[Speaker 1] (0:09 - 0:47)
Hi, welcome everyone to the August 3rd, 2021 Select Board meeting, I would ask before we get going with the meeting, if for those individuals that did bring masks with them, consistent with what's posted in the agenda, it's school policy that on school grounds, masks need to be worn. So I'd ask, I appreciate some people have brought them with them, but if you did bring them with them to please wear them. We are guests of the school when we visit here, so we abide by the school policy, so appreciate your flexibility and understanding on that.

With that being said, we're going to start first with the Pledge of Allegiance, so please rise and join us.

[Speaker 2] (1:11 - 1:15)
I have a few extra masks, if anybody would like masks.

[Speaker 1] (1:18 - 4:26)
In a minute we're going to proceed with the tradition of having public comment at the beginning of a select board meeting. Public comment is an opportunity to speak about items that are not otherwise on the agenda tonight, that a resident would like to speak about. Items that are on the agenda will be discussed later on in the meeting.

There are multiple ways to speak in public comment. If you're here with us, we ask that you rise and come to the microphone down front. If you are joining us on Zoom, you're welcome to raise your virtual hand on Zoom.

And if you're neither on Zoom or with us, you also can email me at my town email address and I will monitor it and read your comment. My email address is P, as in Peter, last name Spellios, which is the word spell, with I-O-S as in Sam, at swamps.ma.gov. After public comment, the board is going to have a brief discussion about a draft letter which has been written to the Massport Advisory Board relative to potential changes in runway usage that drastically will impact the number, increase, not just impact, increase the number of flights that will be going over Swampscott if the proposal that Massport has put forth is adopted. We're lucky enough to have a resident who has been sitting on our advisory committee who has really educated us very well in this community and made us prepared to be able to respond to Massport.

We will do a quick review of what the proposal is before talking about the letter and finalizing sending the letter out, but briefly, it proposes increasing traffic flight significantly over Swampscott while at the same time decreasing traffic flight over the city of Lynn, the town of Nahant, and the town of Marblehead, so that will be the first item we'll do. The next item on the agenda is a brief conversation about posting for the vacancy on the Board of Health. The Board of Health is a three-member board elected by residents of Swampscott.

In the event of a vacancy, a majority of the select board and a majority of the Board of Health appoint someone to fill until the next election, and so we currently have a vacancy, and the Board of Health has started the conversation as to the type of qualifications they suggest the posting have, and we'll have a brief update on that tonight. Then we have a discussion on the fiscal year 22 water and sewer rates. There will be no vote taken on that.

It is just a discussion tonight. This will not be voted on until our next meeting, and then last but not least, we have a discussion about articles for a special town meeting on September 13th, followed by our consent agenda, the town administrator's report, and select board member time. So with that, first item of business is public comment, so if someone's here and wants to speak about something that's not otherwise on the agenda, please come to the microphone, and then again, if you're on Zoom, you're welcome to raise your virtual hand, and if you want to email me, I will read the comment.

I would ask that when you start your comment, you please just give us your name and your address as you begin.

[Speaker 8] (4:26 - 4:26)
Hi.

[Speaker 1] (4:26 - 4:27)
Welcome.

[Speaker 8] (4:27 - 6:08)
Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Debbie Gerasi, a resident of 32 Norfolk Ave. for 36 years. I'm here with my husband and many of our neighbors, and we are concerned about an Airbnb that has popped up in our neighborhood, and we are curious about any, we don't think there are any regulations in the town concerning this and the zoning in residential areas. Our concerns are that strangers will be introduced and introduce an instability on our street, and so that's a big concern of ours, and we're also very curious if the town, the select board, the powers that be, zoning committee, planning board, possibly the community development department are looking into formulating any regulations on this matter, and if they are, we would respectfully ask that they take into consideration the way we feel about our street and our neighborhood, that we're not crazy about it. Right. It's the long and the short of it.

So that's why we're here, and those are our concerns, just a few of them. There are many others, but especially with COVID ramping up, we'll have people coming in possibly once a week, strangers from who knows where, and we just want to know what if the town is looking into it and if they would keep us in mind as a real neighborhood.

[Speaker 1] (6:08 - 6:30)
Great. Just maybe helpful. Do others want to speak on that, or just do a show of hands of who also is here to share Debbie's comments on this, and we're happy to put your name on the record.

You may, but I need you to go to the microphone. I'm sorry. People at home can't hear, and there's a lot of people, especially during COVID, who are, our ratings have never been better.

So it helps them.

[Speaker 16] (6:30 - 7:17)
Tony Gerasi, 32 Norfolk Ave. I'd like to thank you for all the work you do for us, and my question is that if it is a hotel, motel in B&B, there's usually an employee there to watch over its guests. In the Airbnb setup, this could be occupied with no owner there. The question is, who does the responsibility fall to to make sure of safety, parking, even simple things like trash, their containers?

Whose responsibility does that fall to? Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1] (7:17 - 7:27)
Thanks, Tony. Anyone else like to be heard on this? Let's just stay on this topic for now, if you don't mind.

Thanks. Please just share your name and address for us. Sure.

Thank you.

[Speaker 15] (7:27 - 8:17)
Good evening. My name is Peter Sanitas, 29 Norfolk Ave., same subject, and the only thing I'd like to ask is, would the town consider an occupancy, say limit the occupancy of the Airbnb if it were a four-bedroom house, could ordinance limit it to a one- or two-bedroom house? I feel if the Airbnb is a four- or five-bedroom house, you have more ability for higher occupancy and therefore more noise, partying, and stuff.

Just my input, lower the occupancy and maybe you'll limit the issues that might spring up.

[Speaker 1] (8:18 - 8:49)
Thank you, Peter. Anyone else on this topic want to be heard? It's okay.

I'm also happy to have you just raise your hand again, and if you want to leave your name as well. We haven't had a conversation previously about this as a board, so John, I don't know if you have anything that you want to add, but this sounds like something we have not had a conversation about Airbnb. It hasn't been raised before, and nor do I recall there being a proposed zoning ordinance or other ordinance on topic, so it sounds like if maybe you could meet with staff and come back at our next meeting and give us an update as to this.

[Speaker 2] (8:50 - 9:32)
I did hear right before the meeting that there was somebody here to file a complaint or speak about the change. I think this is certainly something that we can look into. I would encourage folks to leave their name and number, and we'll set up a meeting and we'll talk through this.

Airbnbs exist across the commonwealth. There are regulations that can be adopted to help regulate them and ensure that there's some standard of care. I'm not sure that, frankly, we have all the regulations we need, but I'll look into this and we can certainly follow up on it.

[Speaker 8] (9:36 - 9:59)
I do know, I'm a town meeting member, precinct 3 as well, and so I think it was two years ago, there was an article in the warrant that did address a tax rate for Airbnb, VRBO, and pot shops, I believe, where the town could charge the highest tax rate. So obviously, we knew that it was here, or, you know, I mean...

[Speaker 1] (9:59 - 10:07)
So that's a local option tax, and I think the town meeting approved local option taxes always. But that doesn't regulate them, it just...

[Speaker 8] (10:08 - 10:11)
No, I know, but we must have had some discussions about that.

[Speaker 1] (10:11 - 10:27)
Well, I think it's safe to say the town hasn't collected a single occupancy fee or anything for an Airbnb. If only things were so organized that we would have, to be honest with you, there's no registration process for Airbnbs in town. So it sounds like the town administrator is going to come back to us and start a dialogue.

[Speaker 8] (10:27 - 10:56)
Yeah, well, we would really appreciate it. I think it needs to be looked into, and it just feels intrusive, and it just destabilizes. I feel the strangers coming in, they're 16 feet away from my house.

Our houses are very close together. And on the other side as well, you know, very, very close quarters. And we're close neighbors, we watch out for one another, but that's all.

[Speaker 1] (10:56 - 12:41)
No, I appreciate it, thanks for bringing it forward, thanks to you all for being here. Assuming the schedule works, it'll probably be an agenda item. So typically in public comment, we don't, since it's not on the agenda, we're just receiving input and gives us a chance, the next step would be for us to have the town administrator take a look and then for us to put it on the agenda for a more deeper conversation and kind of come up with an action plan if an action plan is needed.

All right, thank you both. Understood. Yeah, I appreciate that.

Thanks very much. Others want to speak on public comment here in the audience on Zoom, feel free to come up. There may be something in the chat.

That's not a public comment. All right. There is a question.

I love it. I don't know. I mean, like people here are sending me emails.

This person is usually not shy about speaking, but apparently I think he's a little shy tonight. Mr. Demento has asked the question of whether or not there'll be an opportunity for members of the public to chime in relative to the water and sewer rate, and the answer is yes, there will be an opportunity when we get to that portion of the meeting. Again, there will be no votes taken tonight.

We're merely hearing an updated recommendation from staff and from the advisory committee on that. All right, moving on. We're going to move on now to a discussion regarding the draft Massport letter that's in our packet here.

And, Allie, I don't know if Alice is here. All right. Can you just switch over to attendees for me, please?

Thank you very much.

[Speaker 14] (12:42 - 12:43)
Oh, I am an attendee.

[Speaker 1] (12:44 - 12:45)
Oh, I'm sorry. You are.

[Speaker 14] (12:45 - 12:47)
Correct. All right.

[Speaker 1] (12:47 - 17:16)
So I'm going to, just because the letter's not before all of the letters, a one-page letter, dear representatives of Massport, FAA, and MCAC, we're writing to express our concerns that the recent recommendations for Runway 22L will pose an additional environmental impact on the town of Swampscott and the regional waterfront. The Swampscott Select Board and Town Administrator are in possession and have reviewed the Block 2 procedure recommendations for Boston Logan Airport Community Noise Reduction. We commend the efforts to meet the important objective to disperse flights and achieve the goals of noise distribution.

However, we oppose the current proposal and recommendations for Runway 22L. The proposed would disenfranchise North Shore and Greater Boston residents utilizing the important natural coast resources area along the coast of Swampscott, Lynn, and Nahant year-round. We are also troubled that the procedure recommendations for Runway 22L disbenefit Swampscott.

We ask Massport to work with the town and regional stakeholders to seek alternatives that would mitigate all disbenefits to the region. This scenario entirely disregards the impacts this adjusted path will have on the hundreds of thousands of residents from the region who will utilize the town's public beaches during the day, as well as the DCR beaches in Lynn, Nahant, and as well as dozens of communities. We are aware that this study will undergo several reviews prior to potential limitation, one being an environmental review, and we thereby request that attention be given to the coastal resource area along the North Shore to truly evaluate the environmental impact, including emissions and noise this will have on the natural coastal areas.

We also understand that any Block 2 procedures put forth must be reviewed through the formal FAA 7100.41 procedure design review and approval process. Prior to this review, we respectfully request that representatives from Logan Airport meet with town officials, officials of the towns, excuse me, impacted by the adjustments to Runway 22L to discuss the drastic impact that this will have on our natural resources, recreational beaches, and prime destination locations for residents in the region, sincerely, the Swampscott Select Board. Again, Alice Stein is our member to the advisory board and really has done so much yeoman's work in sharing it.

I believe, Ali, that presentation is on the town website from the last meeting, is that correct? So for those interested in hearing our last Select Board meeting, I believe it's on the town website. If not, we'll make sure it's on the town website, which is a really great detailed presentation about the impacts of this change.

Just to share for those that weren't here at the last meeting or that are interested, the presentation as shown to us shows pretty dramatically and pretty clearly, I believe it was upwards to a 25% of all flight landings will, from Logan, from this direction, will go over the town of Swampscott if this happens, and they will no longer go over land of Nahant except for the causeway. They will no longer go over land of Marblehead. They'll just be off the neck some, and they will now not be going over the city of Lynn.

And while I do appreciate that this letter speaks so strongly to the natural resources, I'm just going to speak to just the impacts on humans and in our homes. And during COVID in recent months, Alice has been good to educate us that the flight patterns have been a little bit more organic, and so you might have noticed an increase. I think the idea was it was a perception, but I think you can, many residents have commented that there seems to be an increased number of flights.

That's not a formal change. That's just more flexibility that airlines have been given during COVID and to change flight patterns. I appreciate our concern for the people on the beaches, but I'm more concerned about, frankly, the residents who, having 25% of all flights going over the town of Swampscott, I still struggle.

I think we all articulated we struggle to understand the equity in how the flight path is, and we appreciate that it's the pretense of environmental concerns, but what was also made clear is also having to do with increasing efficiencies for airlines so they could land quicker, they could do more flights, and they could save fuel, therefore save money. I appreciate this letter. I'm just going to start off the conversation by saying I feel like this letter is a little bit too gentle, but that probably shouldn't surprise you that I think it's a little too gentle.

I think it misses a broader concern by focusing just on natural resources and people that are visiting our beaches.

[Speaker 9] (17:16 - 17:26)
So when we talk about 25% of all flights, what exactly is that number? Do we have an idea of what that number is?

[Speaker 1] (17:26 - 17:32)
Alice is going to be with us. I hope that she would be with us. Again, I think she talked about it in her presentation, but we can make sure that's posted, David.

[Speaker 5] (17:32 - 17:41)
I think the impact is mostly, if I remember correctly, going to be at night. The increase is going to be in the evening. Am I remembering it right?

[Speaker 17] (17:42 - 18:24)
So Peter, the thought behind the crafting of the letter was not to specifically, because I think we all agree we're completely being disenfranchised by this and unfairly treated, but if we simply went at this as a, you know, you're disenfranchising Swampscot at Swampscot at Swampscot, that we weren't going to be able to get as much latitude with the reaction as if we expanded it a bit more to say, by the way, you're also impacting these local beaches, which are used by residents of Lynn and other communities.

I do agree we could put a little more bite in the letter, but that was the thinking behind including some of the natural resource language in there.

[Speaker 5] (18:24 - 20:19)
So I did not review this in necessarily the most timely manner, but I did have a conversation with Ali and Sean through Ali yesterday about almost verbatim, I would say, Peter, the concerns that you shared. I think it is into pretense, the environmental concerns, but I think the emphasis in the letter of environmental concerns overpowers some of the other really legitimate concerns that we have, which is quality of life. And I'm trying to look if there's equity anywhere in, if the word equity is anywhere in the letter, because I think that's what this comes down to, is like, if we are bearing as a town an equal burden to the other communities, and it stinks, but it stinks for everybody equally, that's one thing, but I think to have it disbenefit Swampscot and have it a disproportionate benefit to surrounding communities, then that's a concern, especially, yes, environmental reasons, but also, again, quality of life reasons. And that to me is where the, I think it's good faith to not emphasize that it's for the benefit and efficiency of larger interests, but I think it is worth mentioning, and I did suggest this, that somewhere in the letter that, just respectfully, that that shouldn't be a priority, and that's not a priority.

The only other thing I would say is that requesting a meeting with towns, I think we just need to be much more direct in terms of, like, let's call our office to schedule a time, you know, because I don't want to leave it in any way that we hope they'll meet with us in other towns. I just, whether or not they meet with other towns, I think we need to make it clear that we really want to weigh in on this and be part of the process as much as possible.

[Speaker 2] (20:21 - 21:45)
Okay, that's great feedback. I certainly appreciate the tone. My thought was, you know, we'd start with an overture to let them know that we were serious about the disbenefit that Swanscot has been outlined in these changes, and that we respectfully were requesting additional information and an opportunity to work with them as they try to mitigate the enormous impact that these flights have on our region.

We know that they're working to try to move more flights over the water. We're simply asking them to push it out a little bit further to protect our community. I, you know, wanted to start with, frankly, more of that open hand, and then if we fail to get that type of partnership, then we can heighten up or, you know, frankly, take the tone to another level and perhaps take the conversation to another level.

This gives the agency a chance to work with us. But, that said, I certainly am happy to go back and revise it and use some sterner language.

[Speaker 5] (21:46 - 22:14)
So, I don't want to speak for the board. I just, as a point of clarification, not rebuttal, necessarily, what is the next step if they don't decide to engage with us? What is our next course of action?

