00:02:39,030	S1:
Select Board Meeting of Monday, December 2nd, 2024 at 7:02 p.m.. Welcome everyone! We just love a robust group of people. Um, first things first are, uh, announcements and board openings. Uh, we currently have, uh, three, but perhaps two, uh, openings on the conservation Committee. Two associate openings on the Council for aging. One opening on the Cultural Council. One associate opening, maybe on the fin com. Uh, one opening for a three year term on the Hamilton Development Corporation. And two openings for three year terms. Two openings for two year terms. One must be a resident of the historic district, and one must be a resident realtor on the historic district commission. We're getting an we're getting an aging violation on that one. So come on, Historic district people, where are you? Um, and one at large opening at the Human Rights Commission. Uh, as always, if you are looking to join a board, committee or commission, we welcome you. You can reach out to Joe directly. He loves talking to people about boards, committees and commissions. Uh, we'd love to have you involved. Uh, with that, I will look to my friends in the room about any Select board reports. Rosie. Anything from you?

00:03:56,469	S2:
Um, I just wanted to make a comment that, um, the Conservation Commission certainly is down on members. Hopefully that will be remedied somewhat tonight, but I wanted to make a comment at how well Virginia Cookson did at running the Conservation Commission. Kudos. She's really, really knowledgeable and I was very impressed and have great hopes for the future of the Conservation Commission.

00:04:24,930	S1:
Um, I think if there was an award for most town meetings attended, you would be in contention, I'd say.

Yeah. 00:04:33,870	S2:
So I have other things. But in the interest of introducing my colleagues on the Council on Aging Board, um, in just a little bit, I will defer my time to them.

00:04:46,470	S1:
Perfect. Thank you. Anything from you, sir?

00:04:48,769	S3:
Well, I think.

00:04:49,569	S4:
On the agenda already. We're going to talk about the five board meetings. So we'll talk about the schools a little bit then and all the budget work that's been done. The only other update. HTC has done a draft meal tax policy that's with the fin com right now. And Joe, I'm sure that'll come up through Wendy and us shortly after.

Yep. 00:05:08,629	S1:
All right. So similar to Bill I, we did put the a recap of the five board's meeting on the agenda for tonight. It did feel like something that the group should discuss as a group. So we will cover more of that later. But the five boards did sort of kick off our first combined budget season meeting. Was it last week? Just last.

00:05:29,569	S5:
Week. That was.

00:05:30,370	S1:
Two weeks.

00:05:30,829	S5:
Ago.

Yeah. 00:05:31,629	S1:
Oh, right. Because before Thanksgiving. So lots to report there. Um. All right. Without further ado, I will introduce, um, Teresa, uh, our illustrious Hamilton CoA. Hello, Teresa. Can you hear us?

00:05:51,870	S6:
I can, how is everyone?

00:05:53,569	S1:
It's all you. Take it away.

00:05:56,329	S6:
So I just wanted to give a brief update about what's going on at the senior center. We're wrapping up Medicare open enrollment, which started in October. It ends this Saturday. I have personally met with over 175 people to switch some plans. Um, drug plans that might be more appropriate than what they're currently on or advantage plans. Um, we only had 12 non Hamilton residents this year that I met with. So the majority of them are Hamilton residents, and I expect to be seeing close to 200, um, another additional 25 people before the end of the week. Um, since August? Well, since July, I apologize. We have seen over 2000 participants coming through the senior center, which is a huge number, and great things are happening. August was our biggest month with 470 participants. Um, we things that we have ongoing is our mobile market, and we're seeing anywhere from 20 to 40 people, depending on the time of the month. Um, our men's group is still going strong. Um, we have added CEB tech, um, which is iPad and iPhone classes, and that's seeing anywhere from 15 to 20 people. Um, twice a month, which is huge. Um, we also received a grant, um, that we partnered with Raleigh that gave us the ability to purchase iPads, Chromebooks, and some computers that can be used in the senior center. Um, so people are welcome to lend out the iPads and Chromebooks. Um, pickleball is back indoors now over at the rec center. That's seeing about 20 people each week. Um, bocce has moved indoors on Thursday mornings, and we're seeing about a dozen, two dozen people every week for that. Um. We have. Another popular program is our lunch with friends. Um, so we offer a lunch. Bring your friends, meet new friends there, whatever you want. This month, we're doing a baked potato bar, which was a huge success in the last time we had it. So we're bringing it back. We're doing gingerbread houses this month, and we also have our holiday party that our friends are sponsoring.

00:08:16,430	S1:
Awesome.

00:08:18,670	S7:
When's the holiday party? So are the seniors at home watching who might not know about it?

00:08:22,870	S6:
December 17th. Um, at 1230. 12, I believe. I'm sorry. Over at the community house and newsletters are going into the mail tomorrow. They're a little late this month, but it's advertised in there.

00:08:36,929	S7:
I think Rosie wanted to.

00:08:39,500	S2:
Yeah. So I've been a member of the Hamilton Council on Aging board for, off and on for several years. Recently, I passed the torch of chair to Laura Dudley and the vice chair to Dick Hewitt. Um, I have been very frustrated by, um, some of the financial issues going on in the Council on Aging. And, um, so Laura and Dick are here to talk about some of the needs and some of the concerns. When we look at health and human services, in total is less than 1%. And the Hamilton Council on Aging is a mere fraction of that less than 1%. So, Laura Dudley, would you come up and talk a little bit about what needs there are in the Council on Aging?

00:09:33,330	S8:
Thank you. Rosie. Uh, good evening. Distinguished members of the Select Board for the town of Hamilton, as well. As you said, my name is Laura Studley, chair of the CoA board and I am joined by Dick Hewitt, vice chair, and along with other board members who support and offer those comments, offer their support for tonight's comments. Apologies in advance for any redundancy with Teresa's comments. I thank you in advance for your time. Now, there may be a misconception that the CoA is a few card tables and some senior seniors knitting or playing bingo, though both demographics and pastimes are not to be disparaged. This harmful stereotype is far from the truth. The CoA is a bustling civic center, both junior and senior seniors of women and men, and has grown over 5% over the past three years. We're here tonight to elucidate the vibrant range, scope, and impact of the Hamilton CoA and seek your consideration for further financial support. Financial support to finalize previously approved but never funded projects. Financial support to offer services on par with those of our Wenham and other regional counterparts and financial support to help us meet the growing demands of our current and future members. We realize this is an extensive ask, but we believe it is important to convey a comprehensive landscape of the immediate and near-term needs of this essential community resource as we work together to prioritize these needs. Some quick context. According to the 2020 census, the total population of Hamilton was 7586 residents aged 65 and older, equal 1533 registered students 1684. This leaves the students and seniors neck and neck for percentage of the overall town population. Neck and neck for the overall percentage of the town population, and this is a trend that is growing by 2030. The overall 65 population is expected to outnumber the under 18 population as the AARP states, a society that works for ages 8 to 80. Works for everybody by creating accessible and inclusive environments for older adults. We indirectly improve the quality of life for younger generations as well. Prior to becoming chair of the board, it was my previous misconception that the CoA received only 1% of the town budget. However, as you may know, it's actually 0.3% or $136,604

00:12:10,000	S8:
for both personnel and operating expenses for a whole 20% of our town's overall population, putting us somewhere above animal control and below. Unfortunately, cemetery financing line items a negligible slice of this town's budget pie chart. I'd like to pause here to shine a light on our director, Teresa and her colleague Tim, who do an absolutely incredible job stretching our allotted budget deep and wide to provide the diverse plethora of programming, as well as essential outreach and social services that our residents currently need and enjoy. They are constantly implementing fresh ideas that keep our diverse community engaged and returning. We applaud Tim and Teresa for their frugality, their creativity, and their diligent diligence balancing budgets and demands. As a board and a town, we are lucky to have them. This means with our third of a percentage point, they managed to offer a wide scope of services in a single month. As Teresa stated. For example, this past August we had 470 participants take part in our programming, which is consistently between 80 and 100 programs on a monthly basis. Some loose math would offer over thousands over 5000ft through the door each year. Programs ranging from social services like accord, flu, flu clinics and those nearly 200 appointments. Teresa just mentioned health and wellness programs like Yoga Balance and Fit Over 50. Leisure activities such as themed lunches and field trips, and educational pursuits such as chef, tech and special lectures. Finally, recreational activities like pickleball, ping pong and bocce yes, all indoors even in the winter. This is a bustling and vibrant community, a community that yearns for more programming for our growing and increasingly diverse demographic. However, this is only the tip of the targeted programming iceberg at the past two. League of Women Voters Volunteer Affairs. We heard time and again that the CoA does not offer much for the newly retired or approaching retirement demographic. Younger seniors in our community are looking for ways to give back. With your help and increased funding for payroll, we could hire a part time associate to focus on this population, offset Theresa and Tim's copious duties, and continue to grow our healthy and thriving Koa. On to more specific projects. I give you the cute.

00:14:36,629	S9:
Good evening.

00:14:39,269	S10:
We have specific concerns and I'd like to review them one by one. The first is the obligation that a senior that the Council on Aging has to provide transportation. At the moment there are there are nine councils on aging in this area that have their own bus or provide transportation with their own bus. And at the moment we don't have one. The as Hamilton Co grows so the transportation is going to grow. And what we want to do is requesting financial services support to allow our services to be on a par with our counterparts in the other towns. Um, we're getting 15 calls a month for transportation. Uh, that can go up is going to go up as the membership goes up. Um, Last year we gave. There were 1241 rides total. And that's going to go up as well. My feeling is that, um, if we provide this service, we will not only be providing benefits, but we will also become relevant to the community that we in which we live. Um, we contract dozens of buses for schoolkids. Can we contract one for the Koa?

00:15:58,830	S10:
Okay. Now, secondly, um, this is something that's been agreed in principle, which is a dividing wall. I don't know if anybody's been to the Council of Aging, but we're in the site of the old library. It's a huge area, which is great, but it is restrictive if you want multiple activities. And Theresa has would like to plan for multiple activities at the same time. And the idea is to have a wall dividing the the premises in half, where people can then come into one thing and take part in another. So Teresa can actually organise to do successive things. Um, money has been allocated I believe approved but not used. So everybody's in agreement in principle. We just need to go ahead now and start working towards getting it. We want one that's going to not only provide a wall, but also be retractable, so we can open the space up if we need to.

Um, 00:17:06,170	S10:
okay. And Rosie tells me I've only got five minutes now, so.

00:17:12,269	S2:
I can't hear.

00:17:12,829	S10:
You. Can you hear me? That's better. Oh, good. Okay. Other areas of concern? Maintenance. Um, we need to make sure the area is safe for for seniors. Um, and we make sure the building is in good order. We need to cater in the future for a larger membership, which may mean taking on more staff. So that's something we need to plan for the future. Not as of now. And small notes. Um, so there's one more thing is really aesthetics. There's been some talk about making the place look more attractive. That's something we can also consider for the future. Um, I think that's about it.

00:17:59,599	S10:
And the reason. Sorry. Okay. Okay. One last statement. In closing, I'd like to reiterate the incredible work that Tim and Theresa are doing on a consistent and regular basis as a board. We continue to be amazed by their efforts. And we're also grateful to you, the Hamilton Selectboard, for your time and consideration. this evening. Thank you. And that's it. Thank you very much.

00:18:32,369	S2:
Thank you. Thank you. Dick. There are just two things that I'd like to add that, um, that have been a concern. Um, the paint on the outside of the Council on Aging is chipping. And as the clay is a beautiful little building located right on one A, it would be great to have the exterior painting painted, just the cupola. And some of the, some of the, um, woodwork would look great. And also the front walkway, which is where Theresa is hoping that people will enter from, is a very undulating and very uneven sidewalk. So that's something we had previously discussed, and we'd like to discuss that more with the DPW to make that a safe and level walkway.

00:19:25,200	S3:
Okay.

00:19:28,670	S1:
Thank you so much I would ask. In the past or in the future? Is this a specific budget asset that should be folded into the ass from the CoA for FY 26? Or is this a capital? Like, are these capital projects that need to go into the funnel for capital?

00:19:45,170	S5:
So some are capital projects that would need to be into the capital plan. Some are other things that we could potentially handle within the budget. Teresa and I have been talking about all a lot of these things for the last couple of months. The issue with the wall was the funding for the wall was approved prior to my being hired as town manager. The previous CoA director made it difficult to get the work done, and ultimately we don't have enough money to do the what we want to do with what we currently have, so we need to add to that. So we need a new we need a new estimate on what the wall would actually cost. And um, and then a request to have that money added. So Teresa and I are aware of all of these requests. We're trying to work on getting them in to the budget, and we've actually talked about an additional part time person for the coming budget year. We're just trying to make it all fit.

So. 00:20:36,630	S3:
Okay.

00:20:37,269	S2:
Point 3% I will leave that with everybody.

00:20:40,470	S5:
I 100% I hundred percent agree. I've spent a concern of mine for the whole time I've been here.

So. 00:20:45,700	S2:
Okay.

00:20:46,630	S4:
Yeah, I think, um. Yeah. Well, we should definitely do the wall. I think that'll add to the I think I read about it's not cozy in there or something, you know, tighter quarter for smaller groups plus multiple functions going on. Makes sense to me. We should definitely do that. The transportation I've always wondered about I don't know if we want to get into that. I don't know if there's opportunity. We had senior care here not that long ago. If there's if we leveraged that group, if one of them does have a van, do we leverage that or do we want our own van? I don't know, we should always look down the street as well to uh, kind of have consolidated services like we do in many other, other things that we do. But I don't know if we've done that or not, but I think transportation is big. That's a high volume. The numbers that Theresa went over, um, I know, um, there's a lot of other needs there to the maintenance budget, you know, that should be in there. One of the things recently that happened to me, we cleaned out my mom's house, and I found it interesting when I tried to work with both CEOs. You know, we had a lot of good stuff, but neither CoA could take this stuff. And I understand inventory and stuff. But I do wonder if there's a better way to connect our seniors with things in the town where people might have, you know, good items that are in need. So I don't know if there's a way to connect that better. But I had a rough time and ended up having to go another way. So I, you know, I was hoping to do something locally, but.

00:22:06,170	S2:
I think part of the purpose of the Koa board coming in tonight is to bring awareness of the vital services that the Koa CoA provides to the town of Hamilton, and I encourage the board to come in and tell the whole select board and tell people who are listening how important an asset it is, and encourage the town. Encourage us to do more to support the CoA with the things that they genuinely need.

00:22:38,569	S1:
Yeah, no, I agree, I appreciate it. I think this has been a topic every year that that I've been here, my illustrious Selectboard career. Um, but I do wonder like to your point, like, you know, we spend more on, you know, we gave more to patent homestead. We give more, obviously more to students. But I'm trying to figure out, like, how do we formalize the ask and like, what is the budget like benchmark that we want to get to? And what is the level of sort of operating budget that we need for the services that we want? And then how do we naturalize that into the budget? Because otherwise every time we ask for a a steady budget year over year. We, you know, we just sort of end up with the same benchmark. And I think we have to make a dedicated choice to say that, like, we are going to fund it at a full 1% and that holds. But then we have to find where to take that money out. Elsewhere in the budget, you can come up and speak into the mic, um, because otherwise I think it is a death by a thousand paper cuts right there. It has to start with the commitment of what percentage of the budget do we put in there, and what does that operating budget look like? Because I think we have to give Wendy the hard and fast numbers to to take that money out from somewhere else. Um, and so I think until we have that like fiscal hard and fast fiscal plan, it's hard to, to move forward.

00:23:53,430	S10:
I think that there's one statistic we all need to bear in mind. The average number of seniors in Massachusetts is going up. That's also bound to be reflected in our Council on Aging. In other words, in years to come, we're going to be dealing with a lot more seniors and have to become a lot more relevant to them by providing some of these things. Thank you.

00:24:18,200	S11:
Yeah. Maybe we can get the school to give some of the stabilization fund to the senior center.

00:24:25,299	S1:
She's so.

00:24:26,400	S11:
Funny.

00:24:27,599	S1:
I'm kidding.

