indoor conservation and leak detection.
Um and of course continue our um installation of irrigation meters. So this is what Massachusetts looks like now. Um Cape Cod would still remain in a level two. Interesting how the islands they broke apart and uh Martha's
Vineyards at a zero and Nucket's at a three. So uh something with the pattern of the rainfall through that area is really making quite a vast difference. >> And that's all I had for you unless you have any questions. >> Any questions or comments?
I don't see any from the public either. Thank you, Rob. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um you might want to stay there because the next item is public comments on the business agenda. If anyone has any comments they wish to make this time or they could make them during contemporaneously during the agenda
items. I don't see anybody. Oh, I'm sorry. >> Nicole Stern. >> Nicole Stern. Nicole. >> Good evening. Yes, I'm here. I'm sorry I didn't move fast enough when you were
finished with Rob, but I did have a question about when uh you plan on really upping the motor and finding the people that never
registered. And I would think that that would be something that would start in May when people start watering their lawns rather than waiting until they start um doing it, you know, on a daily basis because
if I remember the numbers correctly, there are many people that never registered and I think that was part of the plan uh once we got this part started. So, I'd like to know what the plan is on
that. >> You're correct, Nicole, and we did talk about that, and I'll ask Rob if he wants to say anything. I I I think we don't know exactly how many there are out there, but my sense is that there probably one or two hundred out there. I
don't know, but we don't know. >> Yeah, it's difficult to say. Again, we've had about I think the number was 45 or so that had registered now that we didn't know about previously. So, I think we have to get through the backlog. We're we're still currently having uh irrigation meters uh
inspections through March and then as some of those extenduating circumstances are people are are finishing their houses. They're getting their lawn worked on. There was another 40 that we have to get through the backlog. So, I think this coming summer would be a good time to re-evaluate that.
>> We'll have we'll have better numbers. We'll we'll be able to identify those people a little bit easier now that we have more solid information. And right now your staff is pretty well occupied with the registered ones. >> That's correct. >> Getting that together, but it is not something we will lose sight of. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I appreciate that. >> You're welcome. >> All right. And I don't see anyone else. Okay. The next >> Mr. Chair, there's one other person online. >> Okay. It says G. Is that you, Elaine? >> Yes. Elaine Gibbs. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Um, just a few things that I'd like you to consider when we talk about the where we are on the sewer. Um, back in 2012 when we put in the wastewater treatment plant, uh, there were 8,200 properties, industrial,
commercial, uh, institutional, residential, and phase one and two were supposed to cost $300 million. one was to be completed in 20 that phase one which was 5,300 properties was
supposed to be uh completed connected by 2030 and phase 2 if needed would be 2040. Um if I remember correctly recently uh we were told that those numbers are being pushed out and that
phase one won't be completed until 2040. Um, in looking at these numbers, I I I'm I'm concerned. The whole point is to reduce our TDMLS uh until the properties are actually
connected. That's not going to happen. You know, we can put in all the um the infrastructure, but if we don't connect them, we can't reduce the TDMLS. According to this, if I understand correctly,
only 708 of the 5,300 have been connected since 2012. Uh, and we should have been at 5,300. Um, we diverted our sewing to East Haritch.
I mean, they have hundreds of properties over there that are now on sewer. and that adversely impacted the people in Chadam who should have been connected. There's a whole host of reasons. One, to keep our aquifers clear, but also two,
property values. If you're on the sewer, it it's a lot more um uh financially uh attractive to future homeowners. Uh, so I I'm I'm concerned that we are now
talking $650 million for phase one and then I don't even know what the number is going to be for phase two if we have to do it. So, you know, to keep putting this off, I I I think we need to know how much is this going to cost us
because everybody has to comply and pay um, you know, for this whether or not they're actually sewed. So, I would hope you can address those questions as we move forward because we what we're doing is we're saying, "Oh, we're in really
good shape because we've connected 57% of the one where the orders went out, but the orders have only gone out to, you know, 708 people or have been installed. And now the infrastructure on the existing downtown where there were
like 1,200 properties, it's so old now they have to be replaced. So, you know, this is this is getting to a point where when are we ever when is Chadam ever going to get sewered? I I I and how much it sounds like it could potentially cost
$100 million versus 300 million, which is what we thought we were going to be spending back in 2012. So, those are my comments. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. And perhaps Rob can address some of these during the next item that we're going to take up. Okay.
I don't see anybody else. So, we'll proceed to the business agenda. And the first item is progress on the sewer connection efforts, which has been requested by uh our clerk, Stuart Smith. Stuart, I didn't know if you wanted to say anything initially or just have Rob
um I know he has a memo in the packet. >> Oh, I guess we could wait to hear from Rob. Um I mean, part of the reason I had asked for this update was for my own education. Um, I know the numbers show that we're far behind on the hookups and
you know it concerns me. So I I just thought maybe we could have some sort of an explanation. Is it lack of contractors? Is it lack of I don't think it's lack of infrastructure but um what are the details and Elaine kind of gave an overview of that. >> Thank you Rob.
>> Sure. So you know as as you mentioned this is in response to your uh um request. Um so the original sewer system we have uh currently 1360 roughly sewer accounts. Um the original sewer system
included around 652 and that was the system that was built in the late 60s early 70s mostly downtown area. Um, since then we've had uh 872 applications at DPW. 708 of those have been installed. So, we
have a a backlog of 164 residents who have applied, but they haven't um installed. I don't know. Some of those go back a number of years. Um, >> I think we need a a whacking stick to try to motivate people to
>> to install. you know, >> they um is there a uh forgive me, I'm sure you've answered this before, or is there a uh what's what's the repercussions if you Well, if you don't hook up, we've got a sewer line. I remember when they went by my house with
a water line, but with a sewer line and you don't hook up, what happens? >> Well, you're not reduced, like Elaine said, you're not reducing nitrogen or phosphorus going to our waterways. But I don't believe it's really the board of health that um is the enforcing agency
here and I don't know if they have a finding mech mechanism to motivate people to hook up. >> I mean it's it's similar and then I'll let you go but it's it um it's similar to the water discussion where we're putting a significant amount of resources into a good cause frankly in
both cases uh in infrastructure but the numbers are not encouraging. Um and uh but I'll I'll let you speak. Thanks. >> No, I you know you a great observation and it's really we're we're asking property owners to incur an expense and
I think that's some of the uh some of the hesitation there >> and for so as water and sewer commissioners here, our regulations don't uh say, "Hey, you got to hook up because we want the nitrogen reduced. Uh we've spent this, you know, we spent a
lot of money putting it by your house, so you got to hook up to this." We we don't say that. I That's a question really. >> It's really it's up to the board of health. I'm not sure exactly what message they send out when they put out their connection orders. I don't know if Judy is >> so the regulations that govern
just a question, but the regulations governing uh the requirements of hooking up to the sewer are under the board of health and not under the water and sewer commissioners. >> I believe so. Yes. >> Well, no. I think I think they're under the water and sewer commissioners. I don't recall what whether there's an
enforcement or what the enforcement mechanism would be. This was this was brought up yesterday at the water and sewer advisory committee and Rob, I think correctly pointed out it's it's the it's the board of health that issues the connection order. Uh and if you fail
to connect, I think you're answer answerable in the first instance to the board of health. Um but I don't know what what their regs say about about it. And Greg Burman was about to say something. I I don't have any more light. >> We've gone to the expense. We in the
community to the expense of putting in a sewer line. >> We agreed with this at town meeting. We fund it. We pay for it, but then we're not getting >> I won't say reimbured, but we're not getting a a fee to offset some of those expenses. The property taxpayers in
general is subsidizing that. It just seems like that's not the way we want to do business. Yeah, I suspect some of the folks that have not connected um are dealing with the fiscal re realities of it. Um some of them were grinder pump
still are grinder pump people. That will be remedied pretty quickly because I think we're either have or about to have a contract with uh Mahoney to buy these pumps and get that pro progress get that into progress. But I um uh the remainder
I don't know the reasons. But you're right. It >> it might be something to explore for a future meeting as to whether it just seems like there's some action there that we're not taking that probably we should be. I mean I don't want to you know people who are financially con I'm sure there's
particular issues for every particular case but similar to the water issue we spent millions of dollars putting all this material in. We need to we need people to hook up for a variety of reasons otherwise we wouldn't have put it there. The um >> the grinder pump issue bring have that
as a note. Um >> how are the how are we handling people who have already put grinder pumps in? It was there was a reimbursement discussion. Where is that? There is. So, they would be reimbursed the amount that the town is acquiring the grinder pumps
for, which is just over $6,700 plus an additional $2,000 for some of the additional expenses for uh the electrical connections and >> upgrades. Some the board has dealt with that and >> that's already been approved by the select board.
>> Yeah. So, um if I if somebody applies for a how do they apply for a reimbursement? do they go to the DPW and apply for reimbursement. >> We just finalized the contract today. So, um, so it's back in FR Mahoney's hands and now we can work on some of the other
>> reimbursing folks that have >> some of the other requirements that are needed. >> Thank you. >> Just along those lines, uh, again, yesterday the water and sewer committee considered um a draft regulation for the select board as water and sewer
commissioners. It's an amendment to our um sewer regulations um on grinder pumps which details out that mechanism and Rob is supposed to is going to um finalize that send it to
town council and then it'll come back to both the water committee and and to us probably within the next well the water committee meets some next month so come it'll come to us with a recommendation. >> Great. Sure. You had something you wanted to >> I did. I I think we have to kind of be
sensitive to the reality of the costs of of this to the to the community and we don't we haven't really looked at or or have a mechanism in place where we've been we're able to assess what the real costs are to the community. I think a
lot of a lot of towns are struggling with this. Um it's an expensive cost overall for for the community, you know, for the um for the for for the Cape itself. It's billions if if in reality
when we at the end of the day and it's been forced for us to have to do this. So, so um so I think one thing that we need to do is is find find an answer to that just so that we're not just sitting in privilege saying well you know we you
know it's costly but you know everybody needs to hook up. That's not how it's going to work. It's something, you know, when you're asking somebody who may have a house on a fixed income that lives down a hill and, you know, has to, you
know, what is it? Electric has to change in some homes and and you have to pump out the sewer, you have to remove the septic system, install a grinder pump, then there's the landscaping. I mean, you're talking for some people in the tens of thousands of dollars. And and
the reality of that is it's it's unaffordable to some. So I I caution that we you know we've already talked about the you know finding for the irrigation systems but I really caution that we would be doing anything like that. I think we need to look at,
you know, the programs that are out there, what we can do to tell folks about them, you know, especially with the uh loan program through the county, which is believe, you know, it's a revolving loan. So, it's it's it's in good shape, but you know, what are the other things that we might have to face
as a community to have the successes on the environmental side that we, you know, to get people to hook up. So, >> yeah. and and we uh did as you know set up a fund of our own which is a grant but there's about 50,000 in there that we appropriated that's not going to be
nearly enough obviously >> that's that's yeah that's just a drop in the water I really feel yeah >> so as this moves forward I think we'll have to take a >> just an observation I think but we should be thinking about what those solutions could be or an assessment at least >> yeah my my questions were really to not
end up where we ended up with the water issue and um we've Yeah, it it is expensive. We need to address that issue for those homeowners. I >> there's a couple of different programs. Maybe we got to expand that. Um I get it. But we need a we need a plan moving
forward so we are not putting millions of dollars into an infrastructure and not having the users hook up to it. >> Greg, did you want to speak on one of these issues? I forgot when >> Sure. I I I did just want to um uh weigh
in that the board of health does issue the connection order. So if um people are not able or unwilling to make that connection in the period of time that they're given, they can come in and you know make a case as to why not. I think
most of those cases have been financial and also scheduling. It's very difficult to even find people who can do the design and installation of that system. Um I think that may have gotten a little
better recently, but um it's still a concern. And then the overall moratorum on those people who had to use grinder pumps kind of slowed things down for a while. Uh board of health has been as understanding as possible with people
coming in. Uh I I think they want compliance and in the monthly report uh just submitted to Kathy today we we do see it tick up the percentage over time. It's not as fast as we'd like but it it is reported on a monthly basis.