Like, I don't see us as having enough stake in this to have a let's start nice, but then take it to another level. It seems like we might have, like, one main whack at this, and if they don't take us seriously, then we'll be wiped out.

[Speaker 2] (22:14 - 23:24)
Our federal congressional delegation, contact both of our U.S. senators and congressmen and seek an audience with our federal representatives that govern the federal guidelines, perhaps even our state delegation. You know, this is an issue that should be brought to the highest level of political representation. This is about, not just Swampskate, it's about that incredible resource area that runs from Swampskate through Nahant, where hundreds of thousands of citizens enjoy that resource area, and they're going to drop more fumes and noise and disturb quality of life that, frankly, this region deserves, just like every other region in this commonwealth, and we need their advocacy to ensure that they're not making market decisions or business decisions at the expense of the environmental impact that not only wildlife enjoys, but the humans enjoy here, our families enjoy here.

[Speaker 1] (23:27 - 24:15)
So you just said a phrase that's not anywhere in this letter, quality of life, and I think that's a wonderful phrase. It would seem to me this needs to be expressed, and I'm also very proud of the fact that you led all of us in recently with the Earth Removal Permit for Agri-Industries about insisting and making sure that we dealt with nuisance to humans as something that we should be concerned about, not just environmental impacts, which are important, but nuisance to humans, and this to me falls in that same category, Sean, and I appreciate there's always competing demands here. So a couple of things. I agree that we should be increasing the clarity of the objection here.

No one has cc'd on this letter as proposed, which is surprising to me. I don't think...

[Speaker 14] (24:15 - 24:16)
There will be.

[Speaker 1] (24:17 - 26:02)
We're approving the letter tonight, so we have to be, so I don't think you wait to call Seth Moulton's office and our senator's office. I don't think you wait. As a matter of fact, last meeting you said you were going to call Lori Ehrlich and you were going to call Brendan Creighton.

I believe someone on Monument Avenue is pretty important in this state and probably has influence on Massport, and I don't think we wait. I think the... Alice Stein, last time she was here, expressed an urgency for us to get this letter out, which is why it's back before us so quickly in the middle of the summer to get this letter out, and I think, while I appreciate there's steps to doing things here, I don't believe Marblehead, Lynn, and Nahant are writing letters expressing concerns about these changes for the simple reason is that Marblehead, Nahant, and Lynn are all benefited by these changes, and so I just don't think they're hearing anything at the moment, and so we can whisper and be nice or we can make the point, which is this is not okay, and I want to know what Seth Moulton's office has to say about it. I want to know what Brendan Creighton and Lori Ehrlich have to say about it. I would love to know what the governor has to say about it, and it's not just no in my backyard.

It's explain to us why the alternatives are not the alternatives, why it matters, literally, degrees to change the flight path here versus keep it offshore, and again, we care about the environment as well, but there's just something that doesn't feel, and it feels way too convenient at the expense of too many, and so I just feel the letter should be expressing that urgency and, frankly, expecting the respect of a conversation, and same with making sure there's follow-up with our elected leaders.

I just, I think that's now.

[Speaker 2] (26:04 - 26:13)
Well, good feedback. I'll make these changes and get it back before the board this week.

[Speaker 1] (26:17 - 26:31)
The other thing I was just asking, it's just a ministerial thing, Ali. Please, just let's not add signatures to letters until we vote, just because there's something in our packet that has it, looking as though we've all voted to sign this, and we just haven't, and I understand why you did it, just I think it's better formed that way.

[Speaker 14] (26:31 - 26:31)
No problem.

[Speaker 1] (26:31 - 26:36)
Days, weeks, and months from now, people won't mistake this letter as not being a letter that was actually sent.

[Speaker 5] (26:36 - 26:37)
You got it.

[Speaker 1] (26:37 - 26:40)
Thank you. I appreciate that. Other questions or comments on this?

[Speaker 5] (26:40 - 26:43)
No, I just, I don't want to vote on this tonight.

[Speaker 1] (26:43 - 26:49)
No, we're not. We're not. Am I correct?

Did we pick our next meeting date?

[Speaker 9] (26:51 - 26:51)
I don't think so.

[Speaker 1] (26:51 - 26:52)
Did we?

[Speaker 9] (26:52 - 26:53)
Did we? I thought we did for the 18th.

[Speaker 1] (26:55 - 26:55)
That's too bad.

[Speaker 14] (26:55 - 26:58)
You're looking at me. All right, we may have to have another conversation.

[Speaker 1] (26:58 - 26:59)
Maybe we did.

[Speaker 14] (26:59 - 27:01)
There has not been. No, I don't think we voted the 18th.

[Speaker 1] (27:02 - 27:20)
No, I didn't think we did. We went back on the 18th. So, we'll put this back on the next agenda.

But that shouldn't delay the outreach, the emails to Seth Moulton's office and to all of our elected officials. That should go, that email can go now, ahead of the letter, I think. Thank you.

If everybody's comfortable with that.

[Speaker 18] (27:20 - 27:23)
Yeah. Everyone comfortable with that?

[Speaker 1] (27:23 - 27:39)
Yeah, absolutely. Next topic is the Board of Health vacancy and the appointment process. Allie, I know that you had been working with the Board of Health, is that correct, or with people on potential draft?

[Speaker 14] (27:40 - 27:44)
Yes. And Marianne is on the Zoom call here, so I'm just a promoter.

[Speaker 1] (27:52 - 27:55)
Marianne Hartman is on the Board of Health vacancy. Hi, Marianne.

[Speaker 10] (27:55 - 27:56)
Hi, there. How are you doing?

[Speaker 1] (27:58 - 28:47)
So, as I mentioned previously, the Board of Health currently has a vacancy on their three-member board, which in any time would make it inconvenient. During the time of COVID, it makes it really inconvenient. And so, Marianne and I have talked briefly about posting for volunteers who are of interest in being appointed.

I know that Marianne and her fellow Board of Health colleague, Emily Silley, had some conversations about that. And so, I'm just a promoter. And really, I'm just a believer in the importance of a person's background and qualities and skills that are interesting.

So, I invited Marianne to join us tonight to share with us some of that conversation and for us to see if we can kind of give some general direction to the town administrators so that this position can get posted so that we can appoint sooner than later. So, Marianne, the floor is yours if you want to share a bit of your thought process about the appointment process.

[Speaker 10] (28:48 - 29:48)
Sure. So Emily and I had discussed in talking with Ali as well, we'd like to have, you know, some diversity on our board. Emily and I are both nurses, we both have very similar backgrounds, so we were hoping to find somebody who maybe had some background in environmental health, somebody who could bring something a little different to the to the table so that when issues come up in regards to environmental health that we could draw from from different different areas.

So we were looking for somebody who might have a background in environmental health. So, you know, it could be it could be a something different than that as well, but it was one of our thoughts that we're kind of lacking in that area. So that would be who we look for.

[Speaker 5] (29:51 - 29:52)
Thanks, Marianne. Just can I ask?

[Speaker 19] (29:53 - 29:53)
Please.

[Speaker 5] (29:55 - 30:19)
I just didn't know if what if mental health professionals had come up and, or I don't know, it'd be great if somebody had mental and environmental health expertise, but they don't go together. So I just didn't know if that had come up as a priority or if you feel you and Emily as nurses, you know, that's kind of you have a general enough understanding to kind of cover that area, but just your thoughts on that.

[Speaker 10] (30:20 - 30:57)
We deal with a significant amount of mental health in the schools currently. Not that we wouldn't welcome more help in that area, but we we both have quite a lot of background in that area and do a lot of professional development in that area as well. Right.

So it wouldn't, you know, certainly we it'd be something we could consider if someone had that background as well, absolutely, but we certainly have quite a bit of background in that as well.

[Speaker 21] (30:58 - 30:58)
Right.

[Speaker 10] (31:00 - 31:06)
But we're certainly open to any suggestions that anyone else might feel that they'd like to see.

[Speaker 1] (31:10 - 32:06)
Comments? Suggestions? I'm gonna, if okay with you all, and I think Holly actually, would you mind if you kind of take the lead for us and work with Mary Ann on finalizing a posting with Sean and Allie that we can get it posted with the idea of it being today's the 3rd?

4th? Today's the 4th? That we, today's the 3rd?

The fact that we're meeting on a Tuesday has totally screwed me up. That we can, you know, shortly after Labor Day be in a position to appoint, which means getting that posting up in the next week, if that's possible, and that way we don't get all the way through September without having an opportunity to meet candidates and to ultimately appoint. Both boards will need to vote on that.

So does that timetable and that process, Mary Ann, make sense to you?

[Speaker 10] (32:07 - 32:34)
That would be great, yeah. And if people, anyone knows anybody who they think might be a good candidate, you know, maybe encourage them. You know, certainly it's not a job right now.

Anyone's like jumping for joy to join, but you know, if anyone can think of anybody, that would be great. Encourage them to maybe apply.

[Speaker 9] (32:35 - 32:45)
And Mary Ann, can you, can you, can you just remind us how long, how long of a term is left that we're looking to fill? What are we, what are we looking for?

[Speaker 10] (32:45 - 32:47)
Oh, that's a good question.

[Speaker 1] (32:47 - 32:58)
It's, it's next election. So, so the, the position would be filled by election come the next April election, town election 2022. Thank you.

[Speaker 21] (33:04 - 33:04)
Great.

[Speaker 1] (33:05 - 33:05)
Paul, are you good with that?

[Speaker 21] (33:06 - 33:07)
Yeah, any other questions?

[Speaker 1] (33:09 - 33:10)
All right, that's great.

[Speaker 10] (33:10 - 33:13)
If you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer.

[Speaker 1] (33:13 - 33:15)
Thanks also for everything that you've been doing, Mary Ann.

[Speaker 5] (33:16 - 33:18)
Thank you. Thanks, Mary Ann. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (33:19 - 33:54)
Thanks. All right, we're gonna move on now to a discussion of the fiscal year 22 water and sewer rate setting. There will be, as I mentioned previously, there will be no vote tonight on that.

That will occur at our next meeting, which we will set that date later this evening for whatever the board works on for a date here. So with that, I don't know, Neil, Patrick, Sean, I don't know who I'm turning this over to, but you can turn it over to me.

[Speaker 2] (33:54 - 33:55)
I'm happy to.

[Speaker 1] (33:58 - 34:02)
You're gonna need to bring your microphone with you, please.

[Speaker 2] (34:25 - 35:06)
So over the last year, you know, really the board has asked the town staff and others to really study our rate structure. Swampskip, like every other municipality that has a water and wastewater system, really has a rate structure to pay for this. These are enterprise funds, and so Selectman Duffy led a sewer, water and sewer rate study advisory committee, and Neil will just kind of provide a quick overview of the committee.

[Speaker 19] (35:07 - 35:08)
Yeah, sure.

[Speaker 2] (35:09 - 35:12)
Next slide, please.

[Speaker 3] (35:17 - 37:21)
So, like Sean said, last year around this time after we set the water and sewer rates for fiscal 21, and we had a similar presentation on some of the rising costs on both the sewer and water side, not only for the coming year but the coming three to five years, and wanting to have a better understanding of what tools may be available to address these rising costs other than just raising rates and using retained earnings.

The select board last year when we set the rates decided to create a water and sewer rate advisory committee, and that committee is made up of myself, Charlie Patios, Ralph Suppe, whose name I couldn't, wasn't pronouncing right for nine months, which I feel terribly about, Gino Cresta, Director of Public Works, Natalie Swanstrom in the DPW office, Business Manager Amy, Director of Admin and Finance, and Patrick, and of course Patrick Ludding, our Treasurer Collector, and of course Ron Mendez. When he was here, this committee started work in March and met monthly until about June, and we've met I think eight or nine times since June to talk about the water and sewer rates and the rate structure, and really exploring mostly the way the rates are structured and trying to see if it seemed fair or not. That was sort of the big question that we are trying to answer.

I think I will get into more of the details of what we discovered later, but I can turn it back over to I think Sean or Patrick on the, just some background on our water and sewer system.

[Speaker 2] (37:24 - 40:22)
Forgot my mic. All right, so thanks Neil. So the next slide, Ali, please.

So this is Swampscott's water and sewer infrastructure. So we have a system that is comprised of, for our sewer system, 46 miles of main pipes, three miles of forced main, eight lift stations, 1,500 manholes. There are 4,500 accounts and six properties that are on septic.

Our water system is 57 miles of main, about 475 hydrants, 1,435 gate valves, and 5,600 accounts. This is a significant system. Next slide.

You know, we have roughly seven and a half million dollars worth expenses for water and sewer. These systems really need to balance and really have a budget annually to cover their expenses. So when we look at rates, we're looking to generate enough revenue every year to cover simply the cost of these systems.

Our water revenue is roughly 4.3 million, sewer revenues 3.2 million, expenses for water is 4.3 million, and sewer expenses is 3.2 million. So these costs are reflected in base fee and consumption fees. So we have two different elements.

Our base fee for water is about 5%. Water is a much bigger piece of the utility, and base fee for sewer is about 11%. We have our fixed costs for our water system, about 26%.

Operating costs, about 65%. Sewer, our fixed costs are about 33%, and operating costs are 55%. Personnel for water system is about 9%.

Personnel for the sewer system is about 12%. This gives you a sense of proportionality. This is, you know, their systems.

We have staff, certainly the Assistant Town Administrator and DPW Director Gino Cresta, who has managed this system for quite some time, really has a good team. When we turn the faucets on, it works typically. We're constantly maintaining it.

There's life-cycle costs associated with this infrastructure that we're really starting to study. Recently we were awarded a $150,000 grant to really assess the entire system, to really ensure that we can maintain it and ensure that we reliably can manage costs and stay on that constant maintenance focus.

[Speaker 18] (40:23 - 40:29)
Can you talk about the fixed costs, what those are versus the operating?

[Speaker 2] (40:30 - 40:39)
Sure. Some of the fixed costs, Patrick, do you have a...

[Speaker 6] (40:45 - 41:06)
Hi. So just to clarify, the fixed costs in the water and sewer fund are represented here as indirect cost allocation that reimburses the general fund for services that are provided. It includes your debt service on all your capital improvements, and it includes pension contribution as well.

That's attributed to water and sewer retirees.

[Speaker 18] (41:09 - 41:18)
So it's both, both are both of those? Same. Thank you.

You're welcome. Sorry to interrupt.

[Speaker 2] (41:18 - 42:40)
No, no problem. So the next slide. So we have recent capital projects.

We've really invested millions over the last 10 years, both in our water and sewer system, but our sewer system recently, you know, we're completing phase 1c of our Stacey Brook rehabilitation project. This is a project that we're required to do under an EPA administrative order, but it reflects a total of eight million dollars worth of investments. Helping really maintain some of the infrastructure for the town.

We have, we're an old town. We have a lot of clay pipes. These pipes chronically, you know, continue to need repair and maintenance, and we're investing in our infrastructure to ensure that we have a reliable, safe system.

Water, the same. We've actually spent, you know, a significant amount of money on our water system over the last 10 years. Recently, you know, we're relining a pipe on Atlantic Cab and relaying a water main on Jesse Street.

That's an approximate 1.1 million dollars. So these are our active, kind of busy projects that are driving costs and really supporting, you know, this system.

[Speaker 16] (42:41 - 42:41)
Next slide.

[Speaker 2] (42:44 - 44:16)
Just to kind of give a graphic representation, kind of look at costs, they do trend. You know, this is kind of a snapshot over the last 10 years. Our water budget has grown by $475,000 over a 10-year period.

Just this last year, and this is, these are the points that I really want to stress. We've seen an increase of $285,000 over FY21. So this is a dramatic increase in the water budget.

You know, when we look at the sewer budget, we see an even greater increase of over 1 million over a 10-year period. Just this last year, almost $600,000 of that increase, and that's really attributable to the Linn Water and Sewer Commission. Every 20 years, they update their service agreement, and we saw a major shift in one of their largest water users, and so we're seeing a significant impact in costs.

