the select board meeting of April 7, 2026. Thank you everybody for starting at 5:30. D, would you start us off with the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of America to the republic for which it
stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> All right. Can I have approval of the minutes of March 17, 2026? So moved. Do
>> I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. >> At this time, we're going to do new public business. The clerk, do you have your timer? We'll limit um limit it to three minutes. Please go up to the podium and introduce yourself.
Go right up. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Gayla Bartlett. I am the current president of the Danverse Kuanas Club. With me is our wonderful secretary K. Maurice and our
magical treasurer Diane Bringley. We are very excited tonight. We were approached to make a donation for the swamp walk. We are so excited about this and the new inclusivity um ramp that's going to be built. So, we would proudly like to
present this check, which we're gonna hold up because we're very excited to use our big check. >> So, it's $2,000 and we'd like to donate this to the Swamp Walk on behalf of the Danverse Kuanas Club.
>> Thank you. >> Would you like to come up and and be in the picture and be accepting? >> Can I ask for that? >> I'm being timed, I'm sure, but go ahead. Here we are. We're cute. Take this. >> You look.
>> Thank you. >> Well, thank you, >> Madam Chairman. If I may remind the folks at home, if you want to make a donation, write the check out to Friends of the Danas Rail Trail and mail the check to P. Box
211, Danveris, Mass 01923, but include Swamp Walk on the memo. >> Thank you. >> All donations will be gratefully accepted. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Thank you. Go up. Introduce yourself. >> Good evening. I'm George Saludo
and 15 years ago, I helped a few folks build the swamp park. I'm sorry they left so early. I'd like to thank them very much for their donation to the swamp walk restoration project.
Corners is a major player in the quality of life of our Danvers community. Thank you very much. 15 years ago, their leadership was part of the successful accumulation of $40,000
by individuals, businesses, and institutions, which helped the 200 volunteers create the initial swamp walk, an amazing outdoor recreational site.
As a matter of fact, 15 years ago, a gentleman by the name of Larry Crowley wrote a letter to the editor of the Danvers paper. He said, "This past Sunday, I had the good fortune to visit the 10th wonder of
the world in Danvers. It was the new swamp walk attached to the new rail trail close to Route 97 in Winnham. The swamp walk is a wooden walkway meandering through a mucky swamp
for several hundred feet. There was a serious error. It's really of a third of a mile long. I have a restoration project update. Our initial restoration estimate of 15,000 has been increased to 20,000
due to an interest to in transforming the southern section off the rail trail to be handicap accessible which would require guard rails, handrails, and a turnaround on an island in the middle of the swamp.
15 years ago, the donations range from $3,000 to $20. At this time, I'm a little concerned that the flow of donations has been a bit slow with contributions by only a
few thoughtful individuals, plus this very, very generous donation by the Kowanas Club. And as already mentioned, if you're interested in supporting the community project, a description of this project is on two
websites, the Danvers Rail Trail and We Are Danvers. And you may send your check to the Danvers Town Hall with a donation made out to the Friends of Danvers Rail Trail-S Swampalk. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you very much. Next, a public hear. Anybody else? Okay. Um, a public hearing will be held under chapter 138 of the general laws on the application of MB Spirits LLC, DBA, MB
Spirits 139, Endeott Plaza, Unit A2, Steven Kazuki, whatever manager for a change of officers directors on an all alcohol retail license at that location. And correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Clerk, we said before for just change of officers,
they don't have to appear. The applicant did send a letter indicating there are no changes to the license at the local level and the board has um previously agreed that the applicant does not need to appear for that. >> Excellent. >> And the paperwork is in order. >> Thank you. Board members questions.
>> No questions. Thank you. >> Dan, >> all set. >> Gner. >> All set. >> Mike, >> no questions. >> Okay. This is a public hearing. Anyone in the audience? >> Okay. Um >> to close the public hearing. >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> All in favor? Second. I
>> I opposed. Okay. Thank you. >> That was to close the hearing. >> Yep. Close the hearing. Yep. And then can we have a motion? >> I move we accept the application as presented. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Terrific. Thank you. >> Thank you, madam clerk. Public hearing
will be held in the application of Ava AVA Pizza LLC DBA. AVA AVA pizza and ice cream 100 independent way. Anna Zelan Neco, owner for a common vehicular license at that location, who was here to speak. Hi, I met you in the lobby. Go
right up and introduce yourself. >> We love ice cream. >> Yes. Hello. My name is Anna Zelanenko and we are taking over the business in Liberty Tree Mall. Uh, and everything stays the same. The menu, we're just
adding ice cream and renaming it to Ava Pizza. Also, we adding some uh coffee and desserts. So, you're all welcome, please. Yes. Also, we have some crepes. So, my last name is Zelano. That's I'm
originally from Ukraine. And we have delicious crepes that we make. So, yes. Um, everyone welcome to come and enjoy it. >> Thank you, Boa. >> No questions. Good luck to you. >> Thank you very much. >> Uh, no questions. Happy for you.
>> Sure. Thank you, >> D. No questions. Congratulations. >> Thank you, >> Dan. >> What are the hours? >> Hours of operation is as small operating from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Sunday from 11 to 6 p.m.
>> Okay, thank you. All set. >> Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone in the audience have any questions? May. Uh Mark, >> just a quick one. What do you fill your crepes with? >> Oh, we have Yeah, we have a lot of things. Nutella, peanut butter, jelly,
um, bananas. Yeah. Everything you wish for. >> Yeah. >> I'll make sure my wife doesn't get your address. >> Yeah. We wanted to add Richardson's ice cream because we love local ice cream and Richardson's is the best. So, we
have a lot of like people now coming and just for ice cream. That's really good. >> Thank you. Well, we're very happy for you. Um, this is a public hearing. Um, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> So moved. Okay. Do I have a second? Thank you. All in favor? >> I I opposed. And do I have a motion?
>> Motion to accept the application as presented. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Well, good luck. >> We'll see you soon. See me with the grandchildren running around. >> Thank you. >> All right. The board will review the
warrant for the May 18th, 2026 annual town meeting and it is up um on the overhead projector and um we're going to have uh town manager Jill start off. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, and through
you to the board and members of public. Um I'm Jill Cahill, town manager. I'm um here with Rodney Connelly, uh FI administration and finance director. Aaron Henry, land use and community planning director. Um, and we also have Tim Hudan, our building commissioner,
um, in the audience. I'm pleased to present to you the draft warrant as proposed for the select board consideration. Um, and we will essentially walk you through it one by one and um, and the board will take it from there.
>> Excellent. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, oh, I do want to say that we're going the process that we're uh going through and if you want to go to the next slide so I see the calendar. Um, this um review warrant review will be here um two nights in front of the select board. We'll be back on April 9th
at 6 p.m. 6 p.m. >> 5:30 I thought we Oh, >> no, I think we said we 6 p.m. Um, on Thursday night, uh, we will be reviewing mostly capital and DPW related articles. Um, as I said, we'll go through each article tonight. We will happy to answer
board questions. As we go through, you'll see that the page number for the draft warrant is at the bottom of the, um, of each slide. Um, so this first slide just lets you know we are at the blue lettered portion of this process.
Um, from here, uh, next week the team will be in front of the finance committee for their budget review. Um, board members, thank you. I understand a select board chair has um you guys are each coming on a certain night. So we look forward to working with you that through that process. Um and finance
committee warrant review will be the 27th, 28th and 29th if needed. Um all again leading up to annual town meeting on May 18th. >> Thank you. Okay. So article number one. Um this is at the request of the Danverse Historical Society and it is a
resolution in honor of the 250th anniversary. Um and we will be looking for the support of town meeting um for the resolution as printed in your warrant. >> Board members questions >> just a point of information. Yep.
>> Are we skipping the special town meeting articles tonight which would be unpaid bills? >> That's the way that >> Yeah. So, um, are we doing these tonight? >> Yes. No, we're doing those smart. >> So, Thursday. Yeah. So, we split it up
into two nights. All capital. >> So, that's going to be on. >> Yeah. Capital and the major transfers will all be on Thursday. Yeah. No, no worries. >> I thought you were thinking about the the flow of the meeting for town meeting. We are we um are hoping to take this article one first before we go into special town meeting. Okay. At town
meeting. Yes. Um we are starting tonight with article one of the annual town meeting which is the resolution. >> Questions guy. >> Um just out of curiosity uh was this reviewed when by the town archavist? >> He wrote >> he wrote it.
>> Okay. >> We did not change any grammar. >> He's suspect in my book. >> We didn't change any grammar or punctuation. Uh we left it to the Dan versus >> All I need to know is >> archavist in the historical society. Thank you, >> Mike. Any questions on that?
>> Uh, no, no questions. Thank you, >> D. No questions, >> Dan. >> No questions. >> Okay, no questions for me. Do I have a >> Uh, could I ask a procedural question, Madam Chair? >> Yes. Will we be voting on these with a select board recommendation for
each of these which neutral positive against if we were against it or are we going just to pass each of these and keep going through? >> We we're the ones that are really setting the warrant. >> So, we're going to vote on them, I
think, tonight. We'll do a motion >> and are we going to do it uh individually? >> Individually. Individually. >> Great. Thank you. >> Is that okay? >> Oh, fine. I just want to know how you want to run that. >> Well, if if I may just past history, we've heard everything. Then at the end,
we'll vote on the entire >> Sure. >> presentation as one vote with the ability to take out anything we want to discuss and have a different vote. >> Well, we're going to go. Why don't we just go like we said, we'll go one vote and then move on to the
>> I I my recollection is the same as Dan's. I just want to know how you wanted to run the meeting. >> Yeah, I'd like to run it this way, the one and then we'll vote. >> And then I move we accept this recommendation with a favor rule. I move we move this with a favorable recommendation. >> Second. All in favor? >> I.
>> Excellent. >> Um, article number two is the election of officers. Um, this is put on the warrant annually. Um, and the uh potential um people in these positions will be presented at annual town
meeting. So it gets moved as as presented. >> Question. Board members. Dan, >> no. >> D, >> no. >> Mike, >> no. >> Gardner, >> no questions. >> Okay, no questions. Do I have a motion? >> I move we accept move this forward with an with a u acceptable recommendation
with a favorable recommendation. Do >> I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Um, article three is the fiscal year 2027 budget. Um, you already did your
work on that. So, no motion is needed here. >> Any questions? Got >> no questions. >> Mike, >> no questions. >> No questions. >> All set. >> We're all set. Okay. So, there's no motion. >> Article number four. >> We should take a vote.
>> Oh, yeah. Well, we don't have to vote on >> You did that at the budget. >> We did that. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, this one you do need to vote on. Um, article four is the electric division budget. Um, as you know, this comes as a Warren article and um, so we'll need your support uh, and was presented to
you during the budget presentation. >> Questions? Dan? >> No. >> D? >> No. >> Mike? >> No. >> Gardner? >> No. I move we forward this with a favorable recommendation. >> Sec. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I.
>> Thank you. Opposed. Okay. And then uh article five, the Essex Tech assessment again presented to you um at the budget hearing on March 7th and in front of you tonight um as a warrant article to be placed on the warrant.
>> Any questions? Governor, >> um I will be uh discussing with the town manager an idea I have. Um there this assessment is predicated on the Essex Techs and I'm surprised sorry I surprised you I just haven't had an opportunity to talk talk to you. Essex
Tech created a budget with the assumption of what they would get on the cherry sheet. I'm going to talk to the town manager and legal counsel about offering a amendment where any any amount above that recommend above their
estimate be returned in portion to each of the communities. So if they were to get a million dollars more on their uh cherry sheet s work uh their final number they will have to return that number. It is their budget is predicated on a number and if they are successful
in getting more money I think that should be returned to the cities and towns. So I'm just letting you know the board know >> um I'm going to pass this forward with I'm going to recommend neutral but uh um I'm not I think there needs to be some modification. There are no guard rails
for the Essex Tech like we have with Prop 2 and a half and I'm concerned about that. So, >> can I ask a question? >> Sure. Sure. >> Isn't there um isn't there a formula um given to them by the state? >> The formula for how they distri how they pro how they assess each city and town
is percentage- wise given to the city and state. So, if they get more money than they expected from the state, I think they should give it back in the same calculation. I guess I'm wondering if that's allowed. Is it allowed? >> That's a question I'll ask I'll ask of the town manager and I town council. I
have not had the opportunity to figure that out. I'm just letting you know that I don't want the board to be surprised if they hear something from a board member at a later date about this issue. >> That's fair to you, Madam Chair. What happens now? Again, I'm not familiar
with this, but what happens now if they get more than they were supposed to? Do we know? My presumption is it goes into if this were a town, if the town estimates x amount of dollars and we get y amount of dollars, it goes into free cash for our use. However, with Essex
Tech, it's not that they have to turn back that extra money. >> They would get it. >> So when when we pay if if it turns out that they get more from the state, they don't give us anything back >> at the moment. They don't return money to us. >> Now, >> and that's what I'm going to suggest.
Now, would that also mean that if they do an estimate and they get less from the state, they could come back and charge us more? >> Would good reverse be too? >> I have to do the details. I have to dig in with the town management, town council and with Essex Tech representation.
>> We'll find out. But I want to make sure that all municipalities and including the Essex Tech, I'm sure, estimate conservatively. They don't, you know, to say we're going to get this much money and hope with the antic anticipation they're going to get that much money and
they may not. If they get much more than that, I would like to see that return back to the cities and towns. This is a this is a 12.52% increase. Our entire town budget isn't increasing. Is 4 something. Um, they far outpace us
with no guardrails or controls. So, I want to add this measure of control if possible. I'm informing the board, letting you know of my intent. >> Madam Chairman, if I may, through you to Rodney, maybe. Do we know what we're
going to get from the state on the Cherry Streets or do we have to wait for a budget to be passed by the legislature? >> So, we use traditionally in Danver and most communities, we use the governor's proposal to about to use our budget. We don't finalize the numbers till we do the recap in December. So the the basis at the moment is the
>> govern and that would be the same for SX tech I would assume. >> Correct. Y >> and typically you know the legislature can do anything with a governor's budget. >> Okay. Stay tuned.
>> Okay. And just not to drag dwell on this but to the town manager or Rodney was it my understanding that if we vote against this budget it doesn't really matter because you need three quarter of the participating members
to to make a difference. Is that correct? >> That is correct. You need the other um communities sending communities would also have to vote against the budget. So and essent So essentially yes, >> but I believe it's a majority. Is that not the case?
>> It's the voting. It's the vote. >> Get a weighted vote. It's not the number of communities. >> The weighted vote doesn't count on the not on the budget. >> So of the number of sending communities, if a majority >> I believe the magic number is nine. Yes. >> Um but it could be 11. I'm not clear on that. But it is it's all of the sending
community like a majority of the sending communities would have to all vote down the budget. >> Yeah. And I'm I'm not I'm ready to, but I won't tilt that windmill. >> I don't think we'll get the other It would require lobbying on our someone's behalf.
>> Any other questions? >> No, not from me. Thank you. >> Okay. Do I have a motion? >> I move that we approve the budget with a favorable recommendation. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? I I
>> No. And opposed? Please vote. Yep. Um okay the article number six is uh I want to just note that Matt Mitchell our senior and social services director has joined us here tonight too. Um article number six is the author authorization of the collector of taxes to act. This
is another one you do annually um to allow our treasurer um to collect taxes. >> Board members questions kind of that >> no questions >> Mike. No questions. No questions. >> All set. >> Okay. Do I have a motion?
>> I move we move this forward favorably. Do >> I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> opposed. >> Uh article number eight, um I'm sorry, article number seven, committee reports. Um and this this year the committee reports include the fiscal year 2025
annual town report which just was distributed to all town meeting members I believe in the month of January. Um and is available on our website. Um, Dion, do you have any questions? >> No. >> D, >> no questions. >> Mike, >> no questions. >> No, >> no questions.
>> Do we have a motion? >> I move we forward this uh with a favorable recommendation. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I opposed. >> All right. Um, we are moving down. So again, um, some of the ones in between will be on Thursday night. So, in your
packet, we're moving to article number 11, which is on your pages 7 through 11. This is a new uh proposal for a new bylaw related to the registration of vacant buildings. Um, if you read um a
little bit in your packet, uh this was uh brought forward by our team, uh it's related to public safety and welfare. um vacant and derelic buildings uh pose both a safety risk and a health risk. We do not want our um emergency responders
going into these buildings for fire or things like that. They also attract um rodents um crime. So they are a problem. um we don't think that we have a huge amount of them, but we would like um to have a mechanism for getting them either
taken down or um um kind of buttoned up in a in a more safe way. So, this is coming from from our end from the my my team. Um and I will point out that as you guys know, we've been working on u potential looking at revenue streams going forward that don't necessarily
impact every taxpayer. And uh this is the one proposal that's included in this warrant that has the potential um to bring in some revenue. >> Excellent. Questions? Gadner? >> No. Uh looking at this, it seems
perfectly reasonable. My question is, are the permits fees enough? Um I'm not trying to necessarily tag on people, but I'm going to use the former Denny's location as an example. It was vacant
for quite a while. We had concerns about vagrancy, about breakins, about it was horribly graffitied, an absolute eyesore. No one's going to defend that it that it wasn't, and understanding that the developer was
trying to market the property, get the right owner, so on and so forth. But for $1,000 or $2,000, whatever, I'm sorry, for the commercial building, is that enough to to entice them to
clean up, to fence off the site, to whatever it might be that makes it uh less of an eyesore, less of a problem for the town. Is are the numbers enough? And I guess I'll ask and I'm presuming
through you, Madam Chair, through >> the town manager to Aaron. Were these numbers commit uh the same with other communities uh the permit fees with other communities? >> Um I'm happy to answer that, but if there's more, we also have Tim. Um so yeah, they're comparable to other
communities. Um part of what brought this forward is my past experience um in Gloucester. This was a very effective method um to move move properties along. Um you obviously set the final number, but these are comparative to our neighboring communities.
