[Music] [Music] the Steamship Authority is a proud partner in many Falmouth community
events including town meeting coverage and for good reason not only do we have a terminal in Offices here about one-third of our employees call Falmouth their home we always work hard to serve our neighbors friends and the traveling public we recently put seven new electric buses into service at our fou parking lots soon we'll be adding new
vessels to our Fleet continuing work on our energy efficient wood sole terminal buildings and adding soul panels at our largest parking lot at the Steamship Authority we're serving the islands and you welcome to the fouth Chamber of Commerce the fouth chamber is dedicated
to working on behalf of our members to make Falmouth a better place to live work and conduct business we are committed to developing the economic cultural educational and Civic interests of our community and welcome the support from all organizations to achieve our combined goals whether you call F at
home or a summer resident or a visitor we hope you take advantage of all that the chamber has to offer hosting services for fctv dorg are provided by meganet Communications meganet offers a wide array of Internet services including Mega backup cloud
service server collocation T1 fiber Metro ethernet as well as telephone services such as hosted pvx and digital voice their number one goal is to keep your Communications Network up and running and allow you to focus on growing your business
877634 2638 or meet. net good morning and it is Saturday March 1st 2025 it is exactly 9:02 um welcome to the meeting of the family select board this is a workshop
um we will not be taking public comment um and we may as well Dive Right into item number one discussion on immigration enforcement procedure and practice don't have to and I know we have uh Chief Lor here you like to come sit with us that would
be great and actually we also have attorney o'keef here and she can help us thank you very much for the overview of lve Commonwealth I thought that was really helpful you're welcome Hi how are you I'm doing well
Madam Cher If I could just kind of Kick this this portion off so um there's obviously uh a lot of um well Justified interest in the topic that we're about to delve into um regarding immigration I've asked uh Chief Lori to be here with us this morning to talk about locally uh
fou PD uh in the uh what year and a half period of time since Jeff has been on board as chief of police uh kind of talk about practices and procedures with regards to how the department interacts um with the immigration Federal officials um Madam chair you mentioned
lond V Commonwealth 2017 Court decision um that basically lays the foundation uh so to speak for with regards to how local law enforcement agencies uh operate uh in terms of uh interactions with uh ice with immigration federal
agencies um Mor did you want to go through a quick kind of rundown overv you and again I appreciate um you putting together um the uh the summary um if you will of l v Commonwealth um did you kind of want to touch on some of the major major highlights of that of the lond decision yes yeah I'm happy to
absolutely so um lunp Commonwealth is a um a case that was decided by the SJC in 2017 and it is the decision that is referred to when um immigration matters come up uh for law enforcement it uh is
the guide poost for um what law enforcement can do in the face of uh being presented with a federal immigration detainer what the case stands for is that um immigration law is
a civil matter it is not a criminal matter so law enforcement is um is not really part of the equation here so Fe a federal civil immigration detainer served by an ice agent issued from
either a um the Department of Homeland um or from an Immigration Court even they are um they do not act as uh an arrest warrant essentially it doesn't give law enforcement the right to hold
anyone um if presented with a civil immigration detainer and law enforcement does hold someone under that detainer it constitutes an illegal rest arrest under
the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution so what this case concludes is that massachusett law does not provide any Authority for local law enforcement to arrest or hold an individual based solely on a federal civil immigration
detainer but so I mean it's more than that I mean from what you're saying it's not only does it not give Authority you're you're saying it prohibits and that's you know even right I mean that is solely on immigration ation status
yeah but if they end up in custody on on a criminal offense then that changes that changes the definition of that but what constitutes the criminal charges just arest R obvious obviously I know what a criminal offense
is no I didn't I asked what what what constitutes a charge is what I'm saying that you're saying and I don't disagree would authorize holding someone what what is it the charge is just the fact that the person's been arrested I mean we had this case obviously the one that
was been reported recently in the newspaper and I I was hoping that maybe the chief could explain you know the steps with respect to you know I mean that was an egregious situation and you know allegedly this was a very serious crime that was committed and you guys
did what you were supposed to do I just wonder if you could using that as a focal point bring us through the steps as to how the the your staff you know responded and you know how things developed from there normally I I don't discuss cases like this but it was in
the media um it was a very violent uh crime against a a 15-year-old girl um the suspect uh was either 25 or 26 um here illegally uh we arrested him
we run his fingerprints feds call us and say he's wanted you know they want to the ice wants to come get him we tell them this we tell them yes he was here just like we say if you called up and said I have a message from
my son that he was arrested um and we would say just what we did in this case to to the federal officials he's at the bosal county house correction BOS County House of Correction transports him uh to because there was no bail um to The
District Court he's arraigned um and because of the violent nature of the crime normally what the court does they just release you to the back door but in this case because he was a dangerous person and danger to society uh they allowed him to come into their lockup
area and they took the federal officials took this person into custody and that's what we would do um this you know we would not release him into Lieutenant HZ knowledge if you read the article that I did recently um with the bonso county
sheriff um you know we I've never seen the federal officials take someone from a police station usually it's from the court um you know or they they grab them at wherever they're staying the only way we would get involved is if there was a
very violent criminal that was at say in a hotel in town and federal officials were here um you know we may send a couple of officers to the area just to to ensure Public Safety in case something happens uh but beyond that we we really don't get me I don't you know
I'm not familiar with the procedure but but taking his fingerprints then it was that act that made it known to ice just running the fingerprints on this individual that's how they knew this individual was was every arreste um is
processed um fingerprints photographs you know information and in many cases we determine sometimes they give us false information or a false name in this case um you know the feds notify us that you know they want him Che that goes right out NCC M
immediately so that goes out to all federal agencies as well right yep boom everyone gets notified that's when you get booked that that that happens immediately right and so he's you know all of a sudden they get notified just like if it's a stolen car or someone has a warrant the bells and whistles go off
and you know they call us and in this case by the time they called us we had already transport him to the Ville County House of Correction and I I want to say and the sheriff wasn't wrong um you know we need to be careful on how we talk because if you looked what happened in Boston the immigrations are basically
because of some things the commissioner had said said I'm coming to Boston and I'm bringing hell with me so you know it's one of those situations right now where you know this is what we do as local law enforcement you know our job isn't to round up people we want to make sure that people that are victims of
crime like in this case this was a young 15-year-old Brazilian girl we want to make sure that she calls us like she did and reports it and we don't want them to be in fear of that so our goal really is just to serve the people of Falmouth um Serve and Protect and do the job to the
best of our ability and we will assist those in times of Crisis to make sure people are safe and that's it in a nutsh stay in our Lane right that's it I stay in my lane and I just want to point out one thing about the Lun case which is very
different from the situation that we're just talking about here um the reason why the lwn case was decided as it was is because at the time the immigration detainer was issued there were no more criminal charges pending against the
defendant and that is the only reason so you can see it's a vastly different world than what the Falmouth Police Department just in so it's kind of hard to use that as case law if it's so vastly different though isn't it so but we're talking about two different things
if criminal charges what I think it's important to to discuss the lung case when you're talking about immigration in general because um the a federal detainer on its own it's important for everyone to
understand this the detainer alone is not a reason to hold anybody and that's the only that's really the point maybe you could explain what a detainer is it's like it's like a warrant it's just a piece of paper that says you you need to hold this person MH but it's a civil
but not a Judicial warrant it's not a Judicial warrant and it's not it's it's a a and that's why it's not called a warrant I said it's like a warrant it's simply exactly what it is and I think it's important to keep calling it a federal civil immigration detainer still
trying to figure out what it is though I realized it's it's an arrest similar to an arrest warrant but it's a request yeah it's a request that can be request but but is it a request that needs to be adhered to well so I think that's what
we're talking about right the answer is no if there are no criminal charges but you have to separate that out you know in a criminal world we let the police department do their job and they know exactly what they're doing if there aren't any criminal charges and you're only left with this federal civil
immigration detainer it's not sufficient it is simply a request it is not enough to hold anybody I think it's really interesting in the memo that you did that um that I didn't know was that it is a civil matter it is not a criminal
matter and that that's I think a huge difference and then the other piece that was in your memo was um while entering the US illegally is a crime being present in the US illegally without additional infractions is not a crime
it's interesting isn't it and that's I think I think that's something that we really need to recognize as well once you're here regardless of and and tell me if I'm correct regardless of how you got here you you get the same protections as everyone else correct and there's one thing I well two things like
that the only civil process that we're involved in are restraining orders things along those lines HBO's grass and protection orders um I have an officer that is attached to the DEA task force you know he's a task force officer TFO and um all the local officers that are
part of that task force even though they have Federal Authority they're not going to get involved in any ice operations um that's something that we worked out um when all this was happening because the da will assist ice but our officers that are local police
officers will not participate in that action just to follow up on the example because I understand this was an egregious situation a violent crime for on a 15y old but but this theoretically could C happen with a victimless crime
where someone is arrested fingerprinted for shoplifting robbery same scenario could happen uh and and he'd end up being you know taken from the court by ice it could be right so um I mean what
what Authority or what ability would the district court have to prevent that from from happening I mean I I've heard you know the district court will have the federal officials wait outside until the guys actually left a nonviolent person and then he walks out
the door and they grab him you know but um in this case you know it was very person that do all right well that was what I was missing Chief so thank you okay and you know that's actually a good Segway to the next part of the conversation I think where we're headed