Those costs are significant. Next slide. So next slide is the assessment from Linn Water and Sewer, an MWRA over a 10-year period.

Linn Water and Sewer assessment has grown by over close to $400,000 over the past 10 years. There was an increase of $340,000 just over last year.

[Speaker 1] (44:16 - 44:26)
Can you just, so does that mean the other $50,000 was over the nine previous years? I'm trying to reconcile. Plus $390,000 over the past 10 years, but $340,000 of it was just this past year.

[Speaker 2] (44:26 - 45:05)
Yeah, so if you look, you know, over the last 10 years graphically, you can see that there's been a, there was an escalation, and then there was a drop for from 2016 to, you know, 2020, where it was down from 2015. So, you know, there, these costs aren't all static. It's not like an operating budget where you might see these costs go up.

There's different consumption in different years and different flows based on weather, and so this is just basically the trend of those costs.

[Speaker 1] (45:05 - 45:57)
And so this is a third-party, I'm gonna call it vendor, that has a monopoly, if you will, meaning the Linn Sewer Commission is the only choice for swamp scut. This was a decision, I think if you told me, and I want to make sure I remember correctly, that 20-plus years ago the town made a decision to effectively decommission its own treatment facility, and the only vendor available to the town is the Linn Sewer Commission, so we entered a 20-year contract. That contract is now over, and Linn has now reset the operating and maintenance costs to its participating communities, us, Saugus, Nahant, and Linn, and this cost is solely attributable to that, I'm gonna call it a vendor, right, but it's a monopoly, right, so that agency dictating the cost to us, yes?

That's right. And so, okay, sorry, keep going, sorry.

[Speaker 2] (45:58 - 46:02)
Yeah, Gino, I don't know if there's anything else you wanted to add. I know you might need a mic. Sorry, Gino, you gotta go with me.

[Speaker 1] (46:04 - 46:05)
And that's, and that's just for sewer.

[Speaker 12] (46:07 - 46:16)
The only thing I'd like to add is it's no different than a monopoly with our water. We're tied into the MWRA. We're gonna get to that line item in a second.

Okay, so it's not just the sewer side.

[Speaker 18] (46:16 - 46:17)
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 2] (46:18 - 47:05)
So, if you look, you know, at the gray bar, that's our water system, so the MWRA assessment has grown by $920,000 over the past 10 years, which is an increase of $240,000 over the last year FY21. It is vulnerable to changing consumption levels within the system, so, you know, this is human behavior, folks using more water, staying at home more, you know, and those costs drive increased capital investment. We also have additional standards for water quality, and, you know, it's really important to drive, you know, that capital investment.

[Speaker 1] (47:05 - 47:52)
So, next. So, Sean, I just want to stay on this because this is really, yeah, this is really important to make sure we got right. So, MWRA sets rates per community.

Obviously, that's a rate. Then, if our consumption is more as a community, we have greater charges, but that, presumably, individual residents are paying consumption because they are charged consumption, but MWRA sets our rates, and then on the Linn water and sewer side, not only is there a new O&M contract, which is significantly more expensive because Linn sewer district has a tremendous amount of deferred maintenance, it's become clear, but the result, I just, I'm saying this to correct me if I'm not saying it correctly, but the way in which we are charged for everything under that contract has to do with a numerator of our flow over a denominator of total flow.

[Speaker 2] (47:53 - 47:53)
That's correct.

[Speaker 1] (47:53 - 48:53)
Right, to Linn, and sorry, to the Linn sewer commission. Right. And in the last 18 months, the single largest consumer of sewer in the city of Linn closed Gerlich Farms, and that changed significantly the flow of Linn, which then needs to be made up disproportionately, and so our percentage of total increased, not by virtue of anything that happened in Swampscut, but because the single largest user of the entire system closed.

Correct. Right, and so that also, and that actually caused the mid-year, a mid-year concern where we had a couple hundred thousand dollar shortfall a couple of years ago because no one was notified of Gerlich Farms closing and the corresponding impact to us. So it's those two things.

It's the fact that the single biggest user in Linn sewer district closed their doors, and number two is that there's a new O&M contract to deal with, you know, about a hundred million dollars of deferred maintenance, if I remember. Am I right, Geno, on those?

[Speaker 12] (48:53 - 49:13)
Yep, and you're just missing the one, the capital improvement investment. They're going to be putting sixty-eight million dollars into that plant over the next 20 years, and we're going to be responsible for roughly ten percent of that over 30 years. Good news is they're going to be using an SRF loan, and they'll let us piggyback on that loan.

Okay.

[Speaker 5] (49:14 - 49:21)
Can I break that down a little further? Sorry. Can you talk about that, the terms of that loan?

Is that like a zero percent interest?

[Speaker 12] (49:21 - 49:37)
No, no, low interest, it's two percent, and because the way the community, there is a forgiveness portion of this. They may start forgiving some of the principal on this. It's happened in the past because of the economics of Linn.

[Speaker 5] (49:37 - 50:09)
Right. Okay, so we'll see how that pans out financially over time. And then I'm not, I remember, and I appreciate the reiteration on the sewer, can we talk about, for some reason I'm surprised now by the water changes, and I see that it's increased capital investment, but just how much is jumping compared to the sewer?

Like we've accounted for the sewer, and I understand the MWRA's, it's not in our control, but I guess I'm just curious what's happened.

[Speaker 12] (50:09 - 50:30)
Right, well, first the MWRA has a lot bigger overhead than the Land, Water, and Sewer Commission, so we're paying for a lot of personnel over there, and it's based on increasing the flow to Swampscott. So we pay on an 18-month lag, so for our usage 18 months ago, it becomes a percentage of their total overall flow.

[Speaker 5] (50:31 - 50:32)
But that's always been the case, right?

[Speaker 12] (50:32 - 50:32)
Always.

[Speaker 5] (50:33 - 50:35)
So that wouldn't necessarily account for an increase.

[Speaker 12] (50:39 - 50:52)
Right, well, we've gone up a little bit, not a lot. I think last year we used 560 million gallons from the MWRA, or at least that's what we purchased. It might have been up 10 million gallons, so you're right, it's probably related to overhead as well.

[Speaker 5] (50:55 - 51:04)
But there's not a similar corresponding, in my way, there's not a similar corresponding capital incident like there was in Lynn that we can point to for this.

[Speaker 2] (51:05 - 51:07)
But we're still part of a massive...

[Speaker 5] (51:07 - 51:10)
Yeah, nevertheless, it's out of our control, I get it. I just didn't know if there was a better...

[Speaker 2] (51:12 - 51:12)
No.

[Speaker 5] (51:13 - 51:14)
Any other explanation?

[Speaker 9] (51:14 - 51:28)
We don't know it. And Gino, quick question, can we be charged in Swampscott, can we be charged a different price than other neighboring towns? For water.

[Speaker 12] (51:28 - 51:29)
It's all the same.

[Speaker 9] (51:29 - 51:32)
It's all the same. Okay, just wanted to clarify that point. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (51:38 - 54:10)
So here's currently how Swampscott has set our rates. Really, would generally be considered to be a relatively flat structure. Water was $13.25 per quarter, sewer was $20 per quarter, $33.25 combined per quarter. You can see individual rate for water at 7-11, sewer at $5.58, and combined $12.69. This is per hundred cubic feet. HCF is generally the acronym you'll see, but it's a pretty standard measurement of water, 100 cubic feet. We look at, you know, our presentation with peer communities, but this is generally how other communities benchmark their water use.

And so we do the billings, you know, on a quarterly basis. And, you know, when we look, next slide, Ali, when we look at benchmarking Swampscott with peer communities, just to get a sense of where we are, we see that Swampscott, when we look at our water rate with other communities, Swampscott actually is the third from the right. And so at $7.11, you know, it looks, you know, with a peer group of communities, like we have a relatively higher water rate. You can see, you know, a number of communities, Newton, Melrose-Stoneham, Medford, Marblehead, Saugus, all have lower water rates. It's important to kind of just, you know, understand where we sit with other communities. So next slide, Ali.

The next slide is sewer. Almost the exact opposite. So if you look to the left-hand side, Swampscott is the third to the left, and we have one of the lower rates in this peer community spread at $5.58. Base rate is $20. And again, for other communities that have that base rate, you can see we're relatively in line. But that generally gives you a sense that, you know, geez, the sewer rate is a lot lower than the peer communities. And then— Can I—I'm sorry.

[Speaker 5] (54:11 - 54:30)
Do you want me to wait for questions? Go right ahead. I just—so I see that there's some communities we're comparing to are tiered rates.

And this chart reflects the lowest of the tiers. So we're comparing base rates, right?

[Speaker 1] (54:31 - 54:42)
No, these are the consumption rates. This is combined everything. This is actually not tiered versus un-tiered.

This is just— Okay, that helps. Cumulative sewer, cumulative water, and now you're going to see the cumulative combined.

[Speaker 3] (54:44 - 55:10)
But we just— So the municipalities that don't have a base rate on top don't have a base rate. And so they just have a consumption rate. And then—that's my understanding.

And then if they have a tiered rate with gas rates, that's their lowest tier for their consumption rate. It's hard to compare.

[Speaker 5] (55:12 - 55:18)
That's—I'm now—I get it, but I'm not able to make sense of what I'm supposed to get from that.

[Speaker 2] (55:18 - 55:23)
It has a little bit of a different methodology for how they set their rate.

[Speaker 5] (55:23 - 55:35)
Right. I know. I understand.

Yeah, that's—got it. I just—it's not a criticism of the chart. It's my own ability to make a fair comparison, draw conclusions from it.

[Speaker 2] (55:37 - 58:43)
All right, so next slide. So generally what people look at is the combined rate. You know, I know folks look at the water and they look at the sewer.

But, you know, most folks just look at the combined rate and think, how much am I paying for water and sewer? And so when we look at SwampScape, generally we present in a very favorable bandwidth. You know, we're in a cohort right in the middle with a number of peer communities.

You know, we do have that base rate. And there are a few communities that have this base rate. Our base rate is reasonable.

Some have significantly higher. Some are right in that same bandwidth. But, you know, SwampScape, you know, sits, I think, in the middle.

So what does this data tell us? I think there are some assumptions that we can make. It probably tells us that we've spent some pretty good money on our water system.

It probably tells us that we haven't spent quite enough on our sewer system. When we look at really where we are in that lower end, that should tell you that you might have some status of good repair obligations in that system that you've deferred. It could be for generations.

And that rate is lower than peer communities because if we actually did study other communities, and we haven't done that detail, my guess is we'd find that communities that have that higher sewer rate have actually invested in their infrastructure. And their costs have mirrored those investments. So, you know, we know that SwampScape has clay pipes, for instance.

And we know that we have, you know, a system that likely, upon further examination, is going to really need greater investment. Now, that's an assumption. Based on some of the data that we're looking at tonight.

I don't want to alarm anybody. I just want folks to really understand the system. Next slide.

This slide actually just gives you just a quick kind of snapshot of the percentage and growth. You know, in FY18, we saw a 3% increase in the budget. 19, 5.4% increase in the budget. 20, 10.5% increase in the budget. 21, 1.3%. This year, it's a 13.2% increase in water and sewer budgets. And this is the crux of some of the concerns that we have.

We're seeing a budget that actually is going up. So, how do we balance the impact of that growth in water and sewer? So, next slide.

At this point, I'm going to turn it back to Selectman Duffy.

[Speaker 3] (58:45 - 1:01:02)
Thanks, Sean. So, as I mentioned, the Water and Sewer Rate Study Committee worked with town staff. And town staff worked independently on looking at other communities' fee structures, case studies, guidance documents from professional organizations and universities to try to wrap our head around best practices for rate structures.

And we also dug in on our rate structure to just check it and see if it was fair. So, this slide that's titled the Base Fee and Equity. So, basically, what we concluded, I think, is that when you have these fixed base fees, and I think it's really important to say that this slide illustrates this, where we've got a number of units on the left for the account.

But it's really, I wouldn't think of it as necessarily accounts with buildings with those number of units, but accounts that use the equivalent of a single-family home, essentially. So, if it's three times, 20 times, 40 times. But this sort of illustrates the point of the problem with the base fee, is that a single-family home pays the same fee, base fee, quarterly, which is 133 total for the year, that all accounts pay.

So, all accounts pay the same base fee. So, no matter how much you use, your base fee is the same. So, if you live in a building with 80 units, let's say, then as someone who lives in that unit, your base fee costs for the year is $1.66. Versus somebody who lives in a single-family home, it's $133. So, I think you understand the point. On the right, it's just showing what is being subsidized, because the fact that those base fees aren't equal to the consumption when you measure it against what a single-family home uses.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:02 - 1:01:35)
So, Neil, can I just ask you? So, is this telling me that, use your 80-unit example, a building that has one meter, but 80 units, is paying the execs? And I'm sorry for repeating it, but I just...

We don't charge that owner of the 80 units 80 times the base fee. They literally, I never knew this, so they are just charged that $133 base fee. Correct.

Even though their usage is, to use your math, 80 times more, arguably.

[Speaker 3] (1:01:35 - 1:01:52)
Yeah, so it could be, but it's not necessarily. And that's where it is a tricky puzzle to try to solve, because just because there are 80 units doesn't mean they use 80 times what a single-family home uses. They may use 40, or they may use 100 times.

[Speaker 5] (1:01:52 - 1:02:04)
Can I ask you a question? Is there any situation in which any household or individual uses the base fee or less? Uses the equivalent of the...

[Speaker 3] (1:02:05 - 1:02:08)
Sure. The answer is... Oh, less.

[Speaker 5] (1:02:08 - 1:02:08)
Or less.

[Speaker 3] (1:02:08 - 1:02:15)
Yeah, like someone who uses half of what a single-family home uses, you mean? The average single-family home. Yeah.

Yes.

[Speaker 5] (1:02:15 - 1:02:22)
But I'm assuming, I should know, that my water bill is the base fee plus...

[Speaker 3] (1:02:22 - 1:02:23)
Plus your consumption.

[Speaker 5] (1:02:23 - 1:02:37)
My consumption. Correct. I guess I've been assuming that the base fee is low enough that there's kind of no way that an individual uses less than the base fee.

[Speaker 3] (1:02:37 - 1:02:42)
Well, the base fee you're getting if you use nothing. Right. You just rebuild that.

[Speaker 5] (1:02:43 - 1:02:44)
So, right.

[Speaker 3] (1:02:44 - 1:02:45)
It has nothing to do with...

[Speaker 5] (1:02:45 - 1:02:49)
So you're always owing... I guess what I'm saying is that there's always... Almost always a charge over that.

Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:02:49 - 1:03:03)
Correct. And I think I'll just... I just want to clarify that.

Sean touched on this earlier on breakdown of the fees. I mean, the base fee is to address some of those fixed costs, a proportion of them.

[Speaker 7] (1:03:03 - 1:03:04)
Yeah. Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 3] (1:03:04 - 1:05:52)
But it's also... It provides us with some revenue stability and certainty. Some.

Because when you're trying to model and project what you're doing, it's good to know for sure some revenue that's going to come in. So that's really the issue that both town staff and the committee identified as a puzzle to try to solve that we thought could help spread the costs in a way that we viewed as more fair. Okay.

It's a challenging undertaking. I think you can go to the next slide. So, this shows it in a different way.

This is an example of a hypothetical 100-unit property that happens to consume 100 times the average single-family property. And it's showing you what 100 average single-family homes would pay together. And then it's showing you what that account pays under our current structure.

So that's the disparity between the 100 times single-families individual accounts and this one account that uses 100 times the average single-family home. I don't know if... So, it's basically a 13% discount.

Okay? Does that make sense? It does.

Keep going. Okay. So, again, this is one example of this.

But once you start going above using the equivalent of one average single-family home, it starts to... There starts to be a discount of those accounts. So, if you're a single-family homeowner and you use 2 times, 3 times, 4 times the average single-family home, you are getting a discount because you're not paying the equivalent of that.

