Leah, you're on mute. Unless that's on purpose. >> Who's on mute? >> Uh Leah is >> Leah. She How is she going to hear you? >> I hear you. Just getting myself organized here. So,
>> my I've got my laptop plugged in and it's telling me that I got a low battery and I need to plug it in. So, I'm hoping I don't lose you guys in the next five minutes. >> Okay. We'll be quick. Hopefully, as long as you're quick. We'll be quick.
All right. So, we all back. We've got Ron. Is Jason with us? >> Yes. >> I don't I don't see Jason. >> I'm here. Okay. All right. So, we will we are back into public session. Is
629. I think we can we can roll. So, next up on our agenda is the um the tax classification public hearing and we have Vicki here to speak to that.
As long as her battery lasts. We got her. >> Yeah. As long as my battery lasts. Yeah. >> Do you guys have to read the public hearing notice? >> I do not have it. Do you? >> Okay. All right. >> Presently. >> Okay. >> Do you have it?
>> I do not have it. >> I don't either. I don't either. >> I can grab it. >> Okay. might be on our agenda online if I'm a betting. You >> want do you want me to read it? >> Yes. Yeah. None of us have it.
>> Okay. The Dunville Select Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. at the Dunville Town Hall, 511 Main Street, Dunville, Massachusetts, which has been changed over to Microsoft Teams remote meeting
for the purposes of determining the percentages of the local tax levy to be born by each class of property for the fiscal year 2026. This hearing is in compliance with Mass General Law Chapter 40, section 56. Members of the public may present verbal or written comments prior to or at the
hearing respectfully Sue Fain executive assistant to the select board. >> Thank you. >> Okay. As we know here in Dunville, we don't have any commercial industrial base. Basically, it's less than 5% of our tax base. So, in a c in a community
that had a large commercial base, it would be it would be prudent to have a a split rate. So the residential people would get a break and the commercial people would pay a little bit more but in dunable it doesn't make any sense. Um even to do a small reduction in residential down like 27 cents per
thousand less the commercial would go up $5.30 per thousand. So the board of assessors recommend that the board of selectmen adopt a residential shift factor of one and this would allow all classes of property be taxed at the same rate. It's worth noting we've done this factor
of one for many years in a row consecutively. That sounds correct, Vicki. >> That's very correct. Yeah, >> as long as I can remember. >> Yeah, me me too. >> I don't have a lot of questions then. I think we sort of this is the the boil boilerplate standard for our town. So,
>> okay. Is there anybody in the audience that has any questions regarding this? I do not see anybody with raised hand or Okay, back to the board. >> I move to establish a single rate
residential factor of one. >> I will second that motion. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> All right. Do we want to close the public hearing? >> Sure, we can close the public hearing.
>> All those in favor of closing the public hearing. >> Second. I >> I forget how it works on Zoom. You know, I was talking about that earlier. I was like, you know, it's hard on Zoom sometimes. So, >> I know. It just changes everything. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Well, thank you, Vicki. All right. Next up on our agenda, we have um three sets of minutes to approve for October 28th, November 12th, and November 17th, all of this year. >> I I didn't have any issues with them. >> Okay. Nor did I
>> look great. >> Okay. Move to approve the meeting minutes dated October 28th, 2025, November 12, 2025, and November 17th, 2025 as submitted.
>> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> Thank you. and a happy dog. >> Yeah, someone's plowing and dogs are freaking out. So, sorry about that.
>> I think next up on our agenda number six is con >> consideration. Yep. All good. I can jump in if you need me to later. All good. >> Number six was a consideration of an amendment to liquor license regulation for single serving sales. Um I know we
have a few folks interested in this. Maybe Jason, do you want to kick it off? >> Yeah, sure. So you you all remember at the at the last select board meeting uh the select board was um we we offered a proposal that better
defined what a single serving alcoholic be beverage um would be for the liquor for the liquor stores in town. Um it was prompted by a question we received from one of from one of the uh package stores
basically asking the question um because our la our previous regulations simply had um no single service no nips no single service so um so the result was the language that's um I think it's on the
screen and um and with that you also renewed their licenses and so they were emailed their renewals with the new rags and we heard from both establishments with questions and concerns about the new language. Um I
think basically they they would like to see the um the size of the um the servings lower than what was approved at at the last meeting. So, um I don't have any more details than that. And I know
they're um um I think um Dunwell Liquor's attorney is here and I know the owner of Marbel's here. Um so they may be able to um I think talk about that in greater detail and put a little more
color on it for you. >> They did also share an email with us. I think that's from Miss Flores. So that helps and you I've read the email. I'm guessing Leah and Ron have as well. >> Um so certainly happy to let each of
those sides you know share some extra information if they feel they want to. >> Sure. I'm happy to start. Um Amanda Shannon if you're fine with that. >> I'm perfectly fine with that. >> Okay great. Well first I'd like to just thank the select board and Miss for getting us on tonight's agenda. Um the
owners of Mirabel and I are here to provide feedback. um as Jason had mentioned to the newly adopted changes to section 9 of the regulations. So my clients are actually attending a wedding in India which is why they are not able to join tonight and although
they may have been able to with the change to teams um unfortunately it is a completely different time zone. So um my clients were issued the first package store license in Dunville in August of 2023. I was before some of you then um
who were on the board and my client's store opened in September of 2025. So my clients received the newly adopted regulations just before Thanksgiving which essentially broaden the blanket prohibition on single serving sales to restrict greater fluid ounces. Um, the
universally accepted standard drink definition for fluid ounces would be 12 fluid ounces for beer, 8 to 10 fluid ounces for malt beverages, 5 fluid ounces for wine, and 1.5 fluid ounces for spirits. Uh, the newly adopted regulations restrict the quantity of
sales for smaller size malt and wine, and expand the NIP exclusion to include quarter pints and half pints for spirits. So, had my clients been provided notice and an opportunity to be heard at the November meeting, my clients would have
shared the following. My clients in Mirabbel are faced with the challenge of converting customers who have spent their lifetimes purchasing alcohol out of town or out of state into having confidence in the stores in Dunable. Convenience is only going to get them so far. So changes to
the regulations affect customer confidence and the prior restrictions to single serving containers has driven folks elsewhere already. But the new restrictions what was available last month will not be available next month and that does not provide customer confidence.