with this is um the general rule for um for uh ice agents their ability to to enter into public buildings as that in any public building there are private areas and there are public areas and um
no one is able to go into the private areas so for for example in town hall there are certain places that are just simply closed to the public they are not open and they are supposed to remain private because that's where work gets done they're um uh it it's just like any
any workplace um there you know the public can go through the hallways they can come into to this room they can um go into the senior center in any space where they're welcome they cannot go into offices they cannot go into office
Bas and um there's a reason for that not just for what we're talking about here but I don't want to get too far a field but for the First Amendment assessments here it is very important and I think this is what the courts are starting are trying to do um Court should have a
policy that's up to them we don't have any authority over them we don't have any connection with them but ice agents wouldn't be allowed to go into certain places in a courthouse the holding cell the holding cell exactly or Chambers or anything behind the closed door so
waiting in the parking lot is is how how to do that so I have some questions about what you were talking about with both with First Amendment Auditors and um immigration issues in terms of the private spaces and training but um first
of all I want to thank uh Nancy and Mike for having this on the agenda and having this discussion Chief Lori for for um being vocal and clarifying what your your practices have been and um uh to more for the the brief and also
to whomever identified the the policy um from NAIC um I think it's um that that policy is is one or something very similar to that is something I would strongly support us adopting
um I'm certainly not an expert but I've done a bunch of research in recent weeks attended the webinar that um the presentation that was in the packet um One On First Amendment Auditors a couple of others on immigration rights talked to a number of people um and done some
research of my own and and I feel that it's that we really have a a moral a legal and a financial imp imperative to ensure that our local law enforcement stays focused
on the job of criminal law enforcement and and and using our resources um for those purposes to ensure that we're executing our mission as a town um to be a welcoming community and safety is a is a core part of that and chief Lori I
think you're doing an incredible job and we're we're just getting to the point of being fully staffed and I think you've been doing an incredible job of instilling and fostering um in our police officers a sense of of Guardian first Warrior as necessary um building
trust relationships um and and I think that's where our resources need to go not to doing the jobs of or being assistance to federal civil immigration enforcement and um I know there's a lot
of I think having a policy that that states that is important just to make sure that that's that's really clear um because and and and then I think there's a lot of of misconceptions out there and I actually printed out it's just the first Pages um I don't know if I made
enough copies but of a couple there's there's been a lot of research um in uh the past 10 years on um the ramifications of local law enforcement participating in um Federal immigration
enforcement and um uh contrary to I think some public opinion what that research shows is that in fact communities where um local law enforcement sticks to local law enforcement and to building trust relationships and using resources for those purposes those communities are
actually safer and those communities where local law enforcement gets more immigration enforcement actually see higher rates of crime uh specifically robbery and and assault um so I think as as you said staying staying in
our lane is the way that we we execute our mission of being a a welcoming and and Safe Community for all that's important uh I mean I I'll only say that it you know I was the one who um found the natic uh natic policy and I think
it's uh it's it's good that we have it I think it's good that we look at it I'm struggling to see what actually what's in the policy is anything different than what uh what we're currently doing uh you know I certainly would consider you know possibly something but at this
point I'm I'm at at at this level and right now I'm satisfied that what we're doing is really no different than what the policy from naq says but you know maybe you know there are enhancements to it that might better fit our situation
mean we certainly have uh a u an undocumented issue in this town uh and and and and a lot of that helps helps the economy of the Town frankly we know that we also know the impact on children and and and children families
of so and certainly something we need to be looking at but at right at this moment I'm not sure I would support adopting you know a policy right now without some more discussion which I think we should we we should have so thank you I'm TR I would agree with you
as well I think I think that the chief has an incredible understanding of what oh I'm sorry I just hate having back to people um you want to switch spots more is in M no
problem um I would agree with Mr Mcall I think that that we have heard from our chief he is responsible for the way his Department conducts himself and I think we have a very good understanding about the way he does that and I would welcome more conversation but I agree at this
moment that I'm not sure that we have to Institute a policy right now mam Char I had one comment to make just for the discussion um Mora had a great suggestion the other day we met and talked about this a little bit and and
it's in your packets um and and Heather you said you attended the webinar um the ago Attorney General's office did a uh a webinar the other day that talked about um I'll call them guidelines you know PR best practices perhaps and I think you know chief laor does a fantastic job as
we all know running the PD you know Peter M's job is the overall organization and making sure that the staff right and all of the facilities all the Departments have some clarity with regards to like how to proceed so in your packet um the uh ago's presentation I think does a great job
outlining um what I would consider best practices or guidelines to direct staff um and more alter it over to you to talk a little bit more about that but it it really and again these detainers um civil matters not a not a Judicial
warrant um we're we're not attorneys most of us and um and and it's important that an attorney Town Council if this situation ever arises at one of our offices that we get in touch with the town council's office immediately to
have professional legal person review that so Mor all so one of the um excellent points of guidance that I think that the ago has issued on this matter is um to make sure that everyone
in any public building any all Town employees understand what to do um when faced with the presentation of a detainer or some sort of document um
requesting information or production of documents or of people um and I I really I think it would be in the best interest of everybody to to hold uh sort of know your rights training
um I what that would Encompass is having everybody understand what to do in that kind of situation because um it's possible that that officers from Ice could show up at any building at any time and present what looks like a very
official document that um asks for some kind of information and I I don't want anyone to be put in a position where they feel like they have to hand something over that they're not legally required to do um the ago has
great guidance about not just having a know your rights training but having a point person in every municipal building and um having that point person understand to Cal me as soon as they're presented with a legal document because a civil civil immigration detainer looks
a lot like a Judicial warrant but they are not the same thing um it's also important to have this um a a firm understanding of what is public space and what is private space in any any
municiple area um I do want to address the the natic policy really quickly I don't think that a policy is a good idea for a few reasons that I'll go through first of all what's in your package is a draft and is not what was enacted by by
natic what natic enacted at the end of last year is a slimmed down version of what you have and in the end what they enacted was what's in your packet is paragraph
236 and only the first line of paragraph 5 and what's left in the the natic policy is simply a reiteration of already existing law my advice always is
that if you're going to create a policy it should be something new and different to help guide a particular board in a way where that language doesn't exist already when you're simply taking words out of the law that already exist and
maybe translating them or simply Su um superimposing them into another document um you risk um misinterpreting it so that it can be interpreted different from how it actually exists in the law also it's just a redundancy everything
that's in the Nao select board policy already exists in the law and we're already required to follow that as a municipality I would like to see um guidance provided to every town employee
about um Town employee rights and the rights of um the rights of employees who may um be subject to an immigration detainer um but I I don't know that a policy a
written policy document is required yeah I don't know if the chief will agree with me or not but any any call any stop any incident is very fluid and things change and and pigeon
hauling the police department at least with with with a policy on how they do their job um I think is bad personally I think that they have a program they're staying again in their Lane but I think anytime we add a policy that's so
specific to something that is so fluid on a caseby Case call byall basis restricts you guys you guys know what to do and what not to do in my opinion and I would be I I I would agree with more that I don't think at this point we need a policy to tell them how to do their
job they seem to have been doing it very well with respect to public employees in here guidance from their supervisors in the main office uh should be sufficient with with uh indications of how they
supposed to respond or react to uh Federal requests I think a training is absolutely critical and training done you know really well and then reinforced and done again is is critical and also
giving Town employees the ability that when if if and when and I I know schools have run into this I included a bunch of stuff in schools um if and when someone were to show up I with some sort of detainer
to every employee should have the ability to stop the conversation and to call you absolutely just say thank you very much um why don't you stand over there I need a moment and do nothing but call you um I think it's really important because I think I think we try
to when someone asks us to do something right I think people go along and want to do what they're being asked but in in something like this people really have to push the pause button and do nothing and get guidance right away maybe our policy at some point in
the future is to direct department heads to instruct the employees and you know in this issue and things like that where we're taking you know the lead I mean I'm sure the Town Administrator and town manager feels the same way but you know
I think it might be something we might want to think about um just as to what our policy is as to what department heads should be doing with their employees with respect to this issue whether it's training whether it's you
know that I think is within the jurisdiction of what the the town board is supposed to be doing setting that kind of policy I I I agree in premise but I I don't know that that needs to be a policy I go back to that that whether that needs to be a policy or whether we
direct the town manager to make sure that these trainings are happening on a regular basis that people know what they're supposed to do and that it is a directive from their department head that you just push pause you just period you push pause yeah I
think and I'll I'll waiver on my like this needs to be a policy because what I would be looking for and I appreciate the not wanting to be redundant with what's already in law right and the potential to create confusion if we have a policy and there's a law anyway um
what I'm looking for is formal guidance to all Town staff and a clarification of that and not just a a word of mouth and and frankly not for any reason of of lack of trust but not simply directing my to say let's have a training and
everybody shows up to a training right actually having formal guidance to all of our staff that this is how the town is approaching this this is what's expected in terms of your behavior this is the support that you have from the town to do that that doesn't need to that doesn't necessarily need to be a policy it could be a really good