>> So so that ef that's interesting. Thank you. The so the effort to follow up on people uh um that can't hook up or are required to hook up that's done through the board of health and there is some process for pursuing that.
>> Yeah. The those who have connection orders and have not connected yet are >> they come to the monitor >> board. Yeah. Great. Thank you. >> Thank you Greg. Rob, please continue. >> Um I believe that's all I had for you. Um I can I can just um uh the board of
health did have an update in here for um they had 823 orders to connect um with with a 50% uh success rate. The numbers will never match up. We have single properties with multiple accounts. You know um there are
some that were connected prior to the board of health putting out connection orders. So, so the numbers are are similar, but they'll never match up exactly. Okay. >> And I just wanted to say that we're on the cusp of sending out approximately another 1907.
>> Okay. Approximately 190 uh connection orders uh this coming this year. So, um so we're getting there. You know, we're making strides. So, >> Okay. Any other comments or questions from anybody? >> I just had a quick question, Rob. When we're done sewing an area in town,
what's the lag between getting Do you have any idea what the lag is? Getting the notes out to folks that it's okay to to get a plan in place and apply. >> So, for example, like contract 1D2A, which was uh meeting house road, um we're we still haven't sent out connection orders. We're still waiting
for, you know, the final documents, the on&m manuals, the uh the um engineered um asbuilt drawings, you know, those things. we can't we can't give those to an engineer to connect to without them being completely verified by the
engineer. So um so it's there is a little bit of a lag time. You know that that project was physically completed for um probably close to a year now and we're still we're still trying to get the documentation in place. So just to put an exclamation point on comments that my brethren and sisters have made
here, fellow members. Um I do think the financial constraints are very very important in this discussion and one of our goals and objectives that we kind of hashed through last week was let's come up with some creative solutions to and some incentives I think was the word that was used and financial incentives
even to to have folks uh hook up. I mean, the overarching goal, as Shireen articulated, is to improve the nitrogen loads in our fresh and saltwater estuaries, which is number one, it should be a number one goal, one of them. And to get there, we, you know, we
I think grinder pumps were a huge impediment to to not having folks hook up. And we do have programs that we have um publicized with the county on low interest and and no interest loans that are available for folks should they meet
certain income criteria. Um so anyway, I think we need to stay on it with those types of creative creative incentives and just be aware that we may have to do more and more um with respect to getting folks uh some assistance. So that's my comments. Stewart
>> Rob um tell me where I'm going sideways on this but so the DPW has received 872 sewer connection applications since 2012 do you know and you may not but um the
infrastructure that we've installed since since 2012 how many people are able to hook up to that as the opportunity. Is that number in here? And I'm just not >> I believe that's and I I'm not sure when
the board of health started sending out connection orders, but I believe that's the 823 on on the next page that the board of health had sent out connection orders to. >> Okay. You think that that um >> again there may be a single property
that may have multiple >> sewer accounts or sewer lines. >> That just it it it doesn't seem like a lot of that doesn't seem like as high a number as I would have thought naively. >> And then I have trouble reconciling those numbers with the DP DPW has
received 872 sewer connections since 2012, but 82% of those have been installed. So you got 57% BOH and then you got 82% with the DP DPW. There seems to be a little bit of disparity there. Um, and I'd be
concerned about the difference. The delta between the 872 and the 708 is 164. They're they're still pending. They go back quite a while. So what's I think a good survey would be what are the impediments to those folks that have been apprised of their need to to tie to
tie into the last 13 years. that would be I think indicative of what the needs are and then maybe we can start to address those there. Th you know this is this is a long-term thing and I'm not making excuses but this is very complex and it's long term but one hopes and I I
believe that the payoff downstream will be we'll have base sculps back in our waters. I mean it tongue and cheek but eelgrass is back shellfish is back and we have fresh you know >> you have to deal with fertilizer for that to happen too. >> Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, that's the goal.
>> Okay. >> Um I just wanted to mention along those lines that um at your request, I think it was uh Jeff, um the um director of natural resources did give us a memo on
the cleanup results in a couple of um of the water bodies. And perhaps we can um maybe post that online. It's just a two-pager, I think, that Greg did. We just got it within the last few days. interesting. It's very good. I mean, >> all right.
>> If I may, Mr. Chair, also we're on the cusp of sending out a um a publication that really is like an instruction manual for folks what to expect when sewer comes in your neighborhood um how to apply for additional funding, that kind of stuff. But we just want to let the water and sewer advisory committee
language get in front of this board first before we make that public. >> Okay, >> good. >> Thank you. All right. >> Thank you. We'll go on to the next item which is the Chattam Fish Pier South jog pedestrian walkway project uh pending
contract award and an authorization vote from the select board and I will call on Greg Burman and our harbor master to present this. Welcome. >> Great. Thank you for having us. Um so when last we talked about this was back
in March when we brought it forward to go through the procurement and bring the engineer on board. Um we have gone through the procurement but want just wanted to give a little refresher on the project. Just a few slides.
So everyone here certainly knows what we're talking about. It's the south jog of the fish pier and very specifically a walkway that was not completed during the overall south jog project because it would have slowed the project down by a year. So it was separated out. We now
have the permits in place. We've gone through procurement. The rationale for this particular project is right now we do have those jersey barriers that are attempting to separate the pedestrians from the
working waterfront from the trucks in the area. Uh the goal is to move the pedestrians over to the safe area of the walkway and at which point that would free up more space to actually use that intended area um as it was designed. And
one of the reasons the harbor master is joining me today is, you know, I I've heard and he's seen some of the potential concerns about just using jersey barriers. >> Jason, >> absolutely. Um, probably my top safety concern, and it has been for quite some
time. I'm sure Stuart could kind of attest to this. Uh, Fish Pier is the top tourist destination in town. It's still a working pier. Uh this project was designed to help uh a couple of different things to increase the the productivity of the trucks that offload.
So that jog was widened up to allow two trucks to be able to get over there. Uh since we didn't complete that, we added a makeshift jersey barrier lane to try to keep the pedestrians separated from the work areas. Um we've had several documented people tripping and falling trying to step over those, not to
mention countless that we don't know about. Um, and we spent a substantial amount of money at the onset of the project, uh, up on the Barkliff Avenue extension, uh, putting a walkway there to try to get people out of the roadway going up. Um, our Waringers have done a fantastic job of trying to really
separate that, but it's just the sheer amount of people. 150,000 visitors a month is almost impossible to keep about from there. This project will greatly increase the ability to try to keep those pedestrians out uh of the working
lower lot area and give them safe access down to the south jog uh float dock. So >> So we have gone through procurement. Um the uh lowest qualified bid is $596,445.
This is by ACK. Uh if you recognize the name, they're also the firm that did the trapd dock over by the Harbormaster building. Um as part of their schedule, they are planning to be completely out by the middle of April, which was another big push that we put in the
procurement documents that they um had to finish up and get out. We do have liquidated damages if they go past that time. Um the recommended source of these funds is the original, we call it the 2017 annual town meeting waterfront
bond. One of the reasons that there is some capacity in this 2017 bond um is the grants that we've received for 90 bridge. So uh just within the last several months, we've received over uh
1.6 million. One of those is the MDAR food security infrastructure grant. Uh that's for strengthening um uh the shellfish upweller. The idea is getting all the pieces of the upweller. Um the department in town has really been
thinking outside the box with some of these grants. You know, this is for food security and upweller is very well suited to that, but it's not necessarily intuitive when we were looking for grants out there in the ether. And then one of our kind of go-tos is a Seapport
Economic Council grant. It was phrased a little bit differently this year, but again, it it may not have funded, you know, a bulkhead replacement, but the idea of life-saving to learning, we were able to bring the historic and multi-use aspect into this proposal and we've
received that $857,000. So overall just for 90 bridge it's been $3,850,016 brought in from seapport economic council uh MDAR CPC funding and some state dredging grant numbers. So what
this means right now we still have just over 2 million in that 2017 bond article. Um, as things look now, we may not need to use that 490 bridge with these additional grants. So, if we
subtract out the ACK bid, this is money that would be available. Although, you know, if if I hesitate greatly using all of it before we get the final procurement done on 90 bridge. So, this is kind of a safety net. And if it doesn't get used for 90 bridge, we do
have several other projects uh that we'll be bringing to town meeting that can be defayed by these funds. And that's our last slide. If you have any questions. >> Yeah. I just wanted to ask first uh in terms of the design. So I assume we're going to get rid of the jersey barriers.
Will there be a wall of some kind separating the pedestrians? >> I mean that just >> the existing concrete wall here >> there. >> Okay. Okay. The walkway is going on the other side of that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Right now, the pedestrians walk in
between the barriers and the wall. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Uh and this um I I recognized the the successful bidder. Um that's the company up in Quinsey, right? >> They were they did the trap dock, as you said, and they did a great job there.
They did it fast and they they did it on budget. Um um how how many other bids were there? Were there >> there was one other bid? >> Okay. >> And I I think that has a lot to do with the scale of the project, the timing of
the project, and um I mean there was interest in that. I believe there were 10 or 12 that pulled the uh procurement, but only two actual bids on it. >> Was there much of a a difference in the uh the price between the two bids? This
one was significantly more inexpensive. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions from Story? >> No. I um I'm I'm glad this is coming to a conclusion because phase one of the sidewalks uh really um uh obviously
leads to this one, phase two. So, that'll be nice to complete and certainly will improve the uh public safety uh concerns. I'm I'd be a little concerned about the timing, but um ACK is a very very uh good company to work
with and um so I'm my comfort level is a little little less. So the fisherman should uh I I think be uh happy with the fact that we're going to get a better company than we've had down there in the in the past. Um and um yeah, that that
wall that is identified to the right of the um trucks is was installed when we did the south jog in preparation of doing this job. So um glad to see it's coming to conclusion. >> Jeeoff and then Shireen and then Cy.
