Pre-Town Meeting - May 27, 2026

Thank you for coming out to our first annual pre-Town meeting session. My name is Cody Hadad. I'm the Dartmouth town administrator. To my right is Sarah Haskelluda, our town clerk. To my left is Gary Carrero, our director of budget and finance. And to my far left is Melissa Haskell, our town moderator.

The idea tonight really is uh to give an opportunity to the community as a whole and town meeting members to uh walk through the warrant, understand what is actually on the warrant, do a deep dive into some of these articles, allow you to ask questions uh and get the factual information. So when town meeting comes next Tuesday, you have the information that you need to make factual decisions.

DCTV is also recording this, so thank you uh for them for putting that out. So this will be available uh for further viewing in the future. Uh the goal of this evening is we're going to run through each article of the annual and special town meeting, provide some detail. Uh we have members of the staff that are here this evening. Uh we have uh Buddy Baker Smith from community preservation committee. So hopefully as

you as these questions um we can get answers for you. Uh we have select board members in attendance. We have finance committee members in attendance. So if there's questions on recommendations, they'll hopefully be able to give some input into that. uh and again provide uh an opportunity for town meeting members to have information to make informed decisions. I do want to just touch on

what we are not here for tonight that is um no articles are being voted for. This is just purely an information session.

We're not having debate over articles this evening that this is a pure factual session in order for you to get information. Um and we're only here to discuss the topics that are going to be on the town meeting warrant. or if you have other items that you want to discuss, our team will be more than happy to discuss those with you when you follow up with them tomorrow or later uh this week or next week.

So, um I'm going to get right into it.

Articles, we have 28 articles on the annual town meeting warrant this year.

We have three on a special town meeting warrant. Uh articles 1 through 7 are our community preservation uh articles this year. So, I just wanted to give a little bit of background on what community preservation is. For those of you that have been town meeting members and go through town meeting, you're probably acutely aware of this, but for those that are newer, just wanted to provide

Dartmouth CPC had a total of almost $5 million in reserves. That's before any of these projects here before you. Uh each year CPC has an application period where funds um are available to be applied for with a recommendation to town meeting. Uh and throughout that process, CPC has several public meetings including a public hearing which is advertised throughout the newspaper online uh and on our website.

So article one, uh this is one of those you you'll hear myself and Gary refer to articles as housekeeping articles. Those are the articles that you see every year on the town meeting warrant um have to be done. And so article number one is really one of those. It's uh the administrative budget for a community preservation committee. each of these articles. Um, throughout the PowerPoint,

there's a few things that you'll note.

We include the select board recommendation, how that vote was done.

You'll see the finance committee recommendation, how that was done, and then you'll also see what page of the warrant. So, those of you, if you brought your warrant with you, you can follow along on the actual article. Uh, and then we also put what is needed for this article to pass at town meeting.

So, again, if you're a seasoned town meeting uh member, you know, different articles have different passing authorities that our moderator enforces.

um by law. And so most of them are simple majority, some are twothirds, but you'll you'll see that notated throughout the presentation. Uh and so article one is $35,000 for the community preservation committee administrative budget. Uh that has not changed in a number of years. This pays for all the administrative task of uh CPC. Um pretty straightforward, but but like I said, Buddy Baker Smith, who is is the chair

of our community preservation committee, is also here uh can provide some input.

Are there any questions on this first article?

Very good.

Article two uh is another one of those I'll say housekeeping articles. Um this isn't for a specific project. This is to appropriate $112,000 for the housing reserve. So, you heard me earlier mention that CPC is required to spend money on those those categories, open space and recreation, housing, um, and historic preservation.

This year, we did not have any housing projects. And so, there's a requirement that that money be put aside into a reserve account. And so, that's exactly what this does. That's on page three of your warrant. Um, and that this is just us meeting that threshold requirement.

Any questions? Yes. If you want, when you have a question, if you want to come up to one of the microphones,

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?

Yes. If you give me one moment, I can get that for you.

How much is in that reserve account?

There you go. I got you. Give me one moment and I'll pull that up.

Buddy, do you have that information available? Do you want to speak to that?

Uh yes, as of uh May 1st, 2026, the housing reserve is $367,084.

Um and then this will add another 112 to that number.

Good question. Yes.

Uh so my understand that um you're going to go over every one of these articles that we're going to be voting on on June 2nd, but they're not debatable today.

We're just going to listen what you're doing and we cannot discuss it.

You can ask questions. Absolutely. But yeah, the debate here uh there there really is no debate because it this is just an information session.

But June 2nd is where the debate's going to happen.

Yeah, that's where the vote occurs actually at town meeting. Correct. If you're a town meeting member, correct?

Yep.

Any other questions on article two?

Okay.

Article three. This is where we get into the actual recommendations for projects um that the community preservation committee is recommending. This is to fund $461,394 for the DCTV renovations uh phase 3 at 247 Russell Mills Road. Um and you can see this is on page four of your warrant. The DCTV renovations phase three um is getting historical preservation funds from the CPC as it's

the building is a historic building um and this will be done in conjunction with um the historic preservation efforts to do the full exterior renovation of the DCTV building. So the all the shingles, all the trim work, um there may be some sheathing that needs to be done. So every everything that needs to be done when you do an exterior building renovation.

Any questions on this? And buddy, if I miss anything, feel free to Great.

Yes.

If you could just go to the mic.

This is phase three of the project. Is this the final phase or are there more to come?

This would be the final phase of the exterior project. Correct. Yep.

And the interior is We don't have any plans at this point.

Okay.

For that. Correct.

All right. Article four. Uh this is the community preservation committees uh dval field. So, this is to see if there'll be an appropriation of $575,000 uh for the community preservation unrestricted reserve to the Dartmouth Conservation Commission to purchase a permanent conservation restriction uh for Deval Fields, a property located at 4 Tannery Lane uh in the town of Dartmouth. This is on page four of the

warrant um recommended by the Slackorn Finance Committee 50 and60. This is in partnership with the Buzzards Bay Coalition. uh Buzzers Bay Coalition is planning to acquire the property. This is to simply fund uh the permanent conservation restriction for that property that the Dartmouth Conservation Commission would hold um in perpetuity.

Any questions on this article? Yes.

Oh, you can go ahead.

Joan Manard.

Um the money that the Community Preservation Commission um uh gives out, is there a a definition of the applicants that can receive the money?

like could just anyone get the money or do you have to be X?

To my understanding, as long as you meet the criteria in the um the the what the available funding what the funding is available for, there's no um it doesn't have to be like a town entity for instance. It can be an individual, a nonprofit. um as long as it's being used towards those goals that are laid out in the community preservation act which is essentially affordable housing um open space and recreation historic

preservation and then the those applications then go before CPC and they make a recommendation to town meeting.

So they essentially are putting it on the warrant for town meeting to decide on.

Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.

Yeah. I think um uh it has to be for a public benefit and um have some kind of public purpose to it. So there is um um what's called the anti- aid amendment.

So public funds can't be used to um u create value u for a private institution or or um um individual. But if there's a public purpose and access, those sorts of things. So the the community preservation committee is always kind of exploring. So what's the public access and public benefit to this um and careful about where those boundaries might lie for the anti- aid amendment particularly. And so sometimes

what we do um when we're reviewing proposals or we'll have specific questions for town council on those kinds of issues, right? So, it's about the purpose of the land and not who's receiving the money.

Uh, yes. Um, the anti- aid amendment, you need to really be concerned about if, you know, if it's a private individual that's receiving the funds. Um, you just need to really be able to make that case that there is a public purpose to what those funds are going to be used for. um and it doesn't um um have direct benefit for that individual. Um that's my understanding of but we seek town

council opinion um when we think we're kind of up against that sort of a boundary.

Thank you. And just one other question.

um the split of the funds between the two, the um the uh the open space reserve and the unrestricted reserve. Was that merely because there was more money in one place and not the other or was there a reason?

Yeah, that's that's a that's a great question. Um so we have these uh three reserves. um that are restricted open space, housing um and historic preservation. And then the rest of our funds are in the unrestricted um our and we're required to spend as Cody described um at least 10% of 10% of expected revenue either invested in a particular project for each of those purposes or if we

don't have a project then we set aside 10% in the reserve.

Strategically, um the committee approaches this in a way to try to maximize flexibility so that we have the broadest ability to support a range of projects. So what we tend to do is put the minimum required in those special reserves and try to keep as much of our funding in the unrestricted account which can be applied to anywhere. So yes, um when you see something like that, it means we

only have so much money in the open space reserve and then we'll take the rest out of unrestricted. But that's by design. We try to keep the bulk of our money in unrestricted so that any given time we can support a variety of projects.

Yes.

Yeah, that's a good idea. So, if you have a question, feel free to just go up to the mic and line up at the mic. We're going to take all questions and you can use both mics. Um, if I understand this correctly, it's designed to purchase property to make a park at this location.

And have you looked at where you need parks? And is this a location that you've determined there insufficient park uh provisions?

So, just a point of clarification, this article is not funds to purchase the park. This article is funding to for the conservation commission to purchase a a conservation restriction for the parcel.

So, the town's conservation commission would not be purchasing the land. We would hold the restriction of the land.

That's what this funding is for. We're not um actually purchasing the property.

We're only purchasing the conservation restriction, which is a permanent conservation restriction um that would, you know, come with those um restrictions in perpetuity. But the town of Darmouth would not hold own the land.

This is not for the purchase of the land.

Uh good evening. Good evening everybody.