directive from the town manager and Town Council maybe I was not my back's to you no maybe maybe I wasn't clear what I'm proposing as your town manager is to implement exactly what Mora is talking about in the ago's presentation and having those guidelines printed
published and then and then have those training so it will be documented that is the guideline some gu written guidelines I want no um gray area I want Clarity on the part of all of the staff to understand as Madam chair mentioned if they're confronted with the situation
I want them to know step-by-step have a checklist and and ultimately that ends with contacting town council's office so um you hire me to run the day-to-day operations of the town when I'm not doing that to to the the board satisfaction then you find somebody else to do it but that's an operational I
consider to be operational in terms of guiding the staff um the decision to implement that guidance um wanted to kind of you know get that consensus from the board but now that I think I have it that's the step that we'll take I think our job is just to be the public face of
the Town we're following the law we're just our policy is to St stay with the guidance from the Attorney General's office and we just want our residents to know that that's the situation we don't want people that are here who are unsure about their status to be afraid to call the police when something comes up because that's the biggest concern I
have is somebody that's not sure where they're at and these people they really pay a lot of money to be here you know the immigration process is expensive they P $5,000 just to hire the attorney to help you navigate the process and then you have to make payments as you go along to you know different application
phases and so forth It's not a simple thing and there's a lot of at stake for them they've invested a lot to be here and to be afraid to call the police because they haven't completed that process would be a shame we also have a responsibility to our constituency too Doug too and there's a lot I I don't
know if I have a different constituency than everybody else in the room but nobody's even mentioned that I have people that come to me that are concerned that there are people that are unvetted uh in the community you know I can't tell you how many calls I got once
that that article hit the paper um and and they need to be they need to be considered as well and we haven't even discussed any of that so I uh I may have a different opinion on this than everybody else so we'll
see any other discussion I just I see a lot of uh I hear a lot of talk about construction you know being impacted by it on the vineyard workers are afraid to go to work because on big job sites they're afraid that somebody's going to
come around and ask for identification and so forth so they're you know it's an impact I own I own a high threat security company and I'm privy to to to reports of violent acts that aren't publicly uh uh uh
broadcast that that are horrific uh so I mean that works both ways on what's good for the community as a whole The Vineyard had an issue not too long ago where people didn't show up for work
they had sort of a nice scare um the schools were severely impacted um so I think I think we do I agree we have to look at the community as a whole and I think in this one particular piece in terms of
when we get involved and when we don't really needs to be clarified and I think that's the Crux what the direction that we need to give very clearly to the time manager which I think he has and a lot of it a lot of the training comes right out of this I mean it's you don't have
to recreate anything um it's just putting it out there training retraining and making sure that every employee in this town because you you've got to handle an Police Department I really believe that I believe you've got that we've got to get everybody else on board
and I know the schools are doing their work as well or am I corrector was also another training that you had suggested from the municip Massachusetts Municipal Lawyers Association they just they held a webinar that's different than what's in our packet this that is from one of
the presenters from the uh yeah uh Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Matos put that together and she spoke at the webinar at that webinar yeah and I think there's a i if there's a recording of it I will I will yeah I mean I it when I went to see it it seemed to be
only for the presentation so if there is a way to access the the presentation I could I couldn't make it I'd appreciate Absolutely I'll I'll send that recording around if I get it Mara you had also though mentioned the related issue in terms of Staff training and private
spaces and yes Point people that that's around First Amendment assessors or Auditors right um and I went to that webinar as well and I'm just curious do we are like are our private spaces I think they're supposed to be actually like there're supposed to be signage or public notice right those are private
spaces do we have that we we do it's a great great question we do um but what what we Peter and I will do is we'll uh meet with the department heads and and have them inventory and just kind of assess to make sure they're still still there but um as I go through dayto day I look at the different departments and
offices certainly this building I can I can say that we're well covered with regards to the signage um but we'll make a point to evaluate all the other facilities to make sure that they're in place thank you that would be a very big deal in other in other buildings once
they identified and notice it's an important part of what we're talking about having that designation go yeah and I think especially for the immigration issues um ensuring that the Human Services uh department has the training the protocols the
spaces as well as Town Hall super important any further discussion Chief happy Saturday every everyone you get the leave thank you and thank you moris helping us out with some you're doing a great job and you're in great hands with our Town Council yeah
that's nice thank you great thank you and I think we've been clear about our direction for the town manager I don't think we need any formal I would agree all right so we're going to move into the discussion on the proposed land
acknowledgement policy and I just want to give you a little bit of a background on this so uh Dr F Silva reached out to me I want to say maybe a month more than a month ago and asked me to take a look at this policy and that
at some point um early spring her request was to meet with the town manager and myself um to go over this and then the next step would be to make a Public Presentation at one of our general meetings to have a conversation
about this but prior to any of that happening I thought it was really important to get a copy out to every board member bring it up here at our Workshop so that we could take a look at it and if there's consensus then um I would move on to the next step which
would be to meet and then the third step would be to put a it on our agenda for a regular meeting but the workshop here is and I got it to maybe two weeks ago so that you would have an opportunity to really go over it and bring any questions or concerns to this meeting so
that we can talk about it before before I moved on ask can you explain I I the email from from Dr Silva was you know her her proposed or the a proposed acknowledgement policy and then there's
suggested edits who whose edits those are mine are okay that's what I wanted to know yes yes this was the latest one got um I think the red Town council's edits so it's the original and this
suggested edits from MOA that that's what we have that we need to be talking about today um correct I mean I you know I've only been here since 2016 on a full-time basis but I thought I had seen somewhere that this
had been brought up to town meeting this issue of uh land acknowledgement policy I mean I may be completely off base here no it's come up before it has come up before okay and and what has been the result of town meeting trying to remember and I don't
think it passed I mean I think the original uh intent was that it was going to be read all the time at like every every select board meeting or something I don't remember what the occurrence was but it was going to be like used all the time and I think town meeting said gez
you know well I guess my question is is this gonna have to go to town meeting I guess that's really what my question is or is this just something that you're thinking the select board will adopt uh as as a I have no that's I'm but I'm
think I'm seeing it in two ways and I could be wrong so please feel free to correct me um this was the proposed land acknowledgment that they wanted read at every meeting and that kind this is a select board policy proposal in some
ways I see that as different because this policy has um a lot more meat to it it has a lot it has what the town manager has to do so I they're they're similar and this I believe is woven into this but this is a policy
that they're asking to be adopted right I guess but my my my question really is does it stop at the select board or will this at some point in time need to go to town that's my only question I don't I mean I I
understand select policy need to go to town meeting I guess that would be my question why it have to go the first time you know what I mean yeah I mean I wouldn't want this to be you know viewed as as us doing something and putting in place something
that in the past whether rightly or wrongly or whether I would agree or disagree you know town has town meeting has spoken on it and that's where I'm a little you know missing the uh Miss Missing the context of it and I understand the the the larger document
is what the policy would be and has much more meat than just a statement what Moira has uh edited is would would be just a the statement that would be read right the land acknowledgement piece whether it's by the select board or a
direction to other committees I mean I know the 300 committee has a a policy I think the schools School the schools have a policy I was looking this morning and a number of in town organ gations do you know make statements at the
beginning of their uh at the beginning of their meeting so okay I would certainly I would C before I I moved on any of this I would like to see what what was presented at town meeting and what the circumstances were behind that
and how that aligns with what's being proposed now you know what we did because nobody can remember what it was let me let me just go to Peter do you have any recollection so it was a petition article yep um so
you know and it didn't pass and I think you know as well as I can remember it I think Doug has characterized it accurately um you know I I think the question that Bob raises you know should really go to to more just because a petition article brought something to
town meeting doesn't mean that's legally required or even the best and most appropriate way to approach it on the other hand you know so there's law and what required and then there's politics right so anyone can bring anything to town meeting and if they vote on it that may be something that you want to take
into consideration so to Scott's Point historically you know even though it didn't have to go to town meeting if it did go to town meeting and it was voted down that may be something politically that you want to consider so where where where my thinking on on this is around this being
a policy and I guess I have I have questions there because um to me this reads the the land acknowledgement statement itself and I don't know if debut was the right word but kind of like a a resolution
from the select board around acknowledging the history of the Town feels like perhaps one thing and and then when I look at the proposed policy this to me feels more like a strategic plan than a policy right it's it's a set of action items it's not ongoing
guidance um so much and so I I guess I would welcome input on whether that kind of interpretation of what a policy is and what it should do sounds right to others right because like I said this to me I the the actions
that are in here I think um many of them um absolutely fully support and I would love to see us pursuing it doesn't feel like policy guidance it feels like action items really good point so wouldn't it be prudent to if there's interest in it
to advance it to an agenda item so we could ask specific questions and what the intent and you know the ramifications of it would be and and get public comment so that we can you know hear what the public wants to say about it I'm certainly supportive of moving
this you know to an agenda item um that's what I want that's what I need to hear so I think what what we will do is the town manager and I will move forward with step two which is to meet with um a petitioner who's who's guiding this and
