[0:01] U forum being present, we're going to
[0:03] start the meeting. Uh we have tellers
[0:05] appointed if we need them. It's kind of
[0:06] a a light crowd tonight. Uh we have
[0:08] Terresa Whitman, Rob Fitzgibbons, and
[0:11] Vicki Catalo.
[0:13] If I get everyone to stand, we'll do a
[0:14] pledge of allegiance who will over here.
[0:19] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:22] United States of America, to the
[0:25] republic for which it stands, one
[0:27] nation.
[0:29] indivisice.
[0:33] Stand one more minute. Heading it being
[0:35] our 250th anniversary at the birthday of
[0:38] the United States. Just want to wish
[0:39] everyone a happy birthday.
[0:42] Now you can sit down.
[0:47] Um
[0:48] the warrant has been uh posted in its
[0:51] proper locations.
[0:54] Um, if you are a non-voter or or
[0:56] unregistered or a non-resident, you
[0:58] should be over in the lefth hand side of
[1:00] the room. If you don't have a card, you
[1:01] need to be over there uh to vote. We're
[1:04] going to do cards. Unless it's going to
[1:06] be a teller count, standing count. So,
[1:09] when I ask raise your card for yay or
[1:11] nay, please do that. If you can keep the
[1:14] chitchat down, I can't hear a lot of the
[1:17] little conversations, but a lot of
[1:18] people can hear conversations, so they
[1:20] can't hear the speakers. So, if you can
[1:22] keep the discussions to a minimum, that
[1:25] would be very helpful.
[1:27] I do have a request from the fire chief
[1:29] and I believe maybe the police fire for
[1:34] reminding people to put numbers on your
[1:36] homes on your street address, whether
[1:39] it's on your house itself or if you're
[1:41] in a long driveway at the front or end
[1:43] of the driveway. Like to thank the
[1:45] people that have already participated. I
[1:46] believe Sally's here. She was involved
[1:50] in that process. Sophie, just remember
[1:52] it's very important that you get those
[1:53] numbers so that they can respond when
[1:55] they need to.
[1:57] I believe there are two articles, two
[1:59] zoning articles on number 14 and number
[2:02] 28. They will require a twothirds vote.
[2:05] So when that happens, um I believe I
[2:08] should ask planning board if they had
[2:10] their public hearings on both of those
[2:12] articles.
[2:14] She has affirmed that they have. And you
[2:17] want to you going to respond to those
[2:19] when they come up? Perfect. Um finance
[2:23] committee is here.
[2:28] » That's not helpful.
[2:34] I will make a motion to wave the reading
[2:36] of the warrant.
[2:38] Is there a second? All those in favor?
[2:42] >> Thank you.
[2:44] Um
[2:46] really performance.
[2:50] Um, I guess we're going to start with
[2:54] article one and wait for the finance
[2:55] committee because I had a question just
[2:57] as I did with the plumbing board. So,
[2:59] uh, we'll start with article one,
[3:01] please.
[3:11] Hello everybody, Alvin Harrow here. Um,
[3:14] article one is a fun article, my
[3:16] favorite of all. Um, I elangarrow move
[3:21] that the town authorize the board of
[3:23] selectman to appoint a surveyor and bark
[3:27] and lumber
[3:30] for bark and lumber.
[3:31] >> Is there a second to that?
[3:34] >> Any discussion? Uh the only discussion
[3:36] is um I will say that Brendan provided
[3:39] us with some information to let us know
[3:40] that in 2010 the board of selectman had
[3:43] selected had decided to continue this
[3:46] traditional um motion. Thank you.
[3:55] » All those in favor of article one raise
[3:57] your card.
[4:01] Any opposed? The motion passes
[4:03] unanimously.
[4:05] Article Article Two.
[4:08] >> Good evening everyone. I, Peter D.
[4:10] Fippen, move that the town receive the
[4:12] reports of the town officials, boards,
[4:14] and committees contained in the annual
[4:16] town report as you should all have.
[4:19] >> Is there a second
[4:21] discussion?
[4:22] >> No discussion.
[4:24] >> Any discussion from anyone out here?
[4:26] >> Okay. All those in favor of article two,
[4:28] raise your card, please.
[4:32] Any opposed?
[4:34] The motion passes. Just want to remind
[4:37] every we have uh Drew Tar, our new state
[4:40] rep uh representative.
[4:43] He replaced Dan Margaret. Thank you for
[4:45] coming.
[4:53] Article three.
[5:00] » I can't skip it.
[5:13] Mr. Moderator, if we could move to move
[5:15] to five until the income gets here.
[5:17] >> Is that a motion to move article five
[5:19] before article three? Please.
[5:20] >> Is there a second to that?
[5:22] >> All those in favor of moving article
[5:24] five before article 3.
[5:26] >> Any opposed? So move article five.
[5:40] Good evening. My name is Robert Teal
[5:43] from the um Essex um school committee
[5:46] member to the um tech school board. I,
[5:49] Robert Teal, move that the town vote to
[5:52] raise and appropriate the sum of $257127
[5:57] to pay the town's share of the operation
[6:00] and capital cost of the Essex Rockshore
[6:03] Agricultural Technical Hight Technical
[6:06] School District for the fiscal year
[6:08] commencing July 1st, 2026. Is there a
[6:12] second?
[6:14] >> Any discussion?
[6:19] See none. All those in favor of article
[6:21] five, please raise your card. Any
[6:23] opposed? The motion passes.
[6:59] Mr. Moderator, we're going to move to
[7:01] article 8.
[7:02] >> Is that a motion to move article 8? Is
[7:05] there a second?
[7:07] All those in favor of moving article 843
[7:09] raise your card.
[7:11] Um
[7:11] >> opposed.
[7:14] >> I elaro move the town vote to approve
[7:18] the wage and salary scale for fiscal
[7:20] year 2027 in accordance with the
[7:22] recommendation of the personnel board
[7:25] report.
[7:27] >> Any discussion?
[7:31] Um if you look at the report you will
[7:33] see that the um some areas that we're
[7:35] looking at moving um were for the
[7:37] Council on Aging and for the library
[7:43] but so no real discussion.
[7:45] >> Any other discussion?
[7:50] » Yes.
[7:53] >> Mr. Moderator I, Edward Neil, move that
[7:55] the town vote to amend article 8 the
[7:58] wage and salary scale for 2027 by
[8:01] deleting under the heading fire
[8:03] department the first line fire captain
[8:06] fire prevention officer minimum $90,000
[8:10] maximum $120,000.
[8:19] There's a second
[8:21] Am
[8:27] I recognized?
[8:29] I'm just trying to make sure I can
[8:30] speak. Okay.
[8:58] You're recognized, Ed.
[8:59] >> Thank you. Before I fully dawn this hair
[9:03] shirt, I want to share my bonafidees. I
[9:06] was a firefighter EMT for 10 years in
[9:08] the 80s and 90s and my son recently
[9:11] completed over 10 years as a firefighter
[9:13] EMT. I was the chief of the auxiliary fire department for a few
[9:18] years back when we had one. Um I have
[9:21] the greatest respect and gratitude for
[9:23] our first responders and didn't need to
[9:25] see the heroics of the recent river
[9:27] rescue who appreciate the courage and
[9:29] dedication that they demonstrate
[9:31] regularly. For over 20 years, we've been
[9:34] periodically told that we need one or
[9:35] more full-time firefighters due to fewer
[9:38] able a able individuals working in town.
[9:41] The usual pressing issues were the
[9:44] necessary paperwork and inspections
[9:45] needed to be done. Most recently, it was
[9:48] asserted that we needed full-time staff
[9:50] due to the number of medical calls until
[9:52] research revealed that even departments
[9:54] with many full-time firemen contract out
[9:57] their ambulance services as more
[9:59] economical than hiring staff. In those
[10:02] same 20 years, I am unaware of any
[10:04] calamity resulting from a lack of a
[10:06] full-time department or our first
[10:08] responders letting us down. Approving
[10:11] this wage and salary scale would be the
[10:13] first step towards a full-time fire
[10:15] department. And the issue deserves more
[10:17] consideration than having the question
[10:19] buried in the wage and salary scale.
[10:22] When I was on the department, every
[10:24] Thursday evening and Sunday morning,
[10:26] firemen would come to the station and
[10:28] perform a variety of menial tasks like
[10:30] washing the trucks, checking and filling
[10:33] the SCBA air bottles and water tanks on
[10:36] the trucks, as well as just driving the
[10:38] trucks around to keep everything
[10:39] lubricated. This was all done for free.
[10:42] Time donated to the town by willing
[10:44] volunteers. My experience with the
[10:47] department my experience with
[10:48] departments that have transitioned to
[10:50] full-time employees is that the
[10:52] volunteer incentive diminishes.
[10:56] Why should volunteers do this work when
[10:58] the town is paying for men to man the
[11:00] station? Inevitably, friction grows
[11:03] between the full-time and call men with
[11:05] the full-timers considering themselves
[11:07] as professionals and treating veterans
[11:09] of the call department as amateurs. This
[11:12] is bad for the department and the town
[11:14] because it leads to callmen retiring,
[11:16] creating a need for more full-timers.
[11:19] This is a small town and we do not have
[11:21] the d tax base to support a full-time
[11:24] department. To date, the town has done a
[11:26] good job of addressing the manning
[11:28] problem by hiring part-time men from
[11:30] other departments or hiring young men
[11:32] who want to be firemen. And we train
[11:34] them and give them the experience that
[11:36] makes them desirable to other
[11:37] surrounding full-time departments. This
[11:39] is a win-win for the fire service
[11:41] overall. As for the inspections, we have
[11:45] part-time building, plumbing,
[11:47] electrical, animal health, restaurant,
[11:49] and public nurses nurse inspection
[11:51] services. I see no reason why the fire
[11:54] inspection services should be handled in
[11:57] a different manner. We certain they
[11:59] certainly are not reason to create
[12:01] full-time employees with the health
[12:04] care, vacation, sick pay, sick pay, and
[12:06] retirement expenses that go along with
[12:08] it. If you support my amendment, it will
[12:11] not be the end of this issue, but may
[12:14] facilitate a more open and honest debate
[12:17] than has occurred so far. Thank you.
[12:24] Any
[12:28] further discussion on the amendment to
[12:30] article 8
[12:35] street? Um
[12:38] I thought about this earlier and it was
[12:41] uh glad to had good up and spoke. I've
[12:43] always supported the fire department
[12:45] wholeheartedly. I think we've had a
[12:47] great group of men and women involved
[12:50] but I
[12:54] And and
[12:57] when I when the building was built and
[12:59] we tore down the old building, I
[13:02] remembered the whisper in my ear was,
[13:04] "If you build it, they will come.
[13:07] If you build it, they will come." What
[13:09] does that mean? It means what Ed's
[13:11] talking about. This thing is growing
[13:14] bigger than it should.
[13:17] And the volunteerism isn't as there as
[13:19] much as uh it used to be. But I think
[13:23] this is also a little bit of subtrafuge
[13:25] putting this in an article where it's almost impossible to see and did
[13:31] his homework and that's how we found it.
[13:33] So I'm going to support the amendment.
[13:35] >> Any further discussion on the amendment?
[13:44] I think um you should reject this
[13:46] amendment and discuss the value of the
[13:51] position. Um would love it if someone
[13:54] from the fire department could up could
[13:57] come up and speak to it. But Essex is
[14:00] not what it was 20 years ago. And I
[14:03] think expecting volunteers to
[14:07] address the needs that are of of um
[14:11] regulations and expecting those folks to have
[14:17] full-time jobs and to do this sort of
[14:19] regulatory compliance is not realistic
[14:23] and not fair um of volunteers. So, I
[14:27] would love for somebody from the fire
[14:28] department to come up and speak to this,
[14:29] but I would encourage you to vote
[14:31] against Mr. Neil's amendment,
[14:35] >> further discussion.
[14:39] » Good evening, Christian Hassel, Essex
[14:42] Fire Chief. So, I think Mr. Neil makes
[14:44] some good points. Uh, we do have strong
[14:47] volunteerism within the Essex Fire
[14:49] Department. It's been a point of pride
[14:50] for the town and the department for
[14:52] quite some time.
[14:54] This position is not to disrupt but more
[14:58] to enhance that volunteerism.
[15:02] We have regulations that have changed.
[15:05] We have OSHA NFPA standards that we need
[15:08] to abide by and it becomes more and more
[15:12] difficult to manage department of 49
[15:15] people at this time um and manage the
[15:19] needs of the town and manage the uh
[15:23] search uh inspection process as well.
[15:26] This person is not designed to be just a
[15:28] fire inspector. They are going to be a
[15:30] frontline responder as well as a fire
[15:33] inspector. We already staff the station
[15:35] seven days a week uh with two people who
[15:38] are call firefighters at this time. So
[15:42] offering this or in adding this position
[15:46] allows for consistency five days a week.
[15:49] When you're trying to manage a
[15:51] department and move it forward and meet
[15:54] different initiatives,
[15:56] it's very difficult to do it with two
[15:58] hours in the morning from say 6:00 to
[16:00] 8:00 a.m. when I'm in the office. Um,
[16:03] regardless of how many fantastic people
[16:05] we have on the department, it is very
[16:07] important to have someone who can be a
[16:09] clearing house for us and actually get
[16:11] the work done 5 days a week and be
[16:14] consistent and have oversight, let alone
[16:16] the efficiencies that someone who's
[16:18] full-time in the department and having
[16:19] some oversight will add to the duty
[16:22] group in general. Um we want to make
[16:25] sure that we are the adequately trained
[16:28] if not overly adequately trained and uh
[16:32] be ready to go for any emergency. It has
[16:35] happened in the past that Essex has not
[16:38] been able to respond to a call because
[16:40] of a lack of manpower. It's not
[16:43] something we're proud of, but it is the
[16:45] reality. Over the last year, we've
[16:47] worked very hard to move away from that
[16:49] and we've done much better with it, but
[16:52] it it has happened in the past and we
[16:55] don't want that to happen again. We see
[16:56] this as a good step forward, a
[16:59] reasonable step forward to allow the
[17:01] fire department to remain cal for years
[17:04] to come. I consider myself a career call
[17:07] guy, meaning I want to be a call person
[17:09] the rest of my life. I don't necessarily
[17:10] want to be the chief the rest of my
[17:12] life, but we have uh you know, this
[17:15] person would be kind of a step forward
[17:17] in a secession plan to to still maintain
[17:21] the the department the way it operates
[17:23] now while um providing that support that
[17:26] we need. So, thank you.
[17:29] >> Any further discussion?
[17:35] So, no discuss. So, all those in favor
[17:37] of just the amendment to article 8,
[17:39] raise your card,
[17:42] opposed.
[17:46] The amendment does not pass.
[17:49] Back to article 8 as it is.
[17:52] Any any discussion on article 8?
[17:56] All those in favor of article 8, raise
[17:58] your card.
[18:00] All those opposed. Article passes. Back
[18:04] to article three.
[18:07] >> Just want to reconsider this to um close
[18:10] out procedurally this um article.
[18:16] » Oh, you didn't hear any of that.
[18:18] >> Hi, Alvin Garo. Um I'd like to
[18:20] reconsider this vote.
[18:21] >> It's a motion to reconsider.
[18:23] >> Motion to reconsider article eight.
[18:25] >> Article eight, please. The main motion.
[18:27] >> The main motion. Yeah.
[18:29] >> Thank you.
[18:29] >> Uh is there a second to that?
[18:34] Uh any discussion on reconsider? This is
[18:37] a twothirds vote. All those that want to
[18:39] reconsider article 8, please raise your
[18:41] card. All those opposed.
[18:45] The motion does not pass. I enough.
[18:49] Okay. Article three.
[19:09] >> I Ruth Pine move
[19:10] >> before we get so normally asked the
[19:13] finance committee if they support the
[19:14] financial articles. I think there's
[19:16] about 20 of them.
[19:19] >> So you've approved all. Yes.
[19:29] Jody Harris, Finance Committee. We
[19:32] recommend all of the financial articles
[19:34] to town meeting. We recommended the two
[19:36] override articles to be put before the
[19:39] taxpayers for their vote.
[19:44] » Okay. Article three.
[19:47] I, Ruth Pere, move that the town vote to
[19:49] raise and appropriate the sum of
[19:50] $268,722
[19:54] for the purpose of supplementing the
[19:55] town of Essex's fiscal year 2027
[19:58] operating budget, provided that the
[20:00] amount authorized herein shall be
[20:02] contingent upon the vote at the town
[20:04] election to assess additional real
[20:05] estate and personal property taxes in
[20:08] accordance with the provisions of
[20:09] Proposition 2 and a half so-called. Is
[20:12] there
[20:12] >> a second?
[20:14] discussion.
[20:20] » This evening, the town meet uh Ruth
[20:22] Pere, 15 Lufkin Street. This evening,
[20:24] the town meeting is being asked to
[20:26] consider and support a Proposition 2 and
[20:28] a half override in the amount of 268,722
[20:33] in additional real estate and personal
[20:34] property taxes. These funds are intended
[20:37] to supplement the Town of Essex's
[20:39] operating budget for the fiscal year
[20:41] beginning July 1st, 2026. It's important
[20:44] to note that the town of Essex has not
[20:46] passed an operational override in more
[20:48] than 20 years. During that time, the
[20:50] cost of nearly every essential expense,
[20:53] utilities, goods, and services has risen
[20:56] significantly. While residents have felt
[20:58] the strain of these increases in their
[21:00] daily lives, the town has similarly
[21:02] faced rising costs in maintaining
[21:04] services, compensating employees, and
[21:07] meeting regulatory obligations. There's
[21:10] been some misunderstanding regarding the
[21:11] purpose of this override. It is not
[21:13] solely driven by the fire department.
[21:16] While fire services represent a
[21:18] significant portion of the request,
[21:20] multiple factors contribute to the
[21:22] overall need. For example,
[21:25] uh the town's health insurance costs
[21:27] increased by 14.4%.
[21:30] In recent decisions regarding employee
[21:31] compensation, including adjustments for
[21:33] the Department of Public Works and the
[21:35] senior center staff, reflect the ne
[21:37] necessity of retaining competitive
[21:40] um compet competitive in attracting and
[21:42] retaining qualified personnel. Without
[21:44] appropriate investment in our workforce,
[21:46] the town risks losing employees whose
[21:49] who have proven essential services to
[21:51] our community. With respect to the fire
[21:54] department, it's critical to understand
[21:56] that this is not a new or sudden
[21:58] request. The need for additional
[22:00] staffing has been raised multiple times
[22:02] over several years. Former fire chief
[22:04] Dan Dowset advocated for the addition of
[22:06] a full-time position on more than one
[22:08] occasion, including again in 2019. That
[22:11] request was not approved. At the time, a
[22:14] commitment was made by the board of
[22:15] selectmen that the next full-time public
[22:17] safety hire would be for the fire
[22:19] department. However, that commitment was
[22:21] not fulfilled when a full-time police
[22:24] officer was subsequently hired. Under
[22:26] the leadership of the current fire chief
[22:28] Christian Hassel, appointed in 2025, the
[22:31] department has reaffirmed its commitment
[22:33] to maintaining a call volunteer fire
[22:36] service model for as long as possible.
[22:39] The request before town meeting is not
[22:41] to transition to a fully staffed
[22:43] full-time department, but rather
[22:45] represents a targeted and necessary
[22:47] step. The addition of a single full-time
[22:49] firefighter EMT to provide day coverage
[22:52] when call member availability is often
[22:54] at it often limited. Recent
[22:57] communications to residents have
[22:59] suggested that this override represents
[23:01] a move to a fully full-time fire
[23:03] department. That characterization is
[23:05] inaccurate. The department's 48 call
[23:08] firefighters remain committed to
[23:10] sustaining this model well into the
[23:11] future. In fact, this request is
[23:14] intended to help preserve that model by
[23:16] addressing increasing operational
[23:17] demands, including administrative
[23:20] workload compliance with evolving
[23:21] regulations and NFPA standards, training
[23:24] requirements, and equipment maintenance.
[23:26] It's also worth noting that the fire
[23:28] department experienced a 12.49% 49%
[23:31] budget reduction from $38,25
[23:35] to $267,17,
[23:38] which significantly al uh altered the
[23:41] funding trajectory. Had the department's
[23:43] budget followed the its historical
[23:45] 10-year growth trend, the projected
[23:47] shortfall for fiscal 26 would have been
[23:50] substantially smaller prior to recent
[23:52] compensation adjustments. In summary,
[23:54] this override is not new or or an
[23:56] isolated request, nor is it driven by a
[23:59] single department. It reflects the
[24:01] combination of rising costs,
[24:02] long-standing staffing needs, and the
[24:04] town's responsibility to maintain
[24:06] essential services. Supporting this
[24:08] measure is an investment in the
[24:09] sustainability, safety, and operational
[24:11] stability of the town of Essex.
[24:14] >> Ruth, I'm not sure I got a second
[24:15] because you transferred right to So,
[24:18] >> can we get a second on that?
[24:20] >> Thank you. I'll take
[24:25] Yeah, that's just my discussion.
[24:29] » Okay. Any further discussion? I think
[24:31] I'm gonna go here and then I'm gonna go
[24:32] there.
[24:33] >> Up there.
[24:35] >> Since no one's seconded, should she read
[24:37] again?
[24:37] >> No, it's good.
[24:40] >> All right. Good evening. Uh Christian
[24:42] Hassel, Essex Fire Chief, in case
[24:43] someone's walked in late. Uh I'm here
[24:46] tonight because the demands of the Essex
[24:47] Fire Department have dramatically have
[24:49] changed dramatically. Uh we responded to
[24:51] more than 600 incidents last year and
[24:54] we're already on pace to match that this
[24:56] year. But it's just not the it's not
[24:58] just the volume, it's the complexity.
