Finance Committee: April 8, 2024

Transcript captured from MHTV’s Vimeo auto-captioning. No speaker labels; proper names and dollar figures occasionally misheard. Click any timecode to jump to that moment in the source video.

0:01 Alec, do you mind if I just conv open our meeting first? Yeah, of course. Uh, Thanks. Select board wants to take the mic for a minute. Um, good evening. Um, just wanted to call this meeting of April 8th, 7 0 7 to order, um, we’re here to attend the finance committee, um, weren, hearing

0:21 All those in favor. Okay. Okay. So we, yeah. All right. So we’ll go first. Yeah. So as part of our participation in this meeting, um, we are, um, we have a, a vote to take regarding appropriations. Um, and I have a, a motion, uh, well, let see. We have a, um, been asked, or it’s been a recommendation of our professional staff that we reduce, um, funding the OPE line item by $250,000, uh, to make funds available for next year’s budget. And, um, in, I guess I will ask for a motion which will reduce the funding to opep line item

1:08 by the $250,000 to make funds available for other appropriations. The reduction will not have a material impact on the ope liability in the short term. So moved second. Okay. All in favor? Discussion. Discussion. Oh, Sorry. Discussion. Discussion. Does that, does that dictate where the money is gonna go?

1:32 So based on the motion, it’s reducing the other government, um, uh, fund by the 250 available for other appropriation, um, with the intent to, uh, make it available for the school budget by 250,000, or what other actions the board may take.

1:58 So, so right now, going a hundred percent to the school zero.

2:09 Right. So it, it’s just, it, it makes it available. So it goes outside of the select board’s budgets. Um, it makes it available. So the plan is, um, where we, uh, the schools and, and balancing that budget cut the 1.2, asking for 250, um, that, Right. And, and, and the schools will be, yeah, they’ll be turned back at the end of this last fiscal year, this fiscal year, the free cash. But what we’re doing is, um, uh, adding the two 50 on that, uh, on the school side, we intentionally do not want to touch the free cash numbers.

2:56 We have our stated policy, our goals, as well as the level that we have gotten free cash to at this point. Uh, it is all geared towards maintaining our bond rating levels because we are hitting a number of other revolving accounts and stabilization accounts and drawing down, we need to be able to convince the bonding agencies that in compensation we’re leaving our free cash numbers at the levels that we’re, we’re setting. So again, the, the plan, the original agreement on building a budget was that we had 1.5 million of new revenue available in order to, uh, uh, balance this new budget.

3:42 Uh, given that the, the school budget and the town budget are about equal, uh, amounts, we split the new revenue in half. So it’s about 750 for the schools, 750 for the town. Um, and so the, the schools had to do, uh, reductions from what they had. I dunno if their aspirational level or whatever the budget had to cut down. They, they, they made significant cuts, um, came up just within 250,000. So in, in the conversations to make, uh, everything balance out and ready for town meeting that we would, we would, uh, reallocate the OEP funds. So in the short term, as we stated, it’s not a material impact on our ED liability.

4:31 Uh, we’ll get back to that, but it makes everything work, uh, balance out for town meeting, Given our free cash, we had a supplemental 200,000 left, so taking the 250 from the opep, we would still leave that 200 supplemental in the free cash. So that still would be over in our reserves for the town. Good chair. Um, and the anticipated turn back is in excess of what that request is as Well. Correct. So That, Yes.

5:07 Yeah. My, my just concern is, you know, As we’ve seen our public safety officers, both the chiefs come in front of us and they’ve been without individuals, and given the fact that they’re gonna have to hire people and it’s gonna take a while, um, I, I couldn’t pass that more than 150, you know, I think the town should have a hundred to have another, you know, public safety. It’s, it’s, it’s triage. We’re all hurting, but I don’t wanna see our public safety be put at jeopardy. And so I’d be willing to support 150 that going over the schools, but not the two 50

5:43 and a hundred back to the town and a Well, the a hundred, yeah, the a hundred would save. Well, so the two 50 total. Yeah. Yeah. I would just add to that, that, uh, you know, I’m, I’m also, uh, you know, we worked really hard to kind of get an even split in terms of how we’re going to, uh, anticipate budget seasons as we go into it. And I think that’s been very helpful in, in imposing some financial discipline. So the idea if there’s, there is found money that we could, that we could split it 50 50 just like we did the, you know, the overall, uh, growth for the year would be a consistent, a consistent way to do it. Um, but I’m obviously, you know, concerned,

6:29 uh, you know, about the, the level of effort and, and the, the, the challenge of this negotiation, I’m not at all happy about it. Once again, we’re, you know, you have the schools reaching over, you know, to, to our side and pulling money back. And, you know, I just think that’s a practice that has to, you know, that should not continue in the future. And that we ought to have very, very clear demarcations about financial discipline, and we need to bring, you know, what that does. It basically allows a huge part of the discretionary budget to be, to be less than accountable. And I’ve lived this for, I dunno, 15 years now, and I think we have a unique opportunity to, to bring some fiscal discipline to both sides of the, of the principle discretionary budget. So, you know, that’s not gonna, you know, I just wanna state

7:16 that as a matter of principle, and I’ve been very clear all around about that. I just hope that we, uh, you know, it, but I know to this year’s a special circumstance, and I understand that a lot, that there’s been a lot of negotiation and, uh, you know, I, I think we could probably throw in enough another horse trading move, you know, but I, I don’t, I don’t, you know, I don’t know how, uh, productive that’s gonna be, especially given the expenditure of time that you guys have put into it. But anyway, Did you see, um, so I, uh, I mean, I share that this is a painful budget to pass. We all do. Um, I know it was really hard for us to, you know, hear, uh, chief King’s presentation and, and what it, what it would mean,

8:01 and it would, you know, the real, real effects that would be felt on the police department. Um, having, you know, with that in mind though, I, I personally know how much effort went in behind the scenes over the last month to, to get to the place that we are with, um, with the school’s budget. And in terms of financial responsibility, I do think a lot of progress having watched very closely, our two finance liaison members, who, frankly, I just, I really wanna commend Molly and Alec right now for their work. It was not easy, long hours, a lot, a lot of negotiations, a lot of, um, going back through the numbers, back through years, uh, really deep diving.

8:48 And I just, knowing how much went into that behind the scenes with the professional staff as well, so that we could get to where we are tonight. And, um, the creative problem solving that Alicia was able to tap to make that happen. Um, I, I, I’m deferring to the professional staff guidance and, um, the results of the hard, uh, hard negotiated budget that schools presented.

9:23 Thanks. I just wanna reiterate as well, just in regards to the professional staff, that part of that negotiation, which was pointed out tonight, was the ability to recoup that, um, in a, you know, in a, in as part of that negotiation at a greater amount, which then benefits all departments as a whole. So I just think as for the good of the town, the whole town, that though it’s distasteful, I could agree to it, um, because I’m sure the schools will be more than, uh, ready to reciprocate next year.

10:00 Okay. Are we ready to vote? Okay. Yeah. All in favor? Opposed? Okay. Four to one. Great. Thank you. Okay, so I’ll call the ordering our official public warrant hearing.

10:23 Have a second. Second. All in favor? Yeah. Yes, yes. So welcome to the Town Warrant article Review hearing, hosted by the FinCon. For those that that don’t know me, my name’s Alec Goolsby. I’m the chair of the finance Committee. Purpose of tonight’s meeting, or hearing, I should say, is to walk through each and every warrant article on this year’s town warrant, allow each article sponsor to present and explain the details of the article. For articles with financial implications, our, our fin comm will have the opportunity to ask questions and ultimately vote on our recommendation related to each article for articles with no financial implications, our committee will make no recommendation, and before a recommendation vote is taken on each article, there will be an opportunity for any citizen

11:09 or public official who joined tonight to speak on that article. That is the purpose of a hearing as a reminder to all the FinCon makes its recommendations to town meeting based upon our own review of all available information, while the committee hopes that our insight is a benefit to town meeting, and while we further believe that our recommendations are both thoughtful and thorough, is ultimately up to town meeting to review what the proponents of the articles have presented to weigh the arguments for and against each article, and devote the most beneficial course of action for our town as a whole. So, with that, I think we have 53 articles to get through tonight. Um, so let’s try to get moving. So the first few are kind of our standard articles where, where, um, most are sponsored by the select board

11:55 and their representatives. Um, and Alicia and Thatcher are up in front of us. So article one articles in numerical order.

12:07 Okay. So this just establishes the order of all the warrant articles, so it’s just a procedural matter. So this is an example of one with no financial implications, so we won’t make any recommendation. It’s a standard article, I think it’s Article one every single year. Yep. So no recommendation on article one. Uh, any public comment on Article one, don’t see any. Okay. Article two reports of town officers and committees, I believe very similar, no financial implications. Um, it’s actually the article that I get up and speak about the FinCon and some other officers as well, is my understanding town officers and committees give an update. Is that fair? Okay. Uh, any public comments on Article two

12:53 A? I would just add that it, it is a time that any outstanding articles, I’m gonna ask for the people responsible for them, uh, outstanding capital articles to get up and make a short statement so that we can update the town on a neat out statement, um, Capital. Okay. So, yeah, so in addition to a FIN com update for the year would also be outstanding capital updates. Um, our moderator Jack is saying that’s, that’s the time for, for folks to, to present those updates as well.

13:25 Uh, no recommendation on article two. Uh, article three is consent articles, I believe historically for those following along. Um, this has been a number of different articles that have been rolled up into this A, B, C, D, E format. Um, some of them have financial implications and some of them don’t, from my perspective. A, B, C, and E have financial implications, D does not. Um, and the only additional thing that I would add is I don’t believe there’s any lease property to as to accept right now. Is that fair, Alicia? That’s correct. That’s correct. So does anybody on the fin com have any questions about Article three, which is the combination of a number of historic articles that have been around for a long, long time?

14:13 Any public comment on article three? Okay. With that, I’d like to, lemme see here. Make a motion to recommend adoption of Article three. Second. Yes. Mr. Ler? Yes. Mr. Jenko? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. I can’t see. Oh, Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Te? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Doy? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. And Mr. Sby? Yes. Article four unpaid accounts. I’ll turn it over to, to the CFO to explain this article. And for those following along, um, on, on or in person on the, the details of these articles are all,

15:01 are all gonna be on screen, um, for you to refer to as well. Thank you. Um, article four and paid accounts is Mass General Law Chapter 44, section 64. So the town cannot pay bills from prior year if there’s no encumbers or PO in place because in the current year, the current year budget’s based on current year expenses, not prior. So the two departments that have prior year invoices are the school department and the finance department. The school department has a total of 7,785 and 74 cents in prior year bills. And the finance department has a total of 15,000 847 75 in prior year bills for a total of 23,000 633 49 to be out paid out of the fiscal year 2024 budget.

15:47 Any questions on article four? This is another standard article that we see every year. There’s usually some, um, unpaid funds at the close of every fiscal year that, that seem to surface.

16:01 Any public comments on Article four don’t see any? So I’d like to make a motion to recommend that the sum of $26,633 and 49 cents be appropriated per the table presented on screen. 23 A. Can you say that number again? 26,000? No, it’s 23. 2322. Oh, okay. I had those backwards. $23,633 and 49 cents. That good

16:28 Mr. Meyer? Yes. Mr. Jenko? Yes. Ms. Samuel? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Des? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Yes. Mr. O? Yes. Mr. Goolsby? Yes. Article five, again, sponsored by select board and their designees, uh, revolving funds. So Article five, departmental revolving funds fall under Massachusetts statute chapter 44, section 53 e and a half, which requires every single year for a town meeting to spend to, uh, vote the spending threshold for each of the revolving funds. So in the presentation, you’ll see each, uh, revolving fund what they’ve spent in 2003 23, what they voted in 24,

17:13 and what they’re requesting for 2025. Um, it did go up from 3,000,949 to 44 last year to 3 9 83 3 0 1 this year. Um, this is not taxation. This is paid by fees for those funds to operate. Yeah. And just, just to, um, follow up, this is the maximum amount that can be spent. So this doesn’t necessarily mean that those are the amounts that will be spent, it’s just authorizing the departments that control these revolving accounts to spend up to this amount. I know it’s been an article. Um, yeah, it’s been an article that’s actually got some debate at town meeting the last few years. Um, in an attempt to make this more clear, we’ve shown three years of actual voted and request.

18:01 Um, and again, Alicia will present a town meeting. Um, anybody on the FinCon have any questions about Article five? No. Any public comments on Article five?

18:15 Make sure I get the number right. All right. I’d like to make a motion to recommend that the maximum amount to be spent during fiscal year 25 out of revolving funds be $3,983,301 as summarized on screen. Second, Mr. Yes. Mr. Danko? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Goldberg? Yes. Article six, the first of our capital articles, I believe purchase of equipment of several departments. Turn it over to Alicia. Yeah, so I’ll, I’ll just comment. So Thatcher, we came into this year knowing that we have a very tight capital budget.

19:03 So the items that you’re seeing here are the ones that have been prioritized. Uh, as far as vehicles, it’s replacing vehicles that have a huge impact on productivity, uh, of, um, the difference between, uh, having an operational vehicle or not having one. So these are highly prioritized. I will also emphasize that in our capital budget planning. The two main sources that we’re drawing from, and you’ll see it in a, in a future warrant article, is to go back and scoop up unended capital funds for projects that have already been completed and fund current year needs as well as a million dollars in free cash. Um, which, um, uh, GOR

19:51 and others will say is the appropriate use of free cash. Uh, what’s considered onetime revenue for one time though annual, but one time expenses, uh, towards capital. So my main point is this is, uh, a much shorter list than what the needs are, but these were prioritized as necessary for this year. Yeah. And just some FinCon discussion, um, historically ways that this article and the next two after this as well have been funded, um, are through ordinary tax levy is an option, which none of this Article six is being funded through that. I don’t think any of the next three articles are, um, available funds, which is free cash, which is what Article six, as Thatcher said, is being funded.

20:36 Um, and then these articles are oftentimes, uh, debt exclusion override requests, which my understanding is there’s none of those on this year’s warrant either. Um, the only other thing I’ll add, um, so that I, I don’t have to repeat myself. The million dollars that of available free cash that’s certified that Thatchers and Alicia are allocating towards capital, um, that’s a newer practice since I’ve been involved. Um, and that’s spread across six, seven, and eight. And I did do the math to say that it all adds up to the a million perfectly. Um, I think one or two of them might have some revolving accounts funding a portion of the article, but, um, the million is spread amongst six seven of, um, obviously the, the details are on screen, um, of the, of the 176,000 or so. Um, any other fin com comments or discussion?

21:25 I only comment is just that this is about half the size of what this article was last year. So to your point about cutting, cutting it down. Yep. Yep.

21:38 Any public comment on Article six?

21:44 All right. Like to make a motion To Recommend that the sum of $176,784 be appropriated and to meet this appropriation, all 176,784 is to be appropriated from available funds as surprised on screen

22:05 That honor? Yes. Mr. Jenko? Yes. Ms. T and Ms. Samuels? Yes. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Tuby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Yes. Lease purchase similar to Article six being funded with portion of the million dollars being used towards capital and lease articles?

22:38 Guess I’ll turn it over for you for an update. Are these existing leases or are some of them new or, or what’s the story here? Thank you, Alec. Um, the majority of these are existing leases. There are a couple of new leases on the list. Um, we do defray a part of the free cash with $26,079 on the top from the waste department for their John Deere wheel loader lease that’s coming right from their Waste revolving fund. Uh, the remaining leases are then coming from, um, free cash for total of 4 47 3 54, which 4 21 2 75 is free cash.

23:16 So again, an article that historically has a portion of, um, the balanced budget going against it. Um, whereas this year we’ve actually, you know, targeted available free cash, not used to balance the budget for this article, the majority of it. Um, any other fin com questions on lease purchase Article seven. Any public comments on Article seven?

23:41 I’d like to make a motion to recommend that the sum of $447,354 be appropriated and to meet this appropriation 421,275 be appropriated from available funds and 26,079 be transferred from the Waste Revolving Fund for the purposes presented on screen. I Mr. Berg? Yes. Mr. Jenko? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Tes? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Goldsby? Yes. Article eight, the next Capital article I’ll take. So, um, on this one, um, for, for, um, mostly for building improvements, uh,

24:29 we have three school projects, um, that are on there. The Village School Fire Panel Upgrade, Glover, HVAC, and Veterans, a Structural Support Beam. Uh, on the townside, we, we put in for public buildings entries and exits to allow us to address nagging problems in various buildings that affect secure and, and locking doors, as well as making sure, uh, given us the ability to address any accessibility issues, uh, in that. So, um, that rounds out the balance of 401,941,

25:07 And this, I believe, is all coming from free cash as well, correct? Right. Yes. And just a comment here, last year, 300,000 of was the total with only 25,000 going to the schools.

25:24 Okay. Any other fin comm discussion on Article eight? Any public comments on Article eight? Uh, yeah. Harry, just repeat what you said. Sorry. I’m sorry, Molly. Molly, I’m sorry. She was, to repeat what you said. Oh, Sorry. I just said, just for, for your knowledge, last year, um, the total article was 302,000 and, um, only 25,000 of it was went to the schools last Year. And so what’s, what’s the delta there? So if you look this year, it looks like about 350, most of 50 is going to the schools, and 54,000 is going to a town building. And why is that changed so Dramatically, the schools, the schools explained on that they really needed that fire panel upgrade. It was, it was, you know, imminent. So we have a criterion we,

26:10 we weigh out when we’re doing the capital projects. And the other one they had that was really important was their veteran support being it’s already starting to fail and they have it up and, and that structure has to be secured. So anything that’s safety related or anything like that comes higher up on the criteria scale. So we’re waiting for weights for capital project. So the process we do is the departments come with their prioritized list, each individual functional area, then we meet as a large group, and then we, we compare the priorities across all the departments. So, um, in some years, other departments have a more critical need. This year, the schools had a number that, um, rose up to be a more critical need than some of the towns. So it’ll, it’ll ebb and flow.

26:56 It’s purely based on the, the critical need of the, the capital item, uh, that gets the funding. Thank you. Any more? Fin comm discussion on nine or eight, I should say. Any public comments on Article eight Question? Sure. The Glover HVAC system, that building is what has been an operation like 10 years or something. The HVAC doesn’t work Well, their HVA system is beyond its useful life, so it’s starting to fail, they said on that. So they needed to replace their HVAC, Whatever. Okay. Thank you.

27:40 Great. All right. So I, I’d like to make a motion to recommend that the sum of $401,941 be appropriated and to meet this appropriation. All 4 0 1 9 4 1 is to be appropriated from available funds as summarized on screen. Second, Mr. Yes. Mr. Gel? Yes. Ms. Daniels? Yes. Ms. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Tets? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Yes. Article nine, walls and Fences, uh, select board.

28:18 So, okay. This is an annual appropriation to maintain the, uh, sea walls and fences, uh, border. There’s, um, more than 50,000 a need, but this has been sort of the annual program that, that we draw from for,

28:36 um, items. And just so everybody on FinCon knows, um, this is breezed through tax, so you’ll see it in clear gov on its own line. Um, we actually haven’t voted things like this as of tonight, so this will be our first vote on that. But it does roll up into this balanced budget that we’ve been voting all the different line items, Or customize and receive it as little as 30 days. Make your home more comfortable with savings up to 1500 or someone Please mute Seamus iPhone And you’re gonna buy a storage shed for the backyard, and it better be as nice as your house than we at a Reeds fer shed. A Reed’s fer shed is so good and better quality than those sheds at the home store.

29:24 Built in, installed by Reeds and backed by a 30 year warranty. See yours online at s Make the call call.

29:37 Is That what they call Zoom bombing? No, no, That’s okay.

29:44 Yeah. So it’s part of the balanced budget. It’s funded through taxation. We haven’t voted the number yet. Any fin comm questions? This was at 50,000 last year too. Uh, very quick one. Uh, will the $50,000 be sufficient to cover all of the critical wall and fence maintenance that needs to be done this year? So this goes towards sort of the minor, more minor repairs. If there is a repair that exceeds this budget, it’ll show up as a capital project or, uh, we’ll apply for state grant funding to address. Thank you. A yes. The, um, the damage of just this past weekend

30:32 probably comes close to amounting, the 50,000,

30:37 So Right. And so we work with the state, uh, of reporting up, collecting the data, reporting up. So again, that’s more than minor. So this handles sort of minor and, and, and planned repairs. The, the big storm damage ones, we’ll obviously file with mema, go through that process, uh, seek reimbursement or, um, we have a number of, um, like our Harbor Resiliency project, which has a lot of sea wall. We, we just submitted on Friday for a $2 million grant from the state to, to address those items though, are They gonna look at some of the possible underlying issues? Why the new part of the sea wall by Fort be beach Wash the way?

31:22 Yeah, so our, that Was just redone. Yeah. Our engineer folks, No, sorry. Okay. Yeah, you Can grab a mic. Yeah. Sorry. Put your chair That, um, That section was actually not redone. It was done to the stairs, um, and from the left, and it was actually still old wall. And the, the sidewalk that we’re redoing was put on top of older wall. Okay. So it was just a sidewalk that was there? Yeah, the, at that area, it was just a sidewalk. Okay. We do have a lot of walls that we’ll be seeing coming up in the future that has a lot of damage and do need repair though.

