Good evening everyone. Um this uh as a preliminary matter this is Jillianghast. I am the chair of the finance committee. Um this is a open uh meeting of the finance
committee. It is being conducted via Zoom. Uh speakers in the agenda will be participating remotely and the chair may allow for the public to provide comment. In accordance with open meeting law regulation 940 CMR29.10,
please be advised that all finance committee members or FINRCOM members are attending this meeting remotely. In add in addition, because FINCOM members are attending remotely, all votes taken at this meeting will be by roll call vote. Lastly, if any FINCOM members are not
clearly audible to their fellow members or any members of the public, please notify the chair immediately and we will do our best to remedy the problem and will inform the public whether the meeting will continue. Um, please permit me to confirm that all FinCom members and persons anticipated
on the agenda are present and can hear me. Finom members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Uh, Nathan, >> yes. Linda, >> yes. >> Katie, >> yes.
>> Nicole, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> All right, great. Um, and tonight we will also be having anticipated speakers
from the various citizens petitions. Um, and I see that quite a few of you are on already, so thank you for attending. Um we will get to that topic shortly. Um but I will first uh continue reading um our remote meeting script. So the um
finance committee would like to hear public comments. If there's further action required by the board, the chair may add the matter as appropriate to a forthcoming agenda. Depending on the comment, the uh committee may, if they're able, within the confines of open meeting law, respond with
information as opposed to needing to deliberate on the matter. Please note that while the option for remote attendance and participation is being provided as a courtesy to the public, this meeting will not be suspended or terminated if technological problems interrupt the virtual broadcast to
individual attendees unless required by law. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to uh see and hear you. So, please take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. This meeting is being
recorded. Later, you can find this meeting posted to the WAVM YouTube channel. Thank you WAVM for your support. Um for meeting materials, you can find all of the meeting materials for today's meeting on board docs. Um, and we
recommend the members um and the public follow along on the agenda as posted there unless I note otherwise. Um, we will now turn to the first item on the agenda, but before we do so, please permit me to cover some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of our business and to ensure accurate
meeting minutes. I will introduce each speaker on the agenda. After they conclude the remarks, the chair will go down the line of finance committee members, inviting um them to provide any comment, questions, or motions. Please hold um until your name is called. Further, please remember to mute your
phone or computer when you are not speaking. Please remember to speak clearly and in a way that helps generate accurate meeting minutes. For any response, please wait until the chair yields the floor to you and state your name before speaking. If members wish to engage in globally with other members,
please do so through the chair, taking care to identify yourself. Um, and for items with public comment, since we have um and guests after the finance committee members have spoken, the chair may afford the public uh to provide comment. Um, I will the chair will first
ask members of the public who wish to speak to identify themselves by their names. Um, once the chair has a list of all public commentators, I will call on them and afford Um today we're going to afford 5 to 10 minutes for each of the citizens petitions uh topics for any
presentations and then we will go there with questions um a question and answer for each one individually. Um okay so that is the remote meeting script in full. Um and today's first
item on our agenda is our citizens petition. So that on the annual town meeting this year uh which is in May of 2026, there are four separate um citizens petitions. Um we have invited them here tonight to learn more about
these um motions and we will take them in order that they are currently on the draft of the annual town meeting. Um, so the first would be the citizens petition in resolution in support of changing the state flag and seal of Massachusetts.
Uh, and I believe Heather, you're the person leading that. >> Yes. Should I go ahead? >> Yes, I can hear you. Um, and thanks for that. Um, do you have do you want me to bring up that flyer or any material you would
like to share while you talk? >> Maybe the flyer would be helpful. It would be helpful for me to kind of see it. But yeah, the flyer would be great. >> All right, let me find that and then when we find that, so each of the topics, um, I'd like to afford no more than 10 minutes for sort of any
presentation. Um, and then we'll go into the questions and answers. So I will >> talk while you're finding it. >> Sure. >> Okay. Um, maybe I can just introduce myself. So my name's Heather O'Brien. Um, I'm a social worker. Um I have been
working on indigenous issues like just through social my social justice work um for a while but also um kind of through my friendship with a couple of um maynard residents who are indigenous um and they've been really you know I'm a white person um and they've been really
you know informing me and pushing me to be active um so um I've also lived in Maynard for almost 20 years uh and I'm currently on the Maynard Historical Commission. um and I've presented this to them and they're really in support of that. So
part of you know part of my um you know my background is really about kind of social justice but also correct um historical historical accuracy and kind of representing history in the correct way. Um, so I, um, also kind of came to
this, you know, through my indigenous, um, social justice work. Um, and kind of looking for something to do to, to help just create change. Um, and this is something that has that was sort of brought to me as something that I could
take action on. Um, and our town could and our town has been great. I mean, we have um, we've recognized Indigenous People's Day over Columbus Day. Um, we've done a lot of, you know, great work in our town. So, it felt like this was the right thing to to propose for
Maynard. Um, a little bit of history. So, you can see the current flag. Um there's, you know, I don't know if any of you have read it, but some of the the things that feel really like there are some things about the flag that feel really disturbing to me. Um and are is
very disturbing to all of our indigenous um uh uh Massachusetts uh residents. Um so the sword um that's above uh the indigenous person is modeled on Miles
Stand Stand's broad sword. Um and um Standish was the military commander for the Plymouth colony known for ambushing and killing native people. So that's you know it's pretty violent uh symbol to have. Um and then most of the you know a
lot of the things that were that are sort of represented the indigenous person that's represented here is not is not a really accurate representation of an indigenous person. Um, and there's sort of pieces that are pulled from all different kinds of history. Again, like
kind of very violent um, representation. So, that's that's one thing. Um, and I can kind of give you a little bit of history of just how this this issue came to be. Um, uh, the, um, the first bill to change
the flag and seal in Massachusetts was introduced in the legislature in 1985. um and has been studied, sent to committee or sidelined continuously for 37 years in a row. Um and that was until um cities and towns started voting on
it. So this is this this process that we're in right now. This is something that started to make take make you know actual movement. Um and then um uh and so then in about I think it was
Charlie Baker finally approved um a commission to start working on this. I think that was in 2022. Um uh another thing that's really important is sort of like that we can add our talent to this voice. I think that the
other piece of this is oh where it says the Latin motto yeah reads um oh I can't remember where it is but maybe it's here um the Latin motto is peace under the sword um and with a sword being held over an indigenous person you know just
feels really it's awful it's awful so I feel pretty ashamed that this is our flag um uh a couple of other things um there was a bipartisan commission that was established to study this. Um, and they that was I think the thing that was
Charlie Baker. Um, and they found that the motto and the flag is inflicting harm today and is easily represented interpreted as a celebration of settler violence perpetrated against indigenous populations. So, this is something that,
you know, just feels like we can change this. We could have an amazing flag that we all feel proud of. Um, another thing that's important is that um over this process they have asked for submissions um from the public uh and
they've gotten over a thousand submissions for new flags and I've talked to people and they're like kids have have um you know submitted things and people from indigenous tribes have submitted things like it's a very exciting thing. Um, and I think the fact that it's just stuck in the legislature,
um, is, uh, very is upsetting and sad. It's something that could we could do together as a state and have a really have a really amazing flag. Um, so this is that's, you know, that's why I'm just really um, part of, you know, wanting to
make this change. Um, so yeah, I can answer any questions um, if anybody has any. All right. Um I will kick off the questions. Uh I sort of answered one question but I do want to ask it explicitly
>> is you know this is a state level flag. >> The purpose of bringing this up at like the local level as a town obviously we >> can voice an opinion there but we are not the state authority. Uh so >> right
>> can you maybe expand on that? like why is this the right place to do this? >> Yeah. And I think it really was because this is the state the the legislature was doing nothing about this. You know, the indigenous leaders were bringing this to the legislature over and over and over again and it would just get
passed off and passed off. Um and I think it was until they started to get the message from the towns from the actual towns of Massachusetts saying like we support this. We don't want this flag to be our flag. um then it then it
started to take take hold. So and and I think so that's one piece. I think the other piece is that right now it's kind of stalled um and uh Mora Governor Mora Healey has the ability to um to to sort
of support this but they have to vote on it. The legislature has to vote on it and they just haven't done it. So it's just, you know, it's another it's just a way to kind of keep pushing the pushing the issue forward. Um, so yeah, it's just another way to do
that. Um, and and I'll sort of say like there's um right now Stow is also in the process of doing this and recently Bolton, Sudbury, and Whan all voted. So we're, you know, we're our neighbors are doing this. Um, and it's uh just seems
like it's the right thing to do. Does that answer your question? >> It does. Do you know in those other towns if they've already had their town meetings with this if this was passed? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think um Bolton, Sunbury, and Wayland were all maybe
within the last four or five years. Um so yeah, it passed. It hasn't not passed I don't think in any any um town or city. Okay. Do any other uh finance committee members have any other questions for Heather?
>> I I do. Heather, the the committees, the state level committees have been working very hard, have proposed some designs. Um why wouldn't why wouldn't you and your group work with um say our representative Hogan and Senator
Eldridge to really just finalize this? Why? Again, it's a little bit of the same of Jillian's question is it's it seems like the state, as you said, the long legislative history that people at the state level are very committed to this.
>> They've got commissions who are working very actively. They've got some designs. They're working to do this. There's no um >> uh you know, I I just don't see what this will what this would do to push it
forward. and why, you know, why as a town we should talk about things that have been set, you know, settled state law, you know, there's no, you know, no discussion here really that seems like there's a very broad consensus. People
are working on it very hard. Um, it's a set, it's a very settled issue. >> So, it just doesn't seem like, you know, the town needs to work on it. I guess I would say like, but why not?
You know, it doesn't hurt anybody. It doesn't it doesn't um you know, it doesn't take a bunch of time. It's like a it's it's sort of like a a simple action that says a lot, I think. Um so that's one way that I would answer that.
>> Sorry, that goes to Linda said a question for me, too. I mean, I can think of a thousand things that would be good things for the town of Maynard to say. >> Town meeting time is pretty limited. And, you know, I tend to think most
people would support this, but nor do I want to get into a 20 minute debate on this at town meeting. Mhm. >> Um, so and you know, my understanding is the reason the legislature hasn't done anything is because the commission can't
agree on a flag on a replacement flag. >> And I think I I as I agree with Linda that I think this is well settled and it's not like it's controversial to say the state seal is pretty antiquated and, you know, offensive, if you will.
>> Yeah. But that I I don't I'm concerned that this, you know, why aren't we talking about the war in Iran or the war in Ukraine or Venezuela or I can give you a thousand things that, you know, the town of Mayor could make a statement
on, >> but I'm concerned about town meeting being efficient and, you know, about town stuff that we really can have an impact on. >> Yeah. I mean again I will just I'll come
back to I think it's yes there are a million things that we can do. This is this is a fairly simple thing that we can do and we can add our voice to creating change and we can say yes we we support making this change.
It's a also a way to educate our town about this um so that when it starts to happen that people in Massachusetts are educated on it. Um, and I think yes, you're right that they people haven't been able to agree, but it is still um
we are still waiting to hear from them like pretty soon. Um, and so that is in the process. Um, and I think that the also that Governor Healey and also Kate Hogan have not been have not been
outwardly supportive of this. there there is a a a community of people and there are legislators that legislators that are in support of this but ours like Kate Hogan has been fairly silent on this and for I don't know why um and
so this is another way to get her to to move forward but again I mean I I think that it's it is it is something that we can do um and uh I understand sort of not wanting to get
into debate around it at town meeting. Um I can certainly do a little bit of research and see, you know, if other town meetings if things, you know, got out of hand. Um but my my impression is that that hasn't happened. Um and again
that it's it's a fairly simple and quick um thing that we can we can pass fairly quickly. Um, so again, it like sort of feels it's like a a lowhanging fruit kind of thing um that has potential to make a big difference. So,
>> are there any other questions or comments from finance committee members? All right, I'm not hearing any. I do see a hand raised um from Kathy. Did you have a comment or a question on this topic? >> A comment. It's actually uh nice that
Heather came right before us because the outdoor lighting bylaw is similar that there is has been um a proposed law before the state legislature for a long time and it just can't seem to get out of committee. So about 75 towns have
passed their own bylaw hoping that that would encourage the legislature to pass a statewide law. And so it it it sounds like the flag thing is not a unique thing that's not moving that it the
people on the outdoor lighting kind of arena are are saying that this is just a kind of phenomena of the state legislature right now. I'm not an expert on that but that's what I'm hearing from hearsay from my contingent.
>> Yeah. Thank you for sharing. All right, so I think we have taken all of our finance committee questions and comments on this. Um, we really appreciate you taking the time to talk with us, Heather. Um, and it sounds like
we're we're good on this topic. Um, we'll continue on to the other topics. You're welcome to stay. You're welcome to drop off as you like. It's an open meeting. >> Um, so I'll stop sharing this topic. >> Thank you. Um, so our next citizens petition is the regulation of outdoor lighting. Um,
which I believe is you Kathy? >> Yeah, it is. And I'm um I'm going to Would you like me to share my screen and share the presentation? >> Yeah. So, we'll do the same thing. We'll have five to 10 minutes for the presentation and then we'll have uh
questions and comments after. So, I'll start my timer here. um slideshow from the beginning. All right. Whoops. I advanced too quickly. So, this is a Green Maynard petition. It's to
regulate outdoor lighting. And um as I said a minute ago, this is something that u I think about 75 towns have passed something. Uh there are about 10 laws that towns that have done a current bylaw that is similar to what this is.