then put it on as an agenda item because I I agree that we need public comment we need public input but I really wanted to hear from this board to direct the town manager to move to step two and then step three three would be would be on an agenda so I think I'm hearing that
that's the way it would allow us to be able to ask specific questions and also have have more of a presentation that that speaks to all of it okay so we will move forward and do that understood and I will ask um Diane to reach out to to
Sandy because she was is the one who's putting it Forward um to meet with us and then get it on an agenda okay all right we're going to move on to discuss drafting a letter in opposition to Mast proposed 50 million Wastewater construction funding
application cap included in the 2025 cleanwater State revolving fund intended use plan thank you ladies thank you for coming folks um wait is that one of your ques Co
Jackie and there's something else there is that ter Dave bzowski is still here so if you look in your packet um you will see a draft of a letter Cape Cardon Islands uh water protection fund and you will also see a
copy of a letter from the town of Yarmouth and uh both Mr Brown and I received this from um Mark Forest Mark Forest do we have a draft of a letter I didn't see it in my packet unless the packet was updated we unfortunately we
we we do but it unfortunately didn't make the uh publication date of the packet so I will uh I will circulate that draft uh for review and perhaps we can bring I I wanted to make one quick comment because I I just learned this and and and the board may already be aware um there is a uh a timeline for
submitting comments in that timeline the third it's Monday it's Monday so um so Madam chair actually if if uh you would allow me um and Peter you might be able to print it right um so we did ask um uh DPW director mcconnery and our Wastewater
superintendent uh Amy LOL to draft um a Fel town of Falmouth letter for the board's consideration um because of the and I wasn't aware quite honestly of the of the of the time line and it is March 3rd by the end of the day I believe so it is going to be uh imperative that we we we get some guidance from the board
um so Peter's going to print a copy and we'll circulate that we'll circulate that around um but it it it's it it follows the form format of the armouth uh letter and uh and and replaces the armouth um context and information with regards to their improvements that are
planned and the impact it would have on their wh water expansion to with our numbers in in essence maybe I mean I don't know how far we're going to go with this uh I mean with or without the letter but i' certainly appreciate the context our
content and as you all know um I I can't recall the Y well the Yarmouth numbers are 200 million um we currently have uh April town meeting the the $60 million expansion and uh and in this cap as you all know proposed um would have a would have a serious impact
you know limiting local municipalities from from borrowing if you will um no more than $50 million I I I I Turn to You doug because I know you're you know more familiar with this whole issue I think I mean it would seem to me that there should be some kind of a sliding
cap based upon on the population of the towns I mean Truro and Falmouth have the same cap or at least on the this right now there's no cap is am I correct correct right but I mean if there was going to be a cap I you know it would
seem to me it should be some kind of a sliding cap we shouldn't have the same cap as Truro has the cap is problematic for any Town that's doing a first phase because you cannot build a sewer plant and do a sewer planting area $50 million
you can't even do one of them no way no I I understand but I'm just saying in the in the grand scheme of of dollars it would seem to be that any cap should be you know related to this the population or the outflow or whatever of of the
town I mean you know I mean why should trur I mean if trur wants to spend you know $50 million you know because that's the you know whatever it is uh why why but their need and is so much less you know than
ours because of their population I mean it would just seem to me I'm just talking off the top without doing a whole lot of but it would seem to me that if there is going to be a cap you know it should somehow be based upon a particular
Town's outflow Capac whatever that might give us because you know they could take advantage of the cap okay we got a $50 million cap we're going to go this way whereas and now we're constrained by the cap here I'm just thinking I a meeting
on Wednesday with the under Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs uh secretary Stephanie Cooper and the room was pretty full a lot of uh staff and elected officials and everyone had the same pretty much the same take
that you you can't ask us to sign up for Watershed permits and move faster and then put the brakes on the funding and so the idea and Andy Andy gotle but I think made a really clear point that you know you're undermining the faith that the
public has in the boards and the staff of towns because we've all said you know we're going to have this srf funding we're moving forward everyone seems to be kind of really picking up momentum and right now is the worst time to put a cap on funding so what was discussed was
that if there really is a budget shortfall and they really can't maintain the program as they have at least keep it moving for this year and then if we have to take a little break next year at least we'll know about it we'll do other things we won't promise sewer projects we'll build police stations or do
whatever you know other things that we need to do so we're not looking like you know one hand doesn't know what the other hand's doing so that was what under secretary I think got the biggest message was that we need to keep projects moving that are in the pipeline
now and let us know what's going to happen if the the 2027 budget has to be adjusted let's at least know it and plan for it especially with the threat to funding can I ask dou maybe you
know one thing that I found a little confusing in reading the um the stuff in our packet and then going digging around State websites um it's a 50 million annual cap right 50 million per year but
also layers in that you have to reapply every year right not that I want there to be a cap at all but I guess to me it's that annual reapplication that's even more problematic than the annual cap I agree
right if there were you could have a larger project but it was going to be doled out at 50 million a year not great maybe doable if you could actually plan for count on it you know exactly if you could if you could apply for 5 years that that annual refiling to me seems really so and I but I don't know if I'm
understanding it correctly yeah I I can offer a little bit of clarification on that so um I'll just talk about the way it works now um and you know and how that's different from what's proposed so right now if there there a couple of
yeah so right now if you put in a a plan and you get it approved on the I the intended use plan right you are often at the preliminary design phase so you're dealing with estimates so it it
it's not uncommon to say we have a $40 million project and it comes in at 45 and you're approved on the iup for 40 it comes in on 40 at 45 and it's automatically included you don't have to reapply but I also want to mention the
way the form that the the way the money comes in it's not annual slugs of money it's actually it's what you're applying for is the low interest loan right so it comes over the life of the 20 30 year loan anyway um
so so the so the piece that's really different now right is there's been a $50 million limit so in the past you have a $75 million project and okay you have $50 million worth of borrowing that
you can do the first year and then if if assuming you don't have to reapply and it's almost automatic that that $25 million extra is going to be awarded the following year as I understand it I haven't had the experience of going
through that but what's different now is they're saying you know 50 is it and you're not getting any more as I understand it don't ask more anything right now she's I preoccupied
should we take a moment to take a look again I apologize this did not make your packets but yes Peter just did thank you Peter for running copies uh just did distribute copies of two letters uh that were drafted by uh again DPW director mcconnery and uh Wastewater superintendent l so you should have one
address to Governor Healey and the other address to Robin MCA acting director of Municipal services so I mean the letter that's in our packet from Yarmouth only went to miss mcar I mean our Town's also writing the governor is this our idea to also write the governor I me I'm just
curious if other towns have taken the step of writing to the governor as well it's seems like a good idea I'm just wondering what other what other towns have done the association for anything
yes I missed your question of cape and Island's Municipal leaders the the group as a whole have done it yes we did okay thank thank you Doug I did uh did Mr got Le's uh Association submit anything to the governor's office I I seem to recall
there's some emails floating around in in uh the association for the protection of cap godod get the AC wrong um I I do recall seeing an email floating around and I believe um that uh entity circulated a letter to the governor's office Bob I don't recall seeing a a
municip ality um I don't think it's a bad idea it would make sense if we're you know if what we're looking for is um you know both you know added weight to prevent this proposed change from being implemented and then the the solution
that's being proposed of a bond Bill to to fund um to provide more funding for the srf that's going to need the governor's uh approval right for oh and the County Commissioners also
sent a letter similar to the yarou letter MH when when we say without advanced notice I mean when I mean there has been obviously advanced notice it just hasn't been a lot of advanced notice right I
mean I mean I'm just qu questioning when when we actually when it was actually published for comment I guess is my question and I don't have the exact dates but it's a good question um I I do know in reading some of the uh comments and emails uh from uh either the county
level or some Municipal uh dialogue has been floating around that um the the the time period for for comment public comment was a bit restricted and the notification that this was that this
proposal was under consideration was a a little bit buried a little bit difficult to find that was my that's my Rec so is when they want to my thinking on the without advaned notice was a little different I would like to check my understanding I mean given all that even
if it were very out in the open and this is the public comment period my understanding is they're talking about this applying to this year right so there'd be public comment they would enact it and it essentially goes into IM mediate effect which does we're planning 20-year projects and applying for
funding for two three 5 years out to find out in 2025 that there's going to be a change in the funding system as of 2025 it doesn't give those jurisdictions that are multi-year projects any event you're there probably a big part of it like even if even if all the public comment were totally out in the open that seems like a really I I think
that's that's terrific point because you know we're fouth does not happen to be in the situation but I believe both Yarmouth and Barnstable have projects over 100 million that were just recently approved on the assumption that they were going to be srf eligible for the full amount and that's what they
communicate ated to the public was the funding plan and mashby too they're just now building a sewer plan I don't know what their budget is but same thing with the tip stuff um the federal money is weird I mean they change the rules daily how they how they distribute
money yeah I mean I think the found case that's in here is a really good one right this 2025 iup $50 50 million executed with the understanding that there would be 10 million the next year and if that's changing sometime in the next few months we like we'll be past
April town meeting we don't have a way to fix that for 26 like I just said to Doug though keeping in mind that there may be Federal money being withheld for other reasons that they go right after stuff like this well it's the
state oh it's Federal money too Federal money to the state well also they don't not widely publicizing it but there was a big mistake made by the previous governor using our funds to fund budgets that weren't legal and now there's a $2 billion shortfall that was the
Unemployment uh yeah that was under the unemployment so they're trying to patch up a$2 Billion hole and uh Governor Healey did negotiate a 10-year payback but it's going to hurt the budget for 10 years of what they thought they were going to do and they now they're scrambling to cover
it so it's affecting a lot of stuff any other comments on these letters because I I hate to put you guys under the gun but they are due by the third so I'm hoping to come out of here with the vote I think the