>> Okay. >> And I think the um I should point out that the the bigger I don't want to say stick, but I'm going to say it. Um is the day there is a $300 a day um fee if they don't register or if they don't
comply with keeping it safe. So that's where potentially um huge fines build up. So, if they're not working with us um to make this the site safe or they're not registered um that's $300 a day and it's each day. So,
>> all right. I had questions about the residential commote, but I'll leave that to to experts in the on the board who are residential >> people. Mike, do you have questions? >> Uh a couple questions, please. Um it says here on before November 15th of
each calendar year, the owner of the vacant building shall pay the town an annual registration fee to cover the cost of monitoring and ensuring the safety and proper maintenance of such building as identified in the building statement. So um what is the moni
monitoring? How are you going to do that? Somebody's actually going to go out once a month, every six months. And what if they what if they put a no trespass? How how do you overcome that? >> Well, typically right now we meet monthly um code enforcement uh I should
say uh the building office, the health office, and the planning office. We meet monthly um and we kind of have our notes on what we're doing um and what properties are uh on our enforcement watch list or or whatnot. So, I think in this case, um we are out there
monitoring these properties today. Uh we don't have a lot of tools for some of these properties, but we do have to monitor them. Obviously, the fire department doesn't want to go into a building that's dangerous. So, this kind of formalizes what we're doing informally now, but obviously offers us
a little bit um of a proactive stance as opposed to where we are today, which is kind of reactive and just asking nicely um for help. Obviously, things can get to a point where we can exercise other authorities that we have, but um not all of those are as clean and proactive as
this uh solution would be for us. So, does this give you authority to go into the into the building? >> I don't believe this gives us authority to enter the property. Um, but usually, again, we're having a conversation with these land owners about the risks that the fire department is telling us exists
there or we're having an issue with a resident and the health department is trying to get in. So, um, again, this isn't us, um, being too heavy-handed. I mean, this is usually this I envision this as being the LA one of the last resorts after we've had a long
conversation with the property owner about what's happening on their site. >> So, I guess what struck me was does because of the safety issue, what if you have a owner that just refuses to let you on the property and whatnot? How do how do you >> likely we put the red X up and we have
the right to initiate the registration process. So, they're probably going to accept that registration process over the $300 a day fine that they're going to get if they um don't cooperate. >> Okay. And and uh on the opposite side of
that, if somebody was to be uh fined um and it was some odd circumstance, did they have a right to appeal it? >> Is there any appeal on that? >> Of course. Yeah, >> there is. in the in the building commissioner there is in here that um
the building commissioner has the discretion. So if it's if they speak to us and it's somebody calls their their neighbors house appears to be vacant there are snowbirds they're in Florida obviously we can have that discussion. So um yes they do. >> And and who would they appeal to? Who
>> it goes to the everything's through the building commissioner. >> Okay. And what if they're mad at the building commissioner? They >> Why would anybody be mad at the building commissioner? We'll just say they >> this goes to superior court. You want to take it further, you go to superior court. And usually, again, just so
people know, when we get to that spot, sorry, when we get to that spot with homeowners, you know, we try not to be too confrontational. If if that's if we're just we it's clear we're agreeing to disagree. Sometimes the conversation is, okay, how do we get you where you want to be? If you want to get to a judge, how do we make that happen
quickly um for you? Um, so again, we don't anticipate this being um, we don't want to have to use the big stick and we usually are working with people for months. Uh, right now I don't see that changing dramatically. This is just for those uh, folks who dig in and just
don't want to participate or help us out. And I think this is a tool um, that would be helpful. >> Thank you. >> What's that? >> Well said. Thank you, D. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madame Chair. Uh, I have a few questions. Um,
so this is this something new just to uh regulate current practices. Is that what I'm hearing? >> So this is new. This will be a new bylaw for uh the town of Danvers. It's similar to current practice. They talk and they monitor vacant buildings, but they don't
have any authority to make sure they're registered or to find them if they're not working with the town. So um kind of that enforcement piece is new. >> Okay. Thank you. So I have a couple more question. Usually I would contact staff or the town manager prior to the meeting
for more background. Uh I couldn't um the building does that include if I'm looking at definition section two does that include uh mobile homes? >> Good question. >> I'm going to look at the building
inspector. I'm or the building commissioner. I'm going to assume yes. Yes. >> Okay. because when I was reading it is it didn't and again I don't know the technical terms but it didn't appear to me that that definition included mobile
homes and if we have one that's vacant is it the same uh $1,000 fee or is it less um >> the way this is drafted >> the way this is drafted that would be a
residential unit um under three so it would be subject to that. >> So, the mobile home will be subject to that and and you think that that definition does include it. >> Tim Hud, building commissioner for the town of Danvers. Um, yes. So, in that definition under building, um, it's for
the shelter of persons. So, that that phrase right there for the shelter of persons would would include a mobile home. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so all I concerning the registration now if
someone has a vacant building, they still pay taxes. Is that correct? Like property taxes? >> Well, they're still getting build. >> So, they're still getting their bills. Okay. >> Um, obviously the vacancy part of it affects the valuation of the property.
So, so yes, they're supposed to still be paying taxes, but it would be better if they had a better use and not a vacant building. >> Okay. So if they're still paying property taxes now, they we want them to come pay to register that they are not
going to be staying there like the the way I understand it is to put your building like the building permit you have to pay for that. Is that right?
>> To Yeah. >> To to to get your building to be vacant. >> Well, no. So the yes if the if the vacant the goal here is to not have any vacant buildings because they're public health and public safety risks. >> Um so it's it doesn't really give them
permission for it to be vacant. Um but it puts it on our registration, gives us ability to work with them on what needs to happen to make it safe. Um and puts it on our radar so that we can so we can monitor as suggested. It's not a here's
my $500, I'm gonna leave now. Do something with that. That's not the purpose of this. They're still responsible for that property and that building. >> Okay. Okay. So, if I look at section 8, uh, number two, it says the building permit being issued. So, if I have a
building, I'm living there. I have a building permit, I'm living there with my family, then I leave and it becomes vacant. Once that building becomes vacant, do I lose the permit? And if I want to reinstate it, I have to pay for
another permit. >> I'm confused. >> Yeah, I'm going to let the building commissioner. >> Sorry. >> No, no, that's fine. So, I I think you're confusing a building permit with a certificate of occupancy. So, a certificate of occupancy is what's issued when the structure is habitable. That is typically not something that we
would revoke unless there are serious issues with the building. So under section 8 number two of the building permit being issued, that's a way for it the building to be removed off of the registration list so that we would no longer consider it vacant. So if we come to an agreement with a property owner
and the property owner says, "I'm going to rehab the building. We're going to renovate it so that it's livable again and and somebody will move in or if it's commercial, whatever the case would be." But so that is a mechanism for them to come off of that registration list so that they no longer have to pay those
fees and that they're currently working on improving the building to a habitable standard. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. And I think if there's confusion, I think that's the critical piece here is that these houses or or buildings are dilapitated. We, you know, have a hole
in the roof. We have open air. We've found squatters in it. um we're not just you're snowbirding and now you need to register with us. This is there's a public safety issue with the building that we feel it's not secure. So the building permit is a way to get you off
that list because you're remedying that. So >> okay, thank you. >> You said okay Dan. >> So thank you. Everybody's assuming that there's a property owner to get these permits to pay the taxes. There are
occasions, and I can think of three off the top of my head, where there is no owner living in the building or elsewhere. Who owns the building? It's no mortgage. I know you have a hand up, but just a
moment, please. >> Yeah. No, finish. Um, I think on the surface you're on the right track, but this does not solve the problem of a vacant house with nobody maintaining it, taking care of it, paying the taxes. The
taxes when the whenever whatever is sold, the town will get the taxes. I don't really follow the purpose of the fees. And three, I think you should have kind of run this by us early so we can have
some conversation on this instead of bringing us to us on April 7th for a vote. There's a lot that's missing. >> Do you want >> I can address the first part of that when we have so we have an example of a
absentee owner um right now. So there are other the last couple years um we've taken some action. I think we did a demo by neglect either last year or two years ago. So now we have a couple of tools. One of the tools that we have available to us and we're exercising at 199 Hobart
Street is the receiverhip process through the attorney generals. I think one thing we've learned through that process. Um that's a bit slower and a bit more cumbersome. Um I think it's but there are occasions when that's the right tool. So, I think in your instance, and again, this isn't like
tomorrow we snap and say, "Oh, here's your $1,000 registration fee, um, through the course of that discovery process for a property that comes onto our radar screen." When we figure out that we have a property where we have an absentee owner, this might not be the
tool to address that. Um, there was a a home here in town that was um in probate. You know, again, that was one where this probably wouldn't fit that. We were in communication with the courts. We understood what was happening and there was just nothing anybody was
going to do in the short term while that worked through the probate uh system. So this wouldn't be the tool for that job. But there's a lot of properties that we're dealing with right now where this could be helpful. So I think it some of that is um just understanding and doing
our due diligence before we get to invoking this. But your your later point >> Yeah. And I and I will take that. I will say, you know, being being new to the position for me, this was a proposal to bring to you all. It's well vetted throughout the Commonwealth. Um, and
this is modeled on those. Uh, if there is additional questions and information needed, I'm happy to bring them. But, but I do think we have the other tools. >> Cherry Street stayed empty for many years. Somebody owner the property was in Florida. Took us forever to get that
resolved. The housing authority took the building over. >> Yeah. fix that up. Trinity Street, that property was derelic for years. Nobody was living in it. >> Yeah. As as Aaron said, there are other tools. This just gives us another tool. >> I'm saying I don't think it's complete
enough. >> Well, can I ask the the board member what I want to make sure we're reacting to the 8020 rule if there's there's always going to be an exception and in any zoning there's always something that was unanticipated. We're never going to
have 100% lock on anything. If this covers 80% or 90% of the past issues, I would be in favor of it if it doesn't if it doesn't open up any um uh unintended consequences. If if the unintended consequences is we can't go
after a certain property because we can't determine the owner, okay, but that comes under the under the heading of uh um you have you don't have to enforce everything equally. have judgment on which ones you enforce. So
if there I would rather have this language and if you can when I'm done demonstrate where you think there's missing language or unintended consequence to this as opposed to just we missed this one particular case or this one use case. In my world it's
called use cases. We miss this use case where we can't find the owner. Okay. But the other 80 or 90% of them where we do and want to enforce this we can do so properly. Um, so I'd be in favor of pushing this forward and refine it just like we do any other zoning. If we
discover that we've got something that's wrong or a hole we need to fill, we'll fill it. But, um, I wouldn't want to stop this progress for the sake of a use case, solid as it is, but rare. So, when
you say it's there's stuff missing, I'd love to hear and and again, I defer to you as a real estate person. >> I just I just got this the other day. I can't tell you for sure what's missing. I know what I know jumps out at me that should be addressed, but I I'm not going to rewrite this now between now and May
18th. >> I just I would just reiterate for the board that this is vetted and used this similar lang same or similar language in many of the communities throughout the Commonwealth. So I well I think I agree with member Tras that you know there may
be other cases but as Aaron just stated there are several cases that we know that this will address. We know it's been working in other communities and we have other tools that can address some of those specific cases brought up by member Bennett. So for me this is um a
well vetted thoughtout piece and brought to you as part of a solution um from our team as we were going through what are some of the issues we have where are the revenue holes and how can we connect revenue to where we have issues and make sure that the work that we're doing to
keep these properties going we're we're at least covering the cost of the work that we're doing. So for us this came as a well thoughtout proposal. Um, I understand member Bennett sees some holes in it, but I I do think this is brought to you as a thorough proposal and I agree that if there were other
options to do, there can be amendments on the floor as well as we can change things as we move forward, but this is an important tool for our staff to have. >> You have a question, D. Go ahead. And and I I could be wrong, but I thought that if
a property was vacant and there was no owner, this because when I was on the board of health, there were situations like that. There's already something in the books to handle that like receiverhip or I don't know what they call it, but >> just exactly what Yes, you're correct.
And that's what Erin had brought up before. Receiverhip through the AG's office is one of those options. And I don't know if you brought up another one. We re um I think it was last annual town meeting. Um we also did demolition by neglect in certain cases last year. >> Exactly. >> Um but yeah, we we're using the
receiverhip program right now for 199 Hobart Street. Exactly. >> And again, there's a there's a time and a place where I think that is an appropriate tool. I don't know that that would have been true for every case. And and what we've learned through experience is I would say it's cumbersome and that it's slow and it's deliberate. Um, and
there's going to be properties where that might be the only tool we have, but there will be if we have this one demo by neglect, we have other options to explore before uh having to decide. Anybody else? >> Um,
two minutes. >> The clerk has a timer. Two minutes on the clock again. Go. >> The problem here is that we're trying to solve a problem with a sledgehammer instead of a screwdriver.
The owner of that property, that's private property. He's paying taxes. He's paying insurance. He's paying uh other uh fees to the town. He's paying water. He's paying electric.
All this whole proposal comes to be a revenuegenerating grab at somebody's private property. And Mr. Bennett has been absolutely correct because this thing something
that just popped up this afternoon. How is the public supposed to know about this? And one of the things that this item does is puts the town's hand into our private business.
If they want to condemn the house, condemn it. Then you have the right to take it. But if that person or if anyone is paying the taxes then we should remain out of their business. It's none
of your business to interfere. Now the question I have is how many of these properties are we talking about? Three. Is that what I see? So we're using a hammer I mean a sledgehammer to kill the
the golden goose. So the thing is I think this deserves to be thrown back in the waste basket like it should. Thank you. >> Two minutes. >> Two minutes is up. >> I know. Thank you. I know you
>> Madam Chair, if I may respond, um just for clarity, um one the the sentiments about they're paying their taxes, they're paying their electric, they're paying their this, they're paying that is is not correct in many of these cases. Um so I just want to point that out. I want to answer his question. We
think um currently that the number is related is somewhere between 6 and 12 buildings. And as a reminder, this is about public health and public safety. I don't think any of you want to live next to a vacant building. Um it creates public health and public safety issues
as we know. Um and it's not uh it's not safe to send our public safety first responders into that. So, I just wanted to clarify some of the statements that were made that were not accurate. >> Over the last 250 years, we have been able to solve that issue. And the thing
is that we're not using the tools that we have in our toolbox. We're not enforcing what the rules and regulations are. That's part of the problem. We're creating new rules and regulations. Okay. Madam Chair, >> thank you. All right. Two minutes and
that's it. Please. >> Is this going to address campers campers or trailer or trailer home on wheels? We've got one right now on Incross Street. Looks like crap. And we had one that at the Liberty Dream Mall for a while. I mean, you know, that's on private property, but still
>> that um that is in our enforcement portfolio right now. Um this would not cover that. That's an RV. >> You should go after that stuff. We are I just said it's in our enforcement portfolio and we're working on that. The tools at our disposal today have given
us the ability to get there and it's on the list and that's underfor street. Our main drag. I mean the supposed to be beautiful. It's crappy over there. There's a trailer over there with canvas hanging off. It looks like crap. Two big trucks. >> I'm telling you got a letter and they're in the enforcement portfolio. >> Not being funny. I'm just
>> being taken care of. I believe right. >> Thank you. Okay. Bill, you got to sit up there. Hurry up. >> Bill Brad Street member precinct one. If the town is billing them for water service, electric service, what have you, and they're not
not paid, doesn't the town put a lean on the piece of property at some point so that in the event that this piece of property uh somehow is try to sell it or give it away, the town still gets their
due. That's what we're trying to make sure it's either kept up or the town gets the money to take care of it. Does that make sense? Is that a question >> through the town manager? >> Um, yes, we are able to lean on utility bills that are unpaid, but many of one
of the things you'll see in the definition, many of these buildings don't have utilities hooked up anymore. That's part of what makes them vacant. >> Oh, okay. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. Go ahead, Adam. In addressing some of the comments here, this is proactive.
This is not specifically reactive. We're not trying to tag six or eight or 12 people we know are problem children in town. This is we know there are problem children in town. How do we prevent problem children in the future? And this is proactive work. This is a tool. Some
of them work. Receiverhip is one tool. But not everybody falls into receiverhip or are we going to pursue it that way? Um we have other tools with the health department. This is and it's not they stopped paying their bills, they left town and you know their house is still look looks okay except the you know
community standards are their grass is up to their elbows and and the paint's fading. This is we don't have community standards here yet. We hear commonly or I I shouldn't say I have heard commonly as a select board member of houses on main drags that are dilapitated that
have we had one that had the porch was uh dismantled for years and years and years and years and held up by long boards. People would complain about it but we don't have any community standard bylaws. This is how do we address those
issues? the health department and health risk is, you know, if if there's rats, we have a way to maintain it. We have a way to address it. This is a proactive measure, not reactive. And it's not specifically a money grab, but money is the lever. Money is the tool to move
this along. So, I'm I'm in support of this. And if they we discover that there's problems, and again, this is, you know, the enforcement is going to be discretionary, just like police have discretionary enforcement when they issue tickets. This is going to be discretionary. and we're only going to pick those things that fit into the
mold. And if we discover that there's unintended consequences that harm people, they have the ability to um to to protest against this to to ask for relief. I I see no harm and we'll never
get a single piece of zoning change that is 100% accurate for all eternity once that right out of the gate. So, I anticipate that this may be modified in the future and would expect it should be. It evolves. >> Thank you. Would you like to make a motion? >> I move that we move this along
favorably. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Okay. Dan Dan, >> I was going to make a comment, but you jumped into the motions. >> Okay. >> So, this is reactionary. It's going to take me some weeks to go
through this before I can vote for it on town meeting floor. I need to have a better understanding of what it's saying and what's left out. And again, if we had had a little advanced notice, >> okay, >> I would have appreciated it.
>> And I I appreciate your comment, member Bennett, I'm happy to work with you on it. And as I said, this may be one of the this is my first warrant moment. >> I understand >> and it won't happen again. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Well, that we'll take that. >> Thank you. I'm still no I know you are,
>> but maybe we'll get them to yes by May. So noted. So noted. >> Okay. >> All right. Where are we? >> Number 12. >> Article 12. Um this is acquire easements and public access to utilities. These specific ones are related to uh 128
Maple Street, also known as Maple Square. Um they also own the site across Hobart Street. Um, and these easements are no cost and they specifically give us and if there's really detailed questions, Aaron German, but they give us utility, public utility access on the
Maple Street site and they give us access to the sidewalk on the Hobart Street site. And if I'm saying it correctly, the owners own the sidewalk up to the granite curbing on Hobart Street. So, we need um this access so that we continue to use it as a public sidewalk.