Offering small portions actually helps manage consumption and form a bit from a business perspective promotes a revolving door as customers are appearing at the store more frequently to purchase more items. My clients have had multiple customers tell them that they are only planning to make one drink
um or wish to buy a small quantity of a particular spirit to accommodate a picky spouse. Um these customers even reject purchasing pints wanting again half pints or quarter pints which would be restricted under the new regulations.
Smaller formats support moderation um and also encourage trying new products without as much financial risk to the customer. the liquor stores in Dunable will never be able to compete with the New Hampshire prices. I mean, that's just a
fact. Um, which is where customers are reporting that they're buying their handles or buying in bulk. And just for reference, New Hampshire New Hampshire liquor stores have 27,000 units of Tito's 1.75 L of vodka on their shelves
at any given time. Whereas by comparison, my clients are only allowed to purchase 12 handles at a time from their distributor. Customers are willing to place pay slightly more for the convenience of purchasing an item in Dunable.
But that convenience factor is eliminated if what they're wanting to buy is not available in these stores. The new restrictions threaten the viability of my client's store and business. Restricting smaller items disadvantages the small retailer over the chain.
And you have responsible, fully certified and trained liquor store owners here who have invested in this town, who've chosen Dunstable to open their store. And they are asking for a fair chance to compete with the stores in the neighboring towns and also in New Hampshire.
So based on this feedback, my clients would be looking for the restrictions to be amended to remove the term single serving entirely and rely on the flu ounce and/or millimeter metrics only. So, what that would look like for malt beverages, that would be no fewer than
two units if the unit is 12 fluid ounces or less. For wine, it would be no fewer than two units if the unit is 8 flu ounces or less. For the spirit restriction, to go back to the prohibition of sale of 1.7 flu ounces,
which is the NIP um size. And then for beer, no fewer than two units if the unit is 12 flu ounces or or less. And in my discussions with Miss Shannon who owns Mirabel, we've also um discussed, you know, the difference between a
readyto drink item um meaning a refrigerated single serving beer um and a beer that's put on the shelf. And I I'll let u Miss Shannon speak to that more and how her business model works, but we would be open to having there be
a distinction from the select board as to a ready to drink versus a warm drink. And I'm happy to take any questions, but I I know Amanda Shannon has things to add to that. >> I don't have any particular questions.
Um I don't think, you know, it feels like forever ago, that last meeting, our intent was to reduce sales or um create any harm in transactions to either uh business. Um, I think we were just feeling prudent, but I won't speak for
all my fellow select board members. So, I think it's good to hear from you and have us maybe discuss and sort of check with our other neighbors and residents. So, >> yeah, we appreciate the opportunity to weigh in. So, thank you, >> Ron.
>> Well, Amanda, I have a a question. you you know you put out some numbers there about um you know people coming back and and re you know where did all that data come from? I mean does the New Hampshire liquor stores with you know 27,000
bottles of Titos >> um just help me understand how all that information was sourced. that's sourced from my my clients actually submitted an affidavit which I would have presented today if we had been in person. Um but
that is sourced from the distributors themselves that u they are restricted to the amount of quote unquote handles. So that's that 1.75 liter that they're allowed to purchase at any given time. whereas New Hampshire liquor stores have are have 27,000 bottles available and
they they don't have the same restriction um as a private run liquor store obviously um and OB you know New Hampshire is just one example I know Amanda will mention um I believe she will mention Amanda Shannon that um even
you know 20 a 20-minut drive from Dunable you're having stores with with nips and obviously greater variety um and that's just providing business to those towns and those are within Massachusetts, not necessarily even including New Hampshire.
>> Okay. So, if we amend this to what you're suggesting that is that what what's the impact of that on these businesses? Is it substantial? Is it negligible? You know, this this discussion was had at the
floor of town meeting at the time we were trying to get town meeting to um adopt the liquor license. And you know, the whole the whole premise of all of this was to prevent people from stopping
in the liquor store. Um it's cold out, they want to have a beer, they chug it down, and they take the can and throw it in the side of the road. And you know that happens you know and so the premise for all this
was to was to kind of control that. Okay. >> Absolutely. that with that being said, how much you know what what are we you know I'm sitting here scratching my head going how how is this change to what you're asking for going to dramatically
drive the business into a better revenue producing I I I I don't know Amanda I I don't >> Yeah absolutely and um so you know with respect to at least dunstable liquor what What my clients are finding is that
people are not stopping in to purchase handles or liters or larger items. They're not even purchasing, let's say, multiple 30 racks of beer. They're in for, you know, maybe they're coming into town to go to a holiday party and
they're purchasing a small quantity for personal consumption that day. Um, or they're people that live in the town. Um, and again, they're not doing their complete stock up in the store. They're buying something that they had forgot or something to accommodate someone that
doesn't drink a particular beverage. Um, that is what my clients are finding. And so, their sales for the larger quantity items, which seems to be what the select board wishes for for them to push out, um, are don't even make up I would say
75% of um, of what their sales are. less than 50 certainly um they're finding people are buying in less quantities and maybe that's um a cultural consideration that people are consuming less alcohol overall. I mean I can't speak to that
but they are finding that what is selling are smaller items and so what they're concerned with is that the restrictions which you know speak in turn both of single servings being restricted and then have milliliters that don't support what actual single
servings are. um those that appears in conflict. And so all we're asking for is remove single serving as the language and actually, you know, drop the framework that says this is what the fluid ounce maximum or minimum is um to be sold in single serving and allow
people the opportunity to purchase and try try new things, right? Um because part of this is that right now I think both businesses are selling items in fourpacks. Um, and again, Miss Shannon will speak to her own business model,
but some of her beers are very expensive and so people aren't buying them, right? Because they don't want to have to buy four of them. But maybe if they tried and were able to buy two, um, it would be something that they would regularly shop for because she's kind of in the in the craft space, whereas my clients are
in the more traditional um, liquor space. >> Yep. >> I ask a question there. So would does this current provision we added in mean someone can't go in and do like the fourack and mix like a you know a Budweiser with a Coors Light and then
like a Michelob. You can't do that anymore. And then like a Yeah, your new um your new restriction actually doesn't cover beer at all. Um but what it does restrict is um the pints in terms of spirits um and the
quarter pints. So your the milliliters that that you had put into the new restriction would prohibit those sales. Um >> so it does actually um speak to beer malt. Um >> it's just malt. So I I only saw it as
malt, but maybe you could pull it up again. >> It says malt beverages. Single serving of malt beverages defined as 24 ounces or less. >> Yeah. So if we're calling I I'm sorry. If beer is a malt, um I always consider them
different things. So >> that was the intention. >> Mhm. So the issue then is um you know the fluid ounces 24 flu ounces obviously is a very large um container
but it you do have a unit component to that whereas um you know again my clients don't sell this product but Miss Shannon's um business sells you know 6 to8 beer which times 4 is you know 20 24
to $32 for four cans of beer. it's pretty expensive and so people aren't purchasing that. Um, and again, it's an inventory issue, right? So, this is already purchased. Um, and we're trying to make make the regulations make sense.