[25:00] Modern fires, hazardous materials,
[25:04] lithium-ion batteries, medical calls,
[25:09] and the regulatory requirements we must
[25:11] meet to keep our firefighters safe have
[25:13] grown substantially. Our call department
[25:15] is talented, committed, and the
[25:17] foundation of how Essex provides fire
[25:19] and EMS service. This proposal isn't
[25:22] about replacing that model. It's about
[25:24] preserving it. A full-time fire
[25:25] prevention officer gives us the capacity
[25:28] to train
[25:30] and learn how to read.
[25:35] Yeah. Or glasses. uh support and oversee
[25:40] the work that today's standards require
[25:42] while continuing to provide reliable
[25:44] weekday response. This is a strategic
[25:47] cost conscious step that strengthens the
[25:50] call department, improves safety, and
[25:52] ensures we can continue delivering the
[25:54] level of service this community expects
[25:56] and deserves.
[26:05] Brian Grestler, 30 Ch Street. Uh, Mr.
[26:08] Moderator, I rise in support of this
[26:10] article, not because I'm a fan of
[26:13] raising taxes, but because this override
[26:16] is the logical next step in the
[26:18] financial strategy town leadership has
[26:20] chosen. That doesn't mean I support that
[26:22] strategy or the way it's been
[26:24] communicated, but the remedy for that is
[26:26] not a no vote on this article. The
[26:28] remedy for that is to change leadership.
[26:30] As it rel as as it relates to this
[26:31] article, we just need to move forward.
[26:33] For a number of years, the town has
[26:35] taken our austerity approach to the town
[26:37] general budget, but austerity is a
[26:40] short-term solution. Eventually, whether
[26:43] we like it or not, the pendulum swims
[26:45] swings back and bills come due. That
[26:49] correction began last year when the town
[26:51] general budget increased by 5.6%.
[26:54] Uh this increase was largely obscured by
[26:56] the way the school override was
[26:57] structured and by the use of one-time
[27:00] revenue. But at the c at the candidate
[27:02] forum last year for board of selectmen,
[27:04] I asked the then chair of the board how
[27:06] we would continue paying for that
[27:07] increase this year. And her answer that
[27:09] was was that an override would likely be
[27:11] needed. So when we combined years of
[27:13] austerity, last year's approach and
[27:16] continued uh corrections this year
[27:18] contributing to an 8.1% increase, no one
[27:21] should be surprised by this override.
[27:23] Further, to date, corrections have
[27:24] focused largely on public safety, which
[27:26] I think most of us generally support.
[27:28] That being said, there are still other
[27:30] departments and services that have not
[27:31] been addressed. Uh, with that in mind,
[27:34] Mr. Moderator, and given that town
[27:35] leadership has provided limited public
[27:38] information compared to what many towns
[27:40] provide when recommending an override,
[27:41] whether on the town website, through
[27:43] public forums, or through other
[27:44] allowable means. I did have one question
[27:46] for the uh board of the finance
[27:48] committee.
[27:52] Uh, if this override does not pass, how
[27:54] does town leadership plan to account for
[27:56] the $268,000 shortfall? Is the plan to
[27:59] use reserves for one year or multiple
[28:01] years to make cuts or some combination
[28:03] of of both? If cuts are part of the
[28:06] plan, what specifically will be cut?
[28:16] » Jody Harris. Um so we that was actually
[28:20] uh what our discussion was uh prior to
[28:22] this meeting. I believe that at this
[28:25] point we would look to uh make cuts
[28:28] within the current budget. We would not
[28:30] be looking to use one-time funds to fund
[28:33] this budget as their operating costs. So
[28:36] uh we would have to look back into the
[28:39] fire budget and any other large budget
[28:41] in town that would be discussed among
[28:44] the finance committee and those
[28:46] department heads.
[28:49] Further discussion
[28:51] up here anyone? Nothing. Okay. Ed Neil
[28:57] 15 Western. So what's happened here is
[29:00] that we've got an override article in
[29:03] front of us and the finance committee
[29:05] tells us it's not about the fire
[29:06] department. But the only department that
[29:08] got up and talked about it is the fire
[29:11] department. And
[29:14] now we're told that well if the override
[29:17] doesn't pass and the override almost
[29:21] half of it is dedicated to this new
[29:23] position of fire inspector
[29:26] then they're not going to change their
[29:28] mind about that. They're going to cut
[29:30] the rest of the budget. So, by not
[29:33] amending not agreeing to my amendment,
[29:36] um, we're putting a hurt on the rest of
[29:39] the town instead of getting a clear
[29:41] decision about the override and the new
[29:44] position on the fire department. It's
[29:46] all being jumbled together and it's not
[29:48] by accident. Thank you.
[29:50] >> Further discussion on article three. All
[29:54] those in favor of article three, raise
[29:55] your card.
[29:58] All those opposed.
[30:00] The motion passes.
[30:03] Article four.
[30:16] » I, Michael Flynn, move that the town
[30:18] vote to appropriate the sum of 10,59,998
[30:27] as follows. A to raise by taxation the
[30:31] sum of1,949,364
[30:38] for debt repayment, principal, and
[30:41] interest.
[30:42] B. Transfer from the cemetery sale of
[30:46] lots fund the sum of $6,800
[30:50] to the cemetery budget. C. transfer from
[30:55] the cemetery lot care fund the sum of
[30:58] 600 excuse me 6,575
[31:02] to the cemetery budget. D transfer from
[31:06] the cemetery perpetual care fund the sum
[31:09] of $5,334
[31:12] to the cemetery budget. E. Transfer from
[31:16] the town technology fund the sum of
[31:20] 15,500
[31:22] to the town IT budget.
[31:25] F. Transfer from the ambulance fund the
[31:28] sum of 75,000 to the ambulance budget.
[31:33] G. Transfer from the septic betterment
[31:36] fund the sum of $27,980
[31:40] for debt.
[31:42] H. transfer from the waterways fund the
[31:46] sum of 58,479
[31:49] to the harbor master budget.
[31:52] I transfer from the wetlands fund to the
[31:55] sum the sum of $3,500
[31:59] to the conservation commission budget
[32:02] and J to raise by taxation the sum of
[32:06] $8,361,466
[32:11] all in combination with the nonpropy tax
[32:15] revenue sources noted on pages nine and
[32:18] 10 in the finance committee report to be
[32:22] allocated between the salaries and
[32:24] expenses of the town according to the
[32:27] remaining budget items as indicated in
[32:30] the finance committee report and to
[32:32] authorize the finance committee to
[32:33] permit budget line item transfers within
[32:37] the department from salary line items to
[32:39] salary lines
[32:41] and from expense lines to expense lines.
[32:45] That's a mouthful, but
[32:46] >> hold on. Is there a second?
[32:49] Uh this is the general budget short of
[32:51] uh a school budget. Um it is something
[32:53] we talk about every year. Um it is uh
[32:56] something that uh is
[32:59] about half of our our town budget.
[33:04] Further discussion?
[33:06] Seeing none. All those in favor of
[33:08] article four, raise your card.
[33:11] All those opposed. The motion passes.
[33:14] Article f excuse me. Article six.
[33:22] Could have got your mic.
[33:28] » Thank you.
[33:31] I, Kate Cotch Sunquist, move that the
[33:33] town vote to raise and appropriate the
[33:35] sum of 185,727
[33:40] for the purpose of supplementing the
[33:42] Manchester Essex Regional School
[33:43] District's fiscal year 2027 assessment,
[33:46] provided that the amount authorized
[33:48] herein shall be contingent upon the vote
[33:50] at the town election to assess
[33:52] additional real estate and personal
[33:53] property taxes in accordance with the
[33:56] provisions of Proposition 2 and a half,
[33:58] so-called.
[34:00] disc any further discussion?
[34:06] » Um, I'd like to thank the board of
[34:08] selectmen and the finance committee for
[34:10] your continued partnership and
[34:11] collaboration this year. We are
[34:13] particularly grateful to the board of
[34:15] selectmen who for the first time in my
[34:17] tenure took a majority affirmative vote
[34:19] to endorse the district override. I also
[34:21] want to thank the residents of Essex for
[34:23] your ongoing support of our schools and
[34:25] our students. The Manchester Essex
[34:27] Regional School District continues to be
[34:29] a place where students thrive
[34:31] academically, socially, and emotionally.
[34:34] We do not aim to compete with the top
[34:36] private schools that surround our
[34:37] community, but we do aim to provide the
[34:39] best public education possible with the
[34:41] resources available from both member
[34:43] towns. I truly believe that we do an
[34:45] amazing job of that thanks to the
[34:47] strength of our staff and the shared
[34:49] support of our communities, both
[34:50] Manchester and Essex. The fiscical year
[34:53] 27 proposed budget is 33.7 million,
[34:56] representing a 3.5%
[34:59] increase over last year. This is a level
[35:01] services budget that will maintain
[35:03] current programming, staffing, and
[35:04] student supports without adding any
[35:06] bells and whistles or cutting any
[35:08] necessities. As was the case last year,
[35:11] approximately 80% of our budget is
[35:13] dedicated to salaries and benefits.
[35:16] costs in areas such as special
[35:18] education, transportation, and employee
[35:20] benefits continue to rise and are large
[35:22] and are largely outside of the
[35:24] district's direct control. For this
[35:26] reason, and the reasons already outlined
[35:28] by FINCOM member Ruth Pere, growth
[35:30] exceeds the limitations of Prop 2 and a
[35:32] half. Still, this year's budget reflects
[35:35] a balanced, responsible use of
[35:37] resources. The planned use of $600,000
[35:40] in reserves as well as a measured
[35:42] adjustment to our annual OPED
[35:43] contribution reflects our thoughtful
[35:46] leverage of financial tools within a
[35:47] multi-year plan to reduce the burden on
[35:49] taxpayers. This allows us to make
[35:52] progress toward both our long-term
[35:53] financial obligations and the priorities
[35:56] outlined in our strategic plan. And of
[35:58] course, looking ahead, we are excited to
[36:00] continue our work on the Essex
[36:01] Elementary building project. This
[36:03] project will benefit all students in our
[36:05] district, but especially those who live
[36:07] here in our town. It will also benefit
[36:09] all of us here tonight, not just by
[36:11] reflecting a capital investment right
[36:12] here where we gather, but also by
[36:15] providing a community space for
[36:16] recreation, a home for prek students in
[36:19] our own town, and a meeting space,
[36:21] which, dare I say, may even provide
[36:23] better comfort and acoustics than those
[36:25] we enjoy tonight under the hallowed
[36:28] peaks of Mount Candoo.
[36:31] The Essex Elementary building project
[36:33] represents the final phase of a
[36:35] multi-year capital improvement plan that
[36:37] began with the middle high school. As a
[36:39] regional district, our work depends on
[36:41] the strength, commitment, and compromise
[36:42] of both communities and the decisions we
[36:45] make together. We remain committed to
[36:47] maintaining a highquality educational
[36:49] program while managing resources
[36:51] responsibly and transparently. On behalf
[36:54] of the school committee and the entire
[36:56] Manchester Essex School Committee, thank
[36:57] you for your continued support of our
[36:59] schools and our students.
[37:08] Further discussion? Seeing none, all
[37:11] those in favor of article six, raise
[37:13] your card.
[37:14] Any opposed?
[37:16] The motion passes. The this article and
[37:19] the other override article will be
[37:20] showing up on the ballot on Monday. Just
[37:22] a reminder that it's two two-step
[37:24] process in passing this. So, it's got to
[37:25] pass here and it has to pass at the
[37:27] ballot on Monday.
[37:30] on the 11th Monday. Uh, article seven.
[37:37] >> I, Kate Cotch Sunquist, move that the
[37:39] town vote to raise and appropriate the
[37:40] sum of 10,948,841
[37:45] to fund a portion of the town's
[37:47] assessment from the Manchester Essex
[37:48] Regional School District, said some to
[37:50] be calculated solely in accordance with
[37:52] the agreement between the towns of Essex
[37:54] and Manchester by the Sea,
[37:55] Massachusetts, with respect to the
[37:57] formation of a regional school district.
[37:59] as most recently amended by invoking and
[38:02] approving the provision found in
[38:03] paragraph 4 of Massachusetts General
[38:05] Laws chapter 71 section 16B allowing
[38:08] district members to reallocate the sum
[38:10] of their required local contributions to
[38:13] the district in accordance with the
[38:14] regional agreement for the fiscal year
[38:16] beginning July 1st 2026
[38:22] » discussion
[38:24] >> no further discussion from me
[38:30] Seeing none, all those in favor of
[38:31] article 7, raise your card.
[38:34] All those opposed. The motion passes.
[38:41] Article nine.
[38:47] » Sorry. Can I make a motion to reconsider
[38:50] article three?
[38:52] >> You can.
[38:53] >> Yep. I, Brian Greser, move to reconsider
[38:56] article three.
[38:59] >> town override.
[39:00] >> The town override.
[39:02] >> Uh, is there a second to that motion for
[39:04] amend?
[39:07] >> Wouldn't do that one. We did the
[39:09] >> discussion.
[39:11] No discussion. All those in favor of
[39:13] reconsidering article three, raise your
[39:15] card.
[39:17] >> All those opposed?
[39:20] Motion does not pass to reconsider.
[39:22] >> One more. I, Brian Grassler, move to
[39:25] reconsider article six.
[39:27] >> Is there a second?
[39:30] Any discussion? Any discussion? That's
[39:33] second. All those in favor of
[39:36] reconsidering article uh six,
[39:40] raise your card. All those opposed
[39:43] reconsider does not pass.
[39:45] >> Thank you.
[39:46] >> Article nine.
[39:50] I, Elvin Garero, Martin Street,
[39:54] move to move that the town fix the
[39:57] salary and compensation for each elected
[40:00] official um officer of the town required
[40:03] by the Massachusetts General Law,
[40:05] Chapter 41, section 108 as amended for
[40:08] fiscal year 2027
[40:11] in accordance with the recommendation of
[40:13] the personnel board report.
[40:15] >> Is there a second?
[40:17] >> Discussion. I have no discussion on
[40:20] this. No changes.
[40:22] >> Any further discussion? All those in
[40:24] favor of article 9, raise your card.
[40:28] >> Opposed? Motion passes. Article 10.
[40:39] » I, Nick Ellis, move that article 10 be
[40:41] indefinitely postponed. Is there a
[40:43] second?
[40:45] All those in favor of postponing article
[40:47] 10
[40:50] opposed
[40:52] passes. Article 11. I Nick Ellis v um
[40:56] move that the town vote to appropriate
[40:57] the sum of1,249,395
[41:03] for the fiscal year 2027 sewer
[41:05] enterprise fund budget as follows. debt
[41:08] repayment, principal, and interest, the
[41:10] sum of $129,54
[41:13] to be raised by taxation, and funds to
[41:16] be allocated between the salaries and
[41:18] expenses of the sewer department,
[41:20] 1,119,891
[41:23] from department receipts, all as
[41:25] indicated in the finance committee
[41:26] report, and to authorize the finance
[41:28] committee to permit line budget line
[41:31] item transfers within the sewer
[41:32] department, from salary lines to salary
[41:34] lines, and from expense lines to expense
[41:37] lines.
[41:40] This is to fund our sewer operating
[41:43] budget.
[41:50] » Any opposed? Motion passes. Article 12.
[41:55] >> I, Nick Ellis, move that article 12 be
[41:57] indefinitely postponed.
[41:59] >> Is there a second?
[42:01] >> All those in favor of postponing article
[42:02] 12, raise your card. Any opposed? Motion
[42:05] passes to postpone. Article 13.
[42:09] >> I Nelis move that the town vote to
[42:11] appropriate the sum of1,51,84
[42:15] the fisc year 2027 water enterprise fund
[42:18] budget as follows. A debt repayment
[42:20] principle and interest, the sum of
[42:22] $81,289
[42:25] from departmental receipts and the sum
[42:27] of $34,839
[42:29] to be raised by taxation. and B funds to
[42:32] be allocated between the salaries and
[42:33] expenses of the water department 934
[42:37] $935,000
[42:39] 935,676
[42:43] from department receipts all as
[42:44] indicated in the finance committee
[42:45] report and to authorize finance
[42:47] committee to permit line item transfers
[42:50] within the water department from salary
[42:52] lines to salary lines and from expense
[42:54] lines to expense lines. Second
[42:57] >> discussion.
[43:01] » This is to fund our water budget.
[43:05] >> All those in favor of article 13, raise
[43:07] your card. Opposed. Motion passes.
[43:11] Article 14.
[43:17] I, Lisa O'Donnell,
[43:19] am here for one article tonight. move
[43:22] that the town vote to amend the town
[43:23] zoning bylaws 6-10.2.1
[43:27] membership and organization as shown in
[43:29] article 14 of the warrant. And in the
[43:32] warrant you'll see there is one
[43:33] boldfaced sentence that reads the
[43:35] planning board shall designate and
[43:37] recommend individuals for appointment as
[43:38] associate members and such appointment
[43:40] shall be made by majority vote of the
[43:43] planning board and board of selectmen.
[43:44] So this just establishes how those
[43:46] associate members are appointed.
[43:48] >> Is there a second? Any further
[43:51] discussion?
[43:54] » Further discussion? Yeah.
[43:56] >> So, Lisa in the planning board, can you
[43:58] explain the why an alternate is
[44:01] something that you feel that is needed?
[44:03] >> We already established the alternate um
[44:06] last fall. as one of the articles that
[44:09] passed. But um when a special permit
[44:13] comes in front of the planning board, uh
[44:16] if a member of the planning board is in
[44:18] a butter or has a conflict or might be
[44:21] going on vacation and miss one of the
[44:23] meetings of the hearing, they can't sit
[44:25] in that decision. Special permits
[44:27] require supermajority. So we need five
[44:29] or seven votes. So, what this would do
[44:31] is it'll give the opportunity for the
[44:34] planning board um to have a associate
[44:37] member come in and fill the spot of a
[44:40] planning board member who's unable to
[44:42] sit. So, we already established that at
[44:44] the last meeting, but what this does is
[44:47] confirms how that um appointment is
[44:50] made. So, people who are interested in
[44:52] being an associate would be selected by
[44:53] the planning board. planning board would
[44:55] recommend that to themselves and the
[44:57] selectman and the selectman and the
[44:59] planning board jointly take a vote to
[45:01] make those appointments which is um how
[45:04] it's done for it's how how like if a
[45:07] planning board member steps down that's
[45:08] the exact same process we use to replace
[45:10] a planning board member if we have to
[45:12] fill a vacancy
[45:13] >> any further discussion
[45:17] uh this requires twothirds so all those
[45:19] in favor of article 14 raise your card
[45:22] opposed
[45:24] Motion passes by 2/3.
[45:27] Article 15.
[45:33] I, Peter D. Fippen, move that the town
[45:35] vote to amend the town bylaws be revi by
[45:38] revising section 4-4A.4
[45:42] as shown in article 15 of the warrant.
[45:44] >> Is there a second?
[45:46] >> Discussion. So, this is to bring the uh
[45:49] moing permit bylaw um in line with the
[45:53] uh regulations, which is to have the
[45:55] mooring uh permits effective April 1st
[45:59] to December 31st.
[46:06] Any further discussion?
[46:09] All those in favor of article 15, please
[46:11] raise your card. All those opposed, the
[46:14] motion passes.
[46:16] Article 16.
[46:20] » Me again. Okay. So, I Elvan Gaharero
[46:24] move that the town vote to amend the
[46:26] town bylaw by adding a new section 4- A
[46:30] 4-4A.
[46:32] 8 river use fee as shown in the article
[46:36] 16 of the warrant with addition um the
[46:39] following changes. A to insert the word
[46:43] motorized between
[46:46] the word any and the word vessel in the
[46:50] first sentence and B but this bylaw
[46:53] shall become effective January 1st 2027
[46:58] correct you said 26
[47:01] >> 27 2027
[47:07] » second
[47:09] >> I did I marked
[47:11] discussion.
[47:13] >> I have sorry I have the chief here to um
[47:17] respond. Um M uh also the harbor master.
[47:21] >> Thank you.
[47:26] » Good evening. Tom Shamshack, chief of
[47:27] police and the harbor master. So I have
[47:30] a little breakdown history. Essex had
[47:33] established a waterway fund decades ago.
[47:35] It is supposed to be funded by any and
[47:37] all moing fees, user fees, 50% of excise
[47:41] or other waterway generated revenue to
[47:43] be able to fund the waterway services.
[47:47] This account funds maintenance such as
[47:49] replacing buoys or repairing boats,
[47:51] infrastructure such as dock floats,
[47:54] chains, ramps, and can cover salary
[47:56] services to patrol all bodies of water
[47:58] in a jurisdiction. When I took over July
[48:01] 1st of 2025, the budget had been cut
[48:03] from just over 78,000 to 39,000.
[48:07] Harbor and waterways need appropriate
[48:09] funding. For example, last season, the
[48:12] town float broke a mooring chain. The
[48:14] chain alone was over $1,000. There was
[48:16] only 500 appropriated to fund the entire
[48:19] dock and float maintenance line for the
[48:20] entire season.
[48:22] Why is this user fee being explored?
[48:25] Many municipalities use fees as a
[48:27] funding source to help establish an
[48:29] enterprise fund or as close to self-
[48:30] sustaining as it can be to fund the
[48:32] services that a waterway demands.
[48:35] Over the last season, I have been asked
[48:37] by the board of selectmen to explore
[48:39] various other municipalities fees and
[48:41] present them the findings so that they
[48:42] could present an article on the warrant.
[48:45] Who is paying fees?
[48:47] Currently, the boers at a marina do not
[48:50] pay fees. Essex is one of the only towns
[48:52] that I could find that does not assess a
[48:54] general waterway fee or user fee or some
[48:57] other uniform fee to all users. Excise
[49:00] is entirely different. It's set by the
[49:02] state and only 50% of people that
[49:04] actually pay it is deposited into the
[49:07] fund.
[49:09] The only people assess town of Essex
[49:11] fees are moing holders, dinghyd do
[49:13] slips, kayak slip renters, or
[49:15] non-resident launch pass holders.