>> Questions, Gina? >> No questions. Mike, >> no questions. D, >> no questions. >> Dan, >> no questions. A lot of maps to look at. Do >> I have 10 >> pages of maps? >> Yes. >> Do I have a motion? >> I move we forward this favorably. >> Do I have a second? >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. Um, article 13. Um, this is this is a new one for for us. Um and and Aaron can help me help us through this if we need to. So what we're looking to do here is we're asking
town meeting to give the select board the authority um to take any easements that are at no cost to the town throughout the year. Um sometimes things come up with projects and we're in a position where ems need to be taken in September and we're not there again
until um and obviously until town meeting in either special or or um annual in May. So this is this is new to us this year. Many other communities use this. It just gives um the select board the ability to um to put us in a
position to take these again no cost easements um at the time when it's more important so that we're not putting kind of legal band-aids on these to carry us through. >> Great. Dan questions. >> None. >> D. >> So is this going to be a yearly thing?
So we're only getting that >> until July of 2027 and then at next year town meeting we ask again. >> Yes. You'll see this on a lot of other town warrants. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mike. >> Um, are the easements on private property?
>> Yeah, most of the time they're private property for and giving us access. >> You So, it's just you're gaining access, correct? >> Yes. >> And that's it? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Access. It might be to also maintain the utility. So, like there's a drainage structure and it's cutting a corner and
we need a not only access but the rights to maintain it. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Property owner, if I may, would be affected because they couldn't build on or within that easement. >> Yeah. >> So, but they'd have to be that >> they'd be notified.
>> They're they're giving they've drafted it. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. That's that's the question I had for clarity. This is where the owner has agreed not has not not that they're compelled to do to do it, >> where they've said, "Yes, we're okay with the fact that you're going to
take our building rights away." And I'm just hearkening back to when the gas pipeline went through in the port. If the property owner is not, this is only when the property owner has said, "Yes, go ahead. I'm fine with it. I don't need any money for it. I'm good.
We're not, this isn't a taking. This is an accepting. I just want to make sure that that I'm clear in the language because sometimes language is important and language is legal in these cases. So, okay. If it if it is a voluntary donation, it's basically you're
accepting a donation. >> Okay, I'm fine with that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Do I have a motion? >> I move we forward it favorably. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> All right.
Um, article 14. Um, this well, it's titled demolition delay. It's just an update to um the dem demolition delay article that you did last two years. Two years ago, last year. Last two years you've done it. Um, and this is adding I
think what the and Aaron staff suppress preservation commission I believe we have a member here. So, um, either of them can probably speak to this better than I. Um but just the short version is right now they're looking for a third option when they deem something they can deem something historically significant
or not historically significant. They're looking for a third option to say yes it's historically significant but the work that they're doing doesn't change kind of the significance they might be doing the stairs on the inside or something like that so that they don't have to go through then the next along process of a public hearing.
>> Excellent. Board members um Mike have a question >> reading it. Uh, no. No questions. >> Go. >> I'm all set with this. >> T, >> no questions. >> Dan, >> and they're correct. This will give the preservation commission the option to
declare it perfectly significant if it is, but because it's not substantial, they can continue with the job with the work and not have to come back for a public hearing 30 days after that. >> That's good. >> So, it makes a lot of sense. >> Excellent. Do I have a motion?
I move we uh forward this favorably. Do >> I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I oppose. >> And I forgot to mention earlier when we were joined by Chris Samborn, our director of natural resources and harbor master. Thank you. Um reminded me that
you walked in when we got to your article. Article 19 is maintenance dredging. This is an annual um an annual article that you guys see. Um, moving forward. >> Do I have questions, Dana? >> No questions.
>> Mike. Um, yeah. >> No, no, we're just putting We're putting 20 grand aside, right? Each year. Is that what we're asking? >> Mhm. >> That's it. Okay. No questions. >> D, >> no. No questions. But again, I said it
before and I'll say it now. Uh the yeah we're putting 20 grand aside but the river committee and Chris and the volunteers there they do an outstanding job throughout the year getting as many grants as they can to make sure that we
don't have to dip into our pocket. So kudos to them. So >> Dan, >> when do we anticipate doing the next the four rivers? >> I don't I should check with Rodney first on that's my second question.
>> I think the goal was uh 2028. That's likely being pushed out another year or two at at the very least and it's all hinges upon the availability of state grant funding and uh we all know where where that is right now and it's a very competitive grant as well. >> So based upon that we'll probably get another 100,000 into the bank towards
this over the next five years. >> Sure. Yeah. Getting into >> and what is prognosis for getting state funds? We got quite a bit the last time. >> Yeah. Well, again, it's a very competitive grant. We're up against some
larger harbors, New Bedford, Salem, Boston. So, it's it's there's there's not a lot of money to go around, so it's all about timing. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Excellent. Do I have a motion? >> I move we forward this favorably. >> Do I have a second?
>> All in favor? I >> oppose. >> Okay, we're moving. We're doing pretty well. >> Okay, we are going to move now to the two citizens petitions. Um and um I just want to review what's happened so far
with them and what the process is. Um so that I think we're so that we're all on the same page. So article 30 and article 31 are both citizens petitions initi in initiated by citizens who are here. At least I know Melissa's here. Um so staff does not prep prepare for
these. These are initiated um by the citizens. They because these are both zoning related. They both went to the planning board first. Um and the planning board is required to have a public hearing which they did. And they're required these are both by Mass General Law. They're required to um
prepare a report for town meeting. Uh the chairman uh Lou George asked at the meeting last night that I update the select board in advance um of what they voted last night. So you have that information. Uh the next step obviously you all set the warrant. Um so I think
it's important to note that these citizens petitions will move forward to the warrant as written. That's also required by the law. Um so you guys can discuss it and ask questions. Um but they will be they will be moving forward this way. planning board will um make their report to town meeting and
obviously finance committee is responsible for the main motion at um town meeting as is past practice and tradition in Danvers. Um so I was asked to update you on the planning board um recommendations or reports to the
committee. So on let's see on article 30 which is the citizens petition to amend table use regulations the planning board voted uh an unfavorable four to zero unfavorable action as presented but has
asked for it to be referred back to the planning board for more review. Um and for article 31 which is citizens petition to amend the zoning map. The uh planning board voted 4 to zero unfavorable action with no referral back
to planning board. I turn it over to you madam chair and like I said I think the petitioner for article 30 is here. >> Okay. >> I don't noic public. >> No that's 31. Your second. Yeah. So you have someone from both. >> Yep. Uh Dan
questions. I just want to make a comment. Um, home pet sitting by special permit. Currently, we allow this in some areas. They want to expand it, but there's no
requirement for the home business to provide a walking area for the dogs, an area to exercise. on Page Street. The property is on a asphalt pad. The dogs get walked in the
historic property on the streets on the sidewalks and not not always cleaned up. So, I think any dog sitting or grooming shop should be required to provide an exercise pen or area for the dogs. And
not to do so, it just makes no sense. And there's a health issue right there. So, I understand the planning board said unfavorable, but with a recommendation for further review. Is that correct? >> To be sent back to the planning board for further review. >> I have to go to that planning board
meeting, I guess. >> Thank you. >> D. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh well, um I attended the two planning board meetings. I think last night they were here until what 11:00 p.m. 11:30. >> It was about 12:00. So I'm I'm preview
with all the discussions that transpire. So there's not really much that I can add except to support uh the planning board recommendation to be sent back to them. Um I listen to all the debates and
all the comments and I I'll support whatever the planning board uh have put forward to us as a recommendation. >> Thank you Connor. Uh yeah, I understandably these issues come up every so often and and they're wrapped
in emotion, but we're here to protect the interest of the town. Sometimes this is a reaction that is supposed to be progressive and forward thinking. What happens to the next one and the one after that and the third one after that? There are no by rights for pet sitting
at this moment. every if you look at table E1 on page 279 of the zoning uh uh the zoning laws every C1 through C5 I1 through D1 or D2 all special permits all have
special conditions every everyone is thought of individually but those are in commercial areas. This is now asking it for to be in a residential area and if you make a compelling argument before the ZBA you could have one in any and
it's asking for all Rs R1 2 and three. I don't see that making that sweeping statement um benefits uh the neighbors the community the the the you know the the neighborhood whatever it might be. I think that it is appropriate to go back
to the planning board because they do that thoughtful work. They do the planning. They look at all of the historic applications of when you make something by right or you make something by special permit. And I appreciate the sentiment that the that the citizen put into this, but I would want those
professionals to have the opportunity to dig deep and think of things that the citizen may not have considered uh because they're obviously concerned about their situation. and they know that they have a yard that they would be able to walk the dogs or whatever it
might be. Um, but it's not about this one spot zone. It's about the entirety of the town now. And I don't feel we should push I don't feel it should go as a town meeting member. I wouldn't vote I would vote to return this to the
planning body. Um, those are my thoughts. Mike. >> Uh, everybody said, uh, my thoughts, so I I'm in favor of it returning to the planning board as well. >> Okay. Do I have a motion? >> I move we forward this with an
unfavorable recommendation. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Uh, before I'm sorry, before we vote, uh, is the petitioner entitled to speak on the matter >> before we vote? They can if they want. Is anybody here to speak? Yep. Melissa,
are you here? Do you want to go up to the podium, introduce yourself? I >> I don't know. I was just >> No, that's fine. >> Three minutes. Okay. >> Um, my name is Melissa Nardone. I'm at 184 Center Street. I understand the planning board has
voted not to recommend this proposal at this time, and I appreciate that it is still being moved forward to town meeting for further consideration. Based on the feedback from planning board and the public, this proposal, I have narrowed down um I was going to do a
motion to amend on the floor at town meeting to just have it be small owner occupied inhome dog care by special permit in the R3 zoning district only. Um I support the process to be continued
to be reviewed. this type of use um it already exists in Danverse and my goal is to simply bring it into a regulated and transparent framework where it can be properly reviewed and managed. I believe this
approach is going to protect neighborhoods while also allowing the town to responsibly address something that already exists rather than to ignore it. Um, so when I first did this amendment and I added the residential one, two, and
three, I understand now R1 and two can be a little tricky. R3 is larger square footage, 30,000 backyards, more land and all that, and that's understandable. So, I'm just trying to um
push this forward where it already exists in Danverse. It's been around for years. There's many people doing it and there's been no recorded reported complaints about any of these existing doggy daycarees that are
happening. Um, and I just want to move this forward to legalize it just like it is in other towns. to protect what's already happening instead of ignoring it to just enforce something that's it's it's a big part of
communities. Um it's it's needed. I understand the um the concerns with the neighbors wanting not wanting dogs barking in their backyards and everybody having dogs. And although residents are allowed to have
four dogs, everybody does need to allow um apply for a special permit to have five dogs or more. I'm just trying to do the same thing, but as my livelihood that I have been doing this in Danverse when I first started, of course, I
didn't understand and realize it was an illegal thing and it's being illegal all over the town. Um, and there's been no problems other than the one time somebody said something about me doing
it in my home. Um, I don't have dogs that bark all day. The concern is people think there's going to be dogs barking in their neighborhoods and all that. As a professional and an experienced
dog person, I don't bring dogs into my home that are going to disturb my neighborhood that are going to bark all day and night. I do have a huge fenced in backyard. They have their exercise. I keep it clean. I have um duty calls, comes cleans up after.
I'm doing everything I'm supposed to per the town that allow is allowing me while I'm um appealing this and I'm just trying to make it where we could all do this and the the the people that are doing this now,
they've been doing it for a long time. It's happening in Danverse and I'm just trying to bring it to the town and make it where it's regulated and enforced. Um the board of health would come once a year just to make sure we're doing what we're supposed to. It It's not like
we're going to need a full-time dog officer policing all these homes that are doing doggy daycarees. Uh you have to apply for the special permit. the special permit. Also, the ZBA is allowed
to deny the special permit if they want to. So, I'm just allowing I'm just asking for the to be able to have the opportunity to apply for a special permit, especially for the people that
are doing it in this town. Um, such as me. Um, it's been my livelihood and I haven't had an issue. So here I am today fighting for my livelihood and what I feel is very beneficial to many communities who would prefer to have
their dogs in a small environment versus a doggy depot that people seem to compare as the same thing. Um that that's all I if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer. >> Thank you Madam Chair.
>> Yes. I just want to make sure you understand that my vote for un forwarding this unfavorably is on the language of the citizens petition. >> Correct. >> I support your objective which is to try to find a way to >> legalize this. It's not unlike when we
had efflas. We all knew before efflas were happening. >> Yes. >> Uh extended family living areas that people were renting out rooms or providing extra opportunities putting in a kitchen for mom and dad in you know in the garage. We knew it was happening and unless enforcement was requested
>> Mhm. >> wasn't pursued. EFL is now give us the tool to say this is legal. Here's what you can do by right. Go ahead and go ahead and if you're outside of that then you have to deal with it differently. So I the intent is sound. >> The language we're only voting on the
specific language that you offered because that is what's going to go to town meeting >> and it includes our one, two, and three. And I and I think that the offer by the planning board to continue the conversation. >> This isn't over. This isn't stop what's going on. I believe you're still covered
until resolution of some sort with the planning board. Um but let them do their deep analysis. >> Correct. >> Um of which I'm not knowledgeable enough to do that deep analysis. That's their skill set. That's their subject matter
expertise. So don't take this as a no, we don't want it. take it as I'm just reacting to the language. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else? Okay. So, we have a motion. >> I think I moved it unfavorably.
>> Okay. We did already, right? >> And I think it was seconded, but I don't think we voted because I think >> unfavorable and then Mike seconded and all in favor. >> Well, with a recommendation to return it to the planning board of unfavorable. Yeah. Return. If you want to say return to the landing board, I'm happy. >> I would support that.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. I move weward. >> Can we even add that procedure? We can only vote on the citizen petition. That's correct. >> We can't add anything to it. No, we can't add a delete. >> So, right. And and again, we're only recommending to the FINCOM. What we'd
like them to consider is our direction as town leaders. They'll make their own decision, which so I'm recommending unfavorable and to return to the planning board. >> So, do I have a second? >> Second. Okay. >> Second it. I second. All in favor?
>> I >> opposed. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and the next one is article 31, which is the citizens petition um related to amending the zoning map. And I think there is someone here, but if the um board wants to
discuss it first, however you guys want to do it. >> Yep. Questions? Um >> uh no, I looked at this. I I would like to hear from the petitioner. I did not watch the planning board yesterday. Um >> and so uh
I I tend to leave that their expertise to them and and look for their recommendation which I understand is for unfavorable. While this is in a residential R3 district, it has been performing as a variance for 75 years. No.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. It is a variance now for the past 75 years. Not residential. Um it does abut residential. you sure you're going to run up and so somewhere there's a dividing line and we just have to set that and so I want to hear from the
applicant why we would make this consideration and the other concern I have and this is probably through you to the town edge to legal counsel is if because it specifically speaks to a ice rink if this were to pass but then
the ice rink were not to come to fruition for whatever reason does it revert back to its original R3 designation or is it are we changing forever the designation because again this language is exacting it's going to go before the attorney
general and and and as all our warrants and language do do. So I want to know what happens in the event of it passes but the ice rink doesn't happen. >> I may I can offer an answer. So specifically the citizens petition is
seeking to reszone assessor's map uh parcel 15A map 47 from R3 to highway corridor zone. That is that is it. That's the that's the petition request. Now what they're saying when
they refer to the ice rink is what they would like to then do to the property after that. that would require a permitting process. Um, so again, we don't know, but how that will play out, but the question before town meeting is
should the town move it from R3 to highway corridor zone. If that is approved, that changes the map and then all the table of uses in highway corridor zone become >> open and available for the property to uh pursue exercising.
>> Okay. I don't I don't mean to put too fine a point on. Is the language here exactly what was written on the citizens petition and signed by people? >> Yes. Y >> okay so it does say to facilitate a future >> development
>> development. It does say I'm doing this for this reason not I'm doing this and in the narrative it talks about hey this is why I want to do it so on and so forth which we do on many warrant articles. This is saying I'm doing this because I want an ice skating rink which is hey great I no problem.
there is a there is a correlation here one for the other and so I just want to make sure that I understand that if the is this you're saying it stops at the after where where it says as defined in chapter 185 section 20 stop you're
saying there's a hard stop there and I'm asking if that's the if it actually isn't >> conditional zoning is illegal in Massachusetts so you can't have what's called a floating zone you can't have a set of conditions that if met the property moves from one category to
another. So again, this is action on moving that property from R3 to highway corridor. >> So I guess I'd ask the town manager through you, Madam Chair, can we just confirm with legal counsel that what it is expressed as conditional. I
understand what you're saying. You can't do that. >> Does that make the language moot or do we accept the fact that it is a hard stop? It's just just a change no matter what. No matter who's going to use it in the future. So, if we can just get that confirmation that this it's legally
written, I'm fine. So, uh but at this time, I'd like to hear the rest of the board and what others think. I'm all set. Those are my questions. >> Thank you, Mike. Um, I'm probably going to say the same thing in different words, but um, I guess I'm worried that if it goes to the
high rate highway corridor um, plan, then it's not necessarily going to be an ice rink. It could be anything else, right? >> Well, there's a table of allowed uses in highway quarter zone, and one would think they would pursue something that was a permittable in that zoning
district, >> right? But it could be a really tall building right next to some houses there. >> 55 ft is the permitted height in highway corridor zone. >> Okay. So that's just my concern. >> Okay. >> That's all. Thank you.
>> Thank you T. >> Yeah. I mean here again I I was here last night. I did listen to the debates the past two planning board meetings and uh there were a lot of abadas here last night that had some concerns about this
move. Uh so here again I would go with the planning board recommendation. They there was there were a lot of back and forth and ultimately um they recommended not to move this forward with a favorable.
So Dan, >> thank you. Uh through you to u maybe Rodney again. Hockey rinks taxable property tax- wise. >> Uh through you, Madam Chairwoman. I believe if it's a private hockey rink, it would be taxable. Yeah,
>> it would be taxable, but a school would not be. >> Um it would have to meet certain qualifications, but >> Okay. And that's an allowed use under highway car school. >> I'm going to punt Aaron on that one. >> Hand off.