Some of the some of that 75 towns have very rudimentary uh bylaws and more and more towns are getting bylaws that are um a little more detailed and specific and and so this is modeled on a recommendation by an organization called
Dark Sky Massachusetts which is part of Dark Sky International and that's the same organization that has written the proposal for the Massachusetts state legislature. Um, another kind of comment there is that Massachusetts is the only state in New England that has not passed
an outdoor lighting bylaw and all of them are passing something similar to what we are going to propose. Um, so and again for the same reasons as Heather, we're doing this um because we'll have something in the interim, but
as much as anything, it's to encourage the state to pass a state bylaw. Um, and so when you out regulate outdoor lighting, you want to look at a number of things. Is the lighting useful? Is it targeted where you need it? Is it um too
bright or is it, you know, low enough levels to provide adequate lighting without providing more than you need? Is it controlled? Is it, you know, only on when you need it or is it wasteful and on when you don't need it? And the other thing is color. And so color is whether
it's an amber color or a white color. The amber color is a lot easier on the eyes and and um it actually makes things easier to see. The example that I can think of is with the when the car lights came out with LED lights, they're so much more
difficult to drive because of all the glare. So this does regulate color of lights if they're not shielded. Um so those are kind of the concepts. Um, and then the the law is um several pages, but kind of the highlights here
are that if you want the light shielded so that it only aims where you need it. But if it's not shielded, um, then you want it to be not too bright. So, we limited it to 60 lumens, which is a
little more than a a 40 watt light bulb. Lumens is a LED kind of thing. I'm learning a whole new vocabulary doing this. Um, and then and that's for an individual house. And then if it's for four units or more, then it can be a little brighter. It can be more like 100
watts. Um, and then if it's a like non-residential business, it can be even brighter like 200 watts. Um, and then this vertical illuminates at a property line. This is what we call light trespass. So, is it lighting property
that's not yours where it's not needed? and and it shouldn't be more than like the equivalent of moonlight. Um you're going to have some overflow, but it shouldn't be more than a full moon. Um and then the next thing is the glare
should not create a public hazard. It actually is less safe and harder to see if there's too much glare. The CCT is that color temperature and 2200K is that amber end of the light spectrum. Um, and
then accent lighting. You know, we're allowing for accent lighting, but a string of lights and most strings, I looked at them. I went into a store and I looked at string lights and most of them, uh, in fact, I couldn't find any that didn't meet this. You know, they tend to be not very bright and kind of
spread apart. Um, you know, there's some rules around landscape lighting. Um, holiday lighting. We did allow holiday lighting, but it has to be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. And then no search lights, sky beams, unless it's required by public safety personnel
or town personnel. And again, this is only for new things. So this does not apply to anything that's already existing. It's just new buildings, new fixtures. Um, and so this is just a picture of the
all of those u fixtures on the left are what this is recommending. And the ones on the right are are the ones that are not allowed unless the light bulb is like a 40 watt light bulb. U Butler Lumber was I've been to Butler Lumber.
They are stocking the light bulbs that are the the right level of lumens. And then also most lighting stores have have plenty of these shielded lights. Um if you go to Ferguson's they have a whole section dark sky lighting. Maynard
Supply. They don't stock fixtures, but they can order them and they understand what they need to order. They have all the literature. Um, so why are we doing this? Um, so human health is a big one. The Mass Medical Society is recommending that
outdoor color temperature be 2700 or less. They're recommending even less. And the reason is there um they've there were a lot of studies that have demonstrated that there are elevated rates of cancer, diabetes, obesity, sleep disruption, cardiac failure, and
stroke if there's too much white light at night. Um so this is shining into people's bedrooms. Um and then also with just ambient light at night um for people um safety. So this um quote at
the top is from the federal highway association. Scattering tends to impose a luminous haze over the retina. The effect is termed disability glare or veiling luminance. Disability glare is one of the most important elements to control in a lighting system. It affects
your ability to adequately see particularly for older drivers. So that's from the highway department. These pictures at the bottom are um are they're I they're from uh Dark Sky International. And the one on the left, you can see a building there with a
bright light with a lot of glare. And you can tell that there's a fence with maybe an opening in the fence. And that's about it. in the second picture where the person put their hand over that glare. So, you've got less glare and you can clearly see that there's a
person standing in that doorway of the fence. So, this is to me just a great example of how it's actually safer to have um lighting that is within the bounds of this bylaw. Um then then the next one is um light
pollution, waste of money and energy. I'm not going to go through this whole thing. This is just an example. Um, and then there are environmental things. It's bad for wildlife. 80% of migrating birds migrate at night and many of them use stars to navigate. 70% of mam
mammals are nocturnal and only 20% are dural. 60% fewer visits by pollinators and the presence of artificial light at night. um things like fireflies use the fire in their wings to as a a mating
mechanism and if there's too much light they can't find mates which is one of the reasons they think that there are fewer fireflies so that's just a few examples um and then the viewing of the night sky there's too much light the one on the left shows a lot of glare these happen
to be taken in Northampton Dr. James Luenthal, who's the chair of the astronomy department at Smith College, took these. And the one on the left is Northampton, where Smith College is at night. And the one on the right is a camp that he goes to up further north
where there's very little light and you can see a lot more of the night sky. So, what we're wanting are these things on the left. So, if you look at the top picture, top left, that's the Maynard firehouse. And the mayor new firehouse is actually compliant with this lighting
bylaw. There's one light way over to the right to the right of that tree that is one of the street lights and that is not a compliant bylaw. But everything on the firehouse is uh compliant with this bylaw. And if you've ever been to like a meeting in that back room, it you can
see it. You feel very safe. There's plenty of light. Um, but I gotta tell you, I live across the pond from that and I can see lights there, but they're not shining in my windows. It's really very nice. Um, the next example is the Aset Fu Co-op is another example of um,
uh, lighting that you can see there's plenty of light in the walkway, but it's not glaring out into the sky and every place else. Some bad examples of what we don't want are the lights in the parking lot behind town hall. Um, if you ever go there at night and you have old eyes
like mine, the glare is in your eyes so much that it's hard to see where you're walking. And the bottom one is the lights in the middle parking lot. So, we're going to try to get rid of the stuff on the right for new things. We can't replace the old ones. We're going
to live with those. But any new building should look like the firehouse or the asphet co-op. Um, so enforcement. the town administrator will enforce it. It's any new construction, major construction that goes to the planning board, they
would um be the kind of enforcers of it. Um and the property owner is responsible for demonstrating compliance. So, if and and it it's pretty easy if it's a new building to demonstrate compliance because the specs of your lights will um
will tell you whether it's it's um shielded and what the luminance of the light bulb is. So, all you have to do is look at the specs. Um and the planning board's going to do that for all the major sites. So, what we're really looking at is, you know, if somebody replaces a a big fixture on the back of
their house, um, and somebody complains about it, they would just have to show the specs from the light that they bought or the light bulb. Um, appeals go to the board of health. And the reason for that, it seems like an odd place to appeal, but
um, the town administrator, it most of the people in town work for the town administrator. So you can't have them as the appealing body because it's a conflict of interest. They work for him. And so the only people who don't work for him are the board of health and the select board. And he said, "You don't
want to take this stuff to the select board." So that's why it's the board of health. And I met with them last night or no, last week, excuse me. And they think it's odd that they are the appealing body, but we don't expect much appeals anyway. So they agreed that okay, it makes sense and just a really
minimal um violation. Um so cost um for the town >> I did want to jump in. We're getting short on the time. So >> this is the last slide. >> Um um really a a compliant fixture is no
difference in cost from a non-compliant fixture. And we're not doing existing lights. So we don't have to replace anything. So there really aren't any cost differentials. If the town is doing any construction, they would just do the newer type fixtures and it it doesn't
cost anymore. So that's it and I will >> Thank you. Uh all right. So I would like to open up um to questions from the finance committee. Um I do also have um some
feedback um which has also been posted to board docs from the board of health uh and also from the planning board on this particular article. Um so the board of health shared that they are not comfortable holding themselves being the appealing board.
>> Okay. Obviously something different to me but >> Okay. Um and um the planning board also sent us a memo um that say that it might change the
regulations. So you can find all of these documents on board docs. So um the planning board uh also shared a memo on several of the articles uh that we'll be talking about tonight. Um but for specifically for this one um they do
have concerns um about this um potential bylaw um if they would be because they might also be you know involved in new buildings and otherwise. Um so I did also want to
share that with you that um the the two two of the boards uh do have concerns. >> Okay. So, we solicited um so I'm I I'm surprised the board of I knew the board of health had concerns, but when I left last week, they said they were okay with
it. So, they didn't tell me they weren't, which is interesting. Um the planning board, we have for the last two years been trying to get feedback from them and they didn't have time to meet
with us. Um they did review a previous version of it and gave us some feedback, minimal, just a few comments u which we incorporated and then um one of the uh planning board
members went to the mass dark sky um annual meeting and she went through it with us in detail and we incorporated all of her feedback And so, um, I I find it interesting that
they're just now giving you feedback that they never gave us. So, that that's in just an interesting comment about town politics. I guess I've never done anything like this before. Maybe this happens all the time. Um, and then as far as their
regulations, their regulations, I I actually pulled them up. Um, and these are their regulations. They're really very simple and they actually refer to Oh, I'm not sharing my screen anymore. Let me share again.
Um, uh, these are their regulations and they're they're very very simple and there's nothing in these regulations that actually conflicts with anything as ours. Ours are more detailed.
Um, but they actually refer to a document that's on the dark sky mass website. Um, which is where ours is modeled after. So, it's not in conflict with it. Um, ours is more detailed, so
they would have to do more detailed things. And I I read their email and they were concerned about sometimes they take other considerations into account. And so they they talked about safety,
but all of the research that Dark Sky International and Dark Sky Mass has done indicates that it's actually safer with these bylaws. So, um I don't know whether they've got research that demonstrates
that what they're saying is safer or not, but Dark Sky International and Dark Sky Massachusetts does have a lot of research that demonstrates that this is actually safer than not having these bylaws. And then the other thing they said is there might be other
considerations like convenience, but there is something in this bylaw that allows the town administrator to make exceptions. And I wouldn't expect a huge number of those, but you know, we we wanted to leave the flexibility for the town
administrator to make decisions if they wanted to change something, you know, because there might be things we didn't think of. So, you've got that flexibility. Right. I think the feedback that I have gotten as a chair from the finance
committee from the other boards and town people uh town staff is that this is a highly technical bylaw um which I think you know it has to be um to accomplish what you're looking for. So I think um there might be hesitation around that
but I cannot speak on behalf of other parties. The first person in town we talked to was Bill Nemser and he told us it was too technical and to dumb it down >> and we dumbed it down. Um, we have a writer in the group who did a very very nice job. She wrote much better than I
ever could have. I write like an engineer. Um, and we took it to the bylaw committee and the blaw committee says you can't enforce this. You need to get all the technical stuff back in. So we kind of she spent all that time and we had to go back to all the technical stuff.
Um, and then also Mass Dark Sky told us it's got you got to have those technical details otherwise it's not really a workable bylaw. Okay. Uh, I'm going to kick off the fincom questions. Um, so that was sort of my feedback. I just wanted to let you
know that's the feedback we do as part of our research. We also talk to other town um groups and and otherwise on potential impacts of these um articles. Um, the question I have is sort of in the other towns that have passed this, who is typically like the enforcing and
appealing committees because I think that might be sort of like one of the sticking points with some of the staff right now. >> Um, most towns it's the planning board or the um Yeah. And our planning board
said no, they're they won't do that. >> Okay. So, the town the mayor planning board said that they wouldn't do that, >> right? Yeah. And so that's when Greg Johnson said that he would do it and then he's the one who recommended the
board of health as the appealing body. >> Okay. Um I see Nathaniel from Fincom, you have your hand raised. >> Hi. Yeah. Um so first off, just as a a member, I want to say I love this thing. I think this is really good, but um the sticking point is actually pretty
sticking. I would hate to put something this technical on a group that doesn't want to do it. Is there a backup plan for if the board of health decid I mean the the email which
is on board docs and available? >> It seems that they they don't want it. >> Yeah. >> And I can't speak for them, but that's a that's a concern. As much as I like this as a concept, the idea of making someone do it against their desires is not a good idea. Yeah. And so Greg told us
that the only other option was the select board and it's because most of the people in town report to him. So it um so that that was his recommendation and
so I understand I agree with you. You don't want somebody who doesn't want to do it to be you know um having to do it. Um I I think the appealing thing will be very easy because if if Greg says um you're not in
compliance, it's going to be because they've given him literature that says that their fixture isn't the right fixture. And you just take that documentation to the peeling body and appealing body says, "Yeah, Greg's right. This doesn't match." Right.
So it um it's just a second person to say, "Yeah, we agree with Greg." Um and so the only other option is the select board according to Greg Johnson.
>> Okay. Um, and we've already submitted this, but we could um, somebody at town meeting could um, make a proposal. I don't know what you call it for an amendment and that we would amend this
to say the appealing body was not the board of health that it was the select board. I feel like that might be a little chicken and an egg too that you might need to >> see if they want to be the appealing
board. Um, so maybe I'll I'll I'll call Greg tomorrow. Why don't I do this? I'll call Greg tomorrow and we can bounce around what to do about this. >> I'm not
Greg has been very helpful with us. So >> yeah, Greg is great. >> Yeah. >> Uh I'm not sure, Linda or Nathan, who raised your hand first. >> Nathan, you can go.
>> Uh thanks, Linda. Hi, Kathy. Um I think the sticking point for me on this is how it applies to uh residences. Like I I'm thinking about light pollution. I'm thinking like big street lights. I'm thinking like businesses that have big lights on um overnight. Um
>> and I'm also thinking as like a homeowner like there's a lot of technical stuff here and like whether if I'm just at the hardware store trying to like get a new light fixture up if I'm even going to be aware of the regulation if I wasn't on finance committee if I didn't go to a town meeting and if I did
if I would be buying the right thing. Um but is there like why did you include uh residential like houses um in this? Like how much do they contribute to light pollution in town? >> Well um houses who have like spotlights
in their backyards that are shining all over the place. Um I I agree that the the biggest offenders are the town and residences, but um there are plenty of um residences who have big spotlights on
the side of their houses that just light up their whole backyard at night. It's not a ton. Um but there are some. And if you live next door to those and those lights were shining in your bedroom window, you might not like it too much.