[49:18] slip holders or seasonal private launch
[49:20] members, whether resident or
[49:21] non-resident, do not pay any user fee or
[49:24] waterway fee to Essex. They may or may
[49:26] not pay excise. The marinas sometimes do
[49:29] or sometimes do not provide the list of
[49:31] boats on slips for excise compliance.
[49:34] Last July, we found numerous boats that
[49:36] are habitually docked at some marinas
[49:37] but are registered out of state or had
[49:40] been unregistered or expired as far back
[49:41] as 2007.
[49:43] This will not trigger an excise bill.
[49:46] Yet the boat is using the river and
[49:47] waterways infrastructure and services.
[49:50] The town is rightfully owed excise tax
[49:52] if a boat is habitually morowed, docked,
[49:54] stored, or used in the waters here.
[49:56] Examples of other municipalities fees.
[49:59] Beverly assesses fees to mored boats or
[50:02] boats on marina slips at $7 a foot.
[50:05] Salem assesses fees for moorings and
[50:08] also slips at $7 a foot. Danvers
[50:11] assesses fees for moorings and slips,
[50:13] and the fees vary for resident or
[50:14] non-resident. The town of Winthre
[50:17] assesses a flat waterway fee to
[50:18] residents of $250 and $300 for
[50:21] non-residents for moorings and slips.
[50:24] Salsbury assesses fees for all boats,
[50:26] both moorings or slips, at $5 a foot.
[50:29] Manchester assesses $1250 a foot for a
[50:31] moing permit and also 1250 a foot for
[50:34] slips. The article, the ask of this
[50:37] article is not out of the ordinary.
[50:40] These fees collected shall be deposited
[50:42] into the waterway fund to be
[50:43] appropriated for waterway needs. It
[50:45] legally cannot be used for anything
[50:46] else. That is the purpose of the fund
[50:49] and it is funded by these types of user
[50:50] fees. I have received questions such as,
[50:54] I am retired and on a fixed income and
[50:55] do not have a boat. Why should my taxes
[50:58] to go up to buy new buoys or pay for
[50:59] waterway patrols when I'm not out there?
[51:02] The answer to this is to go for a user
[51:03] fee funding source.
[51:06] If we assess all users some type of fee
[51:08] that goes into the waterway fund, the
[51:11] ultimate goal is to minimize taxation.
[51:13] We want to fund the waterway fees with
[51:15] user fees. I have also been told that we
[51:17] are unfairly targeting boers that choose
[51:19] to get slips or valet or seasonal launch
[51:21] passes at marinas. I've been told to
[51:23] increase mooring fees on moing holders
[51:25] and do not charge fees to slip holders.
[51:28] After brief research, it would seem that
[51:30] almost everywhere else is charging the
[51:32] slip fees or marina fees. Manchester,
[51:34] Salem, and Beverly pay the same fee for
[51:37] slips and moorings. Salsbury charges
[51:40] more than a mooring fee. Winthre play
[51:42] pays a flat fee, resident status
[51:44] dependent. Danvers pays less for a slip
[51:47] or rack fee. Essex is asking for less of
[51:50] a fee at $5 a foot compared to the $8 a
[51:53] foot for moorings. How would this be
[51:55] captured? Through DACA, issued the same
[51:58] color sticker as everyone else in town
[52:00] to be displayed in the same manner. I do
[52:02] not expect this to be enforced by the
[52:03] marina owners. This will be paid to the
[52:05] town in Daqua, deposited into the
[52:07] waterway fund, and we will mail them
[52:08] stickers.
[52:12] » Further discussion.
[52:17] » Is it on? Betsy Ridge, Saganese Road, 22
[52:22] Saganese Road. Um, I think that if this
[52:25] is illuminating and I'm I'm glad you
[52:27] discussed this. I think that the slip
[52:29] fees make a lot of sense, but I'm
[52:32] wondering about um extra taxes towards
[52:37] Essex residents because I think there
[52:39] are some people who in this town who
[52:42] actually don't have to use slips or um
[52:48] other means to get their kayaks out onto
[52:51] the river. And this sounds like it would
[52:54] apply to Essex residents. I think that
[52:57] this is a great way of res raising
[53:00] revenue from non-residents,
[53:02] but I think that it should be applied to
[53:04] slip owners and uh or renters and not to
[53:08] the general. So, if you think that needs
[53:11] an amendment, I would do that.
[53:15] >> Mr. Mart, that was specifically amended
[53:16] to include motorized vessels only, not
[53:18] apply to kayaks.
[53:20] >> Correct.
[53:21] >> Further discussion. Scott, I think you
[53:23] were up.
[53:25] Yes. Scott Woodward, 25 Belture Street.
[53:28] Um, I have a couple issues with this. I
[53:31] do own Pike Marine. Uh, you have first
[53:33] line is no person shall use or allow
[53:35] another to use any vessel.
[53:38] Who is the person that's going to use or
[53:40] allow someone else not to use that
[53:42] vessel? Who's going to enforce that to
[53:43] say you can't use that vessel?
[53:47] >> Is that a question for the
[53:48] >> That's a for the chief.
[53:50] >> Okay. That would be the same as if you
[53:52] allowed somebody to use your your
[53:53] vehicle that you you own. Hey, take my
[53:55] vehicle for the weekend. Take my boat
[53:57] for the weekend.
[53:58] >> So, they're going to be liable for it,
[53:59] not the marine owners or anyone else
[54:00] that's on the dock.
[54:03] >> Correct. It would not be the marine
[54:05] owners would have nothing to do with
[54:06] this. It would be purely a town of Essex
[54:09] registration through DACA.
[54:10] >> Okay. Next question. Um, you had do not
[54:14] have moorings included in this. You did
[54:16] raise your mooring rate this year from
[54:18] what? $5 to $8 a foot. Now, if you take
[54:22] this $5.50 a foot or $5 a foot off of
[54:26] that and they're not paying this fee,
[54:28] they're back down to three bucks a foot.
[54:30] So, they're getting a deal.
[54:33] That's a comment, not a question.
[54:36] Okay. Why?
[54:42] That's a question.
[54:44] So, we're not taking it off the There
[54:47] were exemptions. Some municipalities
[54:49] charge everybody. Some don't. Some are
[54:52] category specific. It it it varies, but
[54:55] every municipality charges some type of
[54:58] fee. We we were so far behind we thought
[55:00] we were in the lead. That's the only way
[55:02] I
[55:02] >> I mean, I've gone through a lot of the
[55:04] towns that have done this and a lot of
[55:06] the towns charge dock and moing the user
[55:09] fee.
[55:11] >> Correct.
[55:12] >> Both. Not just one, both of them. And
[55:14] we're not charging a moing fee, a moing
[55:17] user fee for the river.
[55:19] >> Correct. Many municipalities have
[55:21] different ways of doing it.
[55:23] >> So now you're taking it to the people
[55:25] that are trailering boats and the ones
[55:27] that are on the docks and they have to
[55:29] pay it. And the ones that are on
[55:30] moorings that come from out of town
[55:32] don't have to pay it and they're still
[55:34] using our waterways.
[55:36] >> That's a statement.
[55:39] I'm I'm try honestly I'm trying to avoid
[55:41] a conversation. Let me re let me uh fix
[55:43] it. And they're still using our
[55:45] waterways, right?
[55:48] >> So, a prime example is somebody has a
[55:52] slip, say at your marina.
[55:53] >> Yep.
[55:53] >> They live in Wakefield, Massachusetts,
[55:55] but their boat is registered in New
[55:57] Hampshire.
[55:58] >> They're skirting excise. They're also
[56:00] skirting town fees. Under Mass General
[56:02] Laws, chapter 60B, section two, boat
[56:05] owners must file
[56:08] uh a return on or before August 1st to
[56:11] the city or town where the vessel is
[56:12] habitually morowed, docked, or
[56:14] principally situated. That's law. That's
[56:17] mass law. So, if it's on my dock, the
[56:19] boat owner is respire responsible to do
[56:21] this.
[56:25] » Statement. The boat owner is responsible
[56:27] to do this. Right.
[56:30] >> Correct. Some municipalities and marinas
[56:34] have cooperation, but we understand it
[56:35] could put marina owners in a odd
[56:38] position to demand compliance from their
[56:41] uh customers. So, it would be enforced
[56:44] as a harvest.
[56:45] >> I mean, that's excise tax. I get that.
[56:47] But who's going to enforce that?
[56:50] >> Who's going to enforce which?
[56:52] >> Collecting the excise tax on the boats
[56:53] that are on the docks or even on the
[56:55] moorings, sters, and everything else. So
[56:58] when they register in DACA, it will
[57:00] generate that this is their principal
[57:02] place of mooring. It's on them to file
[57:05] an abatement if they feel that they
[57:07] don't.
[57:07] >> There's there's the whole problem right
[57:09] there. It's on them and they're not
[57:11] going to do it.
[57:13] >> Any further comments?
[57:16] >> No, I think I got it. I think I made a
[57:19] point.
[57:19] >> Thank you. I'm not trying to limit the
[57:21] discussion. I'm trying to limit a
[57:23] conversation. Thank you.
[57:25] >> That way. I think I'm gonna go with
[57:26] Katie
[57:28] >> Kate Cotch Sunquist 8 Dodge Street. Um I
[57:32] move to amend the article.
[57:35] I would like to add to section 4-48
[57:40] dot so sorry 4-4A.8.2.
[57:45] That section is the exceptions. I would
[57:47] like to add vote operators below the age
[57:50] of 18 and over the age of 65.
[57:54] My reason for doing so is I think that
[57:57] everybody should be able to access our
[57:58] river. I think it is an amazing natural
[58:00] resource. I personally have a
[58:02] 14-year-old who bought his boat with his
[58:04] own money. He pays his taxes with his
[58:06] own money. um which is not much, but
[58:09] adding a you know 70s something dollars
[58:11] onto that represents a significant
[58:14] expense for him as I think it would for
[58:16] people on a fixed income um or other
[58:19] youth who are interested in getting um
[58:23] out on the water which is a great thing.
[58:25] >> Is there a second to that amendment
[58:28] >> that and that was not charging less than
[58:30] 18 or over 65? Was that what that was?
[58:32] >> Do you have that right?
[58:36] Is there discussion on that amendment?
[58:39] Not the main article, but the amendment
[58:40] to limit the age below 18 and above 65.
[58:44] Not qu
[58:48] » question. How do we enforce operator
[58:50] verse owner?
[58:55] » Motion was operator, right?
[59:07] The reason that I say operator and not
[59:09] owner is because anybody who owns a
[59:12] boat, um, if an adult owns a boat and
[59:16] plans to be operating it themselves,
[59:18] they will still need to have the sticker
[59:21] or whatever it is affixed to their boat.
[59:24] If the only person operating that boat
[59:26] is 18 or below, you wouldn't have it on
[59:29] your boat. But if I wanted to take my
[59:31] son's boat out, I'm not skirting the
[59:33] rule because I'm over 18. So I would
[59:36] still need to have the sticker affixed
[59:38] to his boat. If the only person
[59:40] operating his boat is him, then he would
[59:42] not need to pay that.
[59:45] >> Any further discussion on the amendment?
[59:48] >> You wouldn't be able to take the sticker
[59:49] on or off?
[59:51] >> No, I I understand. And I'm just saying
[59:53] that what it would do would be allow my
[59:56] son to take his boat out but not allow
[59:58] me to take his boat out. If I want to go
[1:00:00] out on the river, I'm paying to put the
[1:00:02] sticker on my boat.
[1:00:05] >> Further discussion. I think I'm going to
[1:00:06] go over here. I think you were standing.
[1:00:08] I didn't
[1:00:09] >> Well, I'm sorry.
[1:00:11] >> Any further discussion on the amendment?
[1:00:13] >> Yes.
[1:00:14] >> Okay.
[1:00:16] >> Go ahead. Uh Steuart Pratt, 15 Tree
[1:00:19] Hill, Essex, Mass. I don't think I'm in
[1:00:23] favor of this amendment. I think it's
[1:00:25] offering up an opportunity for people to
[1:00:28] get around paying the fee because if you
[1:00:30] have someone like myself is over the age
[1:00:33] of 65 and has a son who is 45, I'll just
[1:00:37] register the vote for myself
[1:00:38] theoretically and he can use it. But I
[1:00:41] think the least amount of problems we
[1:00:44] give to the chief and making sure this
[1:00:46] works for the town which needs the
[1:00:47] income the better. So I would say I'm
[1:00:49] against this. Any further discussion on
[1:00:52] the amendment?
[1:00:53] >> So, it's not who the boat is registered
[1:00:55] to. It is who is operating the boat.
[1:00:58] >> That's your motion. Yes.
[1:00:59] >> Yes. So, then you couldn't register the
[1:01:02] boat under your older parents name and
[1:01:05] skirt the rule if you plan to operate
[1:01:07] the boat yourself.
[1:01:08] >> If the operator is pulled over, he's
[1:01:10] probably going to pay the fee if he
[1:01:11] doesn't have a sticker,
[1:01:12] >> right?
[1:01:13] >> Or if he's under 18.
[1:01:17] » Any further discussion on the amendment?
[1:01:27] Hello. Okay. Um, what if someone under
[1:01:30] 18 is on the boat with someone over 18
[1:01:35] and I'm riding my boat down the river
[1:01:37] and I see the harbor master and I go,
[1:01:38] "Oh, drive."
[1:01:42] >> To be clear, I'm not the harbor master.
[1:01:43] >> No, no,
[1:01:44] >> I see him. He's He's behind you.
[1:01:47] >> That's easy, right? Because if you use
[1:01:49] that boat sometimes, you're going to
[1:01:51] have a sticker on it anyway because
[1:01:53] you're over 18. If the only time you
[1:01:55] ever use that boat is with somebody who
[1:01:57] is below the age of 18, then you
[1:02:00] wouldn't have the sticker.
[1:02:04] » Any further discussion on the amendment?
[1:02:08] We have someone Gilly
[1:02:12] >> Gil Frerieden 104 John Weisav. I would
[1:02:15] be it sounds like this amendment will
[1:02:19] probably
[1:02:20] not help almost anyone but on the
[1:02:24] because there's going to be my mom is 82
[1:02:26] but if she registered my boat and I
[1:02:28] wanted to drive it we'd buy the sticker
[1:02:30] anyways so it doesn't matter but there
[1:02:34] will be a very few exceptions to this
[1:02:38] rule that will be able to benefit for it
[1:02:41] and as someone who loves the senior
[1:02:44] center and loves all the people that go
[1:02:47] there. I say we pass this amendment.
[1:02:50] It's going to be very seldom used, but
[1:02:52] it's going it but it may benefit a
[1:02:55] couple of seniors and a couple of 14y
[1:02:57] olds, and that's what we're here for.
[1:03:04] Further discussion on the amendment.
[1:03:08] Seeing none, all those in favor of
[1:03:09] amending article 16 to add the age
[1:03:11] limit, raise your card. Oppo
[1:03:15] opposed.
[1:03:23] Can we do that again? All those in favor
[1:03:26] of amending article 16, raise your card.
[1:03:33] All those opposed.
[1:03:36] >> Going to need the towers. Thanks.
[1:03:42] I hate
[1:03:44] that.
[1:03:47] >> So soon as we get the towers up here.
[1:04:11] So,
[1:04:14] can we keep it down a bit so we can get
[1:04:16] organized and get this over with?
[1:04:20] >> How many How many
[1:04:39] So, I'm gonna they're gonna have to walk
[1:04:41] and count. So, if you could raise your
[1:04:44] card if you are in favor of amending
[1:04:47] article 60.
[1:04:49] Hold them up because they've got to
[1:04:50] count
[1:04:59] through that. should be up there.
[1:05:02] >> That should be up there.
[1:05:13] » I I'm I'm reading your amendment. I'm
[1:05:15] going to rule it out of scope. There's
[1:05:18] too many changes to it. People
[1:05:22] that looked at the original article are
[1:05:24] going to say, "Well, I I had known
[1:05:25] something else was going to be on there
[1:05:27] and there's enough change and they
[1:05:28] didn't come." That's not fair. So, I'm
[1:05:30] going to rule it out of scope.
[1:05:35] It's what?
[1:05:37] >> It's not Well, I have to make it fair
[1:05:39] for everyone that either was here or not
[1:05:41] here because they read the article and
[1:05:42] that amendment changes it too much.
[1:05:47] » I understand, but it it changes too much
[1:05:50] of the original article.
[1:06:10] Keep your cards up.
[1:06:29] donating your car.
[1:06:50] Still a yay vote for the amendment. Keep
[1:06:52] your card up.
[1:07:01] » What? Done. Okay. So, now we need all
[1:07:05] those voting no on the amendment raise
[1:07:08] your card, please.
[1:07:35] This is the You're holding your card for
[1:07:37] the no vote on the amendment.
[1:07:51] I'm sorry.
[1:08:26] No, it isn't.
[1:08:41] I suggested he postpone this whole thing
[1:08:44] and have a public forum on it.
[1:08:47] >> I'm hoping he may still. He still has a
[1:08:50] chance to do that.
[1:09:15] Keep your cards up so they can see them.
[1:09:33] Correct.
[1:09:50] » 21. 22. We need 22 for another.
[1:09:55] >> Correct.
[1:09:57] >> 40 60
[1:10:02] 89
[1:10:05] 19.
[1:10:06] We need 19 for
[1:10:17] you. Good.
[1:10:31] Oh, so the only number you don't have is
[1:10:33] this one.
[1:10:33] >> Yes,
[1:10:33] >> it's going to fit.
[1:10:36] >> By a lot. I didn't think it was that
[1:10:37] close. I don't know.
[1:10:54] system.
[1:10:54] >> I'm not getting
[1:10:59] » I'm staying in my lane. Yeah.
[1:11:36] Okay, everybody can get back to back to
[1:11:39] order here. Uh the the vote to amend
[1:11:43] failed 91 to 115. So now we'll move on
[1:11:47] to the main article
[1:11:49] 16. Further discussion on article 16.
[1:11:56] Ed,
[1:11:56] >> I just wanted to touch on one thing that
[1:11:59] hasn't that's kind of been glossed over.
[1:12:02] >> The boat excise tax, 50% of it's being
[1:12:04] taken by the town. It's spent on the
[1:12:06] general fund.
[1:12:09] >> That's all.
[1:12:11] >> Jim,
[1:12:12] >> uh Jim Lewiki, Belter Street, uh just
[1:12:14] clarification on the scope of uh
[1:12:17] applicability. So uh will all the
[1:12:20] clammers who launch in Essex have to pay
[1:12:22] the fee? And how does it apply to the
[1:12:25] commercial operations like uh Essex
[1:12:28] River Cruises and to say the ship
[1:12:31] building museum who may launch vessels
[1:12:34] uh randomly at any time?
[1:12:36] >> Correct. So un unless there's some um
[1:12:38] tax exemption based on a status that you
[1:12:41] file, everybody would have to pay this a
[1:12:44] onetime seasonal fee.
[1:12:47] Ted Ted Marshall Pickering Street and
[1:12:50] the owner of Agawan Boat and Fishing
[1:12:51] Charters here in town. I've been in the
[1:12:52] marine industry now for something like
[1:12:54] 45 years and I'm very familiar with
[1:12:57] Marblehead, Beverly, Salem, Danvers and
[1:12:59] how they do their permits. We are the
[1:13:01] only town, as he says, that does not
[1:13:03] collect a fee on all the boats in their
[1:13:06] territory. Uh, so I'm not against it
[1:13:08] totally. It sounds to me a this Dqua
[1:13:11] thing uh for my mooring is royal pain in
[1:13:14] the butt for one. It just means they
[1:13:17] don't have to do it and they send it to
[1:13:18] DACA and I don't know what do charges
[1:13:20] the town but they send me weekly emails
[1:13:23] of all kinds of crap that I don't
[1:13:25] appreciate. Uh I don't understand why we
[1:13:29] have never collected fees on boats at
[1:13:31] the marinas. That makes absolutely no
[1:13:33] sense to me if they were using our
[1:13:34] waterway. It sounds like a uh
[1:13:37] enforcement headache. Uh Maximus,
[1:13:40] with our river, with all the boats that
[1:13:42] come in here to go to the beach and up
[1:13:44] river to the restaurants and everything
[1:13:45] else, how are you going to tell who's an
[1:13:47] Nessex resident or not? If you're out in
[1:13:48] the patrol boat, you don't see a sticker
[1:13:50] on the back of the boat because they're
[1:13:51] from Newport or wherever else. You're
[1:13:53] going to stop every boat coming up and
[1:13:54] down the river. I mean, it's, you know,
[1:13:57] kind of a crazy thing. So, if you get
[1:13:59] every boat that's habitually here in
[1:14:01] Essex and you charge them the same fee
[1:14:03] as a mooring fee, I pay my mooring fee
[1:14:06] happily. I also have a dock. Does that
[1:14:08] mean I'm going to have to pay moing fee
[1:14:09] and a dock fee on top of my dock rental?
[1:14:14] I mean, there's a lot of funny stuff.
[1:14:17] I've read everything that was promoted
[1:14:18] in the paper and in this stuff and it
[1:14:20] doesn't make a great deal of sense. It's
[1:14:22] too overly complicated.
[1:14:25] >> Was there a question in there?
[1:14:28] Okay. I just want to make sure you
[1:14:30] didn't miss the question. I'm gonna go
[1:14:31] here first.
[1:14:34] >> That
[1:14:38] » I don't I don't understand the question.
[1:14:42] >> Yep.
[1:14:44] >> Correct.
[1:14:51] » I believe yes. The moing fee is
[1:14:54] different than this fee.
[1:14:58] We're No, that's Betsy McKeen, 35 Linham
[1:15:02] Point Road. So, I want to clarify
[1:15:03] something that a earlier presenter said
[1:15:05] that I found confusing after reading the
[1:15:09] article. So, I'm an Essex resident. I
[1:15:12] have a moing, happily, as this other
[1:15:14] gentleman does, pay my moing fee every
[1:15:15] year. As I read this article,
[1:15:19] I would continue to pay my moing fee for
[1:15:21] $8 a foot.