Generally speaking, schools qualify for what we call the Dover Amendment. If the school, if the institution qualifies for the Dover Amendment, it can go anywhere in the Commonwealth. Local zoning does not apply to those uses. >> Same with churches. >> Correct. >> Yep.
>> They can. >> They can. Yeah. >> Just to be clear, they're asking for a zoning change, which doesn't guarantee a hockey rink. It just guarantees highway corridor which opens it up to anything that's on
that a list. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Who's here to speak? Anybody here to speak on that? Please go up and introduce yourself. >> Good afternoon. I'm Brett Hanley. I'm here with Broadway Capital representing uh Michael Leno and the company.
Uh, do you want me to start with what we're planning on doing? Do you guys have questions for me? It's >> Sorry, you said Broadway Capital. Is that the developer or the financing? >> Developer. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So, we're proposing a hockey
rink and it is a currently an R3 zone. R3 zone. We're trying to turn into a highway corridor zone. It's a budding both residential and Home Depot. So, it's not just a spot zone. It is just going to be a continuence off of that
Home Depot HCZ zone. Um, we have some environmental issues that we have to deal with. We're planning on doing sound testing for the butters. We're planning on doing traffic testing to figure out make sure we're all set there.
Um to answer one of your questions with the initial, we are fully going forward with the hockey rink if we can get the approval through select board and the town meeting. Uh we do have some
connections with True North Bank. We've worked with them in the past. They are very interested in this deal if we can get it approved as a highway corridor zone. Um, that's really it.
>> Okay. Anybody else? Any questions? >> Do you have a question? >> To to the to you, Madam Chair, to to Aaron or the town manager. The the old building that's there now, is it considered vacant?
Will it fall into >> um well, if that bylaw were to be adopted, it would not qualify yet because it has not been vacant for more than 180 days. And I would also say, case in point, sorry, we're jumping back
to that conversation, that property at this point does not display any sort of public safety problem. So I think it would take some time before we started being concerned that it's vacant and be becoming an attractive nuisance where we would exercise that authority but um no
it is not vacant yet. >> Thank you. >> Bill go ahead madam clerk. Is there a timer? >> Yep I got it. Wait >> at the clock. >> Bill Brady town member precinct one. I was at that meeting last night and in
listening to everything that was going on. My thought for the best use of that property would be for the town to take it either by imminent domain or if we could afford and I'm sure we can purchase it and keep it as open space or
even a pack not to see a uh hockey rink up there. I'd rather we're losing green space. I'd rather see it remain that way. My observations. Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. Join
U Joan Muchi town meeting member precinct 2. I agree with Bill. I was at the meeting last night and we were also at the meeting two weeks ago when they presented this at the planning board and um I agreed to suggest to the town to
maybe even split the lot and use there's no map there's no map up but you have wetlands that kind of split the property. So you have the wetlands and then you have the large parcel where they want to supposedly build a hockey
rink. Um, a lot of the neighbors that's basically their backyard and they do not want it. Not one is in favor of it. And a lot of them would like it to be just kept as conservation land by the town. Either purchase it or take it by enem
domain. There's a lot of wildlife back there that the neighbors enjoy. It's a sound barrier to 114 and and that commercial highway zone. Um, you know, the residents expressed that they pay a
lot in taxes about I think about 30 30 Yeah. So, $15,000 a year to the town. And um so I hope the town can really consider that offer is maybe just keep the front parcel and split it and either you know do a
deal with um with the real estate developer and and buy that land and keep it as conservation land. Uh I I I see you can't keep chipping away at the residential zones in the town because
it's it's almost I don't want to use this word but it is almost like a like a cancer because it's going to just keep going because all of a sudden you're going to be encroaching on Leblanc Drive and then that area is going to be kind
of ruined by whatever is being put and and then all of a sudden you're going to be on Watson Parkway which is already a speedway cut through from 114. Um they have a lot of hurdles with this property
and I am still questioning why they would use this property where there are other really good options in in Danvers to build a hockey rink. that that still is a huge question in my
mind where there's so many hurdles, traffic, you can't even take a left out of that property onto onto u 114 to get on route one. You'd have to go right and you I would bring you into Rosewood to turn around or people will turn around in Watson. That's a huge traffic problem
for that neighborhood. Now, additional the the wetlands, the conservation, um if it's if it's a hockey rink, there's a lot of chemicals somebody brought up. There's so many hurdles for that property. It's on ledge. Would they have
to blast? I I don't I don't understand. I don't understand where it's going. And what bothers me is are they using that as sort of an emotional response, saying, "Oh, this is great. Dan really needs a hockey rink." and to kind of get the emotional support behind it and and um
not really and just just to get it turned into a commercial highway corridor zone and not keep it residential. I kind of have that feeling and I don't like that. Um so I hope you consider that too because I cannot see a
hockey rink going there. Um, I really can't and um I I don't I I just don't like this kind of bait and switch that I feel it is by mentioning the hockey rink. Thank you. >> Thank you, ma. >> Madam Chair, I I a commercial developer has decided to
sink millions of dollars into it and I'm sure they're taking all these uh considerations into account. I I I am offended by the bait and switch. I don't even know the developer. I have no interest. I have no position in this. But conjecture on why they're doing it
and calling it bait and switch to me is inappropriate. So I'm just I'm voicing my concern about that language. >> Nova, did you want to go up? >> Nova Samtown meeting member precinct one. Um I just wanted to sort of defend the the development of it. Um it it is
right next to Home Depot. the neighbor to the left of it is kind of up a little bit on a ledge. They're not directly next to each other. Um, you can see the Home Depot from the parking lot of the Bay State Animal Clinic. Um, and I I'm
not a big fan of the slippery slope argument that like just because one thing happens means it's going to continue to happen all the way down the street into the other streets. Um, this is one parcel we're talking about. Um, I do share the concern of it not being a
um, hockey rink. Um, but if we just because we say um, no, we can't we don't want to change this to a highway corridor, that doesn't mean it's going to be developed into something we do want. Um,
so if we can, it is tough because we can't say it has to be a hockey rink. Um, but if we can have that there, there's I don't think there's anything wrong with having a hockey rink there. They can't build on the whole thing. They're going to conserve the part that
they have to. Um, it's not a terrible option for that space. Uh, so I just wanted to say like we need to take the emotion out of it. Like just like Joanne just said that like it can't just be about the
neighbors hate it and it's their backyard. It's not their backyard. Some of the backyards are very far away from this location. Um, but that's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, Mark. Not many of us here
can go back to the 199597 time frame when Home Depot was built. Home Depot used that property with the animal hospital or a veterinary hospital
as a buffer. That was the boundary that was established between the highway corridor and the residential area. So I think what we're seeing is exactly the creep that we're talking about is that
every postage stamp in this town is being looked at for development. This one is sort of wrapped up in the R3 uh zoning and is residential. They have
an opportunity to build a residential property in there. So why are we even talking about it? And the the only reason I can see is that it's a postage stamp that's available and we're developing every single piece of
property. Maybe Mr. Bennett knows the story from behind uh 1990s when we went through this type of >> line lumber. They built the biggest Home Depot on the east coast at that time. >> Absolutely. And the thing is that that
was the boundary that was established. Let's keep the boundary. Let's let the residential stay residential. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Do I have a motion? I move we hold this is an unfavorable recommendation. Do
>> I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I post. >> 41. 41. >> 41. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay.
All right. Thank you. Um, we are on to we're skipping ahead to article 34, which is page 26 and 27 on the book. Um, electronic voting. This uh was brought
to you at your request um through the select board. Um, the proposal we worked with town council um and I'm I'm available to answer some questions. Um, and and I know that we uh I got some
again we worked with town council, so I have some feedback there as well. So happy. >> Okay. Jump in when you guys are ready. >> Thank you. Dan, do you have any questions? >> No questions. >> Um,
got nothing. >> Um, yes. Uh, I'm trying to find the the language that I had marked up. Can I ask to come back to me while I find my documents? Something's out of >> Are you ready? >> Um,
yes. So, just just a clarification. Um, the the sheet of paper that we got is was that in replacement of some of the language? No, I I handed you guys a piece of paper that I worked on uh with
member Bean for when we get to his part of the discussion. >> Oh, okay. >> That'll be introduced tonight. >> Oh, thank you. >> Yep. >> So, I I'm still looking at the original uh bylaw. Okay. Okay. So, article 34
uh so there were two sections there. So, there was section six which is the voting and section seven. So on section six um the way I understood the the article
the that first section established the different ways we can conduct votes the methods of voting. Is that correct? >> Correct. And it just adds the electronic voting. >> Correct. So I would I would do the electronic voting. So So I would my
notes were to switch the A and the B. So the electronic voting will come first before any other type of voting if that makes sense. So if we look at that section article 34
uh section six voting A will be a countered vote by or whatever language the lawyers thinks as electronic tally system use by itself or in conjunction
with something else. So that will be the first thing for me. >> It would be big A. >> Exactly. So A will be A will come first and then B will come after. >> You mean the other way around, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. So >> So B's first. You B's first then A and then A after. >> Y >> that's that's what I had for my note. if now um the public records part of it
I I had a look and there and I don't know what other board members think if you look at public record for any substantive motions including but not limited to those involve the appropriation of money
um where is I'm at seven now. This is section seven. So the fact that um a record of how each member voted shall
be made available to the public by the town clerk as soon as practical pract practical following the adjudment of the session. I just want to clarify. So as it is now,
we have a voice vote. There's no record of how the members vote. Then if we have a standing vote, people can stand and then each precinct captain counts the number of votes and then says it to the
town moderator. So, is it possible that here the town clerk could uh actually how the town clerk could report the number of
vote by precinct instead of by individual the same way we're doing now. So, we will use the electronic voting. If someone wants a record of it, it'll be like placing one. There were 12 people who voted yes, six that voted no. We're
seeing two. >> So we've um so we've been advised because it's a representative town meeting. Um they're elected legislators. So if they like you if you had a roll call vote, you would be required to um that's part of the record, part of the meeting minutes. So using your
electronic voting um the this associate it would associate it with a person. It might be displayed as an aggregate. Similar to a standing vote, it might be displayed as 75. Yes. And my mask's going to be wrong. I'm going to go with
Don't look at another number. No. Um, but no, the record using electronic voting system, there will be a record associated with each town meeting member on the votes used by the electronic voting. That also does not technically have to be displayed, but it is a record
that's available that would be available as a public record as soon as practical. >> Okay. So that's the difference between the representative town meeting and the open town meeting. >> Correct. >> In this case, the record stays. >> Yes. >> And because you're representing other
people, they entitled to know how you voted. Is that correct? >> That is correct. And um we did speak with legal counsel about um voice vote versus versus electronic voting. And the reason a voice vote isn't recorded is one, you are saying it out loud. So it's
not kept secret from anyone. Rodney knows how I vote. Aaron knows probably the person in front of me. Um, and the moderator is making a collective judgment on the on the on the voting. Um, so not the same as electronic vote. So when same as if you had a if you did
have a roll call, there would be a record of all the votes. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. That answers that. Uh, section seven part A. Um, at the discretion of the moderator or by the majority vote of town meetings
members. So if we remove at at the discretion of the moderator. So on the on that section I think if we just say that voting should happen
by electronic vote and then if that fails then we can use other means. Will we be stripping away the anything from the moderator or will she still be able to
maintain her statutory um what do you call it? >> Her position. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Um and so this is you're forced. You're taking away Mike's thunder. Sorry. Remember me.
>> Just going to go wait in the truck. Go wait outside. Let me know when you're done. >> Okay. >> Um but just to address um so yes, the the second piece of paper that you mentioned that that um we worked with with Mike has a couple of options that
um contemplate what you're talking about. Um and again we were able to have a conversation with council and essentially chapter 39 section 15 of Massachusetts general law establishes the powers of the moderator but it also the second paragraph from there allows
town meeting to um pass bylaws to amend the procedure. So you're to s you're changing it and I think the note in um the um in the uh amendments the prop proposed notes give you some pointers
but you're depending on how you decide to do it. Um she has she still has the power what does it say? Shall preside and regulate the proceedings decide all questions of order make public declaration. I shouldn't say she they. Um but that also gives the authority. So
you're really by putting electronic voting as the default method that's a procedural or an operational choice that the town meeting has. The way to go back to the language as presented um it would leave the discretion with the moderator but the power in the town meeting
similar to as it is now seven people stand up and you can and you can demand a roll call vote electronic vote. So um so town meetings still retain some power that way. So either way is legal if that's the question you're asking. Um, and it's it's the preference of the body.
>> Okay. Well, I I had a couple more things, but maybe it might be better that I pass it on to S. But it seems that you've done more you've done more extensive research on this than I have, so take it away. And I I might have
another comment or questions, but sure. >> Go ahead, Mike. Go for it. >> Okay. All right. Um I really just was looking to amend it to so that it did say as stated here uh in section six under voting that uh one electronic vote system by all uh for all votes by all
members unless it's determined by the moderator who is in charge of the meeting uh I added that uh that the electronic system is not functioning and at which point we would revert back to voice uh votes uh or counting uh vote um
standing vote etc. Um so I was looking up the just to make it uh default to that at every meeting just because I felt uh guessing or not guessing but going back and forth would be cumbersome and and possibly confusing.
Um and I understand why it has to be posted uh your vote because it is different u than a standing voice vote. So um that makes sense. Uh that was really it. I think you you were running with the D. So um
>> if I may, Madam Chair, for to help the audience understand. So um member Bean brought this to us and then we did the paper that they're looking at um for consideration by the board includes three options. So um what member Bean just read um and then two options um
proposed um written by lawyers instead. Um one gives it a little bit more flexibility. Option two um makes it the default method. Um, and I guess one of the things that gets at the most, one of the biggest concerns about the language, which I would recommend we think about
how we uh, if we go with member Bean's language, we do have to talk about not functioning. That's they suggest language because that is too vague. So, their language, I think it says unavailable, impractical, and not functioning reliably. Anyway, so number option two is kind of a compromise. And
then option three um as I I think the title said would be delete the existing v voice vote declaration completely. So you have to a couple things to discuss here um with notes under each just so that people in the audience know
what's in front of them. Did you Mike? >> Uh I think uh I mean the second part there option two it says voting shall be ordinarily conducted by count
you a vote using electronic tally. Um and that just and then the rest cleans up the the fact that it is the actual vote. Okay that's that's good. The alternative method the moderator in exercise of their judgment use a permit
voting voice vote counted vote standing member standing written ballot. Um yeah so that's saying if the electronic system is unavailable or impractical. Okay that's what the alternative method
is. It's a >> just the legal the legal statement of >> establish it. Do you want me to read it, Madam Chair? >> Yes. >> To the public. Um, so it would say section six um voting subsection one default method voting shall ordinarily
be conducted by a counted vote using an electral electronic tally and system called the electronic system which may be used a by itself to reflect the vote or b in conjunction with a voice vote. Subsection two alternative meth methods. The moderator may in the exercise of
their judgment use or permit voting by A a voice vote, B accounted vote by members standing, C a written ballot, or D a roll call poll whenever the moderator determines that such meth method will be better ensure the efficient, orderly or accurate conduct of the meeting or where the electronic
system is unavailable, impractical or non-functioning reliably reliably. So I think it's getting at um one when you're going through the the beginning kind of election of officers some of those things um if you to move it more efficiently um and then it's it says
like it just covers what we talked about with the Mike's where it's not functioning a little bit more coverage on that. So, and this will be for section six and then section seven will
will that be modify as well? >> We would just have to what does it say? Delete seven section 7A would be um deleted. >> Okay. Okay. >> If yes, if you go with option two, that would include include deleting se
section 7A um which I'll read if I may, Madam Chair. Yes, please. that would delete um section 7A authorization at the discretion of the moderator or by a majority vote of the town meeting members present in voting. Any action may be determined by the use of an electronic voting system. When such system is used, it shall serve as the
official count and shall supersede a voice vote or standing vote. Um town council's recommendation is that is no longer needed because you've established electronic voting as the default system. I have a question. Sure. Yeah, absolutely.
>> If uh if you went with option two and the moderator in their discretion decided to use voice vote for a particular item.
If seven town meeting members stand and ask for electronic vote, does that still uh pertain for that? >> I think so because but let me double check cuz as I was reading that I was thinking the same thing. I believe the seven standing I know the seven standing
is um is mass general law section chapter 39 section 15. So that always remains. >> Okay. >> And and drives it to what? to a two-thirds vote of town meeting is required by statute. Yep.
>> No, I >> Oh, I'm sorry, >> Mike. I think you were asking if if a voice vote was taken or was recommended >> was recommended, >> but then seven people stood, >> can that force it to an electronic vote? >> That's right. >> And your language was talking about a
2/3. We weren't talking about two. >> Yes. Uh so I would I would have to double check that with council. I I that's I was reading it at the same time. They suggested taking out 7A, but maybe we take out the that as um D suggested at the discretion of the moderator and leave in the by a majority
vote of the um town meeting body. But I leave that to you and I can if whatever the will is, I'll make sure it gets cleaned up appropriately, but I get what you're getting at. Can they force an electronic vote? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> There's seven members.