Um, especially considering all the health impacts and the, you know, the wildlife that is being disrupted by that, it would be a problem. Um, now as far
and I'm thinking we probably want to do a if this does pass, we probably need to do a mailing to people to let them know it passed. And here's um and there is um uh I can send put that picture that was in the presentation that had the
pictures of the fixtures that are compliant and which aren't. And and then I've talked to Butler Lumber and Maynard Supply and they both have um a link to a website. The Dark Sky Massachusetts has Oh, no, excuse me. It's Dark Sky International has a website where you
can go and it tells you all of the fixtures that are compliant and um and most hardware stores have that. So, I was recently at Ferguson's um lighting in I think it was NEM or some place and they have a whole section
on dark sky fixtures and they all work with this bylaw. Um so, but I I think we do need to do some education. I think you're right. >> Okay. Thank you very much,
>> Kathy. I have two questions. one is, you know, at least a third and a growing percentage of Maynard residents are seniors. >> Uh why do we want to make it any darker? And my second question is the glariest
thing I see is headlights on cars. Why can't we include those um especially in new, you know, new cars um to to dim down um the light pollution from automobiles and trucks. Um so those are my two
questions. is the seniors and headlights. >> Okay, so the I I'll address the seniors first. And um this lighting by law will actually make it easier for seniors to see. I'm one of them. And um as you get older,
um your your retinas aren't as flexible. And so if there's a light that's glaring, it just glares a whole lot more if you're older. And so what this boil will do is rather than the light glaring
in your eyes, it will be aimed down and be a warmer color that's easier to see. So it will be aimed where it's needed, where you're walking and not in your eyes. So it's actually probably more beneficial to seniors than to anybody else.
>> Thank you. And then as far as headlights, um I'd love to be able to regulate headlights because they drive me crazy, but but um I I I don't I don't I don't know whether they're even available and and you can't
regulate every car that drives into Maynard. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Um so I I just don't know how to do that one, but if if I knew how to do it, I would love to do it because Yeah. >> Thank you. Are there any additional questions or
comments from finance committee members? >> Uh yes. Um hi Kathy. Thank you. Um >> so you talked about uh talking to planning board about this and getting their feedback. Um,
did you ever talk to the bylaw committee about sponsoring this article? So, I met with the bylaw committee three or four times and they they don't sponsor bylaws. They they
say yes, this is in the right format. They really like what's in here. They they actually in the first round gave me a lot of really really helpful feedback. They have been tremendously helpful. >> But okay, but they're saying they don't sponsor bylaw, new bylaws.
>> No, not for citizen petition. This is a citizen petition. This isn't a town sponsored bylaw. So >> yes. So I I guess that's part of my point. To me, the citizens petition exists,
you know, in my thinking anyway. and you know um primarily as a means to you know force action where there's been no action. But that in general we'd be much better
served with bylaws that are, you know, the bylaw committee could, you know, do the a more formal process of solid uh soliciting a lot of feedback um and you know consider things like who
should be the enforcer and you know kind of get that nailed down. Um I'm concerned about very long technical bylaws that are proposed by citizens petition and you know don't have time to
go through a long process where everybody gets to weigh in think about it propose small changes think about how this is going to impact it something and think of oh wait what about this >> all right so I I don't >> so I'm >> just generally I'm sorry, but you know,
would react negatively to a complex bylaw that hasn't been through some town review process. >> Well, but so I don't know what other town review process I we went to the bylaw committee did all of the things
the bylaw committee wanted to do. we've met with >> I guess I so I >> I guess my version of this would be I would have liked to see you know efforts put into lobbying the select board that this is needed and
they should be the ones drafting it and sponsoring it going through town council that way or lobbying the planning board or the bylaw committee. And you know, when those prove not fruitful, that's when I think a
citizen's petition is more appropriate. >> Okay. So, I'm new to doing this stuff. So, maybe I didn't do it the right way. >> Well, that I'm not sure there is a right way, but this is my >> But I did we did start and this is Green Maynard. So, I've got a team of 11 people I'm working with. And
>> the first um person we talked to was Bill Nem. And he kind of guided us through what we should do. We kind of followed Bill Nemser's advice and um and and we met with Justin DeMarco two or three times. I even
brought a lighting expert in to talk to Justin to make sure he really agreed with everything and understood it. We met with Greg Johnson a couple times. Um never could get to the planning board.
They, you know, weren't interested. um met with the business alliance twice. Um and met with the bylaw committee oh three or four times. They they were like
very very helpful. >> Yes. And I I I I that's great. Um, I still have concerns about a very long technical bylaw being written by someone outside of town or
town staff. Um, so, okay. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, I do want to be mindful of time here and we still do have two more uh, citizens petitions here. Uh, I have one more quick question if that's okay, Jill. >> Yeah, sure. >> Just very quick. Uh, how long ago did
you start this process? I think I heard you say like two years. >> It was almost two years ago. Yeah. >> Okay. So, this has not been quick. This has been in the making for quite a while. >> Okay. Thanks. >> And also, in addition to people in Maynard, we've gotten a lot of feedback
from a lot of the there's some really um very knowledgeable people in Dark Sky, Massachusetts. So there are a few people who are professional lighting consultants and they've been working with us on this. That's one of those people came and met with us with uh
Justin and he's going to come to the town meeting um to support us if you know in case there are questions that are beyond my technical skill. I have an engineering background but not in lighting. >> Sorry. Can I um suggest two questions
that I think are likely to come up? >> So, uh does this bylaw affect in any way that house across from Ericson's that's often has huge Christmas lights? And then, you know, it I believe the bylaw talks about
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm exactly, but you know, 2,000 total lumens of outdoor lights. Mhm. >> And so how many, you know, strings of lights is that? And you know, so I I don't need an answer now and I don't >> No, I'll give you the answer because um
holiday lighting is exempt. >> Okay. I Okay. >> And the only ruling around holiday lighting is it has to be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. And I believe he turns them off. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Yep. Um
>> and and it's existing lighting, so it wouldn't apply to him anyway. Yeah, that gets all kinds of tricky, but okay. >> Yeah, there's so much there. It's hard to tell if you put something up, but >> All right. Do you want to close it out, Male?
>> Um, yes. I'm so sorry. Just a very quick question. Um, if someone has holiday lighting that's, you know, already in ex already in existence and stuff, um, would they still have to turn it off? um or because it's already in existence that wouldn't that restriction wouldn't be applicable to them >> because this lighting only applies to
new lighting. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. If that's all the questions from the committee, uh thank you very much Kathy for taking the time >> for your time. >> All right. Um, so we will be moving on
to the citizens station for the zoning change for 141 Parker Street. Uh, and I think I've seen a couple of y'all jump on tonight. >> Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, attorney Christopher Alfen from Blatman Babrowski HD and Silverstein. My law office is in conquered, but I'm a
resident of Maynard. I have a quick uh PowerPoint that I'll show, and I promise you, you don't need to count for 10 minutes for me. I'll be shorter than that. Um, so I'll just share my screen in a second here. >> Can you see that?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Great. So, we're um proposing a zoning change that and excuse me, I should note that the property owner and the developer is also on the call, Matt Blackham from the Vest uh the Lexvest
Group. Uh he's also on the call and can answer some questions. Our proposal is relatively straightforward. We're just seeking to change the zoning map that covers one property. Uh a property that is shown here where this building is and then there's a single family home that
is currently zoned industrial and we're seeking to just change it to business. So there would be no text change in the zoning bylaw or anything like that. We're just seeking to make a modification to the actually the actual
uh uh um zoning map. So, whatever is permitted in the business district would then apply to this property. Um, and we think that that's an appropriate thing to do because this site is sort of unique where it's sort of by itself next
to mated qu crossing and digital way that because of the regulations and of being in an industrial property when it comes to dimensional requirements when it comes to use requirements that this site doesn't really make sense
especially with the development of what has happened uh essentially abuing the property which is the digital way complex. Um, so we think it makes a lot of planning sense to convert this to a business property rather than uh rather
than than than an industrial property. Um, and this is just a better view of what the property looks like. It's that old uh office building and a detailed um in bad shape single family home. Uh one of the aspects of this is that single
family homes aren't allowed in the industrial district. So if we allowed uh so it's a it's essentially a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Whereas in the business district um single families are permitted. Therefore there it's much more likely than easier
to rehab this property or rebuild a new single family um house on the building. Um, and this is again just a better view of what that property looks like. Um, which is here. I actually think it's also includes this little sliver here if that matters, but it's this property
right here. And of course, you have digital way all surrounding it. There's a residential neighborhoods uh across the street into the other side as well obviously. And again, we would just be seeking to switch that to uh business. It looks a little strange because you
have a business by itself, but as you know, digital way really got improved uh under the overlay district and different permits that they receive. So, we sort of got left out of that whole development and this is sort of a way that we can sort of repair that. Um, and
as I was speaking to, there certain dimensional requirements and much difficult industrial um zoning district. there's um higher thresholds for lot area and frontage and things like that. And so switching this to business would
give the uh would give more of an opportunity to develop it and to subdivide it potentially as as something that could be developed. Um, and it also if you look at what the industrial uses are, you're talking about manufacturing,
um, warehousing, things like that, where business uses are going to be things like retail, garden shops, um, things like that. That makes much more sense in that in that in that on that parcel. So, we think it will be a good thing for the town because it's going to give us an
ability to develop that property and use that property that's sort of being underused today. Um, and that's going to obviously give a financial benefit to the town by creating more property that is usable and developable and bring in tax revenue. So, we think it's just a
smart uh planning decision to just make this switch from industrial to business. So, we're happy to answer any questions. >> Great. Thank you. Um, I'm I'm going to steal from your presenting for a second. um and just share the um so we did um
have a memo from the planning board about this topic too. Um and this is also on boards.com. Um and the planning board um is in favor of this resoning. Um they they stated that
they've had to make several amendments to adjust the current industrial zoning to allow for business uses like the medical office. Uh, and each of those required a town meeting vote and public hearings. So, they think it's more efficient, aesthetically compatible, and in the town's best interest to assign a
business zoning to this property. So, >> right, I would just add to that over over the years, my client has had to seek different variances and special permits just to get potential tenants into the existing building. So it just makes more planning sense to uh do
something that that that makes planning sense at that subject property. So we appreciate the planning board's comments on this issue and we are meeting with the planning board on the 14th as well. We haven't met with them yet. >> Yeah. So this is part of our FINCOM research. We have to sort of write
recommendations for each of the articles. Um so I did want to share that with you as background information. Do any of the finance committee members have questions or comments on this topic? >> I have a couple. Um, you you said one
question was it most likely the assessment on the property if this went through would in would increase you would expect or would that happen once it's developed? >> Well, I mean that's a fair question. And I'm not uh an appraiser to be able to
make that determination. But I would say I think that the appraised value would probably increase because you just have a likely more likelihood to bring in tenants that make sense at that location and you have more flexibility to subdivide the property. So in that
sense, it may be more likely that the property would be assessed higher right off the bat. But again, it's it really comes down to what actually gets proposed there. >> Yeah. And then traffic is already, you know, gets backed up in both ways. How how would who would the planning board
look at new development in terms of like even the traffic impact of getting more cars in and out of Route 27 there in Parker Street or >> Well, certainly I would I would say that any use that's going to be permitted that's a business use that's going to
cause traffic is going to be under the under site plan review. So, it's not like we're skipping through that. We're just saying instead of warehouse uses, we're going to have more retail uses. And so, um, we're certainly not going to be able to skip oversight plan review.
That's still going to be aable for this property. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions or concerns uh to be raised for discussion by the committee? Are there any citizens um who would like to make any additional comments on this
topic? All right. I think your presentation was very straightforward, Christopher. Thank you for sharing with that with us tonight. >> Thank you for having us. We really appreciate it. We appreciate you uh letting us do our diligence on this. >> Yeah.
>> And if that um presentation is something you would like me to post on um the board docs, I can also do so. You would just have to email it to me. >> Sure. I will send you a copy so that it becomes part of the public record. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks everybody.
>> All right. And as Thank you. Uh as this is a public meeting, you're welcome to stay but not required. we'll go on to our next topic here. Um so and I see Todd here has joined uh to talk about um so thanks for thanks for coming tonight
for the tax title payment agreements. >> Thank you so much and you should let me know if uh the background noise here is too loud. So if you can't hear me and please uh let me know. So I did send a
PowerPoint presentation that I don't want to really use because I want to use my time uh to give an overview of the issue and answer your questions here. So the issue is that the uh state allows a
local option of um making what we call better tax repayment plans. So a tax property tax repayment plan is a pl is a opportunity for somebody who has
property tax arars to catch up on their property taxes over time. And there's basically there's one that's in by state law that's allowed all across the state and that is currently available to Maynard. But the legislation that passed
a couple years ago really expanded the opportunities for local municipalities to offer much much better tax repayment plans. And what I mean by better is that for example the the the baseline one
that is offered across the state requires a 25% down payment. And for those property owners that are in rears, that is almost always an insurmountable barrier to
entering into a payment plan. If they had 25% to put down, unless say, for example, they owe $10,000, $20,000. Sometimes people really owe a lot of money, that down payment became a is
actually for every for people for uh Thank you for putting that up. So for many people it is a uh insurmountable barrier. But I do uh actually thank you for putting up that slide because I think we should back up
say well why why is this a problem? Why is that's this that's a good slide there. So why is it a problem? How do people get in a rears? So most people almost all people in that are in Maynard have mortgages unless they've been in
their property for a long long time. And if they've been in property for a long long time, they might have paid off their mortgage. But if they have a mortgage, if you fall behind in your taxes or your insurance for some people, the mortgage company will step in and
pay those taxes to protect their interest in the property. So this is a problem that hits squarely on a narrow segment of the population and is most often elders. And for people
that that are have tax reverses, it's most often people that are struggling to keep up with their taxes. So if we go on to the next slide, the we as we see the state law allows
for local options and the state law that's at the bottom of the screen which is the legislation that passed recently allows to extend the payment the payment plans all the way out to 10 years and it
allows for a waiver of the interest. In this case, uh the proposal is to wave part of the interest, not all the interest, and to allow a reduced payment down payment for 25% to down to 10%
again to reduce the threshold for people to enter in these payment plans. Next slide. Of course, for benefits, the question you may have is, well, why would Mayor do this, especially the waving of interest and extending the tie
um and lowering the down payment? And the the the real bottom line here is that you want people to catch up. It's good for the community. It allows people that have often been very very long-term
um members of the community to stay in their homes and and not displace them. And the other thing to think about is in order to foreclose on a property, Maynard in their operating in your operating budget has to set aside money
to pay upfront for attorneys and cost of a foreclosure. And that can be a lot of money. I have a case right now where there's over $20,000 in uh attorney's fees that are due and that's upfront
costs that mayor has to put in place to basically move a long-term resident uh out of the community and that's just it it's it's it's it puts strain on your operating budget but also has a lot of
uh it can be very traumatic for the community just to clear uh to displace long-term residents. So, this is talking about real practical solutions and making them more practical, more useful. Next slide.
