[0:15] Yeah.

[0:19] Yeah.

[0:30] Yeah.

[0:32] Good evening.

[0:38] Welcome to the September 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Barnstable Town Council. In accordance with Mass General Law. Chapter 38, section 20. I must inquire whether anyone is recording this meeting and if so, please make your presence known. This meeting is being recorded and televised live via by Xfinity, channel eight, channel 1070 and High Definition Channel 1072. It may also be accessed via the government access channel live stream feed on the town website barnstable.gov. Please note that this in-person meeting will not be suspended or terminated if technological problems interrupt the remote connection or the live broadcast or live stream. If you have particular interest in a topic to be discussed, please consider attending the meeting in person. Madam clerk. Roll call.

[1:32] Councilors. Blum. Here. Burdick present. Clerk. Here. Crocker. Here. Crowe. Deleuze. Here. Keene. Here. Levesque. Here. Ludke. Here. Shane. Here. Starr. Oops. Sorry. Tomasz.

[1:54] Here.

[1:55] We have quorum.

[1:57] Thank you.

[2:00] Counselor. Do we have a veteran tonight?

[2:02] Yes we do. We have an amazing veteran this evening. We have Claire. It's Claire Lindner and she is from the Coast Guard. And we've got a few pictures of her here. And let's start off on the left. That's when she went to boot camp. And that's in 1997. And that's her, uh, her photo. She says she doesn't like it that much, but that's where she said her, her adventure started. So that's where we'll start. So there's that picture there. And then there she is in the middle with that giant boy. And from 2003 to 2006, I think based in Hawaii, if I'm correct, she went out and they would take the boys out of the ocean with a giant crane. They would do the servicing and put them back in, um, absolutely critical navigation aid for mariners. So she did that. And then the last picture, she says, is kind of the culmination of everything. She's in Scotland and this is just a few weeks ago. She's with her husband, Jacob, and Troy, who's 15, and Morgan, who's 12, her children. And she says if she hadn't gone to the Coast Guard, probably wouldn't have met her husband, who was a fellow Coast Guard member. And because she's now a retired mom, they have the opportunity to travel and do things like that. So those are great pictures. Thank you Claire. And I want to brag a little bit about Claire. Um, she's a golden shellback. I don't know if any Coast Guard members in here. Anybody from the Coast Guard? No. We don't. Okay. What Claire did, and she was on watch at the time, is she crossed the equator and the International Date Line at the same time. And that's kind of incredible. And that's way out in the middle of the Pacific. and she was out there on a Coast Guard cutter, and she was on watch when this happened. And I asked her, I said, well, you where the group of ships know they were out there. And if you look on the map that's way out there, and they were out there on patrol. And I told her, I looked up. Um, and there was a ship in 1899, the Warrimoo, and they were in the area and the captain again, 1899. So think of the navigation equipment that they had. And the captain said, oh my God, we're close to this, what they call the ax. And so he went and positioned his ship. And as it said, he, he was in the southern hemisphere on January 1st, 1900. In the summer he was in the back of his ship was in the northern hemisphere on December 31st in the winter, and this placed the vessel in two days, two months, two seasons, two years and two centuries simultaneously. So I don't think.

[4:52] What year did you do this, Claire? S3:

[4:56] Yeah. But that's, you know, not a lot of people. It's amazing, Claire sitting here and she's been in that at that point. But that's incredible history. Okay, so now we'll hear Claire's biography.

[5:09] Senior chief boatswain's mate Claire M Linder enlisted in the United States Coast Guard September 23rd, 1997, from Vincent, Ohio. Senior Chief Linder completed basic training at Training Center, Cape May, new Jersey, and was first stationed at station Boothbay Harbor, Maine. Subsequent tours include. Station. Portsmouth, Virginia. She was on the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Mohawk in Key West, Florida. The U.S. Coast Guard cutter walnut in Honolulu, Hawaii. And the executive. Petty officer to Aids navigation team, Fort Lauderdale. She was certified as an officer in charge, both afloat and ashore, and served two successful officer in charge tours of air navigation team, Humboldt Bay, California, and Air Navigation Team or Aids navigation team, corpus Christi, Texas. Senior Chief Linda, retired in October 2018, is the executive petty officer aboard the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Cuttyhunk 110 foot island class patrol boat in Port Angeles, Washington. She is a graduate of class 186 of the Chief Petty Officers Academy. Senior chief holds her bachelor's degree in management. Magna cum laude with a concentration in leadership from American Military University. She was also certified in applied suicide intervention, skills training and a sexual assault victim advocate. Senior chief is a permanent cutterman, having served over five years at sea and, she says 6.5 years to be exact. She also earned the Advanced Boat Forces Operations insignia certified as deck watch officer, small boat coxswain, buoy deck supervisor and law enforcement boarding officer. Let me just say one thing. The Coast Guard is the only branch that's authorized to do boarding. The Navy can't do it. You need the Coast Guard to do law enforcement on the high seas. So that's incredible. Claire. Senior Chief Linda is a golden shellback. And that's what we talked. That's what she's called when she went across those two date lines, having crossed both the equator and the International Date Line at the same time, also known as the X. Notably, senior Chief Lindner was a coxswain for the Coast Guard's first tug boat using disabling fire from a small boat on the high seas. Senior Chief Lindner has been happily married for over 21 years to master Chief aviation maintenance technician Jacob Lindner, who retired after 27 years of active service in 2024. Their most treasured accomplishments are their children Troy, 15, and Morgan, 12. Claire enjoys road tripping across our great country, traveling abroad, camping, boating, bicycling, hiking, reading, walking the dogs, family, Uno games, and swimming. She loves to cook and regularly experiments with new recipes on her family. The Linder family enjoys working with and supporting local veterans support organizations. Being of service and helping others has been a lifelong commitment and source of joy for her. Claire and her family reside in West Barnstable. Let's welcome Claire to say the Pledge of Allegiance for us this evening.

[9:05] Thank you.

[9:07] Thank you. Betty. We girls gotta stick together. Lady veterans. All right. So, if able, please stand. All right. End of your face. The flag. I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, thank you.

[9:35] Thank you, thank you very much. Please remain standing for a moment of silence to honor all who have died in service to our nation and all we hold near and dear to us.

[9:53] Thank you.

[10:06] And move on to public comment. Please make sure you sign in with your name and village for public comment. Public comment is three minutes. Please keep your comments brief and to the point. Written comments are always welcome at council@barnstable.gov and will be distributed to the entire Council. Individual counselors contact information is available on the town website. If you choose to email an individual counselor. It may not necessarily be distributed to all counselors. I wish to remind everyone that no public member of the public may speak without first being recognized by the presiding officer. The public will have an opportunity to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting and during any public hearing on an agenda item. You're free to express your thoughts, opinions and criticisms during public comment. However, your comments should be directed to the Council as a body through the Presiding Officer. You should not speak directly to any individual councilor. You also should not be addressing your comments to anyone else in the room, not to town staff and not to another member of the audience. Public comment is to the council.

[11:16] I'd just like to say before we do start public comment, I know a lot of you are here regarding the flock cameras. We've had extensive public comment on that already. We've had extensive emails and phone calls on that already. So if you're here to speak on it, obviously you're free to speak on it. But please keep your comments short and succinct and you know we have heard you. Let me let me just be clear about that. All right. Thank you. If you'd like to. We don't answer questions. I'm sorry.

[11:49] I'd like to make a public comment.

[11:52] Okay. If you if you're more than welcome, walk up to the podium there. Please sign in.

[11:57] Yes. Of course.

[12:01] Hello?

[12:02] All right.

[12:24] Good evening, members of the council. I promise this will be brief. My name is Aidan Gordon and I am speaking from the village of Centerville. I live on Service road. It's the frontal road for us, route six as it passes through Centerville and Barnstable. Um, here today because I have a comment regarding safety on this road. Sidewalks and street lamps needed to be added on the service road, effective immediately. This has been an issue in our town's community for a while, but I feel like it has gotten especially out of hand in recent months. Last night I was coming home from a repertory screening of Terminator two up in Kingston. Some guy in a Tahoe wanted me to pull over on Service Road or wanted me to go faster, and I did not want to violate the speed limit. So I stayed at 3035 miles an hour. He didn't like that, so he wanted me to pull over, but there was nothing I could really do. I eventually had to pull off and pull off into a side street just so that he could get by. There was nowhere to pull over. There was no breakdown. Lane. There's no sidewalk. You pull over, you're in a ditch. I noticed that on the service road quite some time. There's nowhere really to walk safely upon the service road. This would not be problematic if this were signed as a highway or highway adjacent route, as the service road is in Boston. It is not. It is a public street. People walk down it. They bike down it all the time. The problem is they have nowhere else to walk or bike but directly in the road. If you walk in the bushes, you risk getting poison ivy, bug bites, bug bites, potential allergic reactions. If you walk in the road, you risk obstructing traffic and potentially violating the law. You cannot win. And of course, this is, in fact, the addition to the fact that there are no street lights on the road. Now, for most drivers such as myself, this isn't an issue. We have headlights. We have high beams. But God forbid a headlight should go out or God forbid, you break down and it's nighttime and you're waiting for triple A. How can you let other drivers know that you're there? How can they see you, especially if your car is a darker color? I do not believe these to be minor issues. I believe them to be key safety concerns. And what I want for you to do, or at least consider, is putting sidewalks and street lamps on the service road effective immediately. Funding it however you can. You're already working on the service road to put in sewers and potentially do bridgework. I think these would be necessary and rational improvements. And I'm speaking today because so far we've been lucky and I do not want to have to speak again after, God forbid someone is seriously hurt or even killed. That is all. Thank you.

[15:12] Thank you.

[15:13] And I appreciate the Council for hearing my statement.

[15:15] Thank you.

[15:22] Anyone else?

[15:33] Good evening everyone. I'm Kathy Lydick. Barnstable village. Thank you all for your service to our community. I'm here as your representative to the Cape Cod Commission to remind you about some upcoming meetings regarding the Regional Open Space plan that the Cape Cod Commission staff is in the midst of developing. It's really important at this stage of the development of that plan for the staff to receive input from the public. So this really isn't a meeting where you're going to sit back and listen to everybody else talk about it. It's a meeting where you'll be interacting with them and giving them really important feedback about open space with respect to the town of Barnstable in particular, but more importantly, regionally for for Cape Cod overall. So there are three meetings coming up. One was earlier today. So if you didn't go to that, you missed it. But there's another one coming up on September 9th. That's next week, Wednesday. It's in the Ocean Room of the Cape Cod Commission office in in Barnstable Village. And then there's another one on September 9th at 6:00 in Wellfleet, and then another one on Thursday, September 10th at 6:00 in sandwich. I would urge counselors to attend as well as members of the public. Anybody who's listening to the meeting tonight, please consider attending these meetings. It's really important for open space here on the Cape. Thanks very much.

[16:53] Thank you.

[17:06] Anyone else? S8:

[18:18] In addition to this. Since I'm here, I'd like to speak just about the new ominous looking police cars, which are very disconcerting in that they are hard to read. You can hardly read. The only thing you can read on them is the Barnstable marker. They're gray on gray or gray on black, and they're they're very scary, I'll be honest with you. So anyways, please consider getting rid of the flock cameras. Thank you.

[18:47] Thank you.

[19:02] Mayor Walsh Hyannis. So, yeah, what she said about the flock cameras, I mean, in theory it's a great idea, but unfortunately it's used for nefarious purposes. But that's not really why I'm here. I'm here about sidewalks. Just like that, man. So, August 23rd, Cape Cod Times. I see in the classified town of Barnstable is accepting bids for replacing the sidewalks on Ocean Street and Gosnold Street and the lights okay. They have sidewalks on both sides of the street and lights already. Okay. I'm going to lose my mind. I'm still waiting for the sidewalk. Since 2011, when I was told it was a priority for North Street, West Main Street to connect to North Street at the West End Rotary, there is no sidewalk on either side. Again, there's no sidewalk on pitchers way on either side. There's no sidewalk on Phinney's Lane. So, you know, this is insane that we're taking. We're we just did C Street, both sides, the sidewalks on C Street and the lighting. We. And then a few years before that we did Bearses way we redid those sidewalks and the lights. Can we quit redoing stuff and like, stop, have things cutting in line here and let's just put the sidewalks at least on one side of the road where there, where there aren't any where people actually live and would use it. That's why there's so much traffic, because you can't walk anywhere, you can't bike. And then if you, God forbid, you do get onto Main Street because you drove there. You have all these people riding motorized vehicles on Main Street sidewalks. I mean, that's that should be a fine. When I grew up as a kid, we had laws in this town. One was no littering, nobody littered. We still don't litter. Another one was signs all over Main Street. No loitering, no roller skating on the sidewalks. No bikes on the sidewalks. No skateboards on the sidewalks. Now you have motorized scooters, motorized bikes. I've seen motorcycles on the sidewalk on Main Street on West Main Street, too. It's crazy. And again, can we do a moratorium about this sidewalk erection in the town of Barnstable and make it so that, like, no more replacing the sidewalks until you put them where they don't exist, where they're necessary. And that's like, I still can't believe pitches way still doesn't have sidewalks. That just it blows my mind in North Street. Thank you. So anyway, in 2011, it was I have it in writing at home. I'll bring it in next time. It's a priority to put that sidewalk in front of where the unemployment office is, where it connects from Stephen Street to the West End rotary, so you can walk to Main Street if you wanted to. I see all these crosswalks and blinking lights, which is, believe me, it's fantastic. I'm loving that. But can we just connect the dots and stop replacing stuff that's existing. There's sidewalks that can walk.

[22:20] Three minutes if you could finish up.

[22:21] So please. And, uh, can we do something about that? And if we have problems with the funding and stop with this grant stuff and make an excuses. If you find everybody that was speeding on Lincoln Road or pitches way and you find everybody that was on Main Street on a motorized vehicle, you'd have enough money to put more sidewalks in. Thank you.

[22:44] Thank you. Very well done.

[22:55] Good evening. My name is Anca Vlassopoulos. I reside in Centerville, and I'm here to talk about the flock cameras. Uh, coincidentally, today, wired magazine published an article about it. So I'm going to go with facts, not opinions, and I'm going to read a little bit from it. Flocks safety's latest search tools give police several ways to find people on camera, not just the license plates on their cars. The capability sit inside a suite of software now at the center of dozens of police stalking cases. And this is an AI powered tool. So we know how reliable AI is in other ways. And we really should be very careful about allowing this kind of surveillance of persons, not just cars. Uh, two members of Congress wrote to flock CEO Garrett Langley after Texas deputy searched more than 83,000 cameras for a woman who had an abortion, and Illinois found that the company had let federal immigration agents access state camera data in violation of state law. How long before we have these kinds of violations here? I'm very concerned about this. Uh, people may have very good will, and they have good reasons to, to use the flock cameras to observe for safety reasons and so on. But an officer looking for a vehicle picks from menus of colors, body types, makes models and features like roof racks and bumper stickers. A person searched by contracts includes no filtering and accepts only a written description. And I'm going to give you an example here. Um. Police officers have used software to track people for reasons unrelated to police work. We've heard about this. 46 of 50 cases in the US have recently have recently been charged with or accused of misusing license plate readers. In more than half of these cases, the alleged target was a wife, a girlfriend, an ex-partner, an ex partner's new boyfriend or a woman the officer wanted to meet. This is not use the use professional use of flock cameras. And I'm not accusing anybody in law enforcement here of doing this kind of thing, but it opens the door for misuse. And leaving AI to make the decisions for humans is something that we've seen backfires incredibly. So I would I would ask that you take away the flock cameras. There there have to be other methods of surveillance that are more effective than something that intervenes in people's private lives. Thank you.

[26:09] My name is Larry Moran. I live in Cotuit, and I'm a hard act to follow some of these people. I'm back to say things that happened. The last council meeting that I see have not changed. The agenda has absolutely no itemized matters for the public to comment on. The public comment does have to be heard now or never.

[26:42] So when the council members involved in the big things are presented, why shouldn't we be able to come back and respond? S11:

[28:17] Thank you.

[28:22] Anyone else?