Uh my name is Doug Balder and I live in Russell's Mills uh village where this uh which this article will affect. So I just wanted to provide some additional information in the spirit of educating uh all of us tonight. Um, I had a conversation with Mark Rasmusen yesterday of the Buzzards Bay uh coalition who acknowledged that this will lead to a public access park. When you read the uh language, it says Deval

Field Conservation Project. Well, that is a project, but it's a project for a public access park, which would open up the property to the public. The Russell Mills Historic District Commission voted on April 21 to deny the Buzzards Bay Coalition in their application to remove the house from Dval's uh the Duval House at Fort Tannery Lane. And then we circulated a letter against, meaning me and my wife Joan and several

others circulated a letter opposing the uh uh turning this property into a public access park. 36 residents signed the letter and some of you may have even seen the letter by now. We've circulated it to town meeting members. So there's a lot of opposition to this project. But while Cody the town administrator may be correct in saying this is to support this conservation restrict uh

conservation restriction. Fact of the matter is it's paving the pathway to a public assets park. The question that we're raising is we have parks surrounding this piece of land. The historic legacy of uh Dartmouth is being threatened. This is the oldest community in Dartmouth. the oldest historic community in Dartmouth and one of the most significant historic towns in the state of Massachusetts. Uh residents

don't want it and we feel that this is an attack potentially on the legacy of the uh the town. Moreover, there's no infrastructure to support a public park.

You can barely drive on Tannery Lane. Uh we have seen what parking can do. uh there's no infrastructure and uh what we don't need in my view is a uh a fancy dog park when we have plenty of much higher level higher quality uh places to recreate around this. The park doesn't add anything in terms of water access.

It doesn't add trails.

It doesn't make any substantive changes to what you can already do and it degrades the historic character of the village. So, we just want to bring that to your attention. Uh, obviously urge you, uh, although we're not here to debate, uh, but I just wanted to, uh, add some information and put this into context, uh, that there was no community engagement whatsoever. In fact, most of us didn't hear about this till late

March when an application was filed before the historic district commission.

Yet, it's been in the works for over two years. no community engagement uh whatsoever. So, thank you.

Just as a a couple points of clarification because the the idea tonight is to make sure that you have factual accurate information. So, um two things I want to clarify. The first is this does not approve any sort of park.

A park as a matter of fact is allowed as of right in zoning in that area. So whether the this article is approved or not, somebody could make a park with that land. That has um nothing to do with with this article. This is again just the conservation restriction for that. The other piece um which is somewhat related was there was mention of a um a demolition permit through the Russell Mills Historic District

Commission. I actually recently was informed this morning that that has been constructively approved because the historic district commission did not follow the bylaw um and that was not filed with the town clerk's office and so um that that being denied is not necessarily accurate because it was constructively approved. So just two points of fact and clarification I wanted to provide. Yes.

Hi, my name is Melissa Haskell. just to help with the um the factual information with regard to this property. Uh there were a couple things I wanted to add and I'm just to be clear, I'm speaking as a private citizen. I'm a town meeting member in um from precinct 9. I also serve on the board of the Buzzards Bay Coalition. Um so I think the primary purpose of this land is actually sea

level rise mitigation. It's lowlying land. It has been identified um as one of climate resilience has been identified as one of the values we have as a community. And this property is low-lying and as sea levels rise, it would provide a space for um salt marsh to migrate. And it's one of the things that we that we look at that the coalition is looking at um to preserve salt marsh in the area um as sea level

rise. That's the primary purpose and secondarily um while it's not flooded it would provide access um and as Mr. um Hadad pointed out it's it's a byright use to have um a public access.

My name is Ruth Doran. I'm I live across from the landing where this area is. But my question is that on the recommended project preservation information, it refers to it being a passive recreation. Can you define what passive recreation is?

Yes, absolutely. So, you know, active recreation would be um things like uh you know, active like you know, fields, things like that, right? Passive recreation is exactly what this project would be. So, you know, benches, places to sit, enjoy yourself, um enjoy a cup of coffee, that that's the type of recreation that that is.

Thanks.

Yes, buddy.

Hello, my name is Chris Hall and uh I actually have a bird's eye view the Slokum River and the existing park that's there uh Town Landing. I live right above it and I see everything that goes on and right there. But I'm just going to read this because I prepared something so I don't forget anything. So I just like to say my name is Chris Hall. I live at 842 Rockwood Dundee. My rearfacing property overlooks the

existing Russell Mills Park. Um I would like to thank Buzzers Bay Coalition for all the good work they have done to help improve the environment water quality in the Bay Area. But along with the majority of the Butters and residents of Russell Mills, I have some comments and concerns.

I'd like to start off with that we love where we live and we welcome others to enjoy the village in Sloka River with open arms. With that said, here are some of the things I can see happening at Russell's Mills Landing uh public park that we enjoy so much and the village. I have some good op observations.

During all four seasons, we see migrating birds, bird watching, wildlife deers otter mink fisher cat, coyotes, even rare seal once in a while coming up that river.

Um, all the way up to the landing.

People enjoy the park. Kids laughing, people taking pictures, fishing, kayaking, kids playing. Uh, you get the picture. Uh, everybody enjoys that park.

people launching kayaks, um hikers, and don't forget the daffodil fans. The park is used by all in the surrounding area and those from far away. It has been quite the popular uh area with social media as experienced this past capital season with, as I read on the DNRT social media post, 18,000 people visited that field.

There's no shortage of people or the access to the river or the DNRT trails in the village. Visitors park their vehicles in the parking lot and the uh lot by the waterfalls. Visitors walk the trails, use the park, walk to the general store which has become popular as now they serve alcohol and great meals. This is wonderful and I think it's brought a lot of awareness to Russell Mills, the village as a great

destination to take your family and friends and to walk to the trails, enjoy the waterfall, shop and grab a bite to eat, enjoy a beverage or two. All good fun enjoyment in the historic district.

Now, things that concern some if not most in the village. I'm speaking from my observations and perspective.

The Buzzers Bay Coalition wants to demolish a single family home.

Um, is there any comments about the town housing crisis and make a public access conservation park property slash uh Montanner Lane and there's been talk about doing a sculpture park where they put out artwork. Everybody's idea of artwork is different. Some people express different things with art, political views, whatever it might be. But they that has been the talk that they want to do a

sculpture park. I walk my dog every day down to that park. Um, and it's nice to just look out over that field, see the river, see the birds, and I don't know, I think it's not the place for a sculpture park. If you want to go see sculpture artwork, I think you can go to a uh museum or studio. Anyhow, um this seems to be conflicting to want to make it public access uh in my

opinion with conservation.

There's already a public access a stones throw away down the street at the existing park which I believe is turning Tannery Lane into another public access park could do more harm than good to our local environment. At Russell Mills Landing, we already see issues with people bringing dogs off leash. Now, I'm a dog person. And I'll bring my dog down there.

They chase the wildlife. They leave waste and runs off into the water.

Others leave trash, cigarette butts, nips, trash behind where they release balloons as memorials. I've seen this all the time as my property looks right over that park. I have a bird's eye view. They end up in my trees. They end up in the water that end up in the trees water that make get mistaken for food by birds and fish.

I've witnessed it for myself. The park has hours posted on the sign. The park states that it's open sun up to sunset.

No alcohol, no smoking, no swimming. We all know that can't that we can't enforce this much as we would like to and there are limited resources to do this. But with that said, at night it's a whole different issues at times.

Fireworks, loud music, drinking, smoking weed along with regular donut and burnout out the parking lot.

It's disruptive to the neighborhood.

Um, so all in the interest of conservation, water quality reasons. So when you have public access, I'm all for conservation.

I'd love to see that conserve. Conserve it and just let it be. Make it a meadow.

It'd be perfect for for the environment.

But when you have public access, the p property as it stands now is a single family home. Nobody's bothering it.

There is a hard rock wall that runs along that whole piece of property.

There's no salt marsh that's ever going to grow there the way it is now. You have to remove that.

There's no way. The only time I see any wind on that property is once the grass is being cut. As it stands now, from what I can see, there is no bad environmental disturbances to Sloan River for all the wildlife that uses that part of the river to feed, spawn, migrate, and to be undisturbed. Making a public access brings unintended issues.

As I stated, I know this because I have bird's eye view of the existing mus Russell Mills landing park. I can't stress enough. With the public access, you get trash, litter, balloons, dog poop, fishing line, the in the trees, people flying drones. People flying drones out of the park right into my backyard.

This is in the middle of a residential neighborhood, not remote. It's not like we're going to put this park away from a residential area. No one no one's going to get um dis disrupted the existing park. Um I already mentioned that. In closing, I'm ask if the reason for Buzzard's Bay Coalition to acquire this location for the betterment of the environment and wildlife, how does it make sense to make

it public access when the ecosystem that is there now, minimally disturbed by an occasional lawnmower, will then be inundated with people that bring all things that will end up hurting that very thing they say they want to protect. Not to mention the impact and disruption to the taxpayer who live in the neighborhood. There's no comparison to the impact a public asset park footprint will bring to the area as

opposed to a single family home.

That's all I got. Thank you.

Thank you. Um I do just want to mention again we're not town meeting is not deciding um whether this is a park, whether it's a public access, whether the home is demolished. town meeting is deciding whether or not the conservation commission is appropriated the funds to purchase a conservation restriction. Uh all of those things mentioned u you may have some valid concerns. However, that

is outside the scope of this town meeting article. That is not something that town meeting has the authority to decide. Some anybody could do that with this land. It's as of right um allowed as a park. And additionally, I would mention we do have our deputy chief uh Vincent here this evening. Our Dartmouth Police Department is a phenomenal police department. So, if you're experiencing

those things, I really recommend that you call the police. Um, and I'm sure that that they will respond and address those cons those public safety concerns.

Yes.

Okay. So, Rosanne Oonnell, Precinct 9.