Now some qu you may have seen uh some or or when you look through the materials later you may see that uh Maynard's outside council council has raised some concerns and actually your in your staff have raised some concerns saying well
these are okay now the it's working but it doesn't really work because you want the plans that are as flexible as possible so you don't create barriers for people to get into these plans. You want people to pay their taxes. I think it's important to understand that even
with these plans, none of the taxes are waved. It's sometimes just the a little bit of the interest. So, right now, uh there's 18% in, excuse me, 16% interest that is acrewing on this tax. That is a
really that that actually got reduced in the legislation down to 8%. But for many people that may owe money uh tax past taxes before it got reduced, 16% is a huge amount of interest. So you can imagine like for example a $1,000 tax
bill is increasing at $160 a year um just if it's not paid. So, it's it's jumping up and and and the whole point again is to get people back into compliance, allowing them to pay up
their taxes. Um, so the next slide, uh, here's the the basically the text of the, uh, petition. It basically says that, you know, you're trying to help people in these positions. um you know
that next slide. And then um it is you can set the categories and this particular um petition all the different kinds of categories are available at least the
enumerated categories here commercial, residential, desk and open spaces. Next slide. And then um the the person has to be um in a position before a foreclosure has
been filed. Now the the the town does not even if someone has taxes the town does not have to actually file but if it's already been filed then that is not it's not in the right posture. And then um
so and then the uh in order in order to get into that plan you have to actually uh being paid get you're making your your payments on uh for example water and sewer and real estate taxes. So you have to start becoming current. Next slide.
And then the um right now this this particular proposal is uh is is narrower that narrower that you know again it can go out to 10 years but this particular proposal goes for
four years. Um and that the waiver of the of the interest only not the principal can be up to 50% there of the crude interest and the interest is only waved when you have finalized your tax
repayment plan. So, if you want to get in it to to reduce your t your interest, you actually have to complete and make all of the payments due. And um the down payment again is 25% in this
case, but you could as a town agree uh to reduce it even further. Next slide. And then um it's it's it's there are some narrow um narrowing circumstances. You know, it's not investorowned properties. It's owner
occupied properties. Uh lower income people. Um it's not somebody who's using the system or abusing the system. And that there's a way to actually figure out how to what is their income. So that it's it's again narrowly tailored
tailored to people who actually need this help. Next slide. And then um the the uh again the the pay the agreement itself
can be up to four six years. Um and think I think we basically covered these things. Um, yeah. And this one actually, I'm sorry, it it's it's a a financial hardship agreement reduces can reduce the down
payment to 10%. Okay, next slide. >> And then um, you know, the whole purpose of this is to get people back in compliance. So the foreclosure would not proceed as long as people are in compliance with the tax repayment plan. And um you know that
the uh basically this is more technicalities about how it can be done. So next slide >> is that it maybe >> all the >> okay good excellent. So, um, I did want
to, you know, again, circle back to some of the issues that were raised by your outside counsel, which is that, you know, well, why would Mayor do this? I mean, other people are paying taxes. Well, aren't you foring interest that you're entitled to? Well, interest rate
is 16%. That's a really high rate. This is a very small subset of the community. Um, so you and they still have to pay the tax. It's just the interest that might be waved. And this is helping people get backing finance. And it's and
I have to say that the outside council has a vested interest in keeping their business going. They are they that firm is one of the few firms that in Massachusetts that actually specializes in foreclosures and in appearing in land
courts. Now, I'm not dispinging them. I'm not saying they're doing anything wrong, but I do think that they are not thinking about the fact that Maynard is going to have to put money upfront and pay for their attorney's fees
upfront out of your operating budget. And then I've seen cases go on for six years, eight years. you're not going to get that money back until the taxpayer either finds some money to pay it back or the property is foreclosed upon. And
again, thinking about, you know, it's hard to quantify the trauma to a community of uh taking somebody's home that they've lived in for 20, 30 years, you know, but I think that's something to think about. It's not always about
just the money. It's about the hard things that are quantifying about stabilizing your community. So, I'd be glad to answer any questions at this point. >> Great. Thanks. Um, I did also want to bring up um for the record, we did get a
response uh as you referenced from the treasurer collector. So, this is also on our board docs documents. Um, she does have some concerns. Um, and there's also a response further down the email below this is the tax title attorney. Um, so,
um, they do have concerns about waving interest fully. Um, and the those in tax taxed types have a interest rate covered under Mass DAL law. Um so the detailed
response um is talking down here um from the um that that person um so talking about you know the new legislation allows a waiver up to 100% of interest with the payment of 10 years and a 10%
down payment. Um, so the town staff and the legal council do not currently recommend it um because of this new law. Um, so and these are things that sort of gone through. So I guess
this is um something I just wanted to share for the record like sort of their response the this is the full rebuttal um that you referenced in your presentation. So sharing it here for the record as well. I do want to reference one thing that
they say right there which is the municipality well right there number four which is the municipality has existing means which it regularly exercised the health people need abatements deferrals and exemptions but those do not address tax or rears and
none of those solutions help people who tax a rears and there's There's only two things to do. Pay it back or foreclose. So, this helps people get in compliance and pay it back.
financial hardship requirement and there and there it is as I understand it you it shall be for six years it shall have 50% interest reduction um and yet there's no asset test why didn't you include an asset
test there as I understand it it's just a simple income test in the first year so there's no test of what assets there are and there's no and there doesn't seem to be any reertification during that six years of of income and ability
to pay. >> Um, that's a very good question. So, I think there isn't, you know, look, I've been working with uh homeowners in foreclosure for 10 years. I have never
seen a homeowner in foreclosure who has the assets to pay off and he's not paying. Why? because they're going to be paying 16% interest on those tax reverses. It's eating into the equity in their home. So, I guess it's not inconceivable that there's somebody out
there that has sitting on a million dollars and not paying their taxes, >> right? Or has a, you know, a cod, you know, a summer house or a second home. Yeah. >> Right. Right. Or a second home. >> Or a boat. Right. >> Yeah. And but generally speaking,
>> it's not And it's not 16%, isn't it? 8%. >> Well, I think you're you're right. It has reduced to 8%, but it doesn't retroactively reduce the interest that's accured for. So, for people that are in trouble now, let's say if they haven't been they they're in a position where
they haven't been able to pay their taxes for a number of years, most of that almost or almost all of that is going to be at 16%. So, uh even 8% is really really high. If somebody has the assets, they're likely going to pay that
off and then, you know, it's it's going to be, you know, my >> So, it wouldn't impact anybody. I mean, if people don't have the assets, the adding an asset test would just maybe make us feel more sure and wouldn't impact really anyone. You you know, it wouldn't really have any
impact on people who need it. Adding that asset test. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I that's my bottom line which is that someone who has very low income likely does not have those that ass those assets >> to jump on that really quickly though that's currently due to the large
interest rating but or interest percent but if you put it into you know a calculator there are people who have large assets and low income who pay lots of money to find loopholes like this that they could then apply for for example you it becomes financially beneficial looking forward in the future
to suddenly not pay your taxes if you don't have high income but you have assets without the asset test. >> Well, I mean you theoretically yes, but you know um not paying your taxes can have significant uh issues. For example,
uh insurance companies, your home insurance could uh go up or you could be denied insurance, but insurance is uh underwritten partly on credit. So, it's not does it's not without consequences. It's not necessarily a free ride. And again, I don't think this makes it
impossible for somebody who a real outlier, somebody who's got the money and trying to gain the system, but I think it's unlikely. I think that this what you know in this I mean I you know somebody really really
have to be uh really trying to game the system. Go ahead, Nathan. >> Hi, Todd. Um, I'm wondering if you have um any any statistics to like quantify,
you know, how many people have like tax payments in the rears to uh the town of Maynard, how many households this uh change would potentially be benefiting. Um, and actually, can I add to that? Sure. How many times has Maynard seized
a house through foreclosure? >> Um, well, I know that Maynard, I don't really know how many cases Maynard has in in Lancport right now, but I know they have at least there's at least one. Um and um so so and as and to to the
extent of of trying to quantify this I'm sorry I don't have that information um I I I think it's it's not impossible to figure out um how many people have significant tax arars because usually in
most municipalities that's published or put up on the you know there has to there's a formal process you have to do will perfect the uh process. It's called a tax taking and um so it might this might be something that I could supplement and and bring to you or just
file if that's if you want to leave the record open. >> I'd be interested in seeing that. >> Yeah, I guess I would just add Go ahead, Peter. I'll follow after you. >> Thank you. Um, my understanding is, you know, and it's
just being around local government and maybe I'm, you know, seduced by town hall or something, but that we already go, you know, tax title for the town is an absolute last resort. Nobody wants to
do it. everybody's quite aware that you're, you know, taking someone's house. And I I can think of one time I'm aware of it's happened in like the last 10 years. Um, and
I just feel like Maynard already does a pretty strong job of trying to avoid situations like this. And it's only in the absolute last resort that we're proceeding to some kind of foreclosure. So I don't I don't know if you have a comment on that or
>> No, I think that's a that's a good question about like as a practical matter what happens with people. So what my experience is that people don't have an attorney, they're in land court and
the judges basically tell them we need a solution here and most people just sell. They leave. They sometimes they have nowhere to go and that's when the foreclosures occur. But that's still what we're offering here is a another
tool in Maynard's toolbox to stabilize people and not force them to sell. Um I think it would be you know if any of us were in a position and this is think about this people often you know uh fall in a rears or have things that happen
and and and they get in a position where they're they recover from an illness or they uh are now have more income or somebody comes along and they get like a border or somehow they're they're getting um some additional income. They
want to pay their taxes so they can stay in their community. This gives Manner another tool. And as I say, what usually happens in land court at the very end is not a foreclosure, but it's forcing somebody to sell and move out of your
community. And that's that's sad because oftentimes they're lifelong residents and they have no choice. I think my follow-up question to that is my understanding of this article is that it covers all properties, not just
single family homes. Um, and why why is that? >> I I think that you you could decide to um amend the article or or uh you know, certainly a town meeting. Um, I'm,
you know, I think that just the way this was drafted to be as broad. For example, if you look, I can send you what Springfield does. Uh, Springfield is is trying to get it's thinking holistically about getting
the not taking the properties, but basically rehabilitating the property so that they can uh not be in trouble. And so I think that's where this was borrowed from in terms of, you know, providing solutions for many different
types of properties to basically pay up their taxes and get in compliance. And again, it's not just, you know, if if a business loses their their property, you're you're also, you know, basically maybe um
uh removing a productive business from your community that may have employees and just is behind on their property taxes. So, getting giving them a solution to get back into uh compliance is is really
another tool. And again, the the waiver is not necessarily going to be applicable to them unless for some it's not that's not going to be owner occupied. So that waiver is not necessarily going to be applicable, I don't think. >> Do we have any other questions or
comments from finance committee members? I guess I'm just going to throw in my two cents that once again I'm concerned about the process of citizens petitions um producing you know large complex
articles um that you know you talk about amending it if we want to I feel like stuff like this should have been thought about and figured out you know well before you
know, a month before a town meeting. And I just think, you know, we're getting one side of a story, you know, the drafter side. And I'm not doubting anything you're saying. It's just I don't feel like the citizens petition
process allows enough vetting of complex articles um and is a poor tool to do stuff like this. So, thank you All right.
Uh, sounds like that's all the questions and comments from finance committee. I did want to state for the record that male who is on the finance committee was involved in this article. So, as a to avoid potential conflicts uh perceived conflicts of interest, he will not be
voting um or participating in the discussion on this article. for transparency. I just wanted to state that. >> Thank you for your time. I appreciate the opportunity present and I'm going to be heading out. Right. Thank you. Take
care. >> Thank you very much for presenting. >> Appreciate it. >> All right. >> Right. So, uh that is all of our citizens petition topics for tonight. Um that covers all of the topics. um and we can jump into the annual town meeting
discussion um as a next topic. Uh so I have some updated articles and I have put them all so I put them all into this uh version two document which uh I circulated
today. Zoom is not wanting to let me grab the top of this window. All right. Um, so this covers all of the articles that I am currently aware of. Um, there are some that are still being updated as we
speak. Tomorrow is the select board meeting where many of these articles will um be adopted, I think is the correct word, uh, into the annual town meeting warrant. Um,
so and that includes some of these new ones which we just got updated numbers on from like this weekend or even today from Greg. So like the free cash, the general fund. Um, so I've I've added these in as track
changes. So these are sort of the newest most up-to-date articles that I'm aware of. Um, >> um, Jill >> and with sponsored comments. Yes. >> Sorry. Can I just ask so in general we
should be referring excuse me to this document and not to the original drafts of articles and then you know other articles are no longer going to be coming as individual articles they'll be contained within
this document just so I know what I should be looking at >> yes I would recommend to look at the version number two of this file. Um, that's the most up-to-date one. I updated number 10. The only difference between version one and two is that
article 10 has updated information and a sponsor comment now. >> But this should be the most up-to-date article >> uh that I would recommend you to follow along on than the separate word files. So I think for and for let me see if I
can make this a little bit bigger. Um so I did get some sponsor comments for articles. Um so thanks for that. Uh I did see that we got a couple this afternoon which I didn't get to add in here yet. Um but I can add them in for
the next meeting. So I think the challenge is that between now and next meeting um we'd like to sort of discuss and vote on and write comments for articles that are well established I would say. Um some of
the articles like you know the free cash um I think are still a bit in flux because the sponsor comments are not yet done or completed. That's still a draft but some of the other articles are a little bit more fleshed out. Um, and I think, you know,
if we would like to at the committee, we could potentially go through some of these, you know, like the um, like the water sewer ones we talked about last time, some of the routine articles, um, you know, the COA articles, things like that are probably
not going to change at this point. Um, we still do not have information on still not entirely sure about this. The police body cameras. Um, I'm not aware if that's that's in or
not. I think that'll be decided at the select board tomorrow. Um, but I think all of the we have all the information we're probably going to get on the citizens petitions from tonight. Um, and if there's any additional information there, we have zero information on article number 26, the solid weights
enterprise fund budget, which I think is very concerning uh because that's a pretty big article. That is an article of question marks currently. But, uh, I think the other ones are all pretty much filled out. Uh,
some of them are not adopted yet from the select board. So, like the the one we talked about, Greg, last time, the contract solicitation and awards, that's not yet adopted by the select board. Um, >> wait, I'm sorry. Isn't that the same as
the vendor contract police body cameras one? >> So, I wonder who is putting that last one as as a substitute, >> like if he >> That's what I'm not entirely clear on. Yeah, cuz they're related.