Um, but also have expectations clear because it's not com, you know, my clients aren't necessarily comfortable they're doing it, but having to tell folks again what was on the shelf last week is not going to be on the shelf next week. Um, and I think it's not necessarily good for the confidence of
their customers to know that they can rely on going to that store and finding what they need. >> So, if the malt beverages said 12 ounces, would that improve the situation? >> It it would. Or the issue with the malts
is the four um the four units But if it were 24 ounces, I mean 12 ounces, >> yes, it would certainly improve. Yes. >> But again, if if um Amanda Shannon's there and likes to would like to weigh in, I don't want to speak >> Sure.
>> to her for her entirely. Yep. Thank you. But I'm happy to answer any other questions. >> Questions, but Yeah, I have a couple of questions. >> Um, I'm sorry. I think Amanda Shannon is trying to speak, but she's on mute.
>> Okay. >> You're on mute, Amanda. You're on mute. >> Can you hear me now? >> There you go. Yep. You're good now. Um, go ahead with your questions and then I can chip in.
>> All right, I have a couple questions. Um, I don't know how to use the putting your hand up thing. So, >> uh, Mr. Flynn, Miss Flynn had a question first and her hand was up first, so I gonna just defer to order of operations. Sorry, sir. Uh, I think she said she has
somewhere else to go. So, >> I do, but this is more important right now. One, I would ask what precipitated the changes would be my question number one. And if it was due to the litter issue, my concern would be when I went up to
debate when they originally were trying to open the package store next to my parents and I brought up the liquor issue as a problem, I was told that was obsistantiated and not considering not to be considered an issue. So if that is what
precipitated the change, I find a problem with that. I think what precipitated the change is getting clarification on what we meant by not selling nips essentially and what in the single serving >> and we just tried to make this a little bit more clear by setting more um
numerical parameters on that intent. >> Okay, >> that doesn't answer your question. I mean I can try to explain it differently. not what was stated a few minutes ago. It was that litter was an issue. That was what they were trying to be concerned about the litter. It was
what I believe Kieran said. And now that's not >> litter is always an issue, but I mean that was >> it was told it wasn't an issue when I brought it up. >> I don't think I mentioned anything about litter, but >> you am I wrong? Did anyone else hear
that earlier? Miss Chair, if I could just >> do you mind if I say one thing about this? >> Can you hear me? >> Well, Erica, are you Yes, Brian. I'm just want to be sure that we're done with Erica at this point before we move
on. >> I was just >> It was Jason. >> I was just going to add clarity to Erica's question. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. So what happened the initial regulations
had this restriction but it wasn't well defined as Leah said. So we received a question in the in the office from one of the one of the business owners asking us what it meant. So this was our best
attempt to define what a single service um beer, wine, malt um alcohol, al alcoholic um drink was. And so it was based upon the research of the office and then um a proposal that was put
together from there. Um I think as Karen said it was never intended to be um it was never intended to penalize the current business owners. I think everyone here um is in is wants to be invested in their success. Um so it was
never meant to to harm their business. Um, but what it was meant to do is to execute upon the um the intent of the former regulations. And so I'm not if there are changes that should be made
to do to better do that, uh, that's I'm completely okay and fine with that. But that was the that was what happened and that was the intent. And I I would like to just personally apologize. I wish we had um I think Amanda you had said um
Amanda the attorney not Amanda from that um if you had a chance to um to comment on them. I wish in hindsight I wish we had allowed for you to have that chance both both businesses to have that chance and that was an oversight on my part and so I do
apologize that I wish I wish that had happened. >> Mike, thank you Jason. Can I go now? >> Yes, Brian, please. >> So, one question is um I don't know the timing on how when all of this
questions arose, but I think I don't know if it was Karen or somebody somebody made the comment about the liquor being adopted with restrictions. So in that vein,
um wouldn't this be more appropriate addressed uh at the either the special town meeting or the next town meeting? And then my only concern about it is there is a definite
if you go online and you research there's a definite litter problem with the single servings and it isn't just the nip bottles it's the single serving bottles. The Plymouth Independent
um has some pretty stark pictures and Connecticut has some pretty stark um statistics on it. So that would be my question that would need to be addressed. I think
needs to be addressed is what if we see if this is adopted and you know I'm with the sentiment that we don't want to you know put anybody out of business but if this is adopted and it creates a litter of problem how's
that going to be handled >> and if I may address that >> sure >> that's okay um so I think that that's really you know and maybe that was the point and I again don't want to speak for Erica's question, but you know what prompted the regulation change? And I
agree. I think that the original language um you know was restrictive in terms of single serving, which we're not proposing any change to that. We're just proposing um a more appropriate definition of what single serving is. Um
but I think you know if and when certainly it ever became a problem of increased litter that was due to either liquor stores um being open and and and selling items. um that's the time that
this absolutely would should be addressed and that's the time when um you know either liquor store or the responsible liquor store should be penalized right um I think the issue here is not that there has been an increase in litter it's just an issue of
you know everything's in hindsight this was the first time this is the big test for Dunstable of having a liquor store um and here you have the opportunity of two business owners saying the restrictions are not going to work for this model. Maybe in the future when there is more brand quote unquote brand
confidence. Um but at this point they're trying to get people in the door and they're trying to get people to trust the process. They're trying to get people to not shop in New Hampshire. >> Well, I I understand all that, but the single servings
are for the person who wants doesn't want to wait till they get home to have a drink. I mean that's >> we haven't been allowed to sell s single servings. Nobody in Dunable has purchased a single serving. Nothing has been increased. >> Any single serving has come from outside
of Dunable >> because we are already not allowed to do so. >> And we're not proposing a change to that, Mr. Flynn. >> Okay. All right. That my only question is the litter. If if litter becomes a problem,
>> litter presently is a problem. >> You walk on any of the streets, pretty much anywhere you go that it's >> the majority are single canned beers, the single serve wine and nips. There is so much fireball nips on the streets.