letter do have a few comments at least with respect to the letter to the governor um you know where we say in the very first sentence Peter and and I um the third line to make dramatic changes to the Clean Water funding program that
fouth and all the other Cape towns are counting on I mean I always hesitate to lump us you know in with what what everyone else is necessary I I would just say and what we believe all the other count I mean I don't want to you
know be making an affirmative statement where I don't think is you know we we should make an affirmative statement I think we could say our understanding we believe how however you might want to um you know to to to phrase it couldn't we just take strike and and go
right to Falmouth is counting on to fund and not mention the other towns either that or many I mean I feel like the I believe we believe like makes it sound like we don't actually know what's going on in surrounding towns it doesn't well we really don't that's my point Heather
I mean yeah we know you know from reading the paper or Doug's involvement we know what m is doing we know what barnable is doing but but we really don't know what they're doing and I don't see that it affects our letter one way or the other I think it's just a more accurate statement of where we're
coming from I mean you know it's going to have an impact on them and that's what the letter says well I mean so you could also so I don't feel strongly about this either fou or that fouth and other Cape towns just drop the off yeah I mean you know we know it's affecting Yarmouth because we've seen their letter
right we definitely yeah I don't think it's accurate to say all whether it's that or we believe I think that makes perfect sense in the second second paragraph um if I understood what you were saying correctly where it says and
to prevent any dollars is it really to prevent any borrowing as opposed to Dollars am I understanding how the program works so first of all point of clarification this was drafted by Amy L okay yeah no I mean that's and I understand it was done
quickly but you know but any funds any funds I mean you because later on or at least in the letter to uh we're using funding rather than actual dollars yeah change that to
funds yeah it's fine got uh last second to the last sentence in that paragraph do we want to highlight that we have 14 Coastal ements that that are being you know the most on K I kind of had the same thought you know I think maybe we
want to put that in our letter I think we should call ourselves up highlight yeah you know that that it affects us probably because of so many ements that we have probably more than any other Town exactly and it highlights that it calls us out I think new a new sentence
well no I think it could you could keep the sentence uh let's see the towns fining for RO these prob okay and also without any advanced notice maybe that should be without I would say sufficient I would say sufficient sufficient yeah that's that's
that's more accurate catch that last paragraph third paragraph you know the town the last sentence maybe you could incorporate some along the town's Wastewater plans which deal with the you know the 14
embayments that we have the most in par the most on cap cot yeah how how about um where just re continuing on in that sentence the town's Wastewater plans are designed to remove nitrogen from our sensitive coastal areas we can say from
our yeah that's where I had it actually 14 sensitive and then in parenthesis we can say the most on Cape Cod yes the other thing that that stood out to me in those in that last sentence of that
paragraph is the way it reads right now and not that I don't want us to be ambitious leaders and going Beyond minimums but it reads like this is an optional thing that we are deciding to do this is mandated well we volunteered to do
watered permits right BN isn't doing that they're going to leave their customers to just deal with d themselves so it is it's not really a viable option or a good option but theoretically what the state did is they said this is not a state mandate you
don't have to file you don't have to obtain a watershed permit you can just force everyone to put in IAS that was our that was our our fulcrum on that that we did have that option before when we decided to do the
initial I IA thing in the beginning wasn't it didn't we vote something that we voted yeah we we've we've notified the Department of Environmental Protection that we intend to file water and yeah and that's what we used as the falum to not be lumped into this is just
the way it is right I mean forgive me for not remembering the exact yeah so it it prents it prevents the Mandate of IAS for every property in the Watershed from being going into effect I think what
that's how we protected ourselves from it right and you weren't on the bo I don't think you were on the board for that discussion so I mean basically you know understanding the the need to get it done the letter to m mcar is essentially
yarm's letter with our numbers andos okay can I can we just did we make all the edits we need to on the letter to the governor can we just the last paragraph mentioned to also change that to just
other yes yeah okay so we can move to the other letter we ready I also see the tenant government just for the heck of it okay okay I'm sorry Bob so I didn't mean to
interrupt you but go ahead with the letter you know I mean I don't want to completely word Smith the next letter I think it you know I read over yarm's letter it seemed to it you encapsulate what we wanted to do in my direction was to to to uh use the Yarmouth letters as
a template um quite honestly because it was uh kind of time sensitive but yeah there any lawyers do that all the time Bo we take what somebody else did and just you know change the names of course you do no need to reinvent the wheel is what I always say exactly one one
question I did have on the first paragraph it specifically calls out the elimination eliminating the carryover provision but does not call out the 50 million funding cap well it um and that's maybe because
it sort of does in the middle of the parag it says however under D's new policy the town cannot count on srf remaining for the remaining 10 million so implicitly it references it but you're right it doesn't explicitly identify that the cap is 50
million yeah I guess I would just that first sentence you know concerns about changes which cap per applicant funding at 50 million and eliminate the carryover provisions good yeah that's good y I like it which uh cap funding at
50 million annual yep when's this have to be in again Monday yes what's today Saturday Saturday yeah it Lees what tomorrow Sunday we'll get it via we'll do it via
email and then we'll do a hard copy um any other edits or do you need more time just we have plenty of time so couple minutes that's yep go [Applause] ahead I guess I I like um
Bob's suggestion from the first letter of working in there somewhere you know we this is a much more operational letter and I get that we're focusing on the immediate impact of changes in 2025 to the the Great Pond but getting
in there somewhere that this is the the first of 14 and so this is not just a this project issue MH well it's not the first it's one of yeah one of one of the 14 that
remains to be addressed insert that sentence in the governor's letter Town's Wastewater plans are designed to remove nitrogen from 14 sensitive I do think uh I have a suggestion in that paragraph which one which one first
paragraph uh the U the sentence that says the Great Pond phase one project included the 2025 iup for $50 million is actually $60 million project that the town we say was assuming M I
think we could make thater and say that the town relied upon depended on depending practice I think we can say present tense because as of this moment it's about to go to town true so is relying on or depending on yeah depending relying whatever but yep
either one I'd go with is Reliant yeah is relying upon to cover yeah yeah I think so yeah and I would even say based on prior you know yeah based on based on current
policy on current policy exactly um I'm I'm going to so this letter was drafted by Yarmouth and they I think they have a $200 million project that's on the iup um I I don't know if I'm just thinking
about what the realistic options that the state has and um you know I think long term we know the goal is we need more money going into the pot otherwise there won't be enough money to fund all these projects but in the interim that money is not there today and the state
may need to make an uncomfortable decision and I think we still want to push for this change but I wonder if we want to characterize it a little differently in terms of the the listed demands so there may need to be a cap and I think sort of Heather may have
been sort of alluding to this or a pause that was something that was but a lot of heads were nodding when they said if you have to take a pause for a year tell us re reallocate funds and then we'll plan for the following year how
does that hurt you in a queue though I mean if you remove yourself willingly out of something I don't know just saying it was just something that came up and it and this under secretary was like might be something come [Music]
backwards you know what I'm saying though you we don't need it but right 50 million then makeing 75 is going to help yeah I'm sorry I don't have a I don't have a quick easy answer um so my I guess my question is do we do we want to
just soften it a little bit and instead of resend resend the cap you know maybe resend or raise the cap I mean 50 million is pretty low but if they had had to cap it at 100 in order to sort of equitably
meet needs of all communities that's my point right right there I mean y looking for $200 million they're smaller than than we are and all we want is 60 right right and bar yeah I think Yarmouth Barnstable and mashby are the three that
have really big projects um I guess I don't know this is negotiation tactics but we don't want there to be a cap if there has to be a cap we want it to be higher I think if we ask for No Cap and they say come back yeah they can they
can come to the like everybody's throwing a fit maybe the cap needs to be higher maybe they can come to that on their own instead of Us opening the door may should be 250 million and I I'm sure nobody's asking for less money and I disagree with softening it yeah that's what Ian like I I think okay I say we
ask for can they what's the worst they could do we ask for everything okay have there been discussions with our state reps or any of that Doug I mean has have theyve been brought into the discuss this literally got shot over to
us two days ago MH and we were lucky that we were having this um Workshop otherwise we would have had to call something else so if there are no other edits and some of some of you may still be looking at it U Peter and I will go ahead Peter
captured the comments and the edits and we'll go ahead and get this out via email first thing Monday morning and follow up with a we'll get it to the respective parties do we need to vote it I thought so um and it does say that
we can vote appropriate action on any item listed even though it's not listed as a vote so I would entertain a motion mam chair I'll motion um uh the formulation of of this these letters as described by the town manager to be
distributed by Monday noon time or by Monday end of day and business day is it proposed that we're going to each be listed on the letter like Yas was or is just going to be come from from Nancy as far as actually yeah I was going to ask you know one of the
one of the ways uh another maybe another edit to the letter one of the ways to sort of make it clear is to put in the letter that it was voted unanimously on X date but then it can be signed by you know either by the town manager or by n the resolution is to direct you know direct the chair and the town manager to
sign the letter Y it was to approve the letter the letter direct to direct our signature stamp right we do yeah that's another option I mean yeah I mean it might look better if we all I like it when spelled out with everyone's names yeah I can sign the
physical I would agree and so can I I can do whatever we can also use the stamp that's vote behind it stamp M I won be by that stamped okay's yeah that that's my motion yeah yeah okay so the motion moves with the edits
correct um and with sending out that it has been approved by the unanimously voted on today's date and with all signatures second that okay so we have a motion in a second any further discussion amongst the board hearing
none all those in favor I I unanimous thank you folks I'm sorry that was quick yeah let's take we'll take five minutes let's bring this meeting back to order after just a 7 minute recess and we're going to look at uh business item
number five discussion and update on the abuse of Municipal funding for IIA systems and I'm going to hand that over to Mr Johnson St and attorney O'Keefe thank you madam chair so uh as the board is aware um
