The task force spent significant time discussing the proposal from Weston and Samson, which included tasks such as background data collection and assessing the capabilities of the Department of Public Works (DPW). Members expressed dissatisfaction with the high cost of the proposal and considered reducing the scope of work to make it more financially manageable. There was consensus to retain task one, which involved essential background data collection, but task two, examining the DPW’s capabilities, might be omitted to save costs. The group also scrutinized task three, which entailed examining all properties, particularly focusing on residential properties and their classification.

Members debated the necessity of examining residential properties in detail. The discussion included a potential reclassification of property types to exclude residential properties, multifamily units, and condos, which could streamline the task. There was an ongoing debate about property classification, with different codes discussed, such as 1010 for single-family homes and 1020 for condos. The need to clarify these classifications was highlighted to ensure the assessment scope was appropriately narrowed.

The financial implications of the proposed tasks were a concern, as the task force had already spent a considerable amount on previous work with CI over multiple years. Members speculated that reducing the scope, such as excluding minor structures like decks and patios, might help lower the overall costs, but acknowledged it may not impact the total price. This urgency underscored the need to finalize decisions on prioritizing tasks and gathering accurate and up-to-date information to establish a critical baseline for future assessments.

The group also discussed the accuracy of GIS data used in the stormwater report, particularly concerning parcel counts and impervious area statistics. There was uncertainty about the age of the data, with concerns that the GIS database might have been updated shortly before a presentation, while the report itself dated back to March. This potential disconnect raised doubts about the data’s reliability, especially considering the emergence of new properties since 2023.

A consensus emerged on the need to refine the financial approach, particularly concerning commercial properties, while members felt comfortable with the residential rate structure under discussion. The group highlighted the necessity of receiving updated land use categories from assessors to inform the rate structure. Participants contemplated reducing the overall scope of tasks to save costs, estimating potential savings of almost $20,000 by eliminating certain tasks and reducing the number of meetings with consultants.

The billing structure was another focus, with discussions on the potential for sending out bills quarterly or twice a year to save costs. The costs associated with sending out bills led to a discussion about contracting out services, which would become necessary as the customer base increased.

Streamlining meetings with consultants was also considered, with proposals to reduce the number of public information sessions and small group meetings. The task force aimed to cut the total number of meetings from sixteen to eight. Members expressed a desire to finalize their scope of work and budgetary needs, acknowledging financial constraints and considering the potential use of additional funds from Chapter 90 for stormwater projects.

Issues of equity in the fee structure were debated, particularly whether to exclude residential properties from calculations based on impervious surfaces. The current threshold of ten square feet was deemed insignificant for larger commercial properties, where fees are calculated by square footage. Some members suggested exemptions for properties with impervious surfaces below a certain threshold, though others felt this could complicate the fee structure unnecessarily.

The task force recognized the importance of clear communication about the purpose of the fees, framing them as a necessary contribution to infrastructure rather than a punitive tax. Concerns about public pushback were acknowledged, recalling previous discussions where fees had stirred concern among residents. Members underscored the need for a simple, uniform fee structure to avoid significant disparities and potential negative reactions from the public.

In response to the need for cost reductions, members proposed setting up a Zoom meeting with Weston and Samson to explore ways to reduce the project’s scope. The conversation then touched on the master plan steering committee, with updates on necessary corrections and alignment with stormwater infrastructure maintenance goals. The task force also noted the importance of having an updated hazard mitigation plan to address climate change impacts.