[28:26] You only get one bite of the apple, my friend. Okay.

[28:29] I'm sorry.

[28:35] Good evening. My name is Kim Pulsford and I live in Cotuit. I'm asking you to vote yes on the resolution to end Flock's use of Alpr cameras in town. This technology simply doesn't deliver what it promised. And the cost to privacy and trust are far too high. Now, some say we're already surveilled, but alpr are fundamentally different. They're interconnected. A camera in Santuit Newtown Road talks to cameras in. Hyannis. Dennis. Yarmouth. Sandwich. Bourne. Building a regional, permanent, searchable map of where everyone goes. And you can't opt out. That alone violates the presumption of innocence. The safeguards are nonexistent right here in Barnstable. A new Jersey officer searched our cameras citing Ice detention, a use that supposedly disabled. So what do we actually get in return? The FBI studied Atlanta's network of over 5000 flock cameras. Motor vehicle theft clearance improved by 0.3%. That's it. Homicide. Rape. Robbery, larceny, shoplifting all got worse in the same interconnected system that failed in Atlanta. Won't keep kids safe at the bus stop, either. Then there's flock itself. They change the contracts. Choice of law from Massachusetts to Georgia without telling the town they installed cameras in Cambridge without city approval. They remotely reactivated cameras in Littleton. Littleton after the town turned them off. And the system you vote on tonight won't be the one we have next year. Flock is building an AI platform that connects camera data with police records, 911 calls, and personal identity identity information. You're not buying cameras. You're signing into. You're signing on to an evolving surveillance platform with no local control. So please pass this resolution. But we can't stop here. We need a town ordinance, a permanent, enforceable ban that includes private citizens and businesses. So no future council can quietly put these cameras back. This resolution is the first step. Let's commit to following it with an ordinance that makes it against town code to have any alpr at all. The cameras are already feeding into a system we can't control. Every day we wait is another day of warrantless surveillance with no oversight. Remove them. Pass an ordinance to ban them and invest in real public safety. Vote yes on the resolution.

[31:25] Hi, Diane from Cotuit. I'm here to address the flock issue kind of from a different light. At the last meeting, I spoke about civil liberties, constitutional rights, and the dangers of creating a massive surveillance system. I wanted to keep the focus there, not on the police. Even though facts were presented about the abuses that some were committing with this technology. At the end of the public comment, the council said that there would be robust conversation, including with the police, as our group is downstairs, a police officer walked past us, looked right at us, snickered, and deliberately said, quote, robust discussion to the person he was with. And they both laughed. Let me tell you a story. A woman spent years living in fear, being stalked and abused by her ex-husband, who was a police officer. He was arrested multiple times for his actions, but that didn't stop him. He exploited his badge to bypass her home security, break into her home, placed listening devices on her phone line. He'd appear out of nowhere at the grocery store, the park, just to remind her that he was always watching. No one ever knew how when he found her because there was no flock. Eventually, it all escalated to a murder for hire plot involving her and her children. He called one day out of the blue and casually worked questions into the conversation. What kind of car was she driving? What was her license plate number? What time did she took her youngest child to preschool, and how did she go? What route? That call became evidence. His need to call her and get that information created a trail. When he approached someone to carry out the killing with the information he'd been able to gather, that person turned out to be an undercover state police officer. That's how the plot was uncovered. But think about what would have happened if he'd had access to flock. He wouldn't have had. Wouldn't have needed to ask. He could potentially have searched her plate, seen where her car had been captured, learned her routines and movements without ever contacting her. That's why it's not enough to say we'll have safeguards. We can set rules about why someone can search, how long data is retained, and audit who accessed it. But those rules depend on everyone following them. An audit only tells you what happened after the fact. It can't make someone unknow what they learned or undo the harm it may have caused. That woman was me. I'm not here to condemn the police. I owe my life to officers who did their jobs with integrity. But power in the wrong hands is dangerous, and this technology puts an enormous amount of power into human hands. I didn't want to tell this story. I'm not comfortable with the spotlight. But after that last meeting, I realized everyone here seemed to understand the legal side, the policies, the the concerns, the oversight. But the idea of officers misusing this technology was treated as unlikely and almost unthinkable. I know better. 30 years ago, I fled to Barnstable with my young children, searching for safety. If I were making that same choice today, would I find it? Or would the tools meant to protect us become the very thing used against us? That's the question I'm asking you to consider. What happens when the person who can access the system is the one you need protection from? Thank you.

[34:40] Thank you.

[35:07] Um. Good night. For the record, Mike Farrell Cotuit. Um, I just want to say a couple of things. Um, I think there was 20 something Odd Towns as of today maybe that I saw on these newspapers that have abolished these things. These people are talking about with the AARP or whatever the flock cameras. All of them. Um, but the reason I'm here tonight is, uh, because of parking, actually. So I saw something come up where someone was at a boat ramp and were giving out tickets. Okay. The, um, the parking enforcement is Enforcements giving out tickets to people who are out scalloping or running whatever with this dilapidated truck that's covered with rust, or who knows why they don't have a sticker. It doesn't particularly matter, but we got parking enforcement going around giving tickets for expired inspection stickers in the town of Barnstable. Okay. Um, it's pretty upsetting. So five years ago, I mean, I was diving on a boat right here by a high line, you know, in the harbor. And I got to go find my parking spot. Um, I got to pay my two hours. It cost me ten bucks for two hours so I could go dive on someone's vessel here in the harbor. All right. And then I find out that people are getting tickets for bad inspection stickers at boat ramps, where enforcement is running through to make sure that they have a sticker to park there. Um. It's uncool. So, like five years ago, maybe seven, there was a particular person you could find him in Home Depot or wherever. And I'm watching the machines that take your, your credit card to pay for the the pass. It's not working. Okay. We can blame Comcast. You know, the actual unit. Who knows. But this guy's floating around 5 to 7 years ago I had to walk away. It's upsetting. We got people from New York all over its tourist base. It's quite expensive to park there. And you're getting a $50 ticket as a as a tourist in New York while you're trying to put your kid on a pirate boat. Okay. And I'm watching it happen as I'm going to speaking to go eat lunch and I'm trying to pay for it. Okay, so that was 7 to 5 years ago. And I find out today by looking at whatever news I'm looking at as I'm floating through, um, that people are getting points on their insurance while out fishing with their boat because of parking enforcement in Barnstable. Super uncool. And again, I did watch, I'm one of the 15 people that watched the updates every week on the video from, um, Mr. Ellis, which I appreciate, but we're looking for all this revenue, all this stuff. I get it. Everybody's got to like, find their money somewhere, but it's uncool. Thank you.

[38:27] Hello. I'm Gabby Denardi from Centerville. I'm here in support of item 2020 732. You have and will hear lots of supporting evidence about the misuse of flock surveillance systems. I wanted to address some common counterarguments in this discussion. One is the suggestion that by raising concerns about a system, we are impugning the character of individual police officers here in Barnstable. That feels disingenuous and is untrue. A safe system should be built that way, not dependent upon every individual acting perfectly at all times. There's already too much mass surveillance in our lives. That is a reason to push back against it, not roll over and embrace more. I have heard about how license plate surveillance has helped people and more about how it has hurt them. If the council finds the benefit is truly too great to pass up, then there are ways to do it more safely, with more respect for civil liberties. Ditch FLoC and build an in-house system that only Barnstable can access, and only with a warrant. Institute civilian oversight and transparency and consequences for misuse. It might cost more money and feel less convenient, but I think those in power should be willing to make those sacrifices before asking the rest of us to sacrifice our privacy. My vote would be for no surveillance, but at the very least, I can't see any justification for FLoC. Thank you.

[39:37] Thank you.

[39:43] Any further public comment.

[39:45] Thank you. And in deference, Craig, I'll be quick. Okay. Cut my comments. And, Charlie, nice to see you. Let me just sign in.

[39:58] So I'm from Centerville. My name is Deborah Hennessey and I'm a Barnstable taxpayer, uh, an educator for more than 30 years here with our kids, Hyannis East. And then BIS.

[40:09] Get to the microphone.

[40:11] Um, let me try that again. So, um, I've been an educator in Barnstable for more than 30 years. And I speak to you not only as an educator, but as a parent and as a grandmother tonight, again in Against the Flock. So here I go. I'm going to skip three paragraphs. Craig, as an educator in Barnstable, I've spent I did spend decades teaching our kids that our constitutional freedoms matter. They matter now. As a grandmother, I don't want my grandchildren growing up believing that routine government surveillance is simply the price we pay to be safe. Not here. Public safety and personal liberty aren't mutually exclusive. Barnstable can support effective law enforcement, which we do without routinely recording the movements of people who aren't suspected of doing anything. At this point in my life, I mostly drive to work, still go to the grocery store, go to my grandkids games at home. If anyone really wants to find out where I am, they can see me sitting in traffic on route 28 or trying to find a parking space at the mall during a rainy day, or waiting in line at doses, maybe. But we're ordinary people living ordinary lives. And exactly that is what matters. I don't want my movements being recorded simply because technology would let us do that. And I don't want that to become normal for my grandkids. I love this community. I'm totally overwhelmed and impressed by the woman who brought her personal story. I would hope we could address this quickly. I love this community. It's where I've worked. It's where I've raised my family. It's where I've taught your children. It's where I'm watching my grandkids grow up. I want them to feel safe here, but I also want them to know that freedom is their freedom, that simply going upon their lives without feeling like they're watched when they're grown and raising their families of their own. Here, I hope, I hope Barnstable is still the community that it's been, where we value our neighbors, where we trust each other and our citizens, and we protect each other's safety, and we protect each other's freedom. This is the Barnstable that I hope we leave our kids. The Barnstable that we formed together as a community. Thank you for listening.

[42:52] Thank you.

[42:56] Hi, I'm Willow. I go to Sturgis. I don't live in Barnstable, but I spend most of my day here. And I have talked in class with my classmates multiple times about the flock cameras. None of us feel safer for it. In fact, many feel uncomfortable and invaded. Um, violated. I also want to talk about the ice aspect of flock. My mother spent several years working on Main Street at the Four Seasons Building, helping, um, immigrant adults who take English learning classes so that they can speak English better. And at the beginning of the Trump administration, when Ice was reinstated strongly, many of them did not show up for days or weeks or months because of how terrified they were. And that was before FLoC became what it is now and what it will become in the future. People should not have to hide in their homes out of fear. I have friends who have developed a genuine fear of stepping out of their home and have not left for weeks or months because of that fear. And FLoC only intensifies it to an unimaginable amount. That's it.

[44:21] Thank you.

[44:39] Good evening. Laura Cronin from Hyannis. I'm speaking as a Hyannis resident. I'm not here for flocking, so it's something different. And I wasn't going to speak on this, but I thought it might be important. Um. I'm sorry. Good evening, president. Town councilors. Um, many of you have heard the Cape Cod Gateway Airport has scheduled a noise abatement meeting where they say as a public roundtable discussion focused on noise abatement and the airport's ongoing efforts to address community concerns. It is scheduled for Wednesday, September 16th at 6 p.m. at the Barnstable High School. I encourage everyone in the public to attend to get their voices heard. While I have my doubts that maybe this might be doing anything different as the airport manager and others continuously saying we need to live with it, it was here before. You get used to it. And that may be true. However, it isn't the volume and the environment pollution we have today, and we should take this opportunity to speak about it respectfully in public forum. The online noise abatement program that's in process right now doesn't appear to be working, as they say. Which is to help track and B and maybe find ways to mitigate the noise or problems of the community. But I always felt it made it worse whenever I called and used to use the info to increase the traffic over this area of the residents of who was the complainant. So I apologize to people on South Street. We may get some more traffic over the next few days. Nonetheless, we should go on Wednesday, September 16th at 6 p.m. and work together and hopefully get our concerns heard and get some feedback. And one of the things is they said, well, the town council doesn't have any oversight on it, but it is our council. I mean, it is our community and we should be able to have a forum for. If this forum is of no use. Why are they having it? But I think it's genuine and that they want to be able to get it from the the public. So I hope that people will attend. And lastly, I have one more thing. This is actually what I was going to speak with is next Friday, September 11th, the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks inflicted upon our country. I would like to ask each of us to attend one of the remembrance services being held, whether local or. If you are traveling, find one where you are. If you aren't sure, check with the local fire or police department. We are not only giving prayers and remembrance to the souls we lost that day, but the ongoing victims tragically suffering from the effects of that day. Still today, in 25 years. There are so many of our people in our lives today who weren't even born. There are so many that we owe it to them to make sure they know the courage and sacrifice of that day and never forget. Hyannis Fire Department ceremony is scheduled for 9 a.m. next Friday. Thank you for letting me speak.

[47:29] Thank you.

[47:40] John Murphy, precinct 12.

[47:53] I attended tonight's meeting to show honor and appreciation to the council for item 27. 26. Uh, um, my, um, selection or appointment to the licensing authority. I'm retired now. One of the beauties of being retired is you're really kind of lose touch. What's going on? I had no idea flock was on the agenda tonight. And that I'd be standing in front of you talking about flock. Um, I can hear my wife right now saying, sit down. Sit down and be quiet. You're here to be appointed to a board, not to speak at a podium. But I felt compelled because I might be. Besides the chief, I'm not sure. Maybe the deputy chief, one of the only people in this room that has experience with automatic plate readers. Uh, in 2001, I find it ironic that September 11th is right around the corner. In 2001, I was in Newark, new Jersey, um, working for the FBI. And after September 11th, I was part of the New York, new Jersey World Trade Center task force, automated, automated automatic plate. Readers were around then, however, they were confined to the bridges in New York City and the highways.

[49:22] The E-ZPass, um, one of the S19:

[50:23] I've heard, um, a lot of the negatives about it and there are negatives. However, we live in a society where our cell phones, if you don't want to be tracked by the government or by third party groups, take your cell phone and throw it in the ocean. Get rid of your E-ZPass. Stop talking to Alexa because we're all being monitored. The problem is to create a system that we can use legally and within a set of guardrails that ensure public safety. I heard one of the previous speakers say, we can do things a better way.

[51:02] John, if you could finish up, please.

[51:04] Sure. We can do things a better way. Amber alert. Silver. Silver alert are all used by Automatic plate readers. What do you say to a woman or a man when I say my 17 year old daughter left the house with a guy that we don't know and we don't know where she's going in a car.

[51:29] How do we find them? S19:

[51:33] Thank you. Joan.

[51:38] If you could please no one, interrupted the other speakers. Please be courteous.

[51:45] Anyone else?

[52:11] Good evening. It's a long walk from the back. I just wanted to thank you for hearing all of us.

[52:19] What? S2:

[52:20] Yourself? Oh. Megan Moore. Sorry. Um, I'm here because Bruce Willis has famously reminded of what it's like to live in a surveillance state. I think Benjamin Franklin had something to say about it, too. And that warning feels particularly relevant tonight because surveillance rarely presents itself to us as surveillance. It presents itself as safety in person of interest. A massive surveillance system is created for exactly that reason. Its creator explained, I designed the machine to detect acts of terror, but it sees everything. That distinction matters. In subsequent films that we were all familiar with George Orwell films, The Truman Show, we're all reminded of what a surveillance state means and how we're being watched. I know I've emailed everyone at least twice on this, so I'm not going to repeat myself, but a network seeing the same plate again and again begins telling a story about every person. And we've already heard a couple stories tonight. It tells a story of where someone goes when they go there, how often they return, and eventually patterns emerge again. The Truman Show makes a different but equally important observation. We accept the reality of the world with which we're presented. We don't have to do that, and we don't have to be a part of enabling or being the soft entrance to a Bruce Willis movie. I'm not in that movie. It is that surveillance that can become ordinary for cameras become normal, then more cameras become normal. Longer attention becomes normal. Sharing information with more agencies becomes normal and searching larger, larger databases become normal until all of this is accepted as it is what it is.

[54:06] Why should the government know this in the first place, especially without a warrant? S20:

[55:10] Thank you.