00:24:29,099	S11:
Am I.

00:24:30,170	S1:
Um. All right.

00:24:32,000	S11:
Anything else on the CoA?

00:24:33,599	S1:
Teresa, thank you so much. I'll tell.

00:24:35,430	S11:
You.

00:24:35,500	S1:
What I tell everybody. We'd love you to stay, but our feelings will not be hurt when you leave.

00:24:40,230	S6:
Thank you for having me.

00:24:41,269	S1:
Yeah. Thanks for coming. Uh. All right. Moving on to public comment. Um, a couple things about public comment, as usual. Public comment. Anything that isn't on the agenda. Three minutes. Come on up. Uh, I'm certain that there are a lot of people here for, uh, some of the budget or some of the agenda items coming later. Um, we will have public comment within those agenda items. But just a heads up, the comments will be at the end. Once the conversations have happened across the boards and with you. Teel. Um, so, you know, sometimes we have more of a dialogue in the middle of those conversations. That won't be the case tonight. We're just trying to take in a lot of information from a lot of different sources and have that conversation amongst the boards, but we will welcome public comment at the end of that conversation. Uh, so any public comment on items not on the agenda?

00:25:33,400	S11:
Anyone online? Okay.

Perfect. 00:25:38,400	S1:
Um, we are now going to move into the meat of our agenda. And as I said, folks who were here.

00:25:43,599	S11:
And.

00:25:44,099	S1:
Would like to leave, you may leave. We we know. Um. All right, first things first. Tax classification and tax rate setting with the board of Assessors. Chair.

Steve. 00:25:54,430	S5:
Steve here is here, as is Jane from our assessing department. And.

Wendy. 00:26:01,869	S11:
Come on down.

00:26:06,900	S12:
Uh, I'm Steve Ozaki, chairman of the Hamilton Board of Assessors, and I would like to call our joint meeting of the Board of Assessors with the Select Board into order. Okay, done. I just have to remember to close it. Um, the purpose is to set our tax rate. That's what we're here for right now. Uh, having done this a number of times before, I would like to streamline the presentation if we possibly could. Uh, the. You all have a lot to do tonight, and I'm sure that if we can cut to the chase, everybody will be home earlier. The first thing is the tax classification. We have certain things that we supposedly have to take a look at if we before we set the tax rate. And the first thing is the determination of a discount factor for land classified as open space. Cutting to the chase. We don't have any in Hamilton, so therefore we don't need to do that. Residential exemption is the next thing. And that is that's something that a city like Cambridge would do. You encourage people to live in the multifamily homes. You give them a discount. That's not. We don't have a lot of multifamily homes in in Hamilton. We have very, very few. So we don't want to do the residential exemption and the small commercial exemptions. Similarly, we have very few commercial properties. So therefore shifting the tax burden to the commercial properties would put an unnecessary burden on them and the benefit to the townspeople would be minuscule. So therefore all three of those don't really count for Hamilton. So I recommend that the town, the Board of Selectmen, excuse me, the Select board, determine a residential factor of one, which means that all All properties are essentially in the same boat. So that's my recommendation. And then if you'd like to vote on that now that would be great. We can get that out of the way. And then we can chat briefly about the tax rate summary, which is I think, what most people are interested in.

00:28:23,700	S1:
So, uh, is the motion specifically for the residential factor or for the denial of the other three plus the residential factor?

00:28:31,970	S5:
You don't have to specifically vote to not take up the other three by not taking a vote. You're not taking them up. So you only need a motion to adopt the residential factor of one.

00:28:43,000	S1:
All right. I will entertain a motion to accept the residential factor of one.

00:28:47,869	S2:
Yeah, I move that. We accept the residential factor of one.

00:28:53,029	S1:
Do I have a second?

00:28:54,099	S3:
Second.

00:28:55,029	S1:
Thank you. Um, do we have any? Nobody joined us online, right? Nope. All right. Any questions about any of these? The residential factor or otherwise?

00:29:06,569	S3:
No.

00:29:07,970	S2:
This is what it's been. Right. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Yeah. 00:29:11,569	S12:
For 24 years that I've been here.

00:29:13,799	S3:
Right.

00:29:14,829	S5:
Probably a lot longer.

00:29:16,430	S3:
Oh.

00:29:17,200	S12:
Don't count on that.

00:29:18,769	S3:
Uh.

00:29:19,470	S1:
I have a question. What happens when somebody runs? I mean, I know it doesn't matter if everything's at a factor of one, but folks who run a business, a commercial business out of their home. It's just the same.

00:29:33,430	S12:
Yeah.

00:29:34,200	S1:
The same property. But it's run through their residential, obviously, not through their business.

00:29:40,500	S12:
The the assessment reflects the value of the residential property.

00:29:45,299	S1:
It's only for residential.

00:29:46,430	S12:
Yes. If there's a business in there, there are other things that may factor in that they would have to pay taxes on personal property. You know, um, uh, myopia has Backhoes and swimming pool equipment and all of this other stuff that's all taxable separately. That's not. It's got nothing to do with the residential factor of one.

00:30:10,470	S1:
Okay. Uh, would you like to. Would you like to take a vote? All in favor? Rosie Kennedy. I do, I need to take a roll.

00:30:22,029	S3:
Nope.

00:30:22,400	S1:
No, there's one here. All in favor? Aye, aye. There you go.

00:30:27,470	S12:
Can we have the slide up for the 2025 tax rate summary?

00:30:31,599	S3:
Nope.

00:30:36,400	S5:
I'm trying to get there. There we.

00:30:37,670	S3:
Go.

00:30:38,200	S12:
That's okay.

00:30:40,369	S3:
Okay.

00:30:44,170	S12:
So, um, as everyone probably knows, real estate values increased significantly a couple of years.

00:30:51,430	S3:
Ago.

00:30:51,829	S12:
And they've been increasing in certain pockets, but not across the board. Uh, we have Increased. And oh, one thing I have to really point out here is that assessors are always chasing the market. We are the valuation date for the current assessment. When you get your tax bill at the end of December, it's going to have a value of your property on it. That is going to reflect the opinion of the Board of Assessors or the assessing department, what the value is of that property as of January 1st of 2024. Okay. So you're getting the tax bill almost in 2025. And it's reflecting the value as of a whole year earlier, which is based upon sales from the year earlier. So we're always chasing the market. And it's something that we try to stay on top of. We lost our assessor. He went to Marblehead. We are going to need to reorganize and but we don't need to get into that now. The point is that we are a little bit behind the eight ball, and we need to stay on top of things, which we will do. So the medians, I would recommend that everyone point out to point to the median single family valuations. Those are much more relevant as composed as opposed to the average. So the median valuation has gone up from 720,000 to 731,000, an increase of 1.6%. You do all the math, the tax levy and how much money the town is spending and so forth. And what you have is a new tax rate of 1565, up from 1511, which is a relatively modest 3.6%, which is my understanding, is what the current rate of inflation is more or less going, going backwards. So looking back, so if anyone has any questions about this and you don't want to do it now and take up everyone's time, our assessing department will happily. Well, will take up these questions with you, and I personally am absolutely happy to talk to anybody about tax rates, assessments and so forth. And I'll also point out that the month of January is the only time that you can appeal your assessment. So if you don't like what your house is assessed at, and you honestly think that it would not sell for that as of one 124, then you should file for an abatement and we will review every abatement that comes in. Again, it's something that we do okay. And well I'd like to take the opportunity. Um, Jane Dooley has been done yeoman's work in the absence of our assessor. She getting a tax rate set is really. It's a it's it's nitpicking and it's tough. And the people who work at the state level overseeing us, they are not that easy to deal with sometimes she's done a great job given what was she was thrown into. And my cohorts are here. Joe Shakman and Chris Gamble are also on the board of assessors. They are excellent townspeople who are knowledgeable and stay on top of things. So, um. That's all I got.

00:34:15,369	S3:
Do you know roughly.

00:34:16,269	S4:
How many abatements on an annual basis we get?

00:34:20,030	S12:
Um, it varies year to year. And, uh, since last year, I want to say 35.

00:34:26,429	S3:
Yeah.

Okay. 00:34:28,000	S12:
That's a good guess.

00:34:28,630	S1:
How many of them came back higher versus lower? I've heard people go for an abatement, and in fact, it comes back that their value is higher.

00:34:36,969	S12:
Occasionally happens.

00:34:38,030	S3:
Yeah.

00:34:38,369	S12:
Because what happens is that we we attempt to get into every house of a person who files for an abatement, and sometimes it's nicer than our records indicate. Now, this might be shocking to you, but sometimes people do improvements and they don't take out a permit.

00:34:56,300	S3:
What?

00:34:57,469	S12:
Seriously? I know, shocking, but you know, you put in a new kitchen or you put in a bathroom that wasn't there. Bathrooms you get hammered on on assessments. So if we if you've got our records indicate one and a half baths and you've got two and a half. Yep. It's quite possible. Finished basements. Same thing. If that's not on our record card then and we're going to fix it and it might result in an increase.

00:35:23,570	S3:
Interesting.

00:35:24,369	S12:
So do your homework.

00:35:27,800	S5:
So you need a vote to approve the new tax rate for 2025 of $15.65 per 1000 valuation.

00:35:36,599	S4:
I move that we approve the FY 25 tax rate of $15.65 per thousand second.

00:35:45,500	S3:
All right.

00:35:46,230	S1:
Any further discussion about the tax rate? All right. All in favor?

00:35:52,800	S3:
All right.

00:35:53,230	S1:
All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. And Jane. Jane, thank you for your yeoman's work. I appreciate it. Um, it is an interesting narrative, I think. And I know this happened last year that we lowered the tax rate. Was it last year? We lowered the tax rate, but the new assessments were starting to pour in. And so everyone kept saying that the tax rate had gone up. And we were like the tax rate went down, the value of homes went up. So yeah, we'll see. Um all right. Uh, next we have thank you all so much for coming.

00:36:32,170	S5:
You got.

00:36:32,769	S3:
The meeting? Pleasure meeting. Thank you very much. Uh, I.

00:36:35,900	S12:
Will entertain a.

00:36:36,630	S3:
Motion to close the assessors meeting.

00:36:39,230	S13:
I will motion to close the second.

00:36:40,969	S12:
Any further discussion?

00:36:41,900	S3:
All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

00:36:43,869	S4:
And you are welcome to stay.

00:36:45,170	S1:
Of course you can. You can stay for the whole meeting. Nobody likes us. Um. All right. Next, in very exciting news, we have the appointment of Nancy Baker to a vacant position on the cons com. Uh, we have an application in your packet, uh, for folks that would like to look it over. Uh, is Nancy here in the room online?

00:37:09,070	S3:
Yeah.

00:37:10,000	S5:
I don't.

00:37:10,599	S3:
See her.

Hmm. 00:37:13,099	S1:
Okay. Um, it's not a requirement, so that's totally fine. Um, but, uh, she does have some very interesting qualifications. 30 years, uh, a 30 year career as an environmental analyst for the Commonwealth. Uh, she sounds like a really great candidate. Do you want to say more of Virginia?

00:37:30,300	S14:
No. I think what you're reading is this is, uh, what you need to have read for us. And she was on the commission once before. Um, I think perhaps she left because she was still working folk. Now she's retired. So, uh, I'm hoping she'll be even more available since we are down three people. So anybody out there would like to join the Conservation Commission? Why don't you join us on a zoom meeting? We're still doing everything by zoom.

00:37:57,869	S3:
Okay.

00:37:58,469	S14:
And, um, I just wanted to tell you that the, uh, at the last meeting on Monday the 25th, the Conservation Commission did discuss with her because she was online with us. And, um, we all decided individually and therefore collectively that, um, we would like to have her on the commission, and she lasted to a whole meeting without leaving. So I thought that was pretty good.

00:38:25,599	S3:
Yeah, that's that's.

00:38:26,500	S14:
Part of myself to come and have a meeting first before you, you join the committee. And, um, so other than that, I believe that Rosie wanted to say something about that.

00:38:36,429	S2:
I just wanted to add that Nancy is very knowledgeable, very, very well qualified. We're very lucky to have her as a presumptive member of the Conservation Commission. And in fact, some of the things that you were discussing, Nancy remembered from, say, 2007 when she was on the um Conservation Commission before. So I wholeheartedly believe that she will be a great asset.

00:39:02,230	S14:
So I guess what I didn't say, actually, is that the commission voted as a whole. We had all three members here, but we all voted that we would recommend to the Select board that they follow through and appoint her to the Conservation Commission.

00:39:19,400	S5:
So Rosie's endorsement a motion.

00:39:21,769	S2:
Ah, yes, I, I move that we appoint Nancy Baker to the as a member of the Conservation Commission.

00:39:30,400	S4:
Second.

00:39:31,570	S1:
Any further discussion on Nancy? All right. All in favor? I, I.

00:39:35,800	S3:
I.

00:39:36,400	S1:
Welcome Nancy, and thank you for your service.

00:39:42,369	S3:
Welcome.

00:39:43,429	S1:
What can we say?

00:39:44,099	S5:
One down, two to go.

00:39:45,000	S1:
All right. Uh, rolling on the appointments. We now have the appointment of Sandra McKean. McKean, McKeon. McKean. Uh, as an associate member of the Finance and Advisory Committee. Uh, there is a letter in your packet, and we have the one and only here to say some words.

00:40:06,099	S15:
You know, what's amazing is.

00:40:07,670	S3:
Tell us.

00:40:09,230	S15:
What a treasure Hamilton is and all the talented people in town. And we found out Sandy found us. And the Finn come has met with her a number of times. She's joined a couple of meetings. She's already reviewed one of my spreadsheets and pointed out some improvements.

00:40:26,829	S1:
Improvements, opportunities.

00:40:29,300	S3:
Great.

00:40:29,869	S4:
Any errors?

00:40:30,900	S15:
So, anyway, uh, we wholeheartedly recommend and welcome Sandy to the Finn. Come and welcome the talent that she brings.

00:40:41,030	S1:
I will entertain a motion to appoint Sandra to the Finicum.

00:40:46,570	S5:
As an associate.

00:40:47,199	S1:
Member. As an associate member.

00:40:49,099	S4:
I move that we appoint Sandra McKeon as an associate member of the gang.

00:40:53,199	S2:
Second.

00:40:54,099	S1:
Any additional conversation? All in favor?

00:40:57,400	S3:
Hi. Hi. Thank you.

00:40:59,500	S1:
Sandy, thank you so much. We're excited to have you. You can be the McGonigle to Bill's Dumbledore. It'll be exciting.

00:41:11,869	S3:
It's okay.

00:41:12,969	S1:
Sharpen the pencils.

00:41:15,369	S16:
Thank you very much. John's made it sound as unattractive as he could possibly.

00:41:22,030	S4:
Oh. It's real.

00:41:24,670	S1:
Well, you've just been confirmed, so good luck with that. Um. All right, the next thing on our agenda is a request for a cemetery. Uh, plot purchase for a non-resident. There is a letter, um, in the packet. Uh, do we have this person present?

00:41:47,230	S5:
I do not.

00:41:48,329	S3:
Okay.

00:41:49,269	S1:
Uh.

00:41:50,230	S5:
Mr. Olson is joining your meeting, so.

00:41:52,130	S1:
So we do have grandparents and parents, uh, both buried in Hamilton. Um, in separate cemeteries.

Uh. 00:42:03,400	S5:
Do you want to acknowledge Bill's going to join the meeting, and you'll now be doing roll call.

00:42:07,670	S1:
Oh, I do want to acknowledge that Bill Wilson has joined the meeting. Olson. Sorry. Wilson was already. Wilson was already here. Uh, Bill Wilson has joined us online. Um. Welcome, Bill. Um, okay, so this is.

00:42:27,269	S1:
This is the most cemetery plot. We've had a lot. People are doing a lot of good long term planning.

Um. 00:42:38,099	S1:
So 11 years they did live in Hamilton. Uh, they are active members of the American Legion, but they do not presently live in the town. Um, but she was raised in Hamilton, attended, uh, all the way through Hamilton public schools, including graduating from Hamilton High School. Um, so a lot of ties to the town.