>> They're related, but I got this as a separate document. Yeah. >> And in the ATM draft articles, it was it was the um >> this one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it was the that one instead. Um >> so it didn't have any additional context. So I'm not entirely sure about
those are the two I wanted to highlight that I'm not sure about yet. Um, but some of the other ones I think we have our information on and we can potentially vote on tonight. Um, but I think
I don't know about anyone else, but before we jump in, I might need just a couple minutes to use the restroom. Um, but I can bring us to anywhere you would like on this document if you would like to discuss for a few minutes while I'm away from the keyboard.
But but and I also put in comments here as well. If there is um if we had someone who was going to write the comment and we don't have a draft comment yet, it is a comment on the side saying um who
might write those comments later. So, um, so like this one I was supposed to write, but I didn't get to write it before this meeting. So, if your name is next to an article with a comment, uh, that would be great if we could get it
for next time. So, I think one of um you know I think the acceptance and obsolete materials might be pretty straightforward if these are things you
all want to discuss for a moment uh but I do need a couple of minutes and step away from the keyboard and be right back. >> Okay. Yep. So, the town report acceptance and obsolete materials, that's really
straightforward, right? Like no controversy or anybody have any comments about those? No, I mean we we can just use last year's for those pretty much. Right. >> Right. >> Um prior year bills fiscal year 2025
is appropriating from free cash. Um that's uh to pay Boston Mutual Life Insurance Company and Eversource. Is this is this still in flux? Is this changing? Are we able to vote on this? >> It looks like it was updated by Greg
just this week. We >> saw that, didn't we? >> I'm not sure. >> We should ask if it's really if those are the real numbers. >> I think number four, she said, is >> not not finalized.
>> So then number five is the salary administration plan. >> We could do that one. >> Yeah, that one's finalized. Um, does is that controversial with anybody? Does anybody have >> No. No.
>> Uh, retirement board stipend is one that I we have two different comments for recommend and not recommend. I know felt like like two weeks ago we all kind of felt one way and the next week maybe we were starting to shift the other way. Um, where how do fe people feel about
that right now? Does anybody have a strong feeling one way or the other? >> I mean, I know how I would vote, but I would not recommend, but >> I think I've been as wishy-washy as
Nathan described, but inclined to be not recommending. I thought they were good citizen comments. Although I would note on the citizen comments um the woman who wrote in I'm sorry I believe it's a woman um
said something about you know we don't have to have or it's required that we have someone from out of town and that's why that guy is on. Um she I believe is mistaken. I went and looked up her Mass General Law citation and it clearly says
it can't be a town employee, a you know participant in the retirement system, but there's no nothing that says it has to be someone who's not a resident. So I I think there is some credence to the idea that the board has not been
able to get a resident to serve. Um just just to note that >> I am back. It sounds like we were talking about article number six. >> Well, you were going down and that's where we ended at. >> I should have I don't know if you heard
that, Jill. Um the I believe it's a woman who wrote the comments to us. Um I was saying I think she's >> a concerned citizen. >> Yes. I think she's mistaken about her citation about Mass General Law saying
that it's required that it can't be a resident. It's required that it can't be a town employee, a participant or somebody, you know, in town administration, but it could be a resident and,
you know, who's not associated at all with the retirement system. Um, and you know that, you know, lends some credence to the idea that the retirement board can't find someone in town. Um though I don't know what they do for
outreach or uh stuff but now that Jill is back maybe we can do a few quick votes on those first articles we discussed. >> Yeah. Um, so I would uh move to
recommend article one, the town report acceptance. >> I'll second. >> All right. So, we got a vote. Uh, we got a motion. We got a second. Uh, any further discussion? No. So, I will take a roll call vote to recommend article one. Nathan,
>> yes. >> Linda, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. Yes. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes.
>> I am also a yes. So, I'll put recommends. >> I move to recommend article 2, obsolete equipment material. >> Second. >> All right, we got a move. We got a second. Do we have any further
discussion? All right. Hearing none, I will take a roll call vote to recommend article two. Nathan, >> yes. >> Linda, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Male,
>> yes. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> I am also Yes. Uh, and then Jill, while you're away, we discussed article three and four, and it sounds like those are both in flux
still, right? >> Yes, I believe that three and four are still in flux. Uh, I don't think that they've fully been accepted by the select board yet, and the numbers have changed quite a bit in particular for article 3. Um, article four was mainly
staying the same. >> Yes, Peter. >> Uh, sorry. on article three. And I know it's, you know, an uphill battle, whatever. I think I mean, I would like to see sponsor comments that explain,
you know, why this was missed. And I know internally we all talk about Eversource messing up, but I think sponsored comments should be outlining what happened as to why we're paying prior year bills.
um and would like to read that as part of you know then our own comments get informed by that um but also you know my feeling about whether I want to recommend this is that we have a good explanation and are clear with the town
about you know essentially how do we screw up that we've doing an article like this um or what screwed up that it's happening All right. Um, I'm also going to let Greg know that the sum of $1.2 million
does not equal the appropriation here. So, I'm assuming that's a typo. >> I was about to ask that. I was like those numbers. >> Yeah, but that's that's from free cash. Does it match what's in article 4? It should match article 4, the 1.2 million. >> No, no, it doesn't. That's also been
changed. >> Yeah. So, because it seems like they're saying that should come from free cash. So, that number is off, >> right? >> Somehow. >> Oh, and that's that's a question. So, this the number here.
>> Oh, there's prior year. over here. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, that that number matches. Um I just don't I have no idea where this 1.2 million came from. So, >> yeah. So, we should wait. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. Where's the one? >> Oh, I see. Uh Yep.
>> It's right in the >> I see. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. Um, so I'm assuming that this is like a partially written comment and this is going to be like covering like but it's not it's not it's not a full it's not even a sentence. So um but I
will I'll also ask Greg uh to sort of flush out on that um and and get some more information there. Article four has gone through uh legal council review and some of the text I changed here is um
I think it was article 4 actually that might have been article 10 I think I'm lying to you this was updated by April 3rd um yeah so I don't have this one updated yet so the sponsor comments for this are not yet done so it's sort of like you know he has like you know
placeholders saying like I want to put something in here about the lighting whatever. So each of the each of them like he's trying to cover each of the lines here saying like why this is required which I appreciate the thoroughess. It's just we need to
have that sentence finished. So I agree with you that these two are not fully done yet. >> Um and I'm sorry you said it had been through town council or
>> No, that's article 10. I'm sorry. >> In article 10, he needed to change the wording about um >> Yeah. Okay. >> 10 was the reappropriation of free cash funds. So, that was what I was talking about.
>> Okay. Um, my concern with this free cash article is, and maybe this is fine, but I think this is a combination of free cash and I think there's some
article later that, you know, releases unexpended money from various, you know, capital lines. >> That's article 10. That's why I got confused. Um,
and I don't I guess I I don't know if we can appropriate that money if we can just combine it into one pot and appropriate it because it's not really certified free cash. It's,
you know, I, you know, the certified free cash from the state says, you know, 1.5 million or something. And that's why he was asking how legal counsel how he has to word article 10 to be able to go back to article 4.
>> Okay. I'm sorry. So that Okay. That's what town council is still weighing in on is how >> that's this new text that I just put in here. So um so they want to transfer from appropriations previously appropriated
from free cash and then it gives the following purposes and then they want to put it to article number this would be four free cash. So this is the 912. >> Won't we have to do it first then?
>> Yeah. >> I would assume we have to do it first. Yeah. Um, >> which actually I mean that language seems fine to me then if town council signs off on it, but I think it's got to be article three then if free cash is article.
>> I don't I don't disagree with you. So I just got this at like lunchtime today. So >> okay, sorry. >> I'm assuming they might rework the warrant. >> Um, and then can we look at free cash for a second?
What was the I'm trying to find it in this thing. Um, there was some water or sewer free cash appropriation for a truck. >> Yes, that's a different article because that's from the it's not from free cash.
It's from the sewer enterprise funds. >> Yeah, I think I sent a really late draft comment to you on that. 23. >> 23. >> Article 23 on page 21. I'll get there.
>> So, it's right here. Wait, why does it say service truck 50%. Uh, I believe it's supposed to be 100% now. But this is what I Okay. I That's going to have to be cleared up, I guess.
Um All right. Um, sorry, Jill. Um, this got I got confused with this with Justin last week. Um, I'm concerned about the prices of these vehicles
and I know, you know, there's all kinds of other stuff, but the Ford 550 truck >> and article number the free cash, >> you know, has a list price,
you know, quickly looking online of, you know, 80 to, you know, 85,000. Now, I get it has to get fitted out, but 207 seems ridiculous.
And then the Chevy 3500 that's in article 23 for 120,000 has a list price of, you know, 50,000. And I got these trucks confused. I
thought the $80,000 truck was on the list for 120 and you know I could buy that for you know having to equip it to run in the DPW but I just somebody's going to sit at town
meeting with their phone and Google these vehicles and say why are we paying $27,000 for a $90,000 Yep. I can ask um I also wonder why the police body cameras are here if they're also going to be a separate article, but
>> well that's the separate article is about the contract length and needs separate authorization besides the actual appropriation. And 144,000 is two cruisers, >> I think. Right. It's got to be.
>> I think it is. >> Yeah, I think I think we need the comments to be sure. And I don't know that. Uh yeah, it doesn't say. All right. All right. Do we have any further
questions or comments on article 4? So, I can send these to Greg to get some answers. Kind of hard. We don't have the full sponsor comment yet. So, my question sort of goes with what Peter what you were saying. Can we call this
free cash or do we have to call it something else? because we're rolling in other stuff in there now, too. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, it's not certified free cash. So, >> my my comment would be on the stabilization funds. I thought last year
we took out close to 500,000 and why can we put back any more or is that also going to be in the general budget that we're funding general stabilization? I think it's I think it's also a line item in the FY27 budget.
Uh, it's not. >> It's not. Okay. I thought I thought we put money in there. Okay. >> I don't think there's money for either. There's a general stabilization fund >> and a capital stabilization >> and we took a lot of money out last year
and the balance is pretty low. Um, >> but wait, didn't we take money out for of general stabilization for the trash? >> Yeah. >> Is that what you're talking about? >> Yeah. And I thought we I thought it was to the tune of 4 to 500,000 and now we're putting back 50 which seems very
low. But I thought in the operating budget there'll be a line for I'm trying to find it here for general stabilization. But I don't know if it's there isn't yet. There isn't. >> Not I mean I'm say it would be I I don't
believe I've missed it >> and it's never been in there and would generally >> um but I'm just also >> 207 for truck, you know, can we put a little bit more money away? But >> I'm also just noting that the 50,000
here is going to a different fund than we took the trash money out of. Well, is there's one line for capitalized stabilization and one for general stabiliz >> Oh, I'm sorry. I You're right. I'm sorry. I didn't You're right. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, they're kind of It seems like they
could be >> seems like a It's a little discombobulated the uh the order of the listings, but >> yeah. All right. Uh, okay.
So, article five, >> uh, I we had a brief discussion about this and I would move to recommend article 5. >> I will second recommending article 5.
>> All right. So, we got a move and we got a second. Um, questions, discussions on this? We do have a comment already as well. a draft comment. I think uh Linda, were you the one that did the comment? >> I did. >> I had a question actually.
>> Yep. >> Uh you double check the um >> I did increases for >> I did double check that. I thought that was I I just we last year our comments stop with
um it it didn't have that last sentence and I just added it in that there's no incre there are no increases in those last four categories >> because that's the stipend it's not the the >> minimum it's a stipend yeah so maybe we
could re um but in any case there's no increase there. >> $75. >> I know. >> I know. >> All right. Um, yeah. So, that was sort
of my only comment is I just wanted >> So, we could we could strike that sentence, but I did check and I just kind of thought a pittance, right? But we could strike that sentence. But that's true. >> But we haven't voted yet, right?
>> I mean, >> we haven't voted yet. So, this is the commenting discussion. So, we have a recommend right now. Um, we haven't voted yet. I didn't take the roll call vote yet. >> Okay. So, um,
yeah. So, I don't I don't feel that we necessarily have to change it. I just, um, I just had a question about that last sentence because I don't recall it being in our prior in comments in the past. >> Your memory is correct. It was not.
>> Okay. All right. Do we have any further questions or discussions or otherwise or shall we go forward with our vote to recommend? Because we're voting on the article. We're not voting on our comments technically. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> Right. All right.
So, I'll take a roll call vote to recommend uh article number five. Uh Nathan, >> yes. Linda, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Male, >> yes.
>> Katie, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> All right. So, I am also Yes. Um, yeah. And like I said, we weren't voting on the comment. I just sort of
had that follow-up question. So, um, we can always we can change our comments, uh, if we'd like, but I don't I don't think it's necessary. I'm just curious. Um, all right. And then I think I stepped in also while we started talking about the
retirement board stip end. So, uh, I wrote these draft comments. Uh, I tried to wrote I tried to highlight, um, like a notrecommend. So, this would be sort of like an updated one. This was the thing in the middle is what our exact
comment was on the annual town meeting warrant of 2025 last year because I wanted that there for a reference. And then you know there were some people who you know if we might recommend it. Uh I started to write something like that but I feel like we need like more words
about why we would recommend it now and we did not recommend it in the past when the article is exactly the same. So, um, that I wasn't sure what to write for that.