And that exists. There are single-family homes and commercial accounts that use significantly more than an average single-family home. So, once you get over that measuring stick that we're using, it starts to become the users that use less are subsidizing the users that use more.

When I say users that use more, I mean accounts that use more. I think you can go to the next slide. So...

[Speaker 5] (1:05:52 - 1:05:57)
And based on your previous slide, that's... An account can be...

[Speaker 3] (1:05:58 - 1:07:48)
An account can be a 100-unit building. It can be a gas station, supermarket. You know, it's just like every account.

So, we talked about this at the last meeting when I was in the Great North. So, it's challenging to try to set a base fee structure that is fair. And the challenge is, like I said, there are...

One option is you can do it based on the number of units in a building. But as I said, there could be a 40-unit building that uses the equivalent of 20 average single-family homes and vice versa. And the other issue is like how do you approach non-residential building accounts?

And so, that's another part of it that is complicated. I think the other way that you see other communities do it, which seems to be a common practice, is they tier the base fee based on meter size. But that also, when we looked at our accounts, didn't necessarily show a relationship that made sense.

You might have an account with a four-inch meter that uses less than an account with a three-inch meter. So, it didn't seem to be a fair way to structure the base fee. And that's why I think when we last spoke, we were going towards a simpler tiered structure because trying to come up with a more tailored base fee was really complicated, or is really complicated.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:48 - 1:08:47)
So, anticipating where people's minds are going on this, is what the working group has come up with. Does it address the issue where I hear you that an 80-unit building that uses the same as 80 single-family homes, you're trying to find equality there. Whereas right now, that 80-unit building that uses the same amount as the 80 single-family homes, average single-family homes, pays less, 13%, I think you said, or something like that.

Does what you're going to propose and suggest, the working group suggests, taking consideration, that same 80-unit building that uses less than the 80 average single-family homes, they're going to still pay less because they use less than the 80, or are they automatically treated as though they are using the same as the 80 average single-family homes?

[Speaker 3] (1:08:47 - 1:08:53)
No, they're paying according to what they use, not to how many units are in the building.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:53 - 1:09:10)
So, what you're proposing addresses the fact that it doesn't assume and doesn't charge them as if they are the equivalent of 80 average single-family homes. It's based on their actual usage in a modified rate structure. Okay, got it.

[Speaker 3] (1:09:10 - 1:10:59)
I'll mention that this model was really developed by town staff, not the working group. The working group has talked about this model yesterday. So, this wasn't the model that we came up with.

It was the model that town staff came to, and there are ways to use this model and the levers in this model to create different outputs, but this is the output that fits best with the goal that the working group was trying to meet, which is to come up with a way such that your bill reflects your use on a one-to-one basis if you keep the average single-family home as your measuring stick. And it goes back to, again, when we talked about an ideal way to set the base rates, it would be if you could ideally set base rates based on some equivalent residential unit structure that made sense, that would be sort of the way you would do it, but that's really complicated not just to figure out but also to implement administratively. So, we decided to start looking at simpler, we, town staff, looked at simpler tiered systems and what that would provide.

And so, we came up with this rate structure and model, which when you apply this to all of the accounts, the domestic accounts, it's essentially a one-to-one ratio between, if you look at the average single-family home cost and average single-family home use, it's a one-to-one ratio.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:00 - 1:12:12)
So, can I just, I'm sorry, I'm going to keep coming back, because I think that the average single-family use equivalency is a little, that's a complicated thing. To say differently, which is the combined amount that the average single-family uses for, I'm just going to say a gallon, not a cubic foot, I'm going to use gallons here, just for a gallon of water, is X, right? You're basically, this rate structure is going to say it's X per gallon.

You're now proposing a rate structure that says, no matter how many units you have now, whether it's one, 80, 1,000, a billion units, the equivalent, you're going to pay the same price per gallon. If you use less gallons, you're going to pay less cumulative dollars. But per gallon, the equivalency is having everybody effectively pay the same price per gallon.

Is that a simple way just to break down a single-family equivalency? People aren't being judged. You're using the average single-family just to be able to, as a metric.

Really, what you're trying to do is take all use classifications and size, and say on a per-gallon basis, you're trying to get to a fact where everybody is paying effectively the same price per gallon.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:15 - 1:12:33)
Yes, effectively paying the same price per gallon. What's confusing about it is when you look at the blocks for consumption, there are different blocks with different rates, but that's because that's compensating for the fact that our base fees are not tiered in a way that we were trying to tier them.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:34 - 1:12:46)
Or said differently, not every user pays a base fee. Meaning, each account pays a base fee, but not every user pays a base fee.

[Speaker 5] (1:12:46 - 1:12:46)
That's what I was getting at.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:47 - 1:13:20)
Therefore, the reason this is going to suggest different consumption rates is because you need to make up for the fact that not every user is paying a base rate. That's where the mind torture for me is, just because wouldn't it be easy if we could all of a sudden just charge everybody a base rate, and then have one set of consumption rates, but what you're saying is we can't because there's only one account. That 80-unit building that we keep referring to only has one account.

We don't have 80 accounts on it, even though there's 80 different users on it.

[Speaker 3] (1:13:20 - 1:15:10)
Yeah, okay, all right. Then again, I mentioned it, but I think the other consideration is just, administratively, how do you implement this billing, and how do you do it on a quarterly basis? You want to make sure it's something that you can do.

This is the structure that is currently on the table. It's three blocks for consumption. It's three blocks for base, but the top two blocks are the same.

They're charged the same. The block one, I would call a discount block. It's basically capped at, if you use about 60% of an average single-family home, then you would be in block one for your base fee, and that's to try to address the fact that, again, if you're using less than an average single-family home, then if you're paying that base fee, then you're actually getting, you're paying too much.

And so that's where that comes into play. It's a little, I just want to address a small technicality, which it's 100 cubic feet, but the numbers in terms of the consumption, which is up top, like the 2,500, the 25,000, that's actually cubic feet. So it's actually 2,500 cubic feet, 250, or 2,500, excuse me.

So this is the structure that's being proposed. And I think, Sean, I think, Ali, can you just, no, actually, we'll just go to the next slide, and I'm going to turn it back over to Sean or Patrick. Is it Patrick?

[Speaker 1] (1:15:10 - 1:15:19)
Yeah, Patrick, he's been kind of quiet. Hold on one second. I want to give, go back one slide.

I just want to give the board a second to absorb.

[Speaker 3] (1:15:19 - 1:15:19)
Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:19 - 1:15:22)
No, it's okay. It's fine. There's no reason to rush.

[Speaker 5] (1:15:23 - 1:15:33)
So I feel, I mean, I feel really stupid asking this. I'm sorry. But we're now looking at tiered base rates also.

[Speaker 19] (1:15:33 - 1:15:33)
Yes.

[Speaker 5] (1:15:35 - 1:15:42)
So from the time of the memo to now, we've been able to do that extra sophisticated step.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:42 - 1:15:59)
Yeah. So that was it. Well, that was in the model, right?

So that was in the model previously. They just, at that point, made a decision to not do it. And the initial recommendation just didn't include that.

So it's not like they added the complexity. The complexity was there for them. They analyzed, and they just.

[Speaker 5] (1:15:59 - 1:16:17)
No, I get it. I get that part, but it did seem to say in here that, whatever, it doesn't matter. The memo that you had sent just seemed to address that.

But either way, the point is that they're both tiered now, and that's going to reflect a way of getting to equity, which is.

[Speaker 3] (1:16:17 - 1:16:58)
Yeah. I mean, to your question, what we, it was complicated. And when we looked at it, the base fees again, and looked at a model, a model with tiered base fees, the difference is what we hadn't done is applied the actual rate structure to all the accounts to see what the result was, and it provided the result that we were looking for when we were trying to do it from the front, and we looked at it from the back instead.

And that took a long time to sort of have that clarity on it.

[Speaker 5] (1:16:59 - 1:16:59)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:16:59 - 1:16:59)
Understood.

[Speaker 5] (1:17:02 - 1:17:02)
Thanks.

[Speaker 21] (1:17:03 - 1:17:03)
Yeah.

[Speaker 19] (1:17:03 - 1:17:04)
All right. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:17:05 - 1:18:04)
All right. So Patrick, our town account has done some analysis based on these tiered rate structures. And again, you know, we're not inventing something here.

We're following some best practices that we've seen in other communities in the region. So we've got some analysis that kind of helps us model the rate structure. So we're gonna start with the next slide.

So the next slide. Okay. So if we did not use retained earnings, retained earnings are essentially, you know, reserves that the town has specifically for water and sewer enterprise accounts that help us stabilize rates.

So Patrick, you wanna?

[Speaker 6] (1:18:05 - 1:19:04)
So this slide provides a visual representation of the model that Neil just reviewed on the previous page. And this is gonna be helpful to understand the difference between the pricing for the consumption tiers, especially. So you can see in blue, that's our current rate.

So it's 711 for water consumption for a hundred cubic feet, 558 for sewer. In the orange, that would be your tier one. So most users are gonna end up in having all their consumption charged at tier one.

And then some users end up in tier two, about 15%. We'll have some usage, at least charged in tier two. This is cumulative.

So if you are a tier two user, your use up to the tier one cap is gonna be charged at the lower rate. And then you just have to pay a higher rate at any usage above that cap.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:04 - 1:19:12)
So differently, a tier three user doesn't pay that 79 cents. It pays a cumulative blend of the 40, 63 and 79.

[Speaker 6] (1:19:12 - 1:19:12)
Correct.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:13 - 1:19:14)
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 6] (1:19:14 - 1:21:06)
Yep. So water consumption rate would go up 40 cents compared to this year for tier one, 63 cents for tier two and 79 cents for the tier three. Sewer, you'd be increasing 54 cents over this year for tier one use, $1.52 for tier two and $1.72 for tier three. You'll notice that those jumps are proportionately higher than water given the significant increase we've experienced in the sewer budget this past, this coming fiscal year. And then for base rate, you can see we're simply proposing current base rate in the blue of 13.25 for water and $20 for sewer. That's charged quarterly to all accounts.

If you're gonna be in tier one for the base rate, your base will remain the same. There'll be no increase. Those are users that use very little water, about 60% of the average single family use based on our data.

And anyone above that is gonna experience a modest increase in base rate. Water would go up 75 cents for block two and block three and $2 for sewer in tier two and tier three. So that's the overview of the increase in the model that we've gone over.

Again, this model reflects no retained earnings. And statistically on the left, you can just see as a reference, our retained earning balance in water is about a million dollars currently. Sewer's at the 23,000.

And internally, we use a measurement of, we measure retained earnings as a percent of the fiscal year budget. So for water, we're at 26%, and that's a good place to be given our financial policies that we've implemented. And sewer is at 24 as well, just as a reference.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:08 - 1:21:52)
So just to help, I mean, again, we talk rates, but we always, and you pointed this out, the 100 cubic feet. That's 748 gallons are in that, right? Just so, I just wanna make sure I understand.

So on the seven, using the highest tiered rate on the water consumption of 790, that's functionally one cent per gallon is what the rate is, if I've got my math correctly. And 748, 790, so it's one cent per gallon. Yeah, it's 1.05 cents per gallon, right?

I just wanna make sure, just because we talk about 100 cubic feet, which is such an anomaly, because nowhere else in your life does anybody think about 100 cubic feet. I will tell you why Google told me the number. I don't really know what 100 cubic feet is, but that's, I keep having to remind myself of that, because we keep looking at these numbers in the abstract.

[Speaker 5] (1:21:53 - 1:21:58)
Yeah, I was waiting to see, I agree, breaking it down to actual dollar amounts.

[Speaker 20] (1:21:58 - 1:22:05)
Google, Google, Google. Google is my, I'm my water and sewer advisory committee. Go ahead.

Okay.

[Speaker 6] (1:22:08 - 1:23:40)
Go ahead, Patrick. Okay. Allie, if you can just flip to the next slide.

Okay, so this is the same model that we've been talking about just now on the previous slide with the application of retained earnings to moderate the increase in consumption rates. So you'll see, compared to the previous slide, your consumption rate increases are much smaller. And this is proposing applying $90,000 of retained earnings from the water fund and $190,000 of sewer fund retained earnings to moderate those increases in consumption rates specifically.

So you'll see instead of sewer, instead of going up 54 cents, a dollar and 52 cents, and a dollar and 72 cents, sewers now, the tiering, the increases is 17 cents, 92 cents, and a dollar and 62 cents. So that does buy us a significant moderation in the increases. And same thing for water.

Without retained earnings, we're looking at 40 cent increase to tier one, 63 cent increase to tier two, 79 cent increase to tier three. And with retained earnings, we're at 22 cents, 49 cents, and 69 cents. So each tier, we get a break with retained earnings.

All right.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:40 - 1:24:33)
Can we, I wanna stop. If okay, Neil, I'm gonna defer to you. I don't wanna get into retained earnings.

We gotta understand structure before we talk about how we're using reserves to help mitigate increases, if you don't mind. I think just let's, we're beginning to insert a different concept, which I, it's a concept we have to insert, but that's just, let's understand the baseline. Do you guys have a chart?

So I appreciate how you break out water consumption and sewer consumption, water base rate and sewer base rate. But, and so while it looks like tier three, is paying the highest when you add the typical, some tier three players will, but on large scale residential, I'm going back to Neil, to what I said earlier, on large scale residential, that has one meter that hasn't been paying a base rate. Right?

[Speaker 21] (1:24:33 - 1:24:33)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:34 - 1:24:43)
When you combine the increased consumption rate and effectively the same base rate because they're still only paying one base rate.

[Speaker 21] (1:24:43 - 1:24:43)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:44 - 1:25:28)
On a per gallon basis, that's gonna get you to the equivalence of dollars for dollars, the same thing. So the large unit owner, the large unit owner in a large complex, which I know is of interest to people here, is going to be on a gallon per gallon basis paying the exact same as the gallon that someone living in another unit. It doesn't matter what unit it is.

We're saying average single family, but effectively all the same. And then from there, it's about the volume of use that you use. If you use less, then you don't pay as much.

If you, you know, on a gallon, the gallon cost is. So while I appreciate, I appreciate the way this is shown like this, the reality is it doesn't show the blend. Right.

The blend should get us to the equivalence.

[Speaker 3] (1:25:28 - 1:25:33)
Yeah. The blend gets you the equivalence. If you, I mean, Patrick, maybe you go to the next slide.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:34 - 1:25:35)
You mean I stopped him too soon? Sorry.

[Speaker 5] (1:25:35 - 1:25:39)
So you're paying more in consumption because you're not paying in base.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:40 - 1:25:46)
Yes. So we're reconciling. For some.

Yes. Go ahead. Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:25:46 - 1:25:48)
Good. Patrick, go ahead and go.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:49 - 1:25:51)
Hey, Mr. Dementor, you're going to have plenty of chance.

[Speaker 4] (1:25:52 - 1:25:53)
Oh, I'm nervous.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:53 - 1:26:26)
I'm waiting. So that's great. But we're going to, we're going to ask you to wait a little bit longer.

What time is the meeting? We're going to, well, I know up here in Massachusetts, we go a little late sometimes. So we're going to, we're going to go a little late.

We may even go to nine o'clock tonight, but don't worry. We're going to give you all the time you want. You're going to, well, no, that's not the reason I'm going to target you.

Don't you worry about it. There's, there's others, but don't worry about it. We're going to, we're going to stay tonight as long as you need us to stay.

So, Patrick, Patrick.

[Speaker 5] (1:26:29 - 1:26:37)
I don't appreciate the insinuation that Peter's not telling the truth or any of us are not. I really don't. And you're speaking out of turn, Mr. DeMento.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:37 - 1:27:21)
Bill, enough, enough. Bill, if you want to, Bill, if you want to talk tonight, you're going to stop talking now or else you're not going to be given an opportunity later. Okay?

Everybody is going to be given equal opportunity and equal respect. And you will have the chance to prove that you are smarter than town staff and everybody else tonight. But stop until it's your chance.