32:06 Any other fin comm discussion on Article nine? Any public comments on article nine?

32:14 I’d like to make a motion to recommend that the sum of $50,000 be appropriated and to meet this appropriation. It all be raised through taxation. Second? Yes. Mr. Chenko? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. S? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Gilby? Yes. Do you stream the slides? Um, I can share. I’m not controlling it, but, oh, okay. Uh, Linda, is, are you streaming the slides anymore? Uh, I am, but we changed the host and now it won’t let Me. Okay. We’ll get it back going at some point. She’s working on, um, so Article 10, storm sewer construction sponsored by the select board.

33:02 Alicia? Yep. I or Amy? Yeah. I will let Amy speak to this. I, Uh, okay. So article 10 is $400,000. Um, just so everyone knows, the storm sewer construction is the storm drains, uh, historically was known as that. We have over 55 miles of storm drains that have gone in, uh, over 2000 structures. And then we have 60 outfalls. So, um, $400,000 doesn’t cover like one major project. So we collect over the years to do major projects. Um, so right now we have four outfalls that need to be rebuilt. That will be looked at.

33:47 We have oh five outfalls, excuse me, that need to be rebuilt. They’ll be part of that. Um, and we also have MS four permit requirements, which are the testing and, uh, to make sure we know what, what’s coming outta the outfalls. And then we have illicit discharge, um, review, which is expensive too, that brings people in. And that’s actually defined connections to the storm water that are letting sewer in or some kind of illegal, um, product into our storm sewer system. So, Great. Yeah, this, this article was at 400,000 last year as well. And it’s very much like Article nine, as I explained, is, is funded through taxation included in the balanced budget on its own line in clear gov that we’ve yet to vote

34:33 for FinCo Any comm discussion on or questions on Article 10?

34:41 Any public comment on Article 10?

34:46 Like to make a motion to recommend the sum of 400,000 be appropriated and to meet this appropriation? It all be raised through taxation. I,

34:57 Mr. Chume approve Mr. Jacob? Yes. Yes. Three Samuel. Yeah. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Tes? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Wilby? Yes. Article 11. Amy can stay up here. Um, again, I think this is one that historically has been a number of articles, and now we’re kind of putting them all into a, B, c, D format. Um, so I’ll turn it over, uh, to you, Amy, at water department construction.

35:31 Uh, so the water department construction is funded by the retained earnings. Um, it is a higher number, but you, if you notice the last two years were lower numbers, and that was because we didn’t have our audited numbers coming into town meeting. But this year we have strong audited numbers and now we are comfortable putting it forward to put it into the construction article. Um, we have a lot of water articles coming. They’re generally cleaning and lining, and they have to do with water quality and fire flow. Um, you’ll see six roads done this year and then probably two a major road done, um, the following year. So, uh, this money is, um, definitely funds over the a hundred miles of water pipe that we have and one water tank and two pump stations.

36:19 Yeah. And I noticed it’s significantly up here over year. Um, maybe just the next, Correct. So this year it is actually encompassing the extra money last year that we found we had in retained earnings, but um, did not have a audited number by the time we went to town meeting. So to be on the safe side, we took a, uh, a lower number, uh, almost half, um, what we thought we had just to make sure that we were not overspending. So we’re catching up to it this year. Yeah. And retained earnings not from Yeah, it comes from the water tax retained earnings. So it’s not in our balanced tax budget. Um, is what Pat was just saying. Um, any other fin comm? I’m just gonna go like a and then vote and then move to B and go from there.

37:06 Um, anybody have any other questions on Article 11? A? Any public comment on 11 a, like to make a motion to recommend that the sum of 2.6 million be appropriated to be appropriated from water retained earnings? Second. That mine? Yes. Mr. Jenko? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Tees? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Mr. B? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Colby? Yes. Uh, 11 B sewer department Similar. So the sewer department’s similar. I also wanted to say that, uh, during the rate study, which is held in June, that’s when our rates are set and we cover, um, our budget. So we’re gonna cover our salary

37:51 and our operation maintenance budget. And then we also try to project a construction article two years out. ‘cause that’s how long it takes to get your retained earnings through the whole process. So, um, you know, the one estimate that we do is on how much water we think we’ll sell for the year. And if we oversell, that’s when you’ll see a bigger construction article. If we undersell, that’s when you’ll see a smaller construction article two years out. So, and that’s all really weather dependent, you know, um, Marblehead likes Green Lawn, so if we have a dry year, we sell a lot of water. If we get a great construction article, uh, white year, we don’t sell that much water. So, um, sewer also has an administrative order from the EPA and that is to, um, we have to do so much infiltration and inflow work, which is lining projects,

38:37 and we have to spend over a million dollars on that, uh, each year to make the goal that EPA has set for us. So that is what a big portion of this will go. We also have 28 pump stations, um, and we’re still, you know, ticking away one at a time, but there a lot of them are from the sixties and the electrical is from the sixties. So you’ll see every other year we’re trying to redo a full pump station. Um, so that’s where, that’s how this budget is set. And both these budgets are set on capital improvement plans that are five to, uh, 15 years out. Okay. And last year, similarly, you didn’t have the number Exactly. Time meeting, Same thing. That’s the big jump right Over here. And so we did the same thing. We cut it in half last year of what we thought we were gonna have. So you’ll see that number coming in this year.

39:26 Any other fin com questions or discussion on 11 B?

39:32 Any public comments on 11 bd? Like to make a motion to recommend that the sum of 2,850,000 be appropriated to be appropriated from sewer retained earnings. Second Chap? Yes. Mr. Jane? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Teets? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. Rome? Yes. Mr. Yes. And then water and sewer claims does not have a number to vote, but it has financial implications. So maybe just explain a little bit. So this is just the standard article so that if we ever have an issue legally, we can work with the selectmen, uh, to resolve that issue. So it just gives them both. Okay. Um, power to do

40:18 It. Yeah, we talked about that last year as well. Um, any comments from FinCon on 11 C? Any public comment on 11 C?

40:31 Like to make a motion to recommend adoption of Article 11 C? The Yes. Mr. Ko? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Yes. Ms. Tets? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Goldsby? Yes. Thank you. Uh, article 12, select board proposed reclassification and pay schedule.

40:58 So this is, um, um, putting in a 2% increase for the non-union or administrative pay schedule. So, so it’s all, um, town employees that are on the administrative scale. Um, we recognize that it’s below the inflation rate, but uh, for budgeting purpose, that’s what we are able to allocate.

41:24 Yeah. Just to comment here that all of the budgets that we’ve been voting at various department, um, review hearings have all been adjusted where applicable for this 2% COLA adjustment. So, um, it’s already baked into the balanced budget that we’ll be voting on later tonight in Article 26. Um, and it is a standard article from what I’ve seen the last few years, and it’s usually been about, so it’s no change year over year. It’s that 2%. Any other questions from FinCo or comments on article 12? Public comments on Article 12? I’d like to make a motion to recommend that this article be adopted with a 2% cost of living increase effective July 1st, 2024. Second. Mr. Chutler? Yes. Mr. Janko? Yes.

42:12 Ms. Samuels? Yeah. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. Rome? Yes. Mr. Gruby? Yes. Article 13. Same thing. Traffic supervisors, Correct? Uh, they have their own pay scales, so, uh, that’s why it’s a separate article. So again, consistent, 2% increase. Any fin com questions on 13? Any public comment on 13? Like to make a motion to recommend that Article 13 be adopted with a 2% cost of living increase effective July 1st, 24. 2024. Second. Mr. Scholer? Yes. Mr. Jenko? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Tets? Yes. Mr. Knight?

42:59 Yes. Ms. Doby? Yes. Mr. Rome? Yes. Mr. Sby? Yes. Same thing. Article 14, proposed re reclassification and pay schedule for seasonal and temporary personnel. Yes. So once again, it’s a different pay scale. And these are for your mostly summertime help folks and other temporaries. 2%. Any fin comm discussion on 14? Uh, quick question. And this is baked into the budget as presented. Thank you. Yep. Yep. Any public comment on Article 14? Like to make a motion to recommend that Article 14 be adopted with a 2% cost of living increase effective July 1st, 2024. Second. Mr. Chuma? Yes. Mr. Dko? Yes. Ms. Samuel?

43:48 Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Tets? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Do? Yes. Ms. O’Neal? Yes. Mr. Goolsby? Yes. Article 15, compensation of Town Officers. I believe this is a recurring article where we vote the town clerk’s annual wages. So The town clerk is the one full-time employee who’s an elected official, so it has its own article to adjust, uh, her salary, which again, at the 2% rate. Yeah. And I confirmed for everybody on fin com that this is the number, um, for that position. That line item of the town clerk’s budget, we voted, I believe last week, so it has not changed since last week, week. It’s already been voted. Any fin com

44:33 questions on Article 15? Any public comments on Article 15?

44:43 I’d like to make a motion to recommend revising the compensation of, or that was last year, recommend the town clerk’s wages of $90,337. Second. Mr. Heim? Yes. Yes, please. Samuel? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. T. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Doy? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Goldsby? Yes. Article 16 sponsored by the Compensation Committee, ratification of Salary bylaw. I believe you’re the chair of that committee. Yes. Uh, so, so, um, uh, chapter 43 of the, the bylaws establishes the compensation committee, which consists of the town administrator, the chief financial officer, and one other department head appointed by the two,

45:31 which is currently is, uh, Andrew Petty, uh, health Director. Um, and so the Compensation Committee has, uh, been delegated the authority during the course of the year to make, um, changes and adjustments to, to grades and positions and job descriptions. It then reports the results of all the actions of the prior year at town meeting for ratification. Um, all of the changes that have been done over the course of the year, any, any adjustments in, in pay grades or, or, or such that have any financial impact is accounted for in the balanced budget that’s being presented.

46:16 Any fin com questions on Article 16? What will the impact of the new HR person be on this going forward? Well, the, so one, the HR director is helping to be a staff person supporting the, the functions of this committee. So, um, one of the tasks that’s laid out in, in, in chapter 43 is that, um, every three years we should be doing a complete salary survey of all the positions we’re overdue for that. Um, that, um, you know, now that we have an HR director’s got his feet on the ground, uh, getting settled in, and then we’ll start the, the process of reviewing all the salaries and scales and comparing Marblehead to all the surrounding communities.

47:02 So, so the impact is the HR department and director is a resource that, that helps assist in all these processes. Thanks. Any other fin comm discussion on 16?

47:19 Any public comment on 16, like to make a motion to recommend adoption of Article 16. Second.

47:31 Mr. Meyer? Yes. Mr. Ko? Yes. Ms. Samuel? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Ts? Yes. Goodnight. Yes. Ms. Do? Yes. Ms. O’Neal? Yes. Mr. Goldsby? Yes. Article 17, mark Strout, chair of the Essex Tech School Committee. I’ve got a one page report if I can have two minutes. Of course. Thank you. Just stand.

47:58 Hi everyone. Mark Stroud, 40 Maple Street, and I’m the chairperson of the 20 Member School Committee for Essex North Shore. I previously provided you with all the Insights 24 25 budget book, and I’d like to take just a few minutes to highlight some very important information before we go to town meeting tonight. We are pleased to report that of the 28 vocational technical schools in the Commonwealth, that Essex Tech is the second most affordable. It is also my pleasure to report that each city and town, including Marblehead and our district, will again be assessed the state minimum contribution for the fourth straight year in our school’s history. It’s important to note that we had a 3.1% increase in enrollment this past year, bringing our student population to 1,746 with an anticipated enrollment

48:44 of 1,774 students next fall. We are happy to announce that the district has received over $5 million in competitive grants this year. And just this past week, Congressman Moulton came to our campus to celebrate yet another $850,000 grant that we received. Many of the grants directly support expansion efforts in CTE, that’s Career and technical education programming, social emotional learning, DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion, academic Support, integrated Learning, and Adult Education Workforce Development. We were extremely fortunate to have the Governor’s Capital Skills Office support our plan to provide exceptional career technical and agricultural education on the North Shore. This includes the Career Technical Institute

49:30 where our Nighthawks Adult Education Program trains adults for high demand occupations in areas that include advanced manufacturing, automotive technology, information technology, health services, hospitality and construction. There are several grant applications that we have submitted to continue this work of training our future workforce. And we are also staying focused on bills at the state level to support infrastructure projects. So Marblehead per pupil cost increase is 4.11% over last year. Our 25 Marblehead students represent a 1.783% enrollment participation factor and are enrolled in the following programs. Arborist, biotechnology, carpentry, construction,

50:16 craft laborists, dental, assisting engineering design and media communications, electrical, HVAC and refrigeration Information Technology Services, landscaping and Turf Management and Veterinary Sciences. This year, 30 of our Vets Middle school students have applied for the fall, and we’ll find out if they’re accepted when notifications go out. This coming Friday, our FY 24 per pupil cost was $17,983. Our FY 25 per pupil cost is $18,722. Our FY 24 preliminary assessment was 4 68 762. And our FY 25 preliminary assessment is 4 68 0 5 7 enc closing.

51:03 The entire Insights community would greatly appreciate your committee’s continued support to our Marblehead families. Thank you very much. I believe this total, um, amount, which is being raised by taxation annually is fairly consistent. It is from within a few thousand dollars even, I think so, um, very consistent year over year. Maybe the enrollment changed a little bit, but, and the per pupil has changed, but consistent with prior year for sure, uh, based on my review. Any other fin com questions for Mark or discussion?

51:40 Any public comments on Article 17? Thank you very much for your presentation. Very welcome. Uh, I’d like to make a motion to recommend appropriating $468,057 to be raised by taxation. Second. Mr. Meyer? Yes. Mr. Janko? Yes. Ms. Samuel? Yes. Franklin? Yes. Ms. T? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Colby? Yes. Article 18 transfer funds to special education stabilization, I believe indefinitely postponed not being asked for this year. Is that fair? I have. Yeah. That’s fair. I have not heard anything, uh, from the schools for this. And, uh, just so everybody knows, this

52:28 fund was created, account, I should say, was created in about seven years ago, was funded at two 50, and it remains at two 50 today. It’s never been drawn upon. Um, it is there. Um, special education is certainly an item in the school’s budget that’s very volatile and we see increasing, um, been following along with their meetings. Um, there are a number of revolving accounts that, um, you know, uh, reimbursements from the state through Circuit Breaker. Um, and they’re carrying a, a year of those reimbursements, um, which is good financial practice. Um, we’ve, we’ve reviewed with them that and, and found documentation that many other school districts do this, um, as well

53:15 as we’ve been a, a allocating annual increases to special education and, uh, related, um, transportation over the past few years had fairly significant amounts to combat the pressure of that cost on their budget. Um, so this to me, um, feels like it’s okay to be at two 50. Um, they haven’t drawn from it, but it’s there in case of emergency. Um, and makes sense to me. Any other FinCon discussion on Article 18?

53:45 Any public comment on 18?

53:51 No recommendation on this article or I, no. I guess I’d like to make a motion to, uh, recommend indefinite postponement of this article. Second, Mr. Meyer? Yes. Jko? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Yes. Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Sby? Yes. Article 19 available funds appropriate to reduce tax rates.

54:21 It’s our free cash used to balance the budget plus, I believe electric light first. Correct. So the electric surplus is again, staying at 330,000, uh, this year from free cash is 5.5 million, as was stated by the town administrator at state of the town.

54:40 We included a graph so you could see graphically how the free cash is going and how it’s in decline. Yeah. Just, just to recap, um, the certified free cash number is 8.7. We talked about in 6, 7, 8 that a million went towards capital, and five and a half million is being used to balance the budget this year, which leaves 2.2 million of free cash certified not being used for capital or to balance the budget, or as I like to think about it as a free cash reserve. Um, that reserve by itself, um, represents about 2% or a little bit more maybe of the operating budget. I think I’ve heard the select board as a goal of getting to 5% in the future. Certainly something FinCo can, can get behind and, and,

55:26 and we like to see that trend in, I think it was only a million last year, so only about 1%. So we’re moving in the right direction. So, and I would also add, so yes, the Department of Revenue recommends at least 5% of operating budget for, for your free cash reserve, which is an unrestricted reserve. Your stabilization funds and other funds are restricted reserves. Um, but I also wanna point out, um, uh, two years ago, um, over $10 million was being used to supplement the budget, which was 10% of the operating budget. So we are making great strides and reducing reliance on free cash to fund the budget, as well as using free cash to build up those unrestricted reserves. So we are, um, adamant

56:11 and making great progress on meeting our financial policy goals and best practices, uh, from the DOR, uh, on Our finances. Yeah. And in addition to the 2.2, there’s 500 in stabilization right now. Um, obviously a restricted reserve, um, that needs I think a two thirds or majority maybe vote two, two thirds to withdraw from Tom meeting. But, um, with respect to, you know, the AAA bond rating we’re always talking about would be looked at as, as a reserve. So it’s, it’s actually 2.7 million, um, of just funds off to the side not being used that are there, um, in reserves effectively. Um, and, and I will mention that, uh, as the, uh,

56:57 Townside operating budget was finalized this year, there was no funding of that stabilization account which was previously considered at state of the town. However, I think the number that was projected for certification was $700,000 less than, so net net it was a $200,000 change between January and now, if I have my numbers correct. Um, but I guess last thing on free cash would be, um, you know, we’re using, you know, we, we’ve only certified right the 8.7 million, so it’s come down. Um, and there have been, as I’ve, as I’ve communicated myself at town meeting the last few years, some historic kind of drivers of this free cash, um, you know, local receipts years ago.

57:43 I think were closer to forecast at 50% or so, and we’re pretty close to what actuals might be, um, ex except for the other articles that we’ll talk about in a minute here that are new this year. Um, but then, you know, with the health insurance we spent a lot of time talking about last week, that’s a line item that effectively from my perspective, has carried a free cash reserve itself on that line item. Um, we spent a lot of time, Alicia and I going through those numbers when we reviewed the select board departments. Um, where fiscal year 24 is expected to land as of February, is that the budget amount in that over the actual expected is gonna be about 2 million. Um, whereas Alicia’s expected amount to spend for fiscal year 25 in the balanced budget, um,

58:31 only has about a million dollar of what I would say as a reserve. To me, what this means is that, that a million dollars is truly simply a reserve for a very highly vol volatile line item. Um, it probably will drive some free cash, but you never know. Um, but the point is that our free cash has gone down and our line items that drive free cash are also kind of gone down as well. Um, so you know, the time, although the policy to not allocate, um, you know, all of the free cash and we we’re allocating more and more, I think overall if I had to project out free cash, and I think Alicia can can comment to comment on this too, but, you know, we’re kind of in a downward tra trajectory over the past few years.

59:18 That’s correct. We we’re moving downwards, but at the same time we’re, we’re moving to change the way we’re doing things such as looking at new growth, looking at fees, which we’ll go into in, in the future articles, but Yes. Yep. Okay. So that’s my 2 cents on free cash situation. Spent a lot of time kind of crunching the numbers on that. Uh, any other fin comm discussion on article 18 or questions?

59:47 Any public comments on article 18? I just would like to know, do we have that, that we’re getting interest on that someplace Or It’s sitting marble at bank. Alicia, thank you. Yep. Um, yes, all general fund receipts are earning interest. Great. Thank you Mr. Chair. Are we on article? 1919? So yeah, he said 18. Oh, I said 18. Yeah. Yep. We’re on article 19. Thank you. Thanks for keeping me honest. Um, any additional public comments on Article 19?

1:00:21 Okay. Like to make a motion to recommend that the sum of 5,830,000 be appropriated from the following sources for the use of the assessors in making the tax rate 5.5 million from free cash and 330,000 from electric department payments in lieu of tax funds. Second, Mr. Yes. Mr. Jim? Yes. Ms. Samuel? Yes. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Tes? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Goldsby? Yes. Article 20 and 21, I think guess an update, but I don’t think negotiations are finalized. Is that Correct? So they’re both placeholders? Yep. Uh, we are in contract negotiations for Article 20

1:01:09 with the police, article 21 with, uh, MMEU employees. Uh, if an, if we have an agreement for town meeting, uh, this is where, uh, that agreement will get ratified and, and, um, accounted for. If we don’t have an agreement, we’ll continue negotiations. Um, after town meeting,

1:01:33 Do you expect that an, uh, an agreement will be made before Tom meeting? I know in certain years I’ve seen this play out. We’ve had a meeting right bef or an agreement right before Tom meeting and others we’ve actually gone to Tom meeting without it. I’ve learned not to predict when you’re gonna have an agreement or not. ‘cause it’s usually the opposite of what you think when you walk in the room. Fair room. Okay, Bob, is it the town? What meeting is it?

1:02:01 No recommendations. Where is it? Everyone please mute themselves. Yep. I don’t know what it is, honey. Oh, could you mute, mute please?

1:02:16 Yeah, so it makes, I mean, our discussion is if there’s any more fin fin com discussion, we make no recommendation on these articles tonight. Not really an update other than there’s ongoing negotiations. Any public comments on Article 20 or 21?