And I was concerned about this particular article and uninformed really because I really was not aware of the Deball Field Conservation Project. And so, um, we're being asked to vote on it and I I know that I don't have enough information to really do that. One of my questions is, um, that in tonight's meeting, we're talking about Buzzard's Bay Coalition, you know, which is evidently part of the

Deval's um, conservation project. The other thing is in looking at trying to look at where what land we're talking about, you know, we have um the landing, we have the tennis court which was improved. We have the playground, we have used that parking lot for the daffodil fields, which we know had to be regulated by police. There were so many people. Um my one of my questions is um what size parcel is it and is it

adjacent to the existing park or the town landing? And so sometimes I think conservation land it's important to have people uh preserve land contingent or abuing another resource and I'm not sure that's happening here. So anyway, all I'm saying is that I would have questions about this based on um my lack of knowledge and not so much knowledge in the warrant warrant article itself.

That's it.

Yeah, there's also I want to make it known there's a handout uh that was put together uh with all the information at the entrance. So I believe one of the questions was how large is the parcel?

It is approximately two and a half acres is how large the parcel is. Um it also is consistent with many of the town's plans. Uh the town's open space and recreation plan, the town's municipal vulnerability preparedness plan, uh and the town's uh master plan.

And there is a picture of the parcel as well in the handout out in the walkway.

Yeah. Hi, I'm John Powell and this my wife Betsy and um I recommend that the town meeting vote this article down.

So, we're not here to debate tonight. Uh that's not the point of this. So, if you have questions or points of clarification, uh but but this is not uh we're not voting tonight. There there's no debate. We're really just trying to get the factual information out to the community and to town meeting members.

So when June 2nd comes, you can you can provide um that debate uh town meeting and then town meeting members can have the information needed to to make their decisions.

So when is it appropriate for the abutters to uh voice their concerns? We haven't been given a forum. So, this has been uh my understanding is this has been discussed at a conservation commission meeting um in late 2025 with the town of Dartmouth. The Buzzards Bay Coalition has had uh three or four public hearings. I would I would Okay, I would appreciate if you don't interrupt the radar.

Okay. So, I I am absolutely sticking to the facts. Um and the CPC, Mr. Baker Smith can confirm this, has a public hearing for all applications uh that go before the CPC. And so again, that I don't make decisions here. I'm not here to vote. I'm here to provide you with the information. So that's the information on what the meetings have have been presented at at several of those meetings.

Okay. Well, I will express that we in the community feel we've been had, okay?

And that we were not informed. We were not given the courtesy of a of a of a public hearing. And you can see we are viscerally opposed to the trajectory which this is uh going towards the conservation restriction which which leads to the park which leads to and I understand that sometimes demolition of the house. I understand that and sometimes it's difficult to separate the two but town meeting is not

discussing or voting on that piece of it that that's a because that could be done whether this article happens or not. So it's important that at town meeting and tonight we want to provide all the information necessary on the article that town meeting is deciding on which is the conservation restriction for that parcel. Even if this were not to go through, those things that you've

brought up tonight could still happen whether town meeting votes on this or not, it it just would not be preserved or protected in perpetuity with a conservation restriction. Somebody could still put a park in there without this.

Somebody could still do all of those things without this. I confirmed with our zoning enforcement officer this morning that is allowed as of right in the town of Dartmouth zoning bylaw. So that's that's outside the purview of this town meeting article. That that's what I'm getting at. I'm not saying your concerns are invalid. Um, but we're here to discuss what's on the town meeting warrant and it is strictly the

conservation restriction. Those other things could could still happen.

Well, I just hope that through you and the town meeting members, I hope you'll get how we in the community feel about what is being proposed down the line.

I'm Henry Foley. I uh live in Russell's Mills Village with my wife Jane Tuckerman.

Um our neighbor Andy Spamberg wrote uh you a letter. I'm assuming all four of you received it.

And my question is why have the legal procedures not been followed correctly?

And the other thing is I think it's slightly deceptive to say this is strictly a town meeting issue on the conservation restriction because these two things the park sculpture park which we absolutely do not need particularly given Dartmouth's taste in it sculpture are imshed and to say that they're totally separate seems to me deceptive.

So, um I can tell you that legal counsel reviews all of this information. Uh CPC, as Mr. Baker Smith mentioned, um employs town council. They review all of this and we have followed all legal requirements. And again, I um you might not like the answer of they're separate, but they they are separate because somebody could if this article does not pass and there's not a conservation restriction, a park could still go

forward there. All of your concerns that you're bringing up tonight still could happen whether a town meeting votes this or not. This simply puts a restriction in perpetuity that makes that a conservation parcel forever. A park I can again I'm not here to share opinions. I'm here to share facts. The facts is our zoning enforcement officer confirmed to me this morning that our zoning bylaws allow a park there as of

right. That and that's why I say they're separate issues and that is not on the warrant. What's on the warrant is a conservation restriction. Yes, Katherine Das and Daffany Savverine, owners of 30 Horse Neck Road. We're here tonight to talk about the Deval property at Fort Tanner Lane. Three years ago, we purchased 30 Horse Neck Road.

Sorry.

Okay. Uh let's see.

Three years ago, we purchased 30 Horus Neck Road. The house needed to be raised to put on a new foundation per FEMA. It needs a new septic system, and the house was uninhabitable without major renovations. We were concerned someone else might purchase the property and demolish a historic house. Too many houses and properties in Dartmouth have destroyed the historic nature of Dartmouth. 30 Horsene Neck Roads was

built in the mid700s. We didn't want another historic home to disappear. It has been a huge undertaking and a large financial commitment, but this is I like to say in gift to Dartmouth. The way we feel about 30 horse road is the same way we feel about Fort Tannery Lane. The property at Fort Tannery Lane once held many homes, barns, and mills. While we know the present- day house on the

property is not historic, it does not negate the fact that the property is historic. Some of you may or may not know that one lot south, there already exists a park with a playground, tennis court, boat launch area. There are also picnic tables and people already use that park for fishing. So, if the Buzzards Bay Coalition and purchase this property to make a park and fishing area, that doesn't seem to make sense

when the exact same thing already exists one property to the south. For all these reasons, we strongly oppose the use of foring Lane for anything that is not residential or historic. If this is approved, our home on the Sloum River would be sandwiched between two parks.

We therefore oppose article 4 and the use of the community preservation community funds to support a conservation restriction to convert this residential property to a public park.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm My name is Andrew Spawnberg.

Um, one thing that I want to make clear is that have you read the deed, the transfer deed on this property?

Does your question pertain to the conservation restriction?

As it as it pertains to transfer of the property, the deed clearly states that if it is funded, it will be turned into a park. a a with a statue park. That's clearly stated in the deed. So, let's get that fact straight. Town will be voting about whether it becomes a park or not and whether it becomes a park statue park. So, if you have questions, just look at the deed and it's clearly

there. My other point is you mentioned that the uh filing of the Russell Mills historic district was was not filed.

There is no time limit on when that can be filed. Read the structures statutes very carefully and there's no time limit. Our chairman who had been doing this for a long time has traditionally filed with the uh building department.

That has never been challenged before.

That was an error, but it is not a fatal error. It can be filed at any time.

I'm a I'm a little we all support Buzzers Bay Coalition. I think most of us are members and we support what they're doing.

But this is a threat with all kinds of problems. You cannot get a zoning change. You cannot get a construction permit without this going back through the Russell Mills Historic District. That's that's the law.

and they are not going to, in my opinion, I'm a member, I'm not the chairman, they're not going to approve it because they already have not approved it.

I get a feeling, and I'm really sorry about this because I don't I get a feeling that there's some bias here against against what we're speaking out for. I'm, you know, we're talking about spending half a million dollars on a project that has legal problems nobody in the community wants. It would serve very few people.

Think about it.

Thank you, Andy.

My name is Bill Stanton. My wife Janet and I live at 13 Horsene Neck Lane, which looks direct directly at Tannery Lane. We've been residents there for four and a half years since first moving to this area. The reason why we moved here is it's a beautiful area. It's in a historic district commission. It's got the kind of architecture and character that we look for in past houses we had.

We've lived in similar areas before.

That's why we came here. like the ladies that live down the road from us on Horses neck road. She just testified.

They spent a great deal of money to make that property compliant with the historic de do uh commission requisites and they did that and they've done a wonderful job. It's almost ready. We did the same thing when we moved here. We spent a lot of money to move here. We spent a lot of money for improvements.

Our choice granted, but it wasn't taxpayer dollars like this is. It was our money. We spent it willingly.

We have no wish. In fact, we testified against this. I testified against this when the commission heard um the proposal that was rejected. We don't want to live with a park across the street with all the traffic, all the problems that potentially is going to bring. We don't want to knock park there. We want a like kind building with historical significance and value in the district with a family living in there

that like it has been for 250 or so years with the people who pre were there before the Deval and the Deval family. It's not to be a park.

Almost everyone here has spoken against this at the commission hearing. everyone get up against it. And how this was all set up within the last two years, as my friend here said earlier, th this this this reeks of of of of deceit.

Again, we're against this. We'll always be against it. And I hope you really take that in consideration. None of the abutters, none of the people in the village want it. Thank you.