Um. 00:43:04,530	S4:
Yeah, I know a lot of connections to the town. I mean, I see no issue with it. I mean, at some point, you know, I'd like to better understand, you know, the capacity, if you will, of the cemetery. I don't know if that's something we can talk about now, but we have had a lot of requests and just want to make sure that we're ahead of, you know, the needs for for all the citizens.

00:43:23,800	S2:
I agree, I think this is probably one of the strongest requests that that I have seen since my brief time on the board here, and I would wholeheartedly Heartedly endorse this, but I on the other hand, I do agree that we're getting a lot of out of town requests and we just have a tiny little cemetery, and maybe we should talk more at some point in the very near future about how much capacity do we have and how many out of town residents can we accommodate?

00:43:55,630	S3:
Is this a Tim thing? Yes.

00:43:57,730	S5:
Tim and someone from the cemetery department. So we'd probably metaphor January.

00:44:02,530	S1:
I would, I would say May.

00:44:06,630	S3:
Why?

00:44:07,329	S1:
I just think there's.

00:44:08,170	S3:
A lot for us to get through.

00:44:09,429	S1:
Between now and then. Um, but yeah, I agree we should probably do it. But to that end, yeah, uh, we can take a vote, um, to approve the request of, uh. I'm going to butcher.

00:44:24,000	S1:
Gene Committee commit, uh, to purchase a cemetery plot here in Hamilton.

00:44:31,099	S4:
So I move that we approve the purchase of a four grave burial lot in the Hamilton Cemetery for Gene Committee.

00:44:38,329	S1:
Is there for. I thought it was 1 or 6.

00:44:42,099	S5:
I think.

00:44:42,269	S3:
It's four.

00:44:42,670	S1:
There is a four.

00:44:43,269	S3:
Okay.

00:44:44,099	S1:
Excuse me.

00:44:44,969	S2:
Yeah.

00:44:45,769	S3:
Yeah.

00:44:47,099	S2:
Um. And I second.

00:44:48,400	S1:
Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor?

00:44:52,530	S3:
Aye. Roll call. Vote. Okay. Bill.

Yeah. 00:44:56,099	S1:
Uh, we'll do a roll call vote starting with Bill Olson online.

00:45:00,199	S17:
Uh, William Olson, I.

00:45:02,530	S2:
Rosey Kennedy, I.

00:45:04,429	S4:
Bill Wilson, I.

00:45:05,570	S1:
Carolyn bull. You I the ayes have it.

00:45:11,170	S1:
Perfect. Moving right along.

00:45:14,929	S3:
All right. Real quick, if.

00:45:16,170	S5:
You don't mind me setting this up.

00:45:17,230	S3:
Ma'am. You you may.

00:45:18,469	S5:
The, um, you'll recall, maybe a month or so ago, we asked you to approve a change of manager, um, license application for the Myopia Hunt Club. Uh, you approved it, and the state said, well, wait a minute, they haven't updated their paperwork on who their officers are. So we'd like you. So they asked the Myopia Hunt Club to update their paperwork, and they did that. And so now they've sent it back to have you're approved. Um, approve the the new officers and approve the change of manager again. Both documents are in here. Once you've voted, we can send it down to get your signatures.

00:45:53,829	S1:
Single motion.

00:45:55,130	S5:
Um, I would think that would be suffice.

00:45:57,599	S3:
Thank you.

Sir. 00:45:58,929	S1:
Um. All right. One of you motion makers.

00:46:02,429	S2:
Sure. I move that we, um, approve of the change of manager for the Myopia Hunt Club. Um, Sean Green is the potential manager.

00:46:16,369	S5:
And then also approve the the update, the change of officers.

00:46:19,829	S2:
And approve the change of officers.

00:46:22,400	S1:
Anything on the liquor license?

00:46:25,400	S5:
Uh, all the information about the liquor licenses in your packets.

00:46:28,199	S1:
Okay, but we're not approving the liquor license. Just the change of manager and the officers.

00:46:31,469	S5:
The license has been approved. And you'll. You'll approve renewals at the next meeting later this month.

00:46:37,170	S3:
Okay.

00:46:37,570	S5:
That's done annually in the second meeting of December.

00:46:39,800	S3:
So. Okay. Do you want a second?

00:46:42,670	S4:
I second that.

00:46:43,730	S3:
Perfect.

00:46:45,429	S1:
Any additional questions comments queries or concerns. We'll start with a roll call. Vote with William Olson online.

00:46:54,170	S17:
William Olson I.

00:46:55,469	S2:
Rosi Kennedy, I.

00:46:56,969	S4:
Bill Wilson I.

00:46:58,030	S1:
Caroline Beaulieu I and the ayes have it. Uh, all right. Planning board, did you all end up with a quorum? Okay. Um, so the next, uh, article for discussion is the timing of the three a related zoning in the form paste code zoning. We have until here with us tonight to help with the conversation, I will have you come up and introduce yourself in just a second, or you can come up, but the introduction will happen. And then we also have the Hamilton Planning Board here. Uh, as a refresher, we've had we had a very, I think, good and robust conversation in the Select board meeting, uh, two weeks ago about, you know, what are the options for decoupling, um, form based code from a three, a compliant plan, as well as when and if we take a vote as a town on the various elements of which there are four, um, there is the approval, the approval of of the, the district that is downtown, the approval of the form based code, the approval of a three, a zone, and the adhering three, a code for those areas that were approved for three A, those would be separate votes. But the complexities of this have led us to this sort of quagmire of, you know, who's on first and which goes first. So we gathered this group here today to just sort of have an end to end conversation, uh, to help us decide when we're going to vote and what we're going to vote on is that everybody else's understanding of why we're here. Perfect. Welcome to introduce yourself to the group.

00:48:32,170	S13:
Thank you. Matthew Littleton, principal at UTL. I'm joined virtually by Zoe Mueller, who's the project manager. Um, we, uh, as you know, a few weeks ago, we recommended that this process be paused until there's clarity from the Supreme Court or other ways. Um, and I thought I would give you guys some quick context about how we've gotten here, what we've accomplished so far. Um, just to set that that record straight. And I'm sorry, Joe, you're gonna have to be my my slide answer.

00:49:06,630	S5:
Yep.

Ready? 00:49:10,000	S13:
Uh, why don't you move on to, uh. There we go. So, uh, it became very apparent early on in this process that the the requirements of three a were, uh, which is, uh, very unpopular, to say the least. We're sort of, um, contaminating what was otherwise a certain level of enthusiasm for the form based code in downtown. And so we propose to decouple those things where we would develop a form based code separately, but it would be fashioned in a way that some of its pieces would, could be integrated into a three, a compliant, town wide scenario that could be voted on separately. And this is a way to put the three a question sides, so that we could proceed with something that seemed to have a little bit more support. Um, so this is a little bit of a complicated Venn diagram slide. But um, basically we've divided the form based code into certain areas in the downtown. Three of those would contribute to what we think is a potentially compliant three, a scenario that would also include some portions of the Gordon Conwell site and a town on site in Tobacco Road that in combination, those things could meet compliance. Um, if you go to the next slide. Um, so these are the two non downtown sites that we had, we had identified. Um, again uh, building off of 209 units that are already at Gordon Conwell and then the Tobacco Road site, which was identified in your housing production plan as a potential site for housing. Um, that site. Um, that's fine. You can continue. Joe. Thank you. That Tobacco Road site again, probably subject to some further, um, because it's it's town owned further to, subject to further conversations with HLC about whether that can be included. But, um, we're sort of holding that there for now. Um, the downtown piece.

00:51:32,329	S16:
On.

00:51:33,199	S5:
The Tobacco Road side is. Yep, Gun Club, gun Club and the solar array on that.

00:51:43,800	S13:
Um, the, the downtown portion, uh, that would contribute to the three. A is depicted here in yellow. Um, and that would overlap with the form based code that we've been, um, that we've been working on. Um, if you go to the next slide. So this is the this is the downtown plan that shows in the black outline or those portions that would contribute to the three a and then the the toned areas are the sort of form based pieces of that. Um, you'll notice that, um. Some of that is outside of three a so the commercial areas are areas where we think the town would want to preserve commercial uses, not require residential uses. Um, so we've sort of kept that outside of three a but within the form based piece. And then there are remaining other pieces, um, which we call um, Bay road, mixed use Willow Street, mixed use downtown residential, uh, and then some areas, uh, for potential expansion to the form based code. Um next slide. Um, there are some you know, we've been working very closely with the advisory committee. They've been tremendously helpful and tremendously engaged. Um, and so there are still probably some outstanding questions or refinements to what's in the form based district or not. Um, particularly, uh, at the number three there on the site. You know, should that be part of the Bay road extension in terms of creating some sort of frontage? The two dead end streets, Cummings and Carriage Lane. Should those be included in what uses should be allowed? Um, but generally this is the sort of the, the landscape of where we're at in terms of identifying subject districts for the form based code. Um, we again, have had very good, robust discussions with the advisory committee. They've been tremendously helpful in helping us and, um, collaborating with us on, um, thinking about public realm and mobility. These don't directly get included in zoning, but in terms of thinking about a current and future framework, Identifying important intersections for potential future improvement, as well as additional potential important sort of connection points. Um, this is sort of a helpful sort of starting framework to think about the downtown as a whole and a little bit more comprehensively. Um, next slide. And this translates into something that relates directly to the form based code, which is frontage types. So, um, what are the various characteristics of the existing streets and how can we use those characteristics both existing now, and some additional information that was gleaned from some very nice historical imagery to determine a little bit how we want to control the character of these, um, parcels that would be in the form based district. Um, and working backwards, if you will, or from the outside in, from that primary point of public contact, sort of into the parcels. And so we have again. Bay Road Scenic Corridor is an important piece of that. That extends, we think, as a sort of planning principle could extend beyond the downtown. There's the historic village center, Willow Street mixed use, Willow Street residential, and then something we're calling the Greenway, which is a potential green link back behind the the school.

00:55:41,170	S13:
We have developed as part of this visioning exercise, uh, sort of what we think might be appropriate. Typical building massing is to understand how they might relate to each frontage type. In most cases, they are really sort of patterns that essentially mimic the patterns that are already there. So you'll notice on Railroad Ave, um, it's a commercial character. There's ground floor retail. It's close to the sidewalk. Whereas in the Bay road scenic corridor, the buildings are more set back to be consistent with the buildings that are already there, some of which are sort of mixed use and some some are residential, some are have commercial uses in them. So that's the logic a little bit is to think from the corridors themselves, back into the parcels, to determine what the best kind of character might be.

00:56:42,969	S13:
Um, the of those districts that are in the form based code, there are three that we think could contribute to three a um, the Bay road mixed use, the Willow Street mixed use in the downtown residential. Um, these are three sort of vision things, if you will, of various kinds of development that are representative Of the types of forms that we think would be appropriate. They include. Um. Embedded in these models are certain metrics and heights that we think are appropriate. The you'll notice, for instance, there's no parking directly on the street. Um, there are setbacks that are consistent with their neighbors. Um, and, um, it was not hard actually to, um, you know, in reality that the physical density of these parcels, uh, resembles pretty much the density of other parcels that are that are in these districts. Um, we believe that is a physical density that can support three a requirements in addition to contributing to a really good form based code. Um, and so those things have been sort of baked in together. Um, I will say that it was not a stretch. Right. That there are. We think there's a very reasonable form based code that represents a physical density that can can contribute to that 3D piece. Next slide.

00:58:18,000	S2:
I'm sorry. You're kind of double speaking. Um, when you talk about density that's commensurate with the current use, but it can accommodate the 15 units per acre as is currently required by three. Eh? So you're talking about maybe a single family house, which is the density and the majority of downtown. And then you're talking about 15 units per acre. That's totally incongruous. One is totally incongruous with the other.

00:58:53,130	S13:
It's, uh, let me explain. So first of all, the 15 units of an acre is an average requirement.

00:59:01,570	S2:
Minimum 15 units.

00:59:03,230	S13:
It's a minimum for the overall three a district in the town wide, but you are allowed to have portions of that. For instance, the downtown portions could be of a lesser density if it's made up for elsewhere. So that's that's one piece of this. It also has to do with the math of how three A computes compliance, which is it just sees 1000ft² per unit. Um, you know, these these are are properties that could um, and so when we're sort of dividing these into 1000ft² per unit and we sort of run the model and do the math, these visual representations are more or less getting to the density that the state would accept.

00:59:52,170	S1:
I think also each of our downtowns is on a fifth of an acre, not on a full acre. So you're taking five parcels?

00:59:58,929	S2:
Yeah.

00:59:59,030	S1:
Yeah, yeah. And so I think that's part of it as well.

01:00:02,670	S2:
So you're taking several parcels?

01:00:04,570	S3:
Yeah.

01:00:04,800	S2:
So getting them. Much, much more densely developed. Okay, well, I'll hold the rest of my comments until after you're finished with your presentation.

01:00:14,969	S13:
Okay.

01:00:16,329	S4:
Um, this goes into dimensional stuff. Does it talk about the number of units or.

01:00:20,329	S13:
This was the first. Again, we were putting aside that conversation of calculating units, knowing that out there we have enough, again, physical density to meet the math that the state is asking us to meet. Um, we have this is just to let you know that, um, you know, we have progressed, I think, very nicely on this. Um, this was our very first pass of putting some actual numbers to these visualizations that we've been working on, um, to share with the advisory committee. Um, this is sort of, I think, demonstrating that relative to the advancement of the form based code. I believe that we're in a fairly good place in terms of our progress. Obviously there are the devil's in the details, and there would be a much longer conversation about the particulars of some of these dimensional controls, but we wanted to put some numbers here to start that conversation.

01:01:23,269	S13:
Um, next slide. So, um, where I believe and I think we've already sort of, um, um, identified where we think there's, um, we're sort of hitting an impasse, if you will. Um, these are, uh, actual multi-family buildings. Um, that would, you know, again, meet three requirements depending on how densely they were distributed. Uh, but we have done a lot of research to collect these to ascertain whether or not forms like this would be sort of acceptable to the general public. These these forms were generally sort of well received, but I believe we're at a sort of juncture where while I think the forms and the scale of the of the sort of building types and the form based coding that we are considering, um, I believe that sort of part of the conversation is, is, um, not so controversial, but we're at a point in the conversation where we are going to have to begin to talk about unit density. And, um, our feeling is that there's so much, um, anxiety and anger about three A that it, it is kind of undermining this conversation about the form based code. And in the absence of any clarity about whether the town absolutely has to do it or whether we don't have to do it, and there will be a sort of financial penalty or whatever the direction is. It's our feeling that in the absence of that sort of clear direction, it's going to be very hard to advance this in a public setting and to gather the the necessary public support, even though I think most people in theory, like the form based code and they like the idea of enhancing the downtown. Um, we've we've come to a point where this conversation has to go a little bit deeper.

01:03:35,599	S13:
Um, next slide. Um, there's still some remaining work. Um, the large commercial parcel, um, with the the supermarket. Um, we've done some visualisations about how we might actually code for that parcel. It's a little bit of an outlier. One of our first passes here is to think about how you break down the parcel to accommodate the large supermarket that provides a vital service, but also maybe provide a more sort of active edges to support walkability that's more akin to Railroad Avenue. Again, this is how this parcel is treated and how we code for it, um, is sort of one piece, I think, that we need to keep working on. Um, and if you go to the next slide, um, this is a, um, well, I'll let Zoe talk a little bit about what we think the implications are relative to our our process.

01:04:43,800	S5:
Okay. For me stops here so we can see.

01:04:45,969	S13:
I'm sorry.