1:02:32 No, no recommendation on 20 or 21. Article 22 CPI increase for qualified seniors. I believe this is a new article this year. Yes. So the 41 C is for seniors that are 65 or older that qualify. It’s, it has income limits on it. It’s a thousand dollars if you qualify for the exemption. And so currently the whole estate assets, excluding assessed value of your home is 40,000. If you’re single 50,000 if you’re married, you can have income from all sources, including social security that cannot exceed 20,000 if you’re single or 30,000 for a married couple. Um, these are extremely low thresholds. So what this article would do was it would increase these

1:03:20 thresholds by the cola, by the Department of Revenue. So I put an example below. So for fiscal year 23, it was 7%. So you would take that 7% and apply it against the 40,000 and the 50,000. So now your new threshold would be forty two thousand eight hundred and fifty three thousand five hundred. Your gross receipts are income of 20,000 and 30,000. You’d apply that 7% as well. So you’d be at 21 4 for single taxpayer and 32 1 for a married taxpayer. Now that would stay the new floor. So then in the next year, the new Kohler that gets applied would then increase the base again. So what this effectively does is let more people be able to reach that amount to be able to get that exemption.

1:04:10 So I’ll add, we talk a lot about, probably talks some more about tonight, our efforts to increase our revenues, that, that we need to meet our, our obligations, uh, of running a town. At the same time, we also wanna find all the avenues to protect those that are the most vulnerable from increases in costs. So this is our effort to balance that scale to the extent allowed, uh, under the law that those who currently qualify. And, and by changing the T threshold, expanding the qualifications for those who can receive exemptions.

1:04:52 Is there any sort of way to kind of figure out what the impact of this might be? Very, very minimal. So there’s about 30 that qualify. I consulted the th the assessor’s office. And in addition, we get reimbursed by the state, $500 per the, the person that’s eligible. Okay. Any other fin com discussion on article 22? Is This automatic? So this will, if we approve it now, it happens every year automatically. Correct. Is it just the one year and then we revisit it next year? No. Automatically. Automatically, yes. Okay.

1:05:23 Further from comm. Yep. Quick question. I would like to say, as some, as someone that lives off Medicare, I’d be, yeah, that $20,000 is a ridiculously low basement. Quick question, if I may. So, um, we’re voting this new floor, correct. But if next year there’s a cola increase, we would have to vote that increase next year? No. Oh, it’d just be automatic. Yep. Once you’ve accepted this statute, it’s automatic. Thank you. Also, a quick question. It’s a hard one too, so if you don’t have the answer, uh, no worries. But in, in terms of other towns, you know, I, I also was struck at how low these numbers were. Do you have a sense for where this falls, you know, across sort of our peer

1:06:10 Communities? Manchester by the Sea does have this, um, I was looking online. Uh, there are a number of communities that do have this. Um, but as that said, we are looking for ways to, you know, increase our revenues, but at the same time protect those who are most vulnerable in their homes with fixed incomes. And, and this threshold is just way too low? Yeah, I mean, in, in terms of, you know, are, is, again, I would’ve thought like could, we’re, we’re, we’re increasing it every year now, but the base is still very low. And so I’m just curious if you knew, like other towns, where is their base Starting from those, those who accepted before us, their base would be higher. So now that we are accepting it as our, our base will increase year over year. Now moving forward, others who are,

1:06:56 who have not accepted would be at the minimum like Us, but these numbers originate from state statute. Okay. So that, that’s how they, they get established with, with this program. I guess it depends on when you jump into the, into accepting this as to where you are on the scale. I see. From There. Makes sense. Thank You. Thank you. Any public comments on Article 22?

1:07:22 Like to make a motion? Go ahead. Sorry. Nick. Nick Ward Roon Road. Just, just a question. Did, um, was it 30, roughly 30 people were estimated to be affected by this article? That’s correct. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Yes. Yep. I’d like to make a motion to recommend adoption of this article. Second, Mr. Sch? Yes. Mr. Jenko? No. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Goldsby? Yes. Article 23, senior tax Work Off program.

1:08:10 So I’ll start off sort of in the same vein. It’s a program that, um, increases the amount that seniors can receive for, for, um, uh, a write off of their property taxes. The current rate is 750. This would allow it to go up to $2,000 per person for the work off program.

1:08:37 There’s a maximum Yes. Town wide too. You mentioned That. So, um, other towns for a while now that the maximum has been 15 and, um, marble has a half that at seven 50. And at first we were coming forward with the 15, and then we found January 1st, 2024. So I put on the slide, the governor had signed in to increase that from 15 to 2000 to give more relief to seniors that are doing, uh, the senior tax work off program. So the state considers their income non-taxable, but the federal government does not. So the federal government still considers that it has to be taxed even though we don’t the state level, we don’t tax it. But I meant there’s a cap. I mean, it sounds like the, the increase is 2000 per senior, but I thought I could be wrong that maybe there’s a cap on the whole thing annually

1:09:24 There it’s capped at 30 people. 30 people currently times 2000. Yes, correct. Okay. I’m sorry, I’m not sure I understand. So you can have a maximum of 30 people in town work off their taxes? Is that what you’re saying? Currently? Yes. I, I spoke to the director of, um, the Council on Aging, and she’s right there, Lisa. And, uh, she said that there are currently 30 participants. So up to 30 participants. I’ll let her speak to the exact amount.

1:09:56 Hi, good evening. So, um, in town meeting in the year 2000, um, this program was approved. Not every town has it, but Salem Danver, several of our surrounding towns do. Um, Marblehead Bylaw is up to 30 people can apply each year. Um, you can be 60 and over. You have to make, I believe it’s 400% above the poverty level. So many people who are on the program are in their seventies and eighties, still load in their home. Um, and they work for the town and different departments, um, on a volunteer basis. So just about everybody in the gift shop here at Abbott Hall, um, we have people in the water department, the electric department, um, the Treasury,

1:10:44 and at the COA, um, the volunteer, their time. Other departments can also apply to have volunteers. So the $750 currently gives a volunteer about 50 hours worth of worth of volunteer time a year, which is based on the minimum wage. Um, 2000 would increase that to over a hundred hours, um, which gives both the town and the person volunteering their time, you know, enough, enough help. Um, you know, 50 hours for anybody having a volunteer really isn’t a lot of help. Um, and seven 50 really isn’t a lot for that person working for their taxes. So, and I think every other town does 1500 at least.

1:11:30 Thank you. Asking a question, do you think the demand for this will be higher than 30? You know, once this change is made? Well, prior to Covid, we had 30 to 35 applicants every year. And the first 30 that applied, um, that qualified, um, had positions. So we’ve only had about 18 since COD the last two to three years. So I’m hoping it will go back to 30. And, um, also more departments will also have a need for volunteers.

1:12:04 How is the 30 number determined? Everything was determined at town meeting. I want, I wanna say in 2000, but it could have been 2001. Um, so this, I have all of the bylaws in the office.

1:12:18 Question, if I may, uh, to the town administrator and and finance director, would there be any restriction of on a senior taking advantage of Article 22 and Article 23? No, because they’re two separate exemptions. Thank you.

1:12:40 Any further Fin comm discussion on Article 23?

1:12:45 Any public comment on Article 23?

1:12:53 Like to make a motion to recommend adoption of Article 23 Second Meyer? Yes. Jacob? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Tets. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Doy? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Esby? Yes. Article 24, adopt a Local Meals tax. Thatcher, take the floor. Yes, thank you. So this is one of two local, um, laws that municipalities have the ability to adopt. Um, this is part of our efforts to identify additional revenue streams to, to meet our service needs. Uh, this particular one is to adopt a local meals tax.

1:13:41 So it puts a, um, 0.75% charge on a, on a bill. So if you have a hundred dollars meal, it’ll be a 75 cent charge. Um, surtax. So currently, and any restaurant that you go to in Massachusetts, there is a state, uh, tax applied to, to a meal. Um, I think it’s currently 5.25 or 6.6, 6.25. And then, then by a a adopting this local option, it adds the additional 0.75, which is then collected by the state as it has been for the state portion and then reallocated back to the town, um, as,

1:14:27 as a revenue source. So what we’re looking to do, and as we’ve said of identifying these non, uh, property tax sources, is to, is to take pressure off on the property tax side as we go forward, uh, on adopting this, again, the majority of folks who will be paying this will either be coming from out of town or even from in town. It’s a voluntary transaction as, um, you know, as you choose to, to go to the restaurants and such.

1:15:03 So as far as the estimates, um, we’re, we’re for this first year of implementation, if it passes, uh, we’re allocating 200,000 towards, uh, the budget. Uh, the estimate, um, is generated between 258,000 to $430,000. These estimates are based on prior year activities as reported by the state and applying the, The local. So it sounds like pretty solid estimates based on historic data, just applying percentages. Yep. Um, which is nice to have good kind of estimates in there. Um, obviously a conservative estimates been used for the revenue forecast for this year’s budget.

1:15:48 Um, mechanically, just so everybody knows, article 26 that we’re gonna get to in a minute here, um, was built on the expense side, assuming, um, article 24 and 25, um, will pass. Um, what that means to me is that should they not pass, then the town and schools, um, individually and together 50 50 need to come up with a, a pullback of their budget request that, um, we voted the details of leading up to 26 and, and the total will vote tonight. Is that fair? Yep. Yep, that’s fair. So a hundred would come out of this and, and, and the townside, I believe would come out of insurance. Um, is is the plan or do we I think it outta several sources. Several sources, yeah. Okay.

1:16:34 So, I mean, we’ll see, we’ll go down that road when we get there, but we told the schools as well to be prepared, um, to amend their budget by this one by a hundred. And then if the other one doesn’t pass, then would be another a hundred or one of two could pass. So you just have to be prepared to pivot to in order to, um, vote a balanced budget at town meeting. That’s my understanding. Yeah, Tim, uh, what, what will be looped in in this will be takeout is it is, um, like do, uh, place that sells food inside, but offers seating outside. Mm-Hmm. Yeah. So again, it’s those transactions that are currently being taxed at the state level. So it’s, it’s defined by the state as to Okay.

1:17:20 Which type of f food transactions that this would apply to. Okay, thank you. So it’s just a piggyback on top of whatever the, what the state currently does, It doesn’t affect groceries. Okay. Yeah. If this were to pass a town meeting, how quickly does it get implemented?

1:17:40 There’s, There’s a, uh, when we did the presentation, there’s a chart, but we need to have the town clerk notify the state as soon as possible to get them ready to start collecting. If it got delayed, it can push it out when they’re gonna collect it. So we don’t have an exact time. It’s all based on when we notify the state. That’s even more reason to, to stick with this kind of conservative estimate. I was thinking the same thing, Tara. It’s a great question. Um, but you know, presumably if it passes, it should be implemented pretty quickly And, and there’s a lag, right? In terms of when it’s remitted back to Marble Hood from the state, correct? Correct. Yes. What is that? It’s remitted quarterly a quarter. Okay. Yeah. Robin, I Would think it still has to go to the Attorney Generals after, like it’s not a bylaw Page? No, no. The state says that you just have to notify them right away

1:18:26 after it’s accepted by town meeting so that they can start doing that.

1:18:32 Typically, uh, students who buy their lunches in the through the school department would not be affected by this. Is that correct? I think lunch is free for the Yeah, They don’t pay for anything Of statement.

1:18:52 Um, yeah, I mean, personally we’ve talked about revenue challenges in Marblehead for many years. Um, certainly I’ve been on that, uh, discussion the last few. Um, to me this makes sense. Um, it’s a way to address the, the structural challenges of the operating expense side of the budget without, um, increasing taxes. And, and like you said, from my perspective, you know, it’s an option whether you want to go and, and buy a meal, whereas the property tax increases would not be optional. Um, so it’s something that I can get behind and, and I think is a good idea and I think it’s a step in, in the long, in the right direction of, um, you know, attempting the longer term planning, which, um, at this point will be a multi-year plan, um, to,

1:19:37 to address the challenges that, uh, we face with our limited revenues.

1:19:45 Anybody else on FinCo have anything to add on Article 24 or questions?

1:19:52 Any public comments on Article 24? Yeah, I just wanna compliment the town administrator, um, because this should have been done a long time ago. This, every town around here has been doing it for years, so we missed the boat. Yeah. So it’s good. Finally, We got someone that’s got their eyes open. Thank you. Thank you. Additional public comment on Article 24.

1:20:21 Okay. Like to make a motion to recommend adoption of Article 24. Second. Mr. Meyer? Yes. Mr. Jenko? Yes. Ms. Samuel? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Heats? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Dooby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. And Mr. Sby? Yes. Article 25 Adopt Local Room Tax, a similar type article? So it’s, uh, a similar process of adopting a section of state law that is a local option. So currently, uh, the state has has a rooms tax that applies to, um, hotels, Airbnbs, other short-term rental, um, uh,

1:21:08 type establishments. Uh, in Marblehead we have, I believe, six listed hotels and something on the order of 260 or 280 some odd, um, Airbnbs and vrs and, and those type of, of, um, uh, short term rental, uh, options Under this, um, this provision, it allows the town, uh, to accept the law and to set the rate to be anywhere from zero to up to 6%, uh, fee. So again, uh, there’s already a state tax, this would be a local tax that piggybacks on top of it. Uh, what we proposed is, is the 6%, uh, amount.

1:21:56 Uh, again, we’re gonna, uh, estimate for this fiscal year, 200,000 built into the budget, um, with an estimate of 480 to 492,000 a year of revenue being generated on a full year basis. And again, that’s based on the transaction history that exists through the state, uh, reporting.

1:22:21 And again, as was mentioned on the meals, uh, it’s been adopted by all the communities around us. Uh, the vast majority at 6%. Uh, there’s a few at four or 3%, uh, adoption, but they’ve, they’ve all adopted it majority at six and a few slightly less than that.

1:22:44 But you’re proposing six, Correct? I a question, uh, first of all, I love all the comparison charts for these new taxes to help us understand what our surrounding communities are doing. Uh, so that’s really helpful in thinking through it on the specific comparison chart here, where it shows different towns and then it shows a, a current rooms tax rate, but then for some towns there’s a different rate around short term rentals. And I’m just curious what exactly is the proposal? Yes. There, there’s another, there’s another option that we could have added on. We are not doing that. So that’s another way of collecting additional revenue with Marblehead.

1:23:29 Right now we are just looking at these two options and we’re not looking to expand upon them right now, There’s an additional 3% I believe is impact fee proposal. So we, we believe in that off the table. Okay. That would be on top of the 6%, correct? Correct. Okay. Right. Okay. Yeah, I was just trying to understand that. Thank you, Alec. Tim, um, was there any discussion or thought of maybe ramping up to the 6% over two to three years? Yeah, so we had, uh, we convened with the help of, uh, the chamber. Uh, uh, it’s like board member Jim n helped facilitate and, and invited and reached out to both the, uh, uh, the hotels and the restaurants and had that conversation. And, you know, there was pushback, um, from, from these,

1:24:19 some establishments here, marblehead as to, uh, the impact that it would have on their business. Um, now, so to counter that it is a pass through cost, but that does have, you know, for the, for, for customers who are looking at the total cost of, of a stay, um, that’s obviously gonna have an impact on them. So we’ve had the conversations that, you know, some requested to, to come in at a, at a lower rate. Uh, our, our position was we need to start capturing as much of this revenue as possible now, so that, um, again, as we’re looking at the following year as to where we stand, um, and, and, you know, potentials for having to,

1:25:06 to have an override, the more that we can do from other sources, the less pressure or the less we have to ask for and any potential override. So it’s a challenge. Um, you know, it’s a cost comparison for the businesses. What’s the impact of a pass through tax as compared to the impact of a property tax increase? Um, you know, you have to weigh out, which is the more advantageous in that sense. And we think this is the more a advantageous to take this path than to, um, have to do additional property tax increases, uh, in the future. But again, there, there’s some, some concern and pushback

1:25:51 and we welcome, uh, we welcome that dialogue ‘cause that’s part of the process of making these type of decisions.

1:26:00 I, I don’t see that this puts our hoteliers at a competitive disadvantage because anyone who’s going to come and stay in Marblehead, I cannot seriously believe that they would stay in swamp skit for a 2% tax reduction. Uh, I, I just don’t see that. So, uh, echoing the previous comment, uh, I, I think this is a great idea without disadvantaging our businesses to raise revenues in ways other than increasing the tax, uh, property tax levy. So, excellent idea. Good question. Uh, so, um, both of these are based on current general law. Yes. Massachusetts general law at a maximum level 0.75

1:26:48 for meals and point and six for room tax. If the general law has changed, would we automatically qualify or would we have to come back to, Uh, no, they, we wouldn’t automatically increase it. We would come back, Back to town meeting for, So the, so the meals is fixed. There’s no, there’s no variable on that at 0.75 today either. Right. Take it or leave. Right. And presumably because it’s state law or whatever the legislature does, is that if they were to make, if they were to increase these values, presumably it would be a local option whether to adjust to those new values, much like what they, we talked about on the, the senior tax items. They’ve increased the thresholds,

1:27:34 but they leave it as a local option as to whether you adopt them or not. Okay. Thank you.

1:27:42 Bye. So, $200,000 is a pretty conservative estimate, um, compared to the numbers that you gave. Um, but how do you know, have any idea how it would work if someone booked and paid for something in the future? This goes into effect. Is there any way to go and get that after the fact? Or is that now lost? So we, we, we inquired ‘cause that question came up. So, um, the, the tax would be applied when the, the, the payout right. When you, when you pay out. So, um, we, we were hoping to, to have a grandfather clause, but, you know, we inquire, but the state doesn’t allow it. So, uh, if you’ve booked that, if this takes effect on July 1st and you check out on July 2nd, it would apply.

1:28:29 Um, if that’s, that’s your question. Yeah. I was saying like sometimes you pay for an Airbnb in, in advance, in advance and then is there any way, so like it is gonna happen when this law is in effect, but you’ve already settled up with the, Right. So what I’m unclear on is that’s probably a deposit in that the final payout is when the tax is applied. And that’s, and again, because this is piggybacking on when the state charges the state tax, so that is already in place. So however, I don’t know the exact answer to your question, but however the state currently does it timing wise, this would just piggyback on top at that time.

1:29:14 Any further Fin fin comm questions or discussion on Article 25?

1:29:20 I think it’s a good idea. Supportive, just like I do 24. Um, any public comment on Article 25?

1:29:30 Doesn’t, I just, I do have one question. Sure. So in the, um, recommendation of the estimate on how much we would, um, generate from this local rooms tax, when I look at Swamp Scott and what they generated on this chart, they generated $43,000 over a year. So I’m just wondering how we think we would generate, you know, 10 or 12 x what swamp Scott’s generating. Well one thing is swamp Scott’s below at the 4%. And the other part of that is we didn’t make these numbers, we got these numbers from the state.

1:30:17 So the state actually came up and did the calculation for us based on what they collected, based on what’s taxable. And provided those numbers to us, those are not numbers we made. I See. So they, I’m gonna guess we have far more rooms available Yeah. And marblehead than what swamp Scott has. Okay. Okay. Well that makes sense. Um, thank you.

1:30:41 Any further discussion on Article 25?

1:30:47 I’d like to make a motion to recommend adoption of Article 25 second.

1:30:53 Yes. Mr. Jko? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Yes. Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby. Mr. O? Yes. Mr. Colby? Yes. Article 26, which is our big balanced budget expenses of several departments. Um, I like to say that this article alone, um, the process that goes into, um, the preparation of this by the, uh, the select board and their designees, but also our review and advisory on it probably makes up 85 to 90% of the fin comm’s time during the year. Um, so I, I would like, I did prepare, um, some thoughts like I did last year.

1:31:39 Um, so bear with me. Uh, we spend a lot of time reviewing this and we like to give, um, an update on, on where, where we got some, some will be repetitive things we’ve discussed tonight. But, um, it’s our perspective and, and my perspective as the chair of this committee. Um, so first let’s talk about our budget review process. Um, our full nine member finance committee formed smaller liaison groups to work with department heads managers and administrators and elected officials to review all department budgets in a series of posted liaison meetings. Uh, we then held three main budget hearing meetings along with a final follow-up meeting earlier tonight to discuss and vote on recommendations of the individual department budgets that roll up into the Article 26 balanced budget.

1:32:27 As of earlier tonight, all department budgets were voted upon. Uh, let’s talk about the overall budget and how it was, how it was built this year. Uh, the overall budget for 25, which will be presented in the FinCon report in detail and at town meeting is balanced. Um, as indicated at last year’s town meeting, the town continues to face structural challenges due to an annual recurring expenses continuing to outpace annual recurring revenues. With the override request failing at the polls last year, the structural challenges continue to compound. As we stated at town meeting last year, the override requested for fiscal year 24 would not have solved the town’s budget challenges long-term, but it would have provided more flexibility moving forward as a longer term plan continues

1:33:14 to be analyzed and developed. Town finance began 25 budget building season by forecasting revenues available resulting in a forecast of new revenues being used to balance, uh, the budget in excess of prior years of $1.5 million, which represents only a 1.5 in percent increase in forecasted revenues used to balance the budget. Some highlights of the revenue forecast include the town’s tax levy has been adjusted by the full 2.5% allowed under prop two point half before new growth. That represents an increase of approximately 1.8 million. New growth conservative estimates were kept in line with prior three year averages of around 300,000, which represents less than half a percent of the overall budget.