[55:21] Hi, my name is Amelia. I go to Sturgis and I'm also in the Barnstable Youth Commission. But I'm not speaking for them when I say this. Um, my friends in high school and I have spoken at length about flock, and I'd venture to say that they aren't the most politically aware people in town, but it doesn't take an expert to know that flock cameras, the principles they are built for and their networks are nefarious. A few objective sentences about what these cameras do and have done is enough to put kids my age off. We know better, and I hope you do too. In this age of surveillance, where companies, where there are companies everywhere who have information on all of us that we don't know and can't control, you all finally have the ability to do something about one of these instances, and that is what me and my peers are asking for. Thank you.

[56:21] Anyone else in the room would like to be heard. Seeing no one. You only get one.

[56:31] Do we have someone online?

[56:32] Yes, we have two people. The first is Tom Kirk. Tom, you may unmute. You have three minutes.

[56:40] Good evening. Councilors.

[56:43] I assume you can hear me? S2:

[56:44] I wanted to start off by giving some kudos to the town for instituting some of the 25 mile per hour speed limits, uh, in varying roads. Uh, but at the same. And also, by the way, the leaf blower new ordinance is great, but it needs to go further, but to the road Mileage limits, especially on a place like Craigville Beach Road. You drive one drives through Centerville Village and going south toward the beaches and gets to that light, and then it becomes South Main Street and it becomes Craigville Beach Road. Immediately it goes up to 30 miles an hour. It makes no sense. If anything, it should be 20 miles an hour. People go through there at 40 or 50. And, you know, periodically there are Barnstable Town police people there, but they can't always be around. And guys ignore the street crosswalks. People will be waiting to walk across with children and people just blow by and just ignore that. So please, let's slow that down. Uh, I also want to put out some kudos to Specifically. And I'm sorry, Mr. Presiding Officer, but I think some people need to be told personally, especially people at the Department of Public Works like Dan Santos and Kelly Collopy and Amber Unruh, that they are doing a magnificent job. And I have to say that I feel the town council puts them in a very untenable situation because they have to address all the nuttiness that's going on within the politic of our country at this time. The federal EPA has literally been destroyed by what's going on. It has trickled down to the state DEP and certainly into the town, and it involves the sewer work. We're trying to protect the waters, and yet we are being stymied at every step of the way. Please, counsel. It appears sometimes that you have your Proverbial heads in the sand by not addressing the seriousness of what's going on. Funding has not only been frozen or stopped, but these guys on the federal level are trying to go back in and withdraw funds that have already been designated. So please, let's get this going and together. Anyway, uh, the other thing with Craigville Beach Road, when you come north out of the beach area and get to that light at South Main Street, can we not do something like put in a left hand turn signal there so that people going to osterville can do that. Because what happens is a couple of people will be trying to make that left hand turn on, like the 4th of July, and traffic is literally backed up all the way from there to Cobble Beach nearly a mile taking people 2025 minutes to get from Craigville beaches to that light. And then over this last 4th of July, they couldn't even go across the street because the street had been closed going into Main Street in Centerville. So I really it's just, it's just astounding to me that we can't.

[1:00:18] Get that finish up, please.

[1:00:21] That is the other thing. I know that I only have 30s left and I think it should really be four minutes, but I just want everyone thinking about about. May I continue, please? About. At the beginning of the summer, the town council, after one of their marathon meetings, went into closed session to talk about litigious situations. Indeed. And it's something that I asked about over a year and a half ago. Is this not the Conservation Law Foundation coming to the town and saying this stuff has to be instituted relative to the sewerage projects. Please tell the community what is going on relative to that. We really we.

[1:01:05] Really.

[1:01:06] Need to.

[1:01:06] Finish up. Please.

[1:01:07] You're four and a half. The town manager. No, please do not interrupt me, mister.

[1:01:11] Please finish up.

[1:01:13] If you're going to cut me off, go ahead. And that will show you where everything's at. That's wrong. I will sign off and let you go on. I appreciate your time. I'll talk to you another time. Good night.

[1:01:25] Thank you. I do appreciate your comments, but we have to move on. Mr. Kirk.

[1:01:30] Next we have Deborah. Deborah, you may unmute. You have three minutes.

[1:01:37] Good evening.

[1:01:38] Uh, at the last meeting, I spoke to you about my concerns with loss of privacy. That comes with the use of surveillance technology like flock, and to consider what kind of society we want to live in. One where people are welcomed and not tracked. I express my concern for our rights being violated by what amounts to warrantless search. And I urge you to join the many towns who have ended their contracts. Tonight, I want to address an idea that was expressed at the last meeting that we are already. And I also heard it tonight that we are already being surveilled with our phones and indeed the cameras in that very room. You know, I've had that same conversation with my, uh, my husband who argues that it's too late. They already know everything about us. So I will say to the council what I said to him, and even more importantly to you, because of the power you hold in this chamber, we cannot abdicate our responsibility to push back at this new level of surveillance and intrusion on our privacy and civil rights. We cannot continue to say it's too late, or we already accept it by having phones on us all the time. Police in Massachusetts are very restricted on how they use technology to locate someone by pinging their phones without a warrant. It's very different than a warrantless search of our movements using Alpr, and we can choose how we use our phones, with what level of protections we put in place. We can turn off location, we can use VPN. Now, I'm no techie, so I'm sure that there are ways I am not protecting myself enough on my phone, but the idea that we are already being watched or tracked is not an excuse for allowing more surveillance. Allowing systems that make heat maps of our movements. Allowing AI powered searches that are a solution. Looking for a problem? On August 20th, I urge you to be brave and say no to your flock. Contract. Stow had become the 14th town in the Commonwealth to end its contract just the day before the meeting, and in the two weeks since then, 12 more towns have ended their contracts, with Dartmouth police announcing it two days ago. So if my math is right, that's 26 towns and cities. So I urge you again to join our fellow communities and take this appreciated first step and vote yes on the resolution to end the town's relationship with FLoC. Now, there is one more thing. Tonight I will ask you to be even braver and be a pioneer in the push to end Alpr use in the town. Even by private businesses, private businesses may not feel the same constraints. Constraints to not share data with federal agencies. And they may be able to share data with the local police, even if the police no longer employ FLoC cameras. If you don't say no to that practice. So we must prevent a workaround and find the legal arguments to end the use of all alpr in Barnstable. Thank you.

[1:04:36] Thank you.

[1:04:46] Anyone else online? Mr. Julius.

[1:04:52] Thank you, Mr. President. Your favorite John Julius from Hyannis. You know, I almost I almost felt compelled tonight to come in here because of the gentleman in the black t shirt. I happen to be pro-law enforcement myself. In fact, that's what brought me here. Good news about me living 75 seconds away from town Hall is bad news for you and good news for me. In any event, he spoke very eloquently about that. In fact, I had a friend detective who went down in the towers. I wear his hat in his memory, and that's why I'm here. That's why I felt compelled to do this. The flock, it's sure there's two sides of it. Yeah. Flock. Why is everybody so afraid of flock in the first place? The man did mention this is my cell phone. I don't care who knows where I am or where I'm going. If I'm going out tonight and I don't do anything wrong, who cares? But this is true. They can track all of us. And I'll tell you what, for the for the people on the other side of the fence, if their grandfather, God forbid, has dementia or Alzheimer's, they need to find them. Or somebody's daughter, like the gentleman earlier mentioned, the 17 year old daughter. How about somebody, five year old grandson who might be kidnaped? I'll tell you what. When you lay your heads on the pillow tonight, all the people who spoke against this, you better think twice. I'm hoping that you'll think twice. I'm not sure that will happen, but that's why I'm here. Those are my sentiments. I don't understand what the big deal here is. You know what I really wish? I wish we could have this this much dialog, if you will, on me. driving down, coming here and seeing Main Street South. We coming. Coming. Two ways. Coming soon. We didn't have a whole lot of discussion or vote on that one. And I'll tell you what. When a head on crash happens and somebody dies and it's it's going to be imminent, I don't I have no clue who came up with this idiotic, stupid idea to make these two way roads, Main Street and South Street. Where did it come from? And then I'm told, and I'd have to verify this. I'm told there was. How much was spent in a study. Somebody told me 2 million. That's just might be hearsay. But if we have $2 million to waste, when that could have gone into schools or our police department. That's atrocious. That's disgusting, that's disgraceful. We need to put this council to work to focus on more important things than flock. I'm sorry, but to me, flock is not that big of a deal. If I go out tonight or any of you and you don't do anything wrong. Don't worry about it. But remember, as the gentleman eloquently pointed out, they know where you are. Trust me. Thank you.

[1:07:54] Thank you.

[1:08:01] Okay. Anyone else? At this point I will close. Public comment. Council response to public comment. Anyone on my left? Councilor Keane.

[1:08:11] Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I really do want to thank everybody who has shown up here tonight to express their concern about the flock cameras, and I share those concerns.

[1:08:26] It is true, as a number of people have mentioned, that we have devices on us. You can have air tags, you can have your phones, uh, you have your E-ZPass, all of which can track you. And that actually has been true in many respects all along, and not just most recently. We have the technology that can track us.

[1:08:57] But can is not the same as should.

[1:09:03] We are celebrating this year the 250th founding of this nation, but we are not actually celebrating the 250th founding of our government. That didn't happen until more than a decade later, and part of creating the Constitution was the Fourth Amendment. And the Fourth Amendment tried to put up those guardrails on surveillance. And what it did is it said that it's not just enough for one police officer say to say, you know, I really think there's a bad person in there in that house and I'm just going to go in. Nor did the Fourth Amendment say, well, if two police officers say it, then it's okay. Or even 3 or 5. The Fourth Amendment said that you need to go to a neutral party, a judge, and get permission based upon your suspicions as a law enforcement officer. That was a good method then, and it's a good method now. And what we fail to have in place with warrantless searches are those guardrails. And that's why I am absolutely going to be supporting the legislation, the resolution that's before the Council tonight. But it also seems to me to be a reasonable and long standing policy. We need to have warrants on anything like this, and we do them on the phones. By the way, you don't can't just randomly chase after someone on a phone. You need to have the guardrails are in place. Those same guardrails need to be here. Thank you all.

[1:11:05] Anyone else on my left?

[1:11:07] On my right.

[1:11:11] Councilor? S4:

[1:13:44] Councilor Parker.

[1:13:47] Thank you, Mr. President.

[1:13:48] Um, just a couple of quick things. Number one, um, it is my understanding and please correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. President, but the work with regard to the area between, uh, Phinney's Lane and Old Stage Road and so-called Washburn Road these days, apparently, um, that was done just for the summer season, if I am correct on that. The DPW said that they would do that just for the summer season. And with the sewer construction work resuming, I believe on the 8th of September, there's a possibility that the road will be opened up again. They just did that for the summer to allow people to be able to drive on it. It was never meant to be a permanent substance or a permanent surface. And secondly, with regard to the flock cameras, someone said it at our last council meeting. I do not remember her name, but the reason why I will be voting us to ban flock cameras in the town of Barnstable. Someone said it, and I think that's really why. Um, she said, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Thank you.

[1:15:04] Further comment?

[1:15:07] Any further comment, councilor Deleuze?

[1:15:11] Um, I'm going to speak on the sidewalks. I grew up here when we were kids. We used to walk down Mitchell's way, then down pitches. Way to get to Hathaways Pond.

[1:15:24] Still no sidewalks there.

[1:15:28] Mitchell's way. They come by. My sister's dog got killed on Mitchell's way. Thank God it was the dog and not her. They come whipping around that corner and they took the dog out and she got pushed over some. And she obviously cried like a dog, you know? It's just terrible. And they stole my mother's mailbox has been taken out five times. We moved it walking on, um, this new building travesty of a building that they put on the corner of Stevens and North Street. You have to come out of the street, past the sidewalk to look, to be able to take a left hand turn, right hand turn. No sidewalks all the way up from there to the melody tent. No sidewalks. It's crazy. They talk about downtown beautification, and then they're going to spend two tons of money on making Main Street and South Street two way make a safe place for the residents to walk. Keep people safe. Don't broke. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. There's nothing wrong with this main Street and South Street when the other things were a priority to save, people's lives should be done first. My feeling.

[1:16:54] Thank you.

[1:16:57] Any further comment, councilor?

[1:17:01] Thank you. President. I just want to thank everybody for coming out. Especially. I want to thank the young people for coming out. Willow, a couple other people.

[1:17:13] Willow, I like your t shirt. Um, that being said, the I really that excites me. Um, big supporter of the Youth Commission. My three of my sons served on that commission as well. So, um, again, very touched by that, very touched by your story in regards to what happened to you. And thank you for sharing that as well. Story changes things and changes people's minds. All. The point I was trying to make last time was that we should have a discussion. That's all. We should hear all sides of that and dig into information and not necessarily make a rush to a decision per se, and that the other side shouldn't be heard. I think it's even dangerous sometimes. You know, when I get the enthusiasm to clap because maybe somebody else has a perspective in there and they don't feel comfortable sharing it because they're not the majority in the room. And that goes for any issue. So I think we should be careful in regards to that moving forward. But I do appreciate people's enthusiasm and being here at this meeting. That being said, um, I understand the civil liberties. I've had a lot of conversations in regards to this, and I'm thinking about where we've come, and I think Murphy brought it up great. Here we are 25 years from September 11th. September 11th changed everything. And Homeland Security came into place, and we actually let down some of our civil liberties so that we could be, um, in the, in, in the direction of being a safer place. And maybe the pendulum swung too far, maybe now with a fear is because we're being watched, right? Because the opportunity to have that, do we yet want another one out there that maybe is not controllable and that there are some people? I do not think the majority of people using flawed cameras and nefarious. Does it give an opportunity? Sure. You know, all any of it? Any of it can. But this is one we can control as a council. So, and sometimes you just have to vote when we vote on something with 55% in favor of it. And we understand the other side and it makes it difficult. So I would tonight I am going to vote to, um, cease the use of flawed cameras until a better use can be done. Please don't clap, don't clap, don't clap. It was a very difficult decision to make, and I don't want it to seem that the people who would be for the flock cameras that somehow were against them because they have their own stories too. And I think it's important to listen to them as well. Um, because maybe they are the person that has a different story that their life was saved by that, or they had a parent, you know, different things like that. So I think it's just important to create a safe place to have these conversations. And as young people, especially, um, to listen to both sides of the story, um, and really come to the best solutions because again, most of the time we're not 100% for anything. We're just, we're just doing the best we can with the information in front of us. So again, I thank you. And, um, you know, I'm old enough to have read 1984 before 1984 and the dangers of that. And I think back then, you know, would we you know, what I allow? Would I be carrying something like this? You know, I'm constantly telling my kids, shut off your phone, shut off your phone, get get away, get off of that, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Right. And we all probably guilty of it at times. So let's shut off our phones once in a while, right? And let's we also lived in a time back then before 1984, where maybe we didn't need surveillance because we were just good neighbors watching out for our neighbors. And we were looking after that elderly neighbor and different people like that. So let's get back to that too. So with that, I appreciate everybody being here. Thank you for you for allowing me to respond.

[1:20:57] Thank you.

[1:21:00] We all set. Okay. We will move on to the town manager communications. Excuse me. The town manager report has been provided to all councilors. It is also available on the town website. By going to the town manager's page and clicking on town manage communications to the Town Council. Did any town Council have a question or regarding his report for the Town Manager? Seeing no one. Okay.

[1:21:33] Let me keep going at this time. No.

[1:21:40] Okay.

[1:21:54] Okay. Do I have a motion to accept the minutes of the August 20th?

[1:22:00] So moved.

[1:22:01] Second, are there any additions or corrections to be made?

[1:22:07] Seeing none, it's been moved.

[1:22:10] Did I hear a second? S29:

[1:22:10] Moved and seconded. All. Uh. And, uh.

[1:22:17] Can we have a we have a vote. We do not need a roll call vote because we have no one, uh, online. So all in favor of the accepting the motions as printed? Aye, aye. All opposed? Seeing no one. The motion does pass.

[1:22:36] We'll move on to communications. Elected boards, committee staff commission reports, correspondence and announcements. Uh, councilor Vice President Clark, would you please introduce our.