>> Yeah. Right. >> Right. So, >> we'll say that there's a moderator in place that's bouncing back and forth and it's becoming chaotic. >> If seven stand up, >> can they >> and they always have the option to call for a role. >> So, seven members could stand up and
>> call for electronic voting. >> Is that correct? >> Do you >> It's not explicit. It's not explicit if you take out 7A. I'm just reading this just to make sure what this >> currently and I think this is where the question will be. might be in the handbook too. >> Currently
the town moderate has a discretion calls for a voice vote. If that voice vote is in question, seven members can stand. That drives it to a standing call. If after that vote
a number of members stand up and say we want a roll call vote, that happens. Not just the moderators making a discretionary call to I want a voice vote and all of a sudden seven people get up. If there's a if there's a if if after the v voice vote
there is a question then the seven members could rise. Yes. That doesn't forego the voice vote. It is you either go to standing vote or you go to electronic vote. That's a different pro process. >> Should we have the clerk? My
understanding was I thought that this meant if we have a voice vote and seven people stand up then we go to the default voting which is electronic. >> If you make that default if you make that the next step in the process
>> that's what the the the second option says that's the default method. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So my understanding is that if I I I'm not a lawyer, but if we have this as the default way of voting, >> right, >> and then we have seven people that stand
up, then we go back to the default because now the voice vote is an alternative way. It's not the main way. and the voice vote and the and I I like the language of keeping it a little broad because um if we say we want voice
vote only for opening the meeting or to adjourn well we don't know what else we might need the voice vote for later on right so we can't list every single scenarios where we will say ah this is no big deal
so by having that discretion that covers that but we still have the main method which is the electronic >> but that that the moderator has the discretion to bump the
electronic voting out on this isn't that correct on on the alternative methods >> that's correct so they they they allowed to bump it out for some I I don't know what language they use here like from general matters um
I yeah like I said meeting adjourn all in favor yeah and if you really strongly feel that we shouldn't adjourn maybe I madam chair I just want to clarify I was looking for that seven standing it is in our bylaws chapter 2 section 5 in
accordance with pro provisions of master general law chapter 39 section 15 the moderate moderator may upon a voice vote declare their passage of any measure requiring two/3s vote and such declaration shall be binding unless immediately challenged by seven or more town members. So town meeting members so
they can always challenge a voice vote that rem that would remain. >> But his question was if the voice was a challenge what comes next is it the electronic voting or is it the standing voting? >> And this this doesn't direct that. Um,
but def electronic voting being the default method, I would assume that would be the way it would go. But again, you can this these are options and you guys um can change them around how you see fit. >> Well, it it shows it's the default in option
two, the default method, which good. And you do need an out for closing the meeting. >> Exactly. or whatever, saying happy birthday to somebody, whatever. Um, so you do need a note where everybody's not pressing a
button >> or if the button doesn't work >> or if the button doesn't work, right? So, I mean I it it seems that that option two could work because the default method is the
electronic voting. >> Madam Chairman, >> yeah, I'm just reading it over and over again. So, >> we're voting to have electronic voting. Why would that be an alternative? Wouldn't that be the main voting method?
>> And then the voice eliminates the need for voice. Yeah. Excuse me. Voice vote entirely >> except in the instance of a German or something. So if you're adopting
clickers, I would think that's the preferred and only method unless they're deemed dysfunctional. >> But but we're not voting on we're voting on adding electronic voting. We're not voting on it becomes the it becomes
>> Well, that's what I'm trying to understand. No, this if you look at the So, a couple of things that I' I'm been holding off, but Madam Chairman, usually we look at this and then we'll consider amendments. If someone wants to make an amendment, consider the amendment. And if that one's shot down, then we
consider the second one. If that one shot down, consider the third. Whatever it is, we're kind of just mashing everything together. And to Mr. Bennett's point, the language here says adding is not replacing all voting methods with electronic voting. It is
adding electronic voting as an option and that it is >> that's why I'm confused >> and it it is voting in town shall buy and here it actually here it tells us what we're voting on voting on first
voices of the members second a counter vote by electronic tally third member standing fourth in writing and I've never experienced writing I'm not sure why that's there is that a new addition or has it always been there I've never once seen writing. Um, but if it's there
for historic purposes, I don't care. And then fourth roll call. This delineates exactly the order in which voting would be prescribed or expected. It also allows for moderator discretion. And and the reason would be I'm looking at I'm
looking at this agenda tonight. Tonight's agenda. If we start adding electronic voting to every single item as the default, we're adding four or five minutes per vote. Do we really need that for election of officers? That is a 30 second vo voice vote and done and
over with. Then if not, we have to open up the system, vote, make sure all of the votes are recorded, close the system, have people according to some of this language validate that their vote was accurately calied and then a
decision is made. I have some other language. >> So now you make an argument that we shouldn't have it. >> No, no, no, no. I'm saying I am not and don't put words in my mouth. I am saying there are appropriate times for it and there are appropriate times for for the time me the the moderator's discretion.
So I I I'm trying to get this back to where we address the motion, talk about its merits. If you want to make a motion to amend, make a motion to amend and let's discuss each one. We're kind of mishmashing everything and developing on the fly outside the norm of how we do
this and it's concerning to me. I have concerns about the language as presented that I would like clarity on, let alone when you start changing that language um in in amendments that we're seeing
for the first time tonight. So um >> it's still Mike's time to ask his questions and make his discussion points and I I it'll get back to me, I'm sure. So, I mean, I'd like to make the motion to accept option two.
>> We haven't made a motion on the >> main motion. Okay. >> So, you can't amend something that hasn't been addressed yet. >> Want to hear from the petitioner? >> You know, we're still discussing. >> No, this is a this is a >> This is This is ours. This is not >> Okay. >> There are people That's right. I'm sorry. Yeah.
Um, if you'd like to, we can continue on a discussion about the motion, the article as presented, and then after after a motion is made to whatever we're going to do to this article, you would like to make a motion for an amendment. That would be the appropriate thing, but you can't amend something we haven't
addressed yet. >> To madam chair, I think uh, select board member TR has a good point. So, so maybe that article 34 like I was saying before we we I will switch
discussing about that article switch A and B. >> So the electronic voting so section six is listing the different methods of voting and then section seven is talking about >> content. Exactly. Yeah, I get that. and
and and but you're also motioning to amend this. So, can we talk about this as presented? And then if you want to make a motion to switch the order, great. If you want to make a motion any of these three, all three, whatever it is, great. But we should
address it in a manner that is consistent with the way we do motions on these things and and amendments. So raising raising uh I I won't say issues but if I have a question about it as presented what do I do? >> You should have that you should ask
those questions. You could say hey I'm going to think I'm thinking about switching. >> Exactly. So I'm thinking about switching A and B. >> Mhm. >> And then section six will be listing all the methods of voting. And then section seven A the authorization will be that
language like making the the electronic the default with the alternate. So, so six will only be listing the methods of voting and then seven will be how we actually conduct the votes. H
>> that would be my suggestion. >> That's what I'm thinking about. >> Dan, what are you thinking? >> No, no comments. >> Okay. >> Well, Michael was in the middle of his. I you you gave it to Mike Ferris and I want to finish hearing his >> I'll I'll wrap it up. I think uh the
reason uh we're talking about electronic voting is because uh we're looking for a little piece of technology that will I think make it more comfortable for people to vote. I think it'll increase the number of people to get involved
with uh town meeting. Uh it may uh bring on younger people. Um, and so that's why we're discussing electronic voting. And I think once it's implemented, it will streamline it. I I don't know that it's
going to hold up time. Um Uh I think once everybody's used to it after the initial setup, it'll it'll go fine. Um so and with that said, obviously I'd like to put an amendment in when we're done with this discussion.
>> Yep. So addressing what's presented as article 34, I'm I'm I'm okay with electronic voting as a concept, got no problem with that. If the intent is accuracy, I'm fine. However, and it's a big huge however, there's a bunch of holes that I think
need to be filled here. I think we should maintain th this is a solution in search of a problem. In the past 10 town meeting, 10 years of town meetings, we've taken over 771 votes. Not once has a roll call vote ever o
changed a standing vote or a voice vote uh a standing vote because that's a progression. Yes, there have been times when the voice vote has been close. People have called for a standing vote and it may have gone back and forth. I get it. But never once has a roll call vote over overshadowed or changed that
vote. Madam Chair, I'd ask you to ask the public to to to stop commenting during these >> deliver. I'm sorry. >> Okay. >> Um, and we're asking people to spend money. We're asking to use taxpayers money here on a problem that doesn't exist.
The there is no problem with accuracy. There is no problem with um no the the vote. I'd asked I had asked for previously and I'll ask through you to the to to the um town manager. Was there an assessment of how many more people will have to how many more town
employees will have to participate in town meeting be if electronic voting is engaged? >> Uh madam chair through you. Um yep. So we talked about this operationally um internally uh with the clerk's office as well as um the IT department and I did
just check in on details that I'm concerned. So, no additional details. In fact, right now it's covered by um the it's covered by the patrol on on the patrol that's on um we anticipate in the clerk's office needing uh currently it's the clerk and the assistant clerk. We
anticipate needing four additional people. Um and again this is while we who knows in long term but certainly to get us started in that operationally what we envision at this point correct me if I'm wrong if you want to jump in madam clerk um would be to staff at kind
of at each door to check people in in and out with the clickers because again with the rep representative town meeting um your clicker has to be identified with you who you are. Um, and then, uh, the quote that we received on the actual equip equipment includes their staff
person. So, and that was essentially $7,000 a night. Um, you see we put 30,000 in. We anticipate we're budgeting for um, assuming the first time we ever use it, it may be a two night town meeting. Um, and two into a special and
an annual. Again, if that money doesn't get used, it just goes to pay for the following years. and on the IT staff because they would bring a staff person. We would want two IT staff available to communicate kind of between the company and our public. Um so to
respond to the person who says mine's not working um or it's our internet or something like that. So um additional staff would be four additional members of the clerk's office which there are only two. So we would have to we would
likely use both we may use pole workers or something. We would see um temporary staff and two additional IT staff. >> So there would be six additional people for let's let's say the town meeting itself is four hours, but you're going to have to have the clerks there ahead
of time. You're going to have to it the whole time and then at the end to collect them all back and check them all off. >> Yeah. Yes. >> So 6 to 8 hours per person >> times six people. >> Yeah. Um and I do know that there is IT issues in
that auditorium. It is a very closed space. The internet doesn't work. High school is notorious for having issues with with the technology internet type of technology. So you're adding So my concern is you're adding six people per meat town meeting per
night of town meeting. And by the way, a rough estimate, maybe that's the clerk, I don't know who goes to. What is the rough estimate of the cost of having a day of town meeting? Meaning the the staffs the staff now the the room the you know the the whatever goes on to to
establish a town meeting. >> Yeah, we talked about this as well. Um currently staff that is there, the majority of us are all salary employees. So there's no additional overtime or anything like that. It's just part of our day. Um the we do not pay for the school space. Um we do not have because
we don't have we don't use a a screen or you know we don't have any we don't pay for an IT person IT support currently. Um and because the police is the patrol on patrol. Um right now there's no like in the budget there's no item that says this is how we're going to pay for town
meeting. Um so in general most of it is absorbed operationally. Um, and when I like I think um, as I just said, we would have to bring in the extra that electronic voting is is essentially between a,000 and $2,000
>> because for those are for the hour. >> But you do give comp time. Yes. You may not pay them extra. >> It's operationally absorbed. So if somebody's there who's um from the clerk's office who then they wouldn't come in on a Friday or something like that. >> So there is a cost. >> There's a cost. It's operational. It's not a like a a you know,
>> it's not you right. You don't write a check extra check out, but you do pay for them in the fact that they're not putting if they put in 8 hours on election night that they normally wouldn't. >> They would expect and give be granted eight hours back. >> Correct. >> For duties they would normally have performed.
>> So it's operational and Exactly. And that other things won't be done because they'll >> right. So there is a cost. >> There is a cost. >> Okay. >> It's just not that hard dollar number. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I think that we Oh, we should estimate what that that operational cost
>> that is the 1,000 to 2,000. >> Okay. So, $2,000. >> Y >> Okay. Um, as I read this, I'm I'm in favor of of section six the way it is. Start with a voice vote. If that doesn't work, go to electronic. If that doesn't work, go to
Well, and this is a question. If you go to electronic, standing and and and roll call are moot. There's absolutely no more clarity. It's I it should either be I think if you're going to change it, make it voice vote, if not voice vote,
electronic because there should be no distinction between a roll call vote and electronic vote unless someone changes their mind in that interim. So I don't I I think that I think that when people start talking about changing it, voice vote first, then electronic voting, and
then that's that. If I may, Madam Chair, I just want to distinguish between a roll call vote. >> Um, as a roll call vote, they call the role, right? So, electronic voting >> as it's presented here, you can there's ways the system can be set. They could
display or the moderator could declare again, I'm not going to do the math, 75 yes, yays, and another number nos. Right. >> A roll call, they they call the role. >> Yes. And so it would either have to be displayed by member or a voice would
have to say. So a roll call is different. >> It is different except when you get to the next section. It's section B. >> But in the meeting the experience of a roll call in the meeting is different. >> Okay. I will so and then and then we talk about section seven authorization. I'll
at the discretion of the moderator. Great. I will never vote for something to take away the discretion of the moderator to run the meeting that that has been successfully run for all of these years. This is a reaction to people who thought their voice vote was not heard.
I understand that. But it has moved from uh the intent for accuracy to the intent for identification. And I'm I'm having a little bit of a problem with that. If you want accuracy, I got no problem.
Um, and you have methodologies right now today for accuracy, for exacting accuracy. Voice vote. You don't agree, seven people stand up. Seven people stand up, we have a standing call vote, folks. If that's if that is contested, we'll go to a roll call vote. The
process has worked successfully. Never been uh never been reversed because of a roll call vote. Um, so I I'm fine with section A of this, the public record. Um, okay. I understand that we want a public record. I'm not going to fight that one.
Visual confirmation item C. This is saying that we will have to have a leaderboard or screens or something that represents 149 people and exactly how they voted according to the way this is written. Not an aggregate.
>> No. Um if I may, Madam Chair, it says um must provide the individual voter with visual confirmation. That refers to your device that says so you're holding your device and your device will say you voted yes. >> Okay. >> It's providing confirmation to you as an individual.
>> All right. Fine. >> Just to clarify. >> And then if we can clarify the language because >> when I saw that I thought I watch C-SPAN and I see every name up on a big tote board and how they voted >> and that's so that's that's the language
that it provides the individual voter with a visual conver confirmation. So it provides just to me >> um >> as an individual >> system failures again 8020 rule system failures we'll address some system failures I get that that I I think that should be if the system is failing if
people decided that it's not calculating the product whatever happens yes we revert back to old school got it no problem um and then the integrity this line about integrity
I I appreciate this. I appreciate that giving someone a clicker doesn't ensure the integrity. It's just as easy for someone to hand off the the the clicker to someone else in the audience and they can click away. So, so because right now by voice vote, we know where the
precincts start. And if someone in behind the precincts are are shouting out votes, a they're they're warned not to at the beginning. And if they are caught doing so, that's a condition. This actually removes that. I will have no problem voting on adding electronic
voting to the mix as long as it comes after voice vote and the moderator has the opportunity has always has the authority to run the meeting um as as as is applied. Don't don't always cause a VO don't always cause electronic voting
because it adds tremendous amount of time to this process. Right now, if you if you again the average annual town meeting has over 50 votes because you've got 40 or so warrant articles on average and I've got the spreadsheet here for
the last 10 years plus within that when we drop to the budget we do 10 or 12 budgets separately 50 articles 50 votes taken. If you add 5 minutes, 4 minutes, that's an added 3
and 1/2 hours to the And we then switch over to two nights and then add the added cost of a second night of rental and a second night of increased personnel cost for a issue for a solution that is not a
problem. No one has demonstrated this is a problem. And we have several uh we have several town meetings. you have at least two annual and a special. Okay, so now we're talking about $40,000 maybe. And if we go to two nights each, we're
adding another. Now we're 50,000 60. I realize these are high numbers. That's a paraprofessional. That's a that's a reading teacher. That's a role in this community to solve a problem that doesn't exist to
make people not gain accuracy but gain insight into exactly how each person voted. They have that opportunity now. They can can they can take advantage of it now. I will vote for it as long as it maintains voice vote first and the moderator's
discretion. If you want to go first like that and then later decide that the moderator's discretion can be changed, let's do that. But again, we shouldn't we shouldn't embrace two dramatically different changes at once. Take it a
step at a time. Add electronic voting, no problem. Then talk about the moderator's ability and discretion and see because again, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist. The moderator's abilities have never been in question. And everybody here will say, "We're not questioning the moderator. We
don't we think she does a great job." Well, then don't take away her discretion as provided by law. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um any other Mike? >> Yeah. >> You want Yeah. >> Go ahead >> to to you, Madame Chair. Um
>> I I think some some of the concerns that the select board member TR have, I I did have the same concerns. uh what I tried to do was to detach the person from the role. So like who is
the moderator and the the the role itself. It's it's almost like the recall petition we talk about uh I may be digressing here but like it wasn't because we were trying to talk about a specific person. It was it wasn't
because we know someone is going to embezzle money next year and then they need to go to the recall petition. So when issues come up um the way I look at it was where this was not on our radar.
This came up this was talked about. We look into it. We look at other towns. We saw what they do and we're like why not? So I don't necessarily see it as a solution looking for a problem. I see it more as an improvement.
We live in the AI world. You know better than I do. have been in the tech world. So if we can modernize our system but by still keeping our traditions,
I think it is not a bad thing. The first town meeting will be long. I I I'm sure we will all have to learn how to use it, but over time it will become the norm. uh now we having high school students graduates who are trying to run for town
meeting great they would love things like this so uh the the amendment and I don't know if we can talk about amendsment now uh I had similar language but this is a little betterly written that option two
does not take the power moderator discussion away uh it it doesn't take it away completely I think it streams line the process. So if we do section six and just list the
methods of voting, this is how we can we can do. We can do electronic, we can do voice, we can do standing, we can write on papers because I mean the voice vote has less integrity
than the the electronic vote because if you think of that section E, if I take my clicker and give to someone, well, it's just easier for the person in the back room to scream louder. >> No, if someone screams in the back, they get called on it. If someone yells out,
if if if someone is outside the precinct and votes, they get called on it. >> But but if you look at that E, by having that there, it might be redundant, but it it clarifies the fact that, you know, not to do that. We can't referencing E
>> 7E, the integrity. >> Okay. Okay. >> So you you you're making clear to people, you are not supposed to give your credit to your neighbor to vote for you. So there's nothing wrong with making that specific.