[1:15:22] >> Correct? I would not pay anything
[1:15:24] different from that because it's an
[1:15:25] exemption
[1:15:27] from the river user fee. So, someone
[1:15:29] else had mentioned $8 minus $5, $3, but
[1:15:33] no, I still pay my $8 a foot moing fee.
[1:15:36] Correct.
[1:15:37] >> Correct. That is correct.
[1:15:38] >> Thank you.
[1:15:46] » Everyone here? All right.
[1:15:51] Let me know if you can't hear this.
[1:15:53] Okay,
[1:15:53] >> we just need your name.
[1:15:55] >> My name is Jack Gail, 105 Pawn Street.
[1:16:00] Uh, in Massachusetts, the public has a
[1:16:03] constitutional right to fish, fowl, and
[1:16:06] navigate in the intertital zone. That
[1:16:09] means between high and low tide. These
[1:16:12] rights are reserved by the colonial
[1:16:14] ordinances of 1641 to 1647.
[1:16:20] In every coastal state, the use of
[1:16:22] tidelands tidelands is governed by a
[1:16:25] concept in property law known as the
[1:16:27] public trust doctrine, which dates back
[1:16:30] centuries to Roman law. The doctrine
[1:16:33] states that all rights in tide lands and
[1:16:36] the water itself are held by the state
[1:16:39] in trust for the benefit of the public.
[1:16:43] Over
[1:16:46] the years, Massachusetts courts have
[1:16:49] ruled that the scope of activities on
[1:16:52] private tide land uh on um tidelands
[1:16:56] covered by the reserved public rights of
[1:16:59] fishing, fouling and navigation is broad
[1:17:02] and includes all of their natural
[1:17:04] derivatives, including for example, the
[1:17:08] right to navigate includes the right to
[1:17:10] conduct any activity involving the
[1:17:13] movement movement of a boat, vessel,
[1:17:15] float, or other watercraft as well as
[1:17:18] the transport of people and materials
[1:17:20] and relating to loading and unloading
[1:17:23] activity.
[1:17:31] While it is legal for a town to charge
[1:17:33] fees for the use of its coastal
[1:17:35] waterways for services like moorings,
[1:17:38] docking, and in some cases using
[1:17:40] municipal boat ramps,
[1:17:43] such fees must generally be reasonable
[1:17:45] and used to cover the expenses of
[1:17:47] maintaining the waterways and deposited
[1:17:50] into special accounts.
[1:17:55] Essex does that.
[1:18:00] Yes, running a town is expensive. We
[1:18:03] always need more.
[1:18:06] But must every single thing in town be
[1:18:09] taxed? Are road use fees next in Essex?
[1:18:14] What about parking meters?
[1:18:17] Perhaps we could consider instead
[1:18:19] spending less.
[1:18:22] Maybe even do without in some
[1:18:24] situations.
[1:18:28] It's really no wonder sometimes that
[1:18:30] overrides get voted down.
[1:18:33] Unless the town is looking for a legal
[1:18:35] challenge, we shouldn't waste any more
[1:18:37] time on this article and promptly vote
[1:18:39] it down.
[1:18:42] Peter Peter Faro Rocky Hill Road.
[1:18:51] Well, thank God we're talking about
[1:18:52] taking care of the Essex River once and
[1:18:54] for all.
[1:18:56] We need money to do it. Chief Shamshack
[1:18:59] and I have met about an Essex Water
[1:19:01] Waste Commission and really determine
[1:19:03] how to establish the funding. We need a
[1:19:05] boat waste management act. We have to
[1:19:07] determine who's using our town landings.
[1:19:10] I know there's 17 of them. I've
[1:19:12] identified 10 of them. There's a lot of
[1:19:14] things we need to do and I think the
[1:19:16] marina owners have to commit to
[1:19:18] providing the information so we can
[1:19:20] collect the excise tax. And I do believe
[1:19:23] there should be a water use tax.
[1:19:26] However, I think we need to tap the
[1:19:28] brakes on it, come back in the fall in
[1:19:30] an organized manner and determine who's
[1:19:33] going to get the user fee, who isn't,
[1:19:35] and at what level. I think the um the
[1:19:39] application of it and the enforcability
[1:19:41] of it as we're proposing it right now,
[1:19:43] it's going to be complicated. I mean,
[1:19:45] you're going to stop boats at low tide.
[1:19:48] We've got to determine a lot more. I'm
[1:19:50] in agreement, chief. We need to get this
[1:19:52] done and we need to find all the ways to
[1:19:55] generate some revenue so that we can
[1:19:57] take care of the Essex River once and
[1:19:59] for all. Thank you for your time.
[1:20:02] >> Any further discussion?
[1:20:05] Yeah. Nick Royal, Six Winthre Street. Um
[1:20:08] I agree with the last speaker. I would
[1:20:10] like to see though some guard rails put
[1:20:12] around this. Um fees have a nasty habit
[1:20:14] of going up and up and up and I would
[1:20:17] like to see if possible that town
[1:20:20] meeting gets to to decide when a fee
[1:20:23] goes up and also that it gets sunset say
[1:20:26] after five years unless town meeting um
[1:20:29] comes around and says look we can
[1:20:31] continue this in in principle I'm I'm in
[1:20:33] favor of this um and I'm happy to put an
[1:20:36] amendment which I've written down just
[1:20:38] to those two points because I know you
[1:20:39] ruled my other thing out of out of Move
[1:20:41] it. Any further discussion?
[1:20:46] No discussion. All those in favor of
[1:20:48] article 16, raise your card.
[1:20:53] All those opposed.
[1:21:01] Let's try that again. All those in
[1:21:02] favor.
[1:21:09] All those opposed.
[1:21:12] Can't call it. We're going to need the
[1:21:13] tellers.
[1:21:25] » Sorry guys.
[1:21:29] » I know. I can't go one side or the
[1:21:30] other.
[1:21:36] » I just start
[1:21:39] and he's usually. There he is over the
[1:21:41] Oh, yeah. As a when I was in a sweat
[1:21:44] constantly,
[1:21:47] okay, he was really pretty good.
[1:21:55] Everyone, everyone in favor of article
[1:21:57] 16, raise your card, please.
[1:22:01] >> And keep them up so they can see them.
[1:22:34] Jeffrey.
[1:22:34] >> Yes.
[1:22:36] What's that?
[1:22:38] >> I'm already calling for the vote. I
[1:22:41] can't once I call for a vote, I can't
[1:22:42] put an amendment in.
[1:22:46] >> You did not. You said you would like to
[1:22:48] see that when it came up.
[1:23:11] 104.
[1:23:13] >> Okay, we're good. All those
[1:23:16] not in favor of article 16, please raise
[1:23:18] your card.
[1:23:31] Keep your cards up.
[1:23:55] 26 - 104
[1:24:02] » perhaps
[1:24:11] you guys there. You can put your cards
[1:24:25] on the last.
[1:24:40] Unless there were people that didn't
[1:24:41] vote on the amendment. That's what I'm
[1:24:47] » guess
[1:24:50] could be.
[1:25:15] So the only no real one is Apple Street
[1:25:18] connection.
[1:25:34] you in the middle can put theirs down.
[1:25:37] Stay up over here.
[1:26:04] Okay, we're all good.
[1:26:17] » They go,
[1:26:19] >> we need the Carla. We need your number.
[1:26:40] » So the motion passes 104 to 97.
[1:26:51] Article 17.
[1:26:52] >> Excuse me.
[1:26:53] >> Can I Can I um Kate Crows from 45 Apple
[1:26:58] Street, can I motion to discuss article
[1:27:00] 22?
[1:27:01] >> You want You want to move article 22 in
[1:27:03] front of 17?
[1:27:04] >> Yes.
[1:27:04] >> Is that a motion?
[1:27:05] >> It's a motion.
[1:27:06] >> Is there a second?
[1:27:08] >> All those in favor of moving article 22
[1:27:11] in front of 17, raise your card.
[1:27:15] >> Any opposed?
[1:27:17] We're going to move to 22.
[1:27:28] » Nick, can we keep the conversation down,
[1:27:30] please?
[1:27:34] I, Nick Ellis, move that the town vote
[1:27:36] to transfer from free cash the sum of
[1:27:39] $75,000 to design and construct a road
[1:27:42] from Apple Street to the town's DPW
[1:27:45] facility over the town owned parcel
[1:27:47] known as 30 Apple Street, including but
[1:27:50] not limited to site and wetland surveys,
[1:27:53] equipment rental materials, and anything
[1:27:55] incidental there too. Is there a second
[1:27:59] >> discussion?
[1:28:02] I suspect there will be. Um there's a
[1:28:04] few things that I'd like to say quickly.
[1:28:08] Um I was surprised to find a letter in
[1:28:10] my mailbox about this uh article. Um as
[1:28:13] we had had several discussions at the
[1:28:16] board of public works meetings uh and
[1:28:18] nobody came to talk to us about it. Um I
[1:28:21] was a little surprised by some of the
[1:28:22] assertions in the letter uh specifically
[1:28:25] that there is no urgency for us to do
[1:28:27] this. Um, I will note that we have
[1:28:29] evaluated the bridge on Landing Road.
[1:28:31] Uh, folks who have driven over the
[1:28:33] bridge at Landing Road can tell that
[1:28:35] it's got a big hump on it and that's
[1:28:36] because the subbase is eroding from
[1:28:38] underneath of it and it needs to be
[1:28:39] fixed. Um, even today we heard from the
[1:28:42] bridge evaluator that work is going to
[1:28:44] need to be done in the next 1 to 5
[1:28:45] years. So, it is somewhat urgent. Um, in
[1:28:49] the letter it also noted that we could
[1:28:51] just drive across the field as it is
[1:28:54] now. Um, I don't suspect that our fuel
[1:28:58] delivery trucks or our dumpster removal
[1:29:00] trucks or our fire trucks or our
[1:29:02] ambulances,
[1:29:04] um, or folks who bring trash to the dump
[1:29:06] in their Subaru are going to drive
[1:29:08] across the field as it is. Um,
[1:29:14] there's a note saying that the DPW has
[1:29:16] said we could just move the road. I'm
[1:29:17] not sure exactly what that's referring
[1:29:18] to because I didn't say that. Um, I
[1:29:21] don't believe Mandy said that. Um, our
[1:29:24] intent is to build this road and leave
[1:29:26] it in place until such time as the
[1:29:28] actual use of the property becomes
[1:29:30] clear. Uh, to my knowledge there is no
[1:29:32] conversation with the exception of the
[1:29:34] original evaluation for a new school
[1:29:35] there about what we're going to do with
[1:29:37] the property. So, I expect that that
[1:29:39] road will be there for quite some time.
[1:29:41] Um, as it relates to the hedge row,
[1:29:44] which is a quote rich wildlife habitat,
[1:29:48] um, we have no plans to remove the
[1:29:50] bushes along the edge of the property.
[1:29:52] we're going to build the road next to
[1:29:54] it. Um,
[1:29:57] what I think probably makes me the most
[1:29:59] concerned about the contents of this
[1:30:01] letter is related to the RAP and the
[1:30:04] accusations in this letter about RAP and
[1:30:06] why the DPW is proposing to use RAP on
[1:30:09] this road. Um, we are not trying to get
[1:30:11] ourselves out of trouble as the letter
[1:30:14] states. Um, we did not tell anybody to
[1:30:16] put RAP down at Centennial Grove. In
[1:30:19] fact, we don't control Centennial Grove.
[1:30:21] That's the perview of the select board.
[1:30:22] Uh with the exception of the water
[1:30:24] treatment plant inside the fence uh and
[1:30:26] the well well number three which is on
[1:30:30] Lake um and the well protection district
[1:30:33] uh we have no control over what happens
[1:30:35] at at Centennial Grove. Uh in fact we
[1:30:39] noticed that the wrap was being placed
[1:30:40] and insisted that it stop being placed.
[1:30:43] U not only did it not stop being placed,
[1:30:45] more rap was brought there and was
[1:30:46] continued to be placed and compacted.
[1:30:49] Um, we insisted that it be removed, uh,
[1:30:52] not because it is toxic, which is
[1:30:54] another assertion that the letter made,
[1:30:56] uh, but because it creates a imperous
[1:30:59] surface in our wellhead recharge area,
[1:31:01] so we don't get water down into the
[1:31:03] groundwater and it affects our ability
[1:31:04] to pump water out of the well. Um, so
[1:31:07] this idea that wrap is toxic, wrap is
[1:31:10] just pavement, ground up. There's some
[1:31:12] right outside that door if you want to
[1:31:14] go look at it. Um, it's not the cleanest
[1:31:17] stuff in the world. you shouldn't
[1:31:18] probably eat it. But um you know, Mass D
[1:31:22] has no rules. It says you can't put wrap
[1:31:24] in wetland areas or wetland buffer
[1:31:26] areas. Um it doesn't specifically say
[1:31:29] that you can't store wrap in a wellhead
[1:31:31] protection area. What it says is that
[1:31:32] you can't install and compact wrap
[1:31:34] because again it makes an impervious
[1:31:36] area. So um I would encourage folks to
[1:31:38] vote for this road. Uh the last point
[1:31:40] I'll make is that when the town chose to
[1:31:43] purchase this property, one of the main
[1:31:45] reasons we noted for purchasing it was
[1:31:47] to provide us with an alternative route
[1:31:49] to get to the transfer station in the
[1:31:52] DPW yard. Um
[1:31:55] Apple Street is a public right of way.
[1:31:58] Uh it is one of only two ways to get
[1:31:59] from south of the river to the north of
[1:32:01] the river. And it's one of only two way
[1:32:04] um one of only two ways that we have to
[1:32:07] get um to our DPW to our fuel station to
[1:32:11] our transfer station. So thank you.
[1:32:14] >> Further discussion Lisa
[1:32:17] >> Lisa O'Donnell um Island Road. Um I want
[1:32:20] to emphasize some of what Nick said
[1:32:22] about the culvert um in landing road.
[1:32:25] I've noticed it getting worse over a
[1:32:27] couple of years and um I was out there.
[1:32:30] I'm a structural engineer by trade. I
[1:32:32] was out there with the um engineer who
[1:32:35] evaluated for the town and it does have
[1:32:37] issues. It is going to need to be
[1:32:39] repaired and when it gets repaired, the
[1:32:41] whole road's going to have to be closed.
[1:32:43] In addition, as Nick mentioned, we
[1:32:45] bought the property for um at Apple
[1:32:49] Street and one of the main reasons was
[1:32:52] how it is strategically located to
[1:32:54] provide that access from Apple Street to
[1:32:56] the transfer station, which gives us
[1:32:57] another access to that important piece
[1:32:59] of property. Um
[1:33:03] I have in my hand a motion that would um
[1:33:07] amend the article to preclude the use of
[1:33:09] the wrap, the recycled asphalt pavement.
[1:33:12] Um, I'm not going to read it yet. If
[1:33:15] this article goes down, I'm going to get
[1:33:17] up and ask to reconsider the article and
[1:33:19] then limit it to not having the wrap.
[1:33:22] will make it cost
[1:33:23] more. So, I'm going to let the article
[1:33:25] go. People can decide what they want to
[1:33:27] do about it. If the article goes down,
[1:33:29] we need this road. So, I will get up and
[1:33:31] ask to reconsider it and ask to not use
[1:33:34] rap.
[1:33:35] >> Ruth Pin, 15 Lufkin Street. So, two
[1:33:39] points. Uh, number one, I just want to
[1:33:41] read a quote from John Phyious. I was on
[1:33:44] the board of public works and Mike
[1:33:46] Galley received permission from the
[1:33:47] board to accept it. So, while Nick Ellis
[1:33:50] may not have been on the board, the
[1:33:51] superintendent did receive permission
[1:33:53] from the board of public works to accept
[1:33:54] it. Just for clarity, the second thing
[1:33:57] is to Lisa O'Donnell's point, um, the
[1:33:59] recycled asphalt material. I I want
[1:34:02] everyone in the room to understand, I do
[1:34:03] attend the meetings and I do understand
[1:34:05] the cost of this wrap. So, it is at
[1:34:07] Centennial Grove. We know it. We want it
[1:34:09] gone. What the DPW is considering is
[1:34:12] actually to hire dump trucks, big
[1:34:15] 10-heel dump trucks, to load it into the
[1:34:17] dump truck and haul it over to Miles
[1:34:19] River in Ipsswitch. Miles River is
[1:34:21] willing to take it for free, but you
[1:34:23] taxpayers will be paying those trucking
[1:34:25] charges to haul it away. So, the
[1:34:27] recommendation was, why don't we bring
[1:34:29] it to Apple Street because we're putting
[1:34:30] a road there anyway. The road is going
[1:34:32] in. We can save money by using the wrap
[1:34:36] as part of this road construction. So
[1:34:38] you don't have to use the wrap if you
[1:34:40] don't want to. But if you don't use it,
[1:34:42] you are purchasing additional material
[1:34:44] for that road. So this is going to cost
[1:34:46] you one way or the other, but you
[1:34:48] already have the material that can just
[1:34:49] be used at this point.
[1:34:52] >> Can I address a statement made there?
[1:34:53] >> Sure. Um, when we talk about permission
[1:34:56] to store wrap at Centennial Grove, there
[1:35:00] was a paving project that happened on
[1:35:02] Route 22 in Essex
[1:35:05] wherein it was requested that we store
[1:35:08] wrap at Centennial Grove. That wrap was
[1:35:11] stored in a pile. Then, when we were
[1:35:13] done installing the pads for the
[1:35:15] recycling bins at the transfer station,
[1:35:18] we brought that wrap over to the
[1:35:20] transfer station and flattened the land
[1:35:21] around it. That was the permission that
[1:35:24] Mike was given. Any further discussion
[1:35:27] on article 22?
[1:35:33] » Hold on. You got to wait for this
[1:35:34] person, right?
[1:35:37] >> Janet Carlson, 24 Apple Street. Rap is
[1:35:42] known to contain heavy metals like lead
[1:35:44] and cadmium and a carcinogen referred to
[1:35:47] as PH.
[1:35:49] These can be released by runoff waters
[1:35:52] and end up in groundwater and rivers.
[1:35:55] These are very toxic to fish and other
[1:35:58] aquatic animals and they can leech into
[1:36:00] soils.
[1:36:02] It has been said in various meetings
[1:36:04] that the DP doesn't consider rap
[1:36:07] hazardous.
[1:36:09] The science actually says that it is.
[1:36:13] Um, the DP can't actually classify RAP
[1:36:16] as toxic because it would be a legal
[1:36:19] nightmare and practical impossibility to
[1:36:22] address it. This does not mean it's an
[1:36:25] acceptable or safe material. Testing has
[1:36:28] shown it's toxic, but it would bankrupt
[1:36:31] towns and cities to officially consider
[1:36:34] RAP hazardous. Given this, we don't want
[1:36:37] it on that farmland.
[1:36:42] It's quite a contradiction to hear that
[1:36:46] we have to move it from Centennial Grove
[1:36:49] um too close to our town wells, the
[1:36:53] water supply, but let's put it on this
[1:36:56] clean soil, this untainted soil very
[1:36:58] close to the river. Thank you.
[1:37:01] >> Any further discussion?
[1:37:05] » Sure. Dan Mayor to Liberty Road. So, I
[1:37:09] guess I'm the one who's kind of taking a
[1:37:10] lot of heat for this, but it was always
[1:37:12] communicated. I'm not looking to move
[1:37:14] rap. It was something the parking lot
[1:37:16] down there to improve it. We brought it
[1:37:18] in there from town paving projects said
[1:37:21] something about coming from a Hamilton
[1:37:22] construction site. Whoever wrote that
[1:37:24] foolish letter, you can contact me
[1:37:27] directly. I'll bring you to where it
[1:37:29] came from. There was no construction
[1:37:31] site but but the wraps there was always
[1:37:33] communicated
[1:37:35] with my galley because I would never do
[1:37:36] anything
[1:37:38] you without speaking to my galley or
[1:37:40] meetings down there with the select
[1:37:41] board walking the whole site what we
[1:37:43] intended on doing it was all brought in
[1:37:46] laser graded compacted it was very nice
[1:37:49] now and there was a pile there for years
[1:37:52] like we can go back I'll you know Google
[1:37:54] photos of when the pile was there but
[1:37:56] there'd always been a pile there because
[1:37:57] not the pile that was brought there and
[1:37:58] then you moved it No, that was the
[1:38:00] original pile that we spread. So, no
[1:38:03] problem. I said it went in there at the
[1:38:04] speed of volunteers. It will come out at
[1:38:06] the speed of volunteers or it'll get
[1:38:10] paid, you know, to be removed the way you want to do it. But, but
[1:38:13] anyway, just in defense, but, you know,
[1:38:16] obviously done a lot down there
[1:38:18] improving the site. Even you can come
[1:38:22] down tomorrow night as we continue to
[1:38:24] put the roof on the bathous and anything
[1:38:26] else that goes on down there that we're
[1:38:28] happy to help with. But it's unfortunate
[1:38:30] that this whole thing is, you know,
[1:38:32] spiraled. But it was always
[1:38:33] communicated. I'm sorry if you came
[1:38:35] later in the discussion. I never got
[1:38:37] word, you know, to stop it if there was
[1:38:39] a stop and something still came in. I
[1:38:43] was unaware. There was one night when
[1:38:45] they were paving and stuff came in
[1:38:47] unaccounted for from a paving project,
[1:38:49] but even still, it was already well on
[1:38:51] its way. So, I apologize.
[1:38:56] Whatever. I'm not calling anybody out.
[1:38:58] and uh tried to stay quiet about the
[1:39:00] whole thing, but uh yeah, I guess it
[1:39:02] falls on me. Cheers.
[1:39:05] Over here,
[1:39:06] >> Tracea Whitman at Lufkin Street. I just
[1:39:08] have a clarifying question. Um is the It
[1:39:11] just says design and construct a road.