[1:22:49] Thank you, speaker. Thank you very much, president. Today we have speaking from one of our committees is Rachel Youngling, the chair of the Mid Cape Cultural Council. Thank you. Rachel.

[1:23:02] Good evening. Thank you, Councilor Clark, and thank you, councilors. Uh, my name is Rachel Youngling. I am the Yarmouth representative or one of the Yarmouth representatives to the Mid Cape Cultural Council. I'm just put a brief little PowerPoint together. I've already caught some typos that I didn't catch at 5 a.m. this morning, so my apologies. Um, we'll go to the next page. What is the Mid Cape Cultural Council? We are the local granting body of the Massachusetts Cultural Council. There are 329 in the Commonwealth. We have the privilege of being one of 11 that are a combined council. So we are the towns of Barnstable and Yarmouth, and because of that we get more money to give. So this is some good news tonight. Uh, we serve three year terms with a total of a six year term. And we're appointed by either the town council in the town of Barnstable or the Yarmouth Select Board.

[1:24:00] Uh, we, uh, as a piece of the Massachusetts Cultural Council, they receive their funding from the Commonwealth as well as the National Endowment for the arts through the local Cultural Council program. This year, 5.85 million will be allocated in local cultural council grants. So these are decisions being made at a grassroots level based on what our local funding priorities are. Local funding priorities are determined by our community, not by us. We do a survey biannually, and that information then feeds what we choose to fund when we receive all of the grant applications. It says for fiscal year 23, but it is for fiscal year 27, we have been allocated $23,400 to locate, to allocate to local individuals and applicants. Our grant application cycle just opened on the first, and it will be open through October 15th. We will be advertising through our local Facebook page, and also Melissa Chartrand will have the information. We'll be doing some grant workshops for individuals who are looking for funding and might need to better understand what our local priorities are and how that funding will come forth. Uh, after our application deadline closes on the 15th, we review our applications over a two month cycle of review. Last year, we received 62 applications requesting greater than $80,000 in funding. So there is a great local interest in need for these funds. And we deliberate very thoughtfully. Anybody is welcome to come to any of these deliberations. They are open meetings, and then we notify all our applicants in December or January, depending on if we've had any individuals request a reconsideration of our decision.

[1:25:57] And, uh, this little slide tells you that we now give our funds in a direct granting format. We have two options. Uh, historically, it was a reimbursement format where individuals needed to complete their program and then submit all of the substantiating documentation in order to receive funding. If you're a very small nonprofit or perhaps an individual artist, this can really be a daunting pursuit for you to have to lay out $1,500 to make a program happen at perhaps the Hyannis Library, and then wait for those funds to come back to you. So we have, uh, altered our format to direct granting. We give the funds, right, in January, and then they file a final report with us in December so that they are able to access the monies upfront to provide their programs.

[1:26:50] And who can apply. One of the really unique things about local cultural councils is individuals are able to apply for grants. Uh, and our grants go specifically to activities in the arts, humanities and sciences. So it's a really broad brush of what people can apply for. You want to get a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. You need to be a 501 C three. But if you want to do something on a local grassroots level, provide a program that you're really passionate about. You can apply to us and you do not need to be a nonprofit. We are also able to give grants to nonprofit organizations, unincorporated associations, schools, libraries, and other organizations.

[1:27:33] And for our guidelines and priorities, I alluded to this a little bit earlier. We use our our community survey to inform who we will give our grant funds to. Uh, the majority interest that has come back over. I'm now in my 10th year serving on the council. You have to take a break, but I've I'm in my 10th year. Uh, individuals in our community truly want to see programs that are supporting families and children and that are very low or no cost to attend, and we place a big priority on that. If an organization comes to us seeking $2,000 and they're going to charge $35 as a as a price of admission, that really doesn't appeal to us as an organization. We want access to as broad a base as we possibly can provide. So we we feel we fulfill these community needs as best we can and through our vetting process.

[1:28:34] This is just a little a listing of some of our grants we've given in the past year.

[1:28:48] And we gave out 22,717 S30:

[1:30:23] Thank you.

[1:30:25] You're welcome.

[1:30:26] Any questions? Comments?

[1:30:31] Seeing none. Thank you.

[1:30:32] Thank you very much. I have one final request of you. We need more members. Uh, we we have a really great honor to give away free money and anybody who might be interested in taking part in that process. If you have a neighbor who's interested in the arts or just is an interesting individual, it's always better when we have more individuals with more diverse backgrounds at the table and to represent different ideologies. So thank you.

[1:31:00] I believe we have two openings on the cultural Council.

[1:31:03] We have more than two. So we are we are able to have 22 members between the towns of Yarmouth and Barnstable. There is not a specific delineation as to how many can come from either town. Currently, we have seven members on the council, so we have, uh, ample opportunity for individuals if they would like to come and join us.

[1:31:24] Thank you very much, Rachel. Um, can you please explain when does, when and where your committee meets?

[1:31:29] We meet on the second Monday of the month. We've historically been meeting on the third floor of the planning and development in their conference room. But with the elevator being under construction, we're going to we've changed our meetings to a 6 p.m. meeting time. It'll be over Zoom, so it's going to be much more accessible for the next three months. Uh, and then we are looking for a local, um, in person location for our November and December meetings, because that's our deliberation and we really find that we're far more productive group when we're able to engage in a free and open conversation that Zoom doesn't always afford us.

[1:32:10] Thank you. Thank you. If anyone is interested in applying, there are applications on the Town council website. The regular committee application. And, uh, those would be then vetted through, uh, the appointments committee of the town Council. Thank you.

[1:32:28] Okay. Moving on. Uh, Mr. ls is Mr.

[1:32:35] Milne doing the presentation? S4:

[1:32:37] Can we take a break? Certainly. Why don't we take, uh, eight minutes? It's 732. We come back at 740.

[1:41:18] How's that? S31:

[1:41:26] Do we have nine?

[1:41:31] Okay, we do have a quorum on the dais. At this point, I would like to recognize Mark Milne to.

[1:41:40] Give us a presentation on funding the CW MP. Mr. Milne.

[1:41:47] Thank you, president, and good evening. Town councilors. Mark Milne, Director of finance, town of Barnstable. So I just want to start at the very beginning that both these tools I'm going to present to you tonight, offer a way to provide a sustainable funding source for at least the next five years and provide for broader municipal stability as additional benefits include protecting our financial reserves and mitigating future operating budget reductions, thereby preserving services in the future for the town of Barnstable.

[1:42:23] So starting with that. That being said, what have we done to date with this program? Under the Comprehensive Wastewater Management program we have appropriated $391 million to date. Think about that for a minute. That's a staggering number, 300, almost $400 million. This is a full scale operational machine. It requires a dedicated team to implement, and it demands a highly reliable, dedicated fuel source in order to keep working at its peak when all the loans are issued for the projects that have already been authorized to date. The budget will grow to $13.5 million on an annual basis. That's an astonishing figure when you think about what our entire DPW general fund operating budget is, it almost rivals that. Now, this is a mandated program in order for the town to stay in compliance with regulations, and it's unavoidable. But it's not just a sewer program. You think about it. It is a environmental protection program, and in turn, it's an economic preservation program for the town of Barnstable. Many people come to our community on an annual basis to enjoy our water resources, which this program will protect. That, in turn, creates businesses, jobs, and protects our local tourism industry and provides resources for the town of Barnstable to implement this program. Because those visitors pay significant taxes in the form of taxes and meals taxes to help fund this program. And it's also a property value protection program in the long run, because we don't want to lose our water quality and our resources, because ultimately, if we do, our property values will ultimately suffer. So this program takes a team effort of about just over 20 employees, including project managers, designers, Engineers, construction inspectors, a communication team, um, to run this on an annual basis. That's how big it is.

[1:44:37] So how have we paid for $400 million in construction costs to date? Well, we've been working on this for many years with the council's help, um, past council's current council. Um, we've made a lot of put a lot of steps in place to secure funding for this program. We've created a dedicated local taxes, including all tax revenue from vacation rentals, all tax revenue from from local meals taxes. Um, a third of the taxes that we collect on traditional lodging, uh, almost a $6 million annual contribution from the general fund. And we have sewer assessments, which were capped initially at $10,000. But through recent action made by this council, that is going to be adjusted for inflation in the future, and we plan on dedicating half of the revenue generated from user charges through these new connections towards financing this program. In addition, legislation has been created to create a Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund, which provides us to date. It has provided us and we expect it will continue to provide us up to 25% principle subsidies on project costs. And this council has adopted a flow neutral ordinance, unlocking 0% financing through the State Revolving Loan fund to finance all these major construction projects. So that goes all goes into the funding pool. And to date, we will be able to manage the $400 million that we have appropriated.

[1:46:15] So what's our immediate mandate here? We're looking at the next four years. We just passed the FY 27 projects. Now we're looking at the next four years in that five year capital plan, and it includes these projects all the way from a $15 million project for sewer expansion, scaling all the way up to a $55 million sewer expansion project in the Prince Cove area. So how are we going to pay for all of this construction cost? So we will continue to work or finance through this construction. Our plan is to finance this construction through the State Revolving loan fund. Now that we've unlocked that 0% financing, it's even better for us. But at its peak, when we issue all these loans for that $251 million of construction costs, we estimate the annual loan payments are going to peak at about $8.77 million a year, but we'll also be eligible for over $2 million in subsidies on an annual basis from the Cape and Islands Water Protection Fund, bringing those loan payments down to about 6.66 million a year. So that's our target. We're looking to have a revenue source to fund this next round of investment. So we can either we have two tools available to us. We can do it through what's known as a debt exclusion or a water infrastructure investment funds. Now these tools were created by the state recognizing that municipalities face massive infrastructure projects like this. They give them tools, additional tools to help fund those, but they require the involvement of our local community in that decision making process. And that's why they have to go on a ballot. So here's the two tools a debt exclusion. What's unique about a debt exclusion is it's targeted and it expires. The additional taxing authority is used specifically to pay back loans for the authorized projects. It's added to the tax levy in the year the loan begins to be repaid. And then once those loans are paid, it completely expires. Now the projects are approved. Debt exclusion vote does not necessarily mean the tax levy will increase. Still have to come back to the town council and receive an appropriation to to to go forward with that project. So that's an important distinction with the debt. Exclusion is the vote doesn't itself raise the tax levy. We still got to come back and receive an appropriation order from the town Council to implement those nine projects that I listed on the previous slide. A water infrastructure investment fund is more broad and permanent. It's a dedicated percentage surcharge that is assessed on real estate real estate tax bills, just like the Community Preservation Act. And it has a great amount of flexibility because you can use it for wastewater, drinking water and stormwater improvements. You can also use the funding source for improving existing assets in those three categories, as well as maintaining them. So it's a great deal of flexibility with a whiff. However, unlike the debt exclusion, which scales up as loans are issued over a period of time, the financial impact of the tax bill for taxpayer is immediate. When the. If a whiff is approved and it begins the year that the vote approves it to begin. So our strategic goal here is to determine what is the most sustainable path for taxpayers, while securing funding for our comprehensive wastewater management plan and restoring some operating budget capacity, because both these tools would do that.

[1:50:14] So here's the mechanics and rules for both. Debt exclusion again applies to all taxpayers, and it's added to the general tax levy, where a whiff applies only to real estate tax bills. So personal property tax bill payers, like our large utilities in town, mainly Eversource and Vineyard Wind, would not contribute towards a whiff with a debt exclusion. The loan payments get added to the tax levy with a whiff. It's a 3% surcharge on the real estate tax bills with a debt exclusion that again, that financial impact or that impact to the tax levy and subsequently tax bills is a gradual impact because the loans get issued over multiple year time, period of time as the projects go forward in the construction is is completed, where again immediately increases the tax bills in the year that it's authorized. So the ballot constraints are that while both require a town council vote and a majority electorate approval, um, a solution could be on a local, state or special election ballot where a whiff can only be on a local or state election ballot. You can't schedule a special election to adopt a whiff, making the fiscal year 29 being the first year we could conceivably implement a whiff.

[1:51:59] Um, and finally, the personal property tax impact for debt exclusion, our personal property tax payers, predominantly those large utilities again would pay about $165,000, S32:

[1:54:22] So a little bit more about the with tears. Now, you could have up to 300 different options for a gift here, because you can implement anywhere from a 0.1% with up to a 3% with anything in between. But for this purpose, I'm illustrating what a 1%, 2%, 3% whiff would look like. Each 1% generates about $1.5 million in revenue, and at a 1% surcharge rate, it would allow us to redirect about $1 million of the current property tax support back to the operating budget, at a 2% surcharge. That would allow us to direct about 2 million back and a 3% surcharge, about 3 million back. Also of note this with a whiff the baseline amounts. They increase organically along as the tax levy grows because it's based on the real estate tax amount. So our tax levy increases every year two and a half to 3.5%, depending upon the amount of new growth we generate. And so a whiff surcharge will grow organically.

[1:55:31] So here's the shape of of a whiff escalation as opposed to the debt exclusion, which looks more like a trapezoid and expires. A whiff just continuously goes up as the tax levy goes up. Um, point one here, the immediate impact, if it's voted in to begin in FY 29, the 3% with a three at a 3% tier, it hits the qualifying, uh, property owners who qualify for the residential exemption with an impact of about $18.27 per quarter and a non qualifying property owner, about $32.28 per quarter. That's at the 3% level. You can cut that in thirds, depending upon whether it's a 2% or a 1%. So the second point is that, again, that growth compounds annually. And so the shape of the line here goes up exponentially as the growth in the tax levy goes up. And by fiscal year 2067, which is, you know, comparable to the debt exclusion, debt exclusion is gone by that time. But here with a whiff, we we still have the additional taxing authority to implement the surcharge. And at that point in time, it reaches a quarterly impact for a median residential property owner to about $67.

[1:56:51] 52, S32:

[1:57:01] So when you overlay those two trajectories on top of each other here, there's a, um, there's a, there's a crossover point where the initial, the whiff at a 3%, for example, this shows a 3% with, for example, the initial amount of the whiff is less than the maximum debt exclusion impact of $28.20 $2.69. It starts off at less, but by fiscal year 36, it becomes more and it goes up from there. Um, the crossover points for a 2% whiff and a 1% whiff 24 is 20 for the fiscal year 2047 in fiscal year 2060, respectively.

[1:57:51] So there is a little bit of an equity divide between all these options, right. Because um, we have a residential exemption in town. And so this chart illustrates this graph. This page illustrates the the difference that what that equity divide is. So and this is all based on the median residential property value which is currently $633,000. Yes. Yeah. And so at the peak of the debt exclusion, the quarterly tax bill impact is $22.59 for qualifying residential property owner. And it's $40.10 for non qualifying property owner with a 1% surcharge and a whiff. It's about the same that equity divide between the two. When you get to a 2% three 2% whiff and a 3% whiff, that divide between property owners qualifying for residential exemption and not qualifying for residential exemption gets grows a little larger. And again, because that whiff grows organically. There's a higher burden placed on real estate owners at the 2% and 3% levels compared to the debt exclusion model over a period of time.

[1:59:10] I've been asked about some strategic offsets that we could put in place, um, to provide some taxpayer relief, um, to offset either one of these tools. And there's a couple that come to mind. One of them being, and this was mentioned, I think at the last discussion we had is the community preservation surtax. We currently have a 3% community preservation surtax. That program has been around for, I think nearly 30 years now. And we could, if you wanted to go to the voters and ask them to reduce the percentage surtax for the CPA, you could correspondingly do that with an increase or the creation of a whiff. Um, you can also we still have another 5% under the residential exemption program that you could access. Every 1% increase, additional increase in that residential exemption program would save the median residential property owner about $12.50 on a quarterly basis, but it would cost a non-qualifying property owner about $5.25 more on a quarterly basis. And again, that's at that median residential value of $633,000. So a couple of different paths that could be chosen to provide some offset if that was necessary.