01:04:46,769	S18:
Um. That's fine. I can see it. Um. Hi there everyone. Um, sorry to be joining remotely. We thought it would be more efficient this way. So you're getting one of us in person? Um, I wanted to just give you all a sense of the work remaining, and our suggestion of how we might be able to resume this process in a way that's productive and efficient. Um, so if you don't mind, uh, toggling to the schedule graphic that I think was that last sort of slide there. Um, I have it on my end, so I don't need to look at it, but it might be helpful for you all to be able to see it. Um, so this shows you essentially where we are now. Um, so this is, you know, we are at this juncture where we are about to pivot from the sort of active, um, sort of public visioning and workshop setting and the advisory committee setting into the formal public hearing setting with the planning board. Um, and that would coincide with a shift to drafting all the specifics of the code, the actual writing that would become your ordinance and the maps that would accompany it. So that is a sort of a shift in level of detail, and that's why we kind of felt it was important to, at this point, be in a really good position to have conversations at that level of detail without kind of, um, needing to kind of retread the same territory about some of these, these, these more difficult questions around three a. Um, so if you toggle to the next slide, I just want to walk you through what that public hearing process, um, is intended to look like, what kinds of topics we'd be covering and sort of the, the progression that we had in mind before recommending this pause. Um, so the first is we're going to have kind of, uh, at the end of last month, an orientation Q&A with the planning Board and the Select board. Much like this meeting, in a sense, to just make sure everybody's on the same page, understands where we've been, the kinds of issues that we're continuing to work through and an opportunity to clarify any remaining questions people have. And then we would come back in sort of what was conceptualized as sort of a four month process, three four month process to come up with a draft code framework that we would present for feedback the full draft code, a revised code based on the feedback we'd heard, and then a final code that would be ready, um, to then proceed through the formal warrant and and public meeting as town meeting vote. So that's kind of the kind of where we're pausing now. So we've put that a little bit on hold. And what we're suggesting is that again, after there's clarity from the SJC, um, about the current active case regarding Milton's compliance, that should give Hamilton a level of clarity that would enable us to then have a more explicit and clear public conversation, um, whether or not three A is part of it. It would give us the clarity we need to then move forward without kind of continuing to have this, um, kind of confusion and frustration around the, the, the marrying of the 2A3A and form based code. So if you go to the next slide, which is our last slide, this is intended to just give you a sense of how we imagine this could resume in a way that would be effective for you all. So what you're seeing here is a suggested project. Pause until again, there's clarity from the SJC. And then we would have kind of a one month, um, sort of re scoping re initiation process with that, you know, having received that level of clarity and understanding, both from the SJC decision and from the state HLC. Um, what Hamilton's, um, sort of what what requirements Hamilton needs to meet, on what timeline, etc.. Um, that would enable us to finalize a scope, schedule and budget. and then we could move through a process that would be would largely mirror that same public hearing process that I just walked through with you. But we would suggest having a small amount of additional supplementary, um, public education and engagement at the outset to reorient people, um, to the sort of, um, the landscape as it exists in that moment and to enable people to engage with some of the key, um, aspects of this zoning framework that we have. Again, to to Matthew's presentation. Up until this point that we have really progressed quite far with, but have not gotten a lot of public feedback on because of the level of confusion and anxiety and frustration over three a um, so our thinking is with, you know, maybe 1 or 2 months worth of focused, um, public engagement. We could then shift back into that formal public hearing process and proceed through that. Um, that sort of the specific drafting of the zoning ordinance and map itself.

01:09:50,569	S1:
Um, and we select the numbers. We don't have the updated schedule in our packet. It's on the board behind you. So if you're comparing your schedules, the one they're proposing is on the on the TV.

01:10:01,699	S5:
Sorry, I had an earlier version that I tried to print out to make easier for you, but evidently they updated one of those sides before I got after I got it.

01:10:09,100	S1:
Sorry, sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I just want to make sure.

01:10:11,869	S3:
I appreciate that.

01:10:12,869	S18:
Um, it's helpful guidance. So, um, what you're seeing here is essentially, you know, after resuming this, we envision that, um, if you agree that some level of additional public engagement would be warranted, this would look like a seven month process, probably at minimum, with one month of initiation and then, um, sort of six months of actual public process before the one month warrant period leading into the town vote. Um, so that's what we're Are suggesting. Um. Obviously there's a lot of, um, elements that would be dictated by the news from the SJC and other kind of, you know, preferences, including kind of budget and priorities for public engagement. Um, but we think that this is a pretty, um, lean process that could get you what you need from, you know, in terms of public engagement, um, while still kind of holding to the the structure that we had initially proposed to the extent that we could. I think maybe I'll pause there, and I'm sure there might be some questions and, um, happy to kind of support as needed.

01:11:21,729	S1:
Yeah, I think there's going to be a lot of questions. I think the one I'd like to get to right off the bat is what are sort of the polarities of what we think comes out of the opinion from the Milton case, which is, you know, I sort of hear like, well, the whole thing gets thrown out, in which case we don't have to do anything. And that ends. And I think, Marni, you have some comments there because there's a hypothesis here that by waiting we may go down a forked path. Right? Something may change considerably, in which case we would do one thing versus the other. And we're sort of having to weigh that against the fact that opposition to three A is not contingent upon Milton. Right. And so I think we're just I I'd love sort of your perspective on, you know, either everything's upheld, in which case X or certain things aren't upheld, in which case Y. And then I think as boards, we have to decide, is that a reason to delay a vote. Because will the opposition remain the opposition regardless of what happens in Milton?

01:12:19,369	S13:
I think that let's say it's upheld in some form. It's a completely different public conversation where the, the, the town leadership goes to the town and says, you know, we don't love this, but we have to do this and we welcome your participation in deciding how we do it. That's a very different kind of conversation than maybe it'll pass. Maybe it won't. I don't think we should be even proceeding with this until we know or you know. And so that's a little bit. You know, we've done this for for many other towns. And that's a little bit the attitude that they adopted from the outset. And there have always been people that didn't want to participate at all. But you know, it's it's it's not the most positive message, but it would be the reality and it would clarify things in terms of how decisions were made. And, you know.

01:13:20,130	S3:
Yeah. Marty would I.

01:13:22,100	S2:
Think it's really important that we.

01:13:24,170	S1:
Will you make sure you're up against a mic just for folks that are online?

01:13:27,369	S3:
Thank you.

01:13:27,869	S2:
It's really important to understand what the issues are that the Supreme Judicial Court will be deciding. And we as a town filed an amicus brief with respect to these very issues. But sometimes the issues get lost with just general fear of threea. And it's, for example, not constitutional. The Supreme Judicial Court is not going to decide the constitutionality of that law. It's not before it. The issues are and I'm I'm really paraphrasing from what the Supreme Judicial Court actually placed on its docket when it invited amicus briefs. And, and those issues are whether and to what extent municipalities are obligated to comply with the requirements of general law. Chapter 48 and three A and subsection C, and the related compliance guidelines for multifamily zoning districts under section three A in the Zoning Act. In addition, they want to decide whether section three A, three A. Subsection B provides the sole remedy for nine compliance. And those are the four sources of funding, including mass work funds. And finally, whether the Attorney General's office is authorized and has standing to enforce compliance. So section three A is relatively straightforward. I mean, it requires towns. It says, uh, an MBTA community shell that's not may its shell have a zoning ordinance for or or bylaw that provides for at least one district of reasonable size in which multifamily housing is permitted as of right, and the housing cannot be age restricted, and there has to be a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, and the one district has to be located within a half a mile of the commuter rail station. And that's the that's the statute. It's the guidelines which have generated the controversy, because it's the guidelines that have set forth the the metrics that the town of Hamilton has to meet and that those metrics are 49 acres and a unit capacity of 731 dwellings. And in addition, the guidelines set forth 12 grant programs, 13 grant programs that towns who are out of compliance would not receive any favorable votes for approval. And one of those is the Mass Works Program, I believe. Um, and so the guidelines are lengthy and they have a lot of, um, uh, requirements in them. Uh, and, and they're somewhat inexplicable because there's limitations on the number of affordable units that can be in the multifamily housing. And I could go on, but the Supreme Judicial Court, if you were to have listened to the oral argument on October 7th, did have serious concerns about the guidelines. The attorney general's office was arguing the guidelines were guidelines with teeth, and some of the justices were were indicating that no, in fact, they had all the hallmarks of regulations without being in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act would have required a lot more public notice and the ability for communities like Hamilton to have more say and in forming these metrics. So we will know probably by mid-February, what the Supreme Judicial Court has to say about the guidelines. And I think that's what most people are concerned about. Do we actually have to, you know, come close to having 731 multifamily units on 49 acres? But I think the the real takeaway here, there two takeaways really is one that it is a law. And so obviously the people in Hamilton could vote to disobey the law, but there will be consequences to that. And and those consequences just got a lot more severe with this recent, uh, bill that was signed by the governor, on, I believe, November 20th, and one of the provisions of that bill. And there are numerous provisions that that basically prohibit funding or grants to either developers or municipalities. Um, if the municipality is not in compliance with three a but the the one that struck me the most is $400 million, um, allocation for funding for mass works infrastructure. And a town that was not in compliance would not be eligible for that. So I'm very much in support of of of a pause for two reasons. One is we really have to understand what the Supreme Judicial Court says. So we know what we have to do in terms of the metrics. In number two, I think we have a, you know, a real uh,

01:19:24,970	S2:
Need to educate the public about not just the form based code, but about three a and and and have them understand that as town officials, it's our obligation to give them the opportunity to comply with the law. And I think that we also have to set forth not just the negative aspects of it, but also the, you know, the fact that we could jeopardize funding sources that that it's hard to conceive of, you know, in a, in a, just a short picture frame. But over the years, those mass work funding, uh, would, you know, could could seriously harm the economic viability of the town. So there's a lot of a lot of balls in the air here. And I think that that we really need to step back a little and take a deep breath and understand all the ramifications here. And also, we don't want to lose the form based code because that's that's really, I think, a fabulous thing for the town apart from three.

01:20:40,170	S1:
So if the guidelines are not upheld, but the law remains, there still has to be a proposal that's voted up or down regardless.

01:20:50,130	S3:
Right.

01:20:51,199	S2:
Um, but there'll be consequences to that.

01:20:54,500	S1:
Right. So we're saying that the, the understanding of the consequences is the reason to delay the vote.

01:21:00,670	S2:
I think so, because one of the even in the statute, there were four sources of funding and one of which is mass works infrastructure program. So so we would never get any funding for for mass works if the town was not in compliance. And so I think that that that Joe, you and you know, and your staff really have to kind of educate the town as to what these consequences are. I know that we have not received a lot of money in the past, but if we do do a form based code and have a vision for the town, what what does that look like over time, ten years out, if we are not eligible for all these sources of money, and I think that whatever decision the town makes, it has to be an informed decision. And they have to realize that, you know, this this is a mandate. And it was their elected officials that that proposed this law and the Mass Leads Act and the governor signed it. I mean, we don't necessarily like all laws, but it is a law.

01:22:14,500	S1:
Yeah, I do looking ahead. And I think the conversation about whether we delay the vote is a robust one. We should have it. I think my secondary concern is that regardless of whether we delay the vote or not, there will be some proposal of three A to be voted up or down, whether the consequences are light or they're heavy, that's part of it. But it doesn't unengaged form based code from the three day conversation. Because even when we pick it up, even if the consequences are light and we're saying say no to three A because the consequences don't matter, we would still want to pass the three. We would want to propose the three A with the form based code, because in the off chance that it did pass or that the town did rally around it, we would want it to be in form based code. And so I do think there's a secondary conversation here, which is how do we like what is the order of operations for presenting form based code. And three a because neither of those votes goes away, we're just delaying them until we know the consequences. But if we're saying that three A is poisoning the well of form based code, that doesn't change because of a delayed vote. Um, so I just want to sort of put that out there that we, we can delay. And I understand the reasons for delay, but the two conversations are still going to happen in tandem, because those four votes still have to happen at the same time. Um, and that seems to be the the guts of the confusion is do you extend the downtown? Do you do form based code? Do you pass the three zones, and do you ensure that those form based zones are covered, or that those three zones are covered by form based code? So we're going to find ourselves back in this again, unless we say three A is completely off the table and we're going to have a form based code, you know, conversation in April and we're going to vote yes or no on form based code. But within that form based code still has to be a three way stipulation.

01:24:04,470	S5:
So I think once you decide when you're going to have the votes, we can we can have an in-depth discussion about how to A stack of the votes or how to how to schedule the votes. But I would say that, you know, I think the point here is that if the town is going to adopt or vote on adopting three A, it's going to be in several different places. Only the downtown area has form based code, and that form based code would more or less look the same way as it looks now, as it will after the fact. Town would have to adopt three A and all of the districts in order to be compliant. So if they adopted the form based code for the downtown but didn't vote on either of the other two, you'd still be out of compliance.

01:24:52,199	S3:
Right.

01:24:53,670	S19:
My concern is that right now, as we're even thinking about the form based code, it is just two intricately intertwined with three A, and I'm not sure we would choose the same form based code if we were under a potential gun of three a. So, and I say this because as I look at this Depot Square mixed use building, it makes me insane when I think about this. Um, and it definitely clouds my ability to look at anything rational in terms of a form based code. I think it's even for me. And I'm I try to be pretty objective about things. Um, I find myself unable to be objective. It makes me crazy, to be quite blunt about it. And so I'm not sure that even the consultant is thinking of truncating the two visions. The three a vision versus the form based code vision. And I'm not sure that one would look at the form VS code would look the same. Um, so for instance, I think, um, residential building form preferences, a lot of people who came to the initial um, um, forums talked about liking. Um, 72% liked a Melrose, Massachusetts three unit sort of farmhouse looking, um, residence. And I like that too. But yet I don't see how you could take that ask ask residents to vote for this and say, this is what we would have in a form based code. I like that a lot. But then, by the way, we do have to comply with three a. So even though you like that sort of three unit farmhouse. Look, we have to make it maybe a 14 unit or a 16 unit. I just don't see how we can separate the two. Um, and for my preference would be to put a pause on this because you're not going to get a good form based code if we've got three a in the back of our minds.

01:27:34,569	S20:
I'd like to add something. Uh, Madam Chairman.

01:27:37,869	S3:
I'm.

01:27:38,600	S5:
Not sure.

01:27:39,170	S3:
Oh, yeah. Go ahead.

Sorry. 01:27:41,369	S20:
Uh, I think it's going to be important, I think, to separate the form based code from three A, you're going to have to put three aside, whatever it is and whatever form happens, and focus on the form based code. In my position at this time, having, uh, in the event you don't know, I was, uh, I was part of the selection committee. Uh, I drafted the scope of services for the RFQ for util and others to send in proposals. Was on a selection committee to interview and so forth. I was on the.

01:28:19,899	S20:
Advisory committee helping chair that, co-chair of that advisory committee. We had eight meetings total with Util and not with Util on separate. And I've been through all of the and I attend the monthly meetings with Util. So I've been involved from the beginning and my concern is looking at that, looking at the scope of services, looking at the tasks that Util has delineated on their proposal, on their response to our RFQ. And what concerns me is that we're at a point now where we do need to kind of cross-check with each other. Are we on the same track? In a lot of ways, this is just the form based code. You throw in three eight, it's just going to throw another complexity into it that we need to deal with later because it's too fluid now, in my opinion, and determine how we can separate it in the future. But the main event is the form based code in the downtown. If we don't get that right, then nothing is going to work, in my opinion. And I think that I think a pause is absolutely necessary when I look at the task list. And I could go over the whole thing now with Matthew and and others, but I don't want to take the time to do that. But I can go over item by item and see where things are. Just hasn't they have not been discussed fully enough. They haven't been discussed at all in a planning board. They haven't been involved in in with anything yet, nor should they be part of that whole planning process. The advisory committee has been terminated at this point. They've run the course on their meetings. There is no communication. I'm not sure, Matthew, who you would communicate going forward other than the planning board and the Select board occasionally, uh, planning Board should not be involved in in drafting the form based code because we have to vote on it essentially. So I've got I've got a lot of concerns about that. This is an excellent firm. And I was part of. They were my first choice and I and I, I don't question that at all. But we need to give this time, given the complexity of the three a and given the importance of the form based code, we're going to get one shot at this. And if a if it doesn't happen, if you want to run it in April or in the fall, combined with the three A and it and it goes down, then this isn't going to come up again for several years, if at all, because you know the amount invested in it, there'll be a lot of work already put there. That's good work and it can be picked up at a later date. But will it be, you know, that's the that's the issue. Uh, and this is just unfortunately, a matter of timing with the three a that has made this even more complex. So education number one, there has to be more public engagement. There has to be from UCL and from perhaps even other sources to educate people really on on the benefits of form based code. I am convinced, having seen this in other communities, it is a strong enough way, strong enough tool to use. It's understandable. It's easy to administer because it's graphic, because it uses less text and it's a very, uh, a very predictable measure. And once people realise that, that you can actually see what it is you're going to get with some certainty, a lot of certainty, because it's the law, it is the code, and it's going to replace what is very vague now as a blunt instrument in conventional coding. There's no doubt in my mind, and I've seen it happen before. And I think we need to give this a little more time because I just, I think through an educational process in sequence, allowing people to vent, allowing people to, to talk about where their fears are. What are their concerns? Is very important. And we need. We have not gone through that significantly. And lastly, you know what what has sort of been a problem in the first two public, three public engagement meetings is that the the the presentations were sort of misdirected or they were directed towards something that was a side issue, the three a issue. And I think that because that happened and this is a process, a process that the foundation of which is public engagement is getting everybody invited to decide what it is you want to have your community be. And if you get a number of people who just are raising all of these questions and most of them are legitimate, if not all, and I don't, I'm not questioning that. But it's such a complex thing that we need to give at the time, and there's no doubt in my mind that a delay as well will serve the town very well. I think in this case.