[1:39:13] Is the intent of this road to be access
[1:39:16] emergency access only while the main
[1:39:20] access to um the transfer station is
[1:39:24] functional and operational or is this
[1:39:26] intended to be a public cut through from
[1:39:28] the start?
[1:39:30] >> Uh I wouldn't say emergency access only.
[1:39:33] I would say it would be more accurate to
[1:39:34] say it's temporary access. So when we
[1:39:37] have an ongoing bridge project
[1:39:40] uh in order to get trucks, trailers,
[1:39:43] people in and out of the site, we would
[1:39:45] use that road.
[1:39:47] >> May I ask a follow question? Y
[1:39:49] >> So would it be open to the public from
[1:39:52] the start though to be able to use
[1:39:53] >> that? That is not the intent. No.
[1:39:55] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:39:56] >> Go here.
[1:39:58] >> Southern A.
[1:40:00] >> Say it again.
[1:40:01] >> 82 Southern A. Um, I'm sorry if this was
[1:40:03] already addressed and I didn't hear it,
[1:40:05] but assuming the road is a foregone
[1:40:07] conclusion and that is happening. I
[1:40:08] assume there are alternatives
[1:40:11] that I'm trying to understand what why
[1:40:14] this instead of something else. Is it
[1:40:16] just cost savings? Um, because there
[1:40:19] must be alternatives to this
[1:40:22] >> controversial material.
[1:40:23] >> Yeah. Um well, so I've never seen rap as
[1:40:27] controversial until literally a week
[1:40:28] ago. But um
[1:40:31] >> near a water source though,
[1:40:34] >> again, imperousness is the issue.
[1:40:36] Anyway, you could do it with gravel.
[1:40:39] Yes. Um gravel is likely to require more
[1:40:42] maintenance over time and frankly it'll
[1:40:43] have to be replaced more frequently. So
[1:40:46] it'll cost more upfront and then it'll
[1:40:48] cost more in the long term for you to I
[1:40:49] do.
[1:40:49] >> Thank you. Yep.
[1:40:54] » Jack Gale, 105 Pawn Street.
[1:40:58] Uh, at that town meeting when the voters
[1:41:00] decided to buy 30 Apple Street, yes,
[1:41:03] some people spoke in need for an
[1:41:05] emergency or secondary or temporary
[1:41:09] access road to the DPW, citing the
[1:41:12] eventual need to replace the C or remove
[1:41:16] the Culver. Um,
[1:41:20] others clearly didn't want the field to
[1:41:23] turn into a proposed nine-house
[1:41:26] development.
[1:41:27] Still others wanted it to remain as open
[1:41:30] agricultural land.
[1:41:33] I fell into that last group of voters,
[1:41:35] but felt that if it were necessary to
[1:41:37] build a road across the field, that
[1:41:40] would be better than building a road and
[1:41:42] nine houses on it. I suspect that many
[1:41:46] others agreed. Well, we have as a town
[1:41:49] have not yet decided what to do with the
[1:41:52] field and I'm concerned that any
[1:41:54] decisions as to what to do on the field
[1:41:56] should be made in the correct order.
[1:42:00] Now, here's my opinion as to why this
[1:42:02] article is in front of us now.
[1:42:07] Um, somehow they're contradictory
[1:42:09] reports here this evening, but a large
[1:42:12] amount of the wrap material was moved to
[1:42:14] Centennial Grove for for use there
[1:42:18] um with or without oversight.
[1:42:22] There were concerns about this and it
[1:42:25] was determined by the water department
[1:42:27] that this material should not be in the
[1:42:29] vicinity of the town wells or as our
[1:42:32] town administrator worded it out of an
[1:42:35] abundance of caution.
[1:42:37] It was decided not to use it at the
[1:42:39] grove. So at this point there was a
[1:42:42] large amount of wrap to be dealt with
[1:42:44] somehow.
[1:42:46] Then an alternate plan was developed to
[1:42:48] quickly move and stockpile the material
[1:42:51] to the field at 30 Apple Street for
[1:42:53] future road in building the road the DPW
[1:42:56] has been advocating for.
[1:43:00] Citizens became concerned about the wrap
[1:43:02] near our town wells and aware of the
[1:43:04] plan to use the road across the field.
[1:43:10] So here we are. There are so many things
[1:43:13] wrong with this picture. First of all,
[1:43:16] Essex deserves a more thoughtful
[1:43:18] approach to her issues than this.
[1:43:21] If and when a road is to be built on
[1:43:23] townland, we the voters deserve a
[1:43:26] sensible plan to build the road, showing
[1:43:30] where it's to be built, specifying what
[1:43:33] materials are to be used with limits as
[1:43:36] to its width and with limits on how it
[1:43:39] is to be used. when we know where it
[1:43:42] should be built based on the eventual
[1:43:44] use of the field.
[1:43:47] Not a cart blanch for the DPW to do
[1:43:49] whatever it wants.
[1:43:51] In my opinion, the article in this form
[1:43:54] should be voted down.
[1:43:57] As for the assessment of the so-called
[1:43:59] bridge, which is clearly not a bridge,
[1:44:01] but a culvert, but you can call it
[1:44:03] whatever you want. Yes, it the road will
[1:44:08] need some work at some point in the
[1:44:09] future. And um yes, a limitary a limited
[1:44:13] secondary access road to the DPW will be
[1:44:17] important at that time. I examine the
[1:44:21] culvert and the concrete foundation
[1:44:23] supporting it and it appears to be in
[1:44:25] amazingly good condition.
[1:44:32] I was not here in the first part uh of
[1:44:35] the meeting, but I gather that um that
[1:44:39] that's what the engineers assessment
[1:44:41] said. Not that it's in amazingly good
[1:44:43] condition, but that it's not uh going to
[1:44:46] fall down immediately.
[1:44:48] Uh I personally wouldn't lose any sleep
[1:44:50] over that.
[1:44:52] Landing road at the culvert does show
[1:44:54] some depression and in my opinion, this
[1:44:56] is not the result of any weakness in the
[1:44:58] culvert.
[1:45:00] I disagree with the previous assertion
[1:45:02] that a hurricane could take out Landing
[1:45:04] Road or the Culver or or disagree that
[1:45:08] and disagree that landing road floods as
[1:45:10] had been claimed by the town
[1:45:12] administrator. The nearest neighbor was
[1:45:14] consulted and backs this up. This has
[1:45:17] never been a there's never been a
[1:45:18] significant storm surge there. It's well
[1:45:21] back in a protected corner of the marsh.
[1:45:27] This shouldn't be a battle.
[1:45:29] The voters who decided to buy 30 Apple
[1:45:32] Street should be able to come together
[1:45:33] for their common goals. Why not plan a
[1:45:37] modestsized environmentally friendly
[1:45:40] truly secondary road
[1:45:41] >> 30 seconds
[1:45:43] >> that's limited in use to only when
[1:45:45] landing road is impassible and also
[1:45:47] preserving the habitat as much as
[1:45:48] possible. If we avoid rushing into this
[1:45:51] until we have a better idea of how we'll
[1:45:53] be using the rest of the land, so much
[1:45:55] the better and we won't risk having to
[1:45:57] rebuild or duplicate the road in the
[1:46:00] future. Thank you.
[1:46:06] » Brandon.
[1:46:11] » Yes. Point of order.
[1:46:12] >> Yeah.
[1:46:13] >> Um I never said that landing road floods
[1:46:15] at any time. He may be confused with the
[1:46:19] Apple Street project at the other end of
[1:46:21] the street where in fact that part of
[1:46:23] the road does flood and did flood. Last
[1:46:26] time it would happened was in 2018, but
[1:46:28] I have never claimed that Landing Road
[1:46:31] floods. Thank you. I
[1:46:33] >> think Jody, you were next.
[1:46:36] » Jody Harris. Um, I just want to uh
[1:46:40] clarify that not only uh if we do not
[1:46:44] use the wrap for the um Apple Street
[1:46:47] project, which as you see in your
[1:46:50] handout, we tell you exactly where the
[1:46:52] lo the road will be going over 30 Apple
[1:46:54] Street, but we will need to bear the
[1:46:58] cost of removing the wrap even though
[1:47:01] they're taking it for free. But what
[1:47:04] wasn't mentioned is the cost that we'll incur to actually bring materials
[1:47:09] in to build the road. So, we're going to
[1:47:13] be literally paying coming and going for
[1:47:17] a road that um today an email from uh
[1:47:22] the engineering firm who is evaluating
[1:47:25] this whatever you want to call it bridge
[1:47:28] culvert says that we will need to plan
[1:47:31] on repairs within the short term of two
[1:47:34] to four years. So, it's a necessity. Our
[1:47:37] DPW facility is there. All of our
[1:47:40] equipment is there. Our fuel station is
[1:47:43] there. Our transfer station is there.
[1:47:46] You all are going to need to get to go
[1:47:48] to the transfer station. Our fire
[1:47:51] trucks, our police vehicles, and all of
[1:47:54] our DPW trucks that are housed there.
[1:47:57] They're all going there for fuel. So, it
[1:47:59] is critical that we get this road
[1:48:02] implemented. And it's really a matter of
[1:48:04] how much you want to pay for the road.
[1:48:07] Do you want to pay with materials that
[1:48:10] have been approved for that type of use
[1:48:13] as an impervious surface or do you want
[1:48:15] to pay coming and going for a road that
[1:48:18] we're going to have to build from
[1:48:19] scratch
[1:48:24] Dave Landry 73 stories
[1:48:27] there's been a lot of discussion on wrap
[1:48:30] and I think there was an amendment to
[1:48:31] decide whether we should go forward with
[1:48:33] that. Why don't we get that one out of
[1:48:34] the way because that's a critical issue
[1:48:36] right here.
[1:48:36] >> Would you like to make an amendment?
[1:48:38] >> Make an a I think there's one on the
[1:48:39] table there. Someone said they're going
[1:48:41] to bring an amendment before.
[1:48:42] >> There's not one yet.
[1:48:44] >> Can't hear you.
[1:48:45] >> There could be, but there isn't one yet.
[1:48:46] >> I thought one of the selectman said
[1:48:48] there was, but go ahead. I'll make a mo
[1:48:50] a motion to uh decide whether wrap could
[1:48:52] be used as a composite for this road.
[1:48:56] >> Is I'll need that in writing. We have
[1:48:58] paper up here. I believe we can.
[1:49:00] >> Yes or no on that one.
[1:49:01] >> Or do you want to use yours? Excuse
[1:49:07] me.
[1:49:09] >> Because this sounds like a question, not
[1:49:11] a statement. So,
[1:49:12] >> no, I think you wanted to eliminate wrap
[1:49:13] being used in the
[1:49:14] >> So, it would be specifically using
[1:49:16] gravel, correct?
[1:49:18] >> Because we should be specific. We're not
[1:49:19] going to pave the road.
[1:49:21] >> He said wrap.
[1:49:22] >> What's that?
[1:49:29] Is there a second to the amendment that
[1:49:31] says we we'd like to remove wrap from
[1:49:33] the project?
[1:49:36] >> Well, eliminate the use of
[1:49:39] Is there a second?
[1:49:43] » When I have it, I'll read it.
[1:49:59] Be good to know the price difference,
[1:50:01] wouldn't it?
[1:50:16] So the amendment is going to read a
[1:50:18] motion to eliminate the use of wrap of the new access road for the transfer
[1:50:24] station.
[1:50:26] Yes. Is there a second to that?
[1:50:30] Any further discussion on the amendment?
[1:50:33] >> Can I on the amendment, not the article?
[1:50:36] >> Yeah, I mean I think it's on the
[1:50:38] amendment. My question is, do we have a figure of price the price difference
[1:50:44] between a gravel road and a wrap road?
[1:50:46] Because I think if we're voting not to
[1:50:48] use wrap, we should also know what the
[1:50:50] price tag or the delta would be between
[1:50:52] the two.
[1:50:52] >> We we do um the cost delta including
[1:50:56] paying for gravel delivered and also
[1:50:58] removing uh the wrap is in the order of
[1:51:02] 25 to30,000 additional dollars for the
[1:51:04] road.
[1:51:11] discussion on the amendment, not the
[1:51:14] article. The amendment to remove rap
[1:51:16] from muse
[1:51:18] over here.
[1:51:20] Paul Trimby, 56 Apple Street. Um,
[1:51:24] putting on an article to or putting on
[1:51:26] an amendment to remove wrap. Is the
[1:51:28] option gravel wrap or fresh pavement?
[1:51:34] » That's a good question. So fresh
[1:51:36] pavement would have more runoff, more
[1:51:38] toxicity than any wrap would. So if
[1:51:41] there was to be an amendment, it should
[1:51:42] probably end up being that it'd be a
[1:51:44] gravel road instead of a paved road or
[1:51:46] wrap road if that was the concern.
[1:51:48] >> Got to work on this amendment first.
[1:51:50] >> Yep. Just adding that for everyone's
[1:51:51] consideration.
[1:51:52] >> Discussion on the amendment.
[1:51:54] >> Go ahead.
[1:51:55] >> Jack Gale, 105 Pond Street. Um,
[1:52:00] I find it hard to believe that we would
[1:52:02] really resist paying an amount like
[1:52:07] $30,000 to avoid a potential
[1:52:10] um health risk. This has been pretty
[1:52:13] well established and uh if anybody reads
[1:52:16] the Essics issues page uh there was um
[1:52:20] an extensive link posted on that um
[1:52:24] about uh scientific studies and and the
[1:52:28] results having to do with the toxins and
[1:52:31] wrap. Uh it seems like a small price to
[1:52:34] pay to do this properly. I I hope you'll
[1:52:38] um approve this amendment.
[1:52:43] Further discussion on the amendment.
[1:52:54] » Yes, maybe we should consider no wrap on
[1:52:58] anywhere in Essex, nobody's driveway,
[1:53:00] and then survey people's driveways who
[1:53:03] have wrap, even if they paved over it.
[1:53:08] No wrap in Essex. It sounds like because
[1:53:10] if you want to put wrap on a temporary
[1:53:12] road that you' maybe you'd put filter
[1:53:14] fabric down because when you do a
[1:53:16] temporary road and we we make temporary
[1:53:18] roads all the time, you scrape out the
[1:53:21] organic matter down to gravel. You put
[1:53:24] some fabric down. You put gravel or you
[1:53:26] can put wrap or some kind of material.
[1:53:27] And if it's a temporary road, you pick
[1:53:29] it up. If you put you spend all the
[1:53:31] money on a nice road, I thinking we're
[1:53:33] going to just sell this property to a
[1:53:34] developer with a road already intact
[1:53:37] with an easement going over it that
[1:53:38] we'll always have access, but maybe a
[1:53:40] firegate at one end, but still we'll be
[1:53:42] able to use that road when we need to in
[1:53:45] the future because not bridges don't
[1:53:46] last forever. But uh maybe just add to
[1:53:49] it that no wrap in Essex. You do that
[1:53:51] and I'll take all that rap out of there
[1:53:53] on my back. I'll I'll make it all go
[1:53:55] away. But I would like to see no rap in
[1:53:58] Essics after this because this is kind
[1:54:00] of insane.
[1:54:04] » Further discussion on the amendment to
[1:54:06] re
[1:54:07] I've got one more one more com two more
[1:54:09] comments and we'll move it. You can't
[1:54:12] and I'm just so you know I'm not going
[1:54:13] to have someone from the audience yell
[1:54:15] move the question. You have to be up at
[1:54:16] a mic to make that motion.
[1:54:19] >> Go ahead.
[1:54:20] >> Jared Strong 17 School Street.
[1:54:24] We can debate the use of wrap for a
[1:54:26] variety of reasons. I just think it's
[1:54:28] important to the discussion that
[1:54:30] recycled asphalt is the most recycled
[1:54:33] product in the country. Over 90% of
[1:54:36] asphalt is recycled and reused
[1:54:38] throughout the nation. Reduce, reuse,
[1:54:41] recycle.
[1:54:49] » Stacy Capitas, 15 Apple Street. I just
[1:54:52] have a question. If this is a temporary
[1:54:54] road, um, and we'd have to decide
[1:54:57] between a wrap or gravel road or
[1:55:00] pavement, is one,
[1:55:03] uh, easier, cheaper to remove?
[1:55:06] >> It's not a temporary road. It is a road
[1:55:09] for temporary access while we're working
[1:55:10] on the bridge or if there's another
[1:55:12] reason that we cannot get down Landing
[1:55:14] Road to
[1:55:17] the transfer station.
[1:55:18] >> Will it be gated when it's not? Okay,
[1:55:22] >> good question. Thank you.
[1:55:29] » Over here.
[1:55:30] >> Hello.
[1:55:32] >> Um Dan Ducet, John Weise Avenue. I move
[1:55:35] the question
[1:55:36] >> the amendment
[1:55:37] >> on the amendment.
[1:55:38] >> Is there a second?
[1:55:40] >> Second.
[1:55:41] >> All those in favor of terminating debate
[1:55:45] on the amendment
[1:55:46] >> and the amendment to article 22, which
[1:55:48] would remove the wrap from the use of
[1:55:50] this Apple Street Road. Raise your card.
[1:55:57] » Terminating debate on that app. Yes.
[1:56:01] >> Any opposed?
[1:56:04] >> We have terminated debate.
[1:56:07] >> Now, we're going to still stay on the
[1:56:09] amendment and we need to vote on the
[1:56:10] amendment.
[1:56:12] All those in favor of amending article
[1:56:16] the amendment to article 22 which is
[1:56:19] removing the wrap from the street on 30
[1:56:22] Apple Street. That's what we're doing.
[1:56:24] This is on the amendment, not the
[1:56:25] article. All those in favor
[1:56:28] of the amendment, raise your card.
[1:56:34] All those opposed.
[1:56:38] The motion fails.
[1:56:42] back to art article 22 main article I
[1:56:46] believe you you were up first
[1:56:50] Mike Mike Dyer Indian Rock Lane uh first
[1:56:53] of all I want to uh agree wholeheartedly
[1:56:56] with Jack Gail's point about the lack of
[1:57:00] land use planning for this piece of land
[1:57:02] that the town got a couple years ago. it seems pretty foolish to go ahead in
[1:57:07] peacemeal fashion
[1:57:09] before we really know what the app what
[1:57:11] the ultimate use of the land will be.
[1:57:16] Secondly, as far as the use of wrap
[1:57:17] goes, um I'm no expert. There does seem
[1:57:22] to be there do seem to be contrary
[1:57:25] indications in the in the literature
[1:57:26] about whether it's toxic or not, whether
[1:57:28] there are uh whether there's leech that
[1:57:31] can come out of it. Sounds like there
[1:57:33] could be um I guess that not all wrap is
[1:57:38] created or exists equally. I'm wondering
[1:57:41] if it's possible to assayate the stuff
[1:57:45] and and see what the quality of the
[1:57:47] stuff is that we have if there's any way
[1:57:50] to measure the risk. That would be a
[1:57:51] question for uh DPW, I guess. Um, and
[1:57:56] the final point about the need for the
[1:57:58] road, the the only need that I can see
[1:58:01] that's really been articulated is that
[1:58:03] we will need the road at the point when
[1:58:05] the bridge is to be repaired or the
[1:58:07] culvert is to be repaired. My guess is
[1:58:10] that that wouldn't be taking place for
[1:58:13] three, four, five years from now. I
[1:58:15] don't see why we need to put this road
[1:58:17] in at this point. I'm against this.
[1:58:20] >> Point of order.
[1:58:23] just responding. Um, as was read by the
[1:58:26] chair of the finance committee, the
[1:58:28] engineers that are currently looking at
[1:58:29] all three town owned bridges are
[1:58:31] indicating that it's somewhere on a
[1:58:33] continuum between one year and four
[1:58:35] years from now. I also wanted to point
[1:58:37] out that if and when a repair is
[1:58:39] designed and then cost estimated, you
[1:58:42] might find that the cost of repairing
[1:58:45] the bridge/culvert
[1:58:48] is so much more than just having the
[1:58:51] simple road. You may not ever even want
[1:58:54] to repair it. I don't know because we
[1:58:56] don't have the information yet. Just
[1:58:58] please keep in your mind that we have no
[1:59:00] idea what the repair, even if it is
[1:59:02] termed repair, will cost. Things are
[1:59:05] very expensive.
[1:59:08] >> Hi. Um I'm Jen Hulki. Um my husband and
[1:59:11] I live on Land Farm Road. We are direct
[1:59:14] a butter of the road being proposed. I
[1:59:16] guess I'm just wondering if there's any
[1:59:18] conversation about potential screenage
[1:59:20] for the people that are impacted since
[1:59:23] obviously this road would directly
[1:59:25] affect in a positive way everyone else
[1:59:27] in the town. Just wondering if there's
[1:59:29] any conversation about how that might be
[1:59:31] rectified for the people who are
[1:59:33] negatively implicated by it.
[1:59:36] >> Answer your question.
[1:59:37] >> Um we have not considered that. Um we
[1:59:40] recently started speaking about this
[1:59:42] road. We can certainly look at what the
[1:59:44] view is from where the road winds up to
[1:59:46] your home. Um you could look at putting
[1:59:49] screenings in just keeping in mind that
[1:59:51] large mature trees cost money so it's
[1:59:54] going to increase the price of the
[1:59:56] project.
[1:59:56] >> Yeah. and and we I guess this is my
[1:59:59] first town hall meeting so apologize if
[2:00:01] this is not the right forum to ask but
[2:00:03] um we have taken it upon ourselves to
[2:00:06] incur some of that expense but I guess
[2:00:08] if it's a benefit to the entire town
[2:00:11] that hurts most specifically a couple
[2:00:14] people I guess I'm wondering if that
[2:00:15] would be something that people would be
[2:00:16] open to discussing
[2:00:19] >> and if that's not this is not the forum
[2:00:21] for that please let me know. Yeah, I I I guess I would say it's probably not.
