##VIDEO ID:79D8wTi_6FM## 7 o'clock I'll call the finance committee meeting to order on Wednesday October 7th we have in the room Mory kraton Tom Parkins Peter Twining and myself Sarah Mish there's nobody under the finance committee on Zoom I expect more members will be joining us but I'm not sure so the purpose of this meeting is to have a Hands-On Workshop to go through the NBTA communities act thisal analysis my expectation is that we will not be taking comments from the public that this is really just a workshop for us to work through the issues and get it finalized there's Dean ntis um and then at 7:30 Chris La point from greenbell is going to be joining us to go over the CPC request for 250,000 so we'll break the workshop at that point and then we'll reconvene the workshop hi Andy hi Donna come on in Andy has joined us um Gail is under the weather and will not be on Zoom tonight she'll be taking minutes off the recording and she's asked people to remember when you speak to speak loudly towards the camera because some people have soft voices somehow yes somehow she never complains about my voice you don't to laugh so loud I'm mumbled so so we've been asked to do this fiscal analysis of the MBTA communities act um in order to distribute it to the taxpayers prior to our vote on our town meeting vote on November 18th and the planning board has asked us to complete it sooner rather than later so it's available when they start doing public hearings um they did receive yesterday the input from the state on our preliminary submission um there were no issues with the district selected there were there was like two minor comments regarding the actual zoning Provisions I think it's with respect to special permits in accessory structures nothing material nothing material um so that's good news we weren't way off Bas um so so we need to kind of resolve the methodology we're going to use to do this fiscal analysis and I've done all sorts of calculations um as we discussed at our last last meeting the um rkg has produced a report a propensity for change where they have looked at the acquisition costs and the construction costs and determine that there are only 34 hi hi Mike on in have a seat um that there are only 34 units it's likely to be built in the area inside of 12 because the majority of the infill is is like one or two units and so it's not financially feasible to to do large scale developments um and then they also said that the Brady property was financially feasible to build up to the 100 units it's a lot okay um so we as everyone's aware we did a financial impact of the SLV project 40b project um that project was a little different in that we had actual floor plans we had room we had apartment sizes we had number of bedrooms and we did two calculations one was based on um proposed new residents based on the number of bedrooms and the other was based on the number of new units and when we get down to the numbers we came to a very similar result for the number of projected School AG children different from what was in their report right um and so what I'm suggesting is we do the 34 separate from the 100 okay okay um the 34 it seems to me that we need to rely on the number of new units and not try to guess how many bedrooms there might be because there's no requirements in the law despite the letter in the editor last week there's absolutely no requirement for a developer to build any size any units with any certain numbers of bedrooms I thought it says familyfriendly which would imply that it's greater than one bedroom whether was two three four but it's but it's not required under the law so that the family friendly was just their commentary as the accuse for the law but in the actual law itself and what we submitted in our zoning to the state which they preliminarily approved there is absolutely no restrictions on the types of units you can build any one one two three or any number of bedroom any number of bedrooms there's no restrictions what we've restricted is the number of units that can be built on on a certain property and you're constrained by coverage requirements and height requirements as to how much square footage you can build and therefore the number of potential bedrooms so if a developer finds that it's more profitable for them to build a bunch of one bedrooms then a bunch of three bedrooms then that's what we just have to State the basis of our assumptions right so so I'm suggesting for the area within 128 that we just look at the number of new units as 34 which is what the propensity for change study came up with sorry I came in late yeah 134 so 34 within the 128 area and 100 out at Beaver Dam Road I get the 100 I get the 100 34 seems crazy low right whatever could be fit in and the gaps it was looking at acquisition costs and construction costs because the whole area is already built up um you in effect have to tear down a structure probably to build new a new unit and we've constrained the maximum number of units so much that it's not financially feasible on the smaller lots to create large am of units so all of Pine Street um we've said the maximum number of units you can have on a lot is five so if you already have two or three you're limited to adding two or three was P Street a four story or two and a half limit two and a half that's a two and a half um the and so there were only oh I I have that report there were only two properties on Pine Street that were deemed to be financially feasible to develop and those were the two property the two single family homes right in front of Newport Park I just at at a super high level the original number and don't tell me if I'm off by rout but the original number was like 550 somewhere around right right and then the 550 came down to like again 300 I was going to say 350 yeah that's what I was going to say and the reason you went from 550 to 350 is just the simple math if you designate a certain part of town that already has the exact same density that the law requires then you can obviously tick that box but no developer is going to right why would they when they can't add any units what's what's the point right right right so I get I so I get the 550 to 350 but now I'm I'm trying to reconcile the 350 to one CU that's another huge drop right and I think it is um the report we distributed last week because the lots are so small the acquisition and the acquisition costs are so high and construction costs are so high that the lots are not large enough to build a lot of new units and therefore it's not financially feasible just seems like I don't know a lot of assumptions in there because I don't know construction I mean I'm not a general contractor I you know I mean that's not my but you know I don't know to try to make it some and then to your point okay so some of those lots are small but then right if the developer can buy two lots like you know clearly if if if a developer can come in and buy up a lot of lots from a lot of different people then yes they can assemble a bigger piece and and put it together um I think one of the advantages and I'm going to say this as not being fully supportive of the new law but also feeling that we need to comply that one of the advantages is that the cost require a lot in Manchester is so expensive right but the RSE is true you get more on the back end right so you do that goes both ways but this this was the study that was commissioned by um AR KY so we can use that as a given for our study or we can dispute it I mean I didn't see anything wrong with it um because I think that Pine Street is a place where there's some larger Lots but by restricting it to a maximum of five units plus you can't have more