01:32:58,399	S19:
That.

01:32:58,770	S2:
That's.

01:32:59,470	S19:
You just decreased my anxiety about this. And I totally believe in the value of a form based code. And that in isolation is a perfect summary of what that would encompass. And I think there were many people who would also agree with that, that it's a very, um, resident driven, um, analysis. And that's, that's what I think residents would want. But then when you have that fire breathing dragon in the background, it makes it it makes it hard. So, um, it makes it hard to focus on this wonderful idea. And so I agree with you 1,000%. We should, um, we should pause on everything until we know what we have to do. And, um, and, and I will also say, Marney, you talked about the governor signing another bill on November 20th, which put yet more demands and restrictions onto communities that don't comply with Threea. So we don't even know fully what we're looking at yet. And I think it's unfair for the consultant, it's unfair for residents, and it's unfair for town officials to put any more effort into this right now doesn't mean that it's not a very worthwhile, um, project form based code. It just doesn't seem like the right time.

01:34:37,130	S20:
The code should proceed on course, but still delay that. Uh, because in my opinion, it's not going to be finished by April.

01:34:46,270	S1:
So that's that's what I wanted to do. And again.

01:34:48,470	S3:
I.

01:34:49,729	S1:
I give this over to the group, I, I just want us to be clear, though, about what we're saying. So I think it's clear we don't have anything for April. I think we agree on that. We we don't have a three day plan. We don't have a form based code plan. Great. But in order to decouple these things, that means one of them gets special town meeting in October, and one of them gets town meeting the following April. So we're saying October for one of the votes. And then we're saying the following April, which is a year and five months, six months from today. So 17 months potentially the three a vote is a is 17 months away. So we're saying delay this vote on form based code completely separate from three A keep it separate from three A, which then means when we pass three A, we have not passed form based code as a part of the three a zoning. That is a concern for me. If we then go to vote in April and we have not combined these two conversations. So in theory, I agree education is great. We have not cracked the code in 200 years on how to get the community to have these conversations. So if we decide to delay this vote, which we it sounds like we're going to do. I do think we will be. I will not be, but there will be people in this room in six months with this exact same problem, which is how do you sequence these votes and how do you actually pull these things apart? Because I do not think it is possible. When you look at the order of operations for passing those four votes and making sure that three that form based code covers three.

01:36:21,069	S3:
Aye.

01:36:22,130	S1:
I just I just want to make that clear that I understand why we're doing it. I think there's going in a problem in a year it's going to be the same problem but bigger.

01:36:32,029	S3:
I mean, I.

01:36:32,500	S17:
Agree with that concept because, I mean, I'm not against kicking the can down the road. We've done it here a lot in this community, and half the time we get it right and half time we get it wrong. So is this the right time to kick the can down the road? Because I agree with you. We don't do anything. We're going to be in the same position in a year from now. We're going to lose all this time.

01:36:48,069	S1:
So if we're saying pull three a out completely, right. Say to the consultant, put together a form based code plan. Our our our milestone is to vote. It's special town meeting in October on form based code. We want that to be a pure, community driven conversation. Do not bring up three a we just want to talk to them about form based code and get that passed. We can do that, but we will pass it in October without three a.

01:37:12,630	S5:
Can I can I real quick on that. You keep saying October and April. The town's history has been that you've always done a special town meeting in the fall, but that is not a requirement. You are allowed to call a special time meeting anytime you want. You could do annual town meeting in on April 5th, like you're like you're required to. And you could do a special town meeting a month later.

01:37:30,000	S3:
Right.

01:37:30,729	S5:
So so I mean, the timing and everything else doesn't have to work out that you're going to do something in in October and then something following it could be done in.

01:37:39,569	S3:
I just love the optimism.

01:37:40,699	S1:
That we're going to like.

01:37:41,329	S3:
And then go.

01:37:41,770	S1:
Out and have a town.

01:37:42,430	S3:
Meeting.

01:37:42,770	S5:
I just I don't want to set. I don't want to set expectations that, you know, if the board votes tonight to, you know, put a pause that all of a sudden that means nothing really happens until it's not.

01:37:54,069	S3:
I mean.

01:37:54,270	S1:
But it's not.

01:37:54,729	S5:
That's not what happens until at least October, because that's not necessarily.

01:37:57,670	S4:
True after SJC.

01:37:59,869	S5:
Well, I think that that's a proposal. Yeah, that's their proposal. But that's their that's.

01:38:03,500	S3:
What I'm saying.

01:38:04,029	S5:
That's what I think. That's something that's still up for discussion.

01:38:05,899	S1:
So the quickest is my point is that how these things happen. Like if we get a plan together in seven months, we're talking about, you know, fine, we're going to we're not going to do in the middle of summer. We're probably going to do it in the fall. So September, October, November. And then we know we have annual timing. But again, that's that's the timing is less the issue of can we realistically pull this out, have a purely form based code conversation, vote with the town on four base code, and then turn around and try to have a three day conversation that says, but also we should vote again on form based code to bring it in to cover the three A zones.

01:38:42,770	S5:
I don't think that's.

01:38:43,369	S3:
What you can't do.

01:38:44,229	S13:
That you cannot decouple them.

01:38:45,869	S1:
Right. And so I just want to make sure we understand that like we're we're in theory talking about the fact that we can decouple these things, but we can't.

01:38:55,229	S20:
I got a question for Matthew, because the question you're going to get from the public is, how would you do the code differently if there were not a three way as opposed to doing A3A in your downtown, especially in that overlapping area? That's going to be a question from the public. Would you do it differently? I know there has to be a residential component for your downtown to make a more thriving downtown environment. Uh, it could even reach 15 per acre. And part of it you already mentioned, and I think you're right, my opinion that that could be something that disappeared. Density is such a deceiving thing, because it can be done in so many different ways that look very different from each other. And that's the that's the fear that people hear. They hear a number of 15 per acre and they envision many different things, and it doesn't have to be like that. In fact, you've already started laying out what that could have looked like. So. But my question to you is in writing a code that gets judged, say, in the fall and a form based code and then A3A sometime after that, a month to whatever. After that, a three, a vote. What would you have to do to the form based code or the three A?

01:40:09,470	S20:
How would you change your downtown? This is an important thing for you to answer. I think at this stage.

01:40:13,869	S13:
I would say that the the form based code that we've been working on so far in terms of the visualizations, the visualizing density, massing, heights, setbacks that both that that emulate the best aspects and patterns that are already in the in the downtown. I would do nothing differently. So, you know, if you said if there were no. Three A and we were at the stage in developing a form based code. You know, just for you know what's best for downtown Hamilton. It would look exactly like what we've brought to you. Yeah. What the difference is. And this is where the. And so having gotten to this point, the critical question is, okay, those are those are perfectly nice looking buildings that you render. They look very familiar to me. They look like things on Bay road. It's oh, but how many units are you going to put inside them? And that's, that's the kind of fork in the road. Right. And so, you know, if there were no three A and the town could not accept the potential for some of these buildings to have three units or maybe four units or maybe six. You might have to put some sort of unit count limitation, you know, on in the code.

01:41:32,899	S20:
Yeah.

01:41:33,229	S13:
That's what you would do.

01:41:34,130	S20:
You could do that. Yes. Okay. Okay. Um, yeah.

01:41:38,300	S5:
Would it be possible to put a unit count limitation across the form based code district, and not on specific parcels, or not on specific projects, and just say that the form based code is looks like this with a goal of not exceeding x number of units across the entire district.

01:41:55,000	S3:
Before base code is made.

01:41:56,170	S5:
I'm asking a question I don't know.

01:41:57,569	S3:
Yeah.

01:41:57,829	S13:
It's very difficult to.

01:42:02,229	S13:
Regulate. Yeah. It's it it doesn't really work that way. It hasn't passed muster where someone uses up all the unit allowances and then.

01:42:11,300	S16:
Know.

01:42:12,430	S13:
That we're.

01:42:12,770	S3:
All we're all doing.

01:42:13,630	S5:
We've had this similar conversation around our senior housing bylaw, and then that one in Hamilton was originally passed with a maximum number of units that would be allowed to be built under that. And so now that we're approaching that cap, there's great consternation about, well, will we still be able to do these kinds of projects that people seem to like and have attracted attention, or are we stuck now, or are we gonna have to try to raise the cap? Or so I'm just I'm asking from that perspective, like, is there is that a possibility?

01:42:39,069	S13:
I don't think you could cap in a three way scenario. I don't think you could cap less than your right putting forward as three a compliant and the three a compliant number is a number that really is only possible if every single parcel gets wiped out by a tornado, and everyone rebuilds precisely to the new zoning, and everyone builds 1000 square foot units over.

01:43:05,430	S1:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding though.

01:43:06,829	S3:
So.

01:43:07,470	S1:
Form based code isn't a it doesn't allow by right multifamily because of the form based code like the downtown area, it's still special permit for multifamily housing. So even if you passed form based code in multiple areas that had nothing to do with three A, there isn't a cap on them. You would then just overlay a zoning district on top of a form based code district, and therefore you would no longer have the special permit requirement, right? Like right now, if we passed form based code over all of the downtown area right now, you would still have to file a special permit for multifamily housing, because that's the underlying requirement.

Correct. 01:43:47,229	S13:
Yeah, it would be as of. Right. It would it would be subject to site plan review and that but it would not require a special permit if it were three a compliant.

01:43:55,229	S20:
Well.

01:43:55,699	S18:
Typically if you're asking maybe a slightly different question if I can attempt to answer.

01:44:01,229	S3:
Um, yeah.

01:44:02,000	S1:
Forget three a if you pass form based code today in Hamilton, you're not suddenly allowed to build multifamily housing without a permit. Our downtown requires a special permit for multiple multifamily housing. That wouldn't change.

01:44:15,000	S20:
Typically, a form based code is as of right. In other words.

01:44:18,300	S3:
It so.

01:44:18,829	S1:
It allows.

01:44:19,569	S20:
If it's the result of public involvement, community building. You're downtown and they're building, and you find a developer who wants to build what it is that you decided you want, then you try to make it easy for them to do that.

01:44:31,270	S3:
Right?

01:44:31,470	S1:
But if you said multi four base code allows anything three units or less by right everything else. Is special for site plan review. Then if you came in with A3A overlay that would usurp that, but it would allow our form based code to go through without a ubiquitous multifamily housing, a lack of a of a cap.

Right? 01:44:52,470	S3:
I don't know.

01:44:53,300	S18:
I think just to maybe give a little bit of clarity around the form based code would, if passed, would replace your existing base zoning.

01:45:05,100	S20:
There is no.

01:45:05,729	S18:
And it could carry with it any restrictions or allowances that you would like in terms of the uses that are permitted by right or by special permit? As Amy is pointing out, typically with a form based code, you try and make as much as you can by right, because what you're trying to do is create a very predictable process for people. But you can still, especially in situations like this where it's very sensitive, you can of course I have those restrictions, those. Those distinctions in terms of buy right versus special permit pathways for development. Um, all of that is open for the choice that the town wants to make about how to craft that, that form based code. That's something obviously with three a there's other elements that you have to consider. You have to have it be by right if it's going to contribute to three a compliance. But if you were to consider form based code just as a general tool and how it could apply to your downtown, you have the ability to dictate buy right versus special permit uses within that district.

01:46:09,529	S1:
So if you put any sort of multifamily cap, it would even if three a zoning came in on top of it, it would not be compliant because the original form based code did not allow for by right multifamily.

01:46:26,470	S16:
Code three, I would override.

01:46:27,899	S3:
It.

01:46:28,170	S1:
That's what I'm trying to figure out.

01:46:29,470	S3:
I'm just trying to figure out why did you.

01:46:30,569	S1:
Just choose a bunch of zones to put form based code in? Lock it in. And then later when three came over, that it would.

01:46:37,770	S3:
You'd made it.

01:46:38,500	S1:
You would it would automatically be amended. Or does that have to be part of the written thing.

01:46:43,229	S19:
So that would be the vote. Do you vote for this overlay district or.

01:46:48,500	S1:
No. No, I'm saying don't call it a 3D district. Say we're going to put some form based code zones places and they do have multifamily restrictions on them. It's just 3D or it's just form based code. That's all we're talking about. And we're saying we're going to put a form based code zone over here. We're going to put it over here. They but they have multifamily restrictions. But then later, if three, if those same zones got three A over them, would the form based code hold with the exception of the multifamily, the multifamily restriction?

01:47:21,930	S19:
Wouldn't it depend on what the residents decided isn't ideal form based.

01:47:27,729	S16:
Code.

01:47:28,170	S19:
Right? It doesn't. So it doesn't mean that if you have these darling little three unit farmhouses, you can't put three a density within that design.

Right? 01:47:41,470	S13:
You can, you can.

01:47:43,270	S3:
You can write whatever you have.

01:47:46,500	S19:
But then it won't be that it'll be something very different.

01:47:50,630	S1:
That was the question I was asking, like.

01:47:52,630	S16:
Something.

01:47:53,000	S3:
Very.

01:47:53,130	S1:
Different. Would it say, oh, you're still building form based code here? You just higher density form based code or does it. That's what I'm asking.

Yeah. 01:47:59,729	S16:
Like some kind of two codes. Separate codes.

Right. 01:48:04,100	S4:
So you'd pull out these three subdistricts basically.

Right. 01:48:08,029	S1:
Yeah. I'm saying instead of calling them three because again, you have to pass the you have to pass form based code in the areas where you're going to have three a my question is how much of the three A has to be baked into form based code, as opposed to it just overlays on top of an existing form based code, in which case you could sprinkle form based code districts everywhere.

01:48:30,000	S17:
Which my question is how many communities right now have form based code already that are now trying to work three A into it?

01:48:37,470	S13:
It's a lot of moving parts.

01:48:39,000	S17:
There's got to be committed to doing that right now.

01:48:40,569	S13:
And by the time.

01:48:41,699	S17:
You know, the only ones.

01:48:43,100	S13:
By the time you got, you know the three a form based the non three way form based through. Right. I think it's going to be greeted with a lot of suspicion. And by the time there's even a process to socialize that there will be a Supreme Court ruling.

01:49:00,770	S1:
And so it's your opinion that we cannot decouple these.

01:49:05,930	S13:
Um, no. Because, um, you need your downtown areas for compliance. And if you want your form based code in your downtown, those things are going to mix.

01:49:17,500	S17:
And a lot of money to do it twice.

01:49:19,029	S13:
Unless, unless.

01:49:20,369	S19:
That's the other.

01:49:20,930	S3:
Issue.

01:49:21,300	S17:
That's right. I mean, if this community really wants form based code and we're never, ever going to vote for three a no matter what happens. High water, no matter what the Supreme Court and never going to vote for it, then we're just delaying the form based code discussion for no reason.