[2:00:25] Um I would say, you know, we have a DPW
[2:00:27] meeting every two weeks. The public is
[2:00:29] welcome to come. Our agenda goes out
[2:00:32] before we have the DPW meeting. So if
[2:00:34] there's something on there like a road
[2:00:36] through 30 Apple Street that you'd like
[2:00:37] to discuss with us, you can come talk to
[2:00:40] us about it and we can talk about things
[2:00:42] like trees and using gravel and you know
[2:00:44] >> well and if if it's a if it's a town
[2:00:47] decision because of the cost implication
[2:00:49] then would that be the place for it
[2:00:50] though or would this be the place to
[2:00:51] talk about it?
[2:00:52] >> It would at the DPW meeting would be the
[2:00:55] place?
[2:00:55] >> Okay.
[2:00:56] >> Yes.
[2:00:56] >> All right. Thank you.
[2:00:59] >> Go ahead over here.
[2:01:01] >> Um Mr. moderator, I move um to amend the
[2:01:04] main motion
[2:01:06] further. I have two amendments and I
[2:01:08] propose to offer them sequentially.
[2:01:11] >> I'm going to do one at a time.
[2:01:14] >> Okay. The um
[2:01:16] the first amendment would add specifics
[2:01:19] as to use and the language would be
[2:01:23] added around the word road. In the
[2:01:26] second line, we would add the words
[2:01:28] secondary access before the word road
[2:01:31] and the words gated at both ends after
[2:01:35] the word road. And further after the
[2:01:39] words 30 Apple Street, we would add the
[2:01:42] words for use only when landing road is
[2:01:45] closed.
[2:01:47] Um the leng sorry that's in writing.
[2:01:56] So that
[2:02:08] the amendment is adding for use only
[2:02:09] when landing road is closed including
[2:02:11] but not limited to site and wetland
[2:02:13] surveys. Is that correct? Uh, no. It's
[2:02:16] the uppercase language. Um, that
[2:02:21] >> Okay.
[2:02:21] >> said secondary access.
[2:02:23] >> Yep.
[2:02:24] >> Before the word road and gated at
[2:02:26] >> So, it's adding secondary access in
[2:02:28] front of road. So, secondary access road
[2:02:30] gated at both ends is added
[2:02:32] >> and then landing road is only used when
[2:02:35] landing road is closed. That's the
[2:02:37] >> Mr. Moderator.
[2:02:40] » Sorry. Point of order. It's the concern
[2:02:44] is what if this ends up being the access
[2:02:46] road because landing road is no longer
[2:02:49] accessible. We don't know. I don't want
[2:02:51] to make the assumption that that's
[2:02:53] what's going to happen. However, I'm a
[2:02:55] little bit concerned about changing
[2:02:56] language that could limit us.
[2:03:00] >> That's what we put to the vote.
[2:03:02] >> Okay.
[2:03:03] So, is there a second to that?
[2:03:06] Further discussion on amending adding
[2:03:08] secondary access and a gate at both ends
[2:03:10] of Apple from Apple Street to the DPW
[2:03:13] and use only used when landing road is
[2:03:16] closed. Further discussion on your
[2:03:17] motion.
[2:03:19] >> No further discussion, Dan.
[2:03:21] >> Uh in regards to the U amendment to the
[2:03:23] article, I believe and I'm going to ask
[2:03:25] this to the DPW commission, we're asking
[2:03:27] for funds tonight to study this and do
[2:03:30] engineering on what that site would be
[2:03:32] used for. Correct.
[2:03:35] >> No. Well, it's a combination of things.
[2:03:37] Yes, to to do the plan, um, but then
[2:03:40] also to physically construct the road.
[2:03:42] So, another point to be made here. The
[2:03:44] reason why this is so inexpensive is
[2:03:46] because the DPW is going to do it
[2:03:48] ourselves. So, if we have to do this as
[2:03:51] part of a bridge contra construction
[2:03:52] contract, the price of this road is
[2:03:54] going to double probably at least, if
[2:03:58] not more. Um, we're proposing to do it
[2:04:00] now because we know we need to do bridge
[2:04:02] work in the near future. We have the
[2:04:05] people who are capable of building the
[2:04:07] road at the DPW. We have the time to do
[2:04:09] it on our own time frame. And so the
[2:04:11] cost that we're asking for money for is
[2:04:14] to um do partial survey of the property
[2:04:17] and design and and construct the road.
[2:04:21] >> I'm sorry I didn't say my name last
[2:04:22] time. Dan Ducet, John Weisav, and
[2:04:24] another question. There would probably
[2:04:25] be a public comment or a or sometime of
[2:04:28] a hearing probably regarding this
[2:04:29] process, right?
[2:04:31] Uh yeah, probably once the actual final
[2:04:34] design of the road is completed, we
[2:04:36] would we would open it up to public
[2:04:38] >> where where everybody would have the
[2:04:39] opportunity to go to a DPW meeting.
[2:04:42] They're very exciting. They are very com
[2:04:46] to pinhole us into something like was
[2:04:48] just proposed and limit what we can do
[2:04:50] with that property is uh totally um
[2:04:53] irresponsible.
[2:04:55] um the the original motion at hand.
[2:04:59] >> The wraps are not going to have um baby
[2:05:01] squirrels coming out with two heads out
[2:05:03] of the wombs out in the fields. We need
[2:05:06] to make good use of it. They didn't use
[2:05:07] it at the water plant because it was
[2:05:09] impervious. The water wouldn't go
[2:05:10] through to go to the wellheads. It
[2:05:12] wasn't a contamination issue. We need to
[2:05:14] get back on track here. Save some money.
[2:05:16] Do it right. Plan for the future. That
[2:05:19] bridge is not going to last forever. It
[2:05:20] failed within the last 10 years. Had to
[2:05:22] have repairs done. It have been 15
[2:05:24] years. It all goes so fast. Um, but
[2:05:28] we're we're walk we're going in circles
[2:05:29] here. Uh, don't vote for this uh
[2:05:32] amendment to the uh motion, please.
[2:05:35] >> There's discussion on the amendment to
[2:05:37] the article. Yes.
[2:05:39] >> No,
[2:05:41] >> I do.
[2:05:42] >> Okay.
[2:05:43] >> Uh, Chris Capitasto, 15 Apple. So, what
[2:05:46] I'm hearing is that this could
[2:05:48] potentially become the new entrance to
[2:05:50] the dump. Why doesn't somebody just say
[2:05:52] that?
[2:05:55] Thank you.
[2:05:56] >> That is Hold on.
[2:05:56] >> That's my question.
[2:05:57] >> That that's that is not the intent. What
[2:05:59] Brendan is saying is that
[2:06:01] >> the intent is one thing, but you guys
[2:06:02] once you do this, there's no stopping
[2:06:04] it, right? So you guys go put a cheap
[2:06:06] temporary road. Oh, well this is too
[2:06:09] expensive now. This is the new entrance.
[2:06:11] That's
[2:06:12] >> that's how it reads to me.
[2:06:14] >> Any further discussion on the amendment?
[2:06:18] >> Uh okay. Okay. All those in favor of
[2:06:19] amending article 22, raise your card.
[2:06:25] All those opposed.
[2:06:27] The motion fails.
[2:06:29] Back to the main motion.
[2:06:33] >> And I have a question before I say
[2:06:35] >> Okay.
[2:06:52] Sorry. Patience is a virtue.
[2:07:31] We have another motion coming.
[2:07:33] >> Yes. Uh the second amendment um would
[2:07:39] uh address the vagueness in terms of the
[2:07:42] size of the road and that would involve
[2:07:45] adding words after the word road in the
[2:07:48] second line to include with a maximum
[2:07:52] width of 20 ft.
[2:07:54] >> Is there a second?
[2:07:57] >> There's a second. Discussion on the amendment to restrict
[2:08:02] the width to 20 ft.
[2:08:06] is my my point. Okay.
[2:08:11] » I would um object to the 20 foot width.
[2:08:14] Um yeah, there are a lot of roads in
[2:08:15] Essex that are 20 ft wide and they're
[2:08:17] hairy to drive on. There's roads that
[2:08:19] are less than that. If we're going to
[2:08:20] put in a road that's got to handle um
[2:08:23] DPW equipment, uh the dumpsters coming
[2:08:27] in and out, plus if it is a temporary
[2:08:29] road while the culvert and landing road
[2:08:31] is being repaired and all of us are
[2:08:33] driving down it, um why make it 20 ft
[2:08:37] instead of 24, which is a standard safe
[2:08:39] width for two lanes that are 12 feet
[2:08:41] wide for passage?
[2:08:43] >> Nick, you had she said what I was going
[2:08:45] to say.
[2:08:47] >> Any further discussion on the amendment?
[2:08:49] I have some.
[2:08:50] >> Okay,
[2:08:51] >> thank you. Um,
[2:08:58] in this case, the maximum width of 20 ft
[2:09:02] is typical of rural roads um in Essex
[2:09:06] and elsewhere. landing it road itself is
[2:09:09] 19 ft wide at the culvert and all the
[2:09:12] vehicles travel to and from the dump um
[2:09:16] with at a 19 ft width that should be
[2:09:19] more than ample um 25 ft is like
[2:09:23] industrial strength. It's too big a scar
[2:09:25] on the landscape and especially given
[2:09:27] that it's going to be used so rarely
[2:09:30] only when landing road is closed. It
[2:09:32] would make a huge difference to the
[2:09:34] appearance of this scenic open space
[2:09:36] that many of us see a reason to protect.
[2:09:39] Instead of creating an oversized road in
[2:09:42] this farmland on a scenic road, let's
[2:09:44] strive to design it so that it fits into
[2:09:47] the landscape and makes as small a
[2:09:50] bruise as possible. Thank you.
[2:09:54] >> Further discussion.
[2:09:57] » Go ahead.
[2:09:59] I'm going to sit down after this. Jack
[2:10:02] Gale, 105 Pawn Street. Um
[2:10:07] to just to give you an idea of what is
[2:10:09] being talked about, Apple Street is 20
[2:10:12] ft at the 22 end, Route 22nd end. Pawn
[2:10:16] Street, the the width is 20 ft. You're
[2:10:20] talking about a road like Pawn Street
[2:10:22] across this field that's supposed to be
[2:10:24] for temporary use only.
[2:10:26] I really don't think the trucks and fire
[2:10:28] engines have any trouble getting past
[2:10:30] each other on Pawn Street.
[2:10:33] >> Consider that.
[2:10:35] >> Let's keep it in scale.
[2:10:37] >> It's supposed to be temporary.
[2:10:39] >> Further discussion on the amendment.
[2:10:43] >> Hearing none.
[2:10:44] >> Dan.
[2:10:50] » Yeah. So, I could just add to that
[2:10:52] because some support here. It's uh cuz
[2:10:55] you're going to pull 18 wheelers because
[2:10:57] that's what hauls our trash. I apologize
[2:10:59] for our trucks that come through town
[2:11:01] occasionally. But we certainly know what
[2:11:03] it will take to get a truck in and out
[2:11:05] of there. Turn. You can only going to
[2:11:06] turn right. Sorry, Chris. Trucks are
[2:11:09] only going to go right out of there to
[2:11:11] get out to State Road. So, the road's
[2:11:15] going to have to be bigger. It's going
[2:11:16] to be flared out at the end certainly as
[2:11:18] well, but might as well be that's what
[2:11:20] it's going to take. No doubt about it.
[2:11:22] Otherwise, trucks are just going to
[2:11:23] drive right across the street, go up on
[2:11:25] that just to make the turn. So,
[2:11:27] realistic, let these guys build the road
[2:11:29] that they actually need. Sorry.
[2:11:31] >> Further discussion on the amendment.
[2:11:35] All those in favor of amending article
[2:11:37] 22 by limiting the width to 20 ft. Raise
[2:11:40] your card.
[2:11:42] Opposed. The amendment fails.
[2:11:46] Now, back to the main motion 22. Any
[2:11:49] discussion on 22? Um I wanted to address
[2:11:53] the idea of um the future disposition of
[2:11:57] the property at 30 Apple Street. Um I
[2:12:01] mentioned earlier one of the the
[2:12:02] motivating reasons for purchasing this
[2:12:04] is because that we could get access from
[2:12:07] Apple Street to the transfer station
[2:12:09] easily. Um what will happen on that 11
[2:12:13] and a half acre parcel in the long run
[2:12:16] is something that this town will still
[2:12:18] be debating when I'm dead. Um, honestly,
[2:12:22] think about Kenomo Point. When we
[2:12:24] figured out what to do at Komo Point,
[2:12:26] that was a 20-year discussion, and our
[2:12:28] options were tear it down, rent it, or
[2:12:31] sell it. We had three options, and it
[2:12:33] took us 20 years to figure out what to
[2:12:35] do with it. We're talking about 11 acres
[2:12:38] here that we could sell to a developer.
[2:12:41] We could plant flowers on. We could we
[2:12:45] could put senior housing there. We could
[2:12:47] put nothing there. We could put ball
[2:12:48] fields there. The options for this
[2:12:51] property are so vast and so varied and
[2:12:54] are going to take a twothirds vote when
[2:12:56] we get there. So, this property is going
[2:12:58] to sit empty with hopefully a road down
[2:13:00] the middle for as long as I live.
[2:13:07] Rob's been standing up for a long time.
[2:13:10] >> Good job, Lisa. Um, Rob Fitzgib 18 Main
[2:13:13] Street. So, um, politics makes very
[2:13:15] strange bedfellows. And when we voted to
[2:13:18] purchase this property back like a
[2:13:20] couple years ago, I was thinking like,
[2:13:22] uhoh. Um, because it was this really
[2:13:24] kind of interesting kind of ven diagram
[2:13:27] of people bonding together to purchase
[2:13:29] it. you had the kind of uh operations
[2:13:32] contingent, if you will, the sort of Bob
[2:13:34] the Builder folks, and then you had the
[2:13:36] environmental contingent, the sort of
[2:13:38] tree huggers. And I think the thing is that both groups got together and
[2:13:44] were a and allowed the town to purchase
[2:13:47] the property, but both groups have very
[2:13:49] different motivations for what to do
[2:13:51] with the property. And the problem with
[2:13:53] this article is that it it just talks
[2:13:56] about a road, but it doesn't talk about
[2:13:58] the sort of like entire use of the land,
[2:14:01] which many people want to, including
[2:14:02] myself, want to preserve. I'd recommend
[2:14:04] that someone make a motion to
[2:14:05] indefinitely postpone this, and let's
[2:14:07] come back in November and have an entire
[2:14:09] plan. Well, it'll be enough time. I
[2:14:11] don't think the covert's going to break
[2:14:12] in six months. Then we can have a full
[2:14:14] pan and address everybody's needs. Thank
[2:14:16] you.
[2:14:16] >> Is that your motion, Rob?
[2:14:17] >> Hold on.
[2:14:19] Okay.
[2:14:20] >> I make a motion to indefinitely postpone
[2:14:23] article 22.
[2:14:24] >> 22. Thank you for a second.
[2:14:27] >> All those in favor of
[2:14:28] >> Could I could I discussion really quick?
[2:14:32] >> Sorry. Just make a point,
[2:14:33] >> I guess. Sure.
[2:14:34] >> We are not going to be able to design a
[2:14:36] road without money.
[2:14:38] >> So,
[2:14:41] all those in favor of indefinitely
[2:14:43] postponing article 22, raise your card.
[2:14:47] All those opposed.
[2:14:56] All those in favor?
[2:15:07] » I know, but I have to have a plan. So,
[2:15:08] we're going to do the tower vote.
[2:15:16] In the meantime,
[2:15:18] perfect
[2:15:22] before you raise your cards, I want to
[2:15:24] recognize uh Senator Bruce Tar is here.
[2:15:26] He's going to come up and say a couple
[2:15:28] of word. So So
[2:15:36] we're we're going to save a little time
[2:15:38] by having him speak while we take the
[2:15:39] vote. And he's going to rap for us.
[2:15:43] rap. Maybe not, but thank you, Mr.
[2:15:45] Moderator.
[2:15:46] >> Raise your cards if you're in favor of
[2:15:47] article 22.
[2:15:49] >> Postponing article 22.
[2:15:55] >> You got to come to the mic.
[2:15:57] >> All those in favor indefinitely
[2:16:00] postponing article 22, raise your card.
[2:16:05] » That changed. That just changed.
[2:16:08] Definitely did.
[2:16:12] Go ahead.
[2:16:13] >> Keep your cards up. He's going to speak
[2:16:15] for us.
[2:16:15] >> Thank you, Miss Moderator, and through
[2:16:17] you to the members. I fear what I have
[2:16:18] just stepped into by approaching this
[2:16:20] microphone. I I have to tell you, this
[2:16:22] is my third town meeting of this
[2:16:24] evening, and I have not at any of the
[2:16:26] other town meetings heard such an
[2:16:28] interesting combination of engineering,
[2:16:30] wit, and philosophy. And uh it's been an
[2:16:33] a very interesting discussion. I want to
[2:16:35] congratulate everyone who's participated
[2:16:37] in it. I just want to give you a very
[2:16:39] quick update. We on Beacon Hill are in
[2:16:41] our season of budgeting just as you are
[2:16:43] here tonight in the town of Essex. And I
[2:16:45] want you to know that the House uh just
[2:16:47] a short while ago completed its version
[2:16:50] of the budget for the upcoming fiscal
[2:16:52] year, fiscal year 2027. And one of the
[2:16:55] most notable things that they did was
[2:16:57] increase the amount of minimum per pupil
[2:16:59] aid. Uh the governor had proposed that
[2:17:02] number to be at $75. The House increased
[2:17:05] it uh very fortunately to $160 per
[2:17:09] pupil, meaning for the Manchester Essex
[2:17:15] Regional School District that'll be
[2:17:16] about $170,000 additional dollars. And
[2:17:20] in the Senate, uh our budget will be uh
[2:17:22] unveiled tomorrow and we'll be debating
[2:17:24] it over the next couple of weeks and we
[2:17:26] hope to hold that number. In addition to
[2:17:28] that, one of the things in the state
[2:17:30] budget that has needed to be addressed
[2:17:32] in a very long time is unrestricted
[2:17:35] general government aid, so-called UGGA,
[2:17:38] the funding that the state provides for
[2:17:41] municipal purposes such as funding
[2:17:44] police and fire departments. Do you want
[2:17:45] to declare the vote?
[2:17:47] >> All those opposed to artic postponing
[2:17:49] article 22,
[2:17:51] >> thank you. You can make it. I have never
[2:17:53] been involved in the middle of a vote
[2:17:54] before, but uh unrestricted general government
[2:17:59] aid is what pays for the non-school
[2:18:01] things that the state provides funding
[2:18:03] for. And we are working very hard in the
[2:18:05] Senate to increase that number because
[2:18:08] over the years the state budget has
[2:18:10] gotten bigger, tremendously bigger, but
[2:18:13] the percentage of unrestricted general
[2:18:16] government aid has gone down. So, we're
[2:18:19] hoping that we're going to increase that
[2:18:21] so that we'll have more money for the
[2:18:23] schools and more money for the municipal
[2:18:25] side of government. We hope to
[2:18:26] accomplish that uh over the next couple
[2:18:28] of weeks as the Senate uh debates the
[2:18:31] state budget. Uh I also want to point
[2:18:33] out that it is my hope that when we
[2:18:35] debate the budget in the Senate, we will
[2:18:37] at long last uh recreate and
[2:18:40] reconstitute the Foundation Budget
[2:18:43] Review Commission. Because for anyone
[2:18:45] that's been following funding from
[2:18:47] Massachusetts to our school districts,
[2:18:50] you know that that foundation budget is
[2:18:52] broken and it is not providing a fair
[2:18:55] amount of state assistance to regional
[2:18:57] districts and regular school districts
[2:19:00] all across the Commonwealth of
[2:19:01] Massachusetts. In fact, over 270
[2:19:06] school districts in our state receive
[2:19:08] only the minimum amount of per pupil aid
[2:19:11] increase every year. It's time to change
[2:19:14] that and it starts with the Foundation
[2:19:16] Budget Review Commission. So, we hope to
[2:19:18] do that. Last but not least, I'm trying
[2:19:20] to see if the vote is done yet,
[2:19:24] how much more time I need to speak for,
[2:19:26] but last but not least, I think we all
[2:19:28] know how phenomenal our our town
[2:19:30] manager, Brendan Zubri, is uh once
[2:19:32] again, he worked with us. He is
[2:19:35] phenomenal.
[2:19:43] And just a couple of weeks ago, uh,
[2:19:46] Brendan worked with us as we did a
[2:19:47] supplemental budget that was spending
[2:19:50] some of the proceeds of the income sir
[2:19:53] tax on incomes over a million dollars.
[2:19:55] Those funds can only be used for
[2:19:57] transportation and education. And
[2:19:59] Brendan worked with us and we secured an
[2:20:01] earmark in the Senate version of that
[2:20:03] budget uh for some $60,000 to help Essex
[2:20:07] study its bridges. um so that we can
[2:20:09] understand what we need to do to make
[2:20:11] them more resilient and more
[2:20:13] sustainable. And I'm guessing Brendan,
[2:20:15] with that amount of money, you can also
[2:20:16] study how wide they are, but I'm not
[2:20:18] sure.
[2:20:20] And then and then very last but not
[2:20:22] least, I just wanted to say a special
[2:20:24] thanks to Chief Shamshuk uh because uh
[2:20:27] he and uh everyone uh at the public
[2:20:30] safety building has been hosting some
[2:20:32] very important discussions that we've
[2:20:34] been leading about what to do to reduce
[2:20:36] incidences of wrongway driving in the
[2:20:39] Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It's a
[2:20:41] very serious issue. It is something that
[2:20:44] happens far too often and it is
[2:20:46] something that we are learning day by
[2:20:47] day that we can do something about. And
[2:20:50] the chief has been hosting us right here
[2:20:53] in Essex as uh folks from all across the
[2:20:55] region have been getting together to
[2:20:57] plan a strategy to reduce incidents of
[2:21:01] wrongway driving. And it is going to
[2:21:02] make a difference. It's going to save
[2:21:04] lives. And I appreciate his good work in
[2:21:07] his hosting us and all of the chiefs on
[2:21:09] the Northshore.