You are going to have ample opportunity with the microphone to tell us where things are not where you think they should be. But the expectation is going to be that you're going to do it with respect. That would be a perfect example of what you're not going to be allowed to do tonight.

And so, Bill, you can decide how you want to behave. That is a good idea. Patrick.

[Speaker 6] (1:27:22 - 1:28:26)
Okay. So, on this next slide here, this kind of visually brings us back to the equalization concept that Neil was discussing earlier. So, you can see in the orange, we've already talked about that.

Under the current rate structure, there is some disparity between what the average... There's disparity between the typical user that's paying that full base rate and the user that gets, essentially, subsidy just because they're not effectively paying a base rate. So, to reconcile that, in gray is the model that we're suggesting, which nearly moderates that issue to pretty close to exact.

So, if you have... a property that's using 100 times the average single-family use, they're effectively paying proportionally what 100 single-family homes would pay, which resolves...

[Speaker 1] (1:28:26 - 1:28:39)
Average, again. It's all average to average. If they're using less, all those numbers go down.

So, in the blue column and the gray column, if we're not... Those are the average, but if both of those use 75% of average, both of those columns would go down.

[Speaker 5] (1:28:39 - 1:28:42)
Yeah, I think it's confusing because we talk about average family...

[Speaker 1] (1:28:42 - 1:28:43)
It's given the impression...

[Speaker 5] (1:28:43 - 1:28:44)
Home value.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:44 - 1:28:51)
This is where the concept I get where you're trying to get to the equivalency, but it's given the impression that we're measuring people off of average single-family home usage.

[Speaker 3] (1:28:52 - 1:28:52)
Usage.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:52 - 1:28:58)
You're not. You're targeting rates based on... You could have used something different than the average single-family home as your equivalency metric.

[Speaker 3] (1:28:58 - 1:28:58)
Of course.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:58 - 1:29:12)
It just happens that we have more average single-family homes by a multiple than any other use classification. But if... It's not...

They are not being charged the same volume-wise. They are being charged the same gallon-wise.

[Speaker 21] (1:29:13 - 1:29:13)
Cost per gallon.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:13 - 1:30:04)
And that's the important thing. A gallon of water at a 100-unit... This 100-unit or 80-unit building is being charged the same cost combined with once you take your base and your consumption at the same one cent per gallon, I'm just gonna use that number, or whatever it is, no matter if you're in one of those 100 units or you're in a single-family home or you're in a restaurant or you're...

Wherever it is, that's what we're talking about. You're not... Gotcha.

And I think it's really important that we keep... Because it does give the... I totally get it.

There's no judgment in what I'm saying. It's more about... It gives the impression that we're measuring volumes and treating all volumes the same.

We're not. We're trying to get to the same... Well, you're trying to get to the same price per gallon, effectively, that all different classifications pay.

Yes. Okay.

[Speaker 5] (1:30:05 - 1:30:09)
It's just easy to use single-family homes. Well, because it's the obvious...

[Speaker 1] (1:30:09 - 1:30:10)
Yes. The... Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (1:30:11 - 1:30:12)
Easiest calculation.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:12 - 1:30:15)
Sorry, Patrick. Keep going. I'm gonna interrupt you like six more times.

[Speaker 5] (1:30:15 - 1:30:16)
Nope.

[Speaker 6] (1:30:16 - 1:31:22)
That's fine. So, like I said before, we just discussed it, but gray is the model that we're proposing. Orange represents kind of the imbalance we'd have if we used a rate structure that didn't tier.

And then in the yellow is something we explored in our group, but ultimately we're not... Staff is not recommending that at this time, is tiering a base rate based on a multiplier. We looked at meter size, because there's about eight different meter sizes that are implemented throughout the town.

You know, charging based on a factor of flow through meter, and then charging based on unit. We explored all these different multipliers. Ultimately, we found that combining a tiered base rate with a multiplier such as that, where it would be significant, and tiering consumption combined, you see it tips the scales almost too much when we're combining both of those approaches.

So we found this nice moderated approach where things seem a little more imbalanced for now.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:22 - 1:32:10)
All right. So again, if you don't mind, Neil, I want to stop here. Sure.

And I guess, Ralph, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I'm going to put you on the spot, so obviously I mean to put you on the spot. First of all, I'm sorry. I've always mispronounced your last name as well, so I'm so sorry about that.

Patrick, can you give the microphone to Ralph? Ralph, you're a member of this advisory group, and we haven't heard from you. Let me just...

Is there anything that Patrick or Neil or Sean have said that is not correct or any interpretation that we have put upon it just to try and understand it that's not correct that you want to clarify? Or I just want to give you the opportunity to make sure that we're hearing it correctly or we're restating it correctly or something's not being said correctly, you know, to help us understand that.

[Speaker 11] (1:32:11 - 1:34:16)
I understand. I think the straight structure that's been come up with makes a lot of sense. I was the one who was concerned about using the meter size as a criteria because there's cases in town where somebody has a 2-inch meter that uses more water than somebody has a 6-inch meter.

That made no sense to me. I was promoting for a while in our discussions the equivalent residential unit because, obviously, most of the units in the town are residences, and people understand that. But as expressed last week, the complexity of applying it to a restaurant, a supermarket, a gas station becomes rather complex.

So this, in my mind, makes a whole lot of sense. The only concern I have is that it creates a complex billing method to people. They're going to look at their bill and say, well, what are all these different tiers and that sort of thing?

So that kind of thing needs to be explained to people. I think one of the reasons that I was selected to the committee was I'm just a homeowner, and, obviously, I'm an older homeowner, so I took it upon myself to view those homeowners that don't use that much water. You know, I have sympathy for the single woman that lives in a house, and she makes tea, and that's basically her use of water.

So I don't want things to get out of proportion for her or a small user. On the same hand, I am concerned about those users who use water as one of the things that they do. Even a restaurant cleans dishes, I guess, a lot.

So that's a concern. There's going to be a higher rate for them, and there's going to be a higher rate for those who use more water. But in essence, it makes sense to me that if you're using more water and have an opportunity to decrease your bill, just don't use as much water.

It makes sense.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:17 - 1:35:31)
So the way in which... I guess I'm going to be... Let me...

The way in which Holly and myself and Neil has responded, but I want to ask you the same thing. It's not to use this slide here, right, just since it's the one in front of us here. When we're talking about the equivalency, am I correct then when I say what we're trying to do is get to...

With regard to residential, let's put commercial aside because you're right. That presents other unique complexities. When it comes to all the residential classifications, the goal here is to get to an equivalent, I'm going to call it per-gallon rate.

And so, therefore, everybody that lives in a house, whether it's one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom, whether there's eight people living there or six people or zero people living there, on a per-gallon basis, we're trying to get them to a blend of base rate and consumption to the same per-gallon cost. Am I right in that, or am I oversimplifying it, or am I misleading anybody about what this is? I want to give you free form to...

We've never talked about this, and I want you to correct us if what I'm saying... I'm trying to make it into plain English because I need it in plain English to understand it myself, but I also don't want to mislead. And so, correct it if it's not correct.

[Speaker 11] (1:35:31 - 1:35:36)
No, I think that is the goal in my mind, and that's what this rate structure does.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:37 - 1:35:47)
All right. Thanks. Anything else you want to add about from the committee perspective or people mispronouncing your last name?

Anything? And I'm so sorry about that.

[Speaker 11] (1:35:47 - 1:35:49)
Insurance salesmen have been doing it for years.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:50 - 1:36:51)
Oh, my God, Ralph. I can't believe that. I'm going on, like, 20 years of mispronouncing your last name.

I'm embarrassed. Sorry. Okay.

So, I think what I want to do right now is to stop here, Neil, and open it up for public comment, if that's okay. And board questions, if you guys have some questions you want to ask before we open it up for public comment. All right.

So, we're going to open it up for public comment. Microphone's right there. Cameras, frankly, the cameras want to view you, and people at home want to view you, so just ask that you come to the microphone and say your name and your address, please, and we will take some public comment.

Again, we aren't voting on anything tonight. We're going to, by the end of the evening, I think, give feedback to town staff as to things we want them to look at and for questions and stuff that we want that we want to ask for additional information on. Mr. Demento, you've taken the microphone, so I assume that means you want the floor.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:52 - 1:42:56)
You got it. All right. Thank you, Mr. Spellios. William Demento, Precinct 1, Resident of Summit Estates, the biggest victim in this travesty, and I am a town meeting member and have been for over 50 years. I think I know something about the town, and this is a travesty because it's nothing but another revenue enhancement scheme. The basic premise, and it all starts and really ends with this, is Neil has mentioned it, you have mentioned it numerous times, keep coming up with this single-family equivalency where everything is based on the single family, and the fact that people choose to live in a building with more than a single family is almost a sin.

When it comes to businesses, as Neil said at his meeting yesterday, he doesn't mind charging the higher rate to the business because they can pass it on to people. To heck with them. This is the same thing.

Now you've added multifamily home uses. There is no such thing as a single-family equivalency. You've only been allowed to charge base rates since 2007 when the legislature passed Chapter 165, Section 2B, on base rates where they instructed communities, all municipalities within the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority, not including Connecticut people, shall institute water charges and fees that incorporate a base rate for all users, provided that said base rate shall be increased at an increasing block rate to fairly reflect the resource demand and consumption of high-volume uses of water.

No mention of any single-family house. There's no mention of the need for a single-family equivalency. It never existed.

It doesn't exist anywhere in the Commonwealth. Only in Swanscot are we using this false equivalency of a single family. There never has been.

There aren't all that many single families. We probably have several hundred illegal apartments. We have lots and lots of accessory apartments.

The town pays nothing for any of your water. No one gets billed in any towns or schools or town hall or anywhere else for the use of water. We have $500,000 of administration costs.

Part of Sean's salary. Part of Geno's salary. The assistant engineer is totally on the water and sewer budget.

$500,000 in administrative, indirect costs. Forget the direct costs. What I want to talk about is the basic unfairness of where you people are coming from.

You need more money to pay it. You've had a system in process for over 100 years where you pay for the water you use. That's not fair.

That's not good enough for you. You have to come up and follow the lead of MassElectric and say, let's charge them a delivery fee. Now you want to break it down and say, not by account.

Neil said this a little while ago. You call it a user or an account. They're accounts.

That is an administrative fee. When you look at the Wakefields and the Melroses and the Newtons and all supposed accounts, even though Marblehead is not an equivalent account on those lists, you see they don't go near face rate hearing like this. It doesn't exist.

Some communities talk in terms of the meter, Melrose. Neil and I have gone round and round for the last three weeks about this. Yeah, they do use it, but do they implement it?

Not really. Wakefield dipped in, pulled out because it didn't work. Pay for water that you use.

What is the difference? If 261 units are at some of the states, isn't it more economical not to have 261 water meters? If they did, everyone would pay their own.

That would be the way that worked. You have irrigation accounts. There's all the different things that single-family homes don't have.

Point, the equivalency of a single family is the wrong approach, and I suggest to you you shouldn't even go there because that isn't what it is. You want more money for the water and sewer, and granted there is a legitimate need for more money based not on the water. It's only a 30 percent increase.

The town administrator used a much higher figure. When you look at the costs from 2012 assessments to what they are in 2022, we're a water-only account. It's up 30 percent over those 10 years, and I got the figures here if you want them.

But that is that basic premise I can't get over. The town administrative staff, two meetings ago, what I heard them say is this just isn't going to work. It's too difficult on this base rate trying to tier.

Well, it isn't too difficult if you want to stick it to the condominium owners and the apartment dwellers when you just say let them worry about it. Under Neil's proposal, this is actual subsidy, a subsidy that a single family uses. Where is that coming from?

Am I saying anything wrong, Neil? Please correct me.

[Speaker 3] (1:42:57 - 1:43:12)
But there is a subsidy. Everything you just said is incorrect. We don't tier the base rate based on the average single family home.

We use the average single family home as a tool of analysis for the tier structure that we created.

[Speaker 4] (1:43:12 - 1:43:13)
That's the same thing.

[Speaker 3] (1:43:13 - 1:43:45)
No, it isn't. It isn't, actually. Excuse me.

The base rate is tiered once. There's a discount rate for low users, and then the base rate's the same for everyone else. And what's tiered right now is the consumption rate.

So I think you're confused about how we tiered the base rate. We tiered the base rate and looked at what the results were, and the results were showing us that, as Peter said, there's 80 units, you pay the equivalent, and you said yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:46 - 1:44:25)
No, but again, I'm going to say this again. Bill, I need someone to explain. I'm very open-minded.

If the fact, as I've said, is incorrect, I want to hear it. Good. Why should a resident, I'm making up numbers because I don't know the numbers, if the cost for a gallon of water for my house, for a gallon of water, is one cent per gallon, why should a cost of a gallon of water in your unit at the summit cost you .75 cents?

Let me answer. So explain to me.

[Speaker 4] (1:44:25 - 1:44:25)
It's easy.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:26 - 1:44:32)
It's one account. Same cost, one account. But why are you paying significantly less for your water than I am?

[Speaker 4] (1:44:32 - 1:44:42)
I'm not. It's one account. It's not 261.

There's no measure of 261. But Bill. It's a big meter.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:42 - 1:45:01)
Bill, then I'm going to say it this way. Why should the 260 units that make up the summit, the one account at the summit pay, and I'm making up the numbers because I don't know the numbers, less per gallon than I pay for my property? What is it about the water?

[Speaker 4] (1:45:01 - 1:45:07)
Because the per gallon is irrelevant. It's the per account.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:07 - 1:45:14)
It's not. The accounts aren't what cost us things. It's the gallons.

We are charged gallons by the NBRA.

[Speaker 4] (1:45:14 - 1:45:16)
In the summit of states, pays the same rate as everybody else.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:17 - 1:45:20)
On a per gallon basis, you don't. And so I need someone.

[Speaker 3] (1:45:21 - 1:45:35)
I don't care. Bill, take single family homes out of it. Why should a 45-unit condominium building pay more than a 200-unit condominium building?

Because they do. On a per gallon basis? On a per gallon basis.

Right now they do.

[Speaker 4] (1:45:35 - 1:45:39)
You just said on a per gallon basis. But you're going back to that single family?

[Speaker 5] (1:45:39 - 1:45:46)
No, that was just to get to a cost per gallon. It was just to figure out what the average cost is.

[Speaker 4] (1:45:46 - 1:45:48)
Cost a gallon to who, Pauli? Cost a gallon to who?

[Speaker 5] (1:45:48 - 1:45:50)
Every resident. Every resident, any resident.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:50 - 1:45:51)
The same water.

[Speaker 5] (1:45:51 - 1:45:52)
Any user.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:52 - 1:45:58)
The question is, I'm not taking the conclusion. I'm just saying you're talking about subsidies, and you're talking about inequalities.

[Speaker 4] (1:45:59 - 1:46:00)
They pay what?

[Speaker 1] (1:46:00 - 1:46:01)
Hear me out.

[Speaker 4] (1:46:01 - 1:46:02)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:02 - 1:46:48)
The cost of a gallon of water to whether it's a 45-unit building, an 80-unit building, a 120-unit building, a single unit, three units, two units, is more expensive than a cost of a gallon of water to a 200-unit building. And I don't understand why water is cheaper in one building than another building. I don't even care what building it is.

You guys can pick whatever building you want as an example. I haven't heard anyone explain to me why it is. We can pick that place with the Airbnb.

Okay. But it still costs more there, and I don't understand. I haven't heard an argument for why.

The fact that it always costs less isn't a reason for it to cost less. It's just an explanation of why it currently costs less.

[Speaker 4] (1:46:48 - 1:46:52)
Just hear the consumption and forget about the base. But here's the thing.

[Speaker 18] (1:46:52 - 1:46:53)
That's essentially what we're doing.

[Speaker 5] (1:46:53 - 1:46:58)
But, Mr. Mantua, I think if we did that, your rate would still go up.