[2:00:36] So beyond the tax bill, some broader municipal benefits, I mentioned these at the beginning. Both of these funding paths will provide critical stability beyond what's immediately needed for this $251 million in projects. But both the debt exclusion and a 3% whiff would provide some operating budget relief because it would either one of those would allow us to redirect $3 million back annually to the operating budget. That, in turn, provides some reserve protection and reduces our reliance on those municipal reserves, which we're putting in plan in place to reduce that now. And this is part of it. And then that in turn provides some service preservation, because reductions to future operating budgets would be less. And it provides some certainty for funding this program for at least the next five years, if not more.

[2:01:35] So finally, we're at a crossroads here. We've worked hard to date with your assistance in creating that current pool of funding resources to get us through the first $400 million investment, plus the annual $3.5 million operating budget for all the personnel and other operating costs to to implement this program. But we're at a crossroads now for the how are we going to make this next investment? And these are a couple of different paths that we could choose to go forward with if you decide you wanted to. And again, that the project specific path is the debt exclusion, which is a finite commitment tied strictly to approved construction projects. Again, approved construction projects. We have to come back to the council every year with an appropriation request. Otherwise it doesn't impact the tax levy that peaks in FY 36 and eventually vanishes, but provides a slower runway and immediate operating budget relief. Where the whiff is a perpetual infrastructure path, you want to create a funding source that provides immediate relief and compounding source that provides some immediate or some continuous funding as well. Um, the whiff is a tool for that, and it's permanently more expensive than a debt exclusion to real estate owners. But again, just like the debt exclusion, it provides immediate relief to the general fund operating budget. Um, both, both tools could be explored as well or attempted to implement. But the mandate is clear. We've got $251 million of more investment that needs to be made in the next four years, and we need to choose our path going forward. And with that, I'll stop sharing my screen and be happy to answer any questions.

[2:03:25] Thank you. Wow.

[2:03:29] A lot of numbers there, Mark. I thank you for that. Very informative. And, uh, a great differentiation between the, the whiff and the debt override. Any comment? We'll start on my right. Councilor Burdick. Thank you. Now, Mark, I may have misunderstood, but I was. I'm curious. So you said that the earliest we'd be able to implement the whiff would be fiscal year 29. Because of the election cycle, it would not be able to appear on a 20 2027 town election.

[2:04:02] Yeah. The 2027 town election is in November of 2027, which is fiscal year 28. Yeah. And so we wouldn't be able to implement it till the next July 1st. We can't go back retroactively to July 1st, 2027.

[2:04:17] Right. That's what I thought. I just wasn't sure if you if there was something about the elections. And then secondarily, the, you know, I know in previous discussions we have, um, the, the number has changed a little bit in terms of the debt exclusion that I was, I, I remember we had discussed at different times, were we going to bundle the, the existing 300 million or so in debt into this debt exclusion, but we're just going to go for the next phase. So we did we discuss that? I don't remember if we had an open discussion on that at the council.

[2:04:50] It was mentioned. I don't it was mentioned. I don't believe there was a discussion.

[2:04:57] So does anybody have any thoughts on that? Do you Mark have any thought on that. Should what was the the the rationale behind not bundling the existing 300 million into the exclusion?

[2:05:12] So, um, first of all, the, the next round of projects here is now it's less than the 300 million that we had previously presented because we took some large projects out. Um, we took Mill pond dredging out, we took effluent mitigation or effluent alternatives out because those projects are not at the point yet where they're just conceptual at this time frame. And so more work needs to be done to analyze, um, whether we can go forward with those projects and what the cost is going to be. So we took those out. And so that brought the number down to 251 million because more work needs to be done on those. Um, we did not throw in any other projects, school building projects or any other municipal infrastructure projects into this because we're strictly focusing on a funding mechanism right now for the comprehensive wastewater management plan.

[2:06:09] Right. That I understand that, but do you see what I mean? We had I thought we had had discussions about we could also have a debt exclusion regarding our existing debt, a clawback meaning the 300.

[2:06:22] Do you see what I'm saying? S32:

[2:07:11] Right. So the, the difference that I'm noticing is because of those projects that you deemed were not ripe enough to put on to the, this exclusion, not because we had not originally discussed bundling the two debts, meaning the previous debt and the upcoming debt together. That's all. That's what I had for the moment. Thank you.

[2:07:30] I also excuse me, I also think it was a function of raising the amount that we're looking to fund to a point where we're endangering the passage of the of the override also.

[2:07:47] So it was the the idea that it may be easier to pass a lower dollar amount. Yeah.

[2:07:57] So.

[2:08:00] Yeah. The question I have is about the projects. And I'm disturbed to hear about the, the dredging project being removed. Um, I was just over the DPW yesterday and one of the things I really liked hearing was that not only are we doing the sewering, but we're doing some of this restoration work, if you will, over in Marstons Mills and the cranberry bogs and the dredging, I look back at a presentation from. Sorry about this. I have a horrible sore throat cough thing, but, um, I look back at a presentation from 2018 2019, and there was a, you know, a gorgeous drawing of this. It was presented to the town council with all the muck in this pond, and it disturbs me that we're cutting that out. Um, now you've just got these projects up through Prince Cove. So and this takes us through 2067 or so. What about the projects after Prince Cove? Are we doing a debt exclusion for those? Mark, I, I need to understand a broader picture. This is too much of a snapshot for me. What happens to the next projects? What phase is the Prince Cove one and aren't we a three phase 30 year project? Um, which is why I kind of tend towards the with a little bit to be a little bit more flexible and responsive when we're talking such a long term effort.

[2:09:36] But if you can talk to me how these particular projects, why we did a cut off maybe maybe president was just saying because it's funny, but there's got to be something else coming, right? S32:

[2:11:03] Yeah, that thank you for that. That that helps to clarify and kind of, again, put put me towards the whiff. And every resident in the town of Barnstable can look on their tax bill and know exactly what they're going to pay, because the whiff and the CPA are identical. We're at a 3% CPA, so you'd be paying exactly that amount. And I love your diagram mark. With the residential exemption, we do have that 5%, you know, and you gave the numbers there, which would get people up kind of to an even point. A lot of people with what they currently pay on the CPA if you do the numbers. So, um, you know, there's just more and more to come. So I just think of that, like you said, there's so much to this. I think the wife and I, and I know, um, the SRF money you can't use for design the with money you can. So that gives us some flexibility in design because design is, is, is important and very expensive. So I just know because there is stuff to come. There's a lot more there. And so your presentation is outstanding as always, but it's a snapshot. And I think when we're dealing like you said, unknowns technologies. And again, you scared me with, you know, removing the dredging project because my sense was that's just as darn important to do some of that natural attenuation as it is to do, you know, the physical aspect of the gravity sewer? So I'm really leaning towards the whiff and giving us a long term effort that we work with our residents and we can be flexible on moving the percentages. But I think 3% is a comfortable percent with the residential exemption. And again, the market. Amazing. Absolutely amazing presentation. Thank you.

[2:12:47] Thank you. Mr..

[2:12:49] President. President, if I may just respond to, uh, the dredging project and I see town manager walking up to the podium. Maybe that's why he wanted to come up, but, um, I just wanted to mention that, you know, that that project's not gone. Um, we're, we're evaluating that project and with everything that's happening north of that project, yes. This is a great project that continues that effort up in the cranberry bogs. And I'm confident that we could work that project in when we have a better sense as to what it is and what it's going to cost. And we would need to go and raise additional funding for that. I think we would have the resources to do that project.

[2:13:32] Thank you.

[2:13:33] Thank you.

[2:13:35] Good evening, Mark Ellis. I think Mark addressed it well that that project hasn't been tabled or removed. I think that we're still in the design permitting phase of that. And there are many unknowns, but it's a priority for us. Um, you might say, well, why wouldn't we look at natural attenuation to try to reduce nutrient loads wherever we can? We are, but it's not a, um, standard sort of approach. Um, that's never stopped us in the past, but certainly, um, this is an opportunity to continue to illustrate it. Uh, we also need to be clear on, I'm not clear on whether state revolving funds can be used for this project. Um, I also think that it offers us a wonderful opportunity to pursue grants for a project. This is a unique project. Um, we I just sent a letter to Secretary Tepper thanking her for upgrading of this in the bogs, because we received another couple of million dollars, um, from the state as we proceed with using natural systems to clean out nitrogen. So, um, this is still a front burner project. It's just going to be looked at a little bit differently. And there's a lot of unknowns. Every project you see before you are basically pumps and pipes. And we can quantify that and we know exactly the funding source and we can, you know, we can certainly project the cost. Well, um, you know, not to belabor, I'll stop after this, but just on a dredge project. Well, where are we going to take the material? Are we going to, to take it to the landfill and create, get a beneficial use determination and ultimately be able to use it as a topsoil. Or do we have to take it to some other location to dispose of it? That's what our estimates based on the worst case scenario. But if we can create, you know, loam out of this, um, that would be wonderful. That'll bring down the cost. That'll bring down the trucking distance, all unknowns. So how do we go to the public and ask them for whatever the dollar amount is when we don't actually know the methods yet that we're going to utilize. That's the thought behind this. We will advance this. This is a priority for us. Thank you.

[2:16:08] Thank you Mark. That makes me feel much better. That's a vitally important projects. Thank you.

[2:16:14] Okay. Anyone else on my right.

[2:16:17] Vice president thank you very much, president, and thank you very much. Um, Director Milne, uh, you are a valuable resource in our town with your forward thinking to address the financial forecasts of the cost of our comprehensive wastewater management plan. Um, I was fortunate to attend the same meeting that Councilor Lucky did. And, um, uh, perhaps it might be worth considering re, um, revisiting the assessments made to those, um, for those on the, along the sewer to be to who are benefited by the hookups. We um, the council in the past voted on a, an assessment that was significantly less than what was recommended by, by your office and perhaps, um, it could be revisited in, in the suite of these considerations and the options going forward.

[2:17:26] Thank you.

[2:17:31] Anyone on my left? S33:

[2:17:44] Okay. We will move on with the consent of the council. I would like to move 2027 033 up. And, Councilor Burdick. This is your article. If you could introduce it, please.

[2:18:02] Sure. I'd be happy to. I just have to get to the page.

[2:18:06] 3332.

[2:18:08] Sir.

[2:18:08] 32. Thanks. Okay. 30.

[2:18:11] 31.

[2:18:11] 32. Right. Ready? Here we go. So this is an item of new business and may be acted upon by majority vote item 2027-032 resolved to terminate the town's relationship with FLoC Group, Inc. and discontinue use of FLoC license plate readers as written.

[2:18:27] Second.

[2:18:29] Okay, the motion has been made and seconded. Uh, I understand we have a presentation or I think Charlie, chief Charlie is going to have a few words. And. Counselor Burdick, I didn't know if you had anything.

[2:18:42] Uh, no, I think I'll just. We can hear the presentation. I think that, uh, we can start out that way. Okay.

[2:18:50] I will recognize Chief Charles. Lieutenant green.

[2:18:53] Good evening. Good evening, president. Council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Um, before I start, I just want to take a minute. Um, I know a lot of communities have canceled their contracts with FLoC, and a lot of that has been in response to misuse of the cameras by officers. And I just want to reassure all of you that that has not happened in the town of Barnstable. We don't we don't have anyone who has misused the technology. Um.

[2:19:28] The other thing is, um, people raise the examples of Cambridge and Littleton with the cameras being re-activated. And I want to clarify a couple of things with regard to that. In Cambridge, they voted to terminate the contract. Previous to the decision to terminate the contract, there were two cameras that were not working, and they had a repair order in. So those two cameras that were turned back on were turned on because there was a pending repair order, not because flock came in and inappropriately reactivated the cameras. The other thing is Littleton also, it was reported that the cameras in Littleton were mysteriously turned back on. I spoke with the police chief in Littleton. Littleton opted to terminate their contract, but they didn't tell FLoC. They just cut the power to the poles. So when FLoC noticed that there was a problem with the cameras because they have a service contract, FLoC, per the terms of their contract, repaired the cameras. Now, due to the fact that there's been so much vandalism, they didn't notify the town that they had repaired them. They just repaired them. So this was not a Big Brother situation where FLoC is swooping in and fixing things or reactivating things without community's consent. So I just think it's important for people to recognize that people have this impression that FLoC is some nefarious Overwatch, and that's not the case. Um, but I want to go through this PowerPoint. Um, the other thing I want to say is that in April, these concerns were raised. We came in here and we addressed the issue from the standpoint of trying to show you how beneficial the technology is. And I think maybe we missed the mark with that. We focus too much on how beneficial it is in that. In the time since then, we've heard concerns, we've addressed the concerns. This is our first opportunity to show you how we've handled those problems and how we've addressed them, and the steps we've taken to lock down our use of the technology and use it responsibly, and have you as a partner in that responsible use. And I just want to say that it's somewhat disappointing to have people already saying how they're going to vote without hearing what we've done to make sure that we're using the the technology responsibly. So I just I hope that people will have an open mind when you hear it. Um, this is an important tool for us. And it's an important tool that we use to keep this community safe. We're a hub not just for, you know, for Barnstable. We're a hub for the Cape. We have a hospital. We have the steamship, we have the mall. We have the airport. People from all over come here, and they expect that we're going to be able to keep them safe. There's a lot of demands on this department, so we want to be able to use the technological resources that are available to us, and we are committed to using them safely. So, um, and I'll go through the point. Can I does this work? Okay. So we're here to talk about the responsible use of flock. And we are committed to using it safely. We are committed to accountability and we are committed to local control.

[2:22:57] We've heard people's concerns about privacy, about data retention, about the sharing of data and about the misuse.

[2:23:08] But I want to assure you that eliminating the tool doesn't take away the problem. So taking the cameras down does not reduce crime. It does not lessen the need for investigative tools for us to use. And it doesn't take away privacy concerns, as you've heard already. There's a million other reasons why. Your reasons how or methods of how your privacy is being invaded. The real choice is how do we want to use this tool responsibly? And how can we assure proper use in a very limited, responsible way within the bounds of the law? And we want to partner with you to make sure that we're doing it right. So we've built a four part framework to help us strengthen this responsible use. We have strictly defined public safety purposes. We have eliminated some of the options that are available for the reasons for a search. Our access is limited to supervisors and detectives, and you have to go through a specific training. And we now require a double sign off on a search. So if I wanted to go in there and do a search, I can't do it unless somebody else also signs off on that search. We have reduced the retention period to seven days and we're honoring the audits. There's significant consequences for misuse, including an IA investigation and a report to post. So the the consequences for misuse are significant.

[2:24:43] Since we were here in the spring, we've made the following changes. So initially we limited it to detectives and supervisors. Now we added that double sign off. Our former policy, because we do have a written license plate reader policy, it met. It met the standards. But now we have tightened a number of features within that policy, and we're happy to share that with the legal department. And then I know, um, Councilor Shengold had asked about potentially having the council review it. I'm happy to have if legal thinks that that's appropriate, we can do that. Um, periodically we were reviewing the searches and Detective Lieutenant Green had access to all of that information. But we are conducting the monthly audits using the audit assist technology that's in place. Our access, the access to our data was formerly limited to Massachusetts and some states in the southeastern United States. United States. Now, no outside agency can access our data. Nobody, nobody in Massachusetts and nobody anywhere in the country. So our data retention is now restricted to seven days instead of 30 days. That means after seven days, if we miss the window, it's gone forever. We can't get it back. And then the transparency portal is something that, um, we just took advantage of and, um, Lynn, if you could click the link.

[2:26:11] This, this is available on our website and it'll show you the information.

[2:26:23] So this shows you the information about our, our current use of the system.

[2:26:34] So it will show you how many alerts we've had. It shows you the retention period. It shows you that large number, that 251,000. That shows you how many plates have gone by the readers. But those are not reads. Nobody's looking at that information. But it does show you that there have been 22 searches.

[2:26:58] And then those one through five there the The offense types. Its listing. The. The. Are those the most common? Are those the. The hot list.

[2:27:09] Of all the searches in the past 30 days. And those are the types that have been search stolen motor vehicles, larceny offense. Weapons offenses.

[2:27:18] Lieutenant, could you use the mic, please?

[2:27:20] Sorry. Those are those account for all the searches that were conducted through our system. So out of the 22, those were the offenses that were searched for stolen motor vehicles, larceny, theft offenses, shots fired, hit and run accidents, and drug and narcotics investigations.