>> So So I think it the way I look at it is to really detach the because we have a great moderator who does I mean I've never heard anything but amazing things. >> Yep. >> 10 years from now who knows. So so we
can't necessarily This is not about a person. This is about a whole a policy and how we want to govern ourself. That's how I'm looking at it. So by having that section six listing the
different methods and then on section seven we we do an amendment to this proposal by saying voting and it says voting shall ordinarily right it it it's is
written really loyally the moderator still holds the discretion I don't think that's been taken away >> so just for process purposes can I motion make a motion on what is presented and then we talk about whatever amendments we want to talk about
because that's the way we should do it. I I I'm I'm ex I am fine with exactly what is presented. My concern will be with some of the amendments. That's all. >> Let's um let's open up to the public if anybody has a question. Please go up and
introduce yourself. >> Nova Sam 8 town meeting member precinct one. Um, from what it sounds like, I would be in favor of option B, um, to make electronic voting first. And I just want to point out that even if it's second, we're still going to need the
same amount of staff whether it's first or second because we will have the availability of it to use it. So, um, where it comes in the line is not going to affect how much we have to spend to have it. We're gonna have to
spend it either way, so we may as well use it as the primary source. Thank you. >> Thank you, Lauren. >> Lauren, Steve's Precinct 3. Um, I listened to everything that was just said obviously, and I have uh I have a lot of thoughts, as you know, I spent uh
the better part of a year talking about this on and off, doing uh tons and tons and hours and hours and hours of research, and D kind of hit the nail on the head. This is how we want to govern ourselves cuz town meeting has the authority as the legislative body to
amend our bylaws and decide how we want to vote on things. Um I understand the moderator has a discretion to run the meeting how she she she see she sees fit and and run it that way, but it's actually not her job
if we want to pass a bylaw that says we want electronic voting as primary. It's if that's passed, it's not her authority to be able to say you cannot you must vote by voice if we decide to pass a bylaw that we want electronic voting as the primary default sole method of
voting. Um I just want that to be very clear. Um I don't know how many people on this board have actually sat and watched any towns who use electronic voting. um this idea that it's going to take that much
extra time to press a button and votes to register um that it's going to take an extra 3 to 5 minutes um is just it's false. Uh I I'll send you YouTube videos. I'd be happy to. Um I have spoken to a lot of town media
members. Like I said, I sent out a poll whether you agreed with how the poll went out, how it was worded. Um, that's kind of neither here nor there, but we I received a a 80s something responses. A lot of town meeting members feel very strongly
that they want electronic voting as the primary method. Um, and we're the ones voting. So, I think that that's important. Um, and the the notion that uh the public only wants electronic voting
is is just a reaction to a voice not being heard. that that's an opinion. Um, and that's not how everyone feels. Uh, the fact is that we want it for accuracy. We want it for transparency. We want it so that the people who vote for us know how we're voting on things, which they don't currently have the
ability to do right now. Um, and our votes touch everything in this town. They touch our budget. They touch our zoning. They touch every decision that we make. It it we touch it. So, everyone should know how things are being voted on. This isn't because we
don't like the moderator. This isn't because we're upset or we're emotional. This is because we want transparency and we want accuracy and everybody should want that. Um, and the again the opinion that there there isn't a problem. Maybe there's not
an outward problem. Nobody has a problem with the moderator. This isn't about the moderator. This is going back to like I just said, transparency, accountability, and accuracy, and making sure that the votes are counted, especially on twothirds votes. Those are extremely important. And to to be off by a couple
of voice votes and and we don't really know, that's a problem. Um, but the the idea that this is just an emotional response to something I take a huge issue with, especially after all
the time um that I put into this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Good. Bill Verz meeting member of precinct one. I listen to the arguments from both sides. I've been a town
meeting member probably too long, but when there's been calls for a voice vote, it's very noticeable to me that some people seem to raise their voices as high as they can go. So, I don't think that I'm I'm really happy
with that. It does happen whether I like it or not. obviously an option if it doesn't work the electronic voting. I don't one or the other. I just want us to be heard
so that we're heard whether it's with a clicker, standing vote, roll call vote. I just one of the things I take exception to is the voice vote
because I've heard it happen many times over the years. I don't know what you're going to do. I'll leave that up to you. That's your job. >> Thank you. Anybody else? >> Board members, any more questions? Yeah, I want to make sure that people
understand when I say this is a solution in search without a problem, I'm not talking about the town moderator in her abilities. I'm talking about the process. The process works. The process, as we've been doing since this became a
town meeting body, works. If the voice is in question, seven people can get up and ask for a standing vote. If the standing votes in question, people can get up and ask for a roll call vote. The process works. And yes, if you're standing next to I'll pick on Bill Bates
because I know he'll take it well. If you're standing next to Bill Bates, you hear Bill Bates. The Tom moderator standing on that stage hears it differently than the fact that you're standing next to Bill Boates or Bill Nicholson or even me. It's a I get it. There are loud voices. There are soft
voices. But if there was ever something in question, you always have those options. I don't mind adding this as an option after the voice vote. Let that process continue. Add this is the next step in the process. It takes the place
of standing vote. I've got no problem with that. It takes the place of standing vote. And then still you can call for roll call vote because the state legislate this the state law says you have to have opportunity. Capture the votes that are taken. I get that. who I gardener will be issued
click number 73 and when 73 clicks in Kathy eventually will know it from the system reports that she gets from that from that system I get it but this is going to cost the taxpayers money 30
40 $50,000 maybe not hard dollars because we don't because we compete time but it's still time and dollars and if this is not a problem. Why are we paying $50,000 or more for a solution annually? It's not a onetime cost.
So, if you could demonstrate once in the past 20 years that this has been a problem, I would have a different point of view. So, >> can I just make a comment? Mhm. >> Enough interest has been put forward on this thing that it not necessarily that it's a problem, but it might be a a
comforting uh factor for people to come to town meeting and be a part of it. If you'd never been to town meeting, you walked in while they're voting and they all jump up and scream. You think you walk into a crazy town. So, uh I think
it's it would be uh calming and uh easy to take for people to uh to vote and and you might be sitting next to somebody and you don't really want them to know what you're voting at that time. I mean, apparently the electronic vote is
basically a roll call vote, so they're going to know tomorrow, but um you get 24 hours to get away with it. I I just think it'll be uh I think it's going to make it more uh interesting, more fun. Um maybe a little less intimidating for
some people um with the with the the yelling and whatnot. Um as far as a cost, there is a cost. There's a cost to everything. If we're spending millions on it, we could probably swing this. So, it's my thoughts. Do we need to
uh vote on this? >> Well, I had a question. If option two, right? If option two, but can it says where uh can you switch around the alternative methods? Can you put um where it says uh the moderator may in
the exercise of their judgment? This is the alternative method voting by a voice vote. Can it can it be um standing vote? Can you switch those A B C's D's around? Well, currently as written,
>> right? >> Currently as written, the order is voice vote, then electronic vote, >> then standing vote. So if you're if you switch if what you're asking is to switch se six is six is just reversing that. >> Yeah. Reversing.
>> Six is making electronic first, then voice, then the remainder. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> That's what six is doing. So if you're asking, can we switch it back? You're switching it reverting back to the actual original language. No, but like D said, do the electronic one and switch. But can you do does it
have to be voice? Can it be say electronic stand vote? You know, can we switch? >> Well, electronic negates the need for a voice. You would never take an electronic and say, I want to call for a voice vote.
>> And and in taking the electronic, you are in effect taking a standing. You're actually taking a roll call vote. But electronic negates the need. If you make that the primary primary alternative, you negate voice votes and you negate
standing votes and you may decide but I think the the the state legislature has decided for so you have to maintain roll call votes. >> Yeah. the the way. >> So, so there's there's this this it's it's either voice, electronic, standing, whatever.
And I think standing is now moot if you have electronic in the mix or it's electronic and then the fallback is roll call. >> I I I think I I do I think >> we're just adding electronic into the
mix like you said on section six. Uh everything else stays. we we can't take away everything else because electronic may not work and we will need to have all those other things in our toolbox. So, so the method of voting in
section six will just be listing all these things and then section seven we will just use the language of default voting and alternative voting that gives
the town moderator the discussion to call for a voice vote if we we're going to adjourn or if we want to appoint someone to the river committee. But it doesn't. It doesn't. If you make the default electronic, >> yes,
>> that takes the discretion away from the moderator. >> No, it doesn't because it says the moderator may. If you look at >> option >> now, I'm looking at the amendment, not the >> Yeah, I'm looking at the amendment too. >> Amendments
uh section six, option two, >> because we don't want to take that away because we want to >> but and I agree with you. I'm agreeing with that sentiment. You don't want to take the moderator's discretion away. But as soon as you call something the default, an alternative, an alternative
is if you don't do the >> if you don't do the default. >> No, but if you look at the language of the default, and I'm not a a lawyer, it says voting should ordinarily be conducted. >> It doesn't say it says like in general, that's what we
want to do. But that alternative still gives her that discretion to be able to call for a voice vote for things to move along. And then if that doesn't satisfy the town meeting, they can do a standing
vote. The seven people can get up >> and ask. >> I would I would be happy to accept that amendment if the the discussion about the moderator's discretion was moved into the default default method voting shall be blah blah blah blah blah. However, at
the discretion of the moderator, a voice vote could be taken. I would be fine with that. This, the way this is structured, the discretion isn't until the default is gone by and been enacted. >> So, Madam Chair, if I can just answer
your question. Sorry, just because we went kind of sideways again. To answer your question, the order, you can change the order, but the order doesn't isn't the isn't doesn't establish the order of which she has to choose. >> Exactly. It just gives her all those options. So there's no >> there's no you don't achieve anything. You know what I mean? She she can use
>> they're A, B, C, and D. You can use any of the colored pens you want. >> You don't have to choose them. >> She could go right to a roll call right out of the gate. >> Exactly. She doesn't have to switch them around. >> So as long if we if that's the case, if we describe this as these are the methods by which we will accept a vote,
we will do these things. And if you don't agree with something, you can always ask for a standing. If you don't agree with the standing, you ask roll call. Great. But don't don't categorize this in a in a linear
fashion. This is written in a linear fashion. A happens. If not A, then B. If not B, then C. No, >> the way it's written. Default. When you say default and alternative >> there, she I disagree. The way this is written that those are all alternatives. They don't have to go. It says or. Not.
It's not this then that then this then that. You can use any of those. It's or. Um, and Madam Chair, I'm just going to bring you back to um, member TR's point earlier. If you you haven't moved the the question yet of the article as presented, so you might want to move that. I think you're done with the
public. There's not many. >> So, just for the sake of continuing the discussion, which I really like, I'm just going to >> and then get, right? So, I'm going to motion that we move the language of article 34 presented as a favorable recommendation >> and then we can go forward now and add
amendments and such. So, >> you need a second >> and I'll second. But I need a second for to cause a discussion. >> Okay. >> Now, if someone wants to offer an amendment, fantastic. And we can beat that up. >> Mike, do you offer the >> I would like to uh Yeah. So, >> okay. Sorry. I want to make sure you're
awake. >> Yeah. >> Was it obvious? >> No. So the option two that's been given to us here seems to give the moderator some leeway and you know although we will have a default method of electronic
voting however there's some leeway there such as D brought up uh as to some of the simple things closing the meeting etc whatever she may say hey let's do these first 10 things um because they're just uh mechanical
whatever Um, and and I don't mean to say she, it could be anybody. It's the position of the moderator, the person. Um, so this one here, I think, gives gives a little room there for
whatever that meeting holds. However, initially we're going to be our default will be electronic. And I think the electronic itself, it's not a big deal. It's it's small peaceful, you know, technology streamline things, make it more fun. I
think I think it'll be a good thing. That's >> so you're >> so I'm offering that as an amendment to >> amendment option two >> to uh yeah, section six voting would be which would be option two, the revised
language preserving moderator flexibility. Madam Chair, do you want me to read it just so people at home um can understand what we're talking about? So um the amendment made by member mean suggests um amending section six to read uh section six voting one default
method. Voting shall ordinarily be conducted by a counted vote using an electronic tally in system called the electronic system which may be used A by itself to reflect the vote or B in conjunction with a voice vote. Se subsection two alternative methods. The
moderator may in the exercise of their judgment use or permit voting by a a voice vote, b a counted vote by members standing, c a written ballot, or d a roll call poll whenever the moderator determines that such meth method will better ensure the efficient, orderly or
accurate conduct of the meeting or where the electronic system is unavailable, impractical or not functioning functioning reliably. >> Questions? Okay. So discussion on this the lang the exact language here
is what causes concern unless we say it better ensure efficient if in efficient and orderly is sufficient for her. This is an A or B one or two one happens and then two happens and that's a discretion. And if
we could rewrite that to not make it that way I don't mind it being it is her first consideration. It is the I'm trying to take her out. I'm sorry. It is the moderator's first intent to to electronically vote. Fine. However,
do we need to waste our time on the election of officers of the of the fence sitter for a vote? Um, if she if the again, I'm sorry. She >> the fence sitter it matters. >> Yeah, true. But if you do do you care whether it's a voice >> sitter by the way
a wearer of bark you know or the fish wise whatever fishes >> I do think that the the intent of this and I don't I don't read it as linear the intent of this is to allow is to do what you all are saying that if in if it
is for the efficient operation of the meeting um general I think that Lauren might have used a term about like general something. Um, but it does not go in an order that those are all options. You don't have to go from A to You don't have to you can go past A and
go straight to D if you want. >> That's how that's how >> that's how I read it. That was the intent of the presentation. >> If the intent is that, I'm fine. I think that the line can we did >> I mean the lawyers wrote it so with that intent. >> That's that's how I read it. But but
then >> I'm still confused with the 7A. So my my thought was that the amendment can I amend an amendment? >> You can. >> Is that procedurally appropriate? You can do whatever you want. Yeah. Do whatever you want to. >> So is to have section six as just
listing all the methods of voting including electronic voting. >> Electronic first. >> Yes. So electronic and then >> so that would be very different than this amendment. So if it's an amended amendment, you kind of have to stay within the scope
>> because a a section 7A will then be what we are calling option two. >> Yeah, I see what D's saying. >> That's how that's how I'm reading it. >> He he's D the way I and I'm hearing exactly what you're saying right now.
This amendment is discussing the process. >> Exactly. >> Which is actually section seven of what we've been presented. >> Yes. >> So if six voting is because you you've co-mingled the two. >> Yeah, I see which way you're going. The
only thing I would suggest is if if the goal is to make it the default method, you need to keep that default method language in six. not just list them in order because again listing them in order just gives you an option. It doesn't say which way you have to go. >> And and I would have no problem with
hearing the conversation. I would have no problem with an amendment to six that says change the order. Just change it to electronic first and then the remaining ones. And then in section 7 I'm my concern is covered at the
discretion of the moderator. Yeah, >> I'm fine. And that's really what >> by >> what 62 says, >> 62 says exactly what 7A says, >> right? But we're not not going to have to go through this every town meeting, are we? I mean, it should be
>> No, no, no. once >> you know >> no what what what I'm hearing you say what I'm hearing the conversation go is that if we were to take what is presented >> and change the voting the voting at town meeting shall be by and if you want
right up front say electronic voting yeah >> then voice voting then and we're saying it's not linear >> I'm fine with that if we want that listed first I'm fine with that as long as we maintain section 7A >> section 7A will become the option six
two >> well well this the options are the options >> the methodology of applying the options is what in what's in seven and it says right here at the discretion of the moderator the order is selected >> and I've got no problem with that
>> so then we would go with option one >> which would just be >> no I think I think he's right I I think >> do you want me to >> yeah except There's extraneous language. There's repeated language. The the Tom meeting shall be by electronic voting
system for all votes unless the determined by the time which is actually covered under 7A. Um and then at which point the voices of the member committed blah blah. Yeah, you are achieving the same thing. You are listing the methods and you're putting electronic first
because you feel that's important. Okay. But you're maintaining the ability of the town moderator their discretion. So the intent is electronic first. >> Yes. >> The intent is we will vote by electronic voting unless the town moderator he or
she says >> does this is a simple one. >> Does that force her to do it first? >> No. It's a dis it says that is our default >> an option a default >> and she has the he or she has the option to change that if they think for efficient receive reasons there's never
been a the contested way of coal you know let's just go to a voice vote get it over in 30 seconds >> madam chair I may try to verbalize what what DA is saying because I and what I what I think I think the group is saying
um and I will recommend if we're mashing it up like this, we may have to rewrite it and bring it back for a final vote on Thursday. >> Mhm. >> Hopefully a shorter one. >> Um, but I think to still because I'm worried that just listing them does not establish it as the primary. Putting it
number putting it as a does not get it as the default. So I would recommend >> if I think what D is proposing and I think member Tras and member Bean are are in agreement with it would read voting in the meeting shall be section
six a big A would would read voting shall ordinarily be conducted by a counted vote using electronic tally and system electronic system which may be used a by itself to reflect a vote or b in conjunction with a voice vote. So, you're establishing it as the default method. >> Mhm.
>> And then you list the other ones. >> Mhm. >> As presented. And then 7A, you would strike the current the proposed 7A that's in your draft warrant. And you would submit alternative. And so, so 7A would read
alternative methods. The moderator may in the exercise of their judgment use or permit voting by voice vote be a counted vote by members standing see written ballot D or D a roll call whenever the moderator determs that such method will better ensure the efficient orderly or accurate conduct of the meeting or where the electronic system is unavailable
impractical or not functioning reliably. I think that's what >> Yes, >> that's that's that's but as you were reading it, >> what if we replace
the six the section six exactly with that second option and then on seven we just crossed out A. >> That's that is what that's actually what option two recommends. >> Yes. Option two recommends putting in
exactly what's printed in section six, which I can read again if you guys want to. I'm getting I'm stumbling over less words now on section deleting section 7A >> um in the proposal. >> Yes. >> So that's what is that's what that's what Mike originally moved.
>> Oh, okay. >> So if you look at section six, >> but but what but but what this what this what this does is it co-mingles two things. And that's what I'm trying to get the distinction. Section six should say voting methodology and you list the
methodologies voting. Section seven should say electronic voting process or procedure whatever you want to call it. But if you start if you but what option two here does is it co-mingles. It talks about pro it talks about method and process.
>> Well no because the section subsection two is the other methods. >> We got to give her some leeway. >> Yeah. But I think the Okay, >> let's hear from Mr. B. >> I mean, so the amendment on the floor is if I may. >> Yeah, let's hear from Mr.