>> Just a couple comments. So I'm a pedestrian. I come down the new stair the new walkway along Bark Cliff and you pick up this the sidewalk. How do I get How do I traverse in front of the Warfinger building to get to the to get to that? Is that Is that still safe or
>> Yeah. Okay. I just >> Is there a walkway? Okay. >> I got a photo. >> Okay. Well, if you don't have a a photo, that's okay. >> So, right here, you can see how the green lines come. This walkway runs down here and you come right across and then outside of the parking lot, there's already a
>> If you follow along the short green path there, there's a walkway that runs outside of the parking lot line that's separated by uh timber railing that goes all the way around the lower lot to where the walkway would pick up on the exterior of the proposed walkway.
>> Gotcha. Perfect. That that's great. And I you know, I just probably didn't notice it. Um, so Greg or Jill, I have a question. Who who wrote the the grant for 800 the one that we received 857K for? Who who actually wrote that grant? >> That was a joint effort that a lot of our grants are. Um, it was a combination
of Harbormaster coastal uh resources. So Jason, Katherine, and and Renee was a a major part of it, the Upweller parts. >> Then the other grant as well is just a super job. Excellent job. Unreal. I mean, really creative. Well done.
>> Thank you. the the uh the last sorry um >> so the last portion well I'm not sure I shouldn't say this is an absolute but the north jog bulkhead uh had some difficulty with that in the in the um
is is the plan to at some point replace that or is that a repair uh job do you think yet or you don't know yet? We've got uh the North Bulkhead assessment should be coming up here fairly soon. We're >> in process today.
>> Yeah, we we are we we literally are putting out a PO this week to bring the engineer in to do an assessment on it >> and it's after the the hardmaster temporary repair of the whales there. >> Great. Thank you, Sheree. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um the safety
factor, this is just this is um really important to the fish pier obviously, so that's great. But I just want to say, Greg, the congratulations to the team that put together those two grants and were awarded. The MDR food security grant is a difficult one. It's really
sought out after. People don't understand that it's from all over Massachusetts. The application process um includes food banks and schools and towns and private businesses. So, it's highly competitive. And um it was really
exciting to hear that that the town of Chattam got that grant. and I was able to thank the governor at Mass Seafood Day um in person um and talk about it to the the public there. So, it was really uh exciting for the town. We got a great applause for for that.
>> Anyway, um thank you though. >> Thank you, Shireen Cor Corey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, thank you for the update. Um just one piece of clarification, but I didn't see it in the plans and I could be missing it. So, I mean, we're balancing a highly visited area, tourist, you know, locals,
whatever, in a very commercial area. I mean, it it is always going to be that way. It's a very delicate balancing act. Removing the pedestrians into this walkway area makes so much sense. We're still going to have that concrete wall. My question is, in the area we're going
to have two trucks operating, are we implementing any ballards in that little se section or are we relying on the the concrete wall to take a couple of bumps and bruises over the time. >> It's It's got uh timber bumpers. >> It will have the timber. Okay. >> It It does. You can see them right
there. It's got timber bumpers that run along the side of the concrete there on the inside. >> Okay. That That's what the clarification. But I know I know on the other side we got a couple of the white ballards there. >> That's protecting the water spet, electrical spet there. And then you have the high uh curbs there that run around
concrete. >> Perfect. Okay. Um I just want to say first um uh along with my colleagues here, I really appreciate and thank um um the staff, town manager, the department of natural
resources, your current staff, your predecessor, Dr. Duncin, for the way you've husbanded the 11 million waterfront bond, and that involves also the input of the various water waterways related committees. I think that's really been excellently
done. Um and secondly, um I think we're being asked to um take a vote because when we um voted the waterfront bond, we made very specific provision that all these projects would come before the select board for approval or
authorization. So Jill, you want to vote from us uh to authorize you to sign the contract with ACK? Is that the >> Yes, exactly. >> Okay. So, um, I'll take a motion. >> Move that we authorize the town manager to execute the contract for the Chattam Fish Beer South Jog Pedestrian Walkway
with ACK Marine and General Contracting LLC. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. No further discussion. I'll call for a vote. M. Davis. >> I. >> Mr. Dykins. >> I. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> The chair votes I. Thank you. Thank you both.
>> Thank you. >> Appreciate your time. The next item is residential exemption implementation for FY2027 fiscal impact review. Um let me state what this is and what it is not. Um this
is a discussion on the fiscal impact um of the residential tax exemption that has been voted by a majority of the board to go into effect in 2027. We know they have to that the board will have to take another vote in in September when
the tax rate is set. But in the meantime because that is the the the current position of the board. Um the staff town manager need to um prepare for its implementation and there are some
um impacts related to the budget and related to staffing and related to uh the overlay account. um that the assessing the board of assessors uh is responsible for. And so that will be the focus of the discussion tonight. This is
not uh going to be a freewheeling discussion on whether on on the pros and cons of the residential tax exemption. We will have a discussion along those lines um um in the context of a citizen request uh that I intend to put on the
agenda for one of our meetings in February to to for a review and analysis of the factors causing the implementation of a residential exemption that was requested by Mr. Ray. So that's what we'll do at that time. But so the focus tonight is really on the fiscal implementation of a
residential tax of the residential tax exemption as as uh voted by the select board. So with that, I'll turn to our finance director, Carrie Mezero, and our newly appointed um director of assessing, Candace Cook. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
good evening. Um like Dean said, we are here tonight to address the um fiscal impact of the overlay account at the 35% that was voted by the board. Um I've got some slides here. I won't read my whole
um agenda report because I'm sure you guys already have looked through it and everything. What overlay is? The overlay is the amount raised by the assessors independently of the town meeting as permitted by law for the purpose of
creating a fund to cover property tax abatements and avoid fractions in the tax rate. So um just to clarify a little bit on this. So if somebody comes in after our tax rate is set, it would hit our
overlay account. Um, so right now as of uh December 31st, 2025, we have a balance in our overlay account of 945,000. Um, that's over the years of um
uh overlay being Yes. com compiled. Yeah, exactly. So, traditionally, the town raises approximately $250,000 in overlay, and on a 4-year average, we spend about $103,000 um each year on exemptions and
abatements. Um, traditionally as well, um the town has um put $150,000 um towards the OPED liability, but they have to vote that as overlay surplus. Um, and this year I'm not going to be
doing that. Um, instead we're going to do uh a different funding source for that. And then as of June 30th, 2025, there was about 546,000 in future uh potential liabilities that could hit the overlay account.
>> What would those be? So those are um real estate taxes that people have not paid yet, >> personal property taxes that people haven't paid yet, and our ATB cases that are um currently um >> the tax board. >> Yep.
So um this slide goes over the um estimated overlay impact for FY2027 um at different percentages. Um we have 35% with an overlay exposure of about 2.7 million. >> These are the percentages of the
residential tax exemption if implemented. >> Correct. >> What the impact would be for the overlay. Just want to correct clarify that. >> Yes. Yeah. Um and using the overlay balance of 500,000 we would still need an o
additional overlay needed of about 2.3. I rounded I just rounded up. um 20% the overlay exposure is 1.5 using um balance in our overlay of 500,000 we would still
need an additional 1 million at 10% it's 785,000 using 500,000 of our overlay we would need uh 285,000 and at 5% the overlay exposure is 392,000 and we could just use our overlay
balance of 392,000 that we have in our current. >> Yes, Jeff. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, but this there's no assumption about any use of free cash in those nets. So, if you go back to that last column, >> uh yeah. Yeah. >> So, the potential to hit, for example, on the 20%, you'd need additional
overlay of a million bucks, but and that's using what we have in the overlay now, a balance of 500, but there's no assumption of using any kind of free cash to offset that a million. >> Right. I I'm sorry I don't have that slide, but in my report I did put down uh using potentially having an article
of roughly 500,000 of free cash to go towards um the 35% which we would still need approximately $1.8 million. Um, and if we did something like that, we
would still need to somehow fund the 1.8 either it would come out of the tax rate on the next year. Um, the the issue with overlay is it's it's something that we don't need to go to town meeting for and get approved unless we're going to put more money in there. So, we would have
to do an article to fund the free cash at town meeting to get into the overlay. The assessors, the board usually approves the amount that we put into the overlay each year. >> They make a recommendation, >> but they also approve it. >> Yes.
>> And if we're going to use overlay funds for another use like OPED, then it goes to a warrant article. >> Yes. Uh it does. And they approve the overlay surplus. So you're Carrie. The point is though if we uh allocated or at
least assumed $500,000 of the use of free cash here, >> you'd be deficit of what? 500 grand of free cash, >> right? I wouldn't have 500,000 of free cash and then uh 1.8 million. >> 1.8 million for what? >> For the overlay
>> for the overlay exposure that could possibly hit the account. >> I'm talking about the 20% line, not >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I thought you were at the 35%. a balancing act between >> Yep. At 20% it would be 500,000. Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. That's
>> So So you would >> you would need um >> I'm looking at the 20% too. So you got 500,000 you're taking out of the overlay. >> I would take out of the overlay balance. >> You got another million that you need. So you're proposing what? 500,000 for
free cash. >> 500,000 from free cash. Yeah. >> And where would the other 500 come from? It would have to come from um the next year on the Yeah. tax >> FY28 tax rate, not FY27. >> It wouldn't be on 27. It would be on 28. >> Okay. >> Mhm.
>> All right. >> You know, I I I think I think if I might, Mr. Chairman, the balancing act is, you know, starting this at a level that's palatable to that actually provides some benefit, but it's also palatable to the town, that's workable for the town. And I I not to preempt any
conversation, but I did notice that other towns in the lower outer cape um you started at 20%. They didn't start at 30 or 35 or even 50, which we're allowed to do by um new legislation, but they start started at 20 and some mostly over the years have increased, you know, a
little bit up to 30 or 35 or 32. Okay. >> A couple started at five. >> Yeah, a couple started at five and one of them has moved off. Yeah. And the most recent one I think was EastM that started at five and still at five, but they just >> they just started it last year. Yeah. Okay. All right. Cool. Thank you. That's help. >> You're welcome.