[Speaker 18] (1:46:58 - 1:46:59)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:00 - 1:47:03)
Oh, the rate's definitely going to go up. No, but even more.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:03 - 1:47:04)
Your cost per gallon.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:05 - 1:47:10)
Under this plan that Neil explained at his meeting yesterday, some of the states get hammered. No.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:10 - 1:47:12)
They end up paying the same.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:12 - 1:47:13)
Is that not true?

[Speaker 1] (1:47:14 - 1:47:14)
Bill.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:15 - 1:47:26)
Bill. Bill. Bill.

Bill. Bill. Out of your mouth, you said it yesterday.

You want to hear it on tape? Sure.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:26 - 1:47:56)
Bill, everybody. This is going to get everybody, if I understand it correctly. And again, I have to go on the information.

Give me the reason I asked Mr. Supe to explain it because I do good on that. To explain it in his own words, it's because he sits on the advisory group, and we've never talked once about this. is, the goal is, as I understand it, as we've been told, to get every single user to pay the same price per gallon, per gallon.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:56 - 1:47:57)
Based on the single-family use.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:57 - 1:48:02)
No. It doesn't matter. Take the single-family out.

Assume we have no single-families in our home.

[Speaker 4] (1:48:02 - 1:48:02)
Am I crazy?

[Speaker 1] (1:48:02 - 1:48:05)
Yeah. Bill, you're, you're, you're, you're making an argument.

[Speaker 4] (1:48:05 - 1:48:05)
Rephrase that, Bill.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:06 - 1:48:06)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (1:48:07 - 1:48:07)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:07 - 1:48:09)
So what I thought... You buy into that? No.

[Speaker 4] (1:48:09 - 1:48:14)
You think... No, no. That's fair.

He used the term single-family use.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:14 - 1:48:42)
That is fair. But you, you're not respectfully, I don't believe you're understanding the term. Take away those words.

I'm going to the... Okay. I'll try again.

I'm going to the crux of it. I'm going to the crux of it, which is, and I think I asked Mr. Soupay that question, and you can ask him again. The end result here just has to do with every user paying the same price per gallon.

That's it. What is a user? And right now, they aren't...

A user is...

[Speaker 18] (1:48:42 - 1:48:42)
That's a fair...

[Speaker 1] (1:48:42 - 1:48:44)
An account. That's... No, it's not an account.

[Speaker 18] (1:48:44 - 1:48:45)
It's not an account.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:45 - 1:48:57)
It's not an account. In a 260-unit building, you have 260 units, 260 users, functionally. But I know...

No, but... Bingo. But per gallon, it's the same.

Bill, you're... I'm sorry, Bill.

[Speaker 5] (1:48:57 - 1:49:03)
Wait, wait, wait. Hang on. Not that I have anything more constructive to say, but we're going in circles.

[Speaker 4] (1:49:03 - 1:49:04)
Hey, I'm in it. I'm ready.

[Speaker 5] (1:49:05 - 1:49:16)
I just... I just... Let's think about it.

I don't even want to say household, because that implies single-family, but just the walls of a home. Whatever a home is, whether it's an apartment unit or a single-family...

[Speaker 4] (1:49:17 - 1:49:21)
Call it what you want. It's a user and not an account. Right, Neil?

[Speaker 5] (1:49:21 - 1:49:25)
Whatever words you want to use, every individual place...

[Speaker 4] (1:49:25 - 1:49:30)
I'm not laughing anymore now that he said it was 260 units. Bill, you've got to just let someone finish their sentence.

[Speaker 5] (1:49:30 - 1:49:30)
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 4] (1:49:30 - 1:49:31)
I apologize.

[Speaker 5] (1:49:31 - 1:49:31)
It's extremely disappointing.

[Speaker 4] (1:49:31 - 1:49:33)
I'm wrong on that. I apologize.

[Speaker 5] (1:49:33 - 1:49:34)
I appreciate that.

[Speaker 4] (1:49:34 - 1:49:35)
Thank you. I do apologize.

[Speaker 5] (1:49:35 - 1:49:37)
But obviously, it wasn't being... It wasn't helpful.

[Speaker 4] (1:49:37 - 1:49:37)
I get excited.

[Speaker 5] (1:49:38 - 1:50:01)
So... No, I just... However you want to define people living within their own set of walls, whether it's one person, four people, in a 200-building unit, in a single-family home, in a 40-unit building, whatever that is, that person or people pay the same price per gallon for water usage.

That's the goal.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:01 - 1:50:05)
You're talking individuals now? Can I speak? You will.

As soon as Mr. Dementos is done, I'll make sure that you come up.

[Speaker 5] (1:50:05 - 1:50:08)
No problem. How many people live in a home?

[Speaker 1] (1:50:09 - 1:50:10)
No, but... So, again...

[Speaker 5] (1:50:10 - 1:50:11)
Why is this not... No, because...

[Speaker 4] (1:50:11 - 1:50:19)
Because it's an account. It's not a user. He said there's 261 users that do not.

Bill, so...

[Speaker 1] (1:50:19 - 1:50:22)
In a condominium... In some of the states... In a condominium...

[Speaker 4] (1:50:22 - 1:50:22)
There's one user.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:22 - 1:50:33)
You guys are assessed, I'm assuming, consistent with 183A, and you're assessed on the percentage based on your pro-rata share of the condominium, correct? Is how the water and sewer gets pushed through to you. So that...

[Speaker 4] (1:50:33 - 1:50:41)
Oh, no. So each condominium pays the cost that goes into the budget for the condominium to pay?

[Speaker 1] (1:50:41 - 1:51:12)
No, no, no. I understand that, but each condominium unit owner owns a certain preset, predetermined pro-rata share of the condominium that's established by virtue of the master deed and then the individual corresponding unit deeds. So by buying into a condominium, you made a decision.

If I'm only a 1.5% owner of the condominium, and that's my pro-rata share, then I know that I have to pay 1.5% of the common area charges, which includes water and sewer. Correct. Are we in agreement on that?

[Speaker 4] (1:51:12 - 1:51:13)
You're absolutely right.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:13 - 1:51:18)
The one thing that's carved out of it, right, is real estate taxes. That's different because those are separately assessed units, right?

[Speaker 4] (1:51:18 - 1:51:18)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:18 - 1:51:19)
But as to water...

[Speaker 4] (1:51:19 - 1:51:20)
And high assessments, too.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:20 - 1:51:55)
So by virtue of buying into a condominium, you buy into the thesis and the expense recoupment mechanism and payment mechanism that's preset by your own private contracts as to what percentage applies to your unit. So condominiums do live a little differently because the truth is, you may only have a 1.5% interest in your condominium because you're one of how many units and based on square footage. But you may use absolutely no water in your unit because let's say, hypothetically, you're like in another state 11 months of the year.

And so you don't use water, right? But someone else...

[Speaker 4] (1:51:55 - 1:51:58)
He is clever, isn't he? You like that jab?

[Speaker 1] (1:51:58 - 1:51:59)
Bill, Bill.

[Speaker 4] (1:51:59 - 1:52:00)
Son, was that good?

[Speaker 1] (1:52:00 - 1:52:01)
Somebody else... I'm making a point. But somebody else...

[Speaker 4] (1:52:01 - 1:52:02)
You're not making a point.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:02 - 1:52:48)
You're taking a jab. Well, I'm not if you're going to keep talking. 11 months?

But someone else owns only a 0.5% interest in that condominium because their unit's smaller, but they're there all the time and they have three kids and they use 10 times the water as you. You are still actually paying more than that family that uses 10 times what you're doing. And the reason that is happening is because you bought into a condominium scheme that has you having a bigger pro rata share that you agreed to when you took the deed to the property.

So condominiums are... With an eight-inch meter. So when we talk users, condominiums, we will admit, condominiums are inherently different because condominium purchasers bought into a scheme that predetermines what the percentages are of how you split a bigger thing.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:48 - 1:52:50)
I understand. I understand exactly.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:50 - 1:52:59)
So therefore, take it back up outside of the individual unit orders because how you guys pay amongst your, in the summit or other condominiums is determined by your master deed, not by the town.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:59 - 1:53:00)
I understand.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:00 - 1:53:10)
At the end of the day, the summit is charged for water and sewer, right? By account. The summit is charged on water and sewer.

[Speaker 4] (1:53:10 - 1:53:11)
By account.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:12 - 1:53:17)
I don't care how they're charged. But what we're saying is... Yeah, they're charged by the account.

[Speaker 7] (1:53:18 - 1:53:21)
I'm sorry. Don't mention it. It's not related.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:22 - 1:53:28)
I'm sorry. I'm... Thank you.

You can have the microphone. You can have the microphone in a minute.

[Speaker 21] (1:53:28 - 1:53:30)
You can have...

[Speaker 1] (1:53:30 - 1:53:56)
You can have the microphone in a minute or you're welcome... Or you're welcome to... Or you're welcome...

I'm almost done, Peter. I'm almost done. Okay.

So Bill. So what I'm saying is that bill that comes to the summit on a per gallon basis should be the same. And what I'm hearing the goal is, is to have that bill that comes to the summit on a per gallon basis to be the same as the bill on a per gallon basis that goes to everyone else.

[Speaker 4] (1:53:56 - 1:54:00)
Every single family house. You're back to that single family house. That was just...

[Speaker 1] (1:54:00 - 1:54:02)
You just said 261 uses.

[Speaker 4] (1:54:02 - 1:54:02)
Bill, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:03 - 1:54:06)
We're going to... Do you have anything else you want to add? Because you're...

I'm sorry.

[Speaker 4] (1:54:06 - 1:54:07)
I'm trying to get...

[Speaker 1] (1:54:07 - 1:54:08)
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 3] (1:54:08 - 1:54:19)
I'm trying to get you off that 261. Can I take one more shot at trying to explain this? And then I'm sorry that it's...

As long as it's not at me the way he did. I'm not taking a shot at you. I'm taking a shot at trying to explain.

I understand.

[Speaker 4] (1:54:20 - 1:54:23)
I appreciate, Neil, you've done a great job of working on this.

[Speaker 3] (1:54:23 - 1:55:47)
The average single family home came up, and I'm sorry that that's confused things. As I explained, when we talked about the base, how to structure the base fee, the ideal way that we thought to do that would be to come up with some sort of equivalent residential unit. Right.

And we found that that is really complicated and hard to do, right? Yeah. So we, for lack of a better word, we scrapped it and said, we can't accomplish it, okay?

I understand. So we created a more simple tiered structure and looked at it after we created the rates and said, what does it look like when we use an average single family home to look at these costs and consumptions to see what that is? And the idea of an equivalent residential unit would be, if you use 60% of an average single family home, then it would be tiered that way.

So that's how it came to be. It wasn't that we tiered the rates based on average single family home. We used it as that equivalent residential unit to see what the rate structure provided after we created it.

We applied it to the rate structure after to see what it looked like. So the base rate is not tiered to the average single family home.

[Speaker 4] (1:55:48 - 1:55:53)
It's tiered to the average single family unit. It's tiered, is it not?

[Speaker 3] (1:55:55 - 1:55:57)
The base rate, there's one discount base rate.

[Speaker 4] (1:55:58 - 1:57:04)
Which means what? Will you explain that one? Would you take another minute and explain that one, that tiered, those block rates and how you came to the base rate tiers.

If you eliminated the base rate tiers the way everyone else, almost everyone else, the six or seven, as you pointed out, that don't, that do appear, all those rates you said means they don't have a base rate. They don't. A lot of places don't.

But you said those blocks and there's where I'm struggling. I've understood you at the meeting three times ago and all the time you gave me to converse directly to me, I appreciate. I'm just evidently not getting it because those blocks cause a tremendous increase as you said yourself to some of the states.

In the base rate, not in the consumption. I don't mind the consumption. The consumption there is high.

You tier those and the more you use as a conservation, according to the statute, to encourage conservation is a good thing.

[Speaker 3] (1:57:05 - 1:57:18)
So if we said let's not, so first of all, the tiering of the base rates right now, okay, there's three blocks. Yep. But the first block is a discount block.

What does that mean?

[Speaker 4] (1:57:19 - 1:57:20)
What is a discount block?

[Speaker 3] (1:57:20 - 1:57:33)
In the structure that we just showed, there's no increase. It's the same base fee as last year. And it's for people that use approximately 60% of what an average single family owns.

[Speaker 4] (1:57:33 - 1:57:36)
But there'd be a decrease for some of those in the block, would there not?

[Speaker 3] (1:57:36 - 1:57:37)
Sorry?

[Speaker 4] (1:57:37 - 1:57:40)
Would there be a decrease for some of those people in the block?

[Speaker 3] (1:57:41 - 1:57:44)
No. If they're in that block, that's your base fee.

[Speaker 4] (1:57:45 - 1:57:47)
But it's a decreased base fee.

[Speaker 3] (1:57:47 - 1:57:55)
So, yeah, it's for low, it's for the people that use, like the people that Ralph said they use concern about, it's for people that don't use a lot. So that's it.

[Speaker 4] (1:57:55 - 1:57:56)
Like me.

[Speaker 3] (1:57:56 - 1:58:24)
And then there's the threshold, there's a threshold who have a meter that can track their use. Yes. And then there's a threshold there.

And once you hit that threshold, you're in block two. And there's a threshold in block two, and once you hit that, you go to block three. Both of those blocks in the structure that we just presented, the rates are the same.

So block three's base fee is the same as block two's.

[Speaker 4] (1:58:24 - 1:58:26)
But not as block one.

[Speaker 3] (1:58:26 - 1:58:43)
Correct. But let's not... So, but if we eliminated the base, we could eliminate the base fee, which is what it seems like that's what is really bothering you.

But then the tiered consumption rates, which you seem okay with, would just increase to make up for that elimination.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:43 - 1:59:16)
So, Bill, I think this is where... I mean, respectfully, I don't think your objection is how you expressed it. I don't think it's with the base rate.

Because the truth is, nothing being proposed here changes the number of base rates that the summit's charged. It's charged one base rate currently at $53 a year. One base rate.

Under the new scheme. Listen. Hear me out.

Hear me out. Currently, you're $13.25 a quarter. For water.

For water. Sorry. For water.

I'm using water. And for sewer. Fine.

But we'll go there next. But hear me out. For water.

The number's not going to matter when I finish my sentence.

[Speaker 21] (1:59:17 - 1:59:17)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:17 - 1:59:48)
$13.25 a quarter for water is what the summit is currently... As a base rate. One time charge.

For all 260 units, one charge of $13.25 a quarter. $2.61. For water. Huh?

Don't worry about it. I don't... Whatever it is.

In 20... Whatever it is. In 20 for water.

Under the revised thing. So one time. One time.

That's it. Not times 261. Just one bill of that number.

Under the new scheme, it's now going to be... For water. It's now going to increase to...

Help me out with that number. It's going to...

[Speaker 3] (1:59:48 - 1:59:48)
I don't know.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:48 - 1:59:49)
I haven't heard any of you.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:49 - 1:59:51)
Have you got a number for that, Neil?

[Speaker 1] (1:59:51 - 1:59:51)
It's $14 now?

[Speaker 3] (1:59:52 - 2:00:00)
The annual base fees for all accounts would be $137. So it would be $137 total for all of the units.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:00 - 2:00:01)
So the point is, you're only still...

[Speaker 4] (2:00:01 - 2:00:02)
Including the condominium units?

[Speaker 1] (2:00:02 - 2:00:07)
That's like 50 cents a year. Yes. Under this proposal, you're not being charged more than one base fee.

[Speaker 4] (2:00:07 - 2:00:11)
50 cents for the... The only increased 50 cents?

[Speaker 3] (2:00:11 - 2:00:14)
No, that's like the total cost to you.

[Speaker 4] (2:00:15 - 2:00:17)
To me, as one person?

[Speaker 3] (2:00:17 - 2:00:18)
Let me just...

[Speaker 4] (2:00:18 - 2:00:18)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:19 - 2:00:20)
Let me just... Huh?

[Speaker 12] (2:00:20 - 2:00:20)
Let me just say this.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:21 - 2:00:42)
$137 divided by 260. Let me just say this again. You are charged one base...