Um, because I'm I'm personally leaning more towards, you know, I think I will be upfront that I kind of wrote this maybe a little harsh. >> Um, but, um, and I'm totally up to like
softening the language on this and or changing it, um, or throwing it out the window. Um but I think that for me I have concerns about you know appointed I think in this committee they're appointed and elected members. I'm not entirely sure. Um that have stipens for
what has historically been a volunteer service. Um you know there's lots of volunteer boards in Maynard. I think there is a precedence for this because it is in Massachusetts state law and I think what they are asking for is totally in line with that and with other
municipalities where they do offer this stipend. Um so um I think that what they're asking is not necessarily monetarily out of whack. I think that it's in line. Um, but I think I do have concerns, you
know, being that the meetings is on like a lunchtime, like if they're having trouble recruiting people, I don't know that they've necessarily changed the time that they wanted to change the meetings at. Um, and you know, the the biggest sticking point for me is that nothing has changed
in the sponsor comments or in the article itself, and it's just being presented again. Um, and it was really close at the last town meeting. So it, you know, 53 yes, 57 no, and one blank. So, uh, I felt like that's probably
important to include in in our comments either way as well. Um, but yeah, >> I agree. I like the reference to um the vote at last year's town meeting, and I would move not to recommend this article
number six. I would second. >> Okay. Um, >> I also do have a motion. >> So, I also don't think we need to tone down the language either. I do think that having the exact same thing again isn't a positive and we shouldn't
encourage it. Okay. Um, all right. Do we have further discussion or comments uh on Right now, we do have a motion and a second for a not recommend.
All right. So, I'm not hearing any. Um, all right. So, it's getting late. So if it is a vote to not recommend and you say yes, that means that you agree to not recommend it. So just
I'm not working with a lot of crayons today. All right. So uh so I will take a roll call vote to not recommend uh article number six. Nathan, >> yes. >> Uh Linda, >> yes.
Peter, >> yes. >> Male, >> yes. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> All right. Uh, so I am also a yes. So
this is a uh does not recommend or I think it's just not recommend. That's not English. So not will not recommend. >> I I would also go for a does not. I
think that's uh it flows well. Um we might say um >> okay. Um all right. So I'm going to delete this recommended language here. Um delete that there. Um,
let's see. This is version three. >> Is there any version of this where we lead with that sentence from last year's comments? >> Yes. >> Um, and I would take out the thing about
concerning money. Um, >> actually maybe it's take out the while and it could just be the finance committee recognizes the efforts blah blah blah. Um, and maybe just a period
after similar towns. I don't know what I >> I mean I feel like the financial environment is uh perhaps just as uncertain now if not more >> uncertain. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Fine. If people want it. >> I'm not married to it though. Um
>> I mean I feel like it would be quite adequate if we put our exact same comments as last time. I was about to say if we did the same comments and just added the furthermore the committee concerned about the precedent of reintroducing articles as
the rest of it, right? Like that's the addition. Nothing else has changed. >> Well, I really like that first sentence. um which was more my reason last time than concerns about the actual money is
that you know I don't think they work harder than school committee or select board or finance committee. Um and you know I I think that first sentence much more sums up my reasons for having
doubts or not recommending this. But I others could speak also. I But I I I don't know. Does it flow to leave it like it is now? We don't really say in the first sentence that we don't just says we have
concerns. Yeah. Okay. So what what if the first sentence is you know recognizes the efforts and dedication yada yada. Then sentence two is finance committee does not recommend approval um for what has historically been voluntary service. Then we have the
sentence about we are also concerned about funding with retirement investment returns during uncertain financial times. And then we have a new paragraph the committee is also concerned about the president of reintroducing articles that were previously rejected.
>> I that >> yeah that's good. >> Yep. The separate paragraph emphasizes that too. >> And I mean I believe in the FY27 budget there was an unexpected increase
in our contribution to the pension fund more than Greg had anticipated in the past for some >> well the increase in the basis the cola base. Yeah. And the colabase created a
big liability >> and there was some other reason it was >> was retirement of high paid people some like a disability like one disability retirement
>> caused that quite a bit. Yeah. All right. So, we were talking about moving this concerns down here. >> Yeah. So, the first sentence is we recognize. The second sentence is however we do not recommend.
The third sentence is specific. We also have concerns about um uncertain financial environment. And then new paragraph, we just voted on this last year and rejected it. All right.
Okay. I think that sounds good to me. All right. Any further discussion on the comments? >> All right. >> Good to me. >> Excellent. Uh, okay. So, article 7 is still in
flux. I don't know if I would recommend us voting on this now. Um, I would feel, you know, more comfortable. I don't we I don't have appendix A yet. Um, and I feel like that's not a sponsor comment. So, my
feedback to Greg would be write a sponsor comment for article 7, please. I don't know. Has has the general fund always been referred to appendix X? I feel like there's actually been comments there before. Maybe I'm
hallucinating. >> Yeah. I mean, I think they do a fairly long presentation where Greg will go through things like, you know, health insurance is killing us. Um, fuel costs are killing us. Um, and you know, a
little bit about new growth and you know, other things on the revenue side that seems a little long to put in as a sponsor comment, but there'll be several slides presented that, you know, are similar to his
presentation at the February budget meeting, >> right? I'm I'm looking at last year's and there's a long appendix A with the line by line detail. >> Oh >> yeah. >> Oh no. Appendix A. Yes. Yeah. That's the
department breakdown. >> Yeah. All right. I I'm going to ask him for appendix A because that's not yet available. Um, do we have any other questions or concerns you'd like me to pass on to
Greg for article 7? Julian, one concern I have is actually the since we haven't seen the trash article. What happens if that budget doesn't pass? I don't, you know, that makes me nervous.
I don't know. I don't know if anyone else feels that, but >> I mean, >> I feel like an ugly article and that's why everyone's being kept in the dark about it. >> Well, that's that's my that's my fear. I guess that's why I feel uneasy. Yeah.
>> I mean, if it didn't pass, we would have no trash service >> proceed that way or do another >> special town meeting. >> Yeah. You know, amend the operating budget. >> And there are nearby towns
like Wayland that don't have trash service. >> Yeah. Um, >> yeah. I get really concerned about the issue of dumping. I can't support no trash service. >> I know. >> Um,
article 8, this I believe is also still in flux. So, I just got this uh this weekend. But that's pretty routine once we know the numbers. Or does anybody have any concerns about
any of this stuff? I imagine next Monday this will take two minutes to vote on. >> Not me. >> No. >> Yeah. I think I just want to go back and look and see what the revolving funds were last year. I I think they were
pretty darn similar. Uh except, you know, maybe this new van. So, okay. >> Sorry. I'm just checking real quick. >> Yeah, I was going to pull it up, but trying to do it on this small screen is
>> Yeah, I can do it >> so I don't turn my camera on. My potato's a My computer's a potato. >> Last year, the total was 410. >> That's the same as this year. Yes. 410. Yep. >> Faster than I am, Linda.
>> Well, I had it up already. It's just finding it. Yeah. >> Yes. And I don't think we had anyone that was going to write a comment for this one yet, either. I can I can write those comments. >> Okay.
>> I mean I I would copy and paste from last year, Nathan, if unless >> last year we said this is an annual procedural article to authorize revolving funds. For example, Council on Aging COA Van Service collected fees can
only be expended for COA operational expenses. Yeah. Should we can we vote on it or defer? >> I think Jill said we're not sure this is the final set of numbers. >> Okay.
>> So, >> I'm not I'm not 100%. So, anything here that is in blue I just literally got from Greg on Saturday. So, um I think it'll be definitely finalized
by tomorrow because all of these ones that are in blue, the select board will accept into the warrant. All right. And then this since we talked from Greg last Monday, this number has gone from uh for the ambulance funds
receipts has gone from 328 317 to uh 222477. So it's changed he got rid of the sentence here and acquisition of capital assets for 105.
Okay. So that's been deleted. So now this transfer is only going to do the pump and for the lease um of an ambulance >> and the title should say FY27
>> for article 9. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And then it's and well, did you get already that it's the numbers aren't matching? Yeah. Says 328 at the top and 222.
>> Yeah. So that's why I think this is not finalized yet. >> Yeah. Um but we did get an updated thing here. So it tells us what the the anticipated balance of the fund is by June 2026. Um
and that you know the un unspent funds are retained to the next year. So um so and the lease talks about ambulance. So, this purchase a firet truck, which I
didn't see up here either. So, um I was a little confused about the sponsor comments. Well, last year it was the third payment for the fire truck and the and the it went from 575 to 748, right? So, it went
up the reserve fund went up by quite a bit. Last year, the balance was 575. That's good. Um, is there a question about or I have a question about why do we drop the 100,000 or 10
5,000 of capital assets and >> no I have that question too. Well, I mean, does it say something about the health that we didn't think it was sustainable to withdraw the 328 and
if you know, you know, what changed or maybe it's just that um the price of the the Typhoon pumper plus the third year of the ambulance. Maybe it's just like the sum and before they had the sum as coming out to like 328k and then maybe
they just had it they had revised numbers I guess for the the pumper and the ambulance and then it just comes out to that amount. It looks like it adds up to 222k. So that could be it. >> And last year the third thing was the fifth year of a 5-year lease on the ambulance. So we've paid off the
ambulance. That was the difference. So, do you think this 100k is really for the fifth year of the seven-year fire truck? >> It's the same money. Yeah, it's the same amount as last year. And the Emacs pump is the same as last year. And the the
thing that's missing is last year we did the fifth year of the five-year lease for the ambulance. And so that's why we only need to take out 222 this year instead of 328. So that word ambulance on the last line
um right above take take other action relative there too that that should really say fire truck then right >> the fire truck >> because we paid off the am >> no >> right but the fire truck is above that that's the E1 typhoon pumper >> oh that's the fire truck
>> Oh really okay Okay. >> But yeah, why does it say third year of fiveyear ambulance if we paid for? >> Because last year it was the second year
of the five-year lease. Oh, so we have two ambulances. >> We have two ambulances. >> So it was the All right. It was the fifth year of the five year and then second year we paid off and now it's Yeah. This now it's the third year of the second one. Yeah.
>> But I still think the question is why' we take out the 105 of capital assets. Well, we're building up that reserve nicely. >> Well, it's I mean that's not really a reserve. So, that's money we collect
each year for ambulance services. >> Yeah. >> And so, you know, we should be spending it on ambulances and the fire department. >> Yep. >> Um because that's who provides the services.
>> Yep. But maybe they'll build it up so we can buy something good. Because unspent funds are retained. All right. So, it sounds like we sorted out the ambulance question, but I'll ask why they got rid of that. It's not clear
to me. So, this was something that I just got um got this weekend as well. So, This will definitely be discussed at the select board tomorrow though. Um, we don't have anyone assigned on this one
yet. Um, >> I'd be happy to take this one, Jill, if that's uh amendable. >> All right. >> Okay. And we talked a little bit about article 10 already. Um, do we have any further questions on this? Um, very sorry to
interrupt, but just for article 9, um, I imagine should I just be waiting until we have the numbers firmed up to get the to get the recommendation or, >> uh, I mean, it'll be sort of I guess the same as like last year's, but I guess it would make sense to wait until like the numbers finalized and then sort of insert that in like, you know, Mad Lib
style, I guess, to the recommendation. Um, unless anyone like disagrees, I'm happy to write it earlier, too. No, I think that sounds good. I think that I'll have numbers tomorrow. So, um, >> yeah, but I'll definitely I'm going to forward all the questions that I've
taken here for this article as well. All right. Um, okay. So, article 10. Um, I think it sounds like these are sort of the proposals. This will also this is in the blue text because this is something that was new from Greg. Um this I think
will be discussed at the select board meeting tomorrow as well. Um I think it just it needs to be updated about you know appropriating it to the free cash article which is currently number four. Um, my only question to Greg is if they're
going to call that something else because if they add this to that then I don't know if that's quote unquote certified free cashache or if that's important. Um, but it was nice that they could find this almost a million dollars in things that are either done or will not be
done. Um, all right. Any other questions or concerns for article 10? No. All right. Um, I don't know. I don't think we assigned anyone for this one or for the other ones that are sort of in flux right now.
Do you want to do that next week, Katie? >> Or do you want people to sign it for all of them? >> I mean, I'm fine doing that next week if you guys are. >> Yeah. >> Well, >> sign it this week because I mean, next
week is our final thing before the warrant, right? >> Before the printed warrant. Yeah. So nothing things that you don't >> get a recommend a vote on or a comment on, we'll just have to give a handout at town meeting, >> which you know, we can't write comments
and vote on stuff if the articles aren't done. So, >> right. >> Um, I mean, I'll take this one if nobody wants it. >> Okay. Do you also want to do like four since they're related?
Well, they're not really related, but it's just more free cash. Um, but yeah, I can do four too. Sure. If we haven't assigned that, although that's one. I think that's harder to write or
without seeing all the sponsor comments, but that that one may be tough to include, but we'll see where I get to and what the filling is next week. Right. Uh I guess we skipped over article number three as well for the comments.
Um which is kind of hard to write comments because it's not really an article yet. >> Yeah. And part so part of it is I mean you can put my name down if you want but I I don't want to write them
until we see what the sponsor comments are. >> And you know if they don't do a good enough job explaining what went wrong, it changes our comments. >> Correct. >> Um okay, jumping around a little bit
here. We had that one. Um, >> we were on 11 golf course. Oh, sorry. >> Yeah, we don't have anyone for the general fund yet either. Um, I think our comments for the general fund usually
are pretty similar every year. >> I can do that one then. >> Okay. Uh, and eight is Nathan and then nine. All right. Kale and then 10 Peter,
right? Golf course. So, I got a blank line here. Um, >> but the one Justin gave us last week had an amount in there, didn't it? >> Yeah, it had it had like 70,000. Yeah.
>> So, that's what I was confused about. Um, >> all right. Well, we're not going to vote on a blank one, >> so let's just skip. >> So, this this is so this is I'm not entirely sure if this will be replaced by that body camera article which is
like at the bottom now. I got that as sort of a standalone document uh today. I think >> yeah I mean from the context of the discussion I think they are so I mean Greg asked about this last week.
I and personally anyway gave him negative feedback and I think they may replace it with just doing the police cameras as a five-year contract. Uh um but I guess we'll have to wait and see
after tomorrow. >> Yep. >> Should we vote on it anyway >> or is it just >> No. >> Okay. >> I don't think it'll be I I doubt Greg will present this article. >> Okay.