I just want to say everyone here is very passionate about what's going on with that issue, but I also get what y'all saying is uh there's nothing we can do about that. The only thing you're trying to say is that's the conversation uh conserv um conservation that we can rule on because I'm a committee member that I just became new to this so I'm learning a lot but that's all we can do and we

can't control what that's going to turn into. I'm not happy with 90% of this budget proposal, but he says I can't debate it right now, but I'm sure in hell going to do it June 2nd. So, I'm going to leave because all he's going to do, no offense to NAU, they're just going to keep reading this stuff and telling him, you know, we can't vote today. That'll be June 2nd. And he

doesn't want, and I'm not saying it's, you know, Joe, you are the town administrator. You could allow it, but it' probably take all night. He doesn't want to go into debates over these articles. So, the only way to do it is June 2nd. So, I'm not going to waste You guys do what you want, but we're wasting our time here then. Uh there's nothing they're going to do here today for any

of us. So June 2nd, if anyone's a town committee member and wants to meet me outside because I got a bunch of stuff you guys probably don't know about why this is so bad. We can discuss it out there. We're just wasting our time here.

I think you're right. But I think it's very important that people hear the information that's being passed here.

We're here to get information.

Yeah.

And we're getting information.

Right.

But you're saying we can't do nothing about it.

Okay. Thank we have to stick to the the articles. Thank you, Mr. Baker Smith.

Uh, so just a little bit on process.

So how how this warrant article um kind of arrived for town meeting consideration. Um, so this is a warrant article about um using CPA funds to purchase conservation restriction on this property. when the CPC um by statute um has certain responsibilities.

So I thought if I if I may take a minute or two, it's probably a good opportunity to kind of describe that a bit. Um so we have certain responsibilities by statute um to essentially do the due diligence part. I the way I see it um um in looking at projects or reviewing projects and then bringing them forward to town meeting um when we feel that they uh are eligible for CPA funds um

that the uh likelihood of success in terms of the sponsors are strong um and they're consistent with kind of the goals and uh objectives ives um for the CPA funds. Um town meeting is the decision-making body, not not the committee.

Um the CPC has um an annual plan. So if you go to our website, you can kind of get a copy of that. Um and the annual plan lays out kind of what the vision is for the use of CPA funds in town.

One of the things that's important is in terms of how the community the committee looks at this is the whole town of Dartmouth is the consideration in terms of what who should benefit from the CPA funds. So when we look at even a project like this, we're thinking about the whole town and the access to um an o open space or the preservation of a piece of property that is significant in terms of rising sea level

and that includes so we're also thinking about people in north Dartmouth as well as South Dartman. Um we don't see these projects as being kind of um insular.

So that's one thing.

And the other is that the foundation for the goals and the objectives of the CPC's plan are totally embedded in the kinds of plans that the town has put together.

We don't have a separate vision from the town. We use the town's vision, open space plan, a recreation plan, master plan, harbor management plan, um all of those things. So when you look at what our goals and objectives are and you will see that a prop purchasing a conservation restriction on this piece of property uh is very consistent with the vision that the town has, the whole town has for its land

and the critical nature of um waterfront which in New England and in this state um protection and access to waterfront is significant.

Um and this is one of those rare opportunities where a piece of land can be put into cons permanent conservation.

Um so there can't be further development on that property as of right. Um and so we felt that this indeed was consistent with the town's priorities and for the vision of use of CPA funds and it was something that was of a benefit to the whole town. Um and we bring it forward uh to town meeting but I want to be clear this town meeting will be the ones who needs to cons weigh this and decide.

So thank you.

Thanks, buddy. Um, my name is Joan Decalibus. I live at 889 Rockco Dundee and um, I sent you all a letter with Doug. So, a couple things. Um, I'm a donor and a supporter of the Buzzards Bay Coalition. They do great work. But I have to say as a member I was really disappointed that two years ago or a year and a half ago they didn't reach out to the abutters of Fort

Tannery to say hey we're thinking about this project what do you think I mean they had months and months to gather support from us and if they had we might have been in support if they had any kind of plan to show us but Even at the historic commission meeting, they had not even a drawing. I mean, I could go on AI right now and get a rendering, a full color rendering of what a park

might look like at Fort Tannery, but they haven't provided that. They haven't said much more than there'll be six parking spaces. And buddy, to your point that you open this up to the whole town.

If the whole town shows up at Fort Tannery Lane, we are in big trouble because there's no it's very small space. I urge you all to take a drive around and look at this property and understand that stone walls about every side of it.

There's nowhere to park if there's overflow parking. Should there be any kind of event, say there was a sculpture park and they wanted to do an event to show it up, they can have six people come, six cars of people. There's nowhere to park. We already have a lot of pressure on the neighborhood with cars and traffic and it's, you know, a little bit terrifying to walk there. So, I think it's really important to think

about a half a million dollars that could be spent in other places in Dartmouth that could be more appropriate. Like in North Dartmouth, I'm sure there's a couple of properties there that could really benefit from a renovation or a preservation. So, I think that the area we're talking about is pretty well preserved. If someone buys the house in the future, it's further preserved by the historic

district commission. There'll never be an apartment building there. Don't worry. Um it will stay as is because that is the directive of the historic district commission.

Thanks.

Hi. Um I'm Jane Tuckerman. I live in Russell's Mills. My husband and I have two properties there. Um, I just want to address the uh conservation part of this procedure.

Um, first of all, I think it's a very small space. To spend this amount of money preserving that space of our taxpayer money when we haven't had much say in it is preposterous. There is a huge road that runs right by the conservation area. So that will deter wildlife and birds and so forth because the road as you all know is always very busy.

Um there is uh flooding which I have seen myself over the years and I think that all of this has to be thought of in context.

You talk about opening it up to you know all of Dartmouth. You can't just think that way in this situation because by opening it up to all of Dartmouth, you are actually destroying the whole conservation element of this if people come in in droves. And that's could happen.

I took these pictures last Sunday.

The parking is atrocious.

There's no place to park. I've almost gotten run over three times by motorcycles.

This is issues that you really have to think of before you spend this kind of money on this very small package where nobody's ever going to build a big house anyway because they're, you know, the flooding is atrocious. They'd have to build it up and their insurance would be appalling. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions on the conservation restriction pertaining to article 4?

Andrea Langghouser. Um, for the audience, I'm from precinct 7. Um, thank you very much for providing information on this or B or BBC providing this information because without this I would have absolutely no idea what this was about. Um, the a conservation restriction on a piece of land that has a house and lawn and a wall adjacent to the river. um is an unusual conservation restriction. There is the land has

already been developed. Um there isn't any natural areas left on this property.

So while I like the idea of the town purchasing the development rights on this property, I would like to see what the conservation restriction is really protecting because it looks to me like it's not a typical conservation restriction.

Um, I think from the standpoint of BBC coming forward and saying very clearly they want this to be a public park someday. Um, I think it's a good first I think this has been a good lesson for them to see that that buying the development rights is a perfectly eligible property project for community preservation to spend money on.

But so is development of a public park.

And while I understand that in a very narrow read, we can talk about this only being about a conservation restriction, BBC is calling it a park. And I just think it would be a whole lot more transparent if the project came forward as one project.

And I don't plan to vote on this given the information I have tonight. I think a conservying the development rights here is great, but I think spending community preservation money to design a park that has been well vetted with the neighborhood, with the town, so we know what it's going to be.

It should be done at the same time. So, thank you for giving us this information and providing this information, this form.

Well, I I came back actually because when I went back, I saw those papers there. And that sometimes happens at town meeting. You have everything ahead of time and then when you come to the meeting at the back there are papers that describe things that you're going to vote on. And so, I wouldn't have asked uh how many what the land mass was. It says on that paper what the land

mass is. So, I think there's a lack of information. But the other thing is really who owns the who owns the property. We're talking about a restriction on a property. We're talking about um Buzz Bay having an interest in developing the property. So, we have conservation. We have development by another uh nonprofit, but you know, somebody else owns the property, right?

Somebody owns the the land and the house. So, I don't know how it all works. Uh I don't know how it all works together. I'm very conflicted because I um I've saw the number of articles put forward by the um conservation um preservation committee and usually there's something that you you just kind of vote on because it's well thought out and so forth. So, I don't I don't want to cut anyone off, but if there's

particular questions, we have, you know, 28 other articles to get to. And so, we want to we want to provide the factual information. And as far as the transparency um comment, that's exactly why we're here tonight. You know, this is something the town has never done before. So, we're doing this to provide the information and transparency um and answer questions. But, right, the town

meeting is the ultimate decider as Mr.

Baker Smith said. Um they're the ones that make the decision. there. That's where the debate can happen. We just want to make sure you know what's going on, you know, the information around it, and then you can you can make that debate and you can make those decisions there. But I do want to be respectful of everyone's time because people are here for other articles beyond this. Um, so

if there's anyone who hasn't spoken or pertaining to the exact article on the warrant, I you know, I'm glad to answer questions, but I do want to keep moving.

Well, yes. I'm sorry, but I do that was my question was that eventually it's up to the owner. Is that not correct?

The owner.

What is your question? I'm sorry.

Well, that the land would have the restriction, but there's still an owner.

Correct.

A property owner that has owns the land.

And so the what we're buying for the 575,000 whatever is really for the restriction doesn't have anything to do with owning the land and Buzz Bay doesn't own the land. So Buzzards Bay does own the land.

Pardon Bay.

Buzzards Bay.

Buzzards Bay does own the land.

Oh well that's what I'm asking. Who owns the land?

Right. If your if your question is who owns the land, I believe it is Buzzards Bay Coalition.

Okay. It doesn't say that in the paper.

Thank you.

Did you have a question pertaining to this article? I I did. Thank you. And and I looked up the deed. They uh Datma bought it in March and Buzzards Bay Coalition bought it for a dollar in May.

But my question is something that Sean McDonald said at the select board meeting. He said that there were four parcels and only three of them were involved in this. And so I'm just wondering what that fourth parcel is.

I'm not sure. I cannot speak to that. I I can certainly touch base with Mr.