It won't be that much. No. It is.

That is the point. You're just... And I think it's totally innocent that you're missing this point, but it's a really important I am missing it.

On the base rate. You were charged once a base rate. All 261 units are charged one base rate of $137.

[Speaker 4] (2:00:42 - 2:00:43)
The same as everyone else?

[Speaker 1] (2:00:43 - 2:00:45)
Yes. And so...

[Speaker 4] (2:00:45 - 2:00:50)
Well, I totally misunderstood it. Next year... Because I don't see it that way and didn't hear that yesterday.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:50 - 2:01:15)
Next year, it's going up slightly, but you're still only being charged one. Frankly, we're... In fairness...

In fairness... Is that true, Neil? In fairness, where you guys are, the summit estate is going to pay more.

The consumption rate for the summit is going to go up. To make up... To make up for the fact that you only pay one base.

So your problem... I'm just... I'm helping clarify the point.

It is the consumption rate you have a problem with. I don't think it's the base rate, because the base rate is just nominal dollars.

[Speaker 4] (2:01:15 - 2:01:20)
The consumption rate, meaning on your single-family...

[Speaker 1] (2:01:20 - 2:01:28)
No. Consumption rate that everybody's going to pay on a per-gallon basis. You're going to pay a little bit more of a consumption rate than other users, because you don't pay...

[Speaker 4] (2:01:28 - 2:01:29)
Do we know how much more?

[Speaker 1] (2:01:31 - 2:01:37)
You know? The materials... So we can...

So that is actually one of the things...

[Speaker 4] (2:01:37 - 2:01:41)
So I do have a misunderstanding, because that isn't what I got out of what I heard yesterday.

[Speaker 21] (2:01:42 - 2:01:43)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (2:01:43 - 2:01:44)
That's...

[Speaker 18] (2:01:44 - 2:01:45)
That's good. If it's clarified.

[Speaker 4] (2:01:46 - 2:01:49)
So I better sit down and shut up. Now we're clarified.

[Speaker 18] (2:01:49 - 2:01:52)
In fairness... No, if you're confused, every...

[Speaker 1] (2:01:52 - 2:02:30)
In fairness to you, there still is an adjustment that may be disproportionately felt by places like the summit, because the summit, on a per-gallon basis, has historically been paying less per-gallon than every other user. So in fairness to your point, and I hear your objection, and I'm sensitive to the fact that there are a discrete group of residents that will be impacted more than the vast majority, and that's still... We should care about that.

Even though it's a smaller group, we should still care about it, because money matters to people. And so I hear you on this. So I think your underlying concern about the fact that we are making a correction, a historic...

And it hasn't been for hundreds of years. It's been since 2007, when the...

[Speaker 4] (2:02:30 - 2:02:42)
If everyone pays the same, and the tiers aren't unreasonable, I understand the need for some tiering. But if they're not unreasonable, then I...

[Speaker 1] (2:02:42 - 2:03:09)
They're functionally... They're designed just to get to the fact that a gallon of water at the summit costs the same as a gallon of water at another location, or another location, or another... That's what the intent is.

And again, if that feels equitable, it's not to say it's not... It's difficult for some residents who in this year will have to pay more than others just to get to reset, to make it even. But if that's...

[Speaker 4] (2:03:09 - 2:03:13)
I'm working off something that says 20% increase, and you say it's not nearly that.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:13 - 2:03:43)
But I... No, no. I'm not speaking as to what the percentage is.

I'm speaking about the fact that what the end result is. I don't know what it is for the summit, so I can't speak at all. It's going to be more for the summit, because the summit being the largest condominium has actually been the greatest beneficiary.

So when you said earlier about subsidy, the truth is, since 2007 when we put the tiered rate system in, right? Base rate. Sorry, the base rate in, in 2007 when it was first allowed to be done, it...

The summit got...

[Speaker 4] (2:03:43 - 2:03:44)
Freudian slip.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:44 - 2:03:51)
No, it's not a Freudian slip. The summit got the benefit of just having one base rate as opposed to 261 base rates.

[Speaker 4] (2:03:51 - 2:03:52)
I understand.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:52 - 2:04:33)
So that's the subsidy, frankly. And I hear... But I...

We're not... The clarification's important. I do want to let you know that through it all, Bill, it's not lost on us, and we hear you advocating for your fellow residents that even regardless of it, that the increase still, all of a sudden being put on people, is hard.

And we hear that, and that's actually, at the end of the day, we care about equality, but we also care about making sure that we're not doing anything that presents undue hardships that we can help mitigate, which is the next conversation, which is retained earnings, which is how do we use some reserves to offset some of those increases to make it easier for residents, given that it does have an impact on people. So I want... I want to validate what you're advocating for.

[Speaker 5] (2:04:33 - 2:04:52)
The other thing is, can I say also, Patrick, is if and when this is voted on, right, let's say as is, it's pretty... Quarterly, we can check to see whether it's equitable, right? And I know that the adjustments are...

It's a separate question, but...

[Speaker 6] (2:04:52 - 2:04:57)
It's a new structure, so we definitely want to check it and see if...

[Speaker 5] (2:04:57 - 2:05:02)
No, I understand we want to check it, but it's not something that we have to wait a crazy amount of time to be able to...

[Speaker 4] (2:05:02 - 2:06:11)
Well, you have to get approval from the MWRA on what you're doing under the statute. You're a MWRA committee member, and you agreed to follow their rules and regulations. You still have to get their agreement.

And I don't know, under that definition of base rate, that I read you from the statute. And... Someone I spoke to at the MWRA said that they had not seen a system like this, but after this discussion, which has been helpful to me, maybe I didn't explain it to them correctly.

But I will do that tomorrow to find out, because they don't know of any system like this within their system. We're only one of 16 only water users. There aren't many in our grouping that buy water from the MWRA, water only.

Most of them are water and sewer. But in any event, thank you for all the time, and thank you for the education, too. I do think I've gained something from it.

But I don't know if I totally agree, but...

[Speaker 1] (2:06:12 - 2:06:28)
We wouldn't be comfortable if you totally agree. In all fairness, right? We wouldn't know what to do with it, right?

But I do... Look, I appreciate your advocacy. Like, you care passionately, and there needs to be advocacy.

So let's... I think some others wanted to talk, so someone else want to...

[Speaker 13] (2:06:28 - 2:06:38)
Okay, thank you. So I'm... My name is Cheryl Albo.

I live at Crown Point, and I've lived there since 1980.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:38 - 2:06:39)
Do you mind just saying your name one time?

[Speaker 13] (2:06:39 - 2:07:35)
Cheryl Albo, C-H-E-R-Y-L, Albo, yes. And I understand the need to increase the water. And I just feel like the condos are always getting the hit because we're paying double trash pickup.

We tried to... A couple years ago, that was fair. It wasn't fair that we're paying a private company, plus we're paying in our real estate taxes for that.

And we already went to town meetings about that, and nothing got done about it. And so now we're going to get hit with increases on water. That's fine, but my condo fee is $1,040 a month.

I mean, that's a huge... All prices are going up, and we're getting priced out of this, out of Swampspot. It's just ridiculous.

And, you know, at least... If you're going to make everything fair for the water, make it fair for the trash pickup. That's all I'm saying.

We're paying double trash pickup.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:35 - 2:07:57)
Thank you, Cheryl. And I think without reopening that discussion, my understanding is that for those units, those developments that don't have... Trash pickup was predominantly because when the developer developed the condominium, there was covenants that they agreed that trash pickup was going to be private, and so that was a private deal made.

And I know it did go to town meeting, and it wasn't changed, but I think that's the principle on which...

[Speaker 13] (2:07:57 - 2:07:58)
Yeah, but it's not fair.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:58 - 2:08:39)
No, no, I agree, but I think residents... When units were purchased, presumably that was disclosed to you that that was part of the condo fee there, and I think that was a deal made, and I guess not successfully yet convinced town meeting to change that. But I hear what you're saying about it, and we're sensitive to anywhere to help.

I can't speak to what's in those condo fees besides water and sewer. I don't know what else they charge for. Yeah, but I don't...

Again, I don't know what they charge for as well for plowing and maintenance, and we hear you, which is why the next element... We haven't gotten to it tonight, and we're probably gonna get to it next meeting, which is the use of retained earnings, which is reserves that we can use to subsidize, if you will, everyone's rate increases on that.

[Speaker 5] (2:08:40 - 2:09:01)
Also, just as a note, so there's the Solid Waste Advisory Committee that's studying the waste reduction program that was implemented, which I'm a member of, but also it's obviously a public meeting and there's public comment. I'm not saying... Come, if you want to say something, I will mention this, and we can discuss it, but also...

[Speaker 13] (2:09:01 - 2:09:07)
I'm all about fairness, but fairness, you know, I pay the water price, but the trash pickup, that's not fair.

[Speaker 5] (2:09:08 - 2:09:22)
So, yeah, and so I would just encourage you... I mean, again, I'm happy to talk with you. I'm happy to represent what you just said, but also if you wanted to come and talk more about that, you're always welcome at a meeting.

They're posted on the website, and they're by Zoom, so it's right now, so it's easier, too.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:24 - 2:09:25)
Thanks. Thank you.

[Speaker 13] (2:09:27 - 2:09:28)
That's all I have.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:28 - 2:09:38)
Anyone else want to come down to the microphone? I need people to come down because of the cameras. The cameras can't pick people up.

Sorry. If you don't mind just sharing your name and your address, please. Sure.

Thank you.

[Speaker 7] (2:09:38 - 2:13:36)
First of all, I apologize for my accent. Okay. Michael Stotsky.

Thank you. From the same complex. And you start to...

First of all, please, never lecture us about condominium rules. We don't know what does it mean. Yes, we bought a condominium, and we know what does mean pool.

So, yes, who has more square feet, pay more. We know about that. So, why I was very angry.

It takes so long time. You start to explain me how does it work. I'm talking about you.

Okay. You start to use fairness. So, everybody should pay the same.

But just this lady said, it's not fair. We pay for snow removal. We pay for trash removal.

It was a couple years ago, hydrant was failed, and we pay from our pockets. Now, single family house, condominium, just make it square. Water coming in, water coming out.

Am I right? There is a meter that count how we use the usage and sewer system. If you pay before less, how come?

Why condominium to your statements? We pay less. How come?

Who made this calculation? My understanding, there is no like the gentleman just said about single family house. We just unit.

Our unit has three buildings and water coming to our condominium. Our condominium is just one unit that has divided by small units. But the whole idea, it just works the same way it should be.

It's small build, small house. We have mansions. But it's still one family with whatever money, millions, zillions of dollars.

They can afford it 8,000, 10,000 square feet. So what? But per your definition, in single family house.

Now you judge us. Question, who made this calculation plus you? Is anyone from you live in condominium?

Nobody. So we are not equal. You, so many judges and nobody can defend us from your board.

We are from condominium. In our condominium, probably more than 70%, 70, is people who already retired. Senior citizen people.

You heard us. We live on. I came in this country with zero.

I work for 10, 12 hours to make decent social security check. Plus a safe home for one kid. Now I can afford it.

Now say, you have to pay more. For what reason, I don't know. To support whatever.

But think about it. First of all, if we pay less before, somebody failed to make calculation. How come we paid for our condominium, the other condominium.

This is strange for me. You know, it should be like this. My understanding, whatever, it's like electricity.

Or, I don't know, gas on vehicles. So, I cannot buy it. But probably in this case, somebody failed on townhouse, make the right calculation.

Okay? Are you agree with me? Thank you.

[Speaker 13] (2:13:37 - 2:13:37)
Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (2:13:37 - 2:14:30)
But, fairness is very important. And, yes, 40 years ago, was strange contract. Like, you have to pay for trash removal.

But, do you know how it is? There are 185 units on our condominium. But, only 6 garbage cans.

Huge size. So, it takes less time than do the same for 186 or 185 houses that we pay from our pocket. And, we are, it's again, there are not too many pupils now, which means students of school.

But, we support that from our real estate tax. Am I right?

[Speaker 3] (2:14:30 - 2:14:30)
Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (2:14:30 - 2:15:13)
And, we're not complaining about that. This is fine. Because, there is, our town is a pool.

We pay, like, when my daughter went to school, somebody in the school already paid, no kids paid. And, now, I'm doing, I'm not complaining. But, if you start to charge us more than for water, next time, you'll start to charge us, I don't know, for what.

Everything should be, regardless of house or condominium, single family house, two family houses, condominium, you should pay equal. And, the town should treat us exactly the same. Or, please reduce our property tax.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:14 - 2:16:08)
I'm done. Thank you, sir. Your welcome.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Again, we're not taking a vote tonight.

We're gonna, I think, give maybe some feedback to town staff to work on some things or to come back with some more analysis. All right. To, I think, things that we want additional information on before our next meeting.

I think, Oh, I wanna demur on retained earnings at the moment just because I don't wanna get down there with the presumption that we're basing it off of this until we establish this. The retained earnings is something we have actually time to determine because, well, maybe we don't, but I don't know how your billing does. Do you assume a certain amount of retained earnings even though town meeting hasn't approved it when you bill it or do you bill it assuming no retained earnings and then you make up for it later when we approve the retained earnings at town meeting?

[Speaker 6] (2:16:09 - 2:16:11)
So that would be an approach we could discuss.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:11 - 2:16:11)
Can I say it again?

[Speaker 6] (2:16:12 - 2:16:13)
It's, we could do it either way.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:14 - 2:16:20)
So, anyways, at the next meeting we can talk retained earnings. I just, until we set on what methodology we're gonna use, I think.

[Speaker 5] (2:16:22 - 2:16:23)
The retained earnings is not the total.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:23 - 2:16:24)
I would urge us to not go down that.

[Speaker 5] (2:16:25 - 2:16:26)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:26 - 2:17:36)
It's gonna distract from the other one. I don't think we gotta understand it because retained earnings aren't always gonna be available each year. So we think we gotta just.

So I think it would be helpful, I guess, I think it would be helpful to look at using the most recent consumption history from certain of the large properties for us actually to look and extrapolate using this revised system what their bill would look like compared to what it looks like. It's, it's not a, it's, it's not a good apples to apples because we're taking the fiscal year 20. I'm gonna use fiscal year 20 because that's the last completed year.

Maybe 21. That has a rate structure here. We have to, we can work on it, but it's, it's to basically say, hey, if we were to say no change and we were just to increase without tiered structure what it would look like and then with the tiered structure because they're gonna, you can't do it over 21 because it's gonna be an impact no matter what.

You're always gonna have an increase. What we need to see is what the increase is gonna be with this tiered structure versus if we didn't do the tiered structure and we originally looked, and so I think, Patrick, what it would do is it would have you basically say, hey, if we needed to balance the budget without tiered structures what would that, what would that have been?

[Speaker 21] (2:17:37 - 2:17:37)
Right?

[Speaker 1] (2:17:37 - 2:18:15)
And that, that's kind of the baseline because we still have to do that, right? And now we're doing the tiered structure and yeah, that's gonna cost a little bit more for these higher unit buildings and so I think that's what we wanna, compare is not the right word, we just wanna understand that compared to a lesser, hey guys, hold on a second please, I'm sorry, that compared to the lesser number of units just so we can see that. I think seeing some examples of that and I think the summit, I think the other Paradise Road projects are, we shouldn't avoid the big ones, we should actually be using the big ones to show it because that's actually where it's gonna be most drastic, right?

So, so let's, let's do that and kind of How much data are we thinking?

[Speaker 9] (2:18:15 - 2:18:17)
Are we thinking one year, three years, five years?

[Speaker 1] (2:18:17 - 2:18:35)
No, I don't think you need, I mean, candidly just, I don't think it needs to be, it's, I think it's as simple as saying taking the last year and assume we're going to fiscal year 22 with no tiered structure and what would it have been versus now apply this proposed tier structure and what would it be and it's that delta that you need to look at?