It's It's ridiculous >> in our town. >> Oh yeah. >> Oh yeah. But none of it has come from Dunable. >> No. >> No. I agree. I agree. >> No. >> Well, that would be true. >> No. >> So, we're looking to do is to not
>> and we're not trying to add to it. We're just not trying to force people to buy four of something. That is a lot for somebody. If somebody is coming in and they have a limited budget, how do I tell them instead of $6, please spend
$24 because that's our law in Dunstable. How does that go over? We're about to have a bunch of lowincome housing coming into this town. So, are we just not allowing them to p purchase here? >> Question.
Mhm. >> Yeah. I think that's, you know, the intent wasn't to hurt our new businesses that are trying to get their feet under them and be successful in town. So, I think we're learning along the way and I think it's,
you know, it's nice to hear from you folks and you give you the chance to connect with us. We, like Jason said, we should have from the start and, you know, our apologies for that for not being more inclusive at the time. Um, but your points are valid and you know I
I echo what Leah said where it's, you know, disappointing to see as many little fireball or peppermint schnaps or whatever they are out in the streets. You know, you don't see a lot of like craft lonear brewing, you know, 16 cans out there. It's just not people aren't
throwing those away like, you know, like it's just not the nature of what it is. you know, might be a one of these tall natural ice ones, but not the other stuff. Um, so, you know, I I I agree and I too like to have a cool hoppy beer every now and then, but I can only drink
one of them because otherwise there's too much sugar. So, um, I would be, you know, interested in sort of rewiring that parameter to that effect if that makes sense. So, >> if I may interject as well, we are
trained in a tip certification to not sell to people who are clearly under the influence. It's usually people who are under the influence already who are going to be the ones that want the single can or want the single nip to continue that buzz. We're not We are
clearly trained in identifying We are certified in identifying people to not sell to. If I have a gentleman who wants to pick up a little espresso martini for his wife because he's thinking about her and it's warm, please tell me who's
drinking a warm espresso martini. Nobody's drinking that. If you're that desperate, then I'm sorry. Like, but you know what I mean? Like it it's these kind of things. It I have beers that come from monks in France that taste like dirt basically and they we
sell them warm and they cost $8. Nobody is buying that to drink in their car. It's not the idea. It's about expanding the pallet and and just like showing what we can offer, but asking
somebody to spend $32 instead of $8, I can't do that. Um, did you I'm not finding it if you did submit presenting what your recommendations are for us to consider. I see you have
um has that have you done that or did you just express them in the beginning of your presentation? >> Sure. I I just expressed them um when I spoke. Now I'm happy to either put them in the chat if that's something that the board would like to visualize. Um, and we're not necessarily, you know,
obviously while we would like to see a a vote happen today, if the board is not ready and this is something that you need to sit with, um, we've spoken with um, Miss Fain that the new regulations are not intended to take effect until the new year. Um, so if this is
something that you need to sit with, then that's fine. Um, I am seeing that chat is turned off though. I don't know. >> Okay. >> I can find a way to >> even I mean I don't know if we're ready to take a vote tonight either. I do think we need to sort of mle it over and look at it and maybe, you know, do a
little bit more research again. Um, but if you could maybe even just send an email to Sue or Jason. >> Sure. >> And I'll send it Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, that that's all. Just make that recommendation for us to review. >> Absolutely. And I'll send it with Amanda
Shannon. Um, we'll we'll collaborate on sending it over so it's from both of us. >> Okay. Can I ask a question? >> Sure. So, I I don't know if these are the only regulations that are being amended or or not, but I had an issue
last week, which is just a wee bit frustrating, and it's not the first time I've had it that is similar where I went to order. So, during CO and shortly after CO, you could get liquor delivered to this town. That is no
longer the case apparently. And you can get it delivered to every town around here, but not Dunable. and it caused an issue for me last week. Is that looking to be changed? Because I don't understand why that is not allowed anymore.
>> I'm not sure, Erica, what who governs that? Is that a Cuz um we haven't been Nothing's changed. >> Nothing's changed >> according to Door Dash. Cuz I called Door Dash and I called Instacart. >> They were told and I don't they didn't
say who. Gunstable is no no liquor delivery, but every other town around here has liquor delivery. >> I have not. >> And I've had it delivered here before and that changed. >> I have not heard of that at all. That is >> Yeah. No, I agree with that. That's not that's that sounds like a misinformation
from Door Dash because >> not just Door Dash, Instacart. It's all of them. >> That just may be a decision that they made, but this rule doesn't impair that in any way. Uh, so I, you know, >> I know this doesn't, but apparently at some point the rules were changed
according to, like I said, I called a bunch of them because I needed it for Thanksgiving and they were told that Dunable no longer allows liquor delivery. >> Yeah, it would not be right. >> That has had nothing to do with this at all. >> Right. Nothing.
>> We have not changed. This is the only thing that has even been open for discussion since the passage of this. Well, I'll keep digging because that's not what they said >> there. I mean, this is your local liquor uh licensing authority. We haven't done
anything. >> Okay. I like I said, I know this is just similar. I didn't know if that was something else that was in discussion to be changed. I didn't know. >> It is not and it has not. So, >> okay. I will dig because I need that.