[2:21:15] Mr. Moderator, I think there's a
[2:21:16] question. I'm not know sure if I'm
[2:21:18] allowed to entertain a question, but go
[2:21:20] ahead.
[2:21:23] » Sure. Go ahead.
[2:21:37] I'm Shelley Bradberry. Um, thank you,
[2:21:39] Senator Tar. I am very interested in the
[2:21:42] energy costs that we're paying where um
[2:21:45] I heard that the legislative is going to
[2:21:48] talk about raising the service fees
[2:21:52] >> in in December. And right now, our
[2:21:55] service fees are more than what we use.
[2:21:58] and it is getting to a point where it's
[2:22:01] unaffordable and I I want to know more
[2:22:05] about this and where what you're
[2:22:08] thinking.
[2:22:08] >> Sure. Well, thanks Shel. So, uh what's
[2:22:11] happening is that the House of
[2:22:12] Representatives has passed a bill uh to
[2:22:15] work on reducing energy costs.
[2:22:17] Massachusetts right now pays among the
[2:22:19] highest electricity cost in the
[2:22:22] continental United States of America.
[2:22:25] And so uh the House passed a bill to
[2:22:27] look at various ways to reduce that. The
[2:22:30] Senate plans on taking that bill up over
[2:22:32] the next several months. Um I have
[2:22:34] offered a comprehensive bill with many
[2:22:36] of my colleagues uh to try to reduce
[2:22:39] those costs while making sure that we
[2:22:41] have reliable sources of sustainable
[2:22:43] energy. And so it's a conversation that
[2:22:46] is ongoing. Uh but we are going to work
[2:22:48] at both of those goals. Number one,
[2:22:50] making sure that we have enough supply.
[2:22:53] Number two, making sure that it's
[2:22:55] affordable and sustainable over the
[2:22:57] future. So, it's a great question and
[2:22:59] it's one of the things that we
[2:23:01] absolutely must address in
[2:23:03] Massachusetts. And I'm I'm just going to
[2:23:05] editorialize for a minute and say that
[2:23:07] over the last several years, we
[2:23:09] literally have had thousands of people
[2:23:12] leaving our Commonwealth because it's
[2:23:14] not affordable to be here. And one of
[2:23:17] the driving causes of that is the cost
[2:23:19] of energy. So, we take it very
[2:23:21] seriously. We have a lot of ideas on how
[2:23:23] to get at it. And I promise you maybe
[2:23:26] even if you tune in to the Senate budget
[2:23:27] debate two weeks from now, you may even
[2:23:30] hear some ideas from me about how to get
[2:23:32] at that sooner than later. Thanks for
[2:23:34] the question.
[2:23:40] All right, I think I've used enough time
[2:23:42] so that the vote has been completed and
[2:23:44] uh I think where's Lisa O'Donnell?
[2:23:46] think, you know, it certainly got done
[2:23:48] in a shorter time than what you had
[2:23:50] predicted and I want to make sure you're
[2:23:52] living for a long long time. So,
[2:23:57] thank thank you all for for coming out
[2:24:00] to town meeting. I know these nights can
[2:24:01] be long, but they make a real difference
[2:24:03] when people get together and make
[2:24:05] decisions for the town. Thank you all
[2:24:06] very much.
[2:24:14] » Thank you, Bruce. Um
[2:24:17] >> the motion to postpone
[2:24:20] failed 85 to 103. So we're going to move
[2:24:24] on to the main article 22 still.
[2:24:29] » Go ahead. Mike Dyer, Indian Rock Lane.
[2:24:31] Uh question through you, Mr. Moderator,
[2:24:33] to the DPW. Um I I understand that the
[2:24:38] design and construction of this road are
[2:24:40] pencil out to $75,000.
[2:24:44] I'm surprised you can even get a road
[2:24:45] designed for $75,000 these days and and
[2:24:49] built based on prices I've seen on on
[2:24:53] other projects recently. Um I' I'd like
[2:24:57] a little more detail on that, including
[2:24:59] who will be designing the road.
[2:25:05] design will be per a standard
[2:25:06] detail and width and will be built by
[2:25:09] DBW personnel with rented equipment.
[2:25:17] Next question or statement.
[2:25:20] >> Um to David Perne, 15 Lufkin Street. I'd
[2:25:23] like to urge everybody here to vote on
[2:25:25] this article the way it is written. Um, a lot of us probably
[2:25:30] remember, which is coming up shortly,
[2:25:32] the all the lovely Mother's Day
[2:25:34] rainstorms that we had and how
[2:25:36] inconvenient for the town of Ipsswitch
[2:25:39] it was when the choke bridge did not
[2:25:42] operate for months. We are one simple
[2:25:46] little rainstorm away from that culvert
[2:25:48] being useless, which is going to cut off
[2:25:51] 100% of your access to vital emergency
[2:25:55] services. So, please vote on the article
[2:25:58] as it is written.
[2:26:02] » Uh, Christopher Wolf, Forese Creek Road.
[2:26:05] I'd like to move the question, please.
[2:26:06] Okay.
[2:26:08] >> All those in favor of moving question
[2:26:10] article 22, raise your card.
[2:26:14] All those that want to keep continuing
[2:26:16] talking about it, raise your card.
[2:26:19] We are we're going to stop debate. We
[2:26:21] will now take a vote on article 22. All
[2:26:24] those in favor of article 22, raise your
[2:26:26] card.
[2:26:28] All those opposed.
[2:26:31] The motion passes.
[2:26:37] » Article 17. It's
[2:26:38] >> Mr. Moderator.
[2:26:42] >> I'd like to propose that we uh consider
[2:26:44] article 28 next. Please.
[2:26:46] >> Is there a second?
[2:26:48] >> All those in favor of moving article 28
[2:26:51] before 17, raise your card.
[2:26:56] All those opposed to moving it.
[2:26:59] Article 28.
[2:27:15] » Mr. Moderator I, Edward Neil, move that
[2:27:17] the town vote to repeal or resin the
[2:27:20] vote of article 21 of the annual town
[2:27:22] meeting of May 2nd, 2011, by which the
[2:27:26] town adopted the open space residential
[2:27:28] development zoning bylaw as section 6-14
[2:27:32] of the town zoning bylaw, subsequently
[2:27:35] reumbered as and currently existing as
[2:27:39] section 6-8 of the town zoning bylaw,
[2:27:42] and to delete said section 68 from the
[2:27:45] town zoning bylaw. Said repeal or
[2:27:48] recision shall not apply to any
[2:27:51] application properly filed before the
[2:27:53] passage of this article at the May 2026
[2:27:56] annual town meeting. Is there a second
[2:28:02] >> discussion?
[2:28:06] » Do you want me to give the planning
[2:28:08] boards
[2:28:09] Jeff?
[2:28:10] >> What?
[2:28:11] >> I guess I wasn't paying attention.
[2:28:12] >> Yes. I have to ask because this is
[2:28:14] twothirds at zoning. I'm I want the
[2:28:16] planning board to answer whether they
[2:28:18] voted on it or not.
[2:28:19] >> Beg your pardon?
[2:28:19] >> I'm asking the planning board if they
[2:28:21] voted on it because this is a zoning
[2:28:23] article and it takes twothirds. I asked
[2:28:26] planning board if they voted on it or in
[2:28:28] favor of it.
[2:28:29] >> They voted not to support it at their
[2:28:30] hearing.
[2:28:30] >> I have to ask her.
[2:28:35] » The planning board did hear this article
[2:28:37] as um part of our hearing on April 15th.
[2:28:41] And at that point, no one spoke to the
[2:28:43] article and the planning board as is our
[2:28:46] as is required takes a vote on whether
[2:28:49] to support the article and to recommend
[2:28:51] it to town meeting. And our vote was
[2:28:54] against the article and we do not
[2:28:56] recommend it to town meeting.
[2:29:01] » Is it my time clock starting now?
[2:29:02] >> Right now. Okay. I guess I wasn't paying
[2:29:05] attention when the town passed the OSRD
[2:29:07] bylaw in 2011, but even if I was, I
[2:29:11] probably probably would not have
[2:29:12] understood the ramifications of it
[2:29:14] passing. The Essex Park Road
[2:29:16] development, however, has brought
[2:29:18] significant issues to light. The
[2:29:20] objective of this bylaw is clearly to
[2:29:22] preserve green spaces as part of
[2:29:24] residential development projects, and in
[2:29:27] overdeveloped urban settings, it might
[2:29:28] make some sense. But in Essex, we have
[2:29:31] expansive undeveloped green spaces and
[2:29:34] conservation areas for passive
[2:29:36] recreation. The Star Roast Reservation,
[2:29:38] New England Antiquities, Green Belt and
[2:29:40] Trustees all offer public access to
[2:29:43] undeveloper farm and forest areas and
[2:29:46] the existing large residential lots
[2:29:48] provide pleasant treed and grassy areas
[2:29:51] for your viewing pleasure. In Essex, our
[2:29:54] zoning for residential development has
[2:29:56] required 30,000 square foot lots on
[2:29:59] streets in existence in 1972
[2:30:01] and 40,000 on new subdivision roads.
[2:30:05] These requirements were enacted for
[2:30:06] several reason. One is that large lots
[2:30:09] and fences make for good neighbors and
[2:30:12] that without municipal sewers, it's
[2:30:14] difficult to site a functional septic
[2:30:16] system on smaller lots. The bylaws,
[2:30:19] sewer regulations, and special
[2:30:21] legislation that controls our municipal
[2:30:23] sewer do not allow new developments to
[2:30:25] tie in. The system was built to correct
[2:30:28] existing pollution problems, not to
[2:30:30] facilitate future development. The OSRD
[2:30:34] bylaw allows and indeed encourages
[2:30:37] developers to create undersized 10,000
[2:30:40] square foot lots, thereby creating more
[2:30:43] lots than would otherwise be allowed in
[2:30:45] return for allowing a portion of the lot
[2:30:47] to remain undeveloped. This creates
[2:30:49] several issues. First, we are creating clustered housing on small lots
[2:30:55] that are out of character with the
[2:30:57] overall residents of Essex. Second, due
[2:31:00] to the small small lots on light on lot
[2:31:04] septic systems will be impossible,
[2:31:06] driving the developer to build communal
[2:31:08] septic systems with pipes in the street
[2:31:10] from the new houses to remote leeching
[2:31:12] fields. As it is, the owners of the new
[2:31:15] homes will be responsible for the
[2:31:16] maintenance of and plowing of the new
[2:31:19] subdivision roads, the water supply
[2:31:21] which will be on private property and
[2:31:24] maintenance of the storm water recharge
[2:31:26] structures that are required. Adding
[2:31:28] sewer system responsibility is adding
[2:31:31] insult to injury. We are creating a
[2:31:33] two-tiered community where a significant
[2:31:36] group of taxpayers are excluded from the
[2:31:38] bulk of municipal services that are
[2:31:40] available to the greater population.
[2:31:42] Lastly, but not least are the
[2:31:44] ramifications of this precious open
[2:31:46] space we will be creating. Who's
[2:31:49] responsible for maintaining this space?
[2:31:51] Who can use it? If there are dangerous
[2:31:54] trees that need pruning or removal, who
[2:31:56] pays for that? What if a neighborhood
[2:31:58] kid is playing in there and is hurt? Who
[2:32:01] pays the bill? Are the new homeowners
[2:32:03] shouldering this burden as well? It's
[2:32:06] been suggested that ownership of the
[2:32:07] open space might be transferred to one
[2:32:09] of our local conservation groups, which
[2:32:11] will remove it from the tax roles. If
[2:32:14] so, will these organizations maintain
[2:32:16] and be responsible for this property?
[2:32:19] Other than maintaining walking trails, I
[2:32:21] am unaware of any efforts to create fire
[2:32:24] roads, fire breaks, or decrease the fire
[2:32:27] load in the vast woodland areas they now
[2:32:30] control. I don't see it happening. We're
[2:32:33] only asking these questions because we
[2:32:35] have created these problems by enacting
[2:32:38] this bylaw, which makes no sense for
[2:32:40] this rural community. Please join me in
[2:32:43] voting to remove this boutique bylaw
[2:32:45] from our books and return to common
[2:32:47] sense subdivision rules that work for
[2:32:50] Essex and new residents. Thank you.
[2:32:58] Gilen 104 John Weisav
[2:33:02] vote no. I support keeping the open
[2:33:04] space residential development zoning
[2:33:06] bylaw because it lets Essex protect open
[2:33:09] spaces while still allowing housing.
[2:33:12] Clustered development is a smarter use
[2:33:14] of land than scattered large lot sprawl
[2:33:17] and it helps preserve the trees that you
[2:33:20] fought for in the past.
[2:33:22] So, we can't really advocate for
[2:33:24] clear-cutting to make way for big single
[2:33:26] family houses over dense housing and
[2:33:29] more trees
[2:33:31] when that's how we've been voting in the
[2:33:33] past. I agree that nature is what makes
[2:33:35] Essex special.
[2:33:37] Good planning lets us grow without
[2:33:40] giving up land, air, and space that
[2:33:42] makes Essex worth living in. Denser
[2:33:45] housing can add more to the town's tax
[2:33:47] base per acre than low density single
[2:33:50] family development because compact land
[2:33:52] use tends to generate more property tax
[2:33:55] revenue relative to the land it uses.
[2:33:58] Keeping open spaces helps Essex preserve
[2:34:01] the rural character. I would contend
[2:34:04] that can strengthen our eligibility for
[2:34:06] state rural town benefits including
[2:34:09] housing and planning incentives. Vote no
[2:34:12] on 28.
[2:34:18] I just wanted to put a little context
[2:34:20] around the OSRD and um make sure that
[2:34:24] people are clear on on what we're
[2:34:25] talking about here. The open space
[2:34:28] residential development is one option
[2:34:30] that developers have. They don't have to
[2:34:32] use this. They can go do a conventional
[2:34:34] subdivision just as they could without
[2:34:36] this. So, it's not getting rid of this
[2:34:39] isn't going to stop development. It's
[2:34:41] just going to ensure that any
[2:34:42] development that does happen um is going
[2:34:45] to be of the 40,000 square foot lot and
[2:34:48] not allow the smaller cluster
[2:34:49] development and the protection of open
[2:34:51] space. So, this isn't a way to stop
[2:34:53] development at all. It just takes away
[2:34:55] the option for the open space
[2:34:57] residential development. This article
[2:34:59] passed in 2011 with 83% of the vote. The
[2:35:02] vote was 204 in favor of 42 people
[2:35:04] against it. So, it's something that was
[2:35:06] very popular here in Essex. We've seen
[2:35:08] the first one in 15 years now um that
[2:35:11] we're we're hearing at the planning
[2:35:12] board level right now. So it's not
[2:35:14] something that is happening all over.
[2:35:17] It's it's like I said the first time in
[2:35:20] 15 years. We don't see a lot of
[2:35:21] developments happen. Actually um it
[2:35:24] doesn't an OSRD does not create um a
[2:35:27] higher density in town because the whole
[2:35:29] concept of preserving urban space means
[2:35:31] that in effect you get the same density.
[2:35:34] It's a little bit higher because they
[2:35:36] have the bonus. They can get a couple
[2:35:38] more lots if they pro protect more of
[2:35:40] the property, but it's it's not it's not
[2:35:43] substantial. The conventional
[2:35:45] subdivision plan that's was used to
[2:35:47] prove out the OSRD that we're looking at
[2:35:50] pretty much cleared or used up the
[2:35:52] entire 88 acre parcel. The OSRD that
[2:35:55] we're looking at now has of that 80 I'm
[2:35:58] sorry, 84 acres, there are seven or
[2:36:00] about 50 left in open space. 70% of the
[2:36:03] property is protected in open space. So
[2:36:05] it does provide that benefit that was
[2:36:09] the goal of it. Um
[2:36:13] in a statistic I found and it's a little
[2:36:16] outdated but is between 1971 and 1991
[2:36:20] the population of Massachusetts grew by
[2:36:22] 15% and the area of developed land grew
[2:36:25] by 35%. And that's around the time when
[2:36:28] towns were adopting this sort of oneacre
[2:36:31] um single family lot and and that's just
[2:36:33] not a sustainable process. So the
[2:36:35] concept of having the open space
[2:36:37] residential development as an option for
[2:36:39] developers makes a lot of sense.
[2:36:41] Virtually every town has some version of
[2:36:44] this. So do does our open space bylaw
[2:36:48] need a few tweaks? Yes. And the planning
[2:36:50] board is watching for those and we're
[2:36:52] going to propose some tweaks. if it
[2:36:53] survives tonight, we'll be making
[2:36:55] updates to it in the future, having
[2:36:57] learned a lot going through this
[2:36:58] process. Now, um and I would like to say
[2:37:01] that um if you to to say that um an open
[2:37:07] space residential development, this
[2:37:08] cluster development is not in keeping
[2:37:09] with the character of Essex. If you look
[2:37:11] at much of our downtown area between
[2:37:13] Western and Martin, Pickering um Winthre
[2:37:17] that whole area and even on around um
[2:37:20] Southern Avenue and Eastern Avenue in
[2:37:22] that area, there's a lot of properties
[2:37:24] that are the size of the development
[2:37:27] properties that are in an OSRD that the
[2:37:29] 10,000 square foot lots just a quarter
[2:37:31] acre lot. Um so that actually is kind of
[2:37:33] in keeping with some of the
[2:37:34] neighborhoods that we have in Essex. do
[2:37:36] have a lot of sort of smaller lot closed
[2:37:39] neighborhoods and a lot of people I know
[2:37:40] live in them and like them. So, um I
[2:37:43] don't see the reason to eliminate this
[2:37:46] option for developers. It it helps bring
[2:37:49] um variety to our community. If everyone
[2:37:51] lives on one house on an acre, it's
[2:37:53] pretty sterile and generic.
[2:37:57] >> Okay.
[2:37:58] >> Uh Tom Deo, 35 Water Street. Um, I'm in
[2:38:02] favor of looking at zoning situations
[2:38:06] where we increase density, possibly in
[2:38:10] improve uh possibility of more growth in
[2:38:13] the town. But I don't like this law.
[2:38:15] It's from my point of view when you've
[2:38:18] got land use
[2:38:20] requirements in town, it provides
[2:38:23] something to the land owners. It
[2:38:25] provides a reliable expectation of
[2:38:27] value. you know what's going to happen
[2:38:30] in the surrounding properties around
[2:38:32] your property. It's important to land
[2:38:34] owners to know that if you do this, this
[2:38:38] is a cheat. If you just happen to be
[2:38:40] next to the
[2:38:43] port portion of a development where the houses are clustered instead of the
[2:38:48] expectations you bought the house under,
[2:38:50] suddenly there's 20 20 properties in a
[2:38:54] completely different density level next
[2:38:55] to you.
[2:38:57] The whole purpose of land use
[2:38:59] requirements is to provide reliability
[2:39:02] to land owners and to provide an
[2:39:04] expectation of value. If we want to have
[2:39:07] denser
[2:39:09] land development, do it in a global do
[2:39:12] it in zoned areas. Make it reliable. Let
[2:39:15] people know what's going to happen and
[2:39:17] they can plan accordingly. Having this
[2:39:20] it it's it's not reliable.
[2:39:26] Bob Fitzgib 18 Main Street. Um I I don't
[2:39:31] know. I just feel like we're having this
[2:39:33] like hybrid vehicles are bad. Let's go
[2:39:35] back to leted gasoline. Um the OSRD is a
[2:39:40] tool in a developer's toolbox. And it's
[2:39:44] not for every situation, but it is a
[2:39:47] very very useful tool. OSRDs are great
[2:39:49] to build in certain circumstances. They
[2:39:52] were a win-win situation for a town and
[2:39:54] for the developer. Um, I don't see any
[2:39:58] economic, environmental, fiscal, or
[2:40:00] operational benefit to eliminate this
[2:40:03] tool we've had in our toolbox since
[2:40:06] 2011. And I don't know if you've
[2:40:07] noticed, but the sky hasn't fallen and
[2:40:09] the seas haven't, you know, drowned
[2:40:11] Essex in during the time since that got
[2:40:14] passed. Um, just think of it, it's just
[2:40:16] a Phillips head screwdriver. I don't
[2:40:18] understand we why we'd throw away our
[2:40:19] own Philips head when every other town
[2:40:22] around here Newbury Port Hamilton
[2:40:24] Ipsswitch they have OSRD everything's
[2:40:26] cool. So vote no on this. Peter
[2:40:32] Hill Road
[2:40:34] where do we start on this? Um,
[2:40:39] the OSRD on Essex Park Road is a good
[2:40:42] example of why we probably want to
[2:40:45] resend this. And the sole purpose of
[2:40:48] this is to exchange conservation land
[2:40:51] for density development in exchange for
[2:40:54] 10,000 square foot lots. What's the
[2:40:56] problem down there? First of all, 50% of
[2:40:58] the construction is in wetlands or
[2:41:00] wetland buffer zone. And I'm using this
[2:41:02] o the OSRD on Essex Park Road as an
[2:41:05] example of what can go wrong here.
[2:41:09] There's a 50 thou 15 to 20,000 gallon
[2:41:12] per day sewage system. It'll sit right
[2:41:15] on the Elbrook. You heard me say we
[2:41:18] don't take care of the Essex River.
[2:41:19] Well, that leads directly to the Essex
[2:41:21] River. It also overlaps a hazardous
[2:41:24] waste zone uh which there's no final
[2:41:28] remediation in place for
[2:41:31] the Ly Brook borders or bisects onethird
[2:41:35] of this property.
[2:41:38] The potential conservation land is
[2:41:40] wetland and the gas pipeline. What kind
[2:41:41] of a tradeoff is that? We don't even
[2:41:43] have it yet. As a matter of fact, I feel
[2:41:46] kind of bad for the planning board with
[2:41:48] the advice they've been getting from our
[2:41:49] town planner and town council. We have a
[2:41:52] town bylaw that states
[2:41:55] no building permits allowed on something
[2:41:58] like this until we get the conservation
[2:42:00] restrictions in place. We had a meeting
[2:42:03] where our town planner stated when she
[2:42:06] was asked, planning board was asked,
[2:42:09] when will we get the conservation
[2:42:10] restrictions?