McDonald and try to get that information prior to town meeting though.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Hi, I'm Bob Smith, the resident of Russell Mills. Um uh just to address uh the um the comments of the Russell Mills Historic District Commission not being involved because they were too late.

This whole project has been under the radar. There's been no awareness until Buzzards Bay, as far as I know, uh went to the Russell Mills historic district commission to say that they wanted to tear down the house that um that we all became uh aware of.

Do you have a question pertaining to the article? I just want to be mindful of everyone's time here.

Okay. Um, no, but I have comments on the article and uh, okay, one, you can certainly provide those comments. One, I would like to know what exactly the wording of the conservation restriction is.

Mhm.

Okay. The second uh the comment that I would like to make is that the confluence of Tenery Lane and Rockade Road is very very tight. If you're a if you are a pedestrian and trying to walk along that that pathway, your life is in danger. And I want to know if the traffic uh the people responsible for traffic, I presume that's the police department, have had have thought about that or have been approached about

looking at the consequences of pedestrians being able to walk anywhere near Tannery Lane or Rockadundi Road um if there's some sort of an event uh happening uh in a sculpture park or whatever it becomes. Um and um I I think it's heinous that people who are paying real estate taxes, and by the way, if this house is torn down, there apparently will be there obviously would be uh uh a house taken off the tax um

the the real estate tax rolls roles. I wonder if how the town if the town has thought about that or addressed it, but for people who have um worked on their properties and put good money into their properties to possibly have people walking back and forth between the town landing and this this preserved land um is, you know, it's it's horrible. horrible.

It's horrible to them. Um and um anyway, I just think this this warrant should be taken off of the uh off the town meeting. It's they're just so we don't we don't do that. CPC recommended it and it's ultimately town meeting's decisions. Uh town meeting is a legislative body for the town of Dartmouth. It's the one of the purest forms of democracy. So, we're going to let democracy uh work its way out next

Tuesday and and town meeting can make a decision on that. But if there are any other questions pertaining to this specifically this again we're we've spent almost an hour on this one item and and we want transparency but we have a budget 150 almost $150 million total budget a lot of really important things we want to be able to spend time on all these things because people are here for more than just this

these things have consequences okay thank you I'm sorry do you have a question pertaining to this let me speak with that I want to clarify one point the the deed the Dart Buzzard uh Buzzard Bay owns the property contingent on getting a grant contingent on it being approved.

I do not believe that's true. Buzzards Bay um coalition owns the property. They have closed on the property.

No, that would be a purchase and sale.

Purchase and sales are contingent. A full closing is a deed and there's a deed in place. A deed can't be contingent.

Read their statement. If they do not get funding that goes back to they could sell the property back potentially, but again the ownership of the parcel. Okay, we're going to move on to the next article.

Okay, dark.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, article five is another community preservation committee article. This is to fund $230,000 for lighting at Crapo Field. Uh Crapo Field is 225 Russell Mills Road. All the lighting uh needs to be completely redone and so this would um allow DYA to fund the full lighting restoration of uh Crapo Field.

This is recommended both uh unanimously by the select board and the finance committee. Any questions on article five?

Okay.

Article six. Uh this is the project of the Dart Dartmouth Cultural Center of the Community Preservation Committee funds. The total amount is $853,300 um to fund the Dartmouth Cultural Center full restoration in renovation. Uh the cultural center is located at 404 Elm Street in Dartmouth. Um the cultural center has been worked hard over the years to acquire some private grant funds. uh they've gotten other CPC funds

and this will allow them to fully complete um the restoration that they're working on. It'll make the building ADA compliant. Um and it would be broken up into multiple phases so they can remain open during the project.

Any questions on article six?

Okay.

Article 7 uh this is uh the another community preservation committee project. This is for the agricultural preservation fund and Okay. Oh, on and six. Go ahead.

And and this I might have to wait for town meeting to get the answer. It says that um the finance committee recommended five to two. And do we know what the rationale was?

The two were abstensions.

Oh, okay. Yeah. All right. That's it.

Thank you.

Okay. On to article seven. Article seven is uh to essentially create an agricultural preservation fund uh under Massachusetts general law chapter 40 section ALH. Um this would appropriate $1.5 million in CPC funds that the Agricultural Commission would be able to utilize for the preservation um or acquisition of agricultural land. So essentially if a property were to go on the market um at market rate that did

not have an agricultural restriction these funds could be utilized to either purchase the property or purchase a restriction for the property um as they come up. So sometime this isn't for a specific project. This is just makes the funds available as pro properties come up um and projects come up. The uh agricultural commission is working on identifying a list of those properties.

Um several of our plans including our master plan identifies those properties and we do have uh members of the agricultural commission here if they want to give any other information that I may have missed.

Did I miss anything Sue?

Okay, any questions on article 7?

All right, so we are through the CPC articles. Uh article 8 is one of those housekeeping articles. This is an appropriation from the cemetery sale of lot fund. Essentially, um we sell cemetery plots throughout the year. This allows us to utilize those funds to help run the cemetery um from the money that we've made from selling those plots.

Rather straightforward. Any questions on article 8?

Article nine is another one of those um housekeeping articles. We have several revolving funds in town. And so a revolving fund is essentially um money goes in from some sort of service and allows us to spend money to use that service. So you're not um using any of direct tax money. It's the money that is provided from those service. So we have a cemetery revolving fund, a recreation

and park revolving fund, and a library revolving fund. This just caps the amount that we can spend out of those accounts and it's the money that comes in annually.

Any questions on article 9?

Okay, article 10. I am going to let our director of budget and finance, Gary Carrero, run through. Uh this is our uh capital plan. This has been uh put together by the capital planning committee and uh we'll run through some of the big ticket items. Gary, you want to Yeah.

Okay.

microphone.

Okay, I'm going to take I'm going to take the So, um I'll as Cody just mentioned, I'll go over the capital plan and also we'll go right into the budget um presentation so town meeting uh can see that. Uh in the in the past, town meeting has not seen a pretty much a presentation as this. I see some of the um members of the citizens academy that was here uh

that took part in that and that was great. I think if you've seen this presentation this will be a review um going forward. So um so the capital plan CIPC meets we start that um in the uh January February time frame. Uh we request that from the department heads uh that committee meets looks at all the requests from departments schools DPW uh parks and recck so on and so forth.

That's that's that's then compiled after we know what our free cash number is uh after the retained earnings are certified by the state sometime in October. So we have that number in place. We then use some of that for funding of the these capital items. I'll go through the list and this is what's being recommended at the tow meeting. So um for the police department axon tasers this is part of their program of

replacing tasers into the newest technology where they don't have to shoot the accuracy of the uh shot is a little bit better than the older technology. Most departments are taking over and replacing them with the new Axon tasers. Uh in two administrative vehicles, uh staffing study, you might have heard us talking about uh whether or not there's enough officers that complement the uh the department.

They're looking at doing that this year and getting that number so that we can accurately budget that going forward and uh maybe um you know fill some of those be more efficient to fix fill some of those vacancies. um flooring replacement for now we're going to the schools uh replacement for the um asbestous tiles that are in some of the schools technology and hardware. Uh you've seen

this in the past where uh you know we're we're replacing a lot of this older technology that's out there. Uh trying to be innovative with that bathroom renovations. We we compleimemented uh last year with some of the um renovations for the schools. There were some before and after pictures that were shown to CIPC. It was um a great transformation from the old older bathroom stalls and you know items that

have been in place uh for 30 40 years.

This complements that and does a few more schools uh and a school bus replacement for 150,000. Uh this may also come off the um CIPC because there's legislation right now uh at the state house to potentially get us earmarked for some of these items. Uh and that would come off uh but we will know that at town hopefully at town meeting. If not this will stay on there.

uh DPW highway road maintenance. Uh you know, every year we try to uh complement the budget uh for road maintenance. We also get chapter 90 funds that complement this. Uh in past years, we had given about a million dollars. We've ratcheted that down a little bit and this goes directly to uh repairing the roads in around town. Uh all all the um major major highway roads that's done by

the state, but all the local roads are done by us. Uh and so general government, we're looking for a general town use vehicle. We're in the process of getting rid of some of the older vehicles that we have in in um on the fleet. We're looking to replace this so that this is a general operational vehicle that anyone could use uh in town hall. The uh Southwest Library feasibility study. This is a study for

the um enhancement of that the school I excuse me the library to um get up to speed working with Dena and uh commissioners to look at getting better um you know uh efficiency down there.

you know this that the Dina can speak on how old the building is. I'm sure everyone that's been in there, they they know that, you know, we're not looking to remodel the, you know, renovate the building and knock down walls. We're looking to pretty much do a remodel there. Uh and also, um parks and wreck for the for the gate replacement, uh Sue Enterprise Fund, uh pump stations for

the skater, solid waste enterprise fund for, uh packer, and I'll just note that the enterprise funds, when we get into the enterprise funds, those are those are userbased. So, uh, that means that if you're on the water sewer system, you're paying a trash bill, those funds are generated and returned earnings earnings at the end end of the year, that's what pays for all these capital items. So, it's a it's all separate

accounts.

And DCTV, uh, building improvements, uh, production truck and, uh, video equipment replacement, and then, uh, the water waste fund, which we know as, uh, Harbor, uh, is looking for, uh, $90,000 for a utility truck. Any questions on the capital items?

Yes buddy.

I I appreciate this. Um I know as a town meeting member every year, um there's always kind of vehicle replacement, which makes sense. I I guess my question is um what kind of replacement kind of planning does each is each department expected to do? Like is there you know what does it look like in terms of the kind of reasonable life expectancy of capital equipment like trucks and police

cars and things like that? And do you all have like a I don't know like a three-year vision of that? I mean, you know, do you this is helpful for what we're going to be voting on and and approving this this for this coming fiscal year, but do you have a vision of what fiscal 28 2930 look like in terms of those kinds of things?