Joan, >> see Joan's got a hand up, but she's muted, so >> we can't hear you, Joan. >> Sorry about that. >> Um, okay. I, uh, you know, from the very beginning,
uh, when we talked about this, uh, there there was a concern on, uh, you know, selling the the smaller quantities. Um, and uh, I'm sure both you guys, you
know, opened your businesses knowing that you weren't going to be able to compete with, you know, the big liquor stores. Okay. So, I just I'm I'm a little concerned. I don't I
don't quite understand what what you want here. Um, so I'm I'm glad you're going to continue this and I'll uh I'll see uh um you know what information uh
uh comes up. But you know I just uh you know the the small quantities, the small bottles. I can remember specifically Amanda, you know, talking to you about, you know, the size that would work for
you. And uh so you know I just I certainly want both of you guys to you know to be able to do good business but uh you know at the same time you know there's just there's
no way that you know our little stores can compete with uh you know Nshawa. Um, so we just have to find a happy medium. >> If I may answer to you, Joan, if you
don't mind. >> Sure. >> When we were speaking at the meetings and everything, I said that we didn't need nips and we weren't going to do gut rot gin. That was your >> right >> number one.
>> Nobody here is really asking for nips. The thing that we're asking for is just on the quantities of four on very specific items that don't make sense. And I am very grateful to say that we are competing with New Hampshire State
Liquor Stores. We have many, many, many people that are coming in that are so happy that we exist because now they don't have to go to the New Hampshire State Liquor Store. they can talk to somebody who is local or they don't have to go up one exit and now on their way
home they can stop at the gas station or they can stop here and just pick up that one thing that they need. So we are competing with them uh pricewise everything we're we're doing it. It's f that part is not the concern. The part that's actually
hindering us is basically just quantity based. It's not even size based. >> Okay. Yes, we have some smaller items that would be easier to sell. If we have to sell those in a larger quantity of two or such, that's fine. I would also
state that forcing people to purchase more doesn't necessarily mean less consumption. As a matter of fact, if you're buying four cold beers, technically you can buy you can drink four cold beers, right?
You're not limiting anybody by forcing them to purchase more. They can take one out of a six-pack or one out of a 30 pack and drink it warm. We're We have a police force for a reason. We have a certification for a reason.
We're doing the most responsible thing by everybody that can be considered. The litter already exists. Whether it comes from us or comes from somewhere else, we're not trying to contribute to that. But we are making a substantial impact
in Dunable and people are very pleased to be shopping with us. And so all we're trying to do is not discriminate against the people that are choosing to shop with us and not force their pockets because that's where we're
going to fail. $30 is very different than $6. It sounded it sounded in the beginning it sounded like uh you know a little more a little more desperate than that. But uh you know I'm I'm very happy to
hear that and uh you know I'm sure we can you know come up with a solution here to make everybody happy. But uh um yeah, I uh I think it just I think we
need to I'm just not sure. Every once in a while I get a flash of of of what the of what the changes were and I just I need to take a look at them and and understand where you guys are coming
from and compared to what's on that list. >> No, I get it. I get it completely. Look, we have three kids. Nobody has been more welcomed in this town than we have been. And I know the gas station and and and Jay and Amy have
a very very lovely relationship with this town as well. Nobody's trying to do anybody dirty for sure. We're just trying to exist. I don't want that kind of a vibe in this town. There's nothing I want less.
All we're trying to do is make a living. We appreciate that. No, and and likewise, and we want you to succeed, both of both of the businesses to succeed. Um, so I mean, as was stated before, we're we're new at this and um we're we're still sorting it out and but
it's also very important for us to be getting feedback from actual businesses to see what's going to work and what's not going to work for both you as business owners and for, you know, the the the needs and wishes of the town. So I think um if you could send what you're
proposing, what your recommendations may be for us to reconsider, that would be very helpful and then we can we can come back at this. So >> thank you all for your time um and for the consideration. Really? >> Yeah. Well, thank you for presenting and
>> Amanda, I don't know. I think you said this would be still be okay, but I don't know if you wanted an example because I happen to have one in my fridge. It's It looks like a single serving. It's not. And just for the record, this lasts me a week.
>> A week. >> I can't I can't see what that is exactly. >> It's kind of hard because of the thing. It looks like a single serving. It's not. And again, it lasts me. Actually, it last me longer than a week, but I'm not We're not not I don't want to. >> Is that bottle empty? >> It is not empty.
>> All right. I'm just checking on you. >> So So Amanda Flores, you have a takeaway here, right? that you're going to get back to Jason >> with a proposed revision. I do understand that you are representing uh
Dunable Country Liquors and my only ask here is that whatever you propose that you share that discussion with Manda over at Mirabbel so that we don't have two conflicting understandings. I mean it's just these two stores. Let's just
socialize this and come to a common understanding. Absolutely. And an agreement. That's that's that's my only ask and I as I said I do understand you don't represent >> Mirabel. No, absolutely. And but we have connected on this um you know in advance of this meeting and they are working
very well together the two sets of owners and the um proposal will be sent to Amanda Shannon prior to being sent to Sue and Jason for your consideration and thank you guys so much again. Um, I know you have other things to move on on the agenda, but thank you really for
the for the time you allowed this. >> We're going to Erica's house to finish that bottle. >> I guess going to a Jingle Fest meeting, so you'll have to meet me there. >> Thank you both of you. So, we'll work on this. So, >> all right. I'm going to pretend like I
know how to hang up, but I don't. >> And I'll see you >> the leave button up in the corner. >> Thank you. >> All right. Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. Bye. >> Bye. >> All right. Uh moving on. Um the next
thing we have on our agenda is the um a notice of intent uh to remove property from chapter 61 designation at 476 Main Street. Um so this is uh one of the parcels that is owned by the Fenicettes
in the center of town. Uh it is the one parcel. It's a 5 acre little over 5 acre parcel that the the request is for to be active as of July 2026. I just realized
in that letter. So um so it doesn't appear to be an immediate thing. I believe >> I think the next year. >> Yeah. So just that it they're giving us fair warning that they are going to be
doing this which would allow the town to have um the first right of refusal once there is a actual price tag or it's for sale and put on it market a valid market offer. Um
it's an interesting piece of property. It is um ties right into our town common in the back end of it. It does however have a um perennial stream that flows through it. So there are some restrictions on that land related to the river and flood plane and riverfront and some wetlands.
Um but there is some upland up in the front between their existing home and the budding property on the other side. So um >> so this is like the the vacant parcel you're driving
>> vacant parcel. Yeah. Yeah. You're almost at the antique sign, but it's just before that, right? >> Yeah. So, it it wraps around a house, >> right? >> Um it right where the new um 113 cover is. >> Mhm. >> That is that
the south side of 113 on that side where the culvert empties into is fenny land. >> Okay. And so it's sort of a, you know, strangely U-shaped property that wraps around another house that is not owned by the finet.