[2:27:39] So that portal is live and it's available on our on our website.

[2:27:46] So we have taken significant steps to lock down our system. And again, I just want to make sure people understand that nobody, even if Yarmouth put up nobody has access to our cameras. If an outside agency wanted to know whether somebody had come through here, they'd be subject to the same scrutiny of they'd have to go through a supervisor at our police department to determine whether or not we would even run that search for them. So nobody has access to our data.

[2:28:18] So I just I want to ask the council to allow Barnstable to, to lead the way and set a new path. If we can work together to take control of this technology and govern it responsibly and allow us to continue to use it. It's a very important tool for us. We use it all the time.

[2:28:43] But as you can see, with 22 searches over the past, was that the seven day window? S36:

[2:28:44] That's a 30 day window. We're not abusing the technology.

[2:28:52] Flock has responded to people's concerns and they.

[2:28:59] You know, pulled back on their 30 day standard retention to seven days. That's what we we've adopted that and they've implemented an audit assist technology. Everybody's going to have to adopt this by the end of the year. But we've done it now. So if somebody is repeatedly searching the same plate, if they're using the same search reason or they're searching beyond a narrow time frame, it flags it. People's accounts get locked so they can't continue to abuse it. Um, there's a number of safety nets in place that FLoC has also implemented.

[2:29:35] So just to go over it, we tightened our policy. We reduced our retention from 30 days to seven days. We now require two people to sign off on a search. We're using the audit assist. We're maintaining the transparency portal. Our data isn't shared with any outside agency, state, local or federal. And we have no plans to utilize any other flock products. So we would have to seek council approval. We understand that for any additional plate readers, but we are not using flock cameras for anything. We don't have any intention of expanding this to a real time crime center. There's no intention to move this anywhere past the four cameras that we have. But the locations that we have them now and the reasons we use them, are incredibly valuable to us for investigations.

[2:30:29] I'm going to turn it over to Lieutenant Green will talk more about this.

[2:30:32] Good evening Council. Um, so I'm just going to try to give some of my perspective, um, as Detective.

[2:30:38] Lieutenant, would you just for the benefit of the public and the. Some councilors may not know you.

[2:30:43] Yes. Good evening. My name is Joe Green. Uh, the detective lieutenant in the Bartlesville Police Department. So I'm in charge of the the flock system, and I've been conducting the audits and working with the chief tirelessly for since the last meeting of making these improvements, um, discussing different things that we can do and even bringing outside things that weren't discussed in that of figuring out exactly how we can tighten up our guardrails. Um, we've been using, uh, alpr and flock for a long time. The, the case law that a lot of people have brought up and discussed Commonwealth versus McCarthy. That's a Barnstable police case. We are the ones that set the standard for the Alpr readers and how we conduct it through the state. And so before there was any public noise, we were already doing the right things. We were setting the guardrails. We were setting the precedent across the state. So I just think it's important to note. So here, here's a location for our readers. We try to be transparent about it. Um, there's, there's one plate reader, route 28 and that's near Santuit Newtown Road. And you see the other three in the Hyannis area ones. Route 28 near Strawberry Hill Road. The other one is Main Street, Hyannis. And the other one is Yarmouth Road. As you come in off the old exit seven. So as you can see, three of those readers are focused in the Hyannis area. And it's just like the chief said, it's it's not just a village of ours. It's it's important infrastructure. It's a very unique place for us to police. And you'll see in the later slides that 73% of the overall crime in the town of Barnstable occurs in Hyannis. Now, that's that's due to a number of things, but a lot of it is I'm in Hyannis every single day, and I know most of the residents in the town of Barnstable. We use Barnstable, and we use Hyannis for all the goods that come. We work here. This is how we make a living. So it's. It's just an important thing to think about, of understanding that a lot of us that don't live inside of Hyannis, we see that there's, there's a lot of concerns. All the crime that we're policing here is it's easy for us to sit on the outside and not understand the necessary use for flock. When I don't have to worry about some of the concerns that some of the people in these areas are experiencing. I think the important thing is, is that as police officers, I think one of the things that we weren't able to communicate is there's there's a ton of information out there you can get on Google, and it can give you a ton of ton of information on flock. But one of the things that isn't able to communicate is how those, how our experiences with victims in our community, how those are when we go there and we have conversations. I've had an apartment complex or up the street when we had two shootings in a month span of. I have mothers telling me that they're scared to let their kids go outside. And if you don't feel that because of where you live, it's important to understand that we're all a part of Barnstable, and we all have a duty to act and think about all the things that influence us in the in the Hyannis area. So this is how flock works. When you drive by, it takes a still photograph. Once it captures it. It just it takes a picture of the license plate and it's searchable by make, model and color. It doesn't have any access to the information of the owner. Um, and then once it captures that image, it's saved for seven days. So a picture as you drive by, it takes a Polaroid, puts it in a bucket after seven days. If you don't use it, that bucket disintegrates. The only way that we recall one of those photographs that you took is if we conduct a search for a legitimate reason with an identified case number with it, and that's when it saves out. And then I conduct an audit and I check to make sure that there's a case number associated who ran that plate and what the time was. I look for every single indicator that could flag misuse. Um, out of the 120 sworn offers that we have, 26 users have access to flock. Each one of them are Barnstable detectives or supervisors that are properly trained and it fits their roles.

[2:34:55] Um, I touched on some of it, but I think a good example is it's, it's similar to a store's parking lot camera. It records every car that passes by. Footage is only pulled when there's a reason for to look for a specific car, just like surveillance overwrites itself in a week or two. It's not downloaded. Block images, delete when they're not searched. Uh, I talked about Commonwealth versus McCarthy. A Barnstable police case in the searches. Again, to reiterate, they're not unchecked. I'm conducting the searches. The flock audit every single month. I'm going through. I'm looking for users. Uh, the case associated. And I know all the. I know every single case that the detectives are working on. Um, I'm looking at the police that are running the times they're running it and making sure it's properly documented.

[2:35:44] Uh, just like I said, it's it's easy for us to look on the outside, um, and make a decision. But when you hear some of these, I'm going to give a couple examples of how flock was used. And I'll be honest, we wouldn't have solved this crime if we didn't have flock. It wouldn't have happened. And I know a lot of the argument is, is just do investigative police work. Well, investigative police work without flock plate readers typically turns into we observe a video, we identify a car and say, hey, that's a silver sedan. And then when we we put out a Bolo, a be on the lookout for a specific vehicle leaving a certain area. And what we do is we, if it fits the criteria, we have reasonable suspicion to stop it. We stop and investigate the crime with this. Implementing something like flock, identifying a vehicle and giving specific parameters for us to look for. It narrows the scope of the things that we're looking for. So we stopped the right car. The last thing we want to do is looking for just a description out there. We want to be able to give specific identifiers to stop vehicles. So this was a apartment complex in 2025 surveillance video. It shows it's a it's a blatant assassination attempt. There was a vehicle that chased another car into an apartment complex, corners it. Two shooters get outside. Two individuals from Brockton. They came down just for this. And they shoot multiple shots at the vehicle as it passes by.

[2:37:14] If you could just play the video, please.

[2:37:20] 911. Where is your emergency? It sounded like someone unloaded a magazine over there. Okay, approximately how many I heard.

[2:37:31] Maybe you see the muzzle flashes on several several rounds into that side of that car.

[2:37:34] Okay. And it was like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Okay. Can you tell which direction it may be coming from? No, I can't. Do you guys. Can you tell us? Well, my I live in I.

[2:37:52] 911.

[2:37:55] So this is how we use flock in that investigation based off of like I said, we watched the surveillance video. We had officers on scene review the surveillance video, look up the specific vehicles. And then when we ran the plate readers for a specific time in the direction traveled, we observed the suspect vehicle as well as the victim's vehicle pass by at the same exact time. So we were able to narrow down the scope. By doing that, we were able to locate the victim who had minor injuries, and then we were able to locate the suspect vehicle that was in Brockton. So while we were doing that, we were able to recover critical perishable evidence. So as I mentioned, this was someone that came down with a direct a direct plan. There was no witness. There was no cooperation from the witness. And a lot of times that's exactly how cases get dropped, is if you have a victim that's not willing to testify, then a case gets dropped. The only way that we're able to create a we should create a case against somebody is create using digital evidence to put that person at the place, because there's still people that are victims of that crime, the people that were called it in, that have their families. There's bullets flying by, and this happens at numerous apartment complexes and places throughout the town. And I'll show another example of this, but we're at the point now where it's not we're feeling it here in this room today. Like there's a lot of distrust for the police. We operate with body cameras on every single time we go to a call, because it's not enough for us just to testify for me to get up here and just tell you that we're going to be responsible. There's a little bit of mistrust and it's up to us to earn that. So when we we look at these high profile cases, it's not just testimony, it's physical evidence. People want to see the documents. They want to see the proof. They want to see it so they can understand it, so that when it comes to trial, they want to see body camera footage. They want to see plate readers, they want to see cell phone downloads. They want to see all of this evidence. And this gives us the ability to do that, especially when we don't have cooperating witnesses, because that's what we're trying to do, is protect the people that aren't protecting themselves. When people are going into those communities and they're utilizing them to commit crimes at no fault of the residents there. That's what we're looking to address. Craigville beach 2023. We got a call for shots fired, multiple gunshots by two shooters. Witnesses observed two shooters on foot, fired into an occupied vehicle and flee in a silver sedan nearby. we're able to use surveillance video, which we couldn't identify specifically the exact car, but we could get a description of the vehicle. We were able to use the plate readers, and two days after the shooting, Wareham police got a flock. Notification stopped the motor vehicle. Three suspects were placed under arrest in a loaded firearm was located. That's a specific example of. It's difficult to make the decision if you're not seeing it, but if you're hearing it and you're seeing it, these are real things that happen. And we try to operate professionally and quietly. We don't put everything on social media, but we're effective at what we do, and we ask that you take into consideration and take our experience here in our. We have a lot of talented officers. One of the great things about this. We're fortunate to have a community that supports us. And with the town manager that supports us, and we are able to recruit some of the finest men and women of law enforcement. And it's and it shows in the work that they do. I'll show you one more video here of a.

[2:41:39] And you'll hear in the video, you hear the callers. And it's. It's important to hear. You can think about a shooting. It's terrible. But when you hear the panic in their voice. When these things happen.

[2:41:48] Where is your emergency?

[2:41:51] When those things happen, you wish. You don't care about anything else except for. You want. You want something to be effective. You want something to stop it when it's. Picture this as your wife or your family, and you want to be able to, you know, to solve and to be able to be a protector. Um, this is another instance where the alpr readers helped us.

[2:42:22] Find where is your emergency? I just witnessed a shooting at Craigville Beach. Okay. Craigville beach. Yeah. Yeah. It is. Is this person still there? We drove by. We drove past it quickly because it was so. I don't know if they're still there. It was two two shooters and one one shooter. Black male jeans. Are they still there? Are they still there? I don't know.

[2:42:58] Has anybody in there?

[2:43:02] We do not know if there's an injury, but we are not injured. Okay. And do you have any description of any vehicles? Any. They were shooting at a truck. Do you know what kind of truck or the description? I think it was a I think it was a Ford. I'm not 100% sure. Sorry. We're a little shocked right now. No. That's okay. We have some officers heading out.

[2:43:24] Where's your emergency? I don't know. I don't know. Gunshot. You heard a gunshot or you thought you shot a gentleman in a.

[2:43:40] Black hoodie.

[2:43:43] Blue jeans. No short shorts. Okay, I believe how many how many people are injured? I don't know.

[2:43:52] How to identify the vehicle.

[2:43:54] It's somebody you're crying. Or is that person with you injured? Yes. No no no no, they're not injured. Okay. Just.

[2:44:06] So as you can see here, it's just a representation. 72% of the calls in 2025 were reported in Hyannis. And that's where our plate readers are focused. And there's a reason for that. And I think it's just important to to look at the totality of everything and look at. We're asking that you look at the cases and examples, there's you know, I brought in case I was asked, you know, these are just one detectives cases that where flock help read help solve these crimes here. Um, so I appreciate you listening and I hope that you take this into consideration. I think it's I think it's important to just take a moment to understand before you make the vote, is the people in the voices that have been loudest in coming to you to to cancel this contract. Are they the same people that are affected by the crime in the areas that we're looking to protect? Are they the ones that are most influenced by this? Thank you.

[2:45:02] Thank you. Chief.

[2:45:05] Anything else? S35:

[2:46:03] Thank you.

[2:46:05] Any further discussion for Chief Chow? Lieutenant green.

[2:46:11] Counselor. Shangold.

[2:46:13] Yes, I, I spoke, uh, uh, with the police chief this morning, uh, had a very good conversation. I think I come at this from a somewhat different direction than other people. So maybe I'll give a little bit of my background and, and kind of the way I look at this. So I had over 40 years ago when I was a young man, I was, I worked as doing federal court litigation for federal agency who had several enforcement arms. Uh, these were regulatory civil violations, war crimes. But at least in one case, the people I were dealing with were involved in organized crime. And, uh, what I experienced, uh, a number of abuses, uh, like legally obtaining evidence, uh, abuse of prosecution where different enforcement had contradictory different positions. And they were going after companies for violations. So I got to deal with this personally. Um.

[2:47:20] I think the concerns that I have, I think sharing of information is highly problematic. And I'm glad that you're at least one cut your you're doing away with sharing information because there's really no way that you can be assured that your, the agency that you're sharing information with really has the adequate controls in place and adequate supervision. And that's what you need. Um, I don't have any problems with the police department. Um, but, uh, and abuses are rare, but they happen. And the thing that we've seen with the flock cameras are generally police officers who are using this information to track ex-girlfriends or other people that they have some personal interest in. And, uh, so what you're doing in terms of requiring two officers to sign off? I think that's that's an improvement. I think both of these things are improvement. I think for me, I, I would like to see further modifications in that. I would like to see a supervisor that that may be you, Lieutenant Green, either signing off before the fact or if that's not possible very soon after the fact. Um, I also have a concern about sharing information, uh, you know, without any condition with other agencies. Now, uh, probably we need a policy that either they have good controls in place or providing other assurances that we're not giving our information to another agency that's using it for some illegitimate purpose. So, uh, I know there are concerns about contractually, which, uh, other people have focused on Councilor Burdick and maybe Councilor Keene and our town attorney. I don't have any great additional insight into that, but I am concerned. Um, so I'm not comfortable. Uh, by the way, I just want to say, I really appreciate, I think, what you've done a really very good improvement since the workshop that was done. And I commend you for that. Um, but I think this has gotten to be a matter of such public concern and frankly, legitimately. So. Um, as I told you earlier, I would like to see if we use flock cameras in the future that it be under a policy that's approved by the town council. So everybody knows what the, you know, what the terms are. So, Kind of. That's what I have to say on that. I guess the other thing was I live in Marstons Mills. I was the victim of an assault right on my street with one of my neighbors a number of years ago. And, you know, the police responded fine. But, you know, even if you're not in Hyannis, you know, you can be the victim of a crime. Um, but but I'm very sensitive to the, uh, you know, that this is, uh, can be an effective law enforcement tool. And that's something I do appreciate.

[2:50:49] Um, thank you for the presentation. Um, and I thank you very much for, uh, certainly the improvements you have made. Um, but I still get back to where what I said earlier, um, at this meeting, which is I really believe that a warrant should be required, um, unless it's exigent circumstances, which is a classic exception. And I understand you saying that the SJC in 2020 did not say this required a warrant. I suspect that the law on this may very well change, but notwithstanding that, I think it should be our policy. Thanks.

[2:51:35] Thank you. Any further, counselor? Duluth. You haven't spoken.

[2:51:42] Hi.

[2:51:44] Hi.

[2:51:45] I'm just, um. I'm here to support the community. Um, that's what my position is. And my community is saying that they do not want cameras. So I'm with the community.

[2:52:01] Councilor Boone.