1:34:00 As previously mentioned, only five and a half million of available certified free cash was used to balance the budget this year, which leaves 2.2 million in reserves. The 5.5 million used to balance the budget this year is two and a half million less than the 8 million used to balance LA last year’s budget. So you can see how when we’re building a revenue forecast or the town is building, certain things are going up, but then they’re coming back down. Um, in other areas. As previously mentioned, 400,000 of the overall forecasted revenues include, um, the assumption or the if, uh, articles 24 and 25 pass. Um, it is a, does does represent a conservative estimate as as that could be between 800,000 and a million per year based on state data.

1:34:46 Other local receipts have been kept at near actual estimates and have resulted in an increase of around 350,000. State aid estimates have gone up about a half a million dollars year over year. Let’s talk about the expense side. Significant challenging cost drivers include wages generally increasing somewhere on an overall basis between three and 4% based on current contracts, which include both 2% COLA adjustments and steps in lane increases where applicable benefits including health insurance are projected to increase by eight to 10%. Utilities are up five to 10%. Trash collection fees are up approximately 20%, even with a very favorable contract set to expire a few years, a few years from now.

1:35:32 And then in general, inflation on other line items continues to be impactful as well. After the revenue projections were completed, town finance originally split the new available revenues in excess of prior year 50 50 between townside departments and the school department. The methodology behind the 50 50 split was simple math, uh, the school department or Yeah. As the budget is currently structured with the town carrying all of the health insurance and certain other benefits for both town and schools, the split and expense budgets funded from general fund revenues is pretty much an even 50 50 split when debt service and enterprise departments are removed. Over the past few weeks as town wide budgets were finalized, the schools requested additional funding to close their gap between the defined level, their defined level

1:36:20 and reduced services budgets. The town was able to support the $250,000 of, of their additional request and will be foregoing its funding of the OPE liability as discussed earlier, per our CFO, this is not ideal financial practice to miss a year of funding ope, but it is also not going to damage our finances in the short term either. The final increases to each respective general fund budget for the schools in town are about 2% in 1% respectively. This should give folks an idea of how tight budgets are right now in Marblehead, especially given the data just summarized we we our largest cost drivers and the percentage they have been growing at. That being said, I’d really like to point out that this is the reality for Marblehead right now. From our perspective,

1:37:06 the revenues being forecasted in this year’s budget are truly the only available revenues that are financially responsible to allocate. If the town were to allocate anymore, its AAA bond rating would be put at further risk. If we lose our bond rating, the cost of borrowing money goes up and then there’d be even less available revenues to allocate to departments. Over the course of the last three to four months since available revenues were finalized, tight budgeting occurred. Town wide departments worked with our town CFO town administrator and FinCon liaison groups to strategize on the preparation of budgets that balance within available revenues. Many departments had to utilize significant amounts of other revenues like revolving funds and grant revenues were allowed. Some departments also needed

1:37:51 to tap into reserves in certain situations in order to maintain level services year over year. That being said, there are budget reductions on both the town and school sides of the budget. However, many of the budget reductions due to the limited available revenues in the general fund were able to be funded with the other revenue sources mentioned. This, of course, will leave these departments with less revolving account balances and reserves entering the fiscal year 26 budget season. In summary, regarding this year’s budget budgets town wide are very tight. Right now the majority of services are still being maintained at 11 level we have been receiving. But the financial trends and data indicate that services will be significantly impacted in future years, absent an increase in revenues soon.

1:38:37 So where do we go from here? As repeatedly mentioned, these past few years, Marblehead faces a structural budget challenge due to the cost growing at rates higher than property tax revenues are allowed to grow by law. There are really only a few basic ways to combat a structural deficit. Your first option increase non override revenues, things like local receipts, fees appropriately capturing new growth, things that our leadership is looking into this year. And there’s articles this year we’ve talked about. Second option you can use free cash reserves and or one-time funds. Our free cash continues to be certified at lesser amounts annually, and our historic drivers of free cash have been adjusted closer to actual revenues and expenses. Our stabilization reserve has $500,000 in it. In total.

1:39:23 Our free cash and stabilization reserves total to just two to 3% of the operating budget. As mentioned previously, the select board has a goal of getting to 5% in the future, which we fin com fully support. Third option to address a structural deficit cut costs. We’ve done that in each of the last three years. And the last option would be to increase revenue with a proposition two and a half override. As we all know, the past two prop two and a half overrides presented in 22 and 23 warrants, um, and at town meeting have failed. All things to consider as we move forward. A longer term plan is in the works and will continue to be developed by our leaders in the coming months to address Marble Head’s budget challenges. From fin comm’s perspective, it’s not feasible to continue entering budget seasons year

1:40:09 after year, needing to reduce budgets just to be able to balance the longer term plan needs to be finalized ahead of next year’s budget season. No question. It has to be detailed and it has to be reasonable from our perspective, reasonable, reasonable growth rates for the town side and school side. Budgets need to be established based on historical data and expense trends. Once these growth rates are established, a solution for how to fund the forecasted town wide multi-year budget needs to be finalized by activators. If funding is successful in whatever way it is decided the town and schools need to commit to maintaining budgets within their growth rates. Some progress has been made this year in the longer term plan and I’d like to provide our perspective

1:40:54 on some good things we are seeing. First, the town is in the process of uplifting its financial budgeting and reporting tools. Significantly clear gov went live this budget season and I cannot express how great of an impact it has had on the budget process itself. To be able to log in as a finance committee member and at a click of a button download five to 10 years of prior data is a huge uplift from my previous years on this committee. It will also be instrumental in finalizing a longer term budget plan. Additionally, the town is investing in an uplift of its muni accounting software, which will even, which will even further align with clear gov and allow for better transparency and better tools to address our financial challenges. Second, the town is attempting to raise revenues in ways before asking for an override via the hotels

1:41:41 and meals tax articles. This shows town leadership’s understanding of the structural challenges and its attempts to combat them. Third, the town is kicking the tires on new growth revenues. I view new growth in two ways. First, actual new development, which Marblehead obviously has trouble with given its lack of open land to be developed. Second, are we actually capturing legitimate new growth appropriately? Year over year. Statistics and surrounding communicate communities seem to show a fairly consistent spike in new growth during 2020 to 2022 when interest rates were at all time lows, COVID stimulus checks were being handed out and many folks were at home investing in home improvements. The data, however, shows that Marblehead did not see these spikes.

1:42:27 By better aligning the building department with the assessor’s department and with the finance department, the hope is that all legitimate new growth will be appropriately captured. There is no guarantee that this will lead to more revenue, but we think it makes sense for our leadership to take a closer look at our processes given the data analyzed. And lastly, and maybe most importantly, we have received a commitment from both town leaders and school leaders that they’re ready to finalize this plan in the coming months. We look forward to continuing our support as advisors on the longer term plan in the months immediately. Immediately after town meeting. The time is now for a reasonable long-term plan to be finalized. Thanks. You’re here. Turn it over to Alicia. I’m gotcha. So it’s a hard act to follow. It is.

1:43:16 So Article 26 is our budget, and this is a little different than we’ve shown it before. Instead of me putting everything at the end, I wanted to show everything up front in the beginning and I know it’s a lot. So the 1 0 2 5 85 111 is our, is the actual budget. And I showed the fiscal year is the second column. Uh, operating budget by Tide General Public Safety Schools, public works, human services culture and rec debt and other general government. And then on your far left, the very first column I showed the revenue sources. So our total property tax, our net state aid, our local receipts or other available funds, our water and sewer harbor and general government in direct costs. And our total funds voted to reduce the tax rate for a total of 103 million 5 0 3 1 68.

1:44:02 And so that people could understand what’s that difference. It’s our articles. So the third column are tax levy warrant articles, the walls and fences at 50,000, the storm sewer construction at 400,000 and the Essex More Shore Tech assessment at 468,057 for a total of 918,057 articles, which brings the balance budget, the balance expenses of 1 0 3 5 0 3 1 68 with our revenue sources of 1 0 3 5 0 3 1 68. And the last column just shows the total general fund against three other enterprise funds for a total of 1 15, 360 8, 2 0 6 as the enterprise fund’s total 1273 on Great. Each page now will detail the actual budget.

1:44:49 Yeah, I mean we’ve been through every one of these line items for many liaison, public liaison meetings. We’ve voted all of these various line items that build up this balanced budget. We don’t need to go into the further details of those tonight. Um, but we appreciate the process this year and um, I know we’ve been collaborating a lot lately, so I appreciate your time those late nights when I’m getting the emails from you at 2:00 AM So and and you’re responding to them at the same time? Yeah. Yeah. I happen to be an accountant and it’s a, it’s the week of April 15th. So, um, anyways, so does anybody on the fin comm, I think I’ve said all I have to say on this article. So I just wanted to say, you know, Thatcher did a great job last year managing the budget

1:45:35 process, but it’s been really wonderful having you here though. Thank you for everything you’re here.

1:45:42 Tim. I would just like to say I agree with Alex and I support this budget, but I think that I would like to say to the town employees and departments, we realize that this is a crunch and this is not a pleasant budget per se and it doesn’t represent our appreciation and support of the town departments and the town employees.

1:46:05 Anybody else on fin comm?

1:46:09 Any public comments on Article 26? I, I just wanna say since Alicia has come here, it’s, it’s really sad to see the last 10 years who was representing this town. Um, I just think she’s doing such a great job and, um, I hope she sticks around because we need, need more people like her, the, the taxpayers really appreciate, we know all the extra hours that this department has put in and I can’t say that about everyone, but this one is doing an outstanding job. Agreed. Thank you. I Agree. Additional public comment on Article 26.

1:46:47 Do you mind scrolling back up somehow my motion didn’t print. Do you mind scrolling back up to the, the front of it

1:46:56 Right here. 1 0 3 5 0 8. Yeah, So it’s no, it’s the one 50. Yeah. Oh. So I’d like to make a motion to recommend the sum of $115,368,206 be appropriated and 102,585,111 to be raised from taxation and other available funds while $12,783,095, um, be funded from available funds from enterprise funds.

1:47:29 Mr. Sharpner? Yes. Mr. Janko? Yes. Ms. Samuel? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. MST? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Yes. Mr. Crosby? Yes. Thank you. Uh, article 27 and 28 are the supplemental appropriation articles. 27 would be for all departments, 28 would be for schools. My understanding is neither are being brought forward. Um, I don’t know if anybody that from the school committee’s on, but they mentioned that earlier tonight. So we can move forward with that if that’s fair on the, on the 26th? Yeah. Okay. Um, so I’d like to make a motion, um,

1:48:13 uh, to recommend indefinite postponement of Article 27 Second. Mr. Meyer? Yes. Jane Goe? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Tets? Yes. Ms. Here Ju Yes. Mr. Rome? Yes. Mr. Sby? Yes. Similarly, on Article 28, I’d like to make a motion to recommend a definite postponement of Article 28 since it’s not being brought forward. Second. Yes. Mr. Gabo? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Tes? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yeah. Ms. Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Goldsby? Yes. Article 29 Debt exclusion Premium.

1:49:00 My understanding, this is a new article but maybe not a new practice. Correct? Yeah. So, um, what I wanted to bring to the town’s attention, and we can, if you Can go to the one with the chart, Linda, go Is, uh, we have some debt exclusion premium and some excess MSBA reimbursements that is against our debt exclusion. And we use that and we apply that. So even though you’re voting the total debt exclusion, there’s a premium portion that I am applying to reduce that even though we taxed to the max at two point half percent because of where we are, this can actually provide relief in the debt service. So when I first came on board, I was not aware of this and I wanted to make it known and just glorified within the town that this exists.

1:49:46 And this happens each year. So after this is, um, voted and adopted, that won’t need to come to town meeting anymore. Okay. Any fin comm discussion of Article 29?

1:50:03 Any public comments on Article 29?

1:50:08 Like to make a motion to recommend adoption of Article 29? Second. Mr. Meyer? Yes. Mr. Ko? Yes. Ms. Samuel? Yes. Mr. Yes. Ms. Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Yes. Article 30, capital transfers. I think this is a newer practice, which Yes. Makes a lot of sense to Yes. So I’ll let that just start and then I will end. Okay. So, um, we talked about, um, I mentioned earlier about looking back over the warrant articles from the past for capital projects that have been completed

1:50:56 that have a remaining balance left on them. So, um, it is, um, based upon the motions made at town meeting, that gives the authorization for the use of funds. So if the authorization is for a new roof on a building, um, and you, you estimate a $500,000 cost and it’s done for 450,000, that 50,000 is only authorized for that roof on that building until town meeting can, uh, uh, makes, uh, takes the action to reauthorize it for other purposes. And that’s exactly what we’re doing.

1:51:41 So we’ve combed back through the prior years of projects, and again, these are projects that were funded, they were completed, there were remaining balances left over. We want to go back, sweep all those funds up and put ‘em to use in the current budget for current level projects. What we also did in our efforts to do this is though it’s being reauthorized and funded into capital projects, it’s generally speaking in the same vein as the original purposes. It’s, it’s for the facilities and things of that. So we’re not, we’re not actually making any drastic changes to, uh, how we are using the money. We’re just reauthorizing it left over from past projects

1:52:27 to fund our current project needs. And this is great work by Alicia and the finance department folks to go back and comb through the history, uh, to identify these funds. No, it just represents another good practice of, of our newer finance director, uh, CFO. Um, and I think it’s a good idea. I I can’t really understand a reason what else you would do with this if it’s just gonna sit there. So better to use it than, than raise debt to fund some of these things. So the original warrant posting the big language, um, we had to change. So I left it just so that for transparency, what was posted to the warrant. And the second slide shows the graph of

1:53:13 what was posted for the warrant. We actually amended the motion. The reason we amended the motion was we found that $25,000 and the money we programmed actually belonged to a cemetery trust fund. So those monies had to go back to the cemetery for cemetery improvements. So this is our new amended article showing where the monies are going and what projects are being reprogrammed.

1:53:37 Okay. So we’re doing a community center boiler, 42,000, um, fire headquarters painting and repairs, another 12,750 electric panel upgrade for the DPW 80,000 cemetery for 25 as we spoke about, um, Mary Alley building fire alarm system, 26,000, some station stairwells, treads, and flooring for the police station. 5,000 557 33 road sideways public way and garage improvements for the DPW for 1 4, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 21 cents. And the crosswalk record slash and beacons for the police department 20,000.

1:54:15 Any fin questions or discussion on Article 30 real quick? So this is scooping up everything from the past, so this is more of sort of a, another one year, one time big hit. And then we’ll just be looking forward in the coming years, whatever’s that year. So we, we actually, not everything, so we, um, we looked anything more than three years and back. And so our intent is each year to do the same process. So as Warren America’s projects are completed and any other remaining funds, uh, we’ll continue to do the same. This this is the big hit because this is the first time doing this process and so we’re going back a number of years, but the earliest, what, three year? Uh, uh, the, the earliest project is from three years ago.

1:55:04 So it’ll just be a rolling basis year after year to really look back three years, scoop up any residual funds and then reapply those. Thank you. Two quick questions. I hope, uh, the first is, uh, did I hear you say that we only went back three years, or we started three years and back? That’s a better put. We we started three years and went back. Yes. So to the best of your knowledge there, once this is adopted, hopefully there are no more of these funds just sitting there unused That are more than three years Old, that are more, Right. So then older Than 2017. So then we’ll look at next year we’d look at 2021 annual Review. Right. Thank you. Uh, second quick question. Um, you said there was $25,000 that has

1:55:50 to be returned to the cemetery. I don’t see, uh, on the left side where that 25,000 came from. Do you know? It’s in one of the articles. So, uh, the cemetery department actually contact us. ‘cause I had the town accountant reach out to each department that related to these articles and the cemetery said, just make sure, because our cemetery trust funded this article that that money belongs back to them. I did not identify exactly, but they did let us know. Thank you very much. Any other fin comm questions or discussion? Just wondering, um, the reason for the funds are available was it, uh, just under budget projects can mean not under budget. Correct. It happens all the time. So people come up

1:56:36 with their best estimate and Marblehead is actually very, very good about trying to keep costs down and then their costs just staying that place. Thank You. It’s as a practice and dealing with public construction projects, uh, I think the mistake that is practiced far too often in municipalities is trying to hold the budget low and then you authorize a project and find out you don’t have enough funds for the project and now you’re, you’re stuck. Uh, it’s better to have a, a conservative meaning building sufficient amount of contingencies into your project, manage the project well, and then recoup whatever’s left of the contingency that, that, that’s a far better practice. Uh, so bible has been doing in the past.

1:57:23 We’ll continue to do it that way in the future as that’s the better practice.

1:57:32 Any public comments on Article 30? Yeah. With the original projects bonded and is this, uh, going up to the mass bonded amount or None of these are bonded. Okay. So that would be a totally different article. If we were re and those follow different laws for reallocating bond proceeds, and it’s based two off of, it used to be based off of how long, so if it was a 30 year borrowing, you could only reprogram it to a 30 year borrowing. But the Mass Municipal Modernization Act has changed that. So we don’t have to do it that way. But for us, we were looking at just tax levy dollars that were just sitting unallocated.

1:58:11 Good question though. Yep.

1:58:15 Any other public comments on Article 30?

1:58:24 Sure, I’ve got the right. I’d like to make a motion to recommend that the sum of $353,876 and 54 cents be transferred from certain prior capital articles voted to certain capital projects in a fiscal year. 25 Second. Mr. Shehan? Yes. Mr. Janko? Yes. Ms. Samuel? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Speaks? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Gbe? Yes. Article 31, 32 and 33 would be relate to similar things? Yeah. 31 and 32. Yeah, I’ll

1:59:10 Address those. So, um, again, this is part of our efforts to, as far as revenues and to make sure that Marblehead is sort of keeping up to the, the current pricing of, uh, for its fees and such. So, um, building department, which includes, um, comprehensive permits that are pulled plumbing and electrical, um, uh, and building permits are that, that make this up. Um, The fees. So, so these, these are permit fees. So when people pull permits, either comprehensive or, uh, there’s itemized actions that they’re putting a new water heater in their houses, there’s a, a rather than a comprehensive permit,

1:59:57 it’s a specific fee for that, for that item. Um, the purpose of the fee is to recoup the costs of the inspections, um, department and the functions that that, that they perform to protect, uh, protect the town’s interests as far as, uh, really public safety of buildings and, and design and accessibility and, and those sort of things. So, so there is a, there’s a, a reason why there are fees in place. So what we wanna look at is to make sure that we’re adjusting the fees, one, to try to recoup as much of the costs of performing these functions as possible, but keeping the fees within the range of the norm

2:00:45 for municipalities for, for a similar type transaction. So we look at both, uh, what would the fees be to recoup all our costs, but also compared to what the norm is in municipalities to, to just to be in the norm. So sometimes you can re recoup all your fees. Sometimes, uh, it is something less. Um, these fees have not been adjusted since 1991. That’s the last time that the adjustments have been made. We asked our staff to go out and collect the fee, the fees of all the surrounding communities, comparable communities, and put it together and, and get a, a good idea of where we should set these fees. We did that. We collected all the information, made no sense.

2:01:31 Every community has a different methodology or labels things differently and everything. So, um, not having the ability to do a full comprehensive analysis of where where the norm is. Um, we did sort of determine a couple things. One, your comprehensive permit, which is probably your most common permit pull. Um, it seemed that the going rate was $15 per thousand. That’s the car rate Marblehead, we left that untouched. So for your big projects that have, you know, multiple full renovations and such, that would be a comprehensive permit. We left that unchanged. Looking at the itemized transactions, electrical, plumbing and such.

2:02:17 Um, it seems that the norm is somewhere up in the $75 per transaction range, but without full data, we wanna be very conservative when we make these adjustments. We don’t wanna overshoot, we wanna be responsible and, and what we adjust, so ultimately came to the decision, let’s adjust our fees by $20 across the board. So the norms of these fees are $30, $40, there’s a few 50 or 60. We simply adjusted ‘em by by $20. So we think we’re still slightly below the norm, but we’re making adjustment closer to the norm. And then what we intend to do is this year kind of go back

2:03:02 and take another look at what is the norm out there and, and, and try to get better information to, to figure out where, where, where to put us for next year. So bottom line, um, we, we adjusted by $20, we did an analysis of what we think it’ll generate a new revenue. Um, I, the numbers not on here. About 20, I think it was like $29,000. Uh, so not, not a lot of gain, but again, it’s just the effort to be looking at our, our our fees and making adjustments accordingly. So, we’ll, we’ll do more work on this in the next year.

2:03:47 Any Tom have any questions on 31 or 32? I just have a quick question. Um, I think it’s a good move. It makes sense. So we’re gonna be assessing the people that are legally pulling their permits more, which is appropriate. Is there been a looking at the other side on those that are not pulling their permits and an increase in fines? Yeah, so we do have enforcement mechanism. It’s triple cost if you’re caught doing triple the cost of the fees if you’re, um, caught doing a project without a permit. Um, one of the other things we’re doing, which is built into the, I guess we’re call it the balance of budget, is beefing up the, the inspections department.