>> Yeah, I appreciate the notice. And, you know, it is a, you know, it's a very it's a sensitive area in the sense of the perennial wetlands and such. Um, also sensitive to the where it is for our town and the schools nearby. You know, there's a lot of stuff that goes
into that whole little town center space there. So, >> um, >> so I think that's the extent of it right now is just letting us know that what their intentions are going to be. >> Yeah.
>> Coming up July. >> Yeah. Does this in effect notify our, you know, I see, you know, planning board, planning and conservation get notified as well. Does like CPA get notified or is this sort of with Joanie here? There's no no consideration there,
right? It only really the the consideration of notification is to the to the select board I believe. >> Okay. >> When when they well when and or if they sell or change or want to change the use
that's when they have to notify planning concom if that's going to happen or when that's going to happen at this point. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And this is only the this is only the property behind the house.
>> Uh beside the house, right? >> So there there are two parcels they own. One is a little over two acres where their house is. It's a long narrow lot. >> Yeah. >> And then if you're facing the house, there's a field to the left. >> Yep. >> And that is that's the property. It's
five acres. >> That's the property. Okay. >> Correct. >> Okay. Well, see what happens. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't know the intent of them doing that. Um, I mean, there are
some question if the intent is to remove it and sell it as a building lot. I have no idea. I've had no contact with the Fending Ketty's at all. I don't know what their intentions are. Um, I do have a question about Joan. I guess you're on the planning board. >> Yeah. >> So, there are obviously two areas of
frontage along Main Street. Um, one of them is only 113 feet wide. So, that would not necessarily be enough frontage for a well, I guess for a twoacre lot.
Correct. >> Wouldn't be right. wouldn't be enough front footage for uh um you know uh what do they call it? >> A backland. >> No. >> Oh no. An ANR.
>> An ANR. Thank you. And uh but yeah, I mean then you know you you I don't and I don't know if there's if there's five acres there, there's probably not enough, you know, not enough for anybody to bother wanting to
put, you know, a road in there. >> I don't think they'd get very far considering the riverfront area that extends from the stream. Um, but you can't you have to have would 200 feet consistent frontage, right? You
you couldn't add the two 240 on the other side >> for a house for a house lot. Yeah. >> Yeah. So that it is more than 5 acres. It's a little bit more. Um, but most of it is encumbered by wetlands and riverfront and flood plane.
>> Can't put a 40B on that, can you? >> A pretty little one. >> Five acres. five acres, but it's just shy of two acres, maybe even a little less, >> right? >> Of um
let's see, >> five acres. Five acres for a backland lot, >> right? >> Yeah, this will be an interesting one. >> Is that area that's outlined in green, is that the uh is that the five acres?
Yes. >> Okay. So, it's that entire area. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> But really just all of the the the green lawn part is
really the only upland on there and even part of that is encumbered by riverfront. Okay. Yeah. So, that's so that would be interesting. So, uh, you know, so, uh, we'll have to see what
the, uh, what the cost is. It might be nice to be able to >> Yeah. >> add that to the center of town. >> Yeah. >> If we can uh, afford to do it. >> Yeah. It be that like what's, you know,
if they're going to sell that the next parcel, right? That's the but you know we're I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves with land considerations and such and >> just be mindful of that. >> Well time goes fast too so it is just
something to think about. >> Yeah. Yeah it did certainly for the high street property. It felt like it flew by and then it was up and down up and down. So >> yeah. Well yeah that was a different ballgame. But uh this this is something to think about. But anyway, all right.
We don't have time on this, but >> just a reminder, I don't Karen, you may have just alluded to this, but if this comes out of chapter and then they sell the property as one, then they have the frontage too, right?
>> Sure do. Yeah, absolutely. So just >> you redraw the lot lines >> because then >> Yeah, because they won't I mean presumably they're not going to sell those as two. They'll sell it as one property. So >> absolutely.
>> Okay, >> Jason, what what what are you referring to? I'm just saying they'd have if they if this comes out of chapter I'm I'm moving my mouse as though you can see it. I just you can't.
>> Sorry. Um but if that comes out of chapter and then uh they sell the house and the and the >> and the what is it? 47 what is it? 476. >> 476. they sell if they sell those together, then they have the frontage
necessary to build um and presumably could do something um larger potentially. >> You end up with about seven over seven acres there with those two parcels together.
>> Yep. Seven and a half. And you you would have you would have the street frontage with the two with 1732 504 Main Street and 476 1730 on the left hand side. You would have the frontage,
you know, if you can join those together. So just something that >> So but you'd only have if you were to join those parcels together, you'd have an existing house on one and
only three approximately three acres of upland to be able to work with. Assuming it's all Upland, >> that's not a lot to work with. >> Yeah, it'd be really up to your what the goals are, right? I mean, of course, we don't know until we know. So, >> Right. Exactly.
>> And your frontage between those two lots. So, there's 200 feet of frontage with their current house and only about 114 along that side. >> Yeah. 504. It looks substantially wide,
but maybe it's I know. We're just kind of guessing. I don't know how much frontage that one has. If it's just 200, >> I just measured it's 200. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Nice. Okay. >> Um, well, we'll see. Yeah. >> Anyway. All right. >> Something to think about for sure.
>> Yeah. Okay. Very good. Let's move on. So, next up, um, the brokerage of record change for health and life insurance. So, it's just notification given to us
that um well, >> Jennifer Borslow Insurance Agency is going to be taking over as our >> Well, I hope I hope so. We used to we we did use historically when I first got
here, we used NFP with uh Kevin Pos, you may remember. And um over the last year we we have not um had anybody. And so these folks, Barlo, we um I had a meeting with them. They actually
represent the school district and they work with Sher Kersy very closely. Um Sherry was a strong recommendation um for them and I've been pretty impressed with not only our meeting but their followup.
And so um we it's nothing out of pocket for us. Um uh the last the last arrangement we had um you might remember it was a flat fee to NFP. This is not the case in this in this instance. Um if
they get us a deal, they get paid. If they don't get us a deal, they don't get paid. Basically similar to um to our arrangement with um for the PAS um claims. So, um I'm hoping you'll consider uh
with with health insurance costs the way they are. Um Maya is excellent. Um and I hate to leave them, but I think we do we're obligated to do our due diligence and see what the market um what the
market is on especially on health insurance. And so, um, I'm hoping we can work with Bars Low Insurance to help us, um, navigate that and, um, >> and test the market.