[Speaker 5] (2:18:35 - 2:18:37)
And I think it's, Dollars, putting dollars to this.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:37 - 2:19:29)
Yeah, so I think it's, as long as we compare it that way, I think it gets us to where, it just, it illustrates it in fairness to Bill, it does and, and look at this, now we know that for, totally open, that for the larger number of units, it is going to be a cumulative aggregate number of dollars to get them to a point where they are paying per gallon the same as everybody else. We know that. It's just now the question has been asked and it's a fair question to kind of illustrate and compare it towards if we don't tier it.

There's an increase no matter what. So it's just a question of, of what it looks like. Does that make sense for everybody?

All right. And then are there any other things I guess I would ask you to reach out to Patrick kind of as the liaison if you will to ask Patrick for additional feedback. Information modeling.

Diagnostics. Anything further?

[Speaker 19] (2:19:32 - 2:19:32)
No?

[Speaker 1] (2:19:33 - 2:25:32)
Thanks Neil for doing this. Thanks Patrick and thanks Ralph for all the effort here. This is not easy.

Okay. We're going to move on to a really brief conversation just in terms of Warren articles for September 13th special town meeting. So I think at this point we've asked town council we've asked town council to prepare preparation.

The Warren article for the debt exclusion for the school has been my understanding Patrick I just need just for this just want to make sure I'm right. My understanding is that bond council and town council have both reviewed the draft language and it's been sent to the MSBA and the MSBA now needs to review the debt exclusion Warren article language. Correct?

Yep. So, so that Warren language it's a requirement that the MSBA approve it. So the MSBA actually has that draft my understanding is from the school business manager and so that's obviously that the main Warren article there two potential other Warren articles that make that make that language.

Oh, sure. We can give that to you. That's easy.

The two other bits of information which is we town council my understanding is town council is drafting one of them and and which is having to do with the potential easement over the UU property on Forest Avenue and town council is conversations are ongoing but town council is nonetheless preparing the Warren article so that we have it and the committees can review it in time for us to close the Warren and then we're having some preliminary conversations about whether or not there's anything with regard to the Hadley reuse committee at this point we haven't identified anything but there's the potential that we may have a Warren article that helps give people greater comfort that the future of the Hadley school is not market rate housing which I know this board unanimously supports the fact that market rate housing is not going to happen at the Hadley school and so we're exploring some ways to put that in put that in stone so to speak so that people understand that that is the reality for the future so those are the Warren articles at our next meeting we'll be looking at the Warren my guess is our next meeting we are probably closing the Warren just because Patrick needs to get it to the print and it needs to be there two weeks in advance of September 13th so our next meeting will be probably in addition to continuing the conversation on water and sewing and voting it's going to be the Warren closing that being said we'll get you the Warren we'll make sure staff gets out the Warren articles as soon as possible to you all linguistically pretty simple and the debt exclusion which is the most considerable one will have been reviewed and approved by the MSBA bond council and town council prior to us seeing that language as well questions or comments on that we will need to think about what I'm going to call a regular fall special town meeting which is other business that and hear from staff as to doing that I think that there is the intention retained earnings is an example of a Warren article that we'll need to approve I think there is the expectation that the town administrator will be making a recommendation about the use of free cash to offset tax levy increase to further reduce any increase in taxes for fiscal year 22 amongst other things I think the real question is how soon after do we want the special town meeting my guess is it looks more likely to be a early December special town meeting just because between the September special town meeting a town wide vote in October assuming things go well at the special town meeting it's just staff is then going to have to immediately turn their attention to another whole Warren printing sending it back out and doing it I'm guessing I haven't had any conversations with the clerk or the moderator on this but I think probably late sorry early December is probably the earliest we would see that special what I'll call the normal special town meeting in the fall does that sound okay to people generally all right with that we're going to move on to the consent agenda the consent agenda is an agenda that's designed to expedite the handling of routine miscellaneous business of the board we can adopt the entire consent agenda in one motion or at the request of any board member any items may be removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda for discussion tonight we have a vote to approve meeting minutes from July 15 and July 21st we have a vote to approve the application of a change of officers stock or ownership interest for pizza or uno at 970 paradise road and we actually have two orders of taking for Atlantic crossing and Gracie Lane which were voted by town meeting to be accepted at the May 21st annual town meeting I want to before I want to just speak briefly about the orders of taking at the May town meeting the town meeting approved a warrant article that accepted and allowed the board to finish the acceptance of three streets Atlantic crossing Gracie Lane and Morton Hill Road we are tonight going to do orders taking for two of those three Atlantic crossing and Gracie Lane Morton Hill need some additional work and will either be before us or back before town meeting potentially as soon as the fall also at town meeting at the fall we'll also have most likely Supreme Court as you may recall Supreme Court had additional work that needed to be done to bring it up to a certain standard before we could accept it and my understanding is that that work is still on schedule to be done before the end of the year and if it's if so I think we previously had discussed about the fact that we would add that to the warrant for acceptance so tonight's just Atlantic crossing and Gracie Lane

[Speaker 14] (2:25:32 - 2:25:35)
Peter can I say something about the minutes before you vote

[Speaker 1] (2:25:35 - 2:25:35)
sure

[Speaker 14] (2:25:35 - 2:25:47)
Neil had just pointed out that David's name was left off of the July 21st meeting minutes under attendance and that I had put the wrong date for the next meeting as well so those would be corrected in the final version

[Speaker 1] (2:25:47 - 2:25:52)
great so is there a motion to approve the consent agenda with the changes to the minutes Ali just outlined

[Speaker 15] (2:25:52 - 2:25:54)
so moved

[Speaker 5] (2:25:54 - 2:25:55)
second

[Speaker 1] (2:25:55 - 2:26:03)
any questions or comments or discussion hearing none all those in favor aye opposed right consent agenda passes

[Speaker 14] (2:26:03 - 2:26:07)
does the order of takings have to be it has to be ink signature right

[Speaker 1] (2:26:07 - 2:26:44)
right here so there's a signature folder for us to sign before you leave tonight so please make sure that you sign it um for those board members that haven't had a lot of in-person meetings usually every night we have a signature folder for which there's almost always something that we need to sign and electronic signatures are not the norm and so with in-person meetings we're going to be getting back to ink signatures and not electronic signatures so just if you leave without asking is there a signature folder try and remember otherwise sorry and there's a box of water and sewer commitments that we have to sign as well so it's you need them to sign tonight yes

[Speaker 14] (2:26:44 - 2:26:50)
I mean they could wait until next time if we have to this didn't seem like the great meeting to be moving them around yeah well

[Speaker 1] (2:26:50 - 2:27:01)
okay so anyway so just ask us if you haven't seen that folder because otherwise Allie and staff ends up having to chase us down to sign things um alright we're moving on to the town administrator's report okay

[Speaker 2] (2:27:02 - 2:32:26)
uh you know I just wanted to speak briefly about um COVID-19 you know we are receiving updates uh from the state I've been asked to participate in a number of meetings this week with my colleagues in uh municipal management um uh and after approximately uh seven weeks of no lab confirmed cases in Swampskip we have had a significant increase in COVID-19 cases so as of um July 25th um you know we had 13 new cases um in nine days and so this new variant um the Delta variant is much more transmissible and so today this afternoon uh I asked for and I received a recommendation from our department of health about whether or not we should move back into some careful um you know masking um of folks in public buildings so just like the Swampskip Public Schools Town Hall and Town Buildings uh are all going to go back to masks it's too important for us to relax our guard we still have vulnerable residents we know that folks that are vaccinated can uh come down with the variant uh and we want to keep everybody safe we really want to keep that ethic and I would ask folks to to be patient and just understand when you're around a lot of people mask up um you know we're almost uh through this and we're making a lot of progress I want to stay positive uh but I want folks to just be sensitive to the fact that we have vulnerable populations we have a lot of young citizens that are can't be vaccinated and uh we don't want to see anybody um hospitalized um I have some bittersweet news uh um our library director Alice DeVoe uh after a wonderful wonderful career in Swampskate will be retiring uh in the near future we have a few weeks but I wanted to share this with the board I did have a meeting with the chair of the library board of trustees we have a three member board Ellen Winkler uh really um is discussing the search process and really the uh role of the library board the library board uh is the search committee for uh the library director position uh ultimately under the town charter the town administrator has to recommend the director to the select board so I recommended that the board of trustees meets with the select board uh perhaps at our next meeting I know we're scheduling some busy conversations but uh I think that would be a good opportunity for the uh board but also the town to hear about you know what um wonderful uh legacies uh that uh Alice will certainly leave us with but also what we might think about as we think about a new library director this is an important um agency or institution in Swampskate and I think it's a great opportunity to celebrate uh our library um I did have a great opportunity to uh interview a number of individuals for the outreach and social worker position for the Swampskate senior center I'm very pleased that uh we've been able to uh extend an offer to Sabrina Clopton a Swampskate resident uh Sabrina has showed an absolute incredible care and concern for our Swampskate citizens both young and old and she comes to Swampskate with her masters in social work and a powerful drive to help support uh all ages of Swampskate citizens so really excited about the leadership we have at our senior center uh would be a great opportunity to kind of bring in some of the uh new staff including our new all ages director and really get an update on some of the busy things that are happening um Chief Kurz has updated me on uh some of his ideas about pedestrian safety uh he's been meeting with um the leadership cadre at the Swampskate Police Department and talking about uh ways that we can actually enhance patrols in Swampskate it's a busy summer uh and we do uh expect that we'll see an uptick in enforcement activities so don't be surprised if you see a lot of folks out and about um pedestrian safety is really going to be a constant uh conversation that we have uh we are having a cookout at the Senior Center on August 25th at 1130 so if there are board members that could wear a hairnet or slip some burgers um you're invited to uh hang out and share some hot dogs with um some of our seniors um our new HR director has been very busy it's hard to think that she's been here for just a couple of weeks but she has uh really jumped right in um she has um really taken charge and I'm really thrilled that uh we have a really um competent and um energetic uh new director uh as I mentioned uh earlier we've started our capital planning process so we're going to be meeting with department heads and boards and committee chairs to talk about our capital improvement plan I hope that this will get established much before the uh budget submission um but certainly by um the fall so that's my report

[Speaker 1] (2:32:27 - 2:32:29)
questions or comments to the town administrator

[Speaker 9] (2:32:30 - 2:32:44)
uh Sean there had been a uh there had been a request for trash advisory data I just wanted to make sure that your office uh you know had uh had provided that information to uh to Wayne's we did as well as the other uh the other board members

[Speaker 2] (2:32:44 - 2:33:40)
we did um Patrick actually supplied that information um last week and certainly uh apologize for the delay for that information but it's been a just a busy couple months but it's I hope that that information will be updated on our website every month uh we should not be looking for that data uh that should be right in front of everybody every month when we get the invoice we will update uh the tonnage for recycling and solid waste and we'll monitor that um we had a really um terrific report uh today uh from a member of the solid waste committee that uh picked up six uh homes recycling and went through that and it's my hope that we can see uh some of those pictures and talk more about how we can all do a better job with recycling and manage some of those costs more carefully as a community thank you

[Speaker 1] (2:33:40 - 2:33:44)
so by it's my hope that's your way of saying it will be done yes

[Speaker 2] (2:33:44 - 2:33:45)
it is

[Speaker 1] (2:33:45 - 2:34:09)
I've asked I just want to understand hope hope and it's going to be done are slightly different I want to go with it's going to be done so just I just think it's really important to have that it's just it's good data and data agreed Peter it's really important because we we haven't frankly we also haven't seen it in months either like we haven't had that conversation and I'm so glad you're on the committee Polly um I know you've seen it but um no just

[Speaker 18] (2:34:10 - 2:34:11)
so huh yeah

[Speaker 1] (2:34:12 - 2:34:14)
um other questions comments for Sean

[Speaker 15] (2:34:22 - 2:34:23)
be happy to do that

[Speaker 1] (2:34:23 - 2:34:35)
yeah so um while we don't okay I don't know what you mean by we're happy but I like I don't even know what adding to it let's anyways so anyways we're in select any select board time

[Speaker 9] (2:34:36 - 2:35:37)
select board time yeah I just wanted to thank the residents the residents family friends passers-by for attending the Bentwater Day at the beach on Saturday it was an incredible community event it was it was really it was really awesome having having a thousand people spread out in the parking lot and on the beach of Fisherman's Beach enjoying a a beautiful Saturday afternoon and evening and I do want to you know with the I do want to take it up and have and have actually some of the members of Bentwater join us so we can we can formally recognize them the owners of Bentwater for their civic mindedness and their and their willingness to give back to the town particularly the fish house with the amount of money that they've raised in conjunction with the town so I think that's I think that's something that's going to be incredibly important and something I want to get on the agenda for the next for our next meeting thank you

[Speaker 19] (2:35:37 - 2:35:44)
great thank you David for everything you did to organize it as well that's great

[Speaker 1] (2:35:49 - 2:36:29)
all right hearing none oh sorry next meeting I'm going to propose and I'm sorry we're shifting it but given and Patrick you tell me if this works with your printing time I was going to to the 23rd 24th or 25th which is Monday Tuesday or Wednesday instead of the 18th to give time to finish more stuff and some other things does that give you time to print and mail so is there a preference guys is there a preference and I'm sorry that we're shifting but is there a preference between the 23rd 24th and 25th I think Patrick probably would Patrick would probably appreciate earlier the better because I think but

[Speaker 5] (2:36:32 - 2:36:35)
Tuesday or Wednesday nights are better for me

[Speaker 1] (2:36:35 - 2:36:42)
that's fine you guys I can make I can make any of those three nights work so you just tell me

[Speaker 19] (2:36:43 - 2:36:45)
Wednesday I'll be on Zoom

[Speaker 1] (2:36:45 - 2:36:49)
if it's that week okay that's okay David

[Speaker 9] (2:36:49 - 2:36:52)
I'm good I'm good Tuesday or Wednesday Donald

[Speaker 1] (2:36:52 - 2:37:33)
all right so if okay we'll do Tuesday is that fine so we're going to do Tuesday the 24th at 6 p.m. here not the 18th not the 18th Tuesday all right and then we're going to get the warrant as soon as the MSBA approves the language we're going to send out Fincom also needs to meet on it etc. and so we'll actually share that but we're going to get the warrant stuff out earlier than later it's simple enough there's no reason to wait so everybody has time and can ask questions and I encourage board members to reach out to Sean and then Sean can ask town council if we need town council and put that way we can show up on the on the 24th and be pretty cut and dry on what we're doing now okay

[Speaker 14] (2:37:34 - 2:37:59)
Peter just noticed the order of takings I don't have the original documents so I can't have you sign them now so fun I will be hunting you all down for that but I have a bunch of other stuff for you guys to sign too Peter quick clarification on the water documents I don't even know what they are in the box there they have select board members names going back to the last like Loris, Bethanis and Naomi does that mean that only the three currently serving I have no idea

[Speaker 1] (2:37:59 - 2:38:02)
what's in the I don't even know what's in the box so I can't help you

[Speaker 14] (2:38:03 - 2:38:07)
it sounded routine that's why Sean what's on the top of the box if it doesn't need

[Speaker 1] (2:38:07 - 2:38:09)
to be signed tonight my suggestion is you guys can take it

[Speaker 14] (2:38:09 - 2:38:13)
it's not going to be tonight it's just that I do need people to sign it so as people are coming to sign the order of takings I was going to have them sign it

[Speaker 1] (2:38:13 - 2:38:19)
I think you should just Patrick and you guys can check with Amy or town council or whoever you need to I can't really don't even know what's in the box

[Speaker 14] (2:38:21 - 2:38:21)
that's fine

[Speaker 1] (2:38:21 - 2:38:34)
my guess is the current members are the ones that can sign it but just confirm it ok alright with that is there a motion to adjourn

[Speaker 2] (2:38:34 - 2:38:34)
so moved

[Speaker 1] (2:38:34 - 2:38:42)
second alright all those in favor aye thanks everyone for helping us tonight have a good night thank you just wait a second for it to be out

[Speaker 9] (2:38:42 - 2:39:12)
you can wear it