[2:42:12] Well, maybe after 15
[2:42:15] houses are built, building permits are
[2:42:17] issued because it's expensive. That's
[2:42:19] typical.
[2:42:21] Town council stated, I don't know, two,
[2:42:24] what's the concern? The concern is we're
[2:42:27] trading off open land for density here,
[2:42:30] and we're not getting it.
[2:42:35] There's potentially a large deficit to
[2:42:37] the school system. It's not a perfect
[2:42:39] mathematical formula, but let's say out
[2:42:41] of 36 houses, there's 1.5 kids in each
[2:42:44] house and 1.94 is the average in this
[2:42:46] state. That'd be 56 students into the
[2:42:50] school system
[2:42:52] at roughly 29,5600
[2:42:55] per student. It's a million five,
[2:42:57] million six. Someone from the from the
[2:43:00] assessors can tell me what a
[2:43:03] 10,000 foot house lot on house is that
[2:43:05] $10,000. Are we running a million plus
[2:43:08] dollar deficit annually? It's one of the
[2:43:11] things that can go wrong. The developer,
[2:43:14] some young guys trying to hit a
[2:43:15] hometown, trying to hit a home run in
[2:43:17] Essex. Well,
[2:43:19] my response to that, don't try that in a
[2:43:21] small town.
[2:43:23] It's not typical. Essex isn't typical. I
[2:43:27] sent a letter around Apollo 13. They
[2:43:31] said, "Okay, Houston, I think we have a
[2:43:33] problem here."
[2:43:35] Okay, Essex, we definitely have a
[2:43:38] problem here. We need to resend this.
[2:43:40] Thank you for your time.
[2:43:43] » Sure.
[2:43:51] » No one said anything about
[2:43:52] discrimination.
[2:43:54] >> Ruth,
[2:43:54] >> no one said anything.
[2:43:56] >> Sorry. Ruth
[2:44:00] » Ruth Pin 15 Lin Street. On February 9th,
[2:44:04] 2026, I went before the board of
[2:44:06] selectmen with a scheduled appointment
[2:44:08] asking to repeal two different um
[2:44:10] bylaws. The second one, the second
[2:44:12] request was to repeal section 66 6-8
[2:44:15] open space residential OSRD of the Essex
[2:44:19] bylaws. Um, in that I wrote, "I'm
[2:44:22] requesting a warrant article to repeal
[2:44:24] section 6-8 of the Essex zoning bylaws
[2:44:27] concerning the open space residential
[2:44:29] development. According to the town of
[2:44:31] Essex 2021 open space plan, 81.9%
[2:44:36] of the town's land remains open space
[2:44:39] with 35% permanently protected in an
[2:44:42] additional 17.9 subject to development
[2:44:45] restrictions when water bodies in salt
[2:44:47] marsh already protected under state law
[2:44:50] are included. Over 64% of Essex's
[2:44:53] protected open space falls into these
[2:44:55] categories. While conservation remains
[2:44:58] an important goal, the continued removal
[2:45:00] of land from the tax roles increases the
[2:45:03] tax burden on remaining taxpayers. OSRD
[2:45:06] provisions allow development on smaller
[2:45:08] lots, 10,000 square foot as you've heard
[2:45:10] tonight, uh rather than the standard
[2:45:12] 40,000 square feet, while placing up to
[2:45:14] 70% of that parcel under permanent
[2:45:17] restriction, rendering that portion
[2:45:19] non-taxable.
[2:45:21] Given the substantial amount of
[2:45:22] protected land already in Essex, I
[2:45:24] believe it's appropriate to reconsider
[2:45:25] whether this bylaw continues to serve
[2:45:27] the town's financial in policy
[2:45:29] interests. So the attorney I know the
[2:45:32] planning board, seven elected officials
[2:45:33] received a letter from the attorney
[2:45:35] general. It was five pages which
[2:45:37] basically said you can't make decisions
[2:45:40] based on the finances of the town. So
[2:45:42] congratulations to those seven elected
[2:45:43] officials who are holding up to that.
[2:45:46] But we as a body do need to consider our
[2:45:48] finances. We're fortunate that we
[2:45:50] haven't passed an operational override
[2:45:52] in 20 years up until this evening.
[2:45:54] Congratulations to us for that. But this
[2:45:56] OSRD, we have a lot of protected land.
[2:45:59] We have more land under restriction. We
[2:46:01] love Essex. We don't want to see major
[2:46:03] developments. We want to see our land
[2:46:05] protected. I agree. But we cannot
[2:46:07] continue to take land off the tax role.
[2:46:09] It it we shoulder that burden
[2:46:11] financially when we continue to do
[2:46:14] things like this. So, I urge you to
[2:46:16] please vote in favor of Mr. Neil's uh
[2:46:19] citizens petition to um remove the OSRD.
[2:46:25] » Hi. Um I'm Annie Martin. I live at 23
[2:46:28] Pickering Street. I also work in housing
[2:46:31] policy for a nonprofit. Um I think this
[2:46:34] is a bad idea. This is the wrong time to
[2:46:36] be moving away from innovative solutions
[2:46:38] for housing, especially higher density
[2:46:40] housing. As a commonwealth, we are
[2:46:42] moving towards um trying to figure out
[2:46:45] what solutions, what innovative
[2:46:47] solutions we can use to produce more
[2:46:49] housing. Our state's in a shortage. You
[2:46:51] just heard Senator Tar talk about how
[2:46:53] young people especially are being priced
[2:46:55] out of this state. So, I don't know why
[2:46:57] we would be considering eliminating a
[2:46:59] key piece of our toolkit um when we're
[2:47:01] already in a housing crisis. Um, and
[2:47:04] then I would also just say I've heard a
[2:47:05] lot of coded language tonight about like
[2:47:07] the character of this housing and what
[2:47:10] that means for Essex. And I would just
[2:47:12] encourage everyone to challenge the way
[2:47:13] that they're speaking about this housing
[2:47:15] and actually do some research into it.
[2:47:24] Brian Grestler, 30 CHO. Uh, I think if
[2:47:27] we wanted to pass an article like this
[2:47:29] or make a change, then we would need to
[2:47:30] come up with a with a different
[2:47:31] solution. simply eliminating all the
[2:47:33] rules isn't a solution. Um, and so if we
[2:47:37] want to, you know, these are things we
[2:47:38] want to do. I'm all for citizen
[2:47:39] petitions. I'm all for for this kind of
[2:47:41] citizens, you know, bringing things
[2:47:43] forward for us to vote on. But
[2:47:45] eliminating without a without an
[2:47:46] alternate solution is not really a
[2:47:48] solution at all. It's just going
[2:47:49] backwards.
[2:47:51] Uh, beyond that, one other quick thing.
[2:47:53] Uh, it does not cost every every time
[2:47:55] you add a student, the school has fixed
[2:47:56] costs. The building doesn't get bigger.
[2:47:59] The buses don't get you get half a bus.
[2:48:01] You don't get a quarter of a teacher,
[2:48:03] right? You spread the cost you have over an additional student. It does not
[2:48:06] cost $29,000 every time you add a
[2:48:08] student. That's ridiculous.
[2:48:13] » I just wanted to be boring and provide
[2:48:16] more numbers. Um, we had the or Brendan
[2:48:20] had the assessors compare um what 31
[2:48:25] acre parcels would the value that the
[2:48:28] town would realize there versus 36
[2:48:31] quarter acre parcels. And they did a
[2:48:34] comparison there with equal value on the
[2:48:38] buildings. So, I'm not going to talk
[2:48:39] about those, but 36 buildings of equal
[2:48:42] value will bring you more revenue than
[2:48:44] 30 buildings of equal value. But looking
[2:48:47] at the value of the land, which is how
[2:48:49] the assessments are done, value of the
[2:48:50] land and value of the building, the
[2:48:52] value of the land for 31 acre lots is
[2:48:54] 19,62
[2:48:56] million. I mean, sorry, $19,62
[2:49:00] $62,000.
[2:49:02] And the value of 364 acre parcels is
[2:49:06] 18,993.
[2:49:08] So the the 31 acre parcels are only a
[2:49:11] couple hundred,000 more out of 1819
[2:49:14] million more valuable than the smaller
[2:49:16] lots. But it's also been demonstrated
[2:49:18] that open space um property does
[2:49:23] increase in value more quickly that's
[2:49:25] been demonstrated from state level um
[2:49:28] and data. And the other thing to think
[2:49:31] about is the whole argument against kids
[2:49:33] in schools which is not something we can
[2:49:36] consider. And Kate has pointed out is
[2:49:38] not something we should be talking
[2:49:40] about, but 30 homes on one acre lots
[2:49:45] will put probably just as many students
[2:49:47] as 36 homes on quarter acre lots. So
[2:49:50] that's a completely This property would
[2:49:52] be developed one way or another. It's
[2:49:54] going to be developed and the options
[2:49:55] would be 30 houses on 1acre lots or 36
[2:49:59] houses on quarter acre lots with 50
[2:50:01] acres of open space. So, um, it's not
[2:50:05] really an argument. It's it's
[2:50:08] >> Yeah,
[2:50:12] » Mike Dier, Indian Rock Lane. Uh, thanks
[2:50:14] Lisa. You made a couple of the points
[2:50:16] that I was thinking of making and as uh
[2:50:19] as Rob Fitzkimmer pointed out, this it's
[2:50:21] a tool, not a choice. Um, in fact, the
[2:50:26] cluster zoning will probably result in
[2:50:29] savings to the uh developer in terms of infrastructure, road
[2:50:34] building, u utilities in the ground and
[2:50:38] all that sort of stuff may make these
[2:50:40] homes slightly more affordable for the
[2:50:43] home buyers. And I think we should
[2:50:46] consider that some home buyers may uh
[2:50:48] appreciate the choice of smaller, more
[2:50:51] densely packed neighborhoods similar to
[2:50:53] those that I think most of us probably
[2:50:56] grew up in uh back in the well a lot of
[2:51:00] great a lot of gray hair 60s and 70s. Um
[2:51:03] like Leave it to Beaver. Um I urge you
[2:51:07] to vote no.
[2:51:12] » Just one more comment. Tom Deale, 35
[2:51:14] Water Street. All innovation is not
[2:51:17] equal. Okay? Just because it's
[2:51:19] innovation doesn't mean it's always
[2:51:21] good. We could just do something really
[2:51:23] simple and decide to zone certain areas
[2:51:27] for more density. That's an option, too.
[2:51:31] And it's a smarter, cleaner, more
[2:51:33] reliable option. There's no reason why
[2:51:36] we can't have more dense density. We
[2:51:39] just have to zone it. But having it be,
[2:51:42] you know, a variable situation where it
[2:51:45] might happen in your neighborhood or it
[2:51:46] might not, that's weird. We don't need
[2:51:50] this. We can just do basic zoning and do
[2:51:54] it right.
[2:51:57] » Tom Bario, um, 39 Spring Street. Uh,
[2:52:01] there's lots of issues that are being
[2:52:02] brought into the conversation here. Um,
[2:52:06] the OSRD
[2:52:08] bylaw allows the town to opt to do
[2:52:12] higher density development when it's
[2:52:15] appropriate and when certain conditions
[2:52:16] are met. Doesn't have to do it, but it
[2:52:19] gives us the option. The notion that
[2:52:22] Essex is overloaded with conservation
[2:52:24] land and we need to strike down this law
[2:52:26] to prevent that, it's a bit of a red
[2:52:28] herring. Uh, this town's character is
[2:52:31] defined by the marsh. The marsh is
[2:52:33] conservation land by state law and
[2:52:36] that's why we have a lot of conservation
[2:52:38] land in this town. The notion that um
[2:52:42] people are taking away money from the
[2:52:46] taxpayers when they bring land under
[2:52:48] conservation again it's a red herring.
[2:52:50] That's a state law. If people don't like
[2:52:53] the notion that bringing land under
[2:52:55] conservation protection makes it tax
[2:52:57] exempt they have the right to fight that
[2:52:59] law in the state legislature. at a town
[2:53:02] level. It's merely something we have to
[2:53:04] obey.
[2:53:06] >> Any further discussion? I don't see any.
[2:53:08] So, all those in favor of article 28,
[2:53:12] this is 2/3, by the way. It's a zoning
[2:53:14] bylaw. Uh, this is 2/3. So, all those in
[2:53:16] favor of article 28, raise your card.
[2:53:21] All opposed.
[2:53:23] The motion fails.
[2:53:28] Article 17.
[2:53:31] And we're back.
[2:53:32] >> Hello. Remember me?
[2:53:35] I, Nick Ellis, move that the town vote
[2:53:37] to transfer from free cash the sum of
[2:53:39] $28,125
[2:53:41] and to transfer from water enterprise
[2:53:44] retained earnings the sum of $28,125
[2:53:48] for a total appropriation of $56,250
[2:53:52] to purchase a fully equipped mini
[2:53:54] excavator for the highway, cemetery, and
[2:53:55] water departments to replace the
[2:53:58] Department of Public Works existing
[2:53:59] backhoe and anything incidental there
[2:54:01] too and further to authorize the board
[2:54:03] of public works to enter into any
[2:54:04] necessary agreements to effectuate the
[2:54:06] purposes of this vote and dispose of the
[2:54:09] old backho by sale or trade. Is
[2:54:11] >> there a second?
[2:54:13] >> Any discussion?
[2:54:15] >> We have an old backhoe. Um, we have a
[2:54:18] new backhoe. Uh, we want to get rid of
[2:54:20] the old one and instead of replacing it
[2:54:22] with a big new backho, we're going to
[2:54:23] get a smaller mini excavator that's more
[2:54:25] appropriate for what we have to do with
[2:54:26] it. And as an added side benefit, it
[2:54:29] costs way less money.
[2:54:32] >> Any further discussion? Seeing none. All
[2:54:34] those in favor of article 17, raise your
[2:54:36] card.
[2:54:36] >> Love it.
[2:54:37] >> All opposed. Motion passes. Article 18.
[2:54:41] What?
[2:54:46] » What?
[2:54:47] >> 18.
[2:54:48] Don't mess with me, Lisa. I, Nick Ellis,
[2:54:51] move that the town vote to transfer from
[2:54:53] free cash the sum of $20,293
[2:54:57] to transfer from the water enterprise
[2:54:59] retained earnings the sum of $20,293
[2:55:03] and to transfer from the sewer
[2:55:04] enterprise retained earnings the sum of
[2:55:07] $20,293
[2:55:09] for a total appropriation of $60,879
[2:55:13] for work order tracking and asset
[2:55:15] management software and anything
[2:55:16] incidental there too. Is there a second?
[2:55:20] discussion.
[2:55:25] Um, so, uh, we at the Department of
[2:55:28] Public Works have a lot of stuff, uh,
[2:55:30] buried in the street, sitting in our
[2:55:32] yard at our water treatment plant. Um,
[2:55:34] we also have a lot of different jobs
[2:55:35] that we do throughout town. Um, this
[2:55:37] money is going to be used to purchase
[2:55:39] software that'll help us track work
[2:55:40] orders. It'll help us track our assets,
[2:55:43] uh, and it'll help us in the long term
[2:55:44] to plan for, uh, capital planning and
[2:55:47] financing of work within the town.
[2:55:49] Any further discussion? All those in
[2:55:51] favor of article 18, raise your card.
[2:55:54] Opposed? Motion passes. Article 19. I,
[2:55:58] Nick Ellis, move that the town vote to
[2:56:00] transfer from the water enterprise fund
[2:56:01] retained earnings the sum of $17,000 to
[2:56:04] purchase and install security cameras at
[2:56:06] the water tower and anything incidental
[2:56:08] there, too. Is there a second?
[2:56:11] >> Discussion.
[2:56:13] We don't have security cameras at the
[2:56:15] water tower. We think it's a good idea
[2:56:17] to have security cameras at the water
[2:56:19] tower. So, we're going to buy some.
[2:56:22] >> All those in favor of Article 19, raise
[2:56:24] your card. Opposed? Motion passes.
[2:56:29] Article 20. I, Nick Ellis, move that the
[2:56:32] town vote to transfer from free cashache
[2:56:34] the sum of 81,900
[2:56:36] and to transfer from the water
[2:56:37] enterprise retained earnings the sum of
[2:56:40] 191,100 for a total appropriation of
[2:56:43] 273,000
[2:56:45] as a match for federal funding for
[2:56:47] design and construction of water mane
[2:56:49] replacement work and anything incidental
[2:56:51] there too.
[2:56:52] >> Second.
[2:56:56] » Um, we got a state grant to do some
[2:56:58] water work in the street. This is uh
[2:57:00] funding that would essentially match
[2:57:01] that state grant and allow us to execute
[2:57:02] a project uh specifically on Dotto Road
[2:57:05] to replace the undersized water man and
[2:57:07] loop it to connect it to a water man on
[2:57:12] forest.
[2:57:14] >> Any further? Nope. Uh all those in favor
[2:57:16] of article 20, raise your card. All
[2:57:18] opposed? Motion passes.
[2:57:20] >> Oh, this is my favorite one.
[2:57:21] >> Article 21. I, Nick Ellis, move that the
[2:57:24] town vote to transfer from sewer
[2:57:25] retained earnings a sum of $125,000
[2:57:28] for replacement of grinder pumps and
[2:57:30] related equipment and anything
[2:57:31] incidental there, too.
[2:57:33] >> Is there a second
[2:57:34] >> discussion? I come here every year and
[2:57:37] ask you guys for money for water uh for
[2:57:39] grinder pumps. This is it. We're all
[2:57:42] done. After this, we'll be putting it in
[2:57:44] our maintenance budget because we won't
[2:57:45] have to replace them uh in large scale
[2:57:47] anymore. So, that's what this is for.
[2:57:49] >> Excellent. All those in All those in
[2:57:51] favor, article 21, raise your card.
[2:57:54] >> Opposed
[2:57:57] I usually don't do this, but well done,
[2:58:00] Nick.
[2:58:04] We are on article 23.
[2:58:08] I, Peter Fippen, move that the town
[2:58:09] appropriate or reserve from fiscal year
[2:58:12] 2027 community preservation fund
[2:58:14] estimated annual revenues or other
[2:58:17] available community preservation act
[2:58:19] funds. All is specified on community
[2:58:22] preservation act town meeting handout
[2:58:24] which you all have. Um the amounts
[2:58:28] recommended by the community
[2:58:29] preservation committee for open space
[2:58:31] reserve, historic resources reserve,
[2:58:34] community housing reserve, budgeted
[2:58:36] reserve, administrative expenses, and
[2:58:38] special projects or transfers.
[2:58:41] >> Is there a second?
[2:58:44] >> Discussion.
[2:58:45] >> Sure. Um, you see on the handout that
[2:58:47] there's 28,000 plus going to the the
[2:58:51] three the three uh buckets, open space,
[2:58:53] historic, community housing, and then a
[2:58:56] large one for a budgeted reserve. Uh,
[2:58:59] some amount of money for administrative
[2:59:01] expenses, and then this year, the
[2:59:04] community preservation committee um
[2:59:07] voted to approve two particular
[2:59:09] projects. Uh, one for 25,000 for floats
[2:59:13] at the town landing. um and 35,000 for
[2:59:18] um the ship building museum to study um
[2:59:22] three properties that they're looking at
[2:59:23] consolidating together as part of a um
[2:59:27] campus that they want to uh look at and
[2:59:29] this is just a study doesn't include any
[2:59:31] um any construction or anything.
[2:59:34] >> Any further discussion? All those in
[2:59:37] favor of article 23 raise your card.
[2:59:39] Opposed motion passes.
[2:59:44] Article 24.
[2:59:46] >> I, Peter Fippen, move that the town vote
[2:59:49] to transfer from town technology fund
[2:59:51] the sum of $5,000 for updating of
[2:59:54] operating system running on the town's
[2:59:56] virtual servers hosted by the town of
[2:59:58] Danverson and anything incidental there
[3:00:01] too.
[3:00:01] >> Is there a second?
[3:00:04] >> No comment.
[3:00:04] Okay. All those in favor of
[3:00:06] article 24, raise your card. Opposed?
[3:00:09] Motion passes.
[3:00:14] Article 25.
[3:00:18] » I, Nina McKinnon, move that the town
[3:00:20] vote to transfer from free cash the sum
[3:00:23] of $64,947
[3:00:26] and to transfer from previous
[3:00:27] appropriations the sum of $110,990.
[3:00:33] All as shown on the town meeting handout
[3:00:35] for article 25 for a total appropriation
[3:00:37] of $175,937
[3:00:41] to fund the town's snow and ice deficit
[3:00:44] for fiscal year 20 26.
[3:00:46] >> Is there a second?
[3:00:48] Any discussion? Nope. Nope. Okay. All
[3:00:52] those in favor of article 25, raise your
[3:00:54] card. Any opposed? Motion passes.
[3:00:59] Article 26.
[3:01:02] I, Nina McKinnon, move that the town
[3:01:04] vote to transfer from free cash the sum
[3:01:06] of $56,132
[3:01:10] to replenish the finance committee's
[3:01:12] reserve fund for the remainder of fiscal
[3:01:13] year 2026.
[3:01:16] >> Any discussion?
[3:01:18] All those in favor of article 26, raise
[3:01:20] your card. Opposed? Motion passes.
[3:01:25] Article 27. I, Nina McKinnon, move that
[3:01:28] the town vote to transfer from free cash
[3:01:30] the sum of $4,924
[3:01:33] for the payment of unpaid bills from
[3:01:35] past fiscal years.
[3:01:37] >> This takes a four-fifth vote. So, all
[3:01:39] those in favor of article 27, raise your
[3:01:41] card. Any opposed?
[3:01:44] Unanimous.
[3:01:46] That's a wrap. Motion to adjurnn.
[3:01:51] » Good. Don't have to take a vote.
[3:01:57] Not bad.