>> So, is it your request to that we engage with them? >> Yes. >> To do >> what? >> So, they're they're going to So, they're our broker basically. So, they'll be our broker in all three. >> Um, one for for the flexible spending
account. I don't there I'd like them to really work on that. That's task we use right now. Um and I've received several um concerns regarding regarding them. So I'd like to see if what the options are
for for for that service. Um and then for life insurance um they believe they can get our employees better a better deal. And so um and so I'm hoping they can be our interface in
that. And they said they've done it for other communities. So um be great if they can. And then health insurance. Maya doesn't deal with brokers. So I'll still be dealing with Maya, but what they can do is test help us test the
market on >> Yep. >> You know, you you know how it goes. What what how how many employees, what our demographics are, etc. and we can't get claims history because we're too small um to get claims history, but um we can
get other information from Maya that helps folks bid on our our health insurance coverage. So um you know I we went up 14% this fiscal year. I've had a preliminary meeting with Maya again and they said expect the same thing. Um, so
we're talking 14% back to back and we're, by the way, we're not alone. Everyone's everyone's dealing with the same thing. But, um, it's a it's it's a big increase and doesn't appear to be, um, ending anytime
soon. >> Okay. I move to approve Boris Low Insurance as broker of record for health and life insurance and flexible spending account and authorized the town administrator to sign associated
documents on behalf of the board. >> Second. >> Good. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> I thank you. >> Great. Okay. Next up, discussion with fire chief
about adding a PDM firefighter for the shift of 400 pm to 8:00 p.m. >> Thanks for hanging out. >> Yeah. >> Hi, Chief. >> Hi. Thanks for having me. Um, as we kind
of continue to struggle with our night coverage, um, me and Jason started looking around at some things that we could do. We explored a whole bunch of options. um some that were good and some that we weren't you know too sure about as you know things went on and uh I kind
of basically I pulled the last three years of of call data um for the 24-hour periods and uh the busiest time is you know in that time frame is what we're already covering 8 to 4 uh 8 to noon is
the is the busiest uh time 12 to 4 is the second busiest and then after that it starts to it starts to reduce, but it's still uh four to eight is the next highest um call volume that we've been running. And it seems to be, you know,
at that point in time, the guys have gone home for the day and people are picking up kids from school, getting out of work, getting home, it's dinner, and I we we seem to struggle, you know, to get, you know, any sometimes, you know, anybody uh during those times. I think there's it's just the busiest time of
day for, you know, people just in general. And um so looking at those numbers, like I said, I always don't really like to look at the numbers just because it's it's hard to say what the severity of what calls you're going on. You can't really, you know, plan for that. But if you just look at the
numbers, you know, it it was kind of clear that that this is the next busiest time of day for us. Um, so we figured that it would be, you know, helpful to at least try to get one guy, you know, to to cover that four to eight spot so that we can at least get a truck there,
um, get somebody there that can, you know, call for more help and and things like that. We also or you know my thought is that if we can get you know that one guy going that the people that are home will you know maybe have more of an incentive to want to go now that they know that there's one guy going and
that you know they'll be listening up and and uh you know jumping in at that point if they know that there's already one guy responding and they're not going to be maybe the only ones because there still is you know a bunch of people that don't you know really want to be by themselves because it's you know it's
it's obviously it's a safety issue. Um, so you know, we looked at the the numbers and it's, you know, the current rate is 1931 an hour. So be about 7724 a day. Uh, comes out to a little over
28,000 a year for for the one. Uh, we were looking to try to incorporate this in January. So if we did that January 1 to >> to July, that's 25 weeks, five days. It came out to about uh just south of $14,000. So we have that money. um
usually in the call pay. Um we don't usually use all the call pay. It's there's kind of a there's a there's a there's more money in the call pay than than what's usually used, but that's just because we don't know what we're going to have to spend every year. There could be could be a light year. We could have several brush fires. We could have
a couple fires and that really drains it. So there's kind of a, you know, a gap there that a comfort zone that we we kind of keep so that we don't run too low on that. So knowing that and we wanted to kind of try this and see um if
this would be a you know an improvement for us which I I think it will. >> Um quick question. So you're you said the 12 to 4 shift is usually the slowest call volume. >> No no the 8 8 to 12 is the busiest. 12
to 4 is the second busiest and then 4 to 8 is the next busiest after that. >> Oh. So that's the third. Okay. >> So we have the first two like I said already covered 8 to four and then the next busiest would be that 4 to8 slot that we're looking to cover.
>> Okay. >> I'll just if you mind if I add something real quick >> please. Um, I'll just say it's um I think this discussion first started I don't know year or so ago at last budget
um at our last budget meeting and we did have a followup about we had a meeting about a number of different things and this was one that we wanted to follow up on and um and I appreciate the chief because he constantly challenges the
town and me in particular to figure out how to get better coverage down there. And um and so we were talking about this and I remember him um not getting frustrated but sort of kind of getting frustrated because he's having a hard
time getting um people to respond especially during this hour because of the reasons he stated. Um but also because as he said it's impossible to predict when you're going to have a major event and you're going
to need people. So picking and choosing when you have coverage, when you don't have coverage is not the best way to staff the department obviously. And so um so of course I suggested um looking at looking at the busiest hours and he
he left not loving that idea. But he but what I like is he did and he called back and kind of did ran the numbers ran looked at the budget um ran the budget numbers and you know
ultimately I think we're viewing this as a step forward um in progress but not the end not the end of that progress um so um but the but the chief really has been a a real advocate in this and
really done a lot of work on it and um and given the activity I think um it it does make sense and the fact that I think we can we really can absorb absorb it budgetarily for the next 6 months and see how it goes. Um you know we don't
even know if I mean the chief you could speak to this too but we don't even know if people are going to be interested in the shift. I mean, it's one it's one shift being alone in the in the station. Is there going to be interest? I I we don't know. So, it's more I I I describe
it as a trial to see how it goes and then we can um as long as the board is comfortable with it. Um you know, we can kind of report back after the trial um or maybe even during the the next budget discussion for 27 about how it went and how we're looking at it for 27.