we about a year ago we started looking at U potential funding for Innovative alternative septic systems and as part of our comprehensive Wastewater management plan uh the same issue
relates to to urine diversion and the question that was raised was is it an appropriate use of Municipal funds uh to subsidize an improvement on private property um so you know in this case private property where a septic system
would be improved to remove nitrogen as a required part of a watershed permit uh to be filed in order to comply with title five of the um States Wastewater regulations and the the initial um
review of that with an attorney of the day there was uh there was a detailed email sent and a conversation with former Finance director uh Ed sento with the attorney of the day at the Department of Revenue indicating
that no um because the improvements were on private property that it was not a um a public purpose and it was not a proper use of Municipal funds and attorney o' looked at the matter as well and came to
the same conclusion um we have since been discussing this with other municipalities and um I initiated a meeting with um through the cape and Islands water protection fund so with
the um chair of the of the management Board of that fund um and staff to the fund from the Cape Cod Commission we arranged a meeting with representatives of the state revolving fund and the Department of Environmental Protection to raise this question because from you
know from our perspective there is a public purpose right these Watershed regulations are all about a public purpose and the state has uh the Department of Environmental Protection has indicated very clearly
that one tool one mechanism that you can use to comply with those Watershed permits is enhanced nitrogen removal for septic systems so there is a case to be made that there is a public benefit when a an individual homeowner puts a Nitro
nitrogen removing septic system on their private property um the state revolving fund did confirm in this meeting and attorney Keef was at this meeting as well um they did confirm that they have determined that IAS is an eligible use
of State evolving funds so that's very helpful in making the case um and the Department of Environmental Protection representative that was at that meeting concurred uh so that's really moving us
a lot closer to a comfort level that um that we would not be successfully challenged about the use of Municipal funds we we would really like to nail this down by getting a letter from the Department of Revenue um so that is a
piece that we are still working on um the representative from the state revolving fund did say he was going to reach out to a contact at the Department of Revenue I have not heard back um on that followup yet um and I will be following up with the lieutenant
governor's office as well I had a very brief conversation with um with Sarah Peak who's now staff to the lieutenant governor about this matter um and I'll be reaching out to her to see if she can assist with that as well well and that is all I have I don't know
if that was great um I don't know so I guess I'll just add um The Legal Foundation for the um original concerns that both Ed senteo and I raised about whether this is a
proper expenditure of Municipal funds um the the Legal Foundation is comes from the anti-a Amendment of the Constitution and um there are a couple citations a couple of different citations to the Constitution it's not
just um it's not just there's one part section 18 of the Constitution um that talks that is specifically called out as the anti-a amendment but everyone always forgets that there's a second citation also um the anti-a amendment
States um that no Grant or appropriation of Public public money or a loan of credit can be authorized by any municipality for the purpose of founding or maintaining or aiding and then it lists
a whole bunch of um like nonprofit organizations or religious organizations but this the anti-a amendment needs to be coupled with a different section of the law which is article 7 which states that government
is instituted for the common good for the protection safety prosperity and happiness of the people and not for the profit honor or private interest of any one man family or class of men so reading these together um there's
one um legal resource that Municipal attorneys always site to when this question arises whether Municipal funds can be spent on a particular purpose and it's a document called Municipal expenditures proper public purposes and
it's issued from it's in your packet it's issued by attorney Mitchell from the municipal Finance law Bureau it's from 2006 the law has not changed and it is relied upon by every Municipal attorney in the Commonwealth um when this question comes up and I just want
to point you towards the first page of that document um where it talks about public purpose limitations and it very explicitly says that public funds canot be used for private purposes um cities and towns have the
right to spend money for any purpose where the public good will be served but not where the expenditure of money is directly for the private benefit of certain individuals so what's happening here from a legal standpoint is that um
I am not yet convinced but I'm very close to being convinced that the public purpose of the expenditure of these funds supercedes the the private purpose here where um the money would go it's
it's proposed to go to uh support it would be given to private land owners to be able to construct on their own property improvements to their private property that would benefit them but you take a
step back and there's an overarching public purpose where we all know we have had this conversation a million times that we are in a crisis right now with our water sheds and with nitrogen loading and and um part of being able to
solve this purpose for the for the this problem that we're having for the entire Community is this piece of it this piece with being able to help homeowners with building their IA funds um there's a very good argument that there's a public
purpose here but I just want I just want the do to sign off on it so we're almost there not quite and my hesitation here in saying 100% this this is okay this doesn't violate the anti-a amendment it
comes from a risk assessment standpoint um there if municipalities spend money that um is not for a public purpose there is what's called a 10 taxpayer lawsuit where 10 taxpayers
could sue the town to it's essentially an injunction to stop the town from spending the money and I don't know that what I have here is enough to win that
lawsuit yet I think we're close but I just want I just want someone at the do to say go ahead me ask it maybe a dumb question but if we adopt that approach to that language
right what what is the how do you identify to what person's private property constitutes what's in the language because what if the RO what if you need a roof on your house and it's you know you can't afford it but it's a
public saf it's it's a private safety hazard or whatever how do you differentiate between legitimacy and or you know where do you draw the line and if that is even a coherent question but yeah the first thing that it that came to my mind is does this create some kind
of Precedence by by the way the uh by the way it's read by whoever that's a great question and that's part of why I have stood so firmly here because I don't want the decisions that
that the town is making right here to open a door to anyone saying well if you're providing Municipal funds to private homeowners so that they can um adhere to the law about um D regulations
and select board policy IES about the um requirement to uh to um build an IIA then why can't I have Municipal funds to put a railing on my deck because that's
that's required by the building shingles or lead paint or any of that this is why I have a suggestion out well so I just want to just finish that sentence and then and um so this is why if what I'm looking for from the do is something that limits
to these facts and to this particular purpose and say yes because it is the D has already said it's an eligible project under for srf funds now if we can just get some kind of guidance from the do saying for this limited purpose
you can do this and I'm not trying to poo poo this because I believe in this part of it I just don't want to open Pandora's box or create some kind of opening of Pandora's Box well if you did it for this why can't we do it for that go ahead Doug so in Falmouth and other towns the towns have provided grinder
pumps on private property mhm yes that is probably a pretty good example of the the state turning choosing to look away and just say that may not have been 100% appropriate but it's effective now we got another situation where
there's a mandate of IAS or sewering the town always cooperates and and works with the homeowners to do the sewering that's a standard practice but but what if the town were to be the one to purchase the Ia box it's there's two parts to a a septic system you have the
standard tank then you have the denitrifying tank which is often can be an added feature to an existing system if you have the room and the piping can be manipulated in a way and the height pardon me and and the height for it yeah exactly so maybe in half the cases it
might work you know in another case you might have to move the tank or something but what if the town specifically created a program to purchase these units and provide them to the homeowner and do the monitoring so it takes it off
their plate we're providing it to them and even if we don't relinquish ownership maybe they give us a license to place it on their property and the town owns it and maintains it I think that would be a specific purpose that you wouldn't be opening any kind of pendor box because it's just one
specific how do you pay for it how do you pay for the we have to fund it the way we fund sewering we' have to get a a debt exclusion and take it to town meeting and take it to the voters and if the voters vote for it townwide then who's to say that it's not a fair use of town funds so I think
we've explored all options on this um what you're talking about it would need an easement not a license getting an easement from a private property owner that's difficult sometimes but if there's a benefit in return it's sometimes easier but the the problem is
that that's is the ownership and continuing maintenance of um of an what is essentially an extension of the sewer system on private property um we certainly could I could craft an agreement for that would talk about
liability and ownership um ownership rights and maintenance obligations for all of the homeowners that would be involved that is a huge undertaking for the town mad and it's something that the DPW has
expressed that they cannot nor do they want to do go ahead manager I know that when I was installing microfast systems there there was a monthly inspection on it because of uh two when we were putting
them in as microfast systems there were two compartment tank right but there was monthly inspections and then they were by by uh annual um overall inspections and then
service I just and it those fees on an individual basis were astronomical I just don't know how we would sustain the workforce for that and and the money to do that and just housing all that information you know what I mean and
then enforcing it if it's not being done because a microfacet will run without working the key to the micro just the microfast system is it it'll continue to run just like a regular system until it fails but the system will still run it just won't remove the nitrogen right and
that's why we need effective monitoring and the uh testing center is making a program where they'll do the monitoring so we won't have to have our staff doing the monitoring that's already being in the works of they know that this program is needed and right now half the or more
I don't know how the percentage but a lot of the systems that are in place aren't really working because they're not being properly maintained I think I think that a a a great possibility would be if we were going to support something like that any new commercial construction or uh
uh uh projects that we we get behind that should be part of the deal to help with that you know what I'm saying even though if we make it part of the deal that doesn't mean it's going to be properly maintained unless you have a system if it's part of your your special permit it would be I mean that's a part
of the m gostone and then Mr feels like two different two different discussions here to some extent obviously linked um obviously to accomplish the goal of nitrogen reduction we need to make sure
that whatever gets installed works on a longterm basis I get that to me I think the more immediate issue with the scope of IIA installations that we're currently looking at for our Watershed permits is trying to help
homeowners with an enormous cost that in my mind is overwhelmingly for public benefit right it I mean I won't comment on whether I would you know whether it would stand up in court but to me there's a very clear