>> This conversation is very um important. >> It is >> to have the end of the day, Lauren hit the nail right on the head. >> Town meeting members have the right to determine how we govern ourselves. And whichever way order you put it in, it's
not going to affect their vote. No, it affects it. It affects what we what the expectation of process is. >> But at the end of the day, tell me and we'll decide if we're going to click or not. That's really the question. No matter how you spin this, that's the
question. >> They will answer that. >> See, I I would ask for clarity because I think we're we've including me have come to the point of realization that this isn't about should we have clickers. >> It is. >> No, no. I think we're all embracing the
fact that we'll have clickers. What is the process for >> what is the process for utilizing clickers? It's now moved. It's transitioned, >> you know, although I still have concerns about costs. >> Well, that's the next article, >> right? I still have concerns about well
but if right but I have concerns about cost but what I'm saying is I think we've at least I have shifted from should we have clickers or not to okay we'll have clickers what is the best methodology for implementing clickers and we're we're writing how that
methodology should be what the expectation of the methodology should be because at any town meeting town meeting can make a vote to change >> what we're doing I just made my statement >> well and I'm I'm providing adding a question or clarity to what you're saying because I think that there's a
difference there. But anyhow, >> so do we need to vote on option two? >> Are we moving? Are we moving it to Thursday night? >> Oh, we're going to move it to Thursday night. >> You need a second. That's where you're at process. But >> okay. So >> So there's a motion to accept it. Then
there's a then there is an a then there was an amendment to change it. And you said to the way section option two is written. >> Option two. Yes. If we vote on this, and I'm asking a clerical question now, I would like to
give the town manager the opportunity to take the comments we have, which I think we're basically agreeing on. It's just how the wording is presented. And have her come back to us with a with something that embraces your amendment, braces the original language and your
amendment because and and and makes it clean language, not just lift and drop. >> So I what's in front of you now is lift and drop. What's in front of you now is the amendment to take section two, option two, and put it in.
>> Right. >> Um that is very different. I then going I don't have beyond what I just brought to you another consensus. Right. So you would have you would need to vote on the amendment in front of you and just to to clarify there would have to be a second
amendment then to do the 7A piece as D suggested. So what you need to do is vote as a as a group on option two and then see where the discussion goes from there. But what Garner's suggesting
is a third option, which is not technically right right in front of you right now. What I had said for clarity sake was I would bring it be willing to bring it back for a final vote for you guys to see it as a whole. Um but I haven't heard the board say go re rework
it, which is >> I think we should rework it for Thursday. I I I think option two there covers the method of voting and the process. So if we replace section six
with section six amended that covers not only what we use to vote but how we going to use it. And the only change on section seven will be to remove the A. We'll get rid of a
>> because that would not or we could put this we could put se we could put option two again there but that's redundant. >> If you want to lift and drop section six as presented into here yes >> I'm fine >> as long as we retain seven as is. Yes,
it may be. Maybe 7A is redundant, but I the redundancy is important. >> But what would 7A achieve though? Because that 7A is already section option 22. >> That's the same thing as 7A.
>> Yeah, it's just redundant. >> Yeah, we could leave it. >> So option >> maybe halfway. Leave it is redundant because because it clearly delineates the process. Yeah, but that process is already in section six. >> But but you're not expressing all of the
process. You're only expressing one component of the process. >> No, it's all of it. >> No, no, no. You've got the B, C, D's, and E. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, that's if you look at the alternative, it's got voice vote, counted uh by members standing, written ballot,
roll call, poll whenever the moderator thinks is appropriate. So that 7A is already included in section 62. >> Madam Chair, if I could encourage you again just process-wise so we know what
that then people can follow. You have an amendment which is just substituting current section six with section six as presented in option two. So I I would encourage you to take a vote if the discussion is done on six and then have the discussion on whether or not you
remove 7A because you would need another amendment to do that. So right now the amendment before you >> and madam clerk I don't know if there was a second. I'll leave that. >> There was not. Okay. >> I'll I'll second the amendment. >> Okay. So the amendment before you is strictly about section six taking what's
in on the paper in front of you which I've read to the public and replacing what was presented in the draft warrant. So I would encourage you to vote on that and then have the discussion on seven because that would you would need a separate amendment to do that >> unless of course there's further
discussion but just >> okay >> so Mike are you amending to >> um yeah I'd like to >> Are you amending to option two? >> I am amending to option two. Yes. >> And then got a second and I'm seconding. >> So now we say all in favor >> correct. All in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? None. Okay. >> Okay. >> So, now we're going to do an amendment D on your section seven, right, Jill? >> It's up to D if he wants to offer an amendment an amendment. That's that was where the discussion was going. So, I
just wanted to I mean, I I think it's redundant. Um, I think it's already addressed in section six. So, if if if you want to keep it, that's fine with me. I just think
I mean it's the same thing that we have on on 62 pretty much. >> So you're not making an amendment? >> Uh no. >> Okay. Then the main motion becomes the amended motion which in this case would
be the language as presented replacing section six with the amended section six. >> Yes. >> Option two. >> Option two. >> Yes. >> Sorry. Yes. >> So then you can take a vote on the >> Yeah. So do we have we have that motion
you you made >> it. It had already been. >> You already did. Okay. So all in favor I >> I >> opposed. Okay. >> Good. >> Okay. Right. Good work. We need to take a 10-minute break. >> That was good. Can we take a five minute break? Five. Five. Yeah. We were moving
along good at the beginning. No, we knew that was really good work. Like Okay. >> All right. We're back on. Thank you. Um, Miss Town Manager, will you >> All right. Number 35. 35, right?
>> Oh, yeah. The next part of still on electronic voting. >> Not again. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, to bring us back um and thank you all for your work on that. It was really important um and for the public um for their input on it
as well. Um article 35 is the funding as we discussed was brought to our attention um by Miss Steves. Uh we the board had asked for a funding article related to electronic voting. Um I did receive uh quote. It turns out most most
of the um towns in uh Massachusetts use the same company. The ones that were using a a different company. That company is folded and so now they're all essentially using one. Um I did receive a quote. It's essentially $7,000 per meeting. That includes the devices for
um I told them 150 uh 150 devices. the software for the for the night um that they would install onto the clerk and whatever other computers um and staff for that. So, how we figured it how as I mentioned earlier um to be safe in this
article, we assume that the first time we ever use it, it may make two nights of town meeting. So, um two or three nights and andor a special town an annual town meeting that's two nights and a special that's two nights because again it's new. Um if this funding if it
doesn't if we are great at this and it's one night um it's warrant funding it's so it would just go towards the um cost for the following annual town meeting or special. Okay, questions. Board members, Gardner,
>> just for clarity, this reflects real and operational costs, >> those four those six people. >> This is not this because we would that's not funded in a warrant article. >> This is just the cost of the system and
the staff, their staff, the company's support staff to be there. the system, the actual devices, the software, and the and the support staff provided by the company. And while we were only while we're asking for $30,000
in hard costs that is above and beyond what we have now, those intangible costs are true. those those operational costs are true and I'd like to see them expressed as a per it doesn't have to be we're author we're not we're
appropriating $30,000 in new spending but then the language should also reflect later that the co the true cost of in of taking this on includes those six people and whatever you know you know the
culmination the the opportunity there whatever their salary is six people 8 hours per night is a cost because that's that's opportunity loss on the other end. >> Yeah. All I can express you one and I can let Rodney express why you wouldn't
put it in the article. It doesn't belong in this article. Um because this is taking money from free cash which we would not use for someone's salaries. So I don't think the language belongs here. Um again I think the cost as we talked about it would be between$1 and $2,000
per meeting. to quantify again that that beyond I can't quantify beyond that other than to say if they are if they work a normal eight hour day and they're at town meeting for 8 hours that will be their 8 hour day that day. If they're at town
meeting for 12 hours they will get 4 hours in comp time in another area but we do this right. So um but the 1 to 2,000 would cover employees that do not that we would not normally have. So that's the that's the that's the hard
number I can give you, but I don't I would ask that it's not put in the warrant article related to free cash. When we do warrant articles, I realize this is the warrant language. We do do description. We do do narratives. Not by
the time, not by the time it gets past Finn because then when we get the final warrant, but it's just on whatever the language of the warrant is. But I do have a strong concern that we are again solving a problem that doesn't exist and it's going to cost us 30 40
$50,000 annually and people should be aware of that not just the rental cost. If I may um to you, Madame Chair, uh >> that cost of the extra staff as it is
now, we have a cost into running the town meeting >> like now currently. >> Correct. >> And that cost is not reflected anyway. >> No, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for the additional cost. >> That's correct. But even as of now, we don't know how much it will cost us to
run a town meeting. Some some some nights we go until 11:00. Sometimes we can stop at 10:00. Sometimes we can. So depending on how lengthy the town meeting is, there could be different cost associated to them currently.
>> Well, we've heard that we've heard the town manager say there will be six more employees who do not work the town meeting as a normal who are required. I I I understand what what what I was just saying was that we we couldn't add it here
or try to capture it because that will go in as a cost of us running business even other than town meeting voting there. Sometimes we get more poll voters than others. Some people work more than
others. So, so those kind of costs are just part of running the institution which could not be captured in a warrant article. >> Again, may I interject? >> Sure.
>> We have a warrant article in front of us asking to appropriate 30,000 in free cash to purchase or rent hardware software. That's the only conversation that this is asking us to make a decision on.
>> That's the decision. Correct. We're only voting on $30,000. I get that. But I want clarity for the town members to know the actual cost of this. And the cost operationally includes six new employees that aren't normally at town
meeting who have to get paid for that. >> We already heard that. >> No, we know that. >> We heard it. >> We heard it. I want Tom meeting to hear it. I want them to understand. >> Oh, Bill is here. A couple of them. >> I want I want the cost of this program
to be understood. And the cost includes those operational costs. You can say yes, they're salaried employees, but then the eight hours that they spend on time eating night is eight hours away from other duties they would have normally had. They're paid for that
time. So I want the cost of initiating this somehow expressed >> express that to the manager. >> Okay. Yeah. Mike, >> this is what we have in front of us. >> Yeah. >> Mike, you got any questions? >> Just one question. U do you know in research on the cost of this if they
offer like a five-year program where it may cost less money. >> I don't know if there was anything. >> They did not make an offer that. This is this is based on an initial quote and if if passed we'll do a deeper dive and and see you know if we can get a better deal and blah blah blah but this was
>> this is as far as they really take you until when once I told them we didn't have a date. >> Yeah. >> This is as far as I could get them. >> Okay. >> They're looking to rent the equipment now. So >> Okay. Thank you. >> See >> just to clarify. And is this the cost?
The 7,000 is the cost to rent >> rent, >> not to purchase. >> Not to purchase. So, and I would should talk a little bit about that. I'm happy to. Um, >> we talked about this. Like I said, we met operationally on this and what what it would mean. Um, it is my recommendation supported by the IT
director's uh recommendation that renting is the best way to go. This is a software and a hardware that you'd be using once maybe twice a year. They're not going to be experts on it. So to own the system every year then you then you really start talking about what cost it is to take it out the system out test
the system you know blah blah blah. So renting is certainly the preferred method. >> Okay. So the way the warrant is written we say purchase and or rent that gives you that ability to do either based on what's more cost effect. Okay.
>> Thank you. if the technology at some point technology changes so quickly also um that I expect it would change quickly but if this would you know if we keep funding it this way it would give us some flexibility. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Dan you have any questions? >> I do. >> Okay. >> Should we expect a yearly appropriation
for rentals of the equipment? >> I mean I would think it would go into our operating budget if >> Well, that was my next question. Can we put it in the clerk's budget? >> Yeah, I think it would go into our operating budget. 7,000 or something like that. >> Wait a minute.
>> Yeah. So$7,000. So we give the clerk budget around three or 4,000. And >> thanks Kathy. Take >> You're welcome. My plan is this on the line every year. >> No, if this was to go forward, it would just become an operating expense would be folded into the budget.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Good. >> Thank you, Dan. >> You're welcome. >> All right. So, do I have a do I have a motion? >> Motion to accept. >> Okay. Article 35 as >> given to us. >> Yeah. Second. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I opposed.
>> No. >> Oh. Okay. All right. >> Okay. Article 36, uh, the down downtown improvement plan. Um, this is a essentially we talked about this during budget. So, these are, um, payments that have come in, get posted to free cash,
and then we move them to the downtown improvement fund. Um, and it is in the amount of $48,675,000. And if you have questions on specifics, um, they break we break them down here. Um, but if you have further questions, Erin's here to help.
Um, shouldn't some of that 40R money have gone to the affordable housing trust for affordable I I thought that that was part of the 40R is we have a trust to promote not downtown improvement but
affordability improvement. Um the statute does not require that and the the 40R has a different inclusionary housing requirement than the standard uh inclusionary housing bylaw that we have
in town. So in a 40r district you must do 20% of the units must be affordable. Whereas in normally in town it's either 10% or 12 1.5% depending on how many new units you're creating. But in the 40r district, you must do per the state
rules 20%. So there's a there's an extra incentive built into the law, but the money uh received from 40R development um is not directed to affordable housing.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Mike. Um the affordability uh their definition is based just on income >> or or is there a chart? >> Kind of a loaded question. Um a big long chart.
>> Yeah. Not not related to this article, but basically affordability at the state level is defined by three things. One of them is income eligibility of the the household that you're trying to house. There's some other criteria that go with that, >> but it doesn't affect this article at
all. >> Okay. Yeah, >> D. >> No questions. Thank you, >> Dan. >> Thank you. What is the mitigation or transportation mitigation payments? >> So, um downtown we uh several years ago
uh introduced a fee that essentially rather than go back and forth with developers about transportation improvements, we created a mitigation fee. Um that way they just give us a payment in lie of that money comes to us and now we can use
>> transportation fund. Thank you. Um >> what's the vision and goal with this study? >> Um we'd like to the last time we did a parking and circulation study downtown was 2014. We've done a couple of developments since then. We'd like to refresh that study. Um and we're also
looking um at how we can defay some of the costs associated with the downtown streetscape project. So, a lot of those are getting plowed into that >> and you will see you the board will receive an update on the downtown improvement project either the second meeting in May or the first meeting in June.
>> Wonderful. >> Okay. Thank you. >> The last time we we did the traffic mitigation, there was recommendations for signage uh and other aspects of it. Will this cover any of the recommendations like signage or
>> Yes. Yes. So, we can talk about it. It's um you'll again the foreshadowing what what the presentation that'll come to you but a combination of these funds plus we received earmark funding um both I believe in the fair share act last year and in the budget last year that speak to
those recommendations and that'll all come to you >> okay so it's not it's not $400,000 for a study >> no no no no sorry >> good study >> do I have a motion >> good question I don't
>> I move we accept this favorably Second. All in favor? >> I I >> article 37 um transportation network. This is the uh known as the Uber and Lyft funding and this moves it into the
transportation network fund which is in the senior I'm sorry moves into the senior and social services transportation revolving fund. >> Questions? Uh Mike? >> No questions. Gardner. >> Nope. >> D. >> No. >> All set. >> Dian. Okay. Do I have a motion?
>> Move we forward this favorably. >> All in favor? >> Second. Sorry. >> All in favor? >> I >> oppose. Okay. And as a side note, and coming from a community that did not have many Ubers, no Ubers really starting from it. This is an incredible
asset to fund senior transportation. So, um, well done, Danver. Um, article 38, uh, this is the acceptance of a, um, um, of something that was included in the brave act that related to tax
exemption for the families related uh, to veterans. And if there's further questions, we have our assessor here to answer questions. Dan, >> none. >> D, >> no. >> Mike, >> uh, just that it's a great
situation here. It's awesome. >> It's good. >> No, no questions. I >> no questions. >> Okay. Do I have a motion? >> Will we accept favorably? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All oppose. Okay. Perfect.
>> Uh article 39 in a similar fashion. It clarifies one of the uh exemptions related to the brave act um and clarifies the local option. Um and I believe it has to do again with the f or if it if it's in a trust that they can still receive a benefit.
>> Questions? Gina? No questions. >> No questions. >> Mike D. >> All set. >> Okay. Motion. >> I move we forward this favorably, please. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. Okay. >> Thanks for coming, John.
>> I know. >> Man, a few words. >> Thank you, John. Sorry. Making way. >> Throw him a question. No, I'm kidding. Um um article 40. This is readopting the OPED OP trust. And this is Ronnie's.
>> So a couple board members will remember that we accepted this statute back in 2016. We actually accepted it ahead of municipal modernization which made some changes clarified that a trust document should be produced. So basically this is housekeeping. Um the recommendation would be to reaccept the statute and
then as a followup the treasur will draft a trust document that'll be executed. Again it's more just formalizing what we already do in practice. It's recommended by our uh actuary who handles our oped uh studies and it's also recommended by our audit firm.
>> Happy to answer any questions. >> Ga, >> no questions. >> Mike, >> no. I always trust what Rodney tells us. >> Whoa. >> I hope it's the truth. >> Test >> and Rodney we trust.
>> There's another one. Okay. Do I have a motion? >> Good to know. I'll keep >> I'll move this favor. He was the acting town manager. Jill, he was the acting >> I'm going to say that in court, too. >> I I make the motion move this in favor. >> Do I have a second? >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I Okay. >> I'll build that trust. That's my intention is to build that same trust with this board. >> Um article 41, lease purchase financing agreement. Anytime that we um lease a purchase, uh we have to bring it to town
meeting similar to um approving debt. questions. >> Yeah. Questions. Mike, >> no questions. >> Got >> no questions. >> D, >> so is is this different from what they do in the middle school? So, this is high school only.
>> Yeah. So, and again, if there are questions on specifically what the purchase is, schools will be here on Thursday to answer them. But essentially, yes, they they talked about phasing out their middle school onetoone, but this is they're reupping the high school one:1 on the laptop circle or Chromebooks to >> Okay. Okay. Okay. My question is what they just did.
>> Dan, >> so this is uh typical language we've had before. >> Yeah, we've done three or four of these. I think it's actually always been the school Chromebooks, >> right? Yeah. >> Okay. >> All set. Do I have a motion? >> Move forward with this favorably. >> Second. Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I post. Excellent.
>> Article number 42, revolving fund accounts. Um each year um we're required by Mass General law to the select board and the town meeting income and so on to approve amount to be ex that's allowed to be expended from revolving funds. Um
set amounts I think are pretty similar to previous years. And we have our senior social senior and social services director here if there's any questions about the senior related ones. And we have our director of natural resources here if there's anything rel related to um I believe the recreation one
waterways dredging improvement revolving fund and as well as we've got Aaron if there's others. >> Excellent. Um questions Mike >> um can I can you come back? >> Yeah, I'll come back to you now. Can we come back to you? Why would why have we
split out the earlier dredging $20,000 from this revolving fund? >> They're two different things. So the revolving fund, you're allowing them to spend from this revolving fund to a certain amount. >> All right. Thank you.