>> Please continue. >> Oops. Sorry. I think I went backwards. >> Um so this is the tax rate um impact. So our current tax rate is $3.67 67. Um,
at I'll do you want me to skip to 20%? At 20% at full participation, it would be $42. If we had 60% of participation, it would be $3.87. >> Yep. >> Just a quick question. The assumption of the 60% of participation, is that kind
of based on what other towns have experienced uh in our >> Yes. So that is the need that that that's why we need the the money in the overlay is because we have to anticipate that not everybody's going to apply right away,
>> right? So if 60% of the uh the residential residents I should say apply then we still need an addition this additional money for our overlay because they can apply for the residential exemption after we set the tax rate and that's
when it hits the overlay account because we still have to balance everything. >> Absolutely understand. >> Is it is it the assumption that the other 40% in full are going to apply? Is that what the experience is in these other towns? >> That's what the experience has been in the other town. >> They're getting 100 close to 100 or 100%
participation. >> So, Eastan >> eligible properties. >> Yeah. So, Eastan started their um residential exemption early. They started it in January and that's why I'm here today to talking to you guys because we need if we're going to do this, we need to start it early. We have
to get as many people as we can to apply for this as soon as possible because of the effect of our overlay. Um and that's what happened in East Ham. They sent out letters to everybody to get people to apply and they had about 50% of people apply. So then they still needed to have
that fund the other 50% if they came in after the fact after they set their tax rate. >> So are are you going to be sending letters out to every taxpayer? >> We're going to have to think of something to do to get people to apply if this is what you want to do. >> One of one of the pieces of information that's going to be important because I
think we have 1500 properties in trust or something like that. >> Mhm. um that there are guidelines from the Department of Revenue that are very particular about who qualifies and you know whether you or Candace want to comment on them but you have to be named
as the property owner has to be named as both the trustee and the beneficiary in the trust >> and >> yes that is correct >> um there may be some other information that I've forgotten uh so some people may have to have their trusts amended to to qualify
>> and just a note to that is if they did want to make that adjustment, it's actually too late because they would have had to do it as of January 1st of 2026. >> Really? Okay. >> Then they would not qualify for this year. >> Okay. >> If they were not listed as a beneficiary and a trustee. So, we'll have to be
going through those documentations to see if they qualify under that. >> Okay. >> And of course with LLC's, they automatically are disqualified per the SJC. They do not get the personal exemption. >> Yeah. Well, that's going to be um unhappy news to some people.
Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And the other thing is we would have to also get a >> another >> another staff member to help go through all of the >> talk you're talking about hiring >> everything to look through. Yeah.
>> Is that a a full-time or part-time position? >> It would be a temporary part-time to start. >> Okay. And how about the um review of um a legal review of the trust? Is that what you're planning to do? You're going to use town council on
that? >> Yes, definitely. >> Okay, Steuart. >> So, you're um on your memo, uh you just touched on it, necessitate an additional staff person. That's a temporary person of something
>> as of right now. >> Yeah. And um what what uh what are they going to be doing? I mean, I kind of know, you know, and totally what they're going to be doing, but kind of walk us through the, you know, the process because you just
said something that uh like reviewing trusts and what have you. And I'm thinking, well, okay, there's there's there's there's some leg work here. >> Absolutely. So to answer that, um Stuart, what we're going to have to have that individual be doing is there's already an application that's out there that's um on our website that's pending.
It's not visible to the um public yet, but that um application will be there so the taxpayer can fill out the application together with the required documentation. There's a whole list of documentations. We're going to need the first pages of their federal and state tax returns, of course, redacted. If in
the event they don't file tax returns, we will be looking at social security statements. And then we'll have to look and see at their driver's license to make sure their address lists Chadam. If they don't have a driver's license, then we're going to look at maybe their mass state ID. And then also we're going to need to look at their um vehicle
registration. And again, if they're not driving, we'll use their um their mass ID. And then we'll have to look to see if they're, you know, on the census or voters. And then lastly, we'll be looking at to see if, you know, how the property is held. Is it held in a trust? And then we have to go through and make the determination and possibly reach out
to town council to see if they're going to qualify if they are a beneficiary as well as a um trustee. And presumably we'll either have to get that information from the registry. Most likely with scheduled beneficiaries, those are not recorded. So that's something that's going to be have to the taxpayers are going to have to give to
us and then of course the application has to be signed. So there's a lot of information that's going to have to be going over and a lot of confidential information. And then of course possibly reaching out to people because if they only provide us with um a certain amount of information, we need more then we would have to reach out to them.
>> Would you envision down the road if the town continues with the residential tax exemption um that it we could automate this to a degree? Do other towns have >> well eventually yes because just the first year is what's uh robust is
because the fact that they do have to file the application the first year thereafter we're not going to we're just going to be maintaining it. The only time is if in the event that their um deed does change then they would automatically be disqualified because if they did some estate planning then they would have to reapply or if they you
know added someone to their deed we'd have to recheck that or put it into a trust. And then of course we do have to make sure implementation so it's put into the billing system as well as putting it on with the do so they're aware of what the residential exemptions are having and then of course making sure they pay at least 10% of their
taxes. So it's going to be a once it's implemented then it'll be just maintaining. >> Great. Uh appreciate it. Thank you. >> Is that January one qualifying date set in statute? >> Yes, that is statute. >> All right. Thank you.
you know. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. >> Switch. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, we want to discuss um the savings and what can happen before the break even point. The break even point has to do with when it starts to level out on the exemption and then there is
no more benefit after that because it is over that amount. So, if the adoption of the 35% were to be implemented, again, the tax rate would be $4.34. A non-resident would be paying $2,500 more in taxes whereas a qualified
primary resident would be paying $6 in taxes. Now we can use the example if the 10% would be excuse me less be $6 less. And now if we use the example of 10% the tax rate would be $3.84. A non-resident would be paying $635
more in taxes whereas a primary resident paying four. So you can see the difference between adopting, you know, the 35 and the 10%. The differences. So this again going back to that full participation, that's if everybody applies um before we set the tax rate, we get that 100%
participation and the different percentages starting at the 35% and we use the valuation of a home at 1.7. If the 35% was enacted, adopted, excuse me, um then the tax rate again would be $4.34.
the savings of a primary taxpayer uh resident would be $1,357.94 whereas a non-resident would be paying $1,135.14 more. And then if you want to jump down to the 5% the tax rate would slightly increase to $3.75.
So then the um savings would be for a primary residence of $167.81 81 whereas a non-resident would be paying $14028 more. >> It's not just the non-residents if the I want to come back to the trust. I want
to come back to So leave that up. >> Okay. >> But I want to come back to the subject of the 1500 properties in trust. Are those do we know if those are residents or non-residents? Do we know >> that? I do not know. I'd have to run a report. >> Okay. But if you if you didn't amend your trust by January 1st of 2026
to qualify and we know as you pointed out >> that on the at the registry of deeds they don't really recite when you when you um um record your uh trust >> your trust document. You don't record the whole trust. Most people don't. It's
usually an >> it's just a a a syllabus and typically the trustes name is there but the beneficiaries are not. >> Yeah. >> And there are trusts that
don't specifically name the property owner as the beneficiary even though they might be in fact. And if those folks are residents of the town and have not by January 1 of 2026 amended their trust, they're going to be
treated like a non-resident. >> Exactly. >> They're going to get a higher tax bill. >> Exactly. >> At a higher tax rate. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Quick question. Uh so at the 20% level on this slide you guys um >> in this this this slide does assume that
there's 60% participation by those folks that um are would that are eligible and actually sign up. So 40%'s out here somewhere. >> Yep. >> Signed up after the fact. >> Y and married to that 20% for the 40% out out in the ether what you're saying we're going to need um another 500 grand
of the tax rate in the o to to fund the overlay account. Does that $42 include that >> 500 grand? >> Correct. >> Yeah, >> it does. Okay. >> So, and then at these levels, a a resident would would, you know, about
$925 bucks to the good on their tax taxes, their property taxes, >> and a non-resident would pay $347 more. >> Correct. That's correct. >> That's kind of my sweet spot. >> I mean, these are just estimates. Again, they're based on our current
>> information >> information that we have >> and and would it change appreciably at 25%. >> Or I mean in between the two, you've got 20 and 35. So halfway, you know, roughly.
>> Yep. Okay. I I think in my spreadsheet, I didn't put all of the numbers in there, but I think if you got the spreadsheet, there was numbers in there for uh 15, and there might have been one in there for 25 as well. >> By the way, this this this was excellent
material. >> It's a lot of It's a lot to look through, but >> I know it's a lot. >> Yeah. >> And having done stuff like this, but this is You did a great job. >> Okay. >> You did a great job. >> Thank you. We just want you to be aware of the implementations of it. Bring it
to your >> No, you're you're on your game. You're on your game. >> So, let's see. Um I did I don't think I did one for 25. I did one for 15. >> I think it's reasonable to assume that it's somewhere in between the
>> Yeah, correct. Yeah. >> The 20 and the 35. just trying to again trying to balance the need for the to funding a large overlay um versus really getting some meaningful savings for for residents. >> Right. >> And I don't want to get everybody a stroke on about what I'm going to ask,
but we're sure that the new seasonal uh designation for uh that we're a seasonal community um can go to 50% if >> correct. >> That's a great thank you. And of course, we're just recommending just the first year. Obviously, next year you can go up
again at a higher percentage just so once we get it implemented and we have a more knowledge of what's going to be implemented. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Again, as a general statement, I don't mean to hijack this conversation, but I I I think the 35% is is too too
aggressive. And I think the tell is if we're going to do this or when we do it, the 20% level, I think, is kind of where where we'd like to be. Not not not 35. if you I think it's I think it's too agg that my opinion not speaking for anybody else but my opinion it's too aggressive.