01:49:35,329	S3:
Except that.

01:49:36,130	S5:
If it's not going to be ready for April.

01:49:37,369	S3:
Anyway, well.

01:49:37,899	S1:
That's.

01:49:38,270	S3:
And also.

01:49:39,029	S17:
No, I'm not trying to rush it, but I'm saying that. But we could have a discussion over the next six, 12, 18 months and not just delay everything. I just don't like the fact that we're not discussing it at all. Just put it on the back burner.

01:49:49,470	S5:
And I think it will continue to be discussed, I mean, particularly among the planning board. And, you know, what they're saying is they just don't want to start the public hearing process until they have some definitive definition from the SJC case.

01:50:02,899	S1:
Yeah. I think the conversation we're having, though, is like, we can't be Pollyanna about the fact that once this decision comes back, the sentiment and willingness to collaborate on this process is suddenly going to change. It's going to be just as contentious after the SJC, because the SJC ruling is not the linchpin for the folks in this town that are ready to vote no. So if we are worried that the baby and the bathwater are both going to get thrown out. My only advice is they will.

01:50:32,729	S21:
I'm not sure it's that black and white. I'm not sure. I think a lot of people are hinging on the guidelines.

01:50:37,569	S16:
Right.

01:50:38,329	S21:
There's people who don't like three. Across the board. I agree.

01:50:40,170	S3:
With you. Yeah, yeah.

01:50:40,729	S21:
But the guidelines are what makes it really heavy for people to swallow.

01:50:43,729	S1:
But even the people that the other people are like, if the guidelines don't matter, who cares if we lose 10 million?

01:50:49,670	S21:
Yeah, there is that idea as well. But we don't know what we're dealing with yet.

Right? 01:50:52,899	S5:
If the if the guidelines aren't upheld, if the guidelines aren't upheld by the SJC, the states are gonna have to go back to the drawing board and give us guidance. So it would be hard for them to hold us. You know, in, uh, you know, hold us up and say you're not compliant when we don't know what we're being compliant to.

01:51:07,670	S3:
Right, right. Exactly.

Right. 01:51:09,470	S20:
But yeah, let me just add another thing on the on the three a component. All downtowns need a certain residential mix with their commercial mixed use., uh uh, retail. There has to be a residential component within a downtown. And because of its nature, it's going to be denser or more intense, develop more compact development. That's the nature of a downtown. And you want it to be that way just for more vibrancy. Uh, what I think Matthew is, is saying here is that, uh, you don't have to call it three a, but you need the residential in there. But what we're hearing from some in the public is that if you put any residential in there, it's going to be three a and that's and that's bad for the community. Uh, that's the dilemma I think that we're coming across. Uh, the other benefit of doing the form based code and sometimes, like one of them who don't. Not doing a form based code, they just have to draw a line around an area saying, we're going to put three a housing here of so many in such a density, they don't tell you what it's going to look like. You have no idea what it's going to look like. We have to know, because we're using a form based code that demands that if it were to happen, what is it going to look like before you vote on it? So my suggestion is why not look at it as it's being proposed in the amount and have a look at it to see what it actually looks at. This is the benefit of a form based.

01:52:39,670	S17:
Couldn't look any different. Just be how many units you put in.

01:52:41,899	S20:
Well, look at what you need to look at where it is you need.

01:52:45,270	S17:
You said it wouldn't look any different. It would just be different number of units in it. So now I'm confused with this conversation.

01:52:51,670	S1:
Well, I feel like we're coming back around to super commingle them and show people what.

01:52:56,100	S3:
The.

01:52:56,569	S1:
What three looks like in FBC.

01:52:59,329	S20:
And then turn it down. If you don't like it. You know, that's that's the that's the key. That's what you need to do. Look at it and vote with authority. You haven't. You've seen it and you don't like it. And that's that's the benefit we all have. I have that same benefit, you know, to to vote.

01:53:14,770	S1:
And but then aren't you concerned that they'll vote no for both form based code and three a.

01:53:19,670	S3:
Because.

01:53:19,899	S20:
That's my concern, right? And but we need to stop the three a conversation until it's decided. And really what are the what are the demands on it.

01:53:29,229	S1:
And so I think the the first question, which I think we've answered for ourselves is there will be no three A or FBC vote in April. I think there should be a presentation in April. I think we need to share essentially some version of this and why we're doing this and what the problems are. And I think we just need to have a transparent presentation to the community there. Um, for no other reason. I mean, transparency, obviously, but also so that folks understand that there is like deeply deep complications to how we're doing this and that we are thinking hard about it. It's just complicated.

01:54:04,369	S19:
Well, I think.

01:54:05,000	S2:
That that it's really important that every that the public understands all the ramifications because one of the issues that the Supreme Judicial Court is deciding is whether the Attorney General has standing to enforce section three A. So I think the public has to be aware that even if they vote against three eight, that doesn't make three a go away. If the Supreme Judicial Court authorizes the Attorney General to step in and draw up the three districts that the town wouldn't draw.

01:54:38,069	S3:
Yep. So I think that's.

01:54:39,699	S19:
The.

01:54:39,930	S2:
Attorney general could do what the town didn't do. And at least if the town has the laboring war and has the form based code, they're the they're the master of its destiny. The town has to be aware of that. But if we just say no. Three A and the SJC said the attorney general could do it, well, then you get what you get. And if you don't like what the town does, I'm sure you're not going to like what the attorney general.

01:55:08,369	S19:
I think that's so.

01:55:09,270	S2:
That's part of the.

01:55:10,770	S19:
Argument that that's a pretty draconian.

01:55:12,770	S16:
State.

01:55:13,630	S19:
I think the name of the lawsuit is.

01:55:16,329	S2:
Attorney General versus Town of Milton. So, you know, if the if the SJC were to say that, then we could end up with a three way districts, whether we liked it or not. So, I mean, I'm not saying that that's the way it's going to be, but I think that pausing so we know what the ramifications are, it's really important. And I think the town has to, you know, see the benefit of the form based code and understand all the ramifications of three a it's got a lot of negatives, but maybe just voting it down doesn't solve the problem. If the attorney general and I'm not saying that that the court would rule this way, I don't know how they would rule. But if they authorized the attorney general to step in, then, boy, I'd I'd have that, you know, in my calculus when I was going to the voting, you know, to vote yes or no on three.

01:56:14,500	S16:
A.

01:56:14,869	S3:
I'd just.

01:56:15,270	S1:
Like to quickly recognize Mark. I see your hand is up. Did you want to add something.

01:56:20,670	S22:
Just to kind of add to what Marni was saying about where we are in terms of compliance? We are kind of we're not alone. There's 129 other towns that are classified similar to us, where we have a deadline of December 31st to comply. So just to kind of give you a lay of the land where other towns are, there's about 20 towns with Hamilton where it's pretty apparent that, um, they're not going to meet that December 31st deadline. So it's not going to be a situation like Milton, where there's going to be a huge spotlight on us because we're not going to be alone by ourselves. We're going to have at least 20 other towns that are in compliance. Then there's 20 towns that are scrambling to try to get something passed this month. So there's a surprising amount of towns that have special town meetings scheduled for this month to try to get something passed. And then there's about 90 towns that have passed some kind of zoning change that are arguing that they're compliant, but the state hasn't come back and confirmed that they're compliant. So maybe 90 towns that are sort of pending compliance. But so it's a fairly diverse sort of set of ten where different towns are in terms of compliance.

01:57:31,930	S1:
Thank you.

01:57:32,329	S3:
For that.

01:57:34,029	S1:
Um, okay. So this is just a discussion. There isn't any votes happening. But I think, um, to recap, there will not be a three way vote in Hamilton in April and there will not be a form based code vote, uh, in April either. Um, I think the decision that's to be determined is what vote there will be and when. Um, and that will either need to take place again to to Joe's point, you could You can schedule it as soon or as far away as you'd like. Before. After April and before April. Um, but I am getting mixed, mixed sentiments about whether this is, you know, truly, we give a completely compliant. This is what, uh, 3D looks like in compliant in the zones in the form based code, you either vote up on form based code and you vote up on three A, or you vote no on both. Or I think you attempt to pull them apart in some way. Um, but I do think that's the next step is to figure out what what those votes are and how they're presented to the public, and how you can have a a form based code conversation, either with or without the three A component.

01:58:53,170	S17:
Does anybody I mean, I agree, I just don't know how we get to that point.

01:58:56,930	S3:
Well, I'm going to.

01:58:58,369	S17:
Because we were sold on this when we when we funded it, we were sold that form based code was the right thing for Hamilton with or without three threea. And we were told it's the right thing for our committee to have a form based code. So why are we still. Why don't we just put three aside? I mean, I get get you maybe do it twice, but if we think it's so important for our committee to have form based code, would it be important to set that precedent and not even worry about three A and set that precedent?

01:59:22,170	S5:
My my one concern with that is if you vote down a zoning change, you can't bring it back for two years. So if we spend the time to develop the form based code by April and bring it forward and say, this is this is untethered to three A, then it goes, it goes down, you'll wait two more years before you can pass the forward base code. Um, and, you know, I think that the folks, including myself and Amel and others who brought forward the idea of using form based code to manage and temper, if we had to pass three A, we're doing we did what we thought was the right thing to try to help make sure that we get a predictable product and something that won't disrupt the character of our neighborhood, particularly in the downtown.

02:00:01,529	S17:
So form based code was only suggested because.

02:00:03,770	S5:
No, we if you if you recall the conversations that started last January, we had people talking about the fact that there might be a the Winthrop School might be coming back. The HTC was talking about wanting to do, uh, street beautification on Bay Road and Railroad, and we had people that wanted to consider form based code, including Amal and Marnie and the rest of the planning board that had been advocating for it strongly. And we had just got back a very unsatisfactory product from a state paid consultant to propose A3A zoning district that we all knew. Not only would it not pass, but it would not be good for the town of Hamilton if we had pushed that forward. So we needed to take some time and look at it differently. So yeah, we asked if we could look at all the all the pieces together at once, so we have a better understanding of what it would all look like. Now through this process, we've separately segregated out the Winthrop School site because people that was really just making it harder for people to want to conceive of what we were trying to talk about. So that's not part of the downtown. Why are you talking about. All right. So we separated that out, but the rest of it is still largely what we what we, you know, thought about and discussed back in January, February, March when we were preparing the warrant.

02:01:22,470	S1:
I think the other if I'm understanding this correctly, the other challenge is in order for us to pass potentially through a compliant form based code, it becomes by right, multifamily housing, which means even if we don't pass three A, we have given an in for buy right multifamily housing in downtown through form based code, meaning what is currently special permit essentially becomes by right. And then people can build these larger buildings downtown without three a.

02:01:51,170	S16:
But.

02:01:51,430	S19:
A form based code can have limitations.

02:01:53,699	S1:
If we do that, though, this is the other conversation. If you decide to put those limits in, it's not three a compliant form based code.

02:02:00,569	S19:
That's the whole point.

02:02:01,869	S3:
Right, right.

02:02:02,529	S17:
So it's what I'm saying, right? If we could do a non three compliant form based code, if we thought it was important, I was trying to figure out is it. Or the only reason to formalize code is because of three a. I still don't know the answer to that question.

02:02:13,569	S1:
So I think the answer is we were always going to do form based code, but then when we realized that the form based code was going to go downtown, and if we passed three A, it would also go downtown. You have to make sure that your form based code stands up to the scrutiny of three A, so that we control the way those.

02:02:26,630	S3:
Buildings look.

02:02:27,770	S17:
In place.

02:02:28,670	S1:
But you can't retroactively change form based code for three A or it does. It doesn't.

02:02:33,069	S3:
Qualify. Yeah, okay.

02:02:34,729	S20:
One of the benefits of the form based code coding is that you want really mixed use. You have to have your community has to be able to respond to market conditions. So it might be residential or it might be business. Uh, going forward the buildings will be sized. As Matthew was pointing out, you'll see on a chart not to exceed 8000ft² or something like that. Uh, and, you know, it has to be a size that's actually practical for downtown businesses. Uh, separate buildings, not one large building. Be nothing greater than, I don't know, 10,000ft², something like that. Maximum. So that that's in of itself a limitation right there. And and you want the mixed use so that you can allow for flexibility in what happens in the market. So you can get somebody you might want to live work. So if somebody lives upstairs and he works in a shop down, down below. That would be neat in a downtown area. Uh, so that flexibility is being built in with a form based code. And again, that's one of the benefits, I think. And that that's what's going to get regulated here are size sizes of buildings, heights of the buildings, uh, setbacks, proximity to each other. Uh, parking. That's all going to be figured out. You know, as part of this, downtown code. It's not going to look like Beverly. We're nowhere close in character to Beverly, so the units are going to be all small. You're not going to see any big box stores downtown. You're not going to see anything that's, you know, three story, five story residential units that's coated out. So this. This is a code that empowers people to get what they want to, to move forward, you know, to to get it. And hopefully people are going to join in in this discussion because that's really critical.

02:04:24,369	S19:
Sureties surety to developers that you can do this.

02:04:28,569	S20:
They like that because it gives them certainty that you're not going to change the rules. They're going to come in. They'll build what you want. Yep. And it doesn't invite more developers either. Again, the town has essentially what you're doing is taking a process that typically is give a developer a couple of limitations. You have to this setback in your building height. Everything else is wide open. So the developer says this is the kind of building I do, so I'm going to put that in there. You go through this extensive process. Special permit. You go a year through a planning board. It gets rejected, but everybody loses in that situation. Developer loses money and time. The town loses time. You know, it's in resources. Uh, for a failure. You. You flipped that whole thing by saying to the town. Let's put in the effort at the beginning. Let's decide what we want as a community. Figure that out. Coat it that way and then say, welcome, developers. Come if you want to build this, this part of it, you know, and if that's something you're interested in and it's all controlled and it's prescriptive and I can't get that, uh, I, I just can't express how important that is, that it just empowers. You can look at a form based code as a protective measure. You're not going to give buildings you don't want because it's coded in. And if the code is not done correctly, Then you change the code before it gets adopted. And that's what the planning board is going to be looking at. So, you know, it's a protective measure for the community. It's not opening the floodgates. It's nothing like that. It's just the opposite. And the predictability, if we can see what it's going to look like in advance, that's great. Now we know and we can vote yes or no. Developers like it, as I said, because it's predictability. You're not going to change the rules on them. And they don't have to go through this expensive process. So you know I know there are downsides to it. But these are the these are the key, the key things that I just hope people can get to understand at some point and get behind because and it really does require public participation. People who show up and voice their opinion, we have we got one member of the advisory committee here, but the we've had a lot of input, you know, through our workshops with the advisory committee, and they really make great progress. And I think and so feeding information to you till.

02:06:53,569	S5:
Okay man. Shaking his head so he thinks okay.

02:06:55,800	S3:
Yeah.

02:06:56,300	S1:
Um, okay.

02:06:57,000	S3:
So.

02:06:57,899	S1:
Um, we at least have our immediate next steps, which is to not take steps, um, which, you know.

02:07:03,569	S3:
Yeah.

02:07:04,270	S1:
Um, but I do think we should plan to have, um, some version of this presentation and some sort of overlay, you know, understanding of the complexities. Um, and then assuming that the, uh, decision comes out in enough time, we should probably plan to overview that, um, with the town as well. I think that's going to have to be a, an effort of multiple people to make sure that everyone feels that it's, uh, like unbiased and clear in the way that we're presenting it. I know that there's a lot of opinion about what opinion is. So, you know, how do we present that opinion and what we are required to do versus not required to do? Um, and then I think probably a follow up with y'all to sort of talk through Viable within the contract. We're now what that looks like going forward. If we try to decouple this, how we would use our remaining time or budget to to make progress.

02:07:57,399	S5:
I think Matt's made utils made a good proposal for how we'd pick it up again. I think there still needs to be some discussion back and forth and hammer that out. The details on that. But, um, we'll, we'll come up with some kind of a, an amendment and then I'll, I'll familiarize the, the planning board, the select board with it and, and then execute it.