2:04:33 Um, as you know, we, uh, when searching for a new building commissioner, they’re very hard to find. So we ended up doing a deal with Swamp Scott, um, where we, uh, we have a contract with the Town of Swamp Scott for building commissioner services. So we’re sharing the, the, the commissioner that’s generating savings. There’s some, uh, our retirees have either, uh, fully retired or, or, or, or decreasing the, the number of days so that there’s some more savings. We’re taking those savings and adding another building inspector to our staff so that we have more boots on the ground, uh, to do those things to more eyes and ears out on the street, um, for the enforcement

2:05:20 and compliance piece. So that’s important, but also, uh, what it’s also important, it’s more boots on the ground. One of the functions that the inspections department does is look at the projects to make sure that the permits accurately reflect the value of the projects. And if you do that correctly and that information is transmitted to the assessor’s office, then the assessors can do a better job of determining what’s the increase in new growth value from that project. And that all feeds into our efforts to increase new growth revenue. So this is all linked together. So the fines are automatically Yeah. Jumped up at the 30, so it’d be three times, 50, three times, whatever it is. Okay. And that just continues each year. Right.

2:06:07 But, and there, there are other actions of a threat. You put a whole new uh, uh, deck on and it’s not permitted. You, you could be required to remove the deck at your own expense. So additionally there are other, other enforcement mechanisms. Okay. Thank you. It, it seems to me that nearly charging three times what it would’ve cost to pull the permit seems to have a very low deterrent effect. Um, is there going to be an effort, uh, to examine whether, uh, we could put in place a, a more significant penalty to deter people from trying to evade the quite reasonable Yeah. Permit fees that are being charged? My, my understanding that’s, that’s set by state law as to

2:06:54 what, what you can charge for, for not pulling a permit. Thank You. But we’ve also implemented software that’s been provided to the building department to aid them in their review process that they can look at maps from a couple years ago to current and see changes And hopefully capture additional revenues. Correct. Oh, it’s, it doesn’t work for the interiors. It doesn’t work for interior, but next year it’s more than hopefully we, we, we engage that, that service and wants to identify 800 projects or changes from three years ago to current. We did not think IPhone 59, please mute

2:07:35 Et she,

2:07:45 It identified over 800 improvements over three year period and provide a, a detailed list as well as identify permits fold. And so our building department is able to scrub through that to identify, um, projects that were missed, weren’t permitted, or, um, also to, to to check to make sure we’ve captured any new growth, uh, improvements based on those projects. So we’re, we’re using all the tools and technology that, that we can find to, to address these issues. Thank you, Mike. I did meant to, I asked that last time when you brought up that mapping software. Um, so in the case that there is something that was identified that was being missed, can that then, is

2:08:32 that able to get added onto new growth for the current year? Or is that lost? No, you don’t lose, you can identify it, add on like Three years later you could, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it, I would say that, yeah. So we can go back and capture it. It takes a lot of work to scrub this. And so bringing in, you know, another body that, that we can put to that cause will, will help us in that effort. So there’ll be a return, I, I think a significant return on investment of bringing in another local inspector into that position.

2:09:11 So the rotating assess inspections of, on a three-year basis, would be able to capture an interior, potentially an interior, um, renovation. Or that would, that might not. It’s more exterior. There are, I, I understand the, the, you, the photography, the, the aerial views are exterior, but I mean, yeah. It’s just, it’s just another place to make sure that, that there’s a meshing of the, of the data once it’s available. Yeah. Any public comment on article 31 or 32.

2:10:02 Okay. For article 31, I’d like to make a motion to recommend adoption of this article. Second, Mr. Yes. Mr. Jenko? Yes. Ms. Daniel? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Mr. Duby? Yes. Mr. Rome? Yes. Wilby? Yes. And for Article 32, I’d like to make a motion to recommend adoption of this article.

2:10:30 Second Gentleman? Yes. Mr. Chenko? Yes. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Teaks? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Doley? Yes. Ms. O’Neil? Yes. Mr. Bull? Yes. Article 33. Amen. To bylaw licensing and registration of dogs sponsored by Robin

2:11:00 Or So like the other permit fees. This has not got up since. The only change that was made in 2013 was when we had to, um, add a different fee first. Intacct dogs, the fee went up in 2001 town meeting to 15. Then we added in th 2013 to make it $20 for D dogs that were intact. Okay. So, So it’s $5 Per dog. And we have, I’m just doing easy math. It’s 3,200, but 3000 dogs. So at five to that, so She collects about 45. 45,000. Now we’ll collect 60,000 round numbers with the fee adjustment. And similarly, it’s probably in line

2:11:45 with surrounding communities and things like that. Yes. I, I can just say having talked, worked with Robin on this. I mean, this is an area where there’s not much that they can produce extra, but there’s a lot of mandates and whatnot that come along that they’re hit with. Yeah. And this is a, a good attempt to bring in to adjust that. Close the gap. Any further FinCon discussion on 33?

2:12:14 Any public comments on 33? Like to make a motion to recommend adoption of Article 33?

2:12:23 Mr. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Samuel? Yeah. Mr. Yes. Yeah. Mr. Knight. Mr. Yes. O’Neill? Yes. Mr. Yes. Article 34, no financial impact, but I’ll let you have a few minutes to explain what’s going on. Yeah. Uh, well, I, I, I think hopefully positive financial impact in the, in the future. So, uh, I call this the Becky Carrin Act. Um, in, in that, uh, Becky Carin, a longtime planner, who was also held a whole bunch of functions, retired well deserved, um, and in, in replacement of creating this community development and planning department, um, which the intent is, is

2:13:10 to have a director of, uh, community development and planning to have a planner, um, a sustainability coordinator, uh, a grant coordinator, um, conservation agent and administrative staff. Um, the, the, the creation of this department and the staffing of it is gonna come from existing staffing positions primarily. So, for example, um, we currently have, uh, for, we currently have the town engineer, uh, which is a, a, a standalone function. Uh, who plans to retire in September. So the intent is on July 1st, uh, he’ll get to be the acting director of this when he retires.

2:13:57 The town engineer responsibilities are gonna migrate over to the engineers in the public works department, and the salary line item is gonna be used to hire and fund the director position. We already have a sustainability coordinator in place, and Friday submitted a $2 million grant, uh, I think another 2 million a few weeks ago. I mean, he’s already, um, pushing away. Um, we’re, uh, creating a grant coordinator position. And our intent is to do the first year funding through ARPA funds. We, we originally were gonna have two separate positions. Um, long and short story. We, we, we put ‘em together using arpa the first

2:14:44 year, a grant coordinator. We know high degree of con confidence that ongoing, that that position will bring in far more dollars than it will cost to, to the fund in the future. And the salaries. In fact, the information we get from the state folks and others is that municipalities leave a ton of money on the table. Why? Because they don’t have any staff to actually write the grants. And, and it’s not just writing and submitting the grants, it’s having the staff, the, the ability to manage all the grants, as well as a responsibility. In here, all of our FEMA MEMA reimbursement efforts that is monumental. It takes years to recoup FEMA MEMA funds,

2:15:32 and they are very particular of how you manage that. Um, so anyways, a a grant position conservation already exists. Um, so this motion is to authorize the creation of the department. And I’d like to read the, the, the, the responsibilities of the department, which include, but not limited to land use planning. So that’s your planner, housing policy, transportation projects, historic preservation, community development, sustainability efforts, open space conservation programs, administration of regulatory boards, so that you’re planning ZBA, the con com and neighborhood improvement efforts. So I refer to this as a, a, a department

2:16:19 that’s gonna be focused on quality of life issues for Marblehead. And I expect that it will be a money generator in the sense that its focus is to go out, find funds, bring it in, and make improvements in marblehead in, in these categories. So that’s Great. Nice summary.

2:16:43 Awesome. Okay. Um, so no financial impact of creating the department itself. So we won’t make a recommendation. Um, but do wanna open up the floor to public comment on this,

2:16:58 no public comment, um, no recommendation on Article 34. So we’ll move to Article 35. Um, assessing department under chief Financial Officer. So there is a state statute, so local option that, uh, allows municipalities to bring, um, uh, you’re assessing, um, I’m sorry, I’m skipping ahead. That’s for the, the board of assessors, but it’s tied to it. So this Warren article, um, uh, if accepted would, rather than having the current assessor department function, um,

2:17:45 being an island upon itself, reporting to the board of assessors, which is currently elected, uh, as a totally separate entity, um, what this would do is move the assessor’s office to be part of the finance office and reporting to the chief financial officer. The reason we wanna do this one, it’s considered best practice by the Department of Revenue. They are encouraging municipalities to bring this, bring those functions together. There are a lot of transactions that go on during the course of the year that are iterative between the assessor’s office and the other finance departments. This puts ‘em all under one roof, smooths out all those processes, um, sort

2:18:33 of under the management of the CFO. So things are done timely and accurately, uh, as required by the CFO. Um, and also, um, it will give the CFO, uh, much like the efforts we’re doing throughout the finance department of improving our information systems, improving the quality of the information, the data that we rely on for decision making. It brings the assessors into that fold so that we have the authority to look at, evaluate and upgrade all of the information systems that are utilized in the assessing department. ‘cause I’ll point out on our revenue side, the assessor’s office is responsible for about 84 million

2:19:20 of our 105 million in revenue. It needs to be part of the, the team. It needs to be using all the current information systems. It needs to have quality control over the, the data. And the only way we’re gonna be able to achieve that is to bring that office in-house within the finance department, make it part of the, the larger team. And that’s why we’re proposing to do this Question. Yep. So what would be the function of the board of assessors once the assessor is brought under the finance director? Nothing changes for the board of assessors, except, well, in regard to their responsibility for making decisions on exemptions and abatements, all the things that are laid out in statute

2:20:08 as their role, what they’re relieved of is worrying about the care and feeding of staff, hiring and firing and management of all that. Um, that then falls under the, the, the general umbrella of the system. So in many other municipalities, um, that’s the way it’s set up. If you look on the, on the, the chart, uh, the upper half shows the current org chart. You have the finance department with the accounting, treasury, collective payroll, and information technology, and totally separate assessor reporting board of assessors. On the lower graph, it would represent, if this is approved, the new org chart where the assessor has a solid line

2:20:53 to the finance director. So that’s for your day-to-Day operational control, and a dotted line up to the board of assessors. It would be that the assessor’s function would continue of supporting the role of the board of assessors in, in the decision making that they make.

2:21:13 And the finance director would have complete, uh, access to the assessor’s databases. And, uh, but what if, uh, the finance director determines that there is an issue or a problem with a decision that the Board of Assessors has made who governs in that? I would go To the Board of Assessors and talk to the Board of Assessors, but I can’t overrule them, but I can talk to them and let them know what I identify, as well as bring it to the attention of the town administrator. So I would say the assessing function is one of the most highly regulated municipal functions by the state. And it’s very much governed by statute and by, um, uh, guidance

2:21:59 regulations from from DOR. So, so, um, they make the policy decisions on ments and, and those things. Um, and the CFO would deal with the day-to-Day operations of, of the, the office. Thank you, Michael. So, under this new grid, if someone leaves the assessor’s Office and you need to hire a new assessor, that would happen. Finance director would, would control that. The finance would be the reporting. The HR department would be involved in the, you know, posting and advertising and interviewing. We on any opening position, it’s very much a team effort. Um, currently it’s all just

2:22:46 entirely controlled by the three member elected, three member board of assessors, uh, pretty much separate from, from from our function, though, they ask for guidance. So How’s, what’s that impact? The independence and the objectivity of the board of assessors that they don’t have control over that it’s, Yeah. So totally separate, and again, how do I know this? I’m on the board of assessors in Amesbury, and the chief assessor, or head of the department reports to the mayor. So, um, the, the board of assessors, um, their authority, their, their decision making is about, you know, decisions on abatements and exemptions and such. Now, the staff provide that information.

2:23:34 So, so the staff’s role, let’s take the abatements as an example, right? People file for abatements during the, this time of year, um, the, the assessing staff would take each abatement application, go out, visit the site, do the comps, kind of gather the information and make a recommendation as to whether the, the, the abatement should be approved or not approved, or whatever else. And that’s simply presented to the board of assessors who review and they vote and decide. So it, that is the normal functioning, and, and I, I’m gonna say the majority municipalities that the assessor works as part of the administrative team,

2:24:21 but supports the role of the assessors in their decision making. To Tie it to finance, for me, when I’m doing your budget, I’m looking at property taxes. I have to take into account those abatements and exemptions. So I have to know what their overlay, I have to look at all their overlay and see what an estimate is so that I can make sure that money is correct and secure also, when they’re doing the, the tax rate setting process. A big part of that, I’m a part of doing the tax recap. So working with the assessor, making sure it’s a really clear, transparent presentation is important. I, I guess I understand the process. I’m just concerned about the objectivity of the individuals in the role, per se. Well, it, it, um, I guess you could have that same problem

2:25:09 or benefit depending on who’s sitting in the assessor’s office with, um, right now, they, you know, there’s no oversight other than the elected board, which is a, a part-time board of that. Again, it would bring that, that function in part of a team, uh, so that there are some oversight as to the, the performance and the productivity. But as far as, um, and again, this is the way it’s worked, I know it, my direct experience in, in other municipalities is that, um, if there was a, if the board of assessors in this example were having issues

2:25:54 with the information they’re getting from the assessing office, then they would have me or the CFO to go to and say, we don’t think we’re getting all our services, then it would be our responsibility to address it and fix it. So, so there is sort of a feedback loop that would be in there with the boards, making sure that they’re being supplied with the, the support function that they expect just as they do now. Um, but again, the, the assessors would be part of a bigger team, so that one, we can make sure that they’re upgraded, like the information systems that that’s working, that’s current quality control. So I, I think you’ll be a better product going this way than

2:26:42 to have sort of a independent function on its own, um, that needs help from time to time.

2:26:52 I think you’re, I think for this, this article’s more about the assessor just appro going up more than there’s a separate article that I think you’re be more appropriate for your question on the board assessors. Yeah. So, um, is it fair to say, so you were saying this, this is sort of DOR best practice. It, is it fair to say that, um, the decision to put the warrant or put this on the warrant this year is driven by, you know, you taking the, the reins in finance your first year here as opposed to in response to, you know, the assessing process, um, this year? Was that, is that a fair statement? Yeah, and, and all my prior positions that the assess has always reported up to me. So this is the first time, actually my career

2:27:37 that I’ve had the assessor not. And so it makes it a little bit more difficult as far as getting things and, and working. Whereas this is more synonymous and as Thatcher stated, we could do things a lot better, I think, operationally for the town, um, and also update our systems together. So I think it would be a, a better, and it’s the most, uh, recommended this day as well. Yeah, this ties into our, our efforts of, when we talk about capturing all new growth there, there’s a food chain that connects building through assessors to the whole function. So we wanna make sure that these, all the,

2:28:22 the whole food chain of this function is working optimally, and we think this is what we need to do to, to, to bring it in, bring it in, and make sure of that. Mr. Addon, I think, um, as you’ve seen as STAs come on, he’s been really, has a vision and he’s been taking what’s available for resources and restructuring it really to make the town as efficient as possible.

2:28:47 Yeah. It sounds like both of you have experience in other municipalities where the structure is this, and it sounds like you’ve had success, um, in those, in those, uh, structures. Um, I don’t think at its face this has financial implications. Um, so I don’t think we need to make a recommendation on this, but, um, I will say that, uh, my comments on, on 26 earlier about aligning, um, as Thatcher said, the food chain between the three functions, um, will be beneficial to the town. So, um, it’s, it’s a good idea and, and I think it’s up to town citizens, whether they want it this way or not.

2:29:26 So no recommendation on Article 35. Does anybody have public comments on Article 35,

2:29:38 article 36 to see if the town will vote to amend zoning bylaw? This one’s very law long, right? I’ll let somebody else explain this. You want a summary? Yes. So Article 36, um, relative to, I mean titled, um, uh, zoning bylaw map to adopt A three, A Multifamily Overlay District. So, which has been much publicized, this is, uh, it’s often referred to as the MBTA zoning change, uh, which has little to nothing to do with the MBTA. Um, the only, the only linkage is, uh, depending on your MBTA services, it,

2:30:26 it impacted the timing of when these zoning change requirements would need to be implemented. If you were directly served by an MBTA rail, uh, I think it was last year, you had to do this process. If you’re in a budding community, which Marblehead is an, a budding community to a directly served community, then we have this year, by the end of this calendar year to adopt, um, the proposed zoning. The, the overview is, the requirement is to adopt zoning with certain, uh, parameters to it. It is not a mandate to build anything. Um, I know there is consternation and fear that, and,

2:31:12 and it’s not just Marblehead, but a lot of communities dealing with the fear factor that there’s just gonna be wholesale construction going on everywhere, uh, and all of that. Um, and that’s not the, that’s not the mandate here. It’s simply to create zoning that would allow it in certain areas and to the designs that the local community has set up to, to, to meet. So your setbacks and your heights and your look and feel that’s controlled at the local level in this, um, all of the, the language that’s in this, to boil it down, it creates three separate areas within Marblehead that are, have an overlay zone.

2:31:58 And an overlay zone means there’s already existing zoning requirements in that particular area. You put an overlay zone, which means you could either meet the requirements of the underlying zone or you can meet the, the requirements of the overlay zone. Um, and what this does is, in the three areas it was designed, there was a lot of work by the planning board and, and Becky Curran, our planner before she left, they’ve done, they’ve done a ton of work and effort on this to design it so that it’s compliant with what the state is asking for, but with a minimal detrimental impact on how Marblehead is, is zoned and,

2:32:45 and where, you know, where things would go. So it zoned in areas in which there was already development that economically does not make sense to tear down and build new. So it’s not gonna create a whole lot of new, there are some areas that actually are underutilized within the zones that will have a beneficial impact if there is some redevelopment in those, in those, those zone areas. Um, and in comparison, Marblehead is already below, uh, on, under chapter 40 B, well below the 10% threshold, therefore makes Marblehead accessible

2:33:30 to any 40 B development. So already without this MBTA zoning, any developer could come into any part of Marblehead and do massive projects. But that’s not happening. The economics is just such that, you know, there are places, there are some activity, but we’re not being overrun. So that’s kind of addressing some of the fear factor. Um, we need to adopt this by the end of the year, hopefully at town meeting. If we do not adopt this, um, the state, couple things. One, we will no longer be eligible for a long and growing list of grant programs at the state.

2:34:18 Um, and I know Alicia put together, uh, some details we’ll go over. Additionally, if we willfully don’t do this, as is the case in a few communities, the Attorney general is coming after you. Um, there are some folks that say, and this is in Marblehead and other communities, we need to stand up and fight. This is unconstitutional, my opinion. You’re throwing your money away because there’s already statute or, or, or cases that address this. Uh, like it or not, we are a subdivision of the Commonwealth and therefore it’s been well established that the Commonwealth can, can, we may not like it, but they, they, they have authorization to do this.

2:35:04 So the bottom line is straight up no financial impact if we don’t adopt this. And again, I’ll reiterate, I think the zoning, the, the planning board and our planet did an outstanding job of crafting this for Marble Head to work in Marble Head. Uh, if we don’t do this, it’ll have a, a profound negative impact financially for us. And, and again, some examples of programs. And I’m just gonna read off the list and then at the end I’ll tell you what grants would be affected. So Mass Works municipal Vulnerability Preparedness grant, which is also known as MVP, community Planning Grants, Massachusetts Downtown Initiative, land Use Planning,

2:35:51 grants, housing Works, housing Choice Grant Programming, urban Agenda, Brownfield’s Redevelopment Fund, um, site readiness program, underutilized Properties Program, collaborative Workspace Program. Commonwealth Places programs, local acquisitions for natural diversity grants, rural and Small Town Development Fund, real Estate Technical Assistance by the Mass Development. In addition, there is, um, large funding that comes in from what they call tip, which is Transportation, uh, improvement program through the state of Massachusetts. And um, I’m gonna speak on that one ‘cause that’s a big one for us. So currently we’ve applied for $3 million for the water main replacement on Atlantic Ave, from Tip $11 million for the Bridge Village, the Village Bridge, village Street, street Bridge

2:36:38 And Village. And Pleasant Street improvements were paid for by tip. And the amount of between one to $2 million. The MVP grant, uh, where applying for the sewers applying for it would be $800,000. In addition, there is some MVP funding also that goes currently to the Health department. So that’s what I researched. And then additionally, earlier I asked Logan for some information, our sustain new sustainability coordinators fantastic. Um, he’s looking at a lot of different grants and their, um, funding sources.

2:37:14 And so Logan, he is looking to do grants for, um, DAM and Sea Wall repair removal program for Parker’s Boatyard Construction, $2 million funding request, uh, congressionally Designated Spending House and Senate for Parker’s Boatyard, same one. Boston Regional NPO Tip, again, funding, uh, for specific, um, projects. He’s looking at Mass DOT Complete Streets funding 500,000 over a four year rolling period. Massachusetts Community one stop for Growth

2:37:48 Postal Resilience grant program, municipal, which I only went over municipal, A DA grants community compact grants, EEA planning grants and building electrification transportation. So the grants that I listed off are just some of the ones that I identified when looking at Milton, who was one that the state is in litigation with and has cut their funding. But it also says clearly from the state, it’s under their discretion. So any discretionary grants by any State department, the state can decide not to give us funding. So I think that’s important, um, because a lot of people just look straight at the actual statute and to see those three like main categories and like, oh, you’re not affected. But in reality, the state list just keeps getting bigger and then they put in their plus whatever, discretionary,

2:38:34 our discretion, we can decide not to award you grant. So, So Milton refused to adopt this, and there’s an example of them being called, they adopted it, then there was a citizen petition to put on the ballot and repealed it. Okay. And now they’re being blocked in grant funding. Yep.