[2:52:03] Thank you for your your presentation. I'm with Tom. Regarding warrants. And, um, I also think that this may some day end up in the Supreme Court. Um, but but, uh, I wanted a little more from you. You had a page that had why, why it doesn't need a warrant, you know, and I, I was listening to what you had to say, and then all of a sudden you were on to the next page.

[2:52:49] And I didn't really get anything substantive from, from your point of view, except for the SJC S39:

[2:52:53] Well, the your you don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your license plate. And it's a, the camera is taking a snapshot of your license plate on a public way. So just like a police officer can drive behind you and run your plate for any reason, um, you don't have any privacy in your license plate. So the SJC has determined that that snapshot of your plate on a public way isn't, isn't deemed a search that requires that they did talk about whether multiple pictures in. And that's where that mosaic effect comes in, whether multiple pictures would in fact, be sort of a tracking and whether you would need a warrant for something like that. But, or whether it would amount to, you know, essentially a search because they're tracking you. But the court said they don't really know how many cameras that is. And, and with four, we're not at that threshold. So you don't need a warrant when it's a snapshot of your license plate on a public way. The same reason that explanation. You know, there's there's nothing when you pull into the mall parking lot and there's a recording of you parking your car outside the mall.

[2:54:23] Thank you.

[2:54:24] Vice President Clark.

[2:54:26] Thank you, President and chief. It's clear that you took this very seriously. Um, especially in your reference that Barnstable can be a leader in, in addressing how we, um, how we address crime and, um, adjust to new technology. Uh, I was very struck by the resident in Cotuit who had been a victim of abuse from past flock, um, uses. And I was wondering, is there a way in our policy that you could develop some kind of citizen oversight group that can verify and justify police actions so that they aren't, um, abuses that go on unchecked and give some justification to, um, uh, the, the process as it goes forward beyond when you will be with us or as, as other officers come to work for our department.

[2:55:33] Well, we, we have the, the dual sign off, the, um, the audits.

[2:55:48] And so would this review happen after the fact? S35:

[2:57:11] That's a good point that that it's, it minimizes, um, futile searches and targets people, targets fewer people. So.

[2:57:26] Yeah. I to thank you for coming back with a much more detailed and targeted presentation. But I think the problem here is flock, you are trying to manipulate your policy to fit into the flock. Flock is a vendor. There's other vendors out there. I know that ring has, uh, canceled their relationship with flock. I know that axon has canceled their relationship with flock, and you're trying to mold yourself into flock. I, I appreciate it, I appreciate I, I appreciate the crime statistics. I'm still going to support the cancellation of this. I would hope you'd go back and look at the technology and not try to squish yourself into flock. I mean, early in your presentation, you said we've gone to seven days, but it was announced on national news. Flock had gone to seven days. And you put that at the end of your presentation. So it's it's flock. Flock is the problem. The technology may have, uh, some viability, but that's what I'd like us to do as a community, as a town to go back and maybe look at the technology and get ourselves out of flock and look at this in a more agnostic way that we're not trying to bend ourselves into what flock is selling. And and that's the problem. Flock is the problem.

[2:58:50] Councilor Burdick.

[2:58:51] I'll move the question.

[2:58:53] Can can we just respond to respond?

[2:58:55] Uh, just the one. Correction. There wasn't any misleading on the part of flock going to the seven days. The seven days was a option that you could opt into. You could reduce your. You could reduce your data retention down to seven days. We opted into it. We were the second community in Massachusetts to do that.

[2:59:19] Okay. Motion has been made.

[2:59:22] Do I have a second to move the question? S4:

[2:59:23] Okay. It's not debatable.

[2:59:30] Uh, all in favor of moving the question? S33:

[2:59:35] Motion does pass. Um.

[2:59:40] I was going to make an amendment to this, but.

[2:59:45] I guess I won't. Okay, so the motion is before us. Resolved to terminate the town's relationship with flock Group and discontinue use of flock license plate readers. Do we have.

[3:00:09] All in favor of the motion as presented? S2:

[3:00:10] I'm sorry.

[3:00:11] You were asking for the vote.

[3:00:12] Yeah. Well, you moved the question, so. Okay. One. Two. Three. Charlie, you up for. Yeah. One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. Okay. Seven.

[3:00:33] All opposed? S33:

[3:01:13] Yeah. So this this is for me.

[3:01:16] This is probably the most difficult vote that I've made because I think, as I've suggested, I am not necessarily against the use of alpr. I as currently they're being used and the protections. I'm not satisfied with that. Uh, so I would, uh, invite the police department to, uh, and I don't think anything in the motion that just passed prevents this to come back with a proposal that addresses some of the concerns that have been raised. I know there are legal concerns regarding the contract. I think that would have to be part of it if if it's use of flock. Um, but I just wanted to state that for the record.

[3:02:02] Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you chief. Thank you Lieutenant.

[3:02:08] All right. We will move on to.

[3:02:15] Counselor Levesque, if you could start with 2027 018, please.

[3:02:21] Thank you, President Thomas. Just as old business may be acted upon. Authorization item number 2027-018. Authorization to enter a Memorandum of understanding to maximize federal financial participation through title.

[3:02:37] Sorry for four e of the Social Security Act as written.

[3:02:42] Second.

[3:02:45] Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Superintendent Ahern.

[3:02:52] Hello and good evening. Um, the School Committee is seeking your authorization to enter into a memorandum of understanding, as has been read into the record. We have an opportunity to seek reimbursement for transportation expenses that we pay for, um, children in foster care. They have the right to remain in their school of origin. We spend about $200,000 a year. The reimbursement rate is 18%. And so that would allow us to enter into an agreement to seek approximately $36,000 in reimbursement from federal funds.

[3:03:29] Thank you. Any questions for Superintendent Ahern regarding this issue? On my right. Seeing none on my left. Okay. All in favor of 2027 018 as printed. Raise their hands.

[3:03:47] Thank you. It appears to be unanimous. Thank you, Counselor Crocker. If you could do 2027 019, please.

[3:03:58] Certainly, Mr. President. Under old business may be acted upon by a majority vote. Item number 2027-019.

[3:04:09] Order authorizing the School Committee to enter into a contract with a term of up to five years for food Service Management company, as written.

[3:04:19] Second.

[3:04:20] Motion has been made and seconded. I recognize Superintendent Ahern.

[3:04:23] Thank you. So our current food services contract is up and we would like to go out to bid through procurement. Um we have had favorable conditions when we've had long term contracts. And so we're seeking your approval to have this contract go up to five years. That is the maximum that is allowed by statute.

[3:04:45] Thank you. Any questions or discussions for Counselor Litke?

[3:04:52] Yes, sir. You mentioned you have a new food service person you were mentioning.

[3:04:57] Yes. We have a new food services director. She started in December. Her name is Maddie Campagna. She previously and most recently had worked with the YMCA. And she's doing a fantastic job coming in. And, um, she's got a lot of great ideas. And we really, I think, have enjoyed having her and look forward to where she'll bring the program.

[3:05:17] Yeah. Because school food is a traditional problem. I mean, right. Uh.

[3:05:24] I had the pizza.

[3:05:27] I don't know, even my kids said the pizza was bad, but, um.

[3:05:31] I actually like the pizza. Um, I've had it. I, I don't mind the pizza. Okay. Um, but, you know, we do want to be responsive to what the students are looking for. And I know that Maddie's got a lot of good ideas. Um, she gathers feedback from students, particularly at the high school. There are some surveys up in the cafeteria. Um, she's worked with the food services department to make, um, some signage more accessible for students, but there's more that can be done. And I know she is very much looking forward to diversifying the menu.

[3:06:01] Yeah. No, this, this is a huge component of the school day, particularly with the state now permanently funding it.

[3:06:11] So this is this is all reimbursed or how is the funding done? S41:

[3:06:35] Yeah. Now, my only concern, I noticed the state says three years when you're talking about food, you know what? If you get on to a contract that's just not so good and then you're I that's my concern is food is critical.

[3:06:51] And are you locking yourself in where you might have a problem? S41:

[3:07:11] So you could somehow opt out every year. Yep. Okay. Well that that and that's okay. But again, I find this an extremely critical component of the school day.

[3:07:21] Yeah, I agree and the kids do too.

[3:07:23] Yep. Thank you.

[3:07:25] Any further discussion? Seeing none. Excuse me. Everyone in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

[3:07:41] Councilor Keane. If you could do 2027 020, please.

[3:07:47] Thank you, Mr. President. This is old business that may be acted upon by a majority vote. 2027 020 order authorizing the School Committee to enter into a contract for a term of up to ten years for regular school transportation.

[3:08:01] Second.

[3:08:03] Motion has been made and seconded. Superintendent Ahern.

[3:08:06] Great. Thank you. Um, so we're looking to go out to bid as well for our school transportation contract. Um we have um we are concluding a ten year transportation contract, having a ten year transportation contract. We believe um, has been very, very beneficial in terms of locking into very good rates for a long period of time. Um, we know that transportation costs escalate pretty quickly. So ten years has been very favorable. Um, and so this um, these 020 and 021 are somewhat related, but we're seeking the opportunity to go out to bid for up to ten years on a new transportation contract.

[3:08:48] Thank you. Any questions discussions councilor Ludtke.

[3:08:53] Would this have any impact on the fees that our parents pay to have their students ride, or is that.

[3:08:59] That would be an independent decision by the School Committee to consider whether or not the fees would change at all? Um.

[3:09:08] Is that a factor in your decision to try to get a contract that might be able to lessen? I mean, we're talking about overrides and things like that. And the fees are, you know, not insignificant, especially if you have more than one child.

[3:09:20] Yeah. Um, so that would be a completely separate decision. I think we would want whatever the most favorable transportation contract could be. Um, what I will say is that the fees that we collect do not cover the entire cost that we have for providing bus transportation currently. So, um, I think it would be a hard recommendation for me to make to reduce the fees because I would expect.

[3:09:45] Do you consider the fees when you're looking at your bidding? I mean, do you consider that, that you have that money in addition to any other money? I mean, is that a consideration when you're putting this together, those fees that you collect or. No.

[3:09:58] I, I would expect the bids to come in and increase our costs. And our fees at this point aren't covering the entire cost of the transportation. Um, so any consideration we're looking at, we're looking at an increased cost to our operating expenses anyway.

[3:10:17] Do you have any idea offhand how much the fees produced give to you?

[3:10:21] Um, offhand, I, I'm not comfortable quoting a number, but it doesn't cover the entire costs.

[3:10:27] I think the cavalry is coming to the rescue.

[3:10:34] Gareth Markwell, deputy finance director. Annually, the fees for transportation come in about 200 to 225,000. A drop in the bucket. When you look at transportation, which is well over $4 million at this point.

[3:10:50] Thank you.

[3:10:51] Thank you.

[3:10:51] I would have guessed about 200, but I did not want to be wrong. Thanks, Gareth.

[3:10:56] Okay. Anything further on my right? Seeing none on my left. Seeing none. All in favor of the motion as read, please. By saying aye. Aye. Motion does pass unanimously.

[3:11:13] Thank you.

[3:11:15] Councilor Shangold. You could do 2027 021, please.

[3:11:22] Uh, yes.

[3:11:23] Item uh, 2027-021. It's old business. Uh. may be acted upon by a majority vote order authorizing the School Committee to enter into a lease with the term of up to ten years for school bus parking.

[3:11:40] Second motion was made and seconded. Superintendent Ahern.

[3:11:44] Thank you. So this goes with the one that you had just approved, which I appreciate. Um, to enter into a lease for school bus parking, uh, to be able to provide parking area under very specific parameters. Um, actually, uh, is beneficial as we go out for transportation contracts, because there may be some bidders who don't have parking and would need the parking to go along with their proposal. Um, and so we're seeking an up to ten year lease with your approval for the ability to park busses on a location, um, nearby.

[3:12:20] Okay. Thank you. Uh, quick question. The area where they currently park on attics.

[3:12:31] Uh, is that the current rented area? S41:

[3:12:38] They used to park a lot of busses over by the school transportation center by the.

[3:12:45] Adult community center. There's no space there to park busses.

[3:12:48] We have some of our smaller busses there parked. We have some vans and some smaller busses that take. Students who require specialized transportation, but there's not nearly enough room. We have considered alternative locations, including hosting it on site. Um, but it would be much more advantageous to have a location that has office space, that has a space to repair and fix the busses more security. And so after a few folks, including our director of transportation, had sort of considered this, they are recommending, and we're recommending to go forward with a lease of property that has some of those specifications.

[3:13:33] Thank you. Any questions or discussions on my left? On my right, Councilor Litke?

[3:13:41] Yeah. I'm just curious, where could there possibly be another location other than the one you currently have?

[3:13:47] I, um, I think it's to be determined if there's other bidders, um, but we'll put it out for an RFP and see if there's another comparable space. Um, the current, um, less the current um owner may also bid and there may be other bids that come in.

[3:14:03] Okay. Interesting.

[3:14:04] We'll see. Okay.

[3:14:07] Any further discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor of the motion as printed, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, thank you. Appreciate it.

[3:14:24] Councilor Clark, if you could move 2027 026, please.

[3:14:29] Thank you very much. Present. This is new business with a first reading referring to a second reading on September 17th, 2026. Agenda item 2027 026 Appointments to board, Committee and Commissions Licensing Authority. John Murphy from an associate position to a full member position to a term expiring 630 2029 and Hyannis Main Street Waterfront Historic District Commission Conrad Watson from an alternate member to a full member position to a term expiring 630 2028.

[3:15:05] Second.

[3:15:06] A motion made and seconded. All in favor of moving this to a second reading on 917? Please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed. Seeing no. One. Motion passes unanimously. Uh.

[3:15:24] Charlie Councilor.

[3:15:29] 2027-027

[3:15:33] is new business referred to referred to a public hearing on September 17th, 2026.

[3:15:42] This is an appropriation order in the amount of $90,000 from the Capital Trust Fund and authorization to contract for an expanded grant in the amount of $317,500

[3:15:57] from the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service for the design and construction of the Rosa Lane fish. Fish Passage improvements project.

[3:16:10] Second.

[3:16:11] Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to move 2027 027 to a public hearing on 1726. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Seeing no one. Motion passes unanimously.

[3:16:33] Councilor Deleuze, if you could do.

[3:16:38] 2720 S33:

[3:16:47] Authorization order in the amount of $90,000 from the Capital Trust Fund and authorization to contract 28.

[3:16:55] Please. We just did that. One 2820.

[3:16:59] 2828.

[3:17:01] Correct.

[3:17:03] Oh my. My apologies. Authorization to contract for an Expanded fiscal year 2027. Jail slash arrest diversion program component grant in the amount of $80,000.

[3:17:24] Can't find it from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Mental Health. May be acted upon. Majority vote.

[3:17:32] Second.

[3:17:34] Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. I recognize Chief Chow for the rationale.

[3:17:41] Good evening, president Jean, chief of police. This is a jail diversion component grant for $80,000 that we use to aid the efforts of the Community Impact Unit, assist with training and support our Community Service Officer program. Since we first received this grant award in 2014, our Community Impact Unit has successfully established a jail Diversion Program and a Community Crisis Intervention team that diverts people suffering from mental health or substance use issues away from the criminal justice system towards appropriate community based resources. The grant award also allows us to train our community service officers and mental health first aid and enhance their ability to address quality of life issues in the main Street Hyannis area.

[3:18:21] Okay. Thank you. Any questions or discussions for Chief Jarvis? Seeing none. Show of hands or eye, please. For 2027 028. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Seeing none. The motion passes unanimously.

[3:18:43] Uh, councilor Ludke, please, 2027 029.

[3:18:49] Okay. This is new business. It may be acted upon by a majority vote. Item 2027-029 authorization to contract for an Expend of Fiscal year 2027 jail Arrest Diversion Program Co-responder grant. In the total amount of 97,000 from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Mental Health.

[3:19:07] Second.

[3:19:09] Motion has been made and seconded. I recognize Chief Chavis.

[3:19:12] Good evening. This is a jail Diversion Co-response grant for $97,000. That will enable us to hire a full time mental health clinician to respond to calls with officers, as well as provide follow up services like our other diversion grant. The goal of this grant is to divert those suffering from mental health issues away from the criminal justice system and in this case, also away from the emergency department at the hospital, and to encourage the use of community based resources. The Co-responder. The Co-responder program closely mirrors the objectives and goals of the Department of Mental Health, which is to provide early intervention to those in a mental health crisis in lieu of arrest.