>> The other one was moving money. >> No questions. >> Dan, >> so four of the six all have the same explanation. disperse funds for all expenses.
I don't understand that word all. I mean of of the four, do we spend everything for the child care, the waterways, the senior center, council on aging? Is that the only expenses they have?
>> No, I'm sorry. Which I'm trying to find the language that you're referring to. >> So number one, >> yep. Um, Council on Aging. Number three, waterways dredging. Number four, child care program. Number five, water use mitigation. It
says all expenses. It doesn't say it in two and six. So, do we not spend all the money for two and six? I mean, is this a cut and paste? I I just don't understand. >> I mean, this is actually So, this is a bylaw. So, we adopted this as a bylaw
several years ago. So, whatever language we adopted in the bylaw, we just rerun it every year. >> Well, again, my point is it's four out of the six say all. The other two don't reference all. What's the difference? >> I'm not sure I'd have a good answer for
you right now. I didn't think so because it's kind of it's an unusual question but I just I question >> and the well Matt is here so I'll put him on the spot >> can say hello >> I don't know if he'll know the language answer >> if I may madam chairman through you
>> yes >> um this account receives and disperse funds for all expenses associated with the programming administrated through the town the council on aging included but not limited to part-time salaries, program expenses. But is that where the
only place you get your money from? >> Uh through the chair. No. Uh we get money from the town uh for operating budget um as well as >> friends of >> the friends of council friends dam the friends of the Danver Council on Aging >> and the state
>> and the state funding that we have. >> Well, that's my point. you get various sources which is a good thing but this article says that it covers all your expenses. >> I think it's just um through you madam chair I think it's a language thing that we've like Rodney said when we adopted
the bylaw it's been included in there but there are expenses beyond this amount >> and I'm sure there are in some of the others as well. >> Yeah. >> So can we eliminate all >> we can eliminate it all or edit all eliminate all
>> add. I I if we want to take a look at the language because I it's probably is a good idea to freshen up. I would recommend next year because it we can't just change the angles in the article because it's a bylaw. So I would say maybe revising the >> question last year. So, >> okay. >> But if I might,
>> I I I think it's a matter of reading and interpretation, but what I'm reading this is this is the this is the bank account that will receive money and spend money for the expenses related to Davis Council on the Aging. Not all
expenses come out of this checking account. >> Okay. So, we're going to say related to. >> Okay. >> Whatever word you want. I just >> it says associated I guess related. >> So if it's okay um through you madam chair we'll get an answer for member
Bennett um and then and then say like we'll get an answer for you and if it has an impact you know um and we can't do it because it's impact it impacts the bylaw then we'll make that recommendation and we'll have it changed for next year. >> I just so this language is the bylaw
>> is the bylaw. So to change the language, you would need to change the bylaw, which we can do. Not at this stage, but >> yeah. >> So all that's really changing here is the amount. >> That's all that this article does now. That's why we ran the article back to back a couple years ago where we had to formalize making these actual bylaws
>> and then a subsequent article authorizing the amount. So the bylaws are set and now every year we just reauthorize the amount. So to change the language, we'd have to do both again. We'd have to rechange. >> We have to change the amounts on some of these. the amounts we can change every year. The language >> for the actual revolving fund we can do
as well, but that would be a separate article for to change the bylaw, which we could absolutely take a look at. >> Well, short of changing all the bylaws, but >> yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, I heard. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. >> Okay. Do we want to do a motion? >> And we forward this favorably.
>> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> show. Okay, good. >> Thank you team for being here. Okay, we're almost done. Where are we? >> Thank you. >> Um, article 43, debt stabilization fund. Um, this is the first chance we get to
talk to you about free cash and I'm thrilled to ask you guys to put this forward. Um, we recommend moving 2.7 million from free cash to the debt stabilization fund. No questions. Got >> no questions. Ka Mike.
>> And we're just paying down we're paying down debt. Is that what we're doing here? >> So through you, Madam Chairwoman. Um as part of the landfill project, we said that after expenses were paid, any additional revenue would go into debt stabilization um to offset future debt and capital needs. >> Okay.
>> So we're just staying true to that uh plan. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. >> No questions. Thanks. Dan all second. >> All right. Do I have a motion? >> Motion we move it forward favorably. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I opposed.
>> Excellent. >> And article 44 um other postemployment benefit trust fund. The OPED trust fund. This article requests moving $700,000 from free cash into the OPED trust fund. >> Questions? Go?
>> No. >> Mike. >> Uh yes. Does the the 700,000 is is that go up uh every year or or is that a set number? >> No, we increase it by 50,000 every year. The change this year is that normally we would fund or for the past couple years
we try to fund some out of operating and some out of free cash with the tough operating environment we had. We have to do it all out of free cash this year, but it's still increases by 50,000 which is our strategy >> to get to 2035. Is that what we >> uh No. So pension is 2035. OPED will be
a little bit longer. Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Um, >> no questions. >> Lost. >> Okay. Do I have a motion? >> Move it forward favorably. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I
>> Okay. So, I don't know. Board members, it's a few minutes before 9:00. Dan, do you want to move? >> I'm dead. >> You're dead. Okay. You good? Everybody gone for the night or did you want to >> move a couple more? >> My preference would be to move any that doesn't require that the Tom manager doesn't require staff to be
>> move staff isn't present. That's why we >> No, that's okay. But on the on the ones that for the ninth, let's move the ones that the staff doesn't have to be present. We'll move a couple of them. >> For example, the year end number 40 45. >> Oh, you want to keep going tonight? >> I want to keep going. A little things that are Rodney. I think there are some
some Rodney shows. I don't know. >> I don't know. >> Um but yes. Um the only other thing I will say is um I there my the things on the agenda are the only things the town manager report. So um you if you give us a minute to see what's on the ninth that we can check off pretty easily.
>> What the unpaid bills? >> Right. >> I'd rather knock off three or four in the next half hour. >> You can do I'm still trying to keep you under 10 o'clock. Actually I want Madam Chair. Can we just have three minutes to figure out which ones we want to focus on?
want to thank everybody for their time and effort tonight, too. It's been long. If we can bang out a few more. I've got I've got five. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. Let's >> And if you if we get to something that um you have questions and staff's not here, we can always bring come Yep.
>> Um We >> we're going to just announce that we're going to go to uh the April 9th, right? Uh we're going to do a few more >> um of these warrants. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Um so the first one I think we could probably do is special town meeting unpaid bills, but there is a change on
that one. So that's why I want to make sure. >> What number is that, Rodney? >> Article one in the special town meeting. >> Okay. >> So that's unpaid bills. We have two. However, there is a correction in one and that is sorry bear with me.
So, article one unpaid bills. We have two unpaid bills. One is the $36 you see for management office supplies for WB Mason. The other one is actually $950 for the public works traffic control owed to the town of Sagas. Happy to take
questions. >> Questions, Gardner? >> No questions. >> Mike, >> no questions. >> T, >> no questions. >> Dan, >> all set. >> Okay. >> I I'm sorry. I do have just a logistical question, not about the content. >> Are these costs that were unacred or
unknown? Meaning could we have at the end of the fiscal year put them in an acrruel account? >> So no if we had done that that wouldn't be here. So if we have things where it's in transit or we receive the service but wait on the invoice we'll have a PO open that we could carry over. That's routine. These are ones where we had
some type of cost that wasn't presented to us in a timely enough fashion process. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor? >> I opposed. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Who made the motion? I >> I'll make the motion. I don't know that anybody did, but I'll make a favorable motion. >> Got us. Okay. Got in a favorable and
then >> Mike second. >> Second. >> Yeah, we should keep going. >> Oh, wait. Did every Can we All in favor? >> Good. All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Ready for special town meeting article number three, the state public works
grant. This is the chapter 90 grant. >> We're not really following. Oh, we are there. Um, this is chapter 90 funds. um as we do every year. This is our our aortionment 1.248170 and.74 cents.
>> Question D. >> No questions. >> Dan, >> no sir. No sir. >> Mike, >> are we using all that for hot topping, etc. >> Sorry. Is that what we're doing with that? >> This is for road. Yeah, roads. Roads paving. >> Yeah. All right. Not water and sewer
though, right? >> No. >> No. This hot tub and what? Sidewalk. >> Sidewalks. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I know. >> No questions. We do have an audience question though. >> Audience. Okay. Mr. >> Wait, let me get my timer. All right. >> One minute. Go. >> One minute. >> Down to one and a half.
>> Hold on. Tell me about precinct one. >> Can someone explain to me why dollars? It's also down to the cents. He doesn't run a business by it's $183.
It's $18 or it's $19 >> because it's a state formula. >> Excuse me. >> State formula based on road mileage and road. >> State wants to give me 74 cents. Bill, I'll take it. So, >> and I and I don't object. I just I don't understand how they
don't they go out three places. >> Thanks. I move this forward favorably. >> Do we have a second? >> All in favor? >> I oppos. >> We are going to go to article number 10, school transportation vehicles.
>> Making me nervous. Uh this is to see what some of the town will vote. Um for school vehicles, we're asking for $150,000 from free cash to purchase school vehicles and related equipment. Um, we're expecting to purchase a 77 passenger school bus.
>> Dan, do you have questions? >> None. >> D, >> no questions. >> Mike, >> what's what schools are we using that with? >> Do not know the answer to that. >> That would be that would be a school transportation question. >> Okay. >> Superintendent, >> does any of these do you want to hold to answer on Thursday? We're happy to do it. But yeah,
>> no, it's I mean, it's not going to the high school, right? It's probably elementary or something. We don't know. 77. I don't know. Okay, never mind. >> Be rotating. >> No questions. Okay. Do I have a motion? >> Motion to move it forward favorably. >> Second. >> All in favor? I
>> opposed. I >> um next we're going to what I understand is everybody's favorite article. Um article 20 the drainage liability. Um this is related to um Mass General law assuming liability provided by Mass
General law chapter 91 section 29 for damages incurred by work incurred by work to be performed by mass dot. This is an annual thing. questions. D >> questions. >> No questions. No, >> Dan. >> All set. >> No. No questions.
>> No questions. >> Okay. Do I have a motion? >> Move it forward favorably. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> um we're going to go to and this is um I think we can handle this tonight, but if you guys want to push it off, that's fine. I was going to go to article 33,
the sale of junk and secondhand articles. Um this was requested by the board. Um we had recently I think granted a license to a a um a vendor in this area and at that um or maybe right
after uh the board had requested us considering changing the age from 18 to 21. Um as we reviewed that uh obviously at the age of 18 um you are an adult. So, you'll see that the recommended
language says um if you're under 18, you need to have a parent or leader legal guardian with you and their ID will also be included on the sale, which is how it currently is. And then we added if you're between the 18 age of 18 and 21, you have to have a person over 21 with
you whose um identification will also be recorded with the sale. And in that, thank you for the opportunity to update um some of the housekeeping language in section two. Um, I guess previously people kept like a paper, like a book copy of the record. That's not the case
anymore. Um, they all keep computer records. So, we updated to what they currently use and allowed for them for changes if there's a different requirement by the Commonwealth or the town. >> Questions, Ger? >> No questions. >> Mike,
>> um, it did say that it does say in here that the U person selling things has to produce an item. Am I correct? I'm sorry, what? >> It does say in here uh that the person that's uh selling items u to the
secondhand store has to produce an ID. Correct. >> Correct. And if they're under 18, that then their parent or legal guardian also has to produce one. And if they're between the ages of 18 and 21, they have to be accompanied by someone over the age of 21 who also has to produce an ID. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Do I have a motion? Uh >> I mean it is >> yeah I mean I not opposed to the change but is it possible for us to do this maybe on Thursday? >> I I not uh
>> I wanted to do Yeah. I wanted to do some more research on on this and I didn't have a chance to do it yet. >> Board members. You okay with that? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Dan. Okay. We'll move that till 32. >> Can we consider number 32? I think that's pretty straightforward. >> I think the police chief would like to be here for that.
>> Okay. Yeah. I don't want to take away anybody's thunder. Okay. >> Um we can do number article number 45 which is um if we end up >> I'm leaving. >> Okay. >> Good night. >> Good night.
>> Um if the Madam Chair if we want to continue with 45 or we can hold up. >> Um we can do 45. Sure. Okay. Article 45 um is the >> Dan feel better >> is the article we include in case there are any budget amendments at that
meeting. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. D >> no questions. >> I move we forward it favorably. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. Okay. Thank you for that and then we
will go to town manager will report to the board on various items of interest. >> Okay. Thank you madam chair. Um and thank you all for your work on that. That was a successful my um first annual
town meeting warrant review. So thank you. Uh a couple things. Planning board appointments. Um, I recently appointed as town manager appointments, uh, two members to the planning board, uh, full member David Rodriguez and associate
member John Sager. Uh, they both attended their first meeting last night. And for those of us who were either watching or there, um, I think it's clear that they're going to be an asset to that board. Um, I want to thank them and everyone who volunteers to be a part of our, um, boards, committees, and
commissions. Uh, we can't do our work without them. Uh that brings me to I want to thank everybody in in this board. You showed leadership last Thursday night. We had the open meeting law training. Um most of this board was there as well as I I think there was
probably between 50 and 60 people in the room at least. It was a full house in this room um presented by our legal town council. Um I was very impressed with the discussion and the engagement by our volunteers um and the select board. and we have some plans to kind of keep that
engagement going. Um, and I I love I appreciate everyone's commitment to transparency and accountability and really trying to build public trust and um and get people engaged. So, thank you for everyone who attended. Um, an interesting one, we have a fire we have
a used new to us fire truck coming. the we had a situation where the fire department's only reserve pumper which was known as engine 4 is out of service and deemed unsafe due to sign significant structural damage and repair is not cost effective. Um the chief
exhausted many resources looking to borrow a spare pumper from another department. Um this is typical what we would normally do. Um, but because we need the res reserve pumper until we take delivery of our new apparat apparatus in the summer of 2027, there was nobody who was really in a position
to lend us a pumper truck for that amount of time. Um, the uh, fire chief, Chief Barry, uh, worked with our uh, procurement agent. Um, they identified a used pumper through Allegiance Fire and Rescue, the same vendor we're purchasing
the new one from. The truck is in good me mechanical and physical condition with low mileage and engine hours. The cost is $14,000 which includes servicing and lettering for Danvers. Um our mechanic went to evaluate it the vehicle and it meets our operational needs. We
also compared it to se several similar units and found that this one to be the strongest value. The funding is available um within the existing FY26 capital outlay funds. Um, and we will transfer usable equipment from engine 4 and dispose of that vehicle through
auction. Um, the used pumper is expected to be li delivered around midappril. Um, so I appreciate Chief Barry's economical approach um to keeping our apparatus safe. Um, I left on the copy machine for
everybody. Um, there will be a flyer in uh the upcoming utility bills about the um launching of the customer app. So, there's an online portal, as I think you all know, and now there'll be an app for your phone, which I think it makes the use even easier. Um, so it'll be in your
bills, and there's five of them up on my copy machine if you want them at another time. Um, curbside composting. Um, we've talked about this a bunch of times. The program has launched. Um, you should have seen some press on this. It's uh new curbside food waste collection pilot
program. the we are partnering with Black Earth Compost um and our goal is to reduce trash, lower disposal costs and support longtime sustainability goals. Uh participation in the program is purely voluntary. It will be available to up to
a thousand Damvers households at a first come first- serve basis. Residents who enroll will receive a free 13gallon compost cart and compost liners provided at no cost by the town and then they set up a contract for disposal with Black Earth. Um details are on the website if
you're interested. Uh municipal lightboard update. Um the municipal light board at their March 24th meeting. Um Danver's electric will adjust the demand charge portion of medium and large commercial electric
bills effective April 1, 2026. This uh press release also went out recently. Um, please note again the range change will only affect medium and large commercial customers and not residential customers. And this adjustment is based on findings from the most recent cost of
service study which determine that demand related to rates were not fully recovering the infrastructure cost required to serve the customers and the demand rate has not been updated in more than 20 years. Um the average will be for about approximately four to six
percent trying to find things. If you have more questions you can contact um the manager and I should have brought with me um Clint has a graph. We are still well below certainly national grid and any of our u municipal utilities neighboring.
Um and the last one is the cultural council survey is still open until April 10th. So the end of this week. So, if people are um want to give some input into the cultural count cultural council survey, um it is on our website and take
the 2026 survey and give us your input. >> Excellent. Thank you. Um I want to say thank you to everybody tonight. Um Madame Clerk, do you have any updates um for elections or signs? And >> you sent out a >> I do have
Well, I can just um tell you that we're waiting on our ballots to come in. I think some of them came in today. Um we have in-person early voting on Saturday, April 25th from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. And then vote by mail is allowed for this election. And we have forms in the
back of the room and in the clerk's office as well as on the website. >> Thank you. Thank you. All right. >> To you, Madam Chair. Can the town managers uh they say the dedication on is it Thursday of the >> M? Yes. Thank you. Sorry. Think >> of that, please.
>> Thank you so much. Um the Rotary Thank you. Um the Rotary I think we talked previously the Rotary had dedicated funding for the restoration of one of the new murals that's located in the lobby. They are hosting a reception um to view the murals and uh we worked
recently with them on there will be a sign um and we worked with the Danver historical society and the archivist. Um so there's now a sign that will be at the bottom of the stairs giving some background and some history on the murals. There'll be a reception from 5 to 7 on the 9th upstairs. Um cuz we will
be in this room. So they will be upstairs. Great viewing of the murals, light refreshments. Um come check them out. It looks fantastic up there. Thank you for reminding me. >> Thank you. >> Excellent. >> And thank you to the Rotary. >> Oh, yeah. And um just so everybody knows that the um Thursday's meeting, April
9th, is going to be at 6 p.m. But thank you. Thank you very much, Rodney, Jill, and everybody else. >> Good night. >> You good night. Good night. >> On behalf of Dan, I'll just ask people to remember to veterans.
>> Yep. Always. Thank you. >> Thank you.