2:38:54 So, and is there like a list of grants that says if you do not follow it, it basically lists all of these that you’re saying, It lists those, and then in addition, they put In anything and everything. Yes. It’s discretionary. So then what I’ve asked Logan to do is if he didn’t mind reaching out to his state contacts to find out how that would affect Marblehead. ‘cause they had done a, an analysis like that for Milton. Yeah. So the state specifically lists the grants and the the list grows. Yeah. Okay. Sounds like some of these grants on this list, the town of Marblehead is already looking into or have already applied for or have received in the past. Is that fair? Nobody likes to feel like the state’s coming in

2:39:41 and telling you what to do, but I think you’ve made an excellent, um, presentation on the fact that our local officials are still going to have the responsibility and control, uh, over development in town. And, uh, I, I think we would be unwise in the extreme, uh, to oppose this ballot initiative, uh, this, uh, article.

2:40:13 Any other comments from FinCon? Yep. Just one. Yep. Any idea or any estimate that you think that this in terms of revenue, um, for the town would bring in, uh, within the first year of adoption if it were to be adopted? Well, this is just a, a zoning change. So they’re not having us build anything. They’re just having us move forward with zoning. And if anything did come in as a result of this, we would capture as new growth revenue. So

2:40:48 how about grants over the first year or two that you think could be at risk? Is there an amount you could quantify there? We talking about multiple millions of dollars. Correct. So right now, multiple millions of dollars. But I asked, um, Logan to get more detail for me. Okay. So it’s at least 11 right in the bridge, Right? Village Street Bridge, right. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Just to follow up on Lindsay’s question too. So she was asking on the, the revenue impact. Yeah. And then, so if we were to have, you know, significantly more citizens in town, there would be more kids in the schools, more, you know, services offered. But you would argue that this is such a, a long term, like you, it’s not even worth sort of projecting what that would be,

2:41:33 Right? It is. And you know, the concerns about big increase in the school systems, the data doesn’t support that. Um, as far as the type of development that may come. Um, and Becky’s pointed this out really well. If we were a community that had a lot of open space and you zoned it to meet this requirement, you would see lots of development and build out the fact that, you know, marble has concern, we shouldn’t adopt this ‘cause we’re already dense. Well, it’s the current density that sort of protects Marblehead from any large developments to begin with. So, so marblehead of, of a lot of communities are probably in a much better position to address this and,

2:42:19 and to, to ensure protecting the character of the community than probably some other communities that have, that do have lots of open space farmland or such that would be highly desirable for, for large development.

2:42:36 Further discussion on 36,

2:42:40 any public comments on Article 36?

2:42:46 Any limit to how punitives a state can be at this point?

2:42:53 No, unfortunately, no. I, I think for me, even though the 11 million sounds high, the litigation alone, I think would, would be outrageous for the town to have to absorb that, but yeah, no, that’s why they keep pointing out. It’s discretionary, so they can just decide, you know, we’re not, we’re gonna just keep adding to list. And my fear, fear of all fears, which I hope they would never do, would be we’re not gonna give you state aid.

2:43:20 Yep. So if we do pass voting overnight that you just mentioned five, what, what does, is it actually 800 units or nine units? Like what does it look like after we’ve done that? Like what are those units and how are they gonna be built? Or I’m also getting, it sounds like it’s almost like rhetoric, like we have to go along with ‘em, but maybe this is actually going to be developed, Right? So, so I think the, the base of your question is yeah, what’s the requirements of building versus just zoning? So, so the, the exercise of identifying, so it’s based on, uh, is it 1%, 800 and some odd units?

2:44:09 It’s a formula based, based on the existing size of the community. And, and then there’s minimum dis density requirements of 15, uh, uh, 15 units per acre. I wish Becky was here to make sure I got it right. But the point being, those, those numbers are a formula that just dictated the size of the zone and the, the, the density requirements. So again, I reiterate, there is no requirement to build any of this, and all the scary numbers of number of units and such was simply the formula to dictate what size of an area you need to put in place.

2:44:56 Um, more so than it is how many units you need to build. And that’s why, again, the planning board and Becky, the way they crafted it in a way that it is compliant with the state, but we’ll, we’ll never see, I shouldn’t say never, maybe in the next 150 years, but, you know, you won’t, it’s not, this will not create, you know, massive development overnight in Marblehead. It’s just economically just not viable to do that. Basically you need a developer that’s ready to bring that amount of Mr. Green to the table to buy up these lots to build them. Yeah. That’s part of having already densed areas is that if they wanna turn an area that has

2:45:43 just say, uh, you know, small apartment units and some single family homes in an area, it that’s what’s covered. They would have to, you know, buy up all the property to have enough area to build something that’s viable. So economically, uh, and marblehead, that’s, that’s not viable. Again, my, my scenario of if we were a community with lots of open space, then that would be a, a, a real concern as the impact on how many families and school children and all that. Marblehead is in a different place than that. And so, again, I can’t iterate enough the work of the planning board and, and, and Becky the planet to craft this in a way that, again, in most areas it’s not economic, not economically viable to do it.

2:46:30 And in a few areas we would desire some, some redevelopment, refreshing of, of certain areas,

2:46:41 Additional public comments, if there is any.

2:46:49 Well, this feels like it has financial applications as our CFO and town administrator are saying. So, um, for me, I will take their advice on this one. Um, so I’d like to make a motion to recommend adoption of this article. Second, Mr. Meyer? Yes. Mr. Chenko? No. Ms. Samuels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Ms. Teets? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. And Mr. Berg? Yes. Thank you. Article 37 Board of Health increase membership home rule petition, no financial impact, but Andrew Petty,

2:47:36 Uh, good evening, director of Public Health, Andrew Petty. Um, yeah, by expanding the board, we’d increase the expertise and the knowledge of the board, which would be a direct benefit to the town and citizens or Marblehead. Now, the board does receive a small stipend annually. Um, so there would be no financial implications this year. Um, if it was approved at town meeting, it would need to go to legislator, then signed by the, by the governor, uh, and then back to the election next year. So at next year’s, uh, budget, we would need to increase that by a very small margin. Um, obviously the, the stipend this year is voted at $400 for all the members. Great. Yeah, to me, that’s not a material amount to consider financial impact.

2:48:21 Um, any comments from fin com on this? No. Any public comments on Article 37? Okay. No financial, no financial impact, therefore no recommendation. Article 38, prove MGL 41 B change assessors from elected to appointed positions. No financial impact of this, but I’ll let Thatcher. Yeah. So this is the other component to what we talked about earlier is, um, and, and the fact that master law 41 B actually is put in place as a streamlined process to, to make it easier for municipalities to, to do this. So, um, what it would do if approved at town meeting, um, it would, would then immediately go to the,

2:49:09 to the election ballot, and the voters would, uh, marblehead voters would vote to either accept or reject, uh, changing the board of assessors from elected positions to appointed positions who would be appointed by the select board. Uh, much like, um, many of the other US boards and committees. Yeah. Done that. So, so ultimately it would, you know, the vote at town meeting would, is basically authorizing to put it on the ballot.

2:49:40 And again, this is part of DOR is recommended as best practice to move. The function of the board of assessors is very technical. You’re required, um, within two years of being appointed or elected to go through the DOR training, assessor training. And again, it’s highly regulated. So in a lot of instances, the state encourages municipalities that used to be elected treasurer collectors. Again, a very technical position, kind of push municipalities to go more to appointed so that you can sort of professionalize, uh, the function that much more.

2:50:24 Mike, the question, Eric, go. I’m sorry. Go ahead, Eric. Um, who would have the administrative oversight of the assessors if they were appointed? Would they report directly to the board of select or would they report the gift? No, neither. I mean, much like decision making boards, they’re appointed. It’s, it’s like Supreme Court, you’re appointed and you perform that function for your term. Your, your, your decision make is independent of your appointing authority. Um, and then at the end of your term, you’re either renewed, move on, whatever the options are. Thank you. Yep. Mike, You see any issues if 35 passes and then this one doesn’t? Um, I Guess if in your experience, have you ever been

2:51:11 No. Okay. Is there, so there’s been elect uh, elected assessor boards underneath the finance department before, and there’s, there’s just not no conflicts or potential issues. Yeah, I think you have every flavor in municipalities. You’ll have the, the professional staff reporting through the CFO with an elected board of assessors with an appointed board. Yeah, I think that’s a mix. So Is, is this something that we could expect to see pushback from? Or they, they a member of an accessor’s board association or whatnot? I, I doubt from like the association because they’re, they are very much into professionalizing the whole assessing function.

2:51:57 So I, I’m, I don’t wanna speak for them, but, um, I know them. I, I know the staff you wanna, you know, expect. Yeah. And there’s, like I said, I, I believe the, there’s a majority of boards of assessors that are appointed rather than elected and more, I’m not aware of any appointed boards going to elected, but there are numbers of elected boards going to appointed. Thank you.

2:52:28 Public comment on this article. Uh, is the appointed board paid or is it free? ‘cause I like free, we’re not creating more town employees, right? This, these people that would be appointed, they volunteered to the town for free. Yeah, they’d be appointed. Now they, the, the assessors currently receive a stipend and there are a number of boards receive a nominal stipend. So that may, whatever the stip current stipend is, may continue, but it’s not a, it’s not a paid employee position. There are no benefits. It’s similar to the role everybody here is doing. Okay. They can’t get on the town health insurance. That’s all I’m concerned about for $500. Thank you. Right, right. Thank you.

2:53:15 Additional public comment on 38.

2:53:20 Okay. No financial impact, no recommendation. Uh, article 39, amend bylaw for the capital Planning Committee membership. Again, no financial impact. Um, Thatcher, So, um, so members of the, the select board, uh, really wanted the, to revive this. So there is an existing in the bylaws, an existing capital planning committee. Um, my understanding, it’s gone dormant. Um, it’s made up of I think five, uh, currently five, what I call totally disassociated residents, which means you cannot serve on any other boards, you can’t be an employee, you can’t, you can’t have any other role with the community in order to be, be able to serve on this committee.

2:54:09 Um, I think what has happened in the, in the past years is you had a disassociated committee who wanted to do all kinds of wonderful things for capital projects. And then it ran into the reality of budget constraints and procurement and all those things. And I think out of frustration, it just kind of went dormant. There is an interest to revive it. Um, the select board members wanted to revive it. So what we came up with was sort of a, a new hybrid committee that has, uh, three resident appointees at large. They would be appointed by the board, and then the, the rest of the committee would be made up of professional staff. And in the language, in the proposal, um,

2:54:57 it’s primarily the professional staff who are dealing with significant capital projects. But we also put language in there that the select board can, can change who, you know, the members of the, the professional staff as situations change over the years. But the whole idea was have that input from the, from, from some residents, have the professional staff blend ‘em together, um, to deal with. Uh, and it’s what’s unchanged is the focus of this capital planning committee, or only those projects currently would be over a million dollars. It’s, uh, 5% of, I think it’s 5% or 10, whatever, it’s, it’s equal to a million dollars.

2:55:42 It’s relative to the total operating budget. Um, so some of the issues and challenges that we have forthcoming is our facilities. Um, we’re having a, we’re ha we we’re contracting with some, with we a consultant to come in and review a number of our buildings to give us a true assessment of the conditions of the buildings. And I can tell you already after the, the, the floods and situations we’re dealing with Mary Alley, um, we’re gonna have a need for a significant capital facility plan that would be right in the purview of this committee to help develop and give recommendation to that plan going forward.

2:56:30 See a hand up online. Erin,

2:56:35 Thanks Alec. And thank you Thatcher. I just wanted to chime in that this is something that the board, uh, discussed during our retreat. And, um, Alexa had, uh, brought to, you know, kind of, we had talked about it. Um, she had kind of brought it up, but, uh, like Thatcher had said, it’s for the large projects over a million dollars. And I think when we’re, we are committed to, we’re in having more, um, synergies around like a longer term financial plan, that there was a disconnect in the past between this committee of solely residents and Comm ums agenda, which was kind

2:57:20 of like misaligned. And so the idea behind this is just to, uh, bring some of the departmental professional expertise into our large, big picture, big budget capital planning needs as we think about our, you know, long-term financial health.

2:57:46 Thank you. Okay. So as I said, I don’t, I don’t think this has financial impact, so we won’t make a recommendation. Um, I don’t see any other hands in the public.

2:58:03 Article 39. Yeah, it was 39. Sorry. 40. Nice. Getting article 40 I met. Wanna sleep? Shake your pills, you promise? Okay. Goodnight. Please mute.

2:58:22 Um, article 40, amend article ballot order in time of random or random drawing of names. Ed. Okay. I thought I was seeing things. Um, drawing of names for the annual town election. No financial impacts, no. Sponsored by town clerk. I don’t know if she’s still in the building. I hear fine.

2:58:51 Um, let’s see here. Just changing a time of day, right? Yeah, yeah. Next. Okay. Yeah, I can’t remember exactly why she wants that, but she’ll explain A Tom meeting. No financial impact. Article 41, um, easement fishing point lane slash 2 9 7 Ocean Ave. Is Amy still here? Yeah. Is this yours or hers? Yeah, Well, both, both involved. Okay. So, and if she’s Still here. So, so this, this has to do with, uh, with, uh, a drainage pipe that’s, uh, runs underneath, uh, uh, a property. Um, uh, only known there’s some history in this property

2:59:40 and that there was, um, assumed, uh, or there was a public right of way through the property that was long assumed that had been, uh, uh, you know, taken by the town. Ultimately it wasn’t. So it’s no longer a public way, but subsequently there is a public drainage that runs under the property. Um, we are asking to do, uh, to do an easement by taking, so the easement, uh, would give the town the authority to maintain the pipe, uh, to have access, uh, to do any work. It has an outfall on out, out onto rocks onto the ocean.

3:00:28 Um, so the easement is to allow public works to maintain that drainage pipe to do any repairs on the, the, the, the sea wall side that, that are needed in that, um, what this article would do is basically give the select board the authorization to negotiate the easement. Uh, the value of the dollar value of the easement will be determined by an appraisal, uh, on the property. That’s typically when, when there’s these type of, of takings, it’s based on, uh, professional appraisals that, that determine what the, what the impact is on the value of the property. And again, this is a, a drainage pipe that’s under the ground.

3:01:15 Uh, Amy and I have met with the, the homeowner to, to kind of get the input from the homeowner to also explain what we’re trying to do and try to figure out what is the best, um, best path forward as far as how to address the easement, having a minimal impact on, on the property owner. Um, but given us the ability to, to maintain the drainage. Yeah, Amy, if you have more information. Uh, so we do have a lot of drainage pipes and, uh, sanitary sewer pipes that run through properties and through easements. Um, this does have an outfall, which as I said, we have over 60 outfalls. Um, this one does need to be repaired.

3:02:00 So the head wall that it goes through and the land behind it, the pipe has broken behind it. Um, to be able to get down to this property, we have to bring, uh, we have to bring equipment down, so we do need an easement. It was realized that it seems like the pipe was just forgotten when the whole discussion came of, uh, doing away with the easement. So, um, again, it, it does need to be done. It’s work that, you know, we wouldn’t be on this property all the time. So just to maintain this piece pipe correct what’s there now, probably line it, uh, we’ll video it and make sure there’s no other issues and then probably never see it again for a long period of time. So, So you’re saying it’s gonna cost money to negotiate

3:02:47 and effectively purchase this easement? Correct. So, and again, this article gives the select board the authorization. It’s the select board that will actually enter into the, um, determine what the require requirements are and to settle whatever arrangement. But again, it’s driven by an appraisal, um, process that we have. So there are concerns raised by the, the homeowner. We’re, again, we’ve met to understand what those are and to make sure that, um, how we go forward can, can address to the extent possible the concerns, but also give us the ability to main that, maintain that infrastructure.

3:03:31 Molly, So when, when you say that entering negotiations, can the homeowner say no? Yes. Okay. No. So, so then they have rights. So, um, there, there is a whole process that if, if we do move forward with the taking that the homeowner has rights, um, I’m not gonna articulate ‘em here, but, uh, you know, there, there, there is a process that allows recourse in that effort. And then just to follow up what happens if it’s not repaired. So if this has been forgotten for a long time and, you know, seems like everything’s been okay, but so what happens if this is, this repair is not done? So this is what we’re gonna see with all our drainage pipes, right? They, they run for a hundred years fine once they start

3:04:18 to break down for whatever reason, whether it be the free straw because it’s a clay pipe, or we put galvanized pipe in and it’s now brought it at the bottom, you know, it worked really well for a hundred years. We got our money out of it, or 50 years even, and now it doesn’t need some attention. So, um, this has an issue with the sea wall, which will affect his sea wall. Once this, you know, the, um, the, uh, head wall just starts to, it can actually, it will start to crack and just fall out. Um, and then the water will just recede further back. So it, um, you know, so it is, it’s not, we do have the money to do the repair. We are trying, we do have a design started for it. Um, it would go out to bid this part, to do this repair ‘cause it is too large for us to do in-house.

3:05:04 Um, another reason that you’d need the easement, but, and the pipe itself does run, um, along one side of the property. It’s not like it runs through the center of the property or divides it, it does run over by a, uh, over by the neighbor’s yard. So, And, and this, the outfall is at the o into the ocean. Yes. Okay, so this is this or was this ever part of the, um, public, the original public ways for, um, because if so, it wouldn’t have a need for an easement, right? If So, I, I Historically in Marblehead, if it was in a public way

3:05:50 or was in a street that they thought was gonna be a public street, even though it was a private street originally, I’m thinking they, we didn’t get written easements. I mean, you’ll see that a lot. Then we also have a lot went through the WPA project and those actually have something that’s signed at the engineer’s office, you know, that 40 people signed and it went through 40 parcels. So that’s like what our easement is. So, Well I’m just thinking if it was one of the public, the historic public waste, which we do the perambulation to Right. Maintain public access to the ocean from different areas or, or even in internally in between streets in town. So this one was fi ultimately determined not to be a public way.

3:06:35 Okay. So we’ve we’ve lost that. Right. Okay. So my guess is this drainage was put in when it was or assumed to be so, Or possibly even, Right? So currently There was a, a structure on the property, Right? So currently there is no, no public access to this private. Okay. Once was in the past within, that’s been adjudicated and, and settled. Okay. All, we don’t plan on making it a public way. Right. Don’t, that’s my follow. No, it’s not being opened up for, for public access. Okay. Yeah. I’m, I’m an Eagle Scout and I got a public comment question. I’m sorry. Sorry. My name is, uh,

3:07:20 My name is Mike Landers. I’m an attorney, uh, with an office in Topsfield. I represent the, uh, owners of this particular property, Mike and Mary Ellen Kazinski. Um, first of all, let me, I, I’m on the finance committee in Dan and we start out hearings tomorrow. So I can very much appreciate the late hour. Good luck and I apologize, um, for getting up this late ‘cause I’d knock the crap outta somebody, frankly, if they did it to me. But, um, this is a, is a very, very involved legal and very intricate legal issue. Uh, it was a, a lawsuit that was involved for almost 14 years, and I can tell you that the end of the lawsuit, which went through land court and then ultimately through the appeals court, ended up in a situation in which the town has no rights to that property at all, not easement rights.

3:08:07 And they have no ability to get easement rights to that property except for the extreme process, which is eminent domain taking my clients suppose the eminent domain taking, we have certainly met and we appreciate the conversations that we’ve had. Uh, but this is about a third of my client’s property. It’s a property that is probably worth somewhere in the range of about $5 million. So if you want to know if there’s a financial implication to this, you can do the math in your head and see what the compensation may be from the town standpoint. To pay to acquire an easement that has written right here will absolutely and completely restrict their ability to use one third of their property. Certainly didn’t expect that when they bought the property.

3:08:55 Uh, at this point right now, I can tell you the town does put water through his pipe. The town is trespassing on his pipe without water. Its land court property. The town cannot acquire any interest in that property other than what’s happening right here. And that land court case as upheld by the appeals court, is very, very specific in terms of the fact that there are no public rights in that property. So what is happening here is, although there is a history to it, is the same as if this was just a piece of property that has no pipe on it, that has no history, and the town is taking one third of that property, um, via the, the eminent domain process.