[3:19:49] Thank you. Any questions or discussion for Chief Jones? Seeing none. All in favor of 2027 029 as printed, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed. Motion passes unanimously.

[3:20:07] Counselor Burdick, if you could do 2027 030, please?

[3:20:13] Of course. Thank you. This is an item of new business and may be acted upon by majority vote. Item 2027-030 authorization to contract for and expend a fiscal or a Federal Fiscal Year 2025 Emergency Management Performance Grant in the amount of $13,950 from the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency.

[3:20:31] Second.

[3:20:32] Motion has been made and seconded. Chief Chavis.

[3:20:38] Good evening again. This is an FY 25 Emergency Management Performance Grant for $13,950. We intend to use these funds toward the purchase of a message board that could be used during emergencies to relay information to the public. The sign board would be used as a communication tool during severe weather, evacuations and other critical incidents.

[3:20:59] Okay. Any further discussion? One quick question. Why? Fiscal year 25.

[3:21:05] There's a delay in. When the money becomes available. After the. After the awards are made.

[3:21:11] Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion for Chief Chow? AM I right seeing none? Seeing none. Okay. All in favor of 2027 030 as printed, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Seeing no one, the motion does pass unanimously. Thank you, Chief Chavis.

[3:21:38] Okay. Uh, 2027 031 resolve selecting October 27th, 2026 for an open meeting of the voters. Uh, as you're aware, there was a petition submitted to the town council in May requesting an open meeting of the voters. Uh, we accepted that. And we had originally hoped to have this meeting on September 10th. Excuse me, did we have a second? Second? Did I have a second? Okay, now we can discuss it. Um, originally I had hoped to have it on September 10th, as many of you are aware. Are you aware? Uh, but due to quorum issues, we were not able to do it. Then, uh, in further discussion, if we were going to put it off, we felt it was prudent and fair to the two new councilors coming on, uh, the October 13th election to, uh, give them the ability or the, to allow them to attend as councilors. Uh, the, there's a ten day, I believe, appeal period after the election. So the earliest they could attend as councilors would have been after the 23rd of October. And looking at the available dates at the high school, we came up with October 27th. So that's, that's where that stands now. So I don't know if you had any questions for myself or the town attorney as far as, uh, the town clerk as far as the petition goes. Councilor.

[3:23:09] I just had a question. For those of us voting. We don't know who the two new councilors will be. Will this be a commitment that we will have everybody there in voting for this? Are you committing yourself? Because it wasn't that the problem on the 10th, you couldn't get people.

[3:23:22] I mean, we have.

[3:23:23] To have.

[3:23:24] A quorum. We have to have a quorum. Whether those two councilors choose to attend or not attend, we would still need to have. It would be preferential, obviously, for them to attend. Attend.

[3:23:34] Do we need a quorum or we desire a quorum?

[3:23:37] Attorney. Nova.

[3:23:38] Thank you. President.

[3:23:40] Thank you, President Thomas.

[3:23:42] Town attorney. Yes, I think you do need to have a quorum if you have less than a quorum. Um, after the meeting, when you all talk to each other about what happened at the meeting and discuss what was discussed at the meeting, you will then be violating the open meeting law the next day. Um, so yes, you should have a quorum present. And I did want to point out that in the rationale, we included two other dates that week. So maybe before you vote, you could talk a little bit about which date would work best for all of you. And then if you need to amend the vote to pick one of those other dates, then then you could do that. Those were the three dates in October. Then it started moving into November, and we felt like that was really pushing things out too far.

[3:24:28] Yeah, no, that gives a good rationale. I understand that now with the open meeting law. So again, that's my first question.

[3:24:41] Will people commit to this on October 27th or do we want to have a discussion about this? S33:

[3:24:58] Does anyone have a problem with October 27th? S27:

[3:25:01] I don't it's a Tuesday night.

[3:25:03] Tuesday?

[3:25:04] Yeah.

[3:25:05] I do not have a problem.

[3:25:07] So give me a minute. I can check my.

[3:25:13] Point of information. It doesn't really matter if we're committed or not necessarily. You know.

[3:25:16] I just don't. Well, what I would prefer not happen is for you to say we're going to have it the 27th. And all of a sudden for counselors say I can't make it that night. So that's.

[3:25:28] I think the only way you could do it, because we haven't had the election yet, would be to wait until after the election.

[3:25:34] Well, I'm hoping that all counselors.

[3:25:38] Right. But what's the point of pulling us when two other people might not be able to.

[3:25:41] Make either quorum with who's here now that we can hopefully carry forward whether those two other counselors do or do not attend would not be irrelevant, but it would be.

[3:25:56] Okay, so we seem to have a consensus that October 27th, will work.

[3:26:02] Boston earlier in the day. I hope and expect I can get back okay.

[3:26:11] What time? S33:

[3:26:14] Okay. So, uh, one of the other reasons is because it's being held at the high school. Uh, we do have to make a commitment also to the audio visual company, uh, for, uh, the, uh, audio visual equipment. Uh, and, uh, you know, that that, that would be an expense of about $4,000 if we cancel the meeting at short notice that we would be responsible for. So we'd like to, we'd like to move it forward if possible.

[3:26:44] And, uh, can I just say.

[3:26:46] I would say there's, there's a 90% chance I can be there. Uh, but the day before and the day after, I can probably 100% chance I'll be there. So.

[3:26:57] Well, I think. my personal feeling is that that if we can get a majority of the councilors there. Okay. Uh, because no matter what day we pick, someone may have an issue, right. So, uh, if we could go ahead. So.

[3:27:15] Any further discussion or questions regarding the meeting?

[3:27:20] Okay. All in favor of the resolve selecting October 20th 2720. Yeah. Excuse me. October 27th, 2026. For an open meeting of the voters, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? None. The resolve does pass. Thank you.

[3:27:44] Okay. We have done 2727032.

[3:27:48] Uh, where were we? Council back. I think we're back over to you.

[3:27:57] No, that's what I said we did. 32. We're going to drop down to 33. Yeah. I'm sorry. I guess I wasn't clear.

[3:28:04] Thank you, Mr. President. This is new business may be acted upon with the two thirds majority vote order authorizing a debt exclusion question to be placed on the ballot at special town election to be held on May 4th, 2027, as written.

[3:28:16] Second.

[3:28:17] Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Obviously, we had a extensive discussion and presentation with Mr. Milne. Uh.

[3:28:30] Question is, do we want to put this on the ballot for the May 4th, 2027 election? I know we've had a.

[3:28:42] Extensive discussion about the with also, uh, I don't think they're mutually exclusive, but I think moving forward, uh, we should move forward with the override first And then have a further discussion regarding, excuse me, debt exclusion, my my apologies. Debt exclusion. They're not interchangeable.

[3:29:06] Councilor Burdick well, I don't want to jump the gun, though. Is there going to be a lot of discussion? Tom, did you want to go first? All I was going to say, essentially was that did.

[3:29:15] You want to call the question.

[3:29:16] Maybe, I don't know, coming up, but the that I just I just wanted to I know that this has been a long road. And, you know, I think of this as being one of the most consequential things that this council will have done in, in a number of years that going back to at least my time on it, we've done some stuff, of course, but this is an extremely consequential action. And I think in light of that, um, I really hope that we're all on board with this because I think that our options are limited. We have a course of action that has been described to us that we seem to have a more or less have a consensus view on. And I know that there's a lot of other discussions that have to go on, Ari. Our overall revenue strategy and fiscal policy, this is an important part of it, and it's an important tool. But I just hope that everybody understands that this is a this is, as I said, very consequential and extremely important to the future of the town. And I hope we're all on board with it. And I'd like to I don't know if you want to discuss here the. I don't think we need to clearly about the the idea of the whiff in conjunction with the debt exclusion. I mean, if you want to keep the conversation limited specifically to the merit of this particular proposal, that's fine with me too. But like I said, I don't want to jump the gun. I just want to say that I hope that everyone is aware that this is a very consequential decision for the US and the town and all and everybody. So anyway, and I am in favor of it. Clearly, I never say that about anything I'm going to vote for, but I might as well say it about this. So there you go.

[3:30:48] I am very much in favor of it. Also, I think the discussion of the whiff should come at a relatively near point in the future, but I think we need to get this underway and start the process for this for, uh, for the election in May. And I think the whiff is going to be a very important part of our discussion for the future. But for right now, for tonight, uh, I'm in favor of the this as as printed counselor Keene.

[3:31:20] Uh.

[3:31:21] I too am supportive of this and really for a few reasons. One, I actually like the debt exclusion in the way that it kind of climbs up and flattens out and then eventually expires. Um, it is, um, less burdensome on the taxpayers. And so I'm in favor of that. The second is I like the timing of this. I'm a little concerned we can do this as a special election in the spring. I'm concerned that any further delays beyond that really start to impact our budgeting process for the final for the next year. And finally, I do think that this council should take under advisement and think about, do we lessen the burden of the debt exclusion through perhaps an increase in the residential exemption, which is something we could clearly just by increasing it by 2%, we essentially for residents, year round residents would make them whole on this. So I'm in favor of it.

[3:32:17] Thank you. Excellent points on all of those. And when we first started talking about the debt exclusion and or overrides, uh, that was always in our pocket as a tool to help mitigate that Council.

[3:32:31] Uh, thank you, President Tam. And honestly, me voting against the residential tax exemption increases over the years was one of the reasons is to kind of, you know, help to, to save that and not necessarily throw the burden already onto our, our nonresidents. But that being said, I couldn't agree with you more. And that has been the approach historic approach of the Council for some time. So just to reiterate that. Thank you.

[3:32:58] Thank you. Any further discussion, Councilor Lucky?

[3:33:02] Yes. I'd like the discussion about a lot of the tools in play based on the presentation, and I think the importance of flexibility and that this is a snapshot of time. It only gets us through phase one, and it's probably going to be a need for another one. I like I like the whiff. I think this is just one piece of it. And then we're going to come back. Probably not us, but another group will come back with another piece and another piece. And the whiff gets us where we need to be, I think. And people are very comfortable with the CPA. See the value in that. So I'm not I'm not supportive of this actually, because I just think it's it's I understand the narrowness, I understand. We're getting the taxes from the personal property tax and that kind of thing. I understand the advantages of it, that it's very neat and tidy, but I think flexibility is is more important as we move forward in this. And that's why I'd like to pursue the with I don't know that the voters are going to be that generous to support both.

[3:34:08] Okay. Thank you, Councilor Bloom.

[3:34:12] Um, I don't think it matters really how much, you know, I like the, uh, debt exclusion over the whiff or vice versa. I think, um, I'm for this because, uh, I think the citizens need to have their voice heard.

[3:34:29] Thank you. Okay.

[3:34:32] Yeah.

[3:34:34] Uh, I'm for the debt exclusion as well. Uh, really? For the same reasons that Councilor Keene stated. Um, I think the increasing the residential exemption, uh, will offset the impact of that. To me, I think the debt exclusion is better. I mean, yes, it's probably for five years and we'll probably have to do something after that. But um, it's based on, you know, the rest of phase one. Um, I think it'll be more easily, uh, be able to be communicated to voters. And, uh, so I am, uh, I'm in favor of it.

[3:35:15] Thank you, Counselor Crocker.

[3:35:19] Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with what Counselor Blum said. This is really we are presenting it to the voters. It's the voters decision. They will weigh the benefits of the presentations from either side or whatever. But we are just placing this in front of the voters. So it's really the voters that really need to that are really going to be making this decision, but I think we obviously do need to place it in front of them. That's why we'll be voting for it.

[3:35:46] Thank you. Good point counselor.

[3:35:51] Yeah, I like what Councilor Blum and Councilor Crocker let the voters. I don't think the voters would do both. But if we are sincere in bringing the WIF forward, that does give the voters an option. And, you know, I do want them to have an option and to understand both of them. So are we sincere that we bring the WIF forward? Because that would have to be at the election.

[3:36:14] I think it's important that we bring this forward. I don't necessarily think the WIF directly on top of this, but I think the WIF should be brought forward in. I don't pick a number two years, three years as we have continuing needs. If we. We can certainly entertain the WIF. I like the idea of the whiff. I like the idea of, quite frankly, people are not going to like this. Maybe, but reducing the CPA 1 or 2%, perhaps 1%, and going with the 1 or 2% with. So, you know, but that option is not available to us for a period of time. So I think the immediate option to move forward is to go with the debt exclusion to me.

[3:37:03] But and when are we going to see the information we need in terms of service cuts if the override is not passed by the voters.

[3:37:14] Well, you mean the debt exclusion. Are you doing.

[3:37:17] The debt exclusion override? Yeah. The debt exclusion.

[3:37:19] I think we will have that discussion with Mr. Rose and Mr. Milne, because I think it's important to get that information out quickly.

[3:37:27] I hope that's out before the vote. Right.

[3:37:29] Oh sure.

[3:37:29] Oh absolutely. I, I'm hoping within the next month or two to start because we're going to have to. Hopefully, all the counselors will go back to their constituents via their civic associations, via public meetings, via public action groups, to, to, to move this forward. And it's really going to be a lot of work for the.

[3:37:53] I just find this this piecemeal approach troubling, that we're just doing this one piece. But yet there's other pieces. I like a more comprehensive look at this.

[3:38:05] I don't I mean, it's, it's.

[3:38:07] I see it as being it as being comprehensive for, say, a five year period, the phase one.

[3:38:15] And so no comprehensive in terms of the consequences if the voters do not support this, what are these services that are going to be cut? That that that's what I'm saying. I'd like.

[3:38:27] To be clearly defined.

[3:38:28] But I'd like to see that it just seems like we're passing this, and then we're going to see that.

[3:38:32] All we're doing, we're, we're, we're All we're doing is authorizing an election on May 4th, uh, to, for the public to vote on this matter, it's going to be incumbent upon us to bring forward the information that they need to make a rational decision on it and that that's going to be done. It's it's going to be incumbent upon the councilors. It's going to be incumbent upon Mark Mills is going to be incumbent upon Mark ells and whoever to have the information available for us to convey to our constituents and to the public, uh, the necessity of this and the consequences, uh, you know, plus or minus of if it does or it does not pass.

[3:39:21] And it may entail more than just service cuts. Because if you assume, uh, not going forward with the C, w, m p project or these eight different projects, then what are the consequences of that, you know, both from a legal standpoint and a financial standpoint. So it's yeah, but I totally agree with you that the, you know, the alternatives or the consequences should be laid out. Uh, it probably just, we need more time to do that.

[3:39:52] Thank you, Mr. President. I actually like the fact that this is a piecemeal approach. And the reason I like that is because we are asking voters to approve an increase in taxes in order to fund a very specific set of projects. If we were to try to dream up some comprehensive thing going forward, we don't know what it's going to be funding after the next five years. But what we have put in place is a whiff, which is a permanent tax and one that increases 2.5% every single year. Um, I think this is the. The approach of a debt exclusion is far more frugal and far less burdensome on the taxpayers, and that's why I favor that.

[3:40:39] Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none. This is a two thirds roll call vote, I believe.

[3:40:50] Madam. Clerk.

[3:40:51] Councilors. Blum.

[3:40:54] Yes.

[3:40:56] Burdick.

[3:40:57] Yes.

[3:40:58] Clark.

[3:40:59] Yes.

[3:41:00] Crocker.

[3:41:00] Yes.

[3:41:01] Deleuze.

[3:41:04] Yes.

[3:41:06] Keane.

[3:41:07] Yes.

[3:41:07] Levesque.

[3:41:08] Yes.

[3:41:09] Ludke.

[3:41:10] Yes.

[3:41:12] Schein. Gold.

[3:41:13] Yes.

[3:41:14] Yes.

[3:41:16] That's unanimous.

[3:41:17] Motion does pass. At this point. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Second, moved and seconded. All in favor. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Passes unanimously. We are adjourned.

Town Council 09-03-2026

Transcript