Thanks, >> Corey. >> Just to go back on the 1500 uh trust. Do we have an idea of those properties? Um though, those are a spectrum of different values, different price. >> I don't know the values on them. We just
did a report on just how many trusts they were, but I could definitely do a more specified report to say not only um value, but when I'd run the report, I could do it according to zip code. So again, that's not always a solid number because we don't know if they're truly in fact a resident until they've fully
applied. That's why we don't always know, >> right? Because I think what I'm what I'm trying to wrap my head around is, you know, some people say trust and think, oh, these are multi-million dollar homes, but truster is a mechanism to for estate plan. Absolutely. So you could have a $800,000 home in a trust and you could have an $8 million house in a
trust. So, so I I I'm I'm thinking that the 1500 trust are a broad spectrum of different values without the town. That's that is my that's the that's the position I'm taking. >> And I know this is a very delicate topic. You know, people we've we've
we've we've we've discussed this on a number of occasions over many many years. And um no matter where we land, I think that we're going to rub some people, you know, in a way that we don't they don't appro approve of where we're headed with this. Um but as we're trying
to nudge this forward, I'm feeling very conscious of 1500 people potentially getting pinched on this. >> Um and we're trying to do the right thing, you know, define what the right thing is. Um, but we have 1500 potential
residents, you know, that could get significantly pinched by this if we implement it, you know, in the timetable we're lock looking at it. So, that is that is definitely on my mind at the moment. And, um, I I I just don't know what we do to make things fair because, you know, we're looking at these
numbers, you know, and um, you know, if we were to take take a $3 million home, no, those numbers are going to double. We take a million dollar home, they're going to drop in half pretty much. So >> that's this is all based on the 17 value
of a house. So um it's uh >> and don't forget once you hit the break even point >> Yep. >> So those people be affected as well. Correct. They're going be paying as if they're >> they're going to be paying the higher rate. >> I think the issue with the trust is is
is an important one and I think it's one we need some some more data on. But to to to your point, Corey, on the 17, there's complete analysis of all different in the package, you can go at any percent and every single um value of a residence is included and you can so
you can really get a good beat on it. Very well done. >> Can can you provide the um slide presentation to us? >> Absolutely. >> That wasn't in the package per >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Yep. Yep. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Did you have more that you wanted? One more just to kind of go a little further
on what kind of touched on what Corey had just said. Um, so you could look at the situation that those primary residents that are over that break even in addition to the trust documents that if they didn't change it, they could be paying as if they were a non-resident. So you'd look at they'd be if their
house is valid at one point, you know, the 3.7, they're going to be paying that much more. And then of course you figure you got your non residents, you know, they're going to be bearing that larger share of the real estate role. So those are some things to take in consideration to be fair and equitable the best you can.
>> Okay. >> So this is all we have. So we just wanted to bring this to your attention. So when you do um vote in um September at the classification hearing you can take all this in consideration at the percentage that you want to start out with and then of course as years go on you can the following year you can
increase it. >> So what are you looking for tonight from the select board? >> I'm looking for direction on where you want to go. if we want to do 20% um 10 five whatever you're looking to do because we need to if this is something that you guys really want to do we have
to start implementation now because we can't do it in September because we won't >> you need to start now >> well I want 0% but I'll let uh the rest of the board comment on on any comments or additional comments or questions before I call on the public >> okay
>> um is that what we're So suggested motion is looks like it's somewhat different uh than what we're being asked to do here. So >> So the the board voted to
>> implement >> implement it uh as of um FY 27 which would be July 1. >> Yep. So the staff needs to make take steps now both in terms of a hiring
of a part-time person. I think that's a a lesser issue, but uh they need to know which way you want to go. The vote was 35%. >> Did you want to modify that? They need they need that information. >> Okay. >> And because they're going to put
together some sort of a communication to the property owners. Yeah. >> So that people can start applying, >> right? And um I I agree. I think it was you, Jeff, who and and and uh Corey about the I'd like a little bit more information on the uh the trust issue.
That's information we didn't have before. So a little bit more study on that would be helpful. Um if we remember when this conversation uh we had before uh my
motion was for 30%. That was amended to 35%. The the seasonal uh community's designation allows us to go to 50%. Um um I agree that
um 35 is you know given the chart here is is um towards the higher end. However, I'm still looking at trying to give some relief to the people
uh the working class here in the community and those folks who have retired here who you know don't uh you know don't have the the income available to support the cost of living here not only in specifically in Chadam but uh
>> the Cape Cape and Massachusetts in general. So, um I'm willing for a discussion on that. Maybe something like uh half of the 50 would be 25. Um to uh ease us more gently into the direction that I think
is a is is is a good cause. Um and uh but I uh that's where I'll start is, you know, we could we could have a discussion about that and I I don't have any trouble with the uh temporary part-time help to help facilitate this. Anybody
did you want to speak Shere? >> Yes. Um so it looks like um and I don't I couldn't I'm not recalling this information before but it looks like um most of the uh Cape Towns that have adopted this had started at a 20% rate
or or less and then have moved into a a higher rate or or stayed at the same um it seems to be a lot of the lower cape which we noted last time were um feeling the same sort of impacts that that we were we were talking about when it comes
to living in the small towns here. Um, small towns with big value. Um, I don't have any problem with the staffing issues at all. So, I'm I'm fine with um reducing it from the 35 to whatever we get to um and and start there and and
and go from there. >> Any other questions or comments from the board before I open it to the public? The only other comment I had was if you look at um
Nantucket uh started it >> so Nantucket I'll just comment on that one. I couldn't find what Nantucket originally started at because they started it in like 1989 or something like that. >> It was 81 I think when they started it from what
>> really early. >> Yeah. when what Dale had told me that they started it the year it was adopted enacted by the legislature >> so I could only find 2023 >> okay yeah that >> um so that's why I put 20% there >> yeah that's fine and and you know I agree with Shireen some of these
>> oh it says year adopted 1990 >> sorry >> that's all right >> on the chart >> the I was just looking really at the percentage that was it was 25% I'm thinking that you know we face a lot of the same issues uh Nantucket does um they started addressing this much
earlier than we did. Um, that being said, uh, um, you know, I'm I'm willing to chat about the, uh, the percentage and I'd like to hear more about the trust later. Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else from the board, >> Jeff? >> Well, you've heard me state that I'm
pretty comfortable at 20%. I think it strikes a pretty good balance between benefit for our working folks and uh and doesn't kill the um the non-residents >> and that that's I just think and again my my tell is looking at the data
turfleet barstable um nant was at 20 and 23 and Petetown all started at 20%. Now some are well north of that but I think 20% I think is probably a good place to start. Okay, >> I'm gonna turn to the public. I Mr. Young, you had wanted to speak first.
>> Should I shut this close right there? >> Thank you. >> One of these uh Andy Young Northam, I had a question about uh some of the methodology behind this and the process of the overlay. Um,
when does the overlay have to be funded and by whom? >> Candace or or Terry? >> So, the overlay is funded by um money that's already in the tax that you start with, but it's by the o the board of
assessors oversee it per state law. It's not something that goes to town meeting, >> but it's it's but it's funded by this year's taxes. next year's taxes. >> Next year's taxes. >> Next year's taxes. Okay. So, we would have to kick in probably 2.3 million or
something like that. >> Correct. >> To make sure it's high enough. That's assuming that there's 60% participation. And when you start talking about all these trusts that may were not maybe were not amended in time for what was
it? January something. >> January 1st, >> 2026. Oh, that was a while ago. The participation m rate may actually drop significantly at least for the first year. And I suspect that would have a hell of an effect on the amount of
overlay that was needed because then everybody will have been wised up by this meeting and subsequent meetings and then promptly apply for it beginning for the next following fiscal year.
So you'd suddenly have a much higher participation. Um the other thing that I was wondering about is um there's a comment that you know once a property owner applies for the exemption they do not need to reapply for future
years. But of course that's unless their residential status changes or um if their property changes hands which I know you mentioned. Yep. >> Which is bang on. Um, I think this town's going to need some practice at
doing this, uh, before we really get it smooth. I don't know whether it's possible to really automate it. Like Stuart mentioned, um, there's there's so much individual attention that will be need to be paid particularly for those
properties that have trust being presented. So, it's be interesting to see how it works out. I'm I'm I would simply argue that we should start small. Um or you know delay a year and see what happens because now people will finally
understand they have to have the trust amendment by you know January 1 2027 in order to qualify. >> Thank you. Can I just I think one of the things that we shouldn't get bogged down with
is that this we're not we're not inventing this that other towns have gone through this and we don't need to like reinvent the wheel that we should be looking or the I'm sure Candace you have been talking with your um cohorts
across the town that are and how they've implemented this and and done this. So I think that um we need to like make sure that our outreach is well documented and and well established there is a
wellestablished early plan to get this to move forward. >> I appreciate that. But if you're a taxpayer, a property owner and you and you get a communication from the from the assessing office saying that if you're your propertyy's in trust, for example, as of January 1, your trust
should have said X, now you can't do anything about it and you're going to be negative negatively affected if you are even if you're a Cadam resident. I know that's a smaller unit of people, but and that goes to the issue of whether maybe
this thing should be delayed a year, >> but anyway, I just throw that out. >> But it it's not that you're forever not going to be allowed. So there is the opportunity delayed a year and I and I do understand it's been implemented in other towns and we can learn from what they've done.
>> Okay, >> Corey, >> dare I ask this question? I mean, first of all, the $1,500, 1,500 trust, we need to get some more clarification, clarity on because I think it it it's going to influence where I'm going to land eventually, be honest with you. But to
any attorneys out there, if something is implemented and a key component of uh a property owner's action would be, you know, to mend their trust before a certain date, but they implement it and they don't have the chance to go back to
that. Are there any re legal repercussions? I mean, legally is this is there any issues? >> I'm not fully understood. >> So, so I'm one of the the 1500 I'm one of the 1500 what you know trust and now
the town implements, you know, we go forward with this, but I can't amend my trust until a year from now or qualify for a year ahead. So, I'm going to get hit with a higher tax rate.
Um, any legal history or legal precedent of is is that is there any issue there, I guess, is what I'm asking. >> You mean to be the town? Uh, >> yeah. Well, >> does the taxpayer have a complaint against the town agreement? >> Well, I guess what I'm saying is, you
know, we just like I just learned this information tonight about the trust. I don't I'm not in this in this position but you know they we now know these people who have been identified wherever from wherever they are they can't remedy
it reme remedy it until another year. >> Yeah. >> So it's kind of just it's kind of lousy on us to do that. >> Well that's that's why I brought it up. >> Yeah. No, I get I mean I I I know we
have a lot of mixed opinions on this and we're passionate about trying to do, you know, right by >> but I want to make sure we do it right and and it's you know 1500 trusts is >> and I don't want to overstate it. I we don't know how many
>> we don't know things we don't have enough clarity on exactly what this relates to. We don't know how many of the 1500 trusts are right >> residents versus >> I'd like I'd like to get a little more information before we go too >> even as to the residents even as to the number of residents
>> but the 20% 30% >> that's it's all going to be the same leg work so that's an internal number we can work with and a number we can but it doesn't matter the leg work is still going to be the same on the staff whether it be 20% 25 I mean the first year is going to be the brutal >> that's right >> implementation so the number isn't gonna
>> make their workload any more or less? >> No. No. >> So, >> okay. Um, >> were you finished? I thought you were. >> I I I was done. I was going to go to the next person. >> So, I saw M I saw Mr. Spalter on the
screen. I'm going to kind of go back and forth. Uh, the chair of the summer residence advisory committee, Jeff. >> Yeah. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair for the opportunity to speak. I just have a few a few comments uh largely in line with the parameters that you set uh at the
beginning of the discussion. Uh and this is more of a personal opinion than really representing the SRA. Uh but I'm a bit frustrated by the select board approach to the uh residential tax exemption. Uh there was minimal, if any, analysis done by the select board prior
to the vote to implement the RTE. The discussion tonight has been quite illuminating and I wish it had happened prior to the original vote. There's been nothing done to identify the population of those who are in financial need or whether the real estate tax exemption is the best approach to help them. There
are 12 to 14 tax exemptions available to help people that are already available, but they don't seem to be well understood or well utilized. Only 87 properties are using those exemptions today. My concern is that the select board has voted to make a dramatic shift in tax
liability that will impact some 7,000 residents without understanding if that is really necessary. Additionally, the cost of implementation and maintenance is not well understood. The change in the assessor's office with the retirement of Ardell further complicates the implementation and outside council
as you've just discussed will be needed to review some 1500 properties in various legal structures. If each review were to take only one hour, that's almost a year's worth of outside council fees. You know, it's with that in mind, I would request respectfully request
that select select board step back, take a breath, see who is in financial need, and determine how we can all best help them. I hope that we can find a means tested solution versus this unnecessary shift that will impact some 7,000 taxpayers, is expensive to implement,
and divides the town. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Uh, good evening everyone. My name is Michael Young in North Chattam. Uh, I'm a full-time resident. I've spoken before this board before regarding this issue.