3:09:41 I know that as a general rule, finance committees, town meetings look at this as somewhat a ministerial position. They look at this as almost ceremonial. We’re going to transfer the, the control and the operation of this to the Board of Selectmen to negotiate. And I appreciate that. But there’s a reason that the town meeting has to approve this, I believe by a two thirds vote. It’s ‘cause it’s a pretty extreme process when you talk about taking away one third of somebody’s property rights, and especially in a situation in which the town will probably face years of litigation. And at the end, a a contribution in this that’s probably in the seven figures

3:10:28 and maybe even upwards into the seven figures. So there is a very serious financial consideration with it. And a and a and, and, and as a result of that, you know, my my clients, they, they don’t, they wanna know why is this happening to us? They look at the fact that fishing lane does not exist, but yet we call it fishing lane. In this, the easement exactly mirrors the pro the the amount of property and where fishing lane was. There’s, there’s a belief by, I’ve talked to the council who represented the prior owner, and he, he’s like, they’re just trying to take back fishing point lane in respect to this. And again, I, I appreciate the, the, the attempts to try to talk about maybe limiting this, and obviously it would be a continued

3:11:14 negotiation as we go forward. But I’m, I’m asking you in this particular situation on behalf of my, of my client, to really think very, very closely to the idea. I don’t say this lightly. This could happen to anybody in the town who owns property. And it’s, it’s, it’s dangerous. It’s not dangerous, but it’s scary, I think, and that’s the way they look at it. But thank you. Thank you, Molly. I guess just, um, in light of sort of the, that was gonna be my next question, the financial impact, right? This is what we’re here for. So can you talk about sort of the cost benefit of, of this? So again, this is a, a matter that our attorneys are involved. Um, obviously we’re not gonna litigate this in

3:12:01 this, this forum. And so there’ll be opinions brought in from different perspectives. Um, if there were other avenues for the town to address the drainage in that area, it would pursue it. But there’s not, and so financial impact that, um, to do a different route or to create new drainage in that area would be very costly given the topography, given the ledge all, you know, a lot of factors. So we’ve, we’ve looked at all that we’ve addressed it. The seems at this point, the most straight way, it, it is an easement.

3:12:47 It is an underground pipe that would be hopefully repaired from underground. And the impact is just having the ability to access if and when to make any repairs. Other than that, um, there would be no, no physical evidence of anything being different. So, so we think it’s a necessity that we, we need to do for that particular area on drainage. Um, again, this will, this will play out in conversations between the, the town’s council and the, and and the owners council. And that’s, that’s how this process is, is designed to work. Ultimately it’s the select board that would finalize any type of agreement or arrangement.

3:13:34 So, um, again, this, uh, at town meeting would give authorization for the select board through our attorney to figure this out, come to a resolution and, and come to an agreement. Um, just to follow up on that though, so can the select board, not can, I mean that gives the select board the authority to not move forward with it. That That would be an Option, look for other solutions. Has there been an like work done on other solutions? You’ve looked at, you know, the cost that would, comparing the cost of this route, which potentially could be sounds like litigious and involved, versus actually finding a better drainage solution in that area.

3:14:21 Has that analysis been done

3:14:25 Just at a, at a real high level? Um, just looking at grades, uh, sewer maps, sewer profiles and what ledges there. Um, and then the sewer. So the storm water system and storm sewer system has no pumps, stations, no objective pumps, no nothing. Um, you don’t want it to, that just becomes an extreme maintenance, uh, issue. So going one direction would most likely require, uh, some kind of pumping situation going. The other direction is just, we’re looking at seven tickets to do it, where all we have to do is repair a head wall and, um, a certain amount of pipe We haven’t been there for, since I’ve been here. So since 2010, I haven’t had to go address that pipe,

3:15:12 but, so I would assume once we’re done, we won’t be addressing that pipe. You won’t see anybody on that. You can’t repair it without an easement.

3:15:20 So no, because, well, maybe with a, I don’t know, you’d have to talk legally, but the other issue is you have to get equipment to the wall to repair the wall. And we’ve all seen climate change and resiliency. Those RC walls are all thinking about battery. So, you know, at some point that would be, and that, you know, they would have their part of the wall to fix, but the town would still have this part of the wall fixed.

3:15:50 I think Tim had his hand up first. Tim, um, I’m just looking at a, a, a map of it right now. I, I assume we’re looking at, on the southern side of the property between 2 50, 2 95 and 2 97

3:16:05 Sounds. Yes. Yes. It, it, it, it, I know this is inconsequential, but it shows up on the Google Maps as right away It you are. Right. And, and just for my own clarification, we are beginning this in a, in a friendly softball manner of negotiation instead of going directly in with em and domain. Yes. And so the, the concern and the scare on the other side of the ledger is that if we as a municipality don’t have the ability to address our infrastructure right, and we can’t address our drainage issues, then that, that has a profound impact throughout the whole community.

3:16:52 Yeah. Um, especially as, you know, um, climate change and such. So we need to have the ability to efficiently move water from the public ways and, and protection of properties do it in a responsible manner. But, but that’s the flip side of the coin, is there is eminent domain exists to meet a public need with just compensation. And that’s what the process is about. So this warrant article is allowing for that process to pursue, to meet the public need for drainage with just compensation, uh, and, and, and,

3:17:40 and a just process. So that’s what we’re trying to do. So This is already, so this is already going, going into the,

3:17:49 to, to give the, the, the homeowners the best option where we could have just gone in with eminent domain, Presumably? Yes. Okay. Yeah. So just clarification, did I hear this has already been 14 years of litigation on this Issue? Not this in particular. So there was, in the past, a public right of way through where that property is now known as Fish and point lane that was adjudicated however many years ago. Um, 2001, I think, uh, January, or yeah, 2001 timeframe. I saw the, the articles from there that settled the public’s right to access through the property, to walk

3:18:36 up and down through the property to get to the waterfront that’s been resolved. There is no longer a public right or a public way on the surface for people to go back and forth. What we’re asking for is an easement to have a right for the pipe that sits however many feet under the ground that runs on the edge of that property, um, and drains out to the water, the ability to maintain and repair that pipe, to, to allow the drainage in that particular area to adequately flow. So then the identification of the need for repair of the pipe is much more recent? Yes. Yes. That’s, We’ve been wanting to repair pipe. That’s 14 years. Okay. Alright. Can

3:19:23 I, I, that is that, I apologize. I, and I appreciate there are always differing opinions on this, but that that’s simply not an accurate legal representation of what’s happening here. Um, Uh, once again, I wanna make this point perfectly clear. The town has no rights, nor did they ever have any rights in the fishing point lane. That is what the land court decided. It’s not just about the public way, it’s about the entire fee in that property. If the town had rights in that property, that would appear on the land court certificate that appears right now. They, that was the, the, the nuts and bolts of the litigation. Although the, the, the factual components of it dealt in large part with the, the, uh, the right

3:20:08 to pass and repass over the purported fishing point lane, the determination by the land court to not include those express easement rights. We, there are no easement rights. You can’t have easement rights unless they’re expressly ex, uh, delineated in that land court certificate. And they aren’t there. So there are no rights to the town for this. The, the, if my client had wanted to, when he bought the property eight years ago, dug up the pipe and removed the pipe, he could have done that. In fact, he could probably still technically do it today and simply block the end of it. He hasn’t wanted to do that. But what did happen in this particular situation was, is that the traditional amount of flow that came out of

3:20:55 that pipe, and that flow does not go directly into the ocean. It flows onto his beach directly through the sea wall onto his property, rocks, beach. You’re all familiar with the, with the, with that area. And in essence, there was a connection that dramatically increased the amount of flow that came through that pipe that is the likely cause of the damage that occurred within the pipe and also within the retaining wall. And, and what was a very small amount of water and a real no consequence. He didn’t care. They didn’t, no one really cared about. It was 24 7 water pumping out of that when that occurred. There were discussions about alternatives.

3:21:41 And so we would also respectfully disagree that there aren’t alternatives, and that those alternatives would not be substantially less expensive for the town of Marble Head. That’s a disagreement that we have and a point in within our negotiations. But based on engineering reports that we’ve seen, there is a very, very strong likelihood that the town could connect without having to pump. There’s a number of different, of, of resource areas there with it. So again, this is, this is a situation which it’s important. The town has no rights in this property. They’ve never had rights in this property. The court made that determination. The town is now coming in and more than likely at a cost, a substantial cost for both litigation

3:22:27 and for, um, reimbursement is going to put themselves in a position. And I agree with you, there should be an exploration of additional alternatives with this. That’s the financially prudent thing to do. And the idea that this was not a direct move to eminent domain. We were first brought into the process when this warrant article was completed after a year of trying to reach out and talk about this in these, in these instances, it wasn’t until finally this warrant article was completed and, and we were able to sit down with folks. And they’ve been very gracious since we’ve sat down with ‘em. I’m not gonna say that in the at all, but to, to make the point that this didn’t start

3:23:13 with eminent domain, it absolutely started with eminent domain.

3:23:23 Okay. Question. Uh, probably this question goes to Amy. Has there, uh, does the town have any exposure or liability for failing to repair this outflow tunnel? Or

3:23:44 Can’t answer that, but I, I’m, so if the water doesn’t leave the grove, then it freezes and now we have icy roads, so We do need, well, it’s flowing now, but it, there’s a break in the end that’s going to cause damage to the landowner’s property. I think that’s, If the break goes on, attend it Will. But does the town have any liability or exposure if they don’t fix it?

3:24:13 Thank you. Sorry. Oh, no. Yeah, Just trying to balance. Yeah. Alex, just, we move to end discussion. I mean, I think we’re not gonna solve this legal issue tonight. Yep. Yep. You sure?

3:24:32 Yeah, we can. Okay. Um, so the financial implications of the warrant itself is to allow the select board the ability to negotiate this, which will come at a cost to negotiate. Is that it in terms of what we’re voting on? It’s just that, or is it the cost of the entire piece? The the cost to, of the easement, the cost of the repair, the cost of the, I mean, or is it just the cost of the negotiation? I’m, I guess that’s what I don’t under, it’s, I, what I’m struggling with is, you know, we’re supposed to advise on financial matters and I don’t even see any numbers. There’s no, there’s no numbers here. Right.

3:25:18 So I, I’m, I’m really struggling with this and what yeah. What our role is. Right. ‘cause it can’t be determined at this time. It, it depends on a lot of factors. There, there obviously are legal costs and, and, and doing this. And then there will be some type of, if an easement’s put in place, a, a cost of the taking, all of that is open at this stage. So, Okay. I mean, I’m not prepared to make a motion on this article per personally, so I, I I don’t feel like I have enough information. So I’d like to make a motion to recommend indefinite postponement of this article.

3:25:58 Second,

3:26:06 do we vote Mr. Meyer

3:26:11 Or no? No. Mr. Janko, The motion is to Indefinitely postpone. Yes. Yeah. Ms. Samuels. Yes. Mr. Franklin. Yes.

3:26:28 Um, Ms. Teets? Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Ms. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. And Mr. Sby? Yes. Only.

3:26:40 All right. Article 42, amends transfer station fees.

3:26:54 Charles Nordstrom. Is Charles here?

3:27:05 I can explain this. It’s, it’s to allow for transfer station fees to be free for honorably discharged veterans who are illegal residents of Marblehead. Um, seems like a reasonable ask. Um, I, I support this personally. Fin comm discussion.

3:27:27 Can we quantify, um, the impact for the town’s revenues if this article were adopted?

3:27:36 I, I would, yeah. Say, so it’s, there’s estimated 700 veterans in the town of Marblehead, so it’s, no, the impact could be $56,000. Oh, wow. I mean, it’s horrible to put a, put a number on it. Obviously, you know, all veterans deserve, you know, these services, so, but it is, But that assumes they all have a sticker, right? No. So you’re, you’re saying that you’re gonna give out free stickers to 700 people. The financial impact would be $56,000.

3:28:13 And then Andrew, that would, that would end up being 700 households, Right? I Mean, it could be. Yeah. That’s the max It could possibly be. That is the estimated number from online currently, yes.

3:28:30 Assuming everyone lives in a separate household and every single one of them has a transfer seat that’s a sticker. They, they don’t have to have a sticker today. They would, you know, they would get it for free next year. So Is it fair to say that you oppose this Article? No, that’s not fair to say.

3:28:48 There’s not actually a cost to it, right? So, I mean, it’s only if someone has a sticker now and doesn’t renew it, and then they get it for free. Right. The cost, the cost is the, the cost of disposal. So whatever they’re throwing away, that’s the cost. So it’s an unknown Cost, but if they’re already going now, right. So if they’re already going now, but if they’re not going now, But if they go now, the $80 Is, it’s not the full amount. So if they go now, the $80 is covering the cost. So,

3:29:20 Okay. Is, is this, is there a, like an amount at which the impact of this would need to be factored into the, you know, the, the budget, right? So this is revolving, right? This seems like, oh, it would be on the revolving No, it goes to the general fund. So it would be, there’s a materiality there, right? So this would actually need to be factored into, wouldn’t it be earlier, an earlier article? So what I would do is if it was passed, I’d have to sit down with Andrew, the one we’re doing our revenue forecasting to know that we need to forecast our revenue Lower for next year, right? Correct. So I feel like the we’re almost

3:30:03 on that we can’t support it without a, Without a what? Without actual, Yeah. I think that would be the easiest. Which Be sounds like he’s got his estimate. He’s just taken 700 times the number.

3:30:19 Yeah, yeah. Correct. Great. So generally on programs to help certain constituencies, right? Like helping seniors. When you create a program that anybody over a certain age gets a benefit, then the question is, are those ones getting the benefit? Need that benefit? So the issue is this is a citizen pati petition. So we have no control whether there’s any sort of means test. In other words, all veterans, I’m a veteran. I don’t live in Marblehead, right? I’m a veteran. I, I wouldn’t need that $80 benefit, right?

3:31:05 So a lot of times you try to implement some type of means test that goes along with the category. So as to one, direct the benefit to those who truly need the financial benefit. Um, you know, in this case, everybody wants to honor veterans for their service. Wonderful. But then there’s the financial component. How do you, how do you measure, monitor and put some kind of reasonable limits on it? That’s, I think that’s the challenge you need to look at in these type of proposals. Have, has he I’ve had No, no. So has he reached Out to anyone too? The sponsor? Yeah. Okay. I have no idea. All right. So, so maybe it would be, yeah, I mean, could be amended maybe.

3:31:50 Well, not only that, but if you don’t wanna show up and present your article, part of me wants to indefinitely postpone just because of that. Um, I mean, it is fairly late. We don’t, we don’t know Charles, it, it might have been onerous to be here at 10:38 PM I mean, if you wanna sponsor an article, I would beg to differ on that one, but, um, yeah, I mean, you can explain it to town B. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it’s up to town meeting our recommendations are just that recommendations. So yeah.

3:32:26 Yeah. If we vote to indefinite postpone, that becomes the motion to start. So there wouldn’t be even be discussion if town meeting votes indefinite postponement. Correct. Mr. Moderator. So true. I, I, I don’t know about taking that position

3:32:47 for Can we reach out to, I mean, I understand, yeah. We can follow up on this one and see if we can get maybe some, yeah. Some clarification on what Yeah, we did that last year on a few. Have a second meeting. We’ll table this one for tonight.

3:33:01 Okay. Article 43 Men general bylaws, chapter 75, 1 leaf blowers. No financial impact. I think we’ve talked about these for five years, 10 years maybe, mostly. Um, does anybody have any comments on any of the leaf blower articles?

3:33:20 Oh yeah. You do? Yeah. Oh yeah, you can. Yeah. Okay.

3:33:30 Um, okay. My name is Sabrina Ry, and I am the sponsor of the Full Leaf Blower band. And then, um, the amendment on enforcement and on the restrictions. So I’ll try to be brief because it’s so late right now, obviously, but I graduate from Marblehead in 1991, and I live at the top of Prospect Street, so just right up the hill. And when I first moved back here in November of 2020, um, during P-C-O-V-I-D and I finally got outside and my yard is like, literally like, you know, as big

3:34:15 as like this rug right here. The first thing I heard was the oppressive drone of the leaf blowers. And I had lived in Maine and I had never heard them, thank God. So I be, I have since become a reluctant expert on them. I promise I wish I didn’t know anything about them. And I guess again, at this late hour, I’ll try to be succinct, but essentially they really should be compared to radiation. There’s absolutely no safe exposure. And back to the first day when I finally stepped outside in front of my house

3:35:01 and was just kind of plotting around my front lawn, and I have two teenagers, and at the time I had my elderly mom who has since passed. I had no idea what this oppressive noise was. And keep in mind it was like early April, maybe end of March. There was no leaves, no leaves whatsoever. It was like a rainy, chill day. And an older gentleman was walking up the hill and he was walking with his, I would learn later his adult autistic child, or Yeah, adult child. And I said to him, I’m like, what is that sound? Because when I lived in Kittery, we actually lived across the street from the Portsmouth Navy yard where they manufacture SEPs.

3:35:46 I can tell you a lot about noise. We do a lot of work all over the United States to minimize noise. Talk to anybody who has lived underneath, you know, in East Boston during the Logan expansion, we mitigate noise. It literally cut your life off to say nothing of tinnitus, um, hypertension, cognitive issues. Again, I could go on and on. But anyway, so I said, it was almost like he read my mind. I said, I’ve never heard this noise before. And he said, those are the leaf blowers. And his adult autistic daughter leaned into him and he said she can’t handle them.

3:36:33 And it was that minute, I couldn’t not hear them. So I have to say again, I, I grew up here. I went to the road school. I’ve been here since I was one years old, coming back to Marblehead, to landscapers and leaf blowers. Honestly, every single day of the week, all seasons, unless it’s raining, even in the winter, was heartbreaking. So I’ll give you a few other quick examples. So we wanna take the summer band to a full year-round band. The reason why the summer band was great, and I wanna also say that I wasn’t here for the TA last 10 years. I have no idea what, you know,

3:37:19 what those arguments were about. I can tell you with a hundred percent conviction based on, um, human emotion and our feelings and how we physically feel, there’s no safe exposure. None, none whatsoever. So the summertime ban is a great start, but we need a year-round ban, because you can hear them inside, you can shut your windows and be inside, and you will still hear the oppressive ban. So again, where I live at the top of the hill, I live in a tiny little cape. My, um, entire lot is maybe three thou thousand square feet. I have had to cancel business calls

3:38:05 because the leaf blowers will set up camp literally where you guys are standing. The other thing is, because of the low, um, vibration and the oppression and the, and the velocity, you may have noticed that they are able to cut your internet. That’s how dangerous they are. So that has happened multiple times as well. So that’s kind of my quick ish, um, speech. That’s the first article To, yeah. So taking from a summer band to a year round that has no financial impact. Yeah. So for a year, brown, and also I wrote the language on this and I lifted it right from Nantucket.

3:38:50 And there’s a couple different, there’s several towns actually in Massachusetts, I took Nantucket because they did not wanna expose their tourists to leaf blowers, let alone their residents. I mean, it’s truly madness to be honest. Then 40 Fours. Okay, so then the second one is, um,

3:39:15 There’s some exceptions for Guests. Okay? Right. The exception. So I am not familiar, to be honest what the exceptions are considered here. But once again, once you lay out that there’s no safe exposure, really none, not none to anybody. And also, I’m not gonna get into pregnant women and what they do to babies. There’s no exception. But just walking around, for example, at the end of last fall, um, for whatever reason, the town of Marblehead thought it was a bright idea to deploy an army of leaf blowers on the vets during the school hour, starting at eight.

3:40:04 And they were running to one 30. My neighbors and I, the group of us at the top of the hill, I had to leave my house. I am 800 feet away from what used to be the high school where I went to the high school. The blowers were outside those old windows during the school hour. It’s the literal definition of gas lighting. It was outrageous. Another example, last summer during the ban, thank goodness, you know, some quiet windows are open. It’s a hot day. I’m working from my house and I hear the oppressive wine, and I’m like, what is going on here? I followed the sound. There was one leaf blower hired by the town

3:40:52 of Marblehead on town property, that being the vets, but it was a private landscaper blowing dirt, just blowing air, dirt in the driveway of the vets for about an hour. So that’s why there’s no exceptions. People have lost common sense. The other thing is, it’s not about small business. You see them deployed on buildings that have no grass. You see them outside the banks. I mean, it’s, you see them five feet outside the Lafayette nursing home. That’s inhumane and truly criminal to what you’re doing to the elderly. And then lastly, on the enforcement, um, currently the enforcement is penalizing the homeowner.

3:41:41 So that again, needs to be adjusted. And I can tell you a couple examples that I have seen and people have called me. What happens is, during the ban, and even people who do, do not want the leaf blowers, they tell their landscapers expressly, do not use the leaf blowers. Well, they leave for town, or they’re in Boston at their jobs. They roll in, they’re blowing them all day on their property after they’ve said, do not blow them. So that’s what, and by the way, when somebody breaks the law, we do not move the needle and then penalize the victim. That’s what you’re doing. And they know that as well. So we just adjust that to common sense.

3:42:27 And the leaf blowers themselves, whether, whether it’s a personal, um, leaf blower using one or a landscaper, they are fine. It’s pretty straightforward and simple. So that’s okay. That’s my Pitch. No, thank you. Thank you, thank you for your time. Um, to me, this, these articles, the first two certainly have no financial implications. And the third, I, I don’t think we need to weigh in on this One. Article 44, that 45 you mean. Oh, so implications to the town, if, if the exceptions aren’t the exceptions relating to the town of Marvel head is, is an exception. And when we had our rec and park meeting Yeah.