02:08:19,029	S4:
So it sounds like what, what I'm hearing though, we're going to have to go back and redo some of these meetings. Right. And so it's going to add.

02:08:25,800	S5:
We shouldn't have to add we shouldn't have to redo meetings that you've already done.

02:08:29,670	S4:
It sounds like the planning board doesn't feel like we got the public input because of the three a, you know, overarching.

02:08:36,199	S3:
Curse.

02:08:36,699	S4:
Curse and that. So now we got to go back when they're more accepting of it and have the same type of meetings to get feedback. Is that what I heard?

02:08:43,630	S20:
There's still going to be public meetings, although.

02:08:45,869	S4:
All the public hearings and you'll hold or.

Yeah. 02:08:47,829	S3:
Yes.

Yeah. 02:08:48,829	S20:
That's the way it's set up right now. From here on out. It's the. There are five meetings at a program with the planning board. Uh, those are meetings that are open to the public, and that's we're.

02:08:57,970	S4:
So you're not suggesting suggesting more vision groups? I would groups, and.

02:09:01,899	S20:
I personally would like to see the town, uh, get behind, uh, public engagement meetings. Uh, only for discussion purposes. Uh, but just to give people information that they, they they either have misinformation and you want to give them the right information and give them a little bit of knowledge about the language that they're going to hear. Going through all these codes. That's something we're going through with the planning board.

02:09:26,600	S1:
We're all going to wear sandwich boards. Every one of us is going to sign up for a.

02:09:29,829	S3:
Shift.

02:09:30,899	S21:
To have a little info session in April. Right. We should have a better information at that point than the agency, hopefully at that same time. So it might be a good opportunity to put it on the table.

02:09:39,470	S3:
Yep.

Yep. 02:09:40,869	S1:
Um, okay. Thank you for joining us.

02:09:45,630	S3:
Thank you. Uh, thank you.

02:09:47,270	S1:
For everybody continuing this conversation. Y'all are welcome. Stay to stay for the five board's budget recap meeting.

02:09:55,770	S3:
Uh, without me. Yeah. Go go go forth.

02:09:58,970	S1:
Uh, and thanks to folks, uh, you may make a quick comment.

02:10:02,229	S3:
Sure.

02:10:02,569	S1:
Yep.

02:10:02,970	S3:
Yeah, yeah.

02:10:03,869	S16:
Um.

02:10:05,369	S19:
One of the things that was talked about was the.

02:10:07,100	S23:
Two different plans, and I think that that was an important thing when I was asking that question in the advisory committee, is that it would require two different form based codes, and that that's expensive because you I think you and I were on the same track, that how do you just completely look at like what would what what could the town get around in terms of adding like 55 plus housing like or different pockets, like none of us are against housing. It's just no one's really defined how much housing do we need. And there hasn't really been a discussion separate from the three A requirement. So I don't know that the density that is built into the colored squares of the downtown. Actually is what we would want without the three a requirement? And I think that that's the discussion that that didn't happen. And so when we were presented with the two circles, you know, it became like, well, we're actually doing three a in the first one, which is supposed to not be, but it's because we think that's the right density. And I just think that discussion is important to have because we have water bands, we've got traffic issues, we've got school. Like there are all these different things. There's never been I think the very first meeting with you till I stood up and I said, look, let's look at the total cost of adding population and what that does to the town versus the, you know, the increase in revenue theoretically versus the cost. And what is that analysis? It should be able to be done back of envelope. So people really understand what it is they're voting for. Mhm. Um secondly, I think it's important to pause because we're assuming the seminary units are going to be part of this. But I think that there's a conflict. And I was just it's sort of a question because it was my understanding that those units were going to be applied to meeting our 40 B stuff. And so I don't know whether it can be 40 B as well as B zoning for three A, I think it's probably not because three A couldn't couldn't have that much. So I think that's a huge consequence to the town that has struggled for years to meet 40 B. And so if that can't you know we know where that's going with the sale. But that's a really important topic to remember. Because if that can't be applied for the three a, you know, gunpoint requirement, then that has to be found somewhere else. So I think pausing and really not forgetting that that's a part of the equation as well as important. The third and final thing is that in the economic development bill from Healey, she signed in some egregious line items about money that was attached to three a MBTA compliance, one of which is school buildings. And I just think we need to publicly address that, that we are in the process of putting forth a $150 million building, of which we were going to get 50 million, which would be, you know, let's say, just for the sake of it. But now that's going to be a debt that's owed to three A and we must not as a town and enter into any agreements for grant monies. I don't care what it is, if there's a three way string attached to it without letting the people vote on it. So I'm asking. I also understand that in Rockport, grant monies were given to the community without them even asking for it. So I wonder how a state that has no money has all this money to throw because they are desperate to have this through and debt is a slave owner. If we are in debt to the state, they own us. They are a taskmaster and we need to be really conscious citizens of what we are attaching ourselves to with debt. Let's not go into any agreement and I hope the Select board can take a motion on it. Whoever needs to be done, because I know that Joe has the authority to sign us to sign contracts and agreements. Let us not without a vote of the people, take on any debt. Please. That is tied by blackmail from our state.

02:14:10,100	S24:
What are you.

02:14:11,170	S3:
What are you in school?

02:14:12,970	S24:
I couldn't sign that contract.

02:14:15,000	S23:
No, there's more than the school. It's more than the school. I mean, the school is an obvious one.

02:14:18,029	S3:
I think that that's.

02:14:19,500	S1:
So I think this comes down to. Once the ruling is clear, we will then have a better understanding of what the consequences of non-compliance are. Right. And and.

02:14:32,170	S3:
What.

02:14:32,569	S1:
All we can do is share with the town at town meeting what we know that those things are. If the school is one of them, we can. I mean, we can share that.

02:14:42,170	S23:
It's my understanding that the bill that she signed into law has the schools in it.

02:14:48,430	S12:
It's not.

02:14:48,670	S23:
Accurate regardless. I've read it. I've read the paragraph that says, you know, she inserted a line at the end of every paragraph that it's connected to compliance with MBTA law in the economic development. I'll send it to you.

02:15:03,300	S5:
The MSBA wasn't mentioned at all in the in the additional language that was added to the Economic Development Bond Bill. The MSBA was not mentioned at all on that.

02:15:10,970	S23:
Not MSBA not. Yeah. School school buildings were there.

02:15:15,199	S5:
There's been some argument that they made. They talked about public dollars for infrastructure and and he said including but not limited to wastewater treatment, roads and highways, blah, blah, blah. But they didn't they didn't say schools in that, although you could make the argument that it's because of this phrase, including but not limited to, that schools could eventually be added. But they they didn't specifically call out that the MSBA is currently under attack as a measure.

02:15:41,869	S23:
I will go read what I read, but it's more than that. Like there's a lot of grant monies that are out there, including some that are being given to towns without them even asking for it.

02:15:52,069	S17:
But are you saying that the town that we can get a grant money, then they can take it away from us after they give us the grant?

02:15:56,869	S5:
Yeah. Potential. It's potentially.

02:15:58,569	S3:
The.

02:15:59,770	S23:
It's like what happened to Common Core. You know, when the Department of Education said if you take money from the federal government for education, you must comply with Common Core, even though we can't read what it is. But in two years you agree to do it. So if you take the money, you agreed to execute the plan.

02:16:15,199	S17:
So you're not planning to take any grants in the next.

02:16:17,430	S23:
Not if they offer it to you. Don't take it.

Okay. 02:16:21,000	S1:
Thank you. Thank you. Um, did you have a public comment?

02:16:24,899	S3:
Yes.

02:16:25,829	S25:
Josh Blake, Sagamore street. Yeah, I agree. Um, it seems like the obvious choice would be to postpone this. You know, even though some people would like to kind of push it through. Um, you know, as we've heard from UTL, it looks like a lot of reworking and it may completely fail if UTL is saying it's only going to be three way compliant, meaning the form based codes, because we don't want form based. I mean, we don't want three a under another name, which would be a form based code that complies with three A if UTL would be willing to say, reduce its projected capacity down like two a quarter size of what three would allow or something like that. Maybe it could pass, but it looks like it's just a form, as code is just as dead as three A if it's the same thing. I don't, you know, just because it's a different name doesn't mean anything. You know, it might look nicer, it might have good design elements, but we're not here for, you know, what are the dormers going to look like? And, you know, is it going to have nice trees in the and the and the landscape? It's the capacity and of course the, you know, potential loss of, uh, home rule as far as the state goes for three a as far as potential, let's say, liabilities, if you don't go with we, we voted down. I think the funny thing is I noticed both when Wenham and Hamilton, not one public official has actually come out in favor of three A itself. We've heard a lot about maybe there'll be penalties and we have to we're being or it's required by the law, but no one said oh three is actually a good idea. It's a good thing for the town. So I think we have an odd position where every public official is moving a process forward. I've heard the phrase from Caroline and Joey, this is a process. We're moving the process forward, but I'm wondering why public officials would move a process forward. You don't agree with the only real excuse, and I call it sort of, you know, not to get into hyperbole, but sounds like kind of like a Nuremburg defense, which is a procedural thing. Where are you saying I've been ordered to do it, or we at a higher authority told us to do it? To me, that's kind of crazy. And that's that's weak. In other words, not if it's if it's not good for the town and no one's supporting it ethically, it's wrong to even put it on any kind of warrant. So I'm not sure why we're even thinking of. What are you saying? Oh, we'll give people a choice. But why do you want to give people a bad choice? That you don't even support that. But on its face goes against the sovereignty of the town. You're supposed to be serving the town of Hamilton and the people of Hamilton, not an outside stakeholder like the state, which wants to take control over some of our territory by changing the zoning. Okay. So that's kind of what it would be a good reason to call the AG's bluff. Marnie said, well, the AG, she's going to go. She's like the wicked witch and she's going to do all this bad stuff to us. Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think so. I think call her bluff. We have a lawyer, we have town council. Use it, you know, and keep it off a warrant. Now, it could be. It doesn't. It doesn't matter. Maybe the Supreme Judicial Court strikes down a lot and says, well, the guidelines are bogus. And the initial, you know, statute stands. If the initial statute stands, we can ignore it completely. We could say, okay, the penalty is in the statute for measly grants. We don't take ignore three A that should be our default position. Ignore three a of course, you know, we'll see what happens later. But that's I think it's kind of funny that we're talking about something where we're not even taking grants in. You don't want to sell your inheritance for a mess of pottage. Oh, we might have some future grants. Anne Weeks over in Wenham. She's the planning board, so we might have grants in the future. You're going to give a town home rule of a huge chunk of town rule for potential grants. That, to me, is kind of egregious and dereliction of duty. So just to put that out there, if you're going to think about putting in the warrant, maybe it shouldn't be in a warrant. The three A and let's see, let's see. That's pretty much, uh, pretty much covered it.

02:19:52,670	S17:
We agree with you that we did agree not to put on the warrant.

02:19:55,270	S25:
Yes. I mean, I'm saying even hypothetically in the future, you know, it's like what happened.

02:19:59,969	S17:
Good. We are agreed to agree with you.

02:20:01,670	S25:
Thank you.

02:20:02,229	S17:
Thank you. One thing.

02:20:02,899	S25:
But I.

02:20:03,969	S17:
Think one thing that's important, though, is that is that if three wasn't on the table.

02:20:07,469	S25:
Yes.

02:20:08,370	S17:
We could have a really nice form based code that had nothing to do with.

02:20:12,229	S25:
I.

02:20:12,430	S17:
Agree. So please do not get people scared of form based code thinking it is three A it is not three.

02:20:18,170	S25:
I'm not sure that you could handle that. I guess my point is, you still probably couldn't handle that form based code because they're saying it's just that's three A or nothing from what I'm hearing.

02:20:26,430	S1:
No, we they can I mean they're very capable of that. The question they're under our direction have it has been baked in because if we pass a form based code that is not compliant and then we pass three A, we are in a mess. We're in a mess. Right? So we've had to hedge this whole time. I've said this the whole time. This is about the people in the process. We do not make this decision. The town makes this decision we are in. The most draconian thing would be for us to make the decision. We are not. We are saying there's a thing that's come down, we're putting we're going through the process. We're putting together plans so that the people get to make a decision. They vote on this themselves. They look at a plan and say, we don't want it and they vote against it. What we're not doing is taking away the will of the people, because I get as many emails from people who are pro three as I do people anti three a there's an entire pro a Facebook group who messages me constantly.

02:21:23,829	S25:
So where are they? They never show up to meetings. I'm skeptical of that.

02:21:27,000	S3:
Go.

02:21:27,270	S1:
Go find Natalie Bowers. She's she's a huge proponent of this. She's been on the conversations.

02:21:32,270	S25:
Okay. Then that raises the question. No one publicly supported the VA. But you have citizens in town that have done that. Why would anyone who lives in the town want to give away any of the town?

02:21:41,299	S1:
That's not our job to decide that. Our job is to say, as representatives of this town, I take in the perspectives of multiple people, and then I allow you to vote. I don't decide.

02:21:52,430	S25:
But it's being driven by outside people. The town didn't organically say, oh, we should have a whole bunch of new development downtown.

02:21:58,469	S1:
They didn't organically say we wanted speed limits either.

02:22:01,430	S3:
But like.

02:22:02,430	S1:
We have them and we do a lot of studies around them and we implement them because that's what we do. We just sort of go through the process and I know, I know how sheeple you think we are, and I and I know that you are a libertarian to your core, and I love that libertarian. I love that about you. But our job as as elected representatives is to take in process and people and and feed through that outcome and allow the people the opportunity to look at this information and vote. Yay or nay. And that's all we're doing. And if you are afraid that those people will vote yes, that they will be coerced by this board. We have been as open and transparent as we could possibly be in every meeting, from the people who join the meeting, whose name is vote no on three A, that is, to me, more coercion and more collusion than the people who are just here representing both sides of this argument, whether you agree or disagree. We are just here to represent both sides of it and allow the people to vote. And you may go to that meeting, you may get up and you may give your perspective in that meeting. But to tell us that we unilaterally have to represent your perspective, that is draconian.

02:23:07,469	S25:
All I'm saying is do the right thing. Nobody supports it. If the if the status is.

02:23:10,569	S1:
Not true, that nobody supports it.

02:23:11,600	S25:
We are sitting here who supports three a I've heard I ask what's your opinion on it?

02:23:15,770	S3:
There there.

02:23:16,399	S1:
Are multiple of us who do think that if we do this right and if we do it well, and if we put them in the right areas.

02:23:21,500	S25:
I'll support three. Are you telling me you don't support three?

02:23:23,370	S1:
Eight? That is not what I'm saying. So I'm saying I have in the right plan and the right places I could support three a, which is why we're going through the process.

02:23:33,500	S25:
Okay. You've complained at a previous meeting that no one's asked you personally. You said on a Facebook about your position, you kind of chided the public, saying, no one's asked me about three a, you know, but in all these meetings, no one's asked me three. Well, I'm asking you and not just you. Everybody here. What is your opinion on the three? On three?

02:23:49,770	S1:
I would like to go through the process and see a plan that adheres to the character and content of this town, and allows us to bring in those numbers. And if I see that plan, I could support three a, which is why I've been going along with the process. I want to see it. I want to see what it looks like to have these units.

02:24:05,969	S25:
No, the state isn't going to give you that plan. Three A is mandated by the state. You can't tell the state. Well this is our three A the state's going to give you.

02:24:12,100	S1:
You disagreeing with my perspective does not nullify the fact that I'm.

02:24:16,000	S25:
Giving it to the three. A is you're saying, oh, well, I'm.

02:24:18,500	S1:
Going to move on. Thank you for your three minutes of public comment. We're going to move on to number seven, which is a recap of the five board's meeting.