difference between we require your deck to be safe for you and the people who are on your deck versus we require you to put less nitrogen into our common environment those are very different things and it's a really enormous cost figuring out how to bring that cost down
um and share the equitably share the cost of what is a public good across our our taxpayers in our town is the the issue I would agree Mr mcell and then we we've got to find a way to fix this and help
help help the community fix it uh you know I mean we we the town when I I mean we bear some responsibility in this you know in this in this whole situation I mean the town has developed uh to what it is because people have been putting
these kinds of systems in and we've been approving building permits and cosos and uh you know and we've benefited from it and I think it's difficult for us to now lay the entire burden uh you know on the homeowner I think the town has a certain
place to to fill wherever that place may be but I this is my question and maybe you could help me through it is let's take a typical homeowner and a typical IIA system that becomes necessary for
one reason or another we're waiting for the Board of Health regulations you know to see where they come out but let's say you've got a $40,000 system and you got someone on reasonably you know you know income set
income a pensioners social security you know not a heck of a lot of money in the bank how does that person right now you know what's available to that person other than that person's going to the bank and borrowing money or taking
money out of their retirement account or whatever what right now is available to that person to get them to that $40,000 how does it work well the county Loan program yeah no I mean that's I mean I'm look that's that's what I'm asking I mean we hear a lot about it but
I'd like to know exactly what what we're talking about if we can sure so you know I want to be very specific about you know right now there are very few existing homes that are going to be required to put in an IIA right right so
I don't even know that the question has ever Arisen but if you're asking tomorrow you know some point in the future after a watershed permit with mandated IAS is adopted is that your question like not today but when not okay so so then the answer is there
there are two two Avenues there's a a County Septic Loan program and there is a state septic tax credit that was for title five though wasn't it or was that five it's been expanded now the um right it has been expanded and we do have a
letter there's a letter in your packet from the um Department of Revenue confirming that not just for all uh septic systems um but specifically connected to a watershed permit if a
nitrogen red ucing septic upgrade is required as part of a watershed permit then it is eligible for the state income tax credit and that's what we're trying to get so that it's it's it's it's applicable to everybody regardless of their income tax Li it's not deductible
but to the extent they're paying taxes and a refund we're asking for the $188,000 tax credit to be made refundable because if you're a very low income person you might pay very low tax and if you only got a few years to write it off you might not get the credit
right so there's the county Loan program and the state income tax credit how does the county Loan program work um it is a I believe it's a low interest loan that you apply for um and again it has to be you know I don't I
don't believe it's you would be eligible for new construction but if you're replacing a septic system some system fails and now rather than spending you know x amount to do what I've always done in the past and what we've allowed people to do in the past now they have
to do an IA system that's going to cost them double X right right how do they fund the difference between X and and double x that's essentially what we're asking yeah so they so the county doesn't provide the principal right
right it just provides a loan okay now I mean is and it's low interest and it's over a period of time and you know then that's fine but I mean does everyone qualify for that loan regardless of income yes I defer to do I'm not really if a
customer who's using it right now building a million dollar house and they used it because it's low cost okay I mean I was thinking more that makes I mean somebody's building a million dollars I mean obviously they wouldit they qualify for the LA I'm thinking of the person on
limited income oh would they qu would they be would they be able to get qualify for the the loan that's my question want to speak to that about so I mean I think those are the kinds of questions we need to you know or or you
know I think people want to know the answers to okay it's great this is program is it automatic do I have to qualif you know I mean it's stuff like that to actually get down to the you know to the to the nitty-gritty on on these questions yeah and that ties into what I was um wanting to say earlier
which is we are a long way from being able to come to you and say here's our here's our plan for for funding IAS if you know once once we get over that hurdle assuming we do get over the hurdle that we feel it is a legal use of Municipal funds we I I I don't want
anyone to come away from this conversation thinking the plan is that the town is going to fund 100% of all of all IAS um because I don't think that is within our um you know certainly not something that I would propose and it would it would be
funded through a you know a debt exemption that is going to have a tax impact on everybody so that's a complicated question that is you know that we're going to have to do a deep dive on and you know and what we're some of the factors we're going to be looking
at are you know there's a benefit to everybody to clean up our estories right so there's a public benefit um and then and then there are Equity questions around for example what are the folks
that are required to connect to a sewer what are they paying you know so they're they're paying a betterment they're paying a connection fee and then they're paying annual maintenance costs um and those you know we were looking at
those numbers just yesterday the uh Finance director Wastewater superintendent and I um for this next project and I'm hesitant to quote a number but it's you know it's well in excess of $30,000 for the
betterment um and so if that's the betterment cost that the homeowner paying you know we may want to look at that as a rough equivalency to you know we're not going to pay 100% of IAS but you know do we Peg it to that betterment
or you know but and we want to consider maintenance costs you know we want to put the whole thing in look at affordability look at the loans that are available because that's a significant piece as well look at the tax credit that's available and then come back with a plan about what we think might be a
reasonable subsidy so I have a question so if the Mandate goes through how what is your estimate of the number of homeowners who would have to install an IIA that's a good question do you have any because if you're talking about how much it's going to C cost in totality I
need to know how many yeah how many homes that's my first question my second my second point is I want to go back to something Heather said I cannot believe that protecting our water and the public benefit of that cannot supersede the
private purpose I just I don't see how that is possible when it comes to water so I'm hoping we can we can move forward on that but but my question is I'd like to know the number of homes um there's 22,000 homes in fouth
and more than half I mean significantly more than half are are in one Watershed or another I'm going to take a guess and say it's maybe 15,000 15,000 70% I mean that's something like that that's where it breaks down to 70% 14 15,000 there
I'm looking at a presentation that Christian wrath genen gave to the water quality management committee um 18,400 Parcels in nitrogen sensitive areas but the plan is to create
boundaries within those nitrogen sensitive areas for mandatory IAS so it would not be all of those wouldn't be all of them and also that includes the sew section or sections to be SE like in SE Co is 2,000 you know in those other EST you probably got six or 7,000 that
are going to be 5,000 sewed yeah yeah okay thank you related to that I guess I would be interested I don't expect anybody to have this answer at their fingertips at the moment but with things like um both the septic tax credit and
the County Septic loans having been established my understanding for kind of the routine people need to repair replace upgrade septics not for necessarily this kind of thousands of IAS needed in a confined
period of time are either of those mechanisms set up for prepared for that escalation in in demand or are we going to hit a point where they say we we're out of money right we were used to doing I don't know what it is a few dozen a
hundred or so of these a year and we've suddenly got a thousand people coming to US every year for tax credits and yeah they probably will hit a wall well with the if I if I might yeah and then I'll go on the on the state income tax exemption it's passed it's law it and
it's not it's a it's a revenue loss it's not an expenditure item so in some sense there isn't a fund that's going to run out the legislature could get up at some point and say we're losing too much money ex if it's refundable right right if it's refundable that's expenditure Beyond that's true yeah y
sounds true go ahead initially initially that fund was created for if say you have you inherited your your grandparents house and it had old school cess pools in it and you either wanted to sell it or the or the system failed
in either instance you your clock starts ticking so you have to upgrade that system within I think it's a year you know you and what they do is they monitor how many times it's being pumped so what happens is you get on a list and
it was forcing people to upgrade and when that happened they didn't have the money so they came up with this mechanism to be able to help them through the county I don't think the county was ever expecting to your point this the abundance so quickly of these
upgrades because up until 2 years ago like my house has been up for I think 78 years I went I installed it topof the line everything and it cost me $40,000 and I did it you know what I'm saying so
at that time it was top of the line septic system so in order to put an IIA on that it'll cost me another 40 but I don't think that that was the intention of that fund initially it was to help
people that had no choice you know and and it wasn't as it wasn't as huge as this is going to be if that's the only mechanism they used I promise you that I'll put them in and there's been different kinds that are just crazy and
space consuming as well some people don't have the room to put some of these systems in true and what do you do with no sewering in in sight what do you do and you're going to run into those problems and then those problems are going to be litigated which is more money mhm you know you want me to do
this but I don't have the room to do this what do you what do I do and you don't have the installers to put them in I mean that's that's the real practical problem is it's they're right DG I mean from what I hear right now we don't have the problem but it will as it becomes more you got
to know what you're doing just the every Fly by Night installer these are intricate systems with engineering behind it engineering based it's not throwing a thg tank in a pit in the ground like it used to be they're very they're high tech even the
ones that are non are Hightech now I have the answer to your question oh good um the approximate number of parcels in suggested IA Geo boundaries in all nitrogen sensitive areas in fouth is about 6,500 Parcels oh that's not
that's a l bit that was bad it signed the beginning times $110,000 is only 65 million only it's smaller it's smaller you do I do okay but that's the Geo boundary that's
not the entire Watershed no right that's the number based on the Draft plans of the water quality management committee that's the number of parcels that would be required to upgrade to Ania but that's just in the in our own Town's planning for
implementing Geo boundaries yes but the state if you read closely the uh the Mandate you know the um to meet the tmdls they they're not really talking a lot about it now but if you read it it says eventually we're going to have to
clean up all the watersheds so it's it's 65 I think is a limited number I think later it's probably going to grow more expand okay that's different from my understanding I I thought the regulation said we had 14 impaired watersheds and this is our plan to address the 14
impaired W sheds now in the future could there be another impaired Watershed perhaps we're running out of watersheds probably most of them pretty much all of them yep but and you know I I will say the Board of Health is looking at going