>> But don't know for sure. Uh 13 is the lease off of um Summer Street. >> Oh, >> so I was supposed to write this and I didn't. So there was a nearly identical article
last year. So, I think this is just they need to do an RFP. Um, is is there any um is there any reason not to recommend this? Um, the only thing I don't have in this
document, they don't have the the map of it, but I'm pretty sure we saw the map last year. That's important. >> Looks like the exact same language as last year. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They just needed more time to do the RFP process.
>> Well, no, look at the sponsor comments. So, this year's article concerns a different section of the reservoir lot off of Summer Street parcel. >> And who is it sponsored by? >> Yeah, I assume Select Board.
>> Sponsored by Select Board. >> That's what I thought. It was Select Board last year to my recollection. It does say select board last year. Yeah, I would copy our comment from last year, too. >> Yeah. Uh do is there a reason uh not to vote
on this today? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Then uh I move to recommend article 13. >> I'll second Peter. >> Okay. So we got a move and a second. Um
do we have any further um comments, questions, discussion? No. All right. Um All right. So hearing none, I will take a roll call vote to recommend article
13. Linda, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Male, >> yes. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Nathan,
>> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> Uh, I am also a yes. And then this is uh what we wrote last year. So, uh, it'll allow the town to procure a new lease for the property.
This is where the cell tower is. Current lease is expiring. So, um, the town will be able to negotiate a lease. >> I think that sort of covers the topic. >> Y, >> I don't know why the text didn't copy great, but um,
>> yeah, >> that's fine. All right. Uh, community preservation uh fund. So, I think uh Nathan is going to rate this one. >> Yep. Um this is pretty much identical to
last year and the year before. Um it's a 1.5% search charge on real estate taxes that fund these different programs and they are required to put uh 10% of the uh of their budget into each of
three different categories. the historic preservation, open space, community housing. Um the only thing that's different this year is that it's the final payment on the golf course. Um so, uh since this is the same as previous years, I would I move to
recommend article 14. >> I'll second. >> Uh all right. So, we got a move in a second. Uh, do we have any further discussion? No. All right. So, hearing none, I will take a roll call vote to recommend article 14. Linda,
>> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Male, >> yes. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes.
I am also a yes. So this is recommend. Um all right. So the total budget. So this is this is exactly what we had in the comments last year. Um at the 20 I'm assuming all these numbers
real estate. No, that one shouldn't be changed. budget for FY 26. >> And then you said this will pay off the debt at the golf course. >> Yes, that was that's my understanding and that's what the uh sponsor comments say.
Okay. Do we like these comments? They're kind of maybe a little small. Is that better? All right. Um, okay. Article 15,
um, is some specific appropriations for specific projects. Oh, no, it's not. That was the last article. This is for um the putting them into the required funds here.
Oh, I I think this is um uh paying them out for specific projects. So, membership in regional housing service um historical plaques from the historical fund uh um mayor affordable housing trust.
I don't see anything controversial in there. It's all kind of like within the um the domain of the the three categories of of CPA funds. Uh so I recommend I move to recommend article
uh 15. >> I will second article 15. >> All right. So we have a move in a second. Um, I did I did want to let everyone know that the numbers for this are about double what
the article was last year. Um, so the budgeted reserve fund last year, uh, I don't know if I can share both of these at the same time. So the they're doing 365 this year. Last
time it was 50 50k or sorry 60k. And the community housing fund this year is 35 and last year it was 50 community housing reserve fund.
All right. So, they're also uh they don't have open space was 50. So, but like they're the similar funds. So, but last year instead of being 474K,
it was 206 and some change. But we removed a second. Um, as an aside, and I will try to remember it since I'm suggesting it, but um, it
probably would make sense that we do a little followup to see what's happening with the Maynard Affordable Housing Trust Fund because I mean that's a regular recipient and
you know, I don't know what the total is. we've moved in the prior years, but with the addition of 400,000 this year, that's, you know, this must be some serious money in that trust fund. And I don't know what they've done with it or,
you know, what's happening with it. >> Thought they bought a unit in the old firehouse to get us over that affordable housing cap. >> Oh, all right. >> I think that's what they do with it. That was one I think pretty critical thing.
Um but we should well we should definitely follow up on that. >> Yeah, I just hadn't didn't know that. So yes, I would Yes. And it doesn't have to be right now, but just um you know sometime maybe over the
summer when we're a little freer. Sounds like a good idea. All right. Um, yeah, we did have a move and a second. Do we have any further discussion on this topic? No. All right. So, I will take a roll
call vote to recommend article 15. Linda, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. Uh, >> yes. >> Katie, >> yes.
>> Nathan, >> yes. >> Daniel, >> yes. >> Uh, I am also yes. So, that's recommend. Uh, and this is what we had as our comments from last time. So, it
appropriates funds from the CPA into the four projects. There's four projects in this. One, two, three, four. There's five projects in this article this time. >> Well, really four projects.
>> The one of them is funded from two sources. The first line for the I mean it's 400,000 to Mayard affordable housing trust. Oh, yep. I can
I think the other thing it goes for of I'll of find out more about this too is as we build up affordable units, it goes to the rent subsidies too. Okay. >> Yeah. But I but we should really get the
the skinny on this. The the real deal. >> Okay. All right. Uh now we'll be jumping into about halfway through the articles. um the water enterprise fund budgets. So,
I'm not aware that these will be changing. Um so, I think Peter and Katie, Katie, you sent me some. I can paste these in as we're talking live. Um so, I believe that these will be uh like the final water sewer articles. So, we
can probably feel free to discuss and vote on these if we are comfortable tonight or you could do it uh next week. We have a temperature of the committee on these articles.
>> Um I think what else is in here? >> I'm good. Reckon doing it. But >> yeah, because it's the water sewer stuff and then then we're on to the citizens petition. We can't do the solid waste because we don't have an article yet.
Yeah, I'm not sure it's every water and sewer, but we can pick and choose some. So, I' I'd make a motion to recommend article 16, the water enterprise fund budget. >> I'll second.
>> All right. All right. We got a motion. We got a second. Uh do we have any further discussion on article 16? No. All right. So I will take a roll call vote. Um to recommend article 16. Linda,
>> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Nail. >> Yes. Nathan, >> yes. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Nathaniel,
>> yes. >> All right. I am also Yes. So, this is a recommend. >> Um, >> uh, >> can I just get feedback on comments? Um, so I, you know, as I'm looking at this,
I'm thinking the comments I would draft, you know, would talk about, you know, trying to implement an overall water plan to get more water. Um but then also highlight the idea that
you know we've the select board has passed a 7% increase in rates you know and note that there's a 0.9 or almost 1% decrease in the budget.
Um and that that really is, you know, the the resolution of those two seemingly opposite things is that water usage is down. And so we're, you know, trying to cover the same amount of or slightly less amount of budget with, you
know, less water being built out. Um because I think, you know, everybody's going to say, well, how come my weight rates went up 7%. So I I would tend to address that head on and I'm certainly going to say 7% increase instead of 7%
adjustment that seems to be an all I don't know if you looked at the materials Justin put together but they can't just you know say 7% increase it's got to be 7% adjustment which just bugs me but anyway um so does
anybody disagree with that or have something else they think should be highlighted in the water budget comments. >> Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. And uh what do you think about including Justin's comments that a part of the
reduction is seen with like the power users like the tier four the the most heavily taxed um water usage bracket. >> Oh, the less water usage, right? Okay. Yep. Yes. Good point. like he seemed to think that the uh this tax policy was
having an effect on like consumption patterns, >> right? Okay. >> I thought that he said that we were pretty much at the bottom, that we were very low usage and that increasing the taxes wasn't going to decrease
consumption anymore. Did I miss? >> Uh, he did say that, but I think what Nathan is referring to is that the kind of decline in water usage over the last couple of years has been from those, you
know, higher tier users that have much higher rates. >> I see. I see. >> But he doesn't think there's much room for it to decline further. Yeah, that's also my understanding. All right, great. How about um
the article 17? >> Um I'd make a motion to recommend article 17 and >> I will second. >> All right. So we got a motion. We got a second. We have any further discussion. All right. Not hearing any. I will take
a roll call vote for article 17 to recommend. Linda. >> Yes. Male. >> Yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Katie, >> yes.
>> Peter, >> yes. >> Daniel, >> yes. >> Uh, I am also Yes. Uh, and then I think you sent me comments, Katie, so I can just put it over there.
>> I did. And I can make them more thorough, too. They were a little >> quickly put together. >> But this is kind of a routine article now. >> Yeah. So
>> uh oh we'll retain. Okay. >> Oh I didn't know was Yeah. So I wanted to write how much was in the reserves but I didn't know the balance and I looked at so many places and I couldn't find it. It's it's it's not a reserve fund that carries
from year to year. It's like the reserve fund, you know, that we administer. So, it's 500,000 each year and if it's unspent, it just rolls into next year's retained earnings.
It doesn't carry forward like the stabilization funds. >> All right. Yeah. So, I would maybe propose to not have that final. >> That makes sense. Okay. >> That got me confused when Jason tal
Justin talked last week. Yeah, because I thought he said there's February 4th and >> but yeah, >> enterprise operating reserve operating budget
>> budget. It's a big title. >> There you go. Okay, great. Uh, so that's article 17 27. Um, so these are these are comments that um
I think Male you provided. One of the comments you provided I made some edits to. I think it was a different article though. >> I believe that we checked these numbers last time with uh Justin. >> Great. That Yeah, I think that would because I was um I was out sick when
Justin was here last week. So, that was I think my my only request kind of kind of to the committee was just to like confirm those numbers and it seems like like that's all set and stuff. So that's that's good. Um I appreciate that by the way. Um >> uh can somebody
>> and I can always >> Oh sorry. >> Oh I can I can always highlight them just to triple double check with Greg um when we submit our comments too. Did you have additional question, Nathan? >> Uh, yes. I I was just wondering if
someone could refresh my memory on uh article 18. So, this is this is paying off a um a long-term loan early. Is is that what this is about? Um, I think this is the final cost
and it reduces the need to bond more or reduces the need to pull from the previous approved bond. So, we're paying for it outright with the retained earnings rather than rolling it into a bond.
Got it. >> So my notes from talking to Justin is that the phase one is fully complete and we bonded at a slightly larger rate than the actual cost. >> So instead of rebonding, we can use this 148k to bring down principle and interest from the operating budget.
>> Yeah, I I that's ringing a bell now. Thank you. Um, and yes, I just double check that that 912 is the right number for water retained earnings. >> Yep. Okay, good. >> Okay. Sorry, I didn't know if that was
still a question. >> No, it was. Thank you. Okay. So, would we be voting on article 18 or did you Did we already vote on it last time? >> We I don't think we voted yet. >> We did not.
>> Would we like to? >> I'll I'll make a motion to to uh recommend. Uh certainly >> I'll make a motion to um second to recommend not a motion. >> Right. So we have a motion and a second. Um
all right. So we'll take a roll call vote on article 18. Linda, >> yes. >> Male, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Amy, >> yes. >> Peter,
>> yes. Daniel. >> Yes, >> I am also. Yes. All right. Um, did we want to do any tweaking to the comment or are we comfortable with this comment?
>> I'm good. >> Good. All right. Okay. Uh, um, great. So this is the article 19 for the 3 million for engineering and design. Um I believe
that Nathaniel is writing this comment. So this is for basically as part of the water master plan. They're going to do this sort of planning for the phase two for Rockland Avenue. Sorry, can I go back um to that? At the beginning of the
of the of this document, it says the water retained earnings is 1.2 million. And but we got we have this figure, the 912 someplace else, but at the very top it says 1.2 2 million
water enterprise zone retain earnings. >> I think those are last year's numbers or something. >> You think? Okay. Cuz >> it's not that's not the right number for free cash or I mean I'm looking at the email from the state that Greg forwarded. >> Yeah. So that number is off. Okay. Thank
you, Peter. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I would say anything that's highlighted here is yellow is something that I think Greg highlighted as something that might need to change. >> Okay. Okay. Never mind. Thank you. >> Uh but I'll double I'll put that in my
comments that I'm going to share to Greg, too. >> Okay. >> Uh the balances The balance of the stabilization fund should be updated before the article table and the free cash and the retained earnings.
Okay, great. All right. Um, cool. Recommend. Recommends. Okay. >> So, engineering. So, this is basically to start to do the the planning to start to do um you know
that I think it was the $25 million or so they're guesstimating right now to get a real number for that so we know what that will be for the um the phase two in that part for the master plan.
Um, so I move to recommend article 19. >> Second. >> All right. So, we have a move and a second to recommend. Do we have any further discussion on this topic or questions or otherwise? >> Uh, just a quick question. The end of the sponsor comment says that the bond
is funded through a 2% increase to water rates. Should that be seven or am I misunderstanding which rate it's referring to? I think it's a somewhat convoluted way of saying
of the 7% increase 2% was for this bond. >> That makes sense to me. >> Yes. So that was that was that if they went with there were sort of three options that were presented to the select board. If they went with the 5% increase, this study could not happen.
Um, and if they tried to fund everything, including the building of it, it would go up by 50%. So, oh, my headset battery is low. Um, yeah, basically I totally agree with Peter's statement.
>> Uh, perhaps Nathaniel, you could um include that clarification in your comments. >> Sure. >> Okay. Do we have any further discussion on this topic? So, we did have a move and a second to recommend.
>> All right. So, I will take the roll call vote to recommend article 19. Linda, >> yes. >> Male, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Katie, >> yes.
>> Peter, >> yes. Nathaniel. >> Yes, >> I am also a yes. >> Um, >> okay. >> Quick thing for comments. Uh, I'm going to hopefully get that. Well, I will get
it within the next week. Um, I'm mostly going to focus on, you know, water is a problem and that this is just step one. Um, I'm not sure if that's really the route we'd want to go. It could be scarier
that way, but I also think it's realistic, and I would um point towards his uh master plan, which is incredibly well put together, especially that like two-page flyer. Um I I think I would want to include that link in the comments to be completely honest. I know that it's printed and everything, but it
still helps. Um aside from those two things, the 2% being part of that seven, anything else anyone would think of I should specifically recommend? I think this is one of the more important um well, pieces here. I mean, I'm fine being scary and think we need
to be honest, but I mean I would you want to say something about, you know, uh the town somebody, you know, we considered a $25
million bond for this year >> because that's the real amount that's needed. But that, you know, in essence, we're putting that off a year or two, but expect to, you know, have a 20 to$25
million additional bond coming, you know, either next year or the year after. I don't know when they were saying they would. >> I wouldn't want to. I see what you're saying there. Um, I feel like just saying it's step one and then linking to the brochures and everything he has
inherently does that for anyone that wants to do more. But I don't want someone to look at this, especially since we all did vote to recommend. And I think we're all on the same page that this water issue is the number one problem our town has right now to see 25 million and this is step one and then just go absolutely not. We can't afford
that. It's not about us being able to afford it espouse, you know, how we pay for it. That's really how the discussion in my mind should be framed. Um, and also this $3 million is being spent to to honestly determine where that
pathway goes forward. Any of those other numbers are just best guesses until we actually get this studied that this this piece done. This has to be done for us to actually have a better idea of what we really do need. It could be 5 million less. It could be 10 million more.