Yeah, that's a great question. So, when capital meets and um one of the uh initiatives that we this did this year in your packet, you'll see a QR code where that will link you to the capital plan. So, uh, when I'm developing the capital plan for the town, I'm going out about 10 years. So, you'll see some of those items as far as like replacements for the police police cruisers. You'll

see them for, um, you know, other departments that are looking for the for different types of vehicles, not only vehicles, but other technology. And so, that's in the capital plan. You'll see that 10 years out. Uh, and, um, we put it we put that in the um, in the packet this year. But there is, you know, the departments when they do come to us are looking to replace vehicles that I mean,

some of these police cruisers have 150,000 miles. We try to get them on to another if another department needs them, but in a lot of circum in a lot of circumstances, they're beyond their use for life. Uh so we, you know, we try to make the best out of what the vehicles that we have in place.

Yep.

Uh Sandra Zen, uh Precinct 7. I just have a question about the buses.

Yes.

Are these new buses?

This would be this would be a new bus.

Is there ever any consideration of smaller buses? uh being stopped in traffic and the buses are going by.

There are 10 kids on each bus. Is there a requirement that per student body has to be a certain size bus?

We we have Jim Kylie here. The U from the school. We have Jim Kylie from the business from the schools.

He will note too that this is the Dartmouth public schools actually only owns one bus. So all those big buses that you see uh we have a busing contract and so we that's not what this is. We only own one full size school bus. This is replacing that one size school bus. One full size school bus that's used for various different activities. Uh but this is not We have a separate busing contract that picks the

students up in the morning and brings them home and that brings them to sports and so on and so forth.

Okay. If if if that were in fact the case, could you contract to have smaller buses?

But you're talking the fleet that brings the Yeah. I mean, you see the bus and there are 10 kids on bus after bus after bus, but the cars are lined up down the street to pick up their kids. And is that something to think about a smaller bus contract?

Yeah, we we uh our assistant superintendent uh finance and operations in here and we'll make sure that he is aware of that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other questions on the capital?

Andrea.

So retained earnings is the same thing as the enterprise fund.

So typically when in the fall as I mentioned um we heard that we've heard the word free cash. So free cash is on the general fund side retained earnings is usually for all the enterprise funds me meaning the same thing. It's it's anything left. So this money is available to be used for capital funds without affecting the other articles coming down later that seem to balance out um revenue projected revenue and

projected expenses.

You're correct. The budget is based on um uh projected revenues. This is based on um free cash and retained earnings that's been certified by the state.

Any other questions on the capital? No.

Article 11. Um, as required under Mass General law, we have to set the salary and stipens of elected officials. Um, the only item that you see here is the our full our one full-time elected official, which is our town clerk. Um, the request this year is $110,248.

The methodology of how this was derived was for town meeting members. Um, you may recall the town underwent a compensation and classification study.

um that was essentially an independent um consultant came in you know compared did a market analysis internal equity external equity and determined where we should be paying our employees. They then gave us a scale essentially, you know, a starting step and then a maximum, minimum, maximum. And the methodology that we're using for all of our other employees is we take their fiscal 26, the current year salary, and

we plug them into the scale. And so we use that same exact methodology for the town clerk, um, and the step where it falls on the step and grade is 110 248.

So we follow that same methodology.

There any questions on that item?

Okay. So, uh, article 12 is the budget appropriation this year 113 thou 113 million 389 515. Um, this is uh we can go through obviously the warrant the the warrant is multiple line items. So uh we'll we'll go through my presentation on how uh I developed that we developed that through the finance committee through now the budget advisory group hearing some of the uh information that's been out and also through the

select board uh recommending it here on the on the on the warrant. So the general operating budget expenses are primarily uh derived of the schools, public safety, public works, community services, general government, debt service, benefits and insurance.

This is how the pie looks if you looked at the uh operating expenses. Schools at 57% total cost of education is 65 and that's also uh inclusive of uh Bristol Aggie and uh Voke community services at 3%, public works at four, public safety at 10, health and liability insurance at 16 and uh general government at five.

So the revenues comprise ma mainly of new growth. Uh you've heard us talk about 2 and a half% adding that to the to to the to the levy. State aid um you know we see minimal increases in state aid every single year. Uh local receipts that's some that's more like your uh motor vehicle tax. Uh your um room excise size tax that we collect.

Marijuana uh revenue that we collect. Uh also uh building permits that's all part of local receipts. Uh overhead and indirect costs that we charge back to the enterprise funds that allow us uh under master allowed to do that. That's for salary uh salaries in other departments that complement those uh enterprise funds and then other available funds like grants. General operating revenues uh the biggest piece

of it is is the property tax at 71%, state aid at 14, local receipts at 10, overhead that we just talked about 3% and then other available funds at 2%.

Uh and then this is what Prop 2 and a half uh looks like. Uh new growth. So when we talk about new growth, we're talking about new construction. Uh windows, doors, decks don't really get us there. This is this is new homes. So each and every year we project that out.

Uh this year it's 800,000. We were able to add an additional 2 and a half% onto the new growth onto the levy, which is 1.9 million, the base levy at 78.8 million, and then debt exclusions 869,000.

Um and and then just this is some uh you know information that I had um put out in one of the previous presentations. Uh the general government you know we want to maintain core administrative functions focus on efficiency and service delivery and invest in technology to improve operations.

Uh and then uh highlight in public safety review staffing needs to maintain response times staffing assessment study which we just talked about for the police uh study uh and continue emphasis on training and equipment readiness. the ax on tasers for example. Uh the highlight for the Dartmouth public schools, you know, staffing requirements. We've heard that, you know, the we want to be competitive. We

want to be able to hire um the cutting edge technology. Uh you know, the teachers that are coming in from we want to retain them in in town. We don't want them leaving uh to other communities. We want to remain competitive. Uh special education costs and transportation and operational expenses, which I think one of the speakers I just talked about. Um you know, public works, road

maintenance, again a big ticket item. uh cost on average millions of dollars a year to maintain our roads in Dartmouth.

Uh fleet maintenance again some of the items you just seen one of the packers that we're looking for and increase uh costs tied to materials and fuel. We've all seen it major increases to utility costs. The town is not immune to that.

We also pay those costs. We've done a lot to um you know try to become more and more efficient to reduce those costs, but the town is still subject to those same costs that and and utility costs that you see rising in your own uh personal homes.

So what I did here is I put the comparison between 26 and 27 so that everyone could see the difference in the budget about a 4.3% increase. Last year's budget 108,500,32 this year again 113,389515 and you'll see the difference in categories um schools being the uh the largest 2.6 million uh a decrease in debt service as we pay that along we we pay that off the the cost becomes less.

Um and then um you know in property and liability insurance smaller increase you may have heard with uh you know we we were with the Maya program uh with the health insurance we had then now gone with a local uh JPA joint purchase agreement. The town on average is now saving about 2 $2 million in that that move we with since 2012. We're really proud to have worked with the schools,

all the unions, select board and and uh finance committee to try to make this an initiative and also the health insurance steering committee and we move that along. So this year in this year's budget, you'll see a slight increase.

But what's happening is we're putting that back to the uh employees so that we can retain employees. You know, we want to be able to retain employees, be competitive insurance, offer the 75 25% program uh because we want to make sure that we're we're doing that the other because the other communities are doing again. We don't want to be we want to we don't want to lose key employees to

other other communities. So that that was a big initiative that we were able to accomplish for starting in FY27.

And then um you know what we see is uh potential uh horizon things to keep on our radar uh struct structural cost growth outpacing revenue limits. Uh as you saw in the in the revenue charts, we are limited to revenues we can collect.

We're limited to local receipts.

limited to local aid and then how much we can tax without a two and a half override. We're we're restricted to those amounts. Um volatility in healthcare and pension costs. I just talked about um you know us trying to move that needle on the health insurance costs, but um you know pension costs continue to rise. That's that's something that is pretty much out of our control. We get an assessment every

year. We have to pay that assessment.

And then uh infrastructure demands requires a state investment. when capital meets on long-term capital, we were we've been able to project that out for the schools, for DPW, for water treatment plants to see what that will cost going forward. You've seen some of the meetings that we've had for long term. Uh, and we want to start talking a lot more about that because these are large ticket items in north of hund00

million. And so, uh, as I mentioned on the enterprise fund side, those are paid by the rate users users. For example, if we were to build a brand new school, that is, uh, paid by everybody.

And then um funding sewer and septic betterments article 13. Did you want you want to do that one?

Yeah.

Does anybody have any questions on the in the budget I guess in general?

No.

Okay.

Good. Okay. Thanks, Gary.

Yep.

Nice job.

Article 13 is another one of those housekeeping articles. Uh this funds sewer and septic system betterments. So um betterments are essentially fees assessed to uh homes that have been connected to public utilities. And so um $1,113,45 will be collected in uh betterments for fiscal 27 uh for sewer and then another $32,42 for septic system betterments.

This article allows the town to um essentially assess those betterments to pay for the the services.

Any questions on article 13?

Okay. The next set of articles are going to fund each of our enterprise funds.

Mr. Carrero mentioned, you know, we have several enterprise funds. These are um you know, operations that are essentially self-sufficient. They're funded via rate payers. And so our first enterprise fund, article 14, is our solid waste enterprise fund. This is trash and recycling. Um you can see the total amount for fiscal 27 going into this next year is 2,465,47.

Uh that's an increase from $2,162,165.