3:43:14 Did say that to have to convert to electric lead goers would be cost prohibitive for that department. So there is there. So I think there might be a, correct me if I’m wrong, um, He definitely said that at that subcommittee. I remember that as well. He, and they had looked at like the cost of they were buying a new lawnmower and they had done electric and that it was a very significant price difference. Yeah. Um, and I guess, so there, there was an impact. Um, I think we’d probably need to see that quantified though. Yeah. Before we could be a determination. Yeah. And we didn’t have that at the subcommittee. No.

3:44:02 Okay. So for, yeah. So, um, we do, this is not about implementing, um, electric either. In fact, this is just getting back to like rates and the, the argument can be to bottled water. It’s very similar what has happened with gas meat blowers, quote for the bottled water first. Um, those who make bottled water, which is a derivative of roham, actually had to convince cows and people that their water wasn’t safe. So that was step one. And that there they were able to sell bottled water, which we are literally now choking on plastic everywhere.

3:44:48 It’s very much the same with the gas leaf blowers. First, we were convinced that leaves were trash are dirty and we need to blow at ‘em. They’re not trash. It’s part of nature. We don’t have to deal. And I am not, um, advocating for extensive costly upgrades. In fact, it’s a downgrade to simple raking and some community measures. For example, in Maine, we would do, um, we would pull the community together, boy scouts, girl scouts, different groups to go and break, which was not any yards and Marblehead, I, I looked in Maine where there was yards. Right. No dark. But the article

3:45:35 impacts a department doing their business in the town of Marblehead, whether that be through replacing gas leaf blowers with electric or more man hours needed to rake than blow. Um, I’ve Actually, I just, Right, I’m just saying it has financial implications, which is all We’re saying. It has the opposite, actually, you not using Gas, right? Yeah. Or you would’ve be using gas or the gas forwards and Right. But it has financial implications that we don’t know what they are at the, Uh, it’s pretty straightforward. I mean, not even get, not using a blower and not to mention it’s abuse abusing ‘em. They run them nonstop. Okay. You see them running and blowing in parking lot. Literally dirt. And I have the videos of blowers on the vets. Yeah.

3:46:23 Just blowing sweat, piece of dirt. That’s, that’s really simple. That’s, you Don’t, I don’t think we’re gonna get a quantified amount for this. So I’m prepared to make no recommendation on this article and let it be discussed at town meeting motion. But I, I, I don’t see how it, it doesn’t have financial implications for the town. And it also leads into a slippery slope of when is it gonna be weed whackers, when is it gonna be other things that the town needs? And coming from a family that’s sold fuel, oil, and gasoline for over a hundred years in New Jersey, the way that it’s written in and of itself, it says gasoline, not all fuel and petroleum products. Most of the leafblower was run on two stroke migs,

3:47:10 which wouldn’t technically be covered by this, in my opinion.

3:47:14 Fair enough.

3:47:18 I Think we get, I just wanna say one thing. I retired from the state and I ran those things and we were exempt. The state was exempt. They passed it in Dan and stuff. I believe that the landscapers couldn’t use ‘em at certain times of the year, but the state was exempt on their roads. So it sounds like this is gonna have to go to town meeting because they want to ban ‘em completely. It doesn’t matter if they’re gas or electric. She wants ‘em to use a hand broom. So they’re gonna have to debate it at town meeting. And it is gonna be a substantial cost to anyone that’s gotta pay to clean up a parking lot or anything. It’s just common sense. So that’s the way, that’s your privy. Um, if you want to spend more money. ‘cause there’s no town employees to do the work that needs to be done now.

3:48:03 So you’re gonna have to hire more people and if you want the streets clean. Right. Right. Thank you. Hold on. I think The mo we’re second, right? So we, we should vote on the motion for a second. Yeah, we Recommendation, we just move so we can just,

3:48:21 I think we should just debate this at town meeting like we have for the last 10 years. Gotta go to town meeting anyway.

3:48:29 So we’re making no recommendation on,

3:48:34 um, article 46. Is Dan Albert here?

3:48:43 Don’t see him online. I think 46 has no financial implications.

3:48:55 Uh, so we are not gonna delete that tonight. I don’t know how to explain his article.

3:49:03 Article 47 again. Dan Albert amend bylaws. Traffic safety advisory committee. I think this is just, again, no financial impact. It has to do with language and the, the committee itself. Is that fair? Alicia? Last year’s article amended being amended this year. Okay. Uh, June, article 40, did you wanna speak on one of these? Or 48? Article 48. Improve road safety indicators. Dan Albert. Yep. So no financial impact? No, I think, no. This one I know. 46 and 47. 46 and 47. No financial impact, no recommendation, right.

3:49:52 Yep. Not indefinite point. Right.

3:49:58 Did you wanna speak to 48? So 48 does have a financial implication. It does go through. Um, the one thing is that we do have a consultant looking at intersections. We have a bike plan coming forward. We have a sidewalk assessment and an 80 DA, uh, plan coming forward from this consultant, um, this area of Maple Street that did have, I believe it was only a conceptual design back in 2012. So, um, it would require survey, a full design, the painting, the realigning of the street to get to it. So, um, you know, rough estimate was around $40,000. But on top of that, we don’t have our bike plan yet.

3:50:44 That’s coming. That could change everything we do to paint it. So if, you know, one year later it could be said that was the wrong plan to put in place. Uh, the intersections have some changes. One slight both could be very slight, but one could be a bigger change. So, um, so it does have an implication now, but it also has a future implication of, you know, having to undo work too. So, So you’re looking into something related to this exact road as is or is this just asking to do something that you guys aren’t even thinking about doing? No. So we’re looking to, uh, get our consultant to do the final design for this. This is a section. So you, you prefer to let that process happen versus being forced in a warrant article?

3:51:30 Yes. To do this, we won’t have any chance to change. You’d have to undo what? Right. Or we’d have to undo it. Yep. So I did meet with Dan Albert, and I did call Amy on this. So, um, Amy did tell me a lot of things, which I did reiterate back to Mr. Albert on this and that the timeframe also on this article, there’s no way that this would be done by June 1st, 2024. But that Amy is waiting for the bike plan. She is looking to build up from the schools and she’s looking to do, looking at these same type of things. It’s just, she, it cannot be done in the timeframe that he has imposed. And she wants to make sure and follow through with all her studies and everything before making any type of change. Okay. And the design that was proposed in 2012, I think will be given to the consultant to look at too.

3:52:17 And it might be the one that is Dr. Okay. Yeah, I mean, we can add that to the notes. I think when you spoke to Mr. Albert, did he, what was his, did he have any comment on, you know, good Ben or indifferent about the, he, he still, the new information? Uh, He was thank, he was thankful to get the information. Um, but he still wants to speak to his article on to make sure that safety improvements are on the radar for the town. So he was still wants to speak to his article, but he was thankful for the information. Is is the traffic safety advisory committee the town? Is it, I would think it would be something he would want to have the support of

3:53:06 the Town Traffic Safety Advisory Commission committee if to, to go forward with this. And, and they’re looking at a different approach. Right. So it has been looked at, uh, briefly with them and they have put it as one of the priorities that they wanna look at. And that’s why the consultant, that’s why we’ve picked one of the top four areas. That’s one of the areas the consultant has given us a, a future design for. I’m just saying. I, Yes. I politely asked if he would, uh, indefinitely postpone what he wanted to discuss his article because Amy is working on basically the same thing, just not within the constraints. Yeah. And I think I ran into him in the hallway when I met with you and he didn’t seem concerned about our opinion on it really. So, um, sounds like there’s a plan in motion to address this

3:53:54 and, um, I would recommend indefinite postponement for now to see that plan out rather than coming up with a cost of something and then maybe having to undo it if, if the plan itself that’s already in motion would amend what’s, what’s ultimately done by the passing of this article. Second. So I’ll make a motion to indefinitely postpone Article 48. Sounds like we got a second. Mr. Chatman? Yes. Mr. Jenko? Yes. Ms. Samuels? No. No. I say no. Um, Mr. Franklin, I would, um, you’re,

3:54:40 I I know, I’m trying to think of what I definite postponement versus no position. Um, we have to say there’s financial, you can’t say no Pos no Position because there’s a financial impact. There’s a financial, yeah. Um, so the motion is to indefinitely postpone. Yes.

3:55:03 Yes. Here it’s okay. Um, Ms. Ms Seed. Yes. Mr. Lee? Yes. Ms. Dubby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. And Mr. Goldsby? Yes. No financial impact of Article 50 is Danielle denial. 49. 49 MS. Fund. 49. 49. I lost select board terms. Rescind Dwight Greater here. No, no financial impact of this, but I think it’s to reverse last year’s decision that changed from one to three year. Is that fair? Correct. Yeah. Wouldn’t there be a financial impact? Because we’d have, we’ve already put out money to go

3:55:50 before the Attorney General and had all that legal work done, and if this were to pass, we’d have to go through that again and have legal work done. I think it’s percent passed. Yeah. It’s nominal. I mean, there’s some legal work, but it’s nominal. Does anybody have any comments on article 49 40?

3:56:13 So since there’s no financial impact would take normal. No recommendation. No recommendation. Okay. Article 50. Amend bylaw recall provision for elected officials.

3:56:31 Daniel Donato here.

3:56:36 No financial impact of this either. So no recommendation. Couple comment point Together. Absolutely. There there would be a potential financial impact of recall. ‘cause you would have to recall actually what you probably here could cost about 20 grand. Okay. Mm-Hmm. It’s something to think about. Email, what we have.

3:57:01 It would actually be pushed to the, the town elect or the, the next recent town election. So there wouldn’t be a, a recall, like a special recall election for it. It would actually go to the next election that you would have. I, I don’t think that’s protocol. Okay. Um, I, I, okay. I think, I think it has gotten,

3:57:21 So we can hold off and get that answer and then do it Yeah. At that Meeting. Yeah. We can follow up on this one. That’s So no recommendation tonight, but we will follow up and see if Daniel Donato has some sort of Yeah. For that or has thought hearing. I’m sorry. I know it’s like every time I shifted it, sorry. Alright. 51 men general bylaws, state Street restrooms

3:57:52 Sponsored by Bill Blazedale, BLA 72 Front Street. We have a beautiful restroom down at the Landing, the most visited area in Marblehead. It’s a brick building beautifully built. It was designed to be open all year round with a furnace and ducting for the air ducts. The only thing that’s necessary to get it running is to, uh, turn on the furnace, open the door, and, um, turn on the water. Um, the financial implications, I would, um, uh, estimate running, uh, expenses to be about 4,000 for the six months total

3:58:39 that it’s now closed. Uh, the fixed expenses since they took out the furnace, we need a new furnace. And our citizens group has, um, gotten multiple, um, estimates from plumbers. And the best one, uh, is a cost of 7,500, installation of an 85% gas furnace, 85% efficient gas furnace. Uh, uh, it would, uh, includes installing the furnace, all the duct work and the flue connecting all the gas piping and electrical, et cetera, et cetera. And, um, permitting. And it’s, uh, guaranteed for two years labor, five years parts, and 20 years on the exchanger.

3:59:28 I think we really need it. Um, my wife and I have an apartment, looks right down on the, the restrooms there and we see the number of people that pass by there on a daily basis all year round. And, um, visitors who don’t know, it’s closed in the winter. They come and try the door. It’s got a nice sign, public restrooms. And, uh, a year ago we got a big grant from the state to renovate it. It’s beautifully painted. We’ve got new partitions in there, we’ve got new sink and new toilets and, and we’ve got, uh, electric, uh, water heat, but that nobody can enjoy it for half the year. You can only get that hot water I guess in the summer when you don’t need it.

4:00:16 It’s a shame. I

4:00:20 So it sounds like fixed costs would be $7,000 from your perspective and then annually in the winter, additional cost of about four. Yeah. 70, 7500 for the, the fixed. And then it would be, um, you know, toilet paper, electricity, the gas, uh, and um, my estimate would be about 4,000 from November, uh, to the end of April. And that’s when it’s closed right now. Yep.

4:00:50 Amy? Um, I actually would have to double check, but I’m not sure how deep that water line is run into that building. So it would be a cost of excavating and making that water line deeper so that it won’t freeze right now. It gets turned off, uh, in the fall and drained. So this is the underground water line to the pipe itself, to the building itself. So that’s another, I don’t know unless the line 10, 15,000, Unless the line was changed, uh, they used to be open and when they were open, um, the, the, uh, water line was fine. Yeah, I’d have to check on the depth. I don’t know, but most, a lot of the, um, seasonal in that area is only two feet deep. So, and, uh, we wanna just make sure they use prevailing wage. I don’t know if any of that, um, if you’re bid is

4:01:36 considering prevailing wage too. Just increases it a little bit to get things installed.

4:01:45 And if this was to pass, how would this be funded?

4:01:50 I’ve been working with, uh, mark Souza trying to, and we’ve met Mr. Blazedale and others trying to, trying to find a viable path. Um, there are issues or have been issues with freezing pipes and that it’s, it’s not sufficiently winterized. I think that’s been a problem in the past. Um, concern the, the way the building is set up, that even if you do heat it, if the doors are left open, it just blows all the heat out and now you’re back to worrying about your frozen pipes and and such and inside. What then as far as the challenge of how, you know, to maintain it, clean it and, and do that, it’s a bit of an orphan.

4:02:37 Um, being, it’s a football being kicked between harbors and, and, uh, ruck and park. ‘cause neither have the resources to, to staff on an ongoing basis to, to clean it and stock it and do those things. People are, are trying, we’ve been kicking around the idea of identifying a different type of facility much like they have in different cities and stuff. Rest sort of, uh, modular restrooms that are designed better for, you know, use year round overnight and, and those type of issues. So that’s what we’ve been trying to explore. The need is there, there’s no doubt that there is a need for those facilities. Um, they get used,

4:03:23 but trying to find the best solution that is easily maintained can withstand, you know, all the seasons and, uh, and so forth. So it’s a, it’s been an ongoing challenge. Uh, we did put forth a proposal for our citizens group to take over management of that restroom and that has the approval of harbors and waters. It’s a very simple thing to do, but the restrooms for the town departments that have had the, uh, the management of it, it’s not something they want to do or care about. And this is the reason why there was a problem in the past where they did not maintain the furnace. The furnace stopped in the middle of the winter,

4:04:09 and so pipes froze. You have to maintain a furnace. Um, and, um, and so it was passed off from har uh, park and rec to harbors and waters. They have a safety and um, um, you know, important role in harbor safety and, and um, uh, managing those restrooms is just something that, um, their employees are not crazy about doing. But we do have, um, a large supply of willing volunteers among the citizenry of Marblehead that is willing to take over the management and see to it that those pipes do not freeze.

4:04:54 That the furnace is properly maintained, that the doors are not left open, and that they are, um, well managed.

4:05:08 Okay. And come. Thoughts? I don’t know that we can quantify the costs of making this change as desirable as it is. So I don’t know if it’s appropriate for us to be voting on this article.

4:05:29 We, we don’t have any definitive quantifiable costs Yeah. That we can then evaluate and discuss with senior town leadership. It does sound like the town is currently willing to look into alternatives and, and address this on a go forward basis. But maybe the way that the article’s written tonight, we don’t know the sum of money necessary to make a a decision on this at the moment.

4:05:57 It seems to be from the, the decisions that were made for large amounts of hundreds of thousands of dollars, we’re talking about $7,500. And I mean, um, how far off could my estimate be? I 10% That, that’s an initial cost, though. That doesn’t necessarily address the other issues that were raised about, about maintaining. I mean, you, I you’re, you citizen group has No, but I’m, you Volunteered to take on the, you’ve volunteered to take on the responsibility. I, you know, we, I don’t, I don’t know how to, um,

4:06:43 to make a determination in the viability of that offer compared to having, having, Well, the citizens group will not do worse than what the town departments have done.

4:07:01 It, it’s closed, it’s been closed for decades. This, this was proposal, this uh, uh, proposal went to the town meeting in 1996. It was unanimously voted in favor of keeping them open all year round. Unanimous. There wasn’t one person that raised their hand and said no. And it will, it will pass at this, uh, town meeting. It’s just that we’re asking the finance committee to, to say yes or no on the cost.

4:07:36 I think from what I heard from Amy, if she’s gotta go look at the depth of the water line and then if she’s gotta excavate that line, that could be another 10 to 15,000 on top of your 7,500 plus the six months in utility costs we have to factor in plus the cost of supplies to keep it. I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you. Oh, oh.

4:07:55 So when looking at this, the, the DPW director brought up that, I can’t hear you. The depth of the water line is not sufficient. That she has to estimate that. That’s another 10 to 15,000. What water line you talking about? It’s pretty speed line for the building. Is it, is it the same water line that has always been there?

4:08:16 Have you changed the waterline? I think no, but I, uh, I have to look at the history. It’s probably frozen in the past too. I dunno, since I’ve been there, it’s been turned off. So It’s just, it’s, It’s not something I would look at. I would look at it though. The same waterline that was there before, what’s it cost when it was open all year round was fine To replace a water line. What’s the price? She Said just to excavate it would be 10 to 15,000. Okay. Excavation mostly. So you’re saying it’s likely broken or no Likely to No, Not likely. Needs to go deeper. It’s shallow. Maybe it has to be. Why does it have to be deeper? It was running before that. No, no, no. I’m saying it was running before. Did something happen between,

4:09:02 So we have a lot of houses that run the shallow and they freeze. They, and they extreme cold, they freeze. So we’ve had three or four winters where we’ve had that dip where it’s been really cold for two days. People have been without water for two days. Which, How hard is it to find out the depth of them? Is that something you can Yeah, you could just look it up. You don’t or, yeah, so I mean maybe it’s that information that we, we could get. Yeah. To me, I, I hear the petitioner’s point that this does seem like something that’s not significant costs, um, to annually operate. Um, a few thousand dollars a winter is not significant. And it sounds like something that town meeting years and years and years ago voted in favor of. Um, I think maybe if we could get an idea of

4:09:49 what it might cost, um, to replace a line if it needs to be, then we could make a better decision next week

4:09:58 if we could get an idea of whether it would be, it would be a hot air furnace system to go back in instead of a cast iron baseboard.

4:10:09 No, it’s it’s a gas furnace. Yeah. But, but what I’m, what I’m saying is, is that might have been one of the reasons why it was pumping continuously as compared to a different heating weight for the building. You, you know what I’m talking about, right? Yeah.

4:10:26 The bad thing is if you have a storm down there, the wind really blows. And if someone doesn’t check it for a couple days, all the pipes are gonna freeze in there in the winter. ‘cause any building you don’t go into every day has problems down in the water. So it’s good if someone’s gonna, if if someone wants to sign up and take the responsibility to make sure they’re checking it seven days a week because the pipes will freeze even if everything works. Because once in a while we have hours Off. Yeah. We have a couple other articles we’re gonna revisit. So I’d like to maybe provide some follow up estimates as to what it might costs and then we’ll revisit our recommendation on this. Is that fair? Okay.

4:11:07 Appropriate funds for website design and development. Jim is listening.

4:11:16 Jim’s listening, two Mile Road. This, this should be quick and good news. We’re actually going to indefinitely postpone this. And the reason is, um, um, I met several weeks ago with, uh, Alicia, Jen Smith and, uh, Joanne Fini, and as it turns out, great minds think alike. And I’m talking about those three, not me. And they were already thinking of doing this and looking at it as a productivity, uh, enhancement, as was the direction I was coming. So, um, the town is actually moving forward that as a, as a cost savings. And it’s already been presented to the, um, select board. So hopefully by the end of the year, we’ll, uh, see something. And the other just small thing I learned along the way is Thatcher and the Mass Municipal Association is one

4:12:02 of the judges for the best website of the year award for cities in town. So that’s something that maybe we don’t have to be the best, but We could be better. But, so thanks so much. So it sounds like not being brought forward and that plans are in motion to already do this. Thank you Rachel. Um, so I’ll make a recommendation for indefinite postponement of Article 52. Second. We’re gonna vote that. Yep. Yep. Somebody second? Yes. Yes. Who? Mike second. Oh, Mike, Mr. Meyer? Yes. Mr. Jenko? Yes. Ms. Daniels? Yes. Mr. Franklin? Yes. Yes. Mr. Knight? Yes. Mr. Duby? Yes. Mr. O’Neill? Yes. Mr.

4:12:50 Yes. I’m sorry, what Was the vote on the restrooms? Oh, we didn’t make a vote. We’re gonna, we’re gonna revisit, um, next week. So there’s three or four articles that we’re gonna revisit. We’d like to better understand. Like Amy May could maybe check the, the cost of what it would check. How will you check? I think Amy, you said you could check the specific thing. Um, and then I think that’s the main question, right? I mean, how do we check how to check back with him to what the, what the findings are? Is that right? Is that what you Oh yeah. Do you have, I can get your email. I’m sure that’s what you have his email or Jack has your email. I can follow up with you this week. Okay. Okay, thanks. Um, article 53, amends zoning, bylaw shed size,

4:13:37 no financial impact. Kenneth Grant here to discuss.

4:13:49 Sounds like just mends building permits. So no recommendations from FinCon,

4:13:55 any public comment on 53.

4:13:59 All right, that wraps up our fin comm warrant hearing for 2024. Thank you everybody for joining. Is this the latest be back motion to adjourn? All in favor? Yes. Wow.

4:14:17 This.