I have opposed it. I won't repeat my um my reasons why. Uh although they are published in the Chronicle in an article uh from several years ago. Uh my question here today I'd like to clarify and it's really more to the assessing board but and I think I can do the math
in the head but I don't want to make any mistakes. So my understanding is that there's 1500 approximate trusts in the town um or homes registered as trusts and I guess uh based on the comments we just heard there's approximately 7,000
individual uh houses in the town. So uh the math is that 20% of all the houses in the town are under trust. Is that does anybody disagree with that? >> So 20 20%. Okay. So um it is obvious
that 20% of the houses in the town are going to be immediately disenfranchised. >> That's that's not that >> well it depends on the the beneficiary uh designation of the trust. So that's understood, but it is obviously a
potential issue, shall we say? >> Well, you have, if I might, you have two cuts, resident, non-resident, and then whether or not the the the trust includes beneficiaries, trustee and beneficiary. So there's there's two different cuts. So I think the 20% is math. You're right. But you got to
discount those trusts that are, you know, non-residents. >> Okay. you have to poop. So, and and I'm not making any judgment, but I would think that the majority of the trust may be may I may be wrong, but maybe with non-residents, I could be wrong, but unfortunately, it's probably the board's
going to make a decision without even ever knowing the answer >> because I don't see that we can really go through and look at 1500, you know, different trusts. Um, so we're going to make some subjective arguments.
By the way, I'm not speaking my own book because I don't have a trust. So, it's not an issue, but I do, you know, think more about than just myself. Um, the second question I'd like to clarify that is that um in presenting the beneficiary
requirements as as outlined, do those then become public documents? >> No, >> they do not. So, they are they protected >> protected documents. So absolutely that would not be public information. We will make sure everything is going to be kept as
confidential just like of all of our statutory exemptions. They will be locked up and only the people that are to look at them that are in our staff will be looked at. >> You'll retain the the documents though. >> Yes. >> So you retain >> and then after the time pay time we will be able to shred them. We won't keep
them for a period too. >> Okay. So if someone wants to make the case that their trust qualifies, it's submitted to you. You submit it to the for town council for review. >> Yes. >> And then it's shredded. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> They could qualify >> and it doesn't become a public document
that's searchable by FOYA or anything. >> There's a lot of you know when people ask for public records requests there's a lot of things under assessing that we do not give out because it's not public information. So we make sure that we abide by that and if there's any um you know concern that there might be some we always reach out to department of
revenue just to make sure that can we or can we not produce this information. to make sure to keep everybody's information safe because obviously they did this for a certain reason. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And my final uh comment and question on this subject about the
trusts. So obviously the whole purpose is to try and save people some money, a segment of the population anyway, not not everyone. Um, but anybody that's subject to having to revise their trusts to change the beneficiaries is going to
incur significant legal fees. And I have done estate planning and I've paid those bills and they're quite significant. They would more than absorb multiple years of the initial savings at at a 20% level for the for a million
dollar household. >> Correct. >> So you would agree with that. So, I think the board needs to bring that into consideration, too. Is like, are you causing more problems than you're actually fixing? I mean, people are going to have to >> lay money out to get their trusts up to
date. >> Revised. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, Nicole Stern, >> yes, I'm on now. Um, I I understand
everybody's point of view, but um I have to agree with Corey and with you, Dean. It's kind of like coming up at the 11th hour what this is going to involve. I
know a little bit about trust, but there are so many different kinds and I I don't I'm not sure I understand about the beneficiary part. I mean, my question is, is the whole purpose of
doing this to check everybody's trust, or is it for the purpose of helping full-time residents that live here that pay their taxes but happen to have a trust, maybe an irrevocable trust.
Nobody's mentioned that. So of course they can't be the beneficiary of it because it doesn't kick in until they're they're dead. So there is a lot of questions that I'm
sure a lot of people have that don't understand the full meaning of different trusts just like I don't understand it either. So I think we need more time. I you know I agree. I think this should have come up well before 2026.
So, if there were people that needed to make those adjustments, regardless of, you know, what the the cost would be to them, I'm sure they would figure it out. Um, not at this point, you know, then every
they're all caught off guard. And I don't think that's right. I think this is a big deal we're doing. I think it's a good thing that we're trying to do, but I think, you know, the full-time residents that live here, I get the investment people.
I get the I I get all that, but from what I've learned or what I've heard tonight, I can see people that have lived here for 30 years, 40 years, they're getting on in age. And of course
they want to um have something when they're gone. Maybe all they have are their houses. You know, they may be house poor. A lot of that's going on, too. And it's getting worse.
So, I I really think this is not the time that we should be implementing it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Nicole. Anybody else online or in the audience? I see one other um person, Don
Drinkwater. >> Hi, I'm Don Drinkwater. So, I'm a me also a member of the summer resident advisory committee, but I'm speaking to myself for myself right now. Um the address I'm going to address an issue which maybe no one cares about, and
that's just plain fairness. Uh I live in Massachusetts and the cost of living in Massachusetts is extremely high. I have four children and just like probably the people in uh Chadam, it's nearly impossible for them to purchase a home.
So the non-residents face the same issues as the residents do. And when you think about when you think about the um the effect of the non-residents and the towns Chattam's a beautiful town. I love the place. Okay,
it's got you got good school systems. You have nice offices. You're high what I'll call a very um great place to live. Let me put it that way. When you go to other places that have that same quality of life, they don't have a highway running through it or something like
that. the taxes are way more than chap. So to me, it would be hard to argue anything other than the non-residents are already significantly helping the taxpayers in Chattam because we are not
requiring we're not asking for the same level of services. It cost I don't know exactly what it is in Chattam, but even an elementary school student is around $10,000 a year if I have it right, maybe even more. high schools are running around 20$25,000
per student and you don't have that burden. Um, and people I don't hear people I don't hear non-residents saying we should get a lower rate or anything like that. I personally happily pay my taxes. I support the town. I love the town. And I
just feel like regardless of what other towns are doing this, I'm talking about Chadam. It just doesn't seem fair. And I don't understand why there isn't an appreciation for the people who do come in, who do invest in the town, who do
pay their taxes, and really don't expect that much from the town. Uh, and then my feeling is that why ask for more? >> Okay. Thank you. I think you're finished. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Drinkwater.
Any anybody else? >> Uh, m Mr. Ray speak. >> So, um, uh, I want to draw your attention back to the 30th of September where you
discussed all the other great schemes in Massachusetts general law for helping out uh, towns people. Um because I think those are things that you should drive to their limit before you even consider
the RTE the this real estate tax exemption. It's such a um well I commend them to you as you were excited. Uh I remember Jeffrey going you know oh I don't know
any about didn't know anything about these things. These are great schemes which are means tested. So they are actually they have criteria in them that target who you want to help
and we've never heard that about the RTE and I you know given that we haven't heard anything about it the only thing that we can conclude is that you actually want to do what it says in the legislation
which is to give the money from the non-residents non voters to the residents voters. That's the conclusion that everyone draws from this. And if that's what you want to do,
stand up and say it. But if that's not what you want to do, if what you want to do is help struggling people in Chadam, then implement those tools that are on
the table already for you. And there are the criteria are up to you. You can choose what level you put these in at. And I would point out for the that these schemes, some of which
you've already implemented, are the meanest on the cape. They are they are literally the the the the less the least generous of the of the of the schemes that are on the cake.
So I'm a little bit skeptical about the helping struggling residents thing. And somehow it seems to be lost in the equation of this argument as to why two and three million dollar household
owners need support. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Stello. >> Rob Stello. I live in Tai Lane. Um, I'll live there my whole life and everything and um, I don't think I've been on both sides of the fence in this issue and
I've had feelings from being on one end and I have feelings on being on the other end. I um, I haven't really heard anybody really negative about not helping people that need help. That's probably one of the biggest things I find real positive about this town. And a lot of it does come from our summer residents and the people that sit down
here and come here every summer and support this town. There's a lot of money that flows in here and how it gets spread is, you know, I guess up to how you look at it. But this decision really should be postponed. Um, give it a year. I think what Corey said is right. Let's look at it the right way. Let's make
sure helping the people and then make sure they're getting a help. Giving somebody $500 or $1,000 isn't going to make their lives. I've been on that lower end. Giving me a little break of my taxes. You say, "Start at 20, then we're going to go to 30, maybe 35, we'll go to 50. Just go to 100." I mean, the
reality is is, you know, are we really helping them or we not helping them? We're sitting down here making decisions and we don't really I I think one thing you got to really look at I can only tell from around town things that I've heard and stuff. This is a divisive it it divides the the town. You're thinking
you got one resident and you're thinking about another resident. We're all one team here. And I tell you, I don't see anybody here not want to help the people that really need it. If you ask the money that's donated, I look at the COVID happened, the people that, you know, gave money, that wasn't coming from all native people. That was coming
from summer residents, people that live here, wanted to support the people in this town. I think you got to look at all that. So, I'm not trying to say a naysayer. I'm not trying to say not do it or whatever, but to rush this through like this, um, well, personally, I would be
disappointed living in this town. That happens. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ignore it. I'm just saying we need to really spend some time looking at it. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. I don't see anyone else, but Shireen, you wanted to say something. >> I I did because I don't want us to lose sight of some of the things that we've
been talking about for the last since I've been on the board nine years about the the ability to retain and keep people in town and opportunity and and all of that and what we can do to create a community that values yearround
residency. and and I think that this was one um that we've seen other towns do um and do it well, I think we can do it as well. Um if we need to take this um and just back down and look at the trust issue
and have a little more evaluation, I want to make sure that we're not just, you know, killing this project death by, you know, a thousand cuts. Thanks. I mean, because we actually have been talking about this for a couple of years
and we have we're um the first time we brought it up, it was um I I believe we decided not to go with it based on that it was going to be too much work for the assessing department at the time and that we weren't prepared. And then we said, "Okay, well,
let's look at it in another nine months." And we did and we said, "Let's go ahead and do that." There has to be a time where we um you know that we just go for it and try it. Um I'm fine with giving it a uh
some time as far as the uh tax uh the trust issue addressing that. Um that does that doesn't mean we have to put this on hold today for sure. But if this is an issue we need to keep talking about until uh you know until next year.