02:24:27,629	S1:
Thank you. Um, okay. Five boards meeting. Uh, we met Rosie and I. Rosie? Yes. Rosie and I met two weeks ago with the original five boards. The first five more boards meeting to look at the draft budgets for Hamilton, Wynnum and the schools. Um, and we were going to just do this as a, um, a report, but there were things that we thought y'all would perhaps want some feedback to give some feedback on. Um, okay. So in the back of the, um, packet, you'll see the budgets that were shown by the school. Um, and one of the things that I think is important to note is that the. And Wendy, you're here if you want to get up and talk to some of this. So when we did the the budgeting for the school, um, they last year put in a placeholder and typically we put in a placeholder of 3% for increases in salary. We had put in 4%, but the actuals came in between 8 and 19% for increases after our, um, our contract negotiations, which means we have a debt to 20, 25 of almost a million and a half, and then we have an automatic increase in 2026 of that around that same amount. So automatically the school budget goes up by like $2.5 million just to cover the increases in contract for 25 and 26. Um, which is important because when we ask for a level budget, the conversation then becomes in order to account for that Increase, right? Which isn't an increase in service, isn't an increase in anything else. Um, there's there's sort of this $2.5 million bit in there. So then, Wendy, if you want to. So we then look at the original the, the first draft of the Hamilton women budget, which puts us what are we. We're 5 million on the whole.

02:26:31,799	S3:
Right.

02:26:32,170	S26:
So it looks like, you know, um, all of our department heads hadn't given us the information at the time because there was a lot of information to get. And we certainly haven't gone through the budget with a fine tooth comb. But just looking at the contract obligations that we had, um, you know, done with the five unions and then putting in what Hamilton Wenham is expecting, we're looking at a $5 million gap. So we really have to close that gap somehow. So, um, you know, we don't want to use all our free cash. We don't want to just, you know, throw it in the pot and then just have nothing left for next year. So there's a lot of work to be done and talking with the schools as part of that. Um, part of that work, because we can't they have to come down.

02:27:21,030	S1:
Right. So the reason I wanted the board to sort of just take a second on it is, you know, we had a great presentation by the CoA at the beginning of this. They would love some more money. The town. There's lots of places we'd like to put money. And we don't want this to become a school budget versus town budget. And they've taken all of our ability to increase. But when we get questions about like, why didn't we give money to this? Or why isn't there more money for this? When something goes up, something else has to come down. And so when we see these original, these initial increases in this way, and we see that it puts the town budget over by $5 million. The next question is where does that $5 million come from? And yes, some of it will come from the schools, but some of it.

02:27:59,069	S3:
Will also.

02:27:59,469	S1:
Come from the town budget, which squeezes us. Um, it, you know, we want to maintain level services, but in some ways that means we either are not making improvements or not putting money towards something we want to do, or we are lessening the budgets for things that we already have. Um, and I just, you know, there's no villain here, but there's a lot of realities that I think we as a board, just need to be aware of going into the budget season. Um, because then when I, you know, we hear things like, well, why didn't we take care of the schools we have or why didn't we fix this building or why didn't we do this? It's it's because of things like this, right? That we should be paying our teachers. We're proud to pay our teachers. That increase in salaries has to come from somewhere else in the budget. Um, and a lot of times what that does is take things out that aren't absolutely necessary. Um, and I just think it's a conversation that needs to be really transparent in the town.

02:28:48,100	S26:
And a couple of big numbers. Um, so we're carrying a 10% increase in all insurance, and that may not be enough. Just so you know, and last year, we did not carry enough for the pension obligation at 22%. So we're carrying a 20% increase right now. It may not be enough. And those are big numbers that we're working with.

02:29:08,969	S3:
Yeah. I mean, I've, I've.

02:29:11,200	S1:
Sometimes said that like Hamilton is like Spirit Airlines. You only get exactly what you pay for. And the problem is, you know, the cost of just the things that keep us running is going up astronomically. The the insurance. I think even in the school budget conversation, they said that they were we were sort of hiding the insurance increases. Right. Because we have a waiver for a year so that we didn't see an increase this year. But next year there will be like an astronomical increase in insurance prices. Um, and so, you know, it's not because we're, you know, doing something super fancy or we're paying our teachers $2.5 million each. It's because the cost of these basic things is, is really, really high. And it's represented in the, in the budgets.

02:29:54,500	S26:
Right.

02:29:55,229	S3:
Double door. Did you have anything to add?

02:29:59,829	S1:
I'm on fire tonight. You just come up here if you need something.

02:30:02,870	S3:
Early.

02:30:03,399	S1:
It's. Yeah. Yeah. This is this is not a chicken little thing. I just think.

02:30:07,329	S4:
That's a big.

02:30:07,829	S3:
Gap.

02:30:08,329	S1:
It's a.

02:30:08,670	S3:
Gap for.

02:30:09,569	S4:
This phase of the process. So when are we going to get into line item details?

02:30:13,569	S24:
Are you getting the line item details in the next.

02:30:15,770	S3:
Could we.

02:30:16,030	S1:
Just get the assessor.

02:30:16,829	S3:
Back in here. Could we just. Can we just increase the tax? I'm kidding. I'm teasing.

02:30:22,170	S26:
Budget hearings scheduled for next week. So that's that's when we'll start getting into the, um, the line items.

02:30:28,000	S24:
Yes.

02:30:28,399	S5:
We're the process where the Finn comm will meet with the department heads. Go through the budgets, we'll start talking about what might need to change within the budgets and get input and feedback from the.

Com. 02:30:37,200	S4:
So this.

02:30:37,799	S24:
Is.

02:30:38,370	S4:
What they've asked for. And you haven't sat down to go through it with them.

02:30:41,469	S24:
No it's not either.

02:30:42,129	S15:
This is this is very early. And I think what we need to do, given the size of the school, um, increase, is get these numbers in front of this board much earlier than we might otherwise. Um, so. Well, probably before. Before Christmas. We need an update. I'm not saying it's the final budget. I just think we. I just think we want to get an update in front of this group earlier because of the size, so I'm not sure what your schedule looks like.

Joe. 02:31:20,200	S1:
You're not really into holidays is from what I've heard. So that's who cares.

02:31:24,799	S24:
Won't be humbug.

02:31:26,370	S19:
So one of the shocking issues to me is operations and maintenance is increasing almost 33%. And I have not a clue as to what that means. That's like $1 million in just one increase. What does that mean? Where where is the information that that we can use? Right.

02:31:49,870	S1:
If you're talking about the school budget.

02:31:51,399	S4:
Schools, I think yeah, it must.

02:31:52,770	S16:
Be I'm.

02:31:53,430	S19:
Sorry. We're talking about the town.

02:31:54,969	S5:
You're talking about the town.

02:31:55,969	S4:
The town's 5.

02:31:56,670	S16:
Million.

02:31:57,569	S19:
Shock about this school budget.

02:31:59,370	S5:
Nice. It's. Everything's early.

02:32:02,530	S15:
Still. It's still early.

02:32:04,229	S5:
Yeah.

02:32:04,969	S15:
All right. And if you had looked at the budget last year at this time, there was a pretty significant bulge. This is bigger. So it's still early.

02:32:13,930	S19:
Well, you know what? There comes a time when the bulge just has to be pushed back and faced.

02:32:20,969	S5:
Well, yeah. Well, and that's honestly that's what we'll be doing over the next 4 to 6 weeks. I, I appreciate John Zeal for wanting to get this conversation started earlier, but I don't I don't think that we'd be starting with a real conversation if the next the only the only scheduled select board meeting before Christmas is in two weeks. There's no way we could really, you know, get through this enough to present it to you. We could probably have a, a pre discussion because we make our budget presentation the second meeting in January. And that's a joint meeting with the fin con. So I could probably have a pre discussion with the board. Um. And the first meeting in January. So to give you a couple other weeks, a couple extra weeks. But there's a lot of work to do between now and anything that you'd want to make, you know, overly public because a lot's going to change in the next few weeks, particularly after we have our department meetings.

So. 02:33:13,969	S1:
And more than anything, I think this just shines a light on. You know, this is part of the process, but.

02:33:19,829	S4:
I think half of.

02:33:20,430	S1:
It. But to write that, that was kind of the point is that I just want for folks to know that, like, that was I think we were all sort of shocked when we learned that, like, again, they said they were budgeting 4% for the increases. The actuals came in between 8 and 19% or four. Yeah, between 4 and 19%. And it settled at 8%. So and for the schools. But then that overage comes right to us. Right when the school budget increases and we have to own the differential we cut from our town budget to meet whatever. The schools can't cut that.

02:33:51,200	S19:
And we do that and we do that. And the problem is I'm I'm just aghast at this. Operations and maintenance increase of almost 33%. That is not inclusive of new wage schedules.

02:34:07,799	S5:
So I mean. We'd have to ask the schools and I mean, that would be the place to do that would be with the school committee and through the school department budget process. But I would they did settle. They didn't settle the teachers. The teachers were the big were the big nut. But they settled their other union units, including the custodians and other other workers in that room. So I would assume that some of that increase would have to do with salaries for those workers as well. But I would ask that question of any, um, to be sure. All right.

02:34:39,000	S16:
You know, I.

02:34:39,799	S19:
I have a lot of admiration for the town because the town cuts budgets and cuts budgets and doesn't do the things it needs to do because the schools tell us that they need some astronomical number. But the problem I have is.

02:34:59,829	S15:
Hey, Rosie, if I could interrupt, um, I would agree. I would agree with you if it was four years ago, but the last 2 or 3 years have been very fruitful, and the budgets have been, um, scrubbed by the school department, so I don't disagree. It's a large number, but what I would just to set some context, and I mentioned this at the five board's meeting and people weren't too happy when I said it. You go back, go back, go back and look at last year's budget. And part of the problem is that last year's budget should have been a bit higher than it was As they put in a low estimate for the salary information, so I would. I certainly don't like these large budget numbers, but um, the school department, they did go back and they scrubbed the budget over the last two years, and they did a, in my opinion, a very good job of it.

02:36:18,030	S19:
Okay. But that's not indicative of this budget.

02:36:20,930	S16:
Right.

02:36:21,629	S15:
I understand, but but what. Yeah, but but again what what they should have done last year is they should have put a higher estimate for this contract in last year's budget.

02:36:34,170	S19:
You can't know what you don't know.

Right. 02:36:36,100	S15:
And well, no, I know I know that that's what happened. All right. So all's I want to do is, um, you know, when we go through the town budget conversations, one of the most important things to ask each department head is what aren't you doing what you know? What are you shortchanging your business department? Um. So what I'd like to know from all the department heads is, um, is there something that ended up on the cutting room floor that you're not doing for the town that we need to know about? All right. And that is where you get at, um, sort of the meat of the matter. So, um, so as we go through the budget discussions next week, we need to ask the department heads, okay. If I if I gave you an extra X amount of money, what would you do? And then we can draw some judgment about their judgment. You know, is that really worth doing? Um, and then you'd flush out some things that maybe are, are high value that we're not doing. So once we get all done with that, we'll probably have a list of a short list of things. But anyway, so I just want to have a kind of a balanced conversation here. Yeah. So so and it is early and we're not going to ruin Christmas. But New Year's will be.

02:38:05,469	S1:
You're spending it at the McGrath's.

02:38:07,030	S16:
Yeah. Have fun.

02:38:10,129	S4:
I mean if you just look at the expense summary page though, I mean, no matter what we do, 60% of the budget, 2.3 million of the increase is the schools. And yes, I think the the prior three years. I agree with everything you said. I, I just, you know, step back and I just I think affordability for the town and the schools really and all the things we're doing, whether it's town hall, whether it's budgets and operating expenses, which we're talking about now, but all the capital projects, whether it's 14 million on fields, 150 million on a school, the accelerated repair roof program could be 4 or 5 million. There's just a lot water for the town. We got a lot staring right at the barrel at us right now. And we've got a really not just this operating budget, but.

02:38:49,799	S15:
One additional comment. Um, the fields project.

02:38:57,329	S15:
With a little bit of luck, will probably come in a couple of million dollars lower than the 15 million. So there's real effort and, um, cost consciousness afoot even on that project, which a lot of people don't like. So we'll keep our fingers crossed. Let's see if that does come to pass. But there's a little bit of good news that, yeah, it might be out there.

02:39:21,969	S4:
So I just think overall, I mean, not to say yay or nay on any of the topics I mentioned. I just think we got to step back as a community and think about what we can afford to do and not do, and we're going to pay the piper. It's coming. And there's other projects I'm sure I'm excited to see what the Capital Committee does to we we didn't mention that in here. I don't think well.

02:39:40,930	S5:
The overall budget number includes what we spend on capital. And I think that will be one of the ways that we go to control what we do this year. Um, and what's that?

02:39:52,829	S27:
I just assign this.

02:39:54,129	S5:
Oh, yeah. You have. Yes. Um, so and as I said, it's early in the process for everybody. I think that the number that the schools put in front of everybody at the five boards meeting is not going to be their final number. Um, uh, I'm.

02:40:10,399	S19:
You know, I look at this.

02:40:12,129	S25:
Uh, optimistic.

02:40:13,469	S19:
Expenses, Joe. And I think every year, I mean, you're talking a 3.5% increase.

02:40:20,399	S16:
That's that's.

02:40:21,829	S19:
Very modest. That's very understandable. It's very acceptable.

02:40:27,329	S5:
We try we're doing our best.

02:40:29,329	S16:
To always.

02:40:29,930	S19:
Do. And that's my point.

02:40:31,729	S16:
And we.

02:40:32,629	S19:
Don't get a.

02:40:33,329	S16:
Lot.

02:40:33,569	S19:
Of things done that we need to get done.

02:40:36,170	S5:
And trees.

02:40:37,569	S17:
We need more trees.

02:40:38,629	S19:
Trees.

02:40:39,399	S5:
Sidewalks, little sidewalks. We're we're working on it. Um, I think that's it's a team effort. All the department heads are involved in that. The fin com is involved in that. We are. I think we've made some investments in certain places and been able to move ahead in certain places. It just has to pick which places you're doing each year. You can't you can't do all of it in one year. So we're going to keep doing that.

02:41:02,729	S19:
That's true. But I always am impressed that the town cuts the budget right to the bare bones. That's that's a compliment, saying that the town does what needs to be done, then there's not a lot of frills and excess spending and that the town is accountable to, to the residents. And we know where the money's going. So I think you're doing a good job. Thank you.

02:41:31,729	S5:
I appreciate it. I appreciate all the help that we get to from from John and and com and Wendy and the department heads.

So. 02:41:39,870	S1:
All right. Um, I believe the last item is whether or not we have any new business.

02:41:48,129	S1:
I'm full up on business.

02:41:50,129	S4:
I do. I do like your idea about, you know, what do we communicate to the community in April? We should really start thinking about that.

02:41:57,200	S5:
Yeah. Can I have my pin back?

02:41:58,600	S27:
You may.

02:41:59,399	S1:
Um, I agree, I think.

02:42:01,629	S4:
Opportunity, I think. If we don't.

02:42:03,469	S27:
Absolutely I agree.

02:42:04,670	S1:
Yeah. So we can start doing. I mean, assuming that we're waiting on the, the decision, um, for some of that, but I think taking what you showed tonight, I also think that there needs to be some additional transparency to the, uh, comments of, uh, Tosh and and Deb, like, what? Form based code without three a still has a component of by right housing, and with three A there's plus there's a, you know, a version of form based code that doesn't have any by right, housing, it could still have special permit or it could still have caps. I think we need to sort of put those different options up on some sort of really simple slide so that people understand, you know, kind of what we're going around with here, right? Which is like you can have A but not B, but if you have B, you also have to have C. And if you do see you actually agreed with A. And I think that's we need to figure out a simple way to visualize that conversation for folks. Um, so again people know what they're voting for and what it means. Um, but I think in earnest, that will probably start in January or February once we.

02:43:12,030	S27:
Have.

02:43:12,829	S1:
More data. I love a good PowerPoint slide, though, so count me in.

02:43:18,030	S27:
Cool. Sounds good.

02:43:19,200	S1:
I'll entertain.

02:43:20,129	S27:
Oh.

02:43:20,829	S19:
I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn for the evening.

02:43:23,770	S27:
Any second.

Second. 02:43:25,469	S1:
All in favor?

02:43:27,329	S27:
Aye.

02:43:27,829	S5:
Aye.

02:43:28,469	S27:
Thank you.

02:43:30,430	S5:
Um.