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up because we it was more of a, you know, we kind of wanted to try it out and see how it is. And there's been a lot of positive feedback. Guys want to, you know, they say they want to try, you know, try it out. They want to do it. And uh, you know, that's I guess that's the most important thing just because, you know, that I always say just because we're going to this, it is a step forward. I think it's an important step
forward, but it's definitely not going to be the end. I mean, it's probably not going to be the end, you know, for me until we have 24-hour coverage. And that's a long way off, but we have to keep kind of working towards it. I know this is probably a smaller bite to take to try to get us, you know, in that direction. Um, and even just, you know,
if we can kind of look at the numbers, you know, we're going to have to, you know, see how, you know, if if if they all get taken and it's chewing up a lot of money and then we'll have to stop it at some point. It's not necessarily a lot of places that you know I'm familiar with that Dupert DM they you know they'll they'll add a third guy after
January 1st and then maybe you know they have to cut back to two or you know whatever the case may be you know as it things get closer to uh the end of the fiscal year. So, I mean, we're going to have to keep our eye on it, which is which is fine. And, um, you know, even with this the number being kind of low and starting at the half year, I just
kind of want to be able to, you know, if if it's if it's going well and we have enough money, if we can maybe go and add the two rather than having to come back and um, you know, if we have, you know, if we have the money and it looks like, you know, we're going to be able to do it. But, like I said, we'll have to, you know, me and Jason will keep an eye on it and I'll, you know, keep working with
him to make sure that it's going to work out. So, I mean, it could and that's another I think to bring up if if we have a lot of as the winter comes, you know, if we have storm coverage and there's fires and we end up chewing up a lot of that money that, you know, we may have to stop this um you know, before
the end of the fiscal year. So, I mean, that's it's a possibility, but uh the way that it's trended the last few years, we've had the money uh you know, through the fiscal year, so we're pretty confident that it's going to going to work out. >> Well, personally, I think it's a good idea. And I'm happy to support going
forward and giving this a try and especially if you got it within the budget right now. Let let's try it. See how it goes. I mean, doesn't surprise me that it's a busy time. There are a lot of people on the roads between 4 and 8. >> Yeah, we do. There is quite a few accidents. It seems like, you know, on that commute home and like I said, we
our coverage just kind of misses that, you know, leaving at four. It does seem like there's a, you know, if you look at the the times here, it is, you know, from uh four and five is, you know, uh five and six is when at that point from there is where the most calls come in in that
4hour block. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, I'm >> No, I I I I'm in complete agreement with it. Um you know, the it's happened today, right? Your shift finished at 4:30 and you had a medical call and a
car accident within a half hour of each other. >> Yeah. It almost never felt, >> you know. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, I I think it's money well spent and I I you know, Billy's got he's point on and I think that uh we we do need to go
forward and and I' I've seen it. I've seen those calls come in at at you know the guys just went home and in a lot of cases they go home they put down a couple of beers or had a mixed drink those guys are out of service and um so I I I think this is a great idea and I
I'm happy to support it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Fine with me. I think if it's within the budget bandwidth and we you activate our resources um get more folks to you know assist in times of need and just have you know increase the presence
um that we have in town. That's a good thing. So, >> yeah. Thank you for being diligent. >> Yeah. And as you know, you're constantly demonstrating and people learning that, you know, the fire department does more than just put out fires. So, >> there's a need for for your services
beyond that. So, >> yeah, for sure. >> Yeah. >> We don't have a motion for that. >> Anything else from us at this point or what what do we need? Is there a motion? >> I don't think I don't think so. Um >> Okay. Well, I'll just keep you all in
the loop on what the progress is when we anticipate it starting and um I'm gonna we're going to sharpen our pencils a little bit before, but um but before we really dove into it, I just wanted to make sure the board was on board with us
moving forward. So, um we'll we'll we'll get to work on it. >> Okay, great. >> Thank you very much. Excellent. Thanks, Chief. >> Thanks, Chief. All right. Next up, uh, another discussion. >> Oh, yeah. The compensation and
classification study. >> This is just, this should be quick, I think. I just wanted to This is another one of those. Are you all comfortable with me kind of putting it down as a formal proposal with a vote for your
next meeting or do you want to see any changes to what I've already kind of talked about and presented? Because if if you're ready, I'm ready to um kind of put it in a nice package and um and ask for a vote.
>> Yeah, I think it's ready to go. Uh Jason, you know, we've Fin Comm's been involved in it. We've had countless discussions about it. I think it's time to uh move it to uh move it forward. >> Yeah, we've had the Collins Center involved. You know, we've had a couple,
like Ron said, a couple good discussions about it. And you know, looking at it broadstroke, it seems to enhance almost every role. Mhm. >> I can't say that with can't guarantee anything these days, but like you know
it it enhances everyone and gives a good you know trajectory. I think that's hopefully received well. So >> yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. it. And looking at the numbers too of like the cost comparison, you know, if you were to tweak some of these numbers, like rather than going to a 3%,
do a 2 and a half or something like that. It it comes down to Ron's favorite term of >> budget dust. >> Like, you know, instead of a $7,000 increase, maybe a $4,000 increase. And at the end of the day, you want your employees to be productive and treated
fairly, treated well, and happy to stay. And uh I think that this will enhance that likelihood for people. So >> yeah, it's not enough to to cry about.
>> No. Right. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I'll um I'll have something ready for you at your next meeting. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Um, final thing >> is the appointments
to the Morgan Babcock Scholarship Board of Trustees. >> So, there's an appointment here for Heather. How do you say her last name? Gerten. >> Yeah. >> Right. Do I have that right? Gerson. >> That's good to me.
>> She's not with us here, right? No, there's only six of us. >> No. Heather Gerson. >> And she knows. I mean, she just wants to get it. She's all set. And we have any issues? >> We do not. >> I move to approve the appointment of Heather Gerten to the Helen Morgan
Babcock and Alfred Babcock Memorial Scholarship Committee for a term expiring on November 19, 2028. >> I will second. >> Excellent. All those in favor? Hi.
>> Hi. >> Thank you. >> All right. Good. I >> think that's it. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> dive.