I mean, until we vote again, then I think we can continue talking about it without delaying the process. >> Um, are there any more public comments? >> Okay, I'm going to come back to the board. So, staff is looking for some
direction. Um, I will say that I was initially going to abstain tonight because I don't support the residential tax exemption. I never have. I voted against it 11 times. I'm going to vote it against it next September and um the composition of this board
could change by next September and maybe some some minds will be changed by next September, but this coming September, but um I'm I'm going to vote against whatever is on the table tonight because I don't support this and we could be um
directing the assessing department, the finance department to do all this preparation. But if next September the vote is not to do it, that's all wasted effort. So anyway, I throw it open.
>> Well, I'm not so sure it's wasted effort. Um I I you know, I we weren't going to discuss this as a grand >> issue this evening, Dean, but now we are. >> I know. >> No, but now we are. And that's okay. >> I let I let I let the chair the chair of open that up and I let others do it. So
>> yes, you did. And to Shireen's point and to in response to Mr. Ray, every other opportunity or or mechanism um that we have available um to provide relief to our residents um we we're going to have
we have others that are going to be on the warrant this spring as well. We've discussed them at Nauseium here. Um perhaps you you you've paid attention and you know which what I'm talking about, but there are other mechanisms to provide relief to to our residents. I'd like to know how Ptown handled their
trusts issues because you I can guarantee you that Province Town had a salooa trusts and somehow they worked through it as the wealth arguably the wealthiest per capita town other than Nucket on the Cape Islands. So how did how did Ptown get through it? And I I
would very much be interested to know how many trusts are out there. or how many are resident versus non-resident because that the the residential tax exemption is a tool in our toolbox arguably as a cudgled it is because it's not a surgical night but it's a tool in
the select board's toolbox to attempt to provide relief to year- round residents in those communities most particularly that have a prepoundonderance of non-residents and who have driven the price of everything out of control in this town and I am one that would like
to provide our residents relief if we can via the tax rate to provide a more competitive living environment for our for our folks to provide them some relief. And and whether that's residents versus non-residents, uh you know, um
million-doll houses versus $750,000 houses, it's a mechanism we have at our that's available to us that other towns have used successfully, most notably the lower Cape. So, and we h I I voted against it 11 times, 12 times or
whatever. I've been on the the fifth term >> because because there's no comment from >> because during my campaign, I really got a real hard look at the town, a real close look at the town. This last campaign, I walked the town and um we I
think we don't pay attention enough to our year round residents. That's what I think. >> But bottom line, bottom line, bottom line, >> sir. I know. But you're right, please. our local you know anyway >> I I I just want to site because the comment is are you
>> I mean >> you done >> uh maybe and and to provide I mean I think we need to get the data on the trust yes but I don't again to Shireen's earlier point I don't want to hold this up we as a board voted to to move forward with this and there now our assessing
department is looking for some direction and I'm willing to give them the 20% I think that's that's a good place to start that's where others have started Um, >> oh, that's what I suggest. >> So, it's been it's been said a couple of times that it's that this has been implemented successfully in other towns.
Yeah, the implementation has been successful. Has it been successful in keeping people in town or attracting others to to come and move into town? Look at Nantucket. They put it in effect in 1981. >> Never reversed it. >> They never reversed it. That's true. But
it has not moved the needle very much. We saw that data a couple months ago. in 40 years. >> But you have to also look at what Ant has done in terms of affordable housing. They they've been very aggressive with affordable housing and done a great job over there. >> And the other towns so has in Province Town
>> and so has the other towns that have implemented this have a much larger share of properties owned by out of town people than we have. >> 56% out of town in our town >> and it's gone down.
Um I said please no no no comments from the audience. Mr. Ray please >> Mr. Ray >> Mr. Ray please. Um I'm going to recognize I think Elaine Gibbs has comment. >> Uh yes I'm sorry I disconnected myself
by mistake. I would just ask that for the people on the select board at very minimum I think you should identify yourselves of those who will benefit from this tax credit. I I I'm sorry. I it seems to me that the
people who are so viciferously in favor of it are going to actually reap the benefits of it. And I think we should know that. I think for full disclosure, just like we should know who's getting grinder pumps, uh this is important.
It's going to affect a lot of people and I think we should know who the people are that are are are viciferously supporting it if they are going to benefit from it. Thank you. >> Well, I'll leave that to the individual members. I I am not I will benefit if my
if my trust qualifies and I'm not sure it does and now I'm told that as I I needed to have it in place by January 1, 2026 two weeks ago. So, uh I'm not I'm going to be one of those people that are going to be very unhappy when I get the communication
from the uh from the assessing department, but I would benefit. I I know that some of my colleagues are probably not going to benefit who who are in favor of it, but I'll leave that up to others. Um any I don't see any other public comment here, Stuart?
So, um I'll try to lower the temperature with some humor maybe, but uh I'm striving for it here. the um you know I just want to point out because I think a previous speaker um and I won't get the quote down
correctly that you know we we were the most the meanest >> um but if we look at the chart here provintown um is at 35% and uh they started the program in 2016
Nantucket is at 25% Um, TR Truro uh is at 35% um and uh it looks like WellFleet's at 32.5%. So
I don't think the word meanest is the the right way to approach. He >> was talking about the level of relief that is currently provided under um the other types of exemptions. I think that's what he was referring to. So,
you know, I'm I'm one that supports this. I think it's imperative that we do what we can and our tools are somewhat limited uh on what we can do as a board and to some degree as a community to support those local residents that are
uh in some cases, you know, striving to stay here every day. And um you know, we we have an opportunity. we have a statutory opportunity to um implement what is available to us and it's this
this is not new. This has been around for quite some time at least going back to well before 1990. Um so I think that um you know the summer or the non-residents that uh are going to be affected by this
uh you know have to make it I would suggest that they kind of look at it in a broader lens and that is to kind of objectively look at this may not sound nice but uh it's meant in you know
it's meant to have a discussion And that is the impacts that they have. Not because they're not nice people. They're nice people. They're good people. But the impacts that they've had on the local community simply by being
here, simply by owning property. They don't these these are good people, but there is an impact to that. And that impact on the local community is not always good. It's not always positive. Um, you know, we see these these homes
that have uh been around for a long time in Chadam being torn down. Uh, and you know, I'll use the inflammatory term of a mega mansion being put up, which drives up our assessments, which, you know, doesn't help the the local uh folk
who's trying to uh you know, and I don't think I'm exaggerating, you know, pay pay the mortgage, pay the car bill, pay the pay the pay for the children who's going to school. Um, you know, these are real these are real issues and it's particularly exasperated here in Chadam.
So, I'm willing to like I you know to talk about the percentage. Um I am not willing at all to retreat on the concept of this. We must do things to help the folks that live in this community and um
and this is one of the things that we have uh that we can do and um I intend on continuing to support it. That being said, I would like more information on the trust because that does concern me.
It I wish we had it four months ago, but we didn't. So, um uh that that is that something that can be brought together Jill or um Carrie or uh on in the next
week or so? Um or is that too much? I I don't know. >> No, you are. Um, I believe that Candace can run a report, but she can only do it by zip code. So, >> it will show a little bit of, you know, something. >> Yeah, >> it will provide us with something. It
would show how many are non-resident and how many are resident by running it by zip code >> and the valuation. >> Yeah, that would be helpful. A little bit more information. >> And I think she can probably get that to you by the end of the week. >> It's not going to show how many of the
Chattam residents will qualify. No, >> because you have to look at their trust. >> We would have to look at the trust. Y, >> but it's a little bit more information than we have tonight that might be helpful. Um, like I said, I'm not I'm not um, you know, and I appreciate everybody's input and, uh, some of the,
you know, uh, previous speakers have said, uh, that it's a divisive issue. Doesn't have to be. you know, it it's it um they've also I've also heard that you know, these other programs that are
available. I'd like to hear that. Um >> please, Miss Mr. Ray, if you Mr. Ray, Mr. Ray, >> Mr. Ray, you're out of order. If you speak up one more time, I'm going to ask you to leave the room. Please. >> I'm leaving the room anyway. So the um
>> good luck. >> So anyway, there was a previous question I think Elaine asked, but I I missed the first part of it. So who who is going was the question who was going to benefit from >> she wanted a disclosure of whether individual members of the board would
benefit or not benefit from >> that. That is correct. She did ask who would benefit. Okay. In terms of Yeah. who >> I I don't know. Uh I I uh I am going to benefit on one side, but I am not going to benefit on the other side. So, it's
probably going to be neutral for me. Um but uh because I own two homes and I'm going to pay more for the second home. Um but I'm going to benefit on the first home clearly. Yeah, I get it. So, the math on that I haven't I haven't and and I'm not sure we need to disclose all
that, but u that's my answer. >> Jeeoff. >> Yeah, if I might. Yeah. Um so on the resident the trusts what the tell will be for me is what's the percent breakdown between residents and non-residents. Yeah. If the if the 1500 trusts skew towards non-residents more
than 50 or 60 I mean then that's going to be help that's going to be informative for me that that's going to that's going to be more it's going to be less work for the assessing department or our legal department to analyze you know those whether whether or not they are beneficial and trust. So, correct. Anyway, >> y
>> that's a tell for me and I'm hoping that it breaks that way, >> you know. >> Um, and again, I'm in favor if you want to do the 20%. I'm in favor of the 20%. I keep repeating myself, but uh >> I don't know whether you want to wait a week for that, but these guys need some guidance.