So these studies are are vital. And Nathaniel, I I as a financing option, I like that they went with putting it on the water bill rather than as a $3 million override on tax bills
because I think it puts the burden on on water users, you know, more than just >> um so I don't know if you want to mention that that this is because that would there would have been that option to do an override
on residential or not but tax bills, which is mostly, you know, homeowners as opposed to this, which maybe puts the burden on people who are using water. So, it's like rent, you know, renters
who have water meters, you know, commercial high water users. But I like this financing option. Yeah, I my only concern about doing that putting that in is
I mean it's much easier to put a $3 million bond on the water rates. >> Yeah. >> You know, when you get to a $25 million bond, that's when they were talking about a 49% increase in rates. >> And I don't know that we're likely to go that way.
>> Yeah. and that and it's not what's before I what's before us is this not you know not the other option so maybe that's going too far >> yeah Nathaniel I get what you're saying about
want I wanting this to pass I don't know Bob McCarthy's in my ear though >> you want to pay like $3 million for a study for something we'd end up not doing though I feel like that would be an even bigger waste. >> Yeah, we're going to have to do it. I
mean, we don't have any water. Um, >> we don't have any water. >> Yeah, I'm not worried about them saying no to the study inherently. I'd be more worried about them saying no to the study because they're afraid of the 25 mil. Like, oh no, we can last a few more
years kind of thing when I mean, we can't. Not really. the the the time lag of all of this is just so you know by the time we the people read up and figure out oh yeah no we should spend this money the odds are that
potentially that time would not be able to make the difference up then you have big overrides other problems arise I don't know it's a bit of a rock and a hard place >> I mean I think it's totally fair to emphasize if nothing else that this is
for a study It's not actually going to put more water into the system. >> Well, it's not actually just for a study though, is it? >> It's engineering design. We're next step. Yeah. >> So, it's I mean it's more than a study.
It's you know actual technical you know all I can think of is equivalent of a building. It's not like the study of whether we're going to do a building. It's the actual design of the building.
Um, >> that's fair. >> And we would have to do this step regardless. >> Yes. I mean, this was meant to come out of the 25 million. >> Right. Right. >> Right. Okay.
All right. I mean, yeah, you we can look at draft comments next week, too. We don't have to >> beat this to death. >> Yeah. I don't know. I don't think I took notes on all of them, so that's that's on me. I probably should have been taking notes um
in the document and not in my Microsoft OneNote. All right. Um it is 10:12 and would we still like to keep going? So, we're on article 20 of
31 slash2. Um, can I offer, you know, just because you won't be here next week, Jill, is there anything >> you particularly want to vote on or want
to vote against or anything you'd like to take up out of order because you won't be here next week? Um, funnily enough, I I think I do have a couple things to say about the dog bylaw, the article 29.
>> Oh god. All right. >> I know, right? Um so but I think for the other ones solid waste we have we have no idea about um
the other water sewer articles make sense to me. I do think that this 50% thing I don't understand that. So I want to double check um with Greg about that. Um and with the numbers like you said um for the regulation of the outdoor
lighting I think if the people who are supposed to enforce it within the town don't want to enforce it, I have a hard time recommending it. Um I think it's pretty darn technical. Um, >> I wanted to say something about the outdoor lighting one if it's okay.
>> I don't know if you should do it now or later, but um I think that a big piece so I'm I'm a huge proponent of it. I think it's it's very good. I've seen this before. Um I've seen it required in other towns and other when I was doing private um
development design is beneficial. Um, and that having a complicated thing come of citizens position petition doesn't inherently mean it's bad. It just means it needs, you know, it should be scrutinized further. But from the
scrutiny we've seen so far, at least from my perspective, they've done a lot of work. They have an 11 person team. They've done this for two years. They have they have said yes to every single comment from every board so far, which is very impressive for for something
like this to just say yes, we want to get this through. Um I'm shocked that the other boards, the ones that we would hope would push this type of thing through, haven't done it based off of like how it looks pretty good. Um my biggest issue is of course just we can't
put this on a board that doesn't want to do it. It's just that's a non-starter. So, if that's not resolved, I don't see a path forward. But I would hope that maybe in discussions with Greg, there's some way to get past this conflict of interest thing where it's a almost like
a double blind. If one person is a conflict of interest, they step aside during the, you know, education, etc. So, I don't know, but someone to throw my two cents out there. >> Yeah. And I think that's the thing that I found challenging is like, you know, a
lot of the town's um town's workers and other people I've talked with in the town are like generally favorable towards like, you know, the initiative. It just seems like nobody wants to pick pick up the bag, so
to speak. Um, and I just don't know what to do about that. That's why I was sort of asking like in other towns who like I would think that like the planning board might be the people who would be in charge of something like that but it sounds like they approached them without
success. So but I was I was not there. I only know one side of that. So >> yeah, I mean one thing I would say is you know we generally speaking as town government can assign responsibilities to various
boards whether they want them or not. >> Correct. Um, so you know, and part of me I I can also think, you know, that the the woman spoke about, oh, the planning board
didn't want it. We can also make the planning board do it or town meeting can um >> right >> you know whether it's planning board or maybe zoning board of appeals or
because I mean they deal with a lot more stuff like that anyway. Um, I just feel like some of this, I mean, I get that they've been working at it for a while, but there's still this all this
stuff to be fleshed out. And I just part of me would say it's almost like it should get pulled and just bring, you know, put it on the fall warrant fall town meeting and,
you know, work some of this stuff out. um you know so that we're not talking about amending it on town meeting floor. Uh I don't can we what would you think about tableabling further discussion of
the lighting bylaw for next week? Um and see if there are any articles that were more unanimous about uh that we could vote on tonight. >> I can buy that. I just wanted to give Jill a chance. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Was the only
>> Yeah. >> Well, I I wonder if we should hear Jill on Article 29. >> Yeah. I just want to throw something out. >> Article 29. The I It has the similar challenge that I have with the citizens
petition for outdoor lighting. So right now this would be falling on the new thing that they're adding in is inspection of these kennels and that would be for the animal control officer which I think we share with several nearby towns. I don't think we have our
own. My concern is that this would be potentially a lot of work for that person and like would we need our own animal control officer in my understanding of how I read that law or this proposed um bylaw >> and I I don't know that we've gotten
feedback from them. So the only comment I would have there is essentially we are doing this bylaw to be in compliance with state law and state law is still going to require us to inspect kennels once a year whether we pass this bylaw
or not. That's part of the >> bylaw state >> because we tend to do bylaws to then you know adopt changes to state law. But I is it buddy's law or whatever the
>> law's law. But isn't it also increasing the the receipts more covering the cost of the town of the lake? >> Yes. And that's not that's but the specifically on the inspections of kennels >> that's required by state law. Now,
>> I think they should also say in the sponsor comments what a kennel is, even if they don't define it in the article itself. I thought that was a little annoying. >> Yeah. Or say that kennels are defined by state law, which is >> Yeah, one of those two things.
>> Yeah. Jill, do we still have Jen Jennifer Condan as our um if I'm saying her name right as our animal control person? >> As far as I know, like I don't know if like they want to weigh in on this at all or if you know
if it is uh an act like a new bylaw to be compliant. I think the the fees and everything that makes sense to me because they have been changed for like the decade.
Um, but I I sort of had more questions about this inspection stuff because I think it's, you know, I don't think we have a full-time person, animal control officer. And from talking to um people in town, it's not entirely clear the process of
kennel licensing. And I don't know that we have a bylaw that covers that. That didn't sound like a straightforward process to me when I talked to a concerned citizen about it. So, it's like, you know, the Rover and all these other pet sitting services
that are sort of like pseudo businesses. I think that that would be sort of my question, but the main concern I have is just about the about the animal control officer inspecting kennels and what that cost might be like because I know that,
you know, other town boards like the fire board would like, you know, a deputy fire chief to do more inspections. So, we're going to need another control officer to do stuff. But that's my two cents. But to some degree, I think, you know,
it may count as like an unfunded state mandate that, you know, the state legislature has said kennels need to be inspected once a year in towns, you have to do it,
>> right? It might be like we don't have a choice kind of thing. >> Yeah. But that, you know, as part of our diligence as a finance committee, I think we should, if we, if it could be a potential additional cost to the town, we might have to say, you know, this is a state law. It doesn't matter, but we
anticipate we might need another FTE or something. I think that's important to know. >> Yeah, for for whatever it's worth, I just uh looked up on mass.gov, gov. They have guidelines for animal control officers and it says that um before
issuing a l a kennel license uh that they must be inspected by an acco and they must be done um at least uh prior to each licensed renewal. They must be inspected at least annually.
Okay. All right. Um, I don't know if you guys want to vote on a couple more if we want to. I mean, I think personally I think we should at least call it at 11 because uh >> after every single I have another hour of work after every single meeting. So,
>> but also next week we have nothing on the agenda except doing this, right? We're not there's no guests. >> There's no guests next week. So, I haven't yet posted the meeting. Um, but if uh
I believe that it would just be where is this? It would just be the annual town meeting discussion, the articles received, the budget updates, um recommendations and votes, and then routine agenda. um and planning for the next the
following meetings because right now we only have April 13th booked and I think we need to figure out what additional meetings we'd like um >> in April andor May. >> April
13th is the final one before the warrant gets printed. >> Right. Then April 27th would be the next regular one where we could go back and you know probably deal with the general fund and whatever things we didn't vote
on. >> I suppose it is consecutive days but um my my uh sort of understanding was that the select board um will vote will do a final vote on the the printed warrant on the 21st and then it'll actually sort of the final date for the printed warrant is is technically the um the 22nd I
suppose. So we would I suppose have the 20th um although it is tight of course >> and that is April break for people. I don't know if that >> actually one of the holiday. Yeah.
>> Oh actually April 20th is also Yeah. Patriots day. >> Yeah. So I don't think we can meet the 20th. >> I can't personally meet the 20th either. So um I mean I think we can get through this stuff next week. >> I think so, too, cuz we're only we've re
we've loaded most of them. Um, and I feel the last ones aren't like a lot of them are routine and not super controversial. >> And then some of them we won't be able to vote on because I bet the general fund budget still isn't finalized. But
I'm just guess who knows. Um, >> and then is the May 11th our hearing? >> May 11th is the hearing. So, um, that's the public hearing. >> So, you know, there's potentially May 4th. Um,
like if you if we do the 27th and the 4th, um, I would just need to know when to post the meetings for. Um, I am not available the fourth. Um, so I just wanted to let you know that
>> I I would think we should post for the 13th and you know the 2 well >> the I don't know 27th I mean you could just be broad and general in the agenda but it's not going to be anything besides town meeting anyway.
Um, >> right. And then at the 27th, we'll figure out whether we need May 4th. And I would even go as far for tonight and say, you know, we could punt on minutes and routine agenda for next
week, too, >> right? >> Because it is May 4th if if if you if we are meeting, Jill. Okay. All right. Um, yeah. So, I can post for the 27th. you
have uh I don't think I posted yet for the 13th, but it would be um the the 2026 annual discussion like agenda number two for today and routine agenda. I can also add in to the um annual town meeting
discussion like planning for the public hearing if you end up talking about it. And then I can just make the same topics for the 27th. All right. Okay,
that sounds great. Um, do we still want to do any other articles tonight or would we like to call it here at 10:30? >> Let's call it. >> Yeah, call it. >> But I'm only one, so >> I would move to ajourn. A second.
>> Who seconded? That was Nia. >> That was me. Yes. >> All right. So, you got the move and the seconds. Um, so I won't be here next time before I take the vote to um adjourn. Katie, I told them to try to put it on the meeting so that like people can join. There won't be a waiting room. Oh,
>> okay. >> Um, just in case something terrible happens. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. And this is on the board of health Zoom account. So, I'm not entirely sure where it's recording to. It's recording to somewhere and I don't think it's the
cloud. So, it might be my computer. So, I'll have to figure that out at some point to try to post this later. Um, >> so do do I just click the link? I don't have to like do anything special to log in. >> No, you have to log in as the there's um in the Zoom invite that I sent you. It
has the information to sign in as the posting account. So you have to log in as that with the password and then it will probably ask you for an authentication. So you should try to log in on Monday during the day when town hall's open. >> Okay. >> And you can uh you can call Greg or send
an email and be like I I tried to log in and it sent me a code for Zoom and I can't log in without the two-factor code. >> Okay. So, um, that way you'll you'll log in and you'll have all the administrator rights and you'll be able to take
control or kick people. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. So, I would um Greg can definitely help you with that if you have trouble. You can try to log in um other like sooner than that too. Um but definitely on Monday um I'd make sure it's working
during business hours 4 p.m. >> Right. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, he responds really fast, too. He's great. >> Yeah. And if you have a challenge, you can also reply email the posting um the
email that you log into the account with. So, that also goes to a couple other people, too. But that's great. >> All right. I will play with it. >> Okay. Stop sharing my screen. Okay. So, I just wanted to make sure that we covered that. But hopefully it won't have a
meeting room even if there's a problem and you can't log in under the posting account. Um, I think you'll still be able to run the meeting, but if you get Zoom bombed, you're just so >> I don't want to say anything. So, um, they'll find us. Yeah. Um,
okay. Great. So, all right. Right. So, I just want to make sure we have that square before I take the roll call vote to adjurnn. All right. So, we had a a move and a second. So, I'll take the roll call vote to adjurnn at 10:32 p.m. Linda, >> yes. >> Male, >> yes.
>> Nathan, >> yes. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. I am also a