beyond the Geo boundaries for new construction right and looking at putting in required IA systems for new construction and for change of use right and I think they're working on a policy aren't they between regulation yeah because I I attended a meeting and I
think Bob was there with the water quality management committee and the Board of Health and they were they were working through that potentially similar to the way uh construction is treated in the coastal zone if you do a significant improvement over 50% of the value of the structure then you'll be triggering the
IA well that's I mean I that that that has some limit that has some problems with it you know as far as the the the the guidepost right because you may improve your house by 50% of its value that has absolutely nothing to do with
the outflow of of of uh of sewers yeah and does that make you know is that is that a fair way to to to determine what substantial Improvement I I think that's one of the things the Board of Health I think is struggling as to how to define you know at least one
person suggested that it be somehow connected to the increase in outflow as a result of the Improvement but if you're going to build a garage or expand your porch or do something that has absolutely no to do relevance to to
there there's preced for that right like what you're talking about it doesn't it's not that you're improving specifically for Coastal resilience it's if there's significant Improvement you have to meet a higher standard if you're in coastal zone the same thing is true with ADA compliance you hit a certain significance of renovation you have to
upgrade to so I think there's I think there's precedent for it doesn't have to be renovation related to a specific purpose in order to trigger some of these requirements to upgrade to best practices driven by bedroom not bathroom you can have 500 bathrooms in your house in one bedroom which means there maybe
two people living in the house you can have as many bathrooms and that's how it's driven but it could also be triggered if they vote it if going some that's going to be the biggest sticking point I there's going to be a lot lot of legality behind this isn't there there's going to be a lot of
lawsuits and it's possible that's why I'm trying that's why I'm being very careful about trying to protect the town's interest right now yeah like right at the beginning just being very very conscientious about what we're doing a lot of what I'm hearing from you
know and it goes right back to the housing crisis we continue to put these housing projects in that are detrimental to the nitrogen loading and the and the people that feel like they're minding their own business and living their
lives in their houses they feel like they're being you know what I mean they're being singled out to fund our agenda as a town to create more housing they feel like some feel like we are exacerbating our problems and asking
others to pay for it another way to look at it is the people who' have been here for 40 years have been C created the problem how so with no new construction we have a problem we've done nothing Peter but overbuild these
Lots go to the heights go to the Heights and see I I grew up here she grew up you grew up in the Heights didn't you there was nothing in the heights but Cottages was all woods and cottages and Cottages go look at it now with all of those
expansions came bigger sure but you can't talk about housing without talking about water and I think sometimes sometimes we get groups that just talk about water and just talk about housing and you cannot do that right right but you see when when
there's opposition to these big housing projects you see where water comes into it quite a bit as as you know a public in order to in order to supersede a special permit or or a um an affordable housing project one of the
one of the stopping points in theory is um Public Safety and then that's where the water comes in you know what I mean we just heard it in a couple big cases you know what I mean but it goes to the state state do you know they don't
care so whether or not we created this problem we continue exacerbate the problem I mean we should be able to learn from the past but we don't it's a thorny set of issues H it's a thorny set of issues because they're
they interact something's got to give one way or the other what do we we we make we add 30% more housing in the town take up every bit of the property and everybody has IAS and it still doesn't cause uh uh you
know it still causes a nitrogen problem then what do we do I don't think you can have it both ways we're only so big that's going to be for you guys to handle sure close the bridge that's why
why Scott's so happy right now anything else from the board any other comments so um go ahead what's the inclination uh about the success you you you sounded like you were optimistic about success in uh applying betterments
to the IAS set did I hear that correctly you're getting starting to be optimistic about it yes yes I you know I I can't say I can't guarantee we're going to get that letter from the Department of Revenue but um but I'm
cautiously optimistic I think we've got a good shot at me too should we come up with a a plan of what we intend to do and then send them a letter and saying this is what we want to do what do you think well I you know what we approach them as the cape and Islands
water protection fund for on behalf of the entire cape and different towns are going to have different approaches so you know I think we want a generic um letter from them that says you know yes it's allowed or no it's not allowed or yes it's allowed and and here are the
the boundaries right here are the guideposts for ensuring that you know that there's a a public purpose and not that the you know preponderance of the benefit is public and not private or I don't know what you know terminology they may use
um and then and then the hard work for us begins to craft a policy that's going to take you know that's going to take a long time and a lot of stakeholders and a lot of dialogue which a long time though in an estimate you think I mean roughly nothing not to hold your feet to the fire to come up with a plan yeah I
mean and this isn't to to Corner you I'm just curious what what is your a year maybe MH not long as least at least I was going to say that's not as long as I would have imagined it would have taken because it is intricate M I'm sorry but I have I have
an engagement I have to fellow board members we're close to wrapping up thank you guys any other comments um also you guys I guess we're going to let the W water quality management commit guide us further but
I'm wondering about the U feedback from the board about the idea of a townwide system of monitoring and us paying for that because the IAS right now as they're being individually cited and monitored I don't think is very
successful and the health agent has said that it's a big load for him trying to chase people to get the inspections and get the monitoring and be in compliance so we need help I think somebody needs to bring it to you know bring the issue to us you know with the
facts and figures that you're you're you're saying are out there and then I think it's something we need to need to consideran I guess I mean if the problem is that widespread something but but we have to have something to react to as has the Board of Health submitted anything to
your office regarding this I haven't seen anything okay I was just wondering if they had put anything that no but I know the test center is developing a program and they're put putting it out there for us to say you maybe we're interested or not and what's the timeline on get on that's M de what you
know a timeline Doug when they're going to be uh I don't know exactly where they're at but I think they're ready to talk about it now is that a question we could refer to water quality management and Board of Health um for them to consider and deep in this planning and
and think provide us with some give us some advice and recommendations yeah M did come to the water quality management committee a month or so ago and outlined that they see a need for this program they're working to develop such a program that might be viable you know capewide even we'll follow up with the
health agent because honestly I had not heard I was aware of the issue but I haven't heard from the health agent on on on this either so we'll follow up with right now I think it's a water quality management that's kind of investigating it and uh but it's probably a lot of the burden falls on to
the he yeah he's yeah we'd want we want mentioned that it's a challenge for him to to get to be in compliance or you know overwhelm but I think we need more specifics before we can Ian I think we need to see it more information yeah yeah I mean I but we should be ahead of
it too I mean if mtech is you know at that point and looking to us we don't want to just start the process then we should start you know getting this information just want you to beware if they haven't made it known to us that they're looking at and they have some sort of plan we can't talk about it
because we don't know that they we need more information yeah I believe the Board of Health has also um been talking for some time about developing in response to some of these issues of which systems seem to work well which ones they see repeated
problems with has been working on potentially some guidance to homeowners developers something to try to so it's between the two of them they are getting just yeah more more of their perspective on where they're issues and this potential proposal from Mass
tach yeah I think it's about taking the burden off of sort of two things one there isn't really there aren't enough uh um qualified private contractors to do this monitoring and maintenance and
secondly to make it easier for individual homeowners rather than having them having to go out to the private market and find someone that is you know qualified and reputable you know to to look at it as sort of a a utility and that's I think that's the concept that
Mast is looking at is you know ramping up a staff of qualified people and and it may even be that the that the homeowners pay for it but you know maybe Mast can bring the cost down or at least you know create a large
enough Workforce that will meet the the demand sounds like we don't even have installers to do IA so we that problem we have invested interest in making sure that the monitoring is done properly I mean that's something and we have to invest in that
yes some of our funds we we need to invest it otherwise we're going to be faced with a problem down the road and why would we be doing this if we can't monitor it this success exactly For Better or For Worse if it's a single monitoring system then we get
much more systemic data about whether or not our efforts are working with a whole bunch of private contractors going out and doing individual homes I don't know how we ever get that and when and when you making the homeowner pay for it sometimes it doesn't get done right and that's where the problems come
in and then that's where Scott is chasing people around and threatening fines and you know becoming and then your data just isn't accurate yeah that's the biggest part of it is they just not working by the time you figure out that it's not working
it's kind of too late okay I'll entertain a motion to adjourn third okay I have a motion in second any further discussion amongst the board seeing none all those in favor I [Music]
[Music] the Steamship Authority is a proud partner in many fouth community events including town meeting coverage and for
good reason not only do we have a terminal in Offices here about onethird of our employees call Falmouth their home we always work hard to serve our neighbors friends and the traveling public we recently put seven new electric buses into service at our fou parking lots soon we'll be adding new vessels to our complete continuing work
on our energy efficient Woodle terminal buildings and adding solar panels at our largest parking lot at the Steamship Authority we're serving the islands and you welcome to the fouth Chamber of Commerce the Falmouth chamber is dedicated to working on behalf of our
members to make Falmouth a better place to live work and conduct business we are committed to developing the economic cultural educational and Civic interests of our community and welcome the support from all organizations to achieve our combined goals whether you call F at
home our a summer resident or a visitor we hope you take advantage of all that the chamber has to offer hosting services for fctv dorg are provided by meganet Communications meganet offers a wide array of Internet services including Mega backup cloud
service server collocation T1 fiber Metro ethernet as well as telephone services such as hosted pvx and digital voice their number one goal is to to keep your Communications Network up and running and allow you to focus on growing your business
877634 2638 or meet. net