>> Cy, first I'm going to ask a question of the assessing department. Then I got a comment. So, 1500 trust are our current number we have. Is there any history of like has has the number of trusts in the community raised significantly over like what what's the trend like do do we
expect in five years that to be 2,000 trust? Like I what is the trend of another trust in a community? >> I would have to run a report on that because I don't know what we've originally had but it's always been about 1500. It just depends upon you know >> kind of a stable number. >> Stable. Yeah. It depends upon what
people are doing estate planning needs you know younger or older. >> Okay. Okay. Um again, so when we last voted the vote that brought this kind of forward, I mean, I voted in favor of it, trying to keep an open mind to it. Um I mean, I'm not as adamant about it as my
colle some of my colleagues and and that's fine. We have a tremendous political pressure on this, you know, on both sides, for and against. And and you know, I respect both sides. You're going to we're going to have arguments and, you know, we're going to have to, you know, ultimately decide in when we do
our tax classification in the fall. um you know this may all be for not you know depending where that vote goes but my issue and I don't want to be a stick in the mud about it is this process because you know I don't know that 1500
breakdown and I don't want to sound like a broken record but I know I'm going to be pinching somebody some percentage of that 1500 is going to be impacted by our vote we took if we were to act tonight and I mean I just learned tonight that
January 1 is the cut. I'm I don't that's not my situation. I my residence is in my wife and my name. Um so it's a trust is not a factor for me. I should probably be in a trust, but that's my own issue to get myself in order. But um
um but I I would I'm really it's it's it's a it's a significant roadblock for me right now because I really feel lousy, you know, having this process that has that significant factor into it that I know s some percentage of that 1500 trust I'm going to impact
negatively um because of how we're doing this. And you know, I know no one I don't think there's enough votes to say delay a year, but it's kind of where my my mind goes because we put everything on the table because we're
never going to break down those 1500 trust with all the beneficiaries. That's not going to happen. We don't have the manpower. We don't have the focus to do it. Um it's just it's it's just it's not something I I'm I'm I'm open to doing at the moment. So, um, I'm shifting back to
where I was before because I I'm I have some I have some significant reservations about this process. I know we need to help our residents. That's that's an understatement, but I'm a process person and I really really feel lousy about this last minute 1500, you
know, impact that we seem to have. >> So, Shine, go ahead. >> And I appreciate that, Corey, because that was thoughtful. Um, the thing is, let's just move forward. you know, the vote will come, the classification vote will come next year. If we're not ready
for it, we're not ready for it. We can go ahead and and look at it again, you know, the following year. But I wouldn't stop the process of trying to implement a program, >> you know, in the middle of it. I think we should keep doing our due diligence
through the process to the vote in for the reclassification vote. because we do need to know as you said you want to know more about the the trust numbers we can get that we can get as much information as we can
>> and we're just moving forward without cutting this off at at its feet. This is again I understand you're a process person but I also I feel like this just kicks the can down the road if we if we say no right now let's delay it a year >> we can move forward but in and when we
do the class tax classification and without significant change I'm vote against it >> that's fine but I have a lot of trust in our staff to give us more information as we move forward with this >> they're going to give us some information but really not the information I'm looking for unfortunately
Okay. I I'd like to bring this to closure because we have um two other items coming up. Does anybody want to offer whatever motion you want because they need some direction? >> Right now we have uh our vote is at 35%.
>> Yes. >> The opportunity to you need to know that >> I just Well, yes, we need to know like if you want to move forward even if you wanted to hold it for another year. I I don't know where you guys are going with this. I'm neutral on this. I just need
to know I need to have a funding source to fund some of this. That's that was my main part of coming here when we started when I started looking at the budget. This came up and I was like, "Oh, wait. I need to bring this back to the board so they could review this some more and
further." >> So when you say move forward, you need for you to move forward. What is >> I need to be able to have an article at town meeting to >> Yeah. for something. So that's where I you know >> you need to know the percentage >> right >> what else
>> you need to know the percentage tonight >> because it drives the overlay >> drives the provides the demand >> money to be transferred from free cash all >> and and the transfer is from free cash or whatever you want >> right I mean it doesn't have to be tonight I just brought it to the board tonight so if you want to hold on your
vote that's fine before the budget is closed in March I I need to know >> okay >> you don't need to know tonight. >> You can hold if you want. >> What about the hiring of additional staff? Do you need to know that tonight? >> It just delays the whole thing.
>> I'm gonna ask Jill to speak to that. >> So, because of the unknown, um, we had identified a temporary part-time, not a person yet, but a position to help get through some of the review. We're we're close to hiring um Candace's replacement
as she's been promoted. So, we're we're trying to figure out what we can do internally with with some certainty of moving forward and getting the the information out. I can say that I know Shauna and Candace have worked together
on an information guide to help people understand what an exe what an exemption is. It's just as Carrie noted as we're looking at the budget and what may need a town meeting transfer, we wanted to get to to the board as soon as possible.
Understanding the whole thing about the trust having a deadline of January 1st of any year is is there and and that's information that's that's new. So it tonight you can or or don't have to make
any recommendation or give us direction but March is going to be here soon enough and and that's really our point. >> But you als you you also need you also need some direction so that the town can communicate to the
taxpayers so they can get their applications in. >> Correct. Yes. >> That can't wait till March if you >> No, that can't wait till March. And to to follow up on that, um >> maybe February, >> you have funding. There's a question. You have funding for this temporary help that you need.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, so >> we have uh because Dale retired, so we still have her. >> Yeah. So, you have some money. So, so it would seem to me that um that process can start, right? Because it doesn't I don't I don't think the board is
changing on on the direction. There may be some unless I'm reading into it too much. there may be some adjustment on the percentage to help uh you know to help address some of the concerns. Um and uh and we can get more information
on the title issue uh maybe next week and you know that would be helpful. >> Well, next week's our budget session, but whatever they can come up with, they could perhaps mention that during the budget presentation. Is that >> Sure, we could do that. >> Okay. >> I don't want to stop moving forward. Uh
but I some of these issues, you know, I I get it. You know, I and then I'll keep quiet, but the January 1st issue, >> okay, uh >> that that that's um a ship has sailed um so to speak, and uh I have to think
about that a little bit. But thank you, >> Jeff. >> January 1 issue is is nettlesome, which is an understatement to not kind of know that it would affect the trust so dramatically. We didn't know that when we took our earlier vote and some of us knew a couple weeks ago. I guess I've heard this the first I've ever heard of
it and and it's unsettling and it's nettlesome and I think it's bothersome and I think it's it's potentially going to slow momentum down and and we have honestly no matter what folks think or say we we've we've bandied this about for years and and in a meaningful way.
Um, so I I I'm and I and I think that whether we we um go forward when we go forward with this or if and when we go forward with this and and affects the tax rate, our tax rate is still ridiculously low. Ridiculously low. Now, the the tax bill will will be
reclassified a bit, but our rate is still very low. And I've heard that all over the place. So I I and in terms of self aggrandisement, I mean, I haven't done the math, but I own properties and I'm going to win on one and not win on others. And I don't know what the math's
going to be to Miss Gibb's point. So, and I I so I I just want to use a tool in the toolbox to provide relief to our our year- round citizens. So, I'm going to suggest I'm going to make a motion that we cap we go with 20% rather than 35% that I actually moved the last time
and really in an educated uneducated manner and that we fund it with $500,000 from the overlay account and $500,000 of free cash >> that gives you some direction um which is what you saw this evening. I don't think and plus further information on
the breakdown in the trust versus between residents and non-residents. I think it's critical and again it's more than nettlesome. It's bothersome to me that we're hearing about that so late in this process. Thanks. >> So your motion is >> my motion >> your motion is to go from 35 to% to 20%
and fund it out of for with 500,000 from free cash and 500,000 from the overlay. >> Correct. >> That's the motion. That's the motion. >> There a second. Second and also to fund the staffing as well. Correct. >> The staffing Well, the staffing is funded. >> It is funded. Okay. >> I don't think you need that in the motion. Well,
>> I'll second Jeff's motion. >> The staffing will affect next year's budget. Is >> Yeah. >> All right. That's the motion. Uh I'm going to call for vote in a second. Uh I'm not going to support this. I don't support I think it is divisive by nature. It's divisive. It divides
non-residents versus residents. It divides residents versus residents. That's bad. And um I think it's a very foolish idea. I think it's foolish to take money out of free cash to fund a foolish idea. And I'm going to vote
against it. And I hope I really hope that someone brings a petition article to town meeting to give instruction to this board, even though it might not be binding, to give instruction to this board not to do it between now and next September. So, I'll call the vote unless anyone else has anyone else anything
else to say on this. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dykins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Matters. >> A. >> And Miss Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> And the chair chair votes no. So it's three to two. All right. Thank you.
Next is the uh Thank you very much, Candace and Carrie. >> Discussion the issue. >> Uh and um so the next item is to consider committee appointments to the board of health. Uh, and let me pull that up.
We have um two all we have currently three members on the board of health. Uh, we've had some resignations. Uh, and so there are there's one um regular member and there are two alternate members with that we'd like to
and and who are interested in being elevated to full member status. And so uh and they are uh Joanna Kale >> and Ron Weshar >> and Ron Weshar and uh Kathy has indicated to me that Mr. Weshar
was first appointed as an altered on November 12th, 2024 and Joanna Kale was first appointed on December 3rd, 2024. And so there's a slight difference in the tenure. Um because and I point that out because there were
um two vacancies. There were what are the vacancies now? We have three, don't we? We have four >> if if I might. >> So what are the terms? Maybe we we can appoint them to the same terms. >> I think we can point them both to 27.
So of uh one two two of the resignations were for terms ending 27 and the most recent one was for a term ending in 2028. >> So okay so I would suggest one we
appoint one of them to 2028 and one to 2027. But I'll leave that up to you and we can decide which one you want. There was a slight difference. >> Yes. The 2028 resignation came in after the agenda had been posted. >> That's what happened here since the memo went out. U Mr. Wishaw was appointed was
elected yesterday by the board to be the vice chair of the board of health. >> I he'll go to 28. >> So I'll entertain. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to appoint Joanna Carol as a full member of the board of health through June 30th, 2027, unless soon a revoked or a successor is appointed. >> Is there a second?
>> I'll second it. >> Okay, I'll call the role on that. Um Miss Davis. I >> Mr. Dikkins. >> Hi, >> Mr. Meadows. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> And the chair votes I. >> Mr. Chair, I move to appoint Ron Weisar as a full member of the board of health through June 30th, 2028, unless sooner
revoked or a successor is appointed. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Uh, I'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> I. >> Mr. Dykens. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> Chair votes. I would point out that we have um also an application to be
reappointed to the board uh by Carol Gordon who was formerly an alternate. Um and um we will my intention is unless there is objection to appoint that um to present that name
for appointment to a full position next week just before we begin begin the budget summit. Um if unless there's any objection to that. No, that's good. Thank you. >> Okay, with that, uh, the board is now going into, um, consider going into
executive session. And, um, just need to get the right document in front of me. The next item is an executive session under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 38 section 21 uh parenthesis 2 to conduct strategy sessions in preparation
for negotiations with non-UN personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with non-UN personnel parenthesis town manager. With that in mind, I'm going to offer the following motion. I move that the select board go into executive session under Massachusetts General Laws
chapter 38 section 21 uh parenthesis number two to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with non-UN personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with non-UN personnel parenthesis town manager close
parenthesis if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the public body and the chair so declares with No return to open session. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> I. >> Mr. Dykin. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows.
>> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> Mr. Castro. The chair votes I. So, we are going into executive session. We will not return to open session. Good night, Cadam.