Um part of this is the the rising cost of um disposal. So, we are very fortunate where we are part of the Greater New Bedford Refuge District. Um, to give some perspective, we pay right now under $30 a ton to dispose of our trash. If we were not part of the district, uh, most communities are paying around $125 a ton on the low side to dispose of their trash. So, we see a

huge savings um, in being part of the refugees district that we are then able to pass that on to to the residents. Um the refuge district has probably another 10 years of capacity um if they don't expand. And so our team is working with them at expansion opportunities and um we're starting to look at what that may look like in the future. But I just wanted to make that a point. Um we we

save a lot of money um by being a member of the refuge district.

There any questions on the solid waste enterprise fund? Yes.

Hi, I'm looking at the uh the budget and the recommendation and I don't see salaries listed in here.

That's under the sanitation um division.

The salaries the salaries for the um sanitation department falls under the sanitation division where it says 1,752,972.

Thank you.

could you could just come to the mic on a couple of the enterprise funds. It uh notes solar net metering credits which I always find confusing because we're talking about expenses and uh so if you could explain the effect of these solar net metering credits.

It's a great question. We anticipated that would come up. Uh so the solar we we are we've entered into several uh net metering agreements. What that does is we essentially uh have to purchase the credits at a cost. And so that's why you see an amount here. Uh and then we then we purchase them at a lower rate that we can then get a value for. So essentially we're paying like 80 cents on the dollar

for to get those credits that then go towards our electricity bills. So it's a contract that we have. We have to buy the credits in and like I said, we're essentially buying them at 80 cents on the dollar that then are applied to our electricity bills.

Yes.

A general question on uh the overhead.

It looks like the increases for the overhead varied wild wildly between these different funds. Are you resetting how you calculate overhead for the various funds?

We are not. Mr. Carrerero can speak to the calculation that we utilize um for determining this.

So can you be a little bit clear on the re what you mean by reset the the town overhead the increase from 26 to 27 is a big jump comparatively and some of the other uh funds the enterprise funds have modest town overhead increases. So it doesn't seem to be a consistently applied percentage increase for the town overhead for the various enterprise funds. So that's was wondering if you were resetting your how

you calculate overhead for each of these funds.

So the general uh the answer to that generally speaking would be that uh the employee count in that in that u division uh whether or not uh we're taking the same analysis as far as salaries are concerned. But in some of those uh departments there are openings um health insurance costs that are also taking effect. Not everybody's on the family plan. Some people are on the you know the single plan. So there's a it's

a very large calculation that's put through um when we when we look at overhead.

Any other questions on article 14?

Okay. Article 15 is funding of the water department enterprise fund. So um this funds the water department. You'll see uh the recommended amount this year is for $8,63,044.

That's an increase from $6,913,654.

Uh you may recall that um and and it'll be addressed when we get into the items from the special town meeting. Um we had to have a number of significant rate increases in the water department over the last um year or two. And so what I'm happy to report is that operation is um back to a sustainable level. We anticipate rates, you know, we're not going to have to have these large uh

spikes in rates going forward. And um a number of our wells that have been offline are now back online. And so the goal would be um we can reduce reliance on the city of New Bedford's water.

Any questions on article 15?

Article 16, another um enterprise fund.

This is funding our sewer department enterprise fund. Uh there is probably the one of the larger increases in our enterprise funds going from approximately $6.1 million to 7.5. Uh the costs for operating sewer has is significantly increased. One of the main drivers here is um right now we have bioolids from our sewer um essentially where we we are able to dehydrate the solids um and we sell them right now and

make a small profit and it's essentially used as a a fertilizer. Um the regulations in Massachusetts are changing due to I'm sure you many many of you are aware of POS the forever chemical. Um, so we are no longer allowed to do that and that actually now turns into a significant cost. So instead of us making, you know, 10 1020,000 a year, we are now going to have to pay upwards of a million dollars

a year to actually dispose of our bioolids. So we're investigating um what to do. We we do still have the benefit of being able to turn it into a solid, which is cheaper to um get rid of than a liquid. So the city of New Bedford, for instance, actually has to um get rid of theirs in a in a liquid form, which is much more expensive to transport the

liquid and and get rid of it. So um that's the primary driver for the increase here. Um we're hopeful that we're able to determine a less expensive alternative, but um our our numbers that we have are about a million dollars a year to for us to dispose of the bios at this point due to the state regulation changes.

Any questions on article 16?

Article 17 is the DCTV uh Dartmouth cable TV. This is one where uh you actually will see a decrease from last year to this year. Um the decrease is is about $7,500.

That is not because the cost of doing business has gone down. That is because DCTV is primarily funded through um cable revenues. So if you have Xfinity, Comcast, uh we get a 5% fee of just your cable. So if you have internet, we don't collect anything from that. But if you have cable, we get a 5% um back from that, which is that 590,000 you see um in fiscal 27. As again, many of you are

aware and many of you have done probably your own. You've cut the cord, right?

You're going to streaming services. with that we are seeing much less um revenue come in from those fees. So that's been the primary funer. Uh myself and Mr.

Carrero are always looking at what this operation will look like in the future.

We may need to start to subsidize this operation with the general fund. That is not the case this year. Uh but we want to make town meeting aware that in the coming years that may be a possibility and that is the reason that you're seeing the decrease uh in the budget this year um is because those cable revenues you can see we estimated almost 622,000 in the current fiscal year and we um

based on we the quarterly payments we've been getting we were estimating about $590,000 going into fiscal 27 and so that's that is a trend that we're seeing decrease.

Yes question.

Thanks. Just on the other income, it's a big difference between a,000 and 30,000.

What happened there?

The other income in in investments that was as we went through uh the budget, we we realized that number needed to be adjusted up. Um we've done really well uh Mr. to Mr. Kero's credit, we've done really well with investing uh the town's money in putting it into um uh CDs and and other forms of safe investments. And so we the $1,000 was what we estimated last year. It was much higher than that,

probably in the mid $20,000 range. And based on uh how we're seeing other accounts perform, we anticipate it being closer to that $30,000 mark.

Okay. Article 18 is funding of waterways management enterprise fund. Uh as Mr.

Carrero mentioned, this is essentially our harbor harbor master in that department. And so you see a a modest increase from 410,142 to 445,639.

And the primary driver of that is really personnel services. Um a small increase in expense. There's still no debt and and the other increases with um indirect and overhead. Uh and then the revenue with the waterways usage fees, moing fees. Uh we anticipate a little bit of an increase there. We did open up the uh Warren Haway Marina in town and so we are expecting some additional revenue coming in from that.

Any questions on article 18?

Okay. Article 19 and article 20 are actually directly tied to the budget that Mr. Carrero uh mentioned. So part of the budget this year um you know we've worked diligently over the past several years to try to accommodate what the school department's needs are. Um this year the initial request was 6.8% approximately from their prior year. Um as Mr. Carrera went through the revenues

you see our overall revenues are not increasing by 6.8% right? They're much lower than that. And so we we really worked um diligently with our uh the school administration the school committee the select board the finance committee the budget advisory group to come up with a budget that the town could afford and still fund our schools to a high level. And um with that, we're using some alternative funding sources

to accomplish the school department's budget. And so we have a um a stabilization fund where we put money into to help with offset the cost of collective bargaining. The school department has seven bargaining units.

The general government side has four bargaining units. The schools have settled all of their contracts. The town general government side is still in the process of settling those. And so this is essentially uh a request to appropriate $100,000 from that account to help offset the bargaining cost for the school department. This is a stabilization fund article. So this does require a twothirds majority to pass. Um

the number is not in addition to what you see in your schedule A budget for the school department. It just funds that number. So if these are next two articles were to not pass, we would actually need to reduce the budget that in um in article 12. And so that that's um and this is exactly what this stabilization fund was created for is to help offset those costs. So you have $100,000 here. Any questions on this

article? Yes.

Questionly.

Correct.

That's correct.

Article 20 is um the same merit in that we are using some of these funds to appropriate toward the school department budget. This is in the amount of 178,39.

This is u the full day kindergarten stabilization fund was created a number of years ago uh when the town was making its transition to full day kindergarten.

And in the in the event that the town were to fall on tough budgetary times and not be able to fund full day kindergarten, the idea was to use this account to to um keep that operation going. And so do you have the amount that's left in there?

So this is uh approximately half of what is in that account. Mr. Carrero is going to get the exact number. Um, and this would be to help offset the school department's operating costs and use towards um the the the cost related to running full day kindergarten. So, the total is $278,39 between these two articles. This is another stabilization fund article. So, it does require 2/3 majority to pass.

The current balance is 369 216 32 cents.

Thank you.

Any questions on article 20?

Okay. Article 21 uh is a personnel bylaw uh amendment. So in the town of Dartmouth, we have um essentially three different ways that positions exist.

They either exist through a collective bargaining agreement. They're part of a union. They either have an individual uh employment contract or they are part of our personnel bylaw. These are primarily positions that have been excluded from unions for one way or uh one reason or another. They could be seasonal in nature. They could be part-time under the threshold for a union. They could be

confidential employees. Confidential employees are exempt from a union. And so, back to what I mentioned with the town clerk's uh compensation. We had a compensation study done. This updates the ranges of salary for each of those positions to be um in line with the compensation study. So, the first is our schedule A. Those are our full-time non-UN positions um that are part of the

um part of the bylaw. and then they go into our schedule E, which schedule E are those seasonal part-time positions that are excluded from the bylaw. Um, and so the positions are all there. Um, it's a whole new grading system that the town had. So, if you had a position that was a grade two before and it's a grade four, it doesn't necessarily mean it's jumping to grades. It's just we are

implementing a whole new compensation system uh based on what the uh consultant had recommended to the town and the select board had adopted the compensation plan going forward.

Any questions on this article?

Okay. Article 22 is a general bylaw amendment uh chapter 134 section 15, our dog hearing officer. Uh essentially what this does is right now in the case of a a dog hearing, our bylaw requires that a police officer serve as the hearing officer. Uh it cannot be anyone who is not a police officer. And so in the event where a Dartmouth police may be conflicted um they they may be had to

respond. They are part of the call. Um it we may need to bring in a third party to be the hearing officer. Under the current bylaw, we're not allowed to do that. This language just gives the uh select board the authority to appoint someone who's other than a Dartmouth police officer. Really, really something that's been um cleaned up. The police chief recommended it to us and so it made sense. The select board was

supportive of this.

Any questions on article 22?

Okay. Article 23 is another general bylaw amendment uh chapter 315 section 6, snow to be removed from sidewalks.

This has been something ongoing uh discussed in town for a number of years.

Was brought forward by our uh our public safety department, our police department. Um and really I think was exacerbated this winter when we got a number of really large storms. Public safety is our number one priority. And um and also we want to be reasonable though, right? If if we get three feet of snow, there's some reasonleness knowing that you're not going to be able to get your sidewalk cleared right

afterwards. Um the current bylaw requires that you you have your sidewalk cleared four after and at four hours after the end of snowfall. That can be problematic for people who work, right?

So if you work and you work 9 to5, technically the snow stopped at 10:00 a.m. per the bylaw, you had to have that snow cleared by 2 p.m. Again, there's some discretion there, but we really think it needed to be cleaned up. it hadn't been updated since 1947 and so we think you know times have changed um and we want to update that the second so that this this uh changes it to 24 hours

after the end of the snowfall event you have to clear the sidewalk or if we have a snow emergency like when we got the blizzard earlier this year it's 24 hours after the conclusion of the snow emergency. So we really want to give people the time needed to to clear their sidewalks. Also we want to prioritize public safety. Um, and so we we differentiate that if you are within one

mile of a public school or you own a commercial property that the fine is $300 rather than $25 because again that's where we're most likely to see individuals walking on our sidewalks.

Um, and so the fine remains $25 in those other areas of town, but it does go up to $300 in the proposed bylaw if you are in one of those two areas essentially to um confirm public safety.

Any questions on article 23?

Okay. Article 24. Uh this is the establishment of a new general bylaw.

This is a um essentially a ban on crypto ATMs. So if you're not aware of what a crypto ATM is, there's cryptocurrency.

So Bitcoin is kind of the big one. Um there's these ATMs that exist where you can go and and buy uh and exchange uh cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is is the one I'll use for example. They are primarily um hotspots for fraud. Uh and so what what we've been told and our deputy chief can certainly speak to this um is that the FBI has recommended that most of the most of their use is um

fraudulent. If if people want to buy Bitcoin, they'll typically go through um you know some sort of vendor or agency.

They're not going to an ATM. And so there's been cases where elderly are coerced to go to these ATMs and buy Bitcoin and send it electronically to different people. Um really just a lot a lot of no good coming from these. So this would ban them within the town of Dartmouth. Um if anyone had them, they would have 60 days to get rid of them.

We do have a number of these in town um at a couple of um gas stations and um uharmacies like CVS's that have them. So that's what that's essentially what this bylaw does. Any questions on the cryptocurrency ATM bylaw?

Okay.

Article 25 uh is acceptance of Massachusetts general law chapter 59 section 5 clause 22G.

And you're probably thinking what does that mean? Uh essentially what that means is it it's expanded veterans benefits. And so right now if you are a veteran in the town of Dartmouth um you can you are eligible for exemptions under your property tax um as long as you meet circum certain circumstances.

However, if you if your home were to be in a trust right as of right now you are not eligible for those exemptions. This expands that. So if your home were to be in a trust and you were an eligible veteran, you would still be afforded the opportunity to to get those exemptions.

Any questions on article 25?

Yeah, we have to use the the law. That's why we're here to provide this information. U but that's that's is Massachusetts general law. We have to follow it. But if you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer your questions.

Articles 26, 27, and 28 are citizens petitions. And so, uh, before I get into them, I just want to give a brief kind of overview of what a citizens petition is. For an annual town meeting, a citizens petition must have at least 10 certified signatures of registered voters in the town of Dartmouth. Uh, for a special town meeting, the petition must have at least 100 certified signatures within the town town of

Dartmouth residents. Uh, it has to be submitted to the select board before we close the warrant, which is in conjunction with the town meeting calendar that which we post annually. Uh the town clerk then certifies those signatures to make sure they are registered voters within the town of Dartmouth and it must go on the warrant exactly as how it's submitted in the petition. So if it's um not compliant

with the law, if there's inaccuracies with street names, anything like that, we have to put it on the warrant exactly how we receive it. Article 26 is a citizens petition for the Allen Street Sewer Extension. What I'll note is um this is not being recommended uh by the select board unanimously, also by the finance committee unanimously. That is because uh upon review from town council

um the way that this is being portrayed does not accomplish anything. And so what what the petitioner is looking to do is essentially extend the sewer line on Allen Street. In the town of Dartmouth, you have two ways that sewer lines can be um extended. One is through the betterment route, which is I I kind of touched upon that earlier. You would get um all the abutters together. You'd

essentially sign a petition, submit it to the select board. We would send out a vote for everybody who would be affected by this. If it passes by 2/3, we then assess you an annual fee to pay for those improvements. That's that's how we typically do it. The other option is is somebody um a private party can work with a a townlic licensed utility layer and pay for the work themselves to

complete the work. Um there's no funding source here. So we we have to know you know we we don't know how much this would cost. We don't know what the funding source would be. So essentially um if this were to pass it would not accomplish anything. And so we've had conversations with the um individuals who submitted this petition. and they're aware of that and they're going to seek the um the right route to go to for

this. There any questions pertaining to that? I mean, I can't speak to what the petitioner was thinking u but I can certainly if there's questions on the procedure or the article uh review, I can provide that.

Okay. Article 27 is another citizens petition. This is for the former police station reuse committee. You'll notice the same here with the select board and the finance committee unanimously voted against this. That is not necessarily because they are against a former police station reuse committee. As a matter of fact, the Dartmouth select board at their last meeting approved um a former

police station reuse committee to accomplish essentially exactly what this is. But we um we did review this and there were some concerns with legal compliance. Um, for instance, uh, chapter 30B, it says that the committee will seek proposals under Massachusetts general law, chapter 30B.

Um, chapter 30B actually only allows for a chief procurement officer within a municipality to seek proposals. And so, it's in direct conflict of of that law.

So, again, if it passed, it's not in in compliance with that. There also goes on to u mention that there is appointing authority. uh the members at large would be appointed but it doesn't list the appointing authority.

Any overall questions on article 27.

Article 28 is eerily similar to article 27 um with the a few um words changed based on the feedback. again unanimously not recommended by the select board in the finance committee for the reason that upon our review um there were still uh areas of direct conflict with the uh Massachusetts general law. The proposal still calls for seeking proposals which again under Mass General law technically

a border committee does not have the ability to do. So a town meeting um article cannot um override the ability in Mass General law given under Mass General law. And so I will say that although the select board uh unanimously voted against these to recommend these uh they did create that committee which essentially the select board feels will accomplish what what the petitioners are looking to do.

Any question on article 28?

Okay. We're going to uh we do have a special town meeting which I will run through uh the three articles on the special town meeting um quickly here.

They are three uh supplemental appropriations to the current budget.

So, we're currently in fiscal year 26.

Um article one is for our water department enterprise fund in the amount of $450,000.

It's not that we aren't bringing in the revenue essentially. Um just the the cost of doing services was more than we initially budgeted. This is not uh completely abnormal. We haven't done it in a few years, but this is something that we used to do a number of years ago. And it's and essentially um it's town meeting giving the town the authority to spend this additional money within the fiscal year. I'll mention

again, these are all enterprise funds.

So, this is not a direct impact on a general taxpayer. This is all from the rates, which we're already bringing in the money from the rates. This just allows us to spend it due to the bills uh that are coming in. And so, we've mentioned the water department enterprise fund. Uh hopefully this is the last year where we really need to um increase that budget, but we're requesting an additional $450,000.

We do have an additional $200,000 requested in the sewer enterprise fund and then in solid waste an additional $100,000 that's primarily driven by the up uh disposal cost. So I mentioned that um we get a very good deal on the cost of uh trash disposal. What we still pay market price on is actually the disposal of recyclables. And recyclables are almost as expensive to get rid of now as

as trash. And so it's good. We still want to recycle. For the budget though, in in in our case, it actually costs us more to recycle than it does to put things in the landfill. But by recycling, we are also preserving the amount of time we have with the landfill, which is a direct cost savings.

Any question? Yes.

Uh, Roger Ma precinct 8. I'm a town meeting member. Thank you for all of this. I appreciate it. Uh, I'd like to go back to article 22.

When a dog is deemed dee deemed dangerous, is there any plans to have a registry so we know where that dog lives and the restrictions because of what happened to me two two years ago? You're all aware of it, some of you. And even though that person moved out of town, that town should have been recognized.

You have a dangerous dog in your neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, thank you. I think um without getting too much of the purview uh outside of the purview of the article um we have touched base with our new animal control officer and something that she's aware of um and I know there's been some discussions with the state legislators on on maybe some sort of program there.

So, but we can certainly touch base um later this week or next week on on further discussion on that.

Okay. So, that is the 28 articles for our annual town meeting, three articles for the special town meeting. Are there any questions before we wrap up for the night?

All right. Thank you guys very much for coming and we look forward to seeing everyone at the uh town meeting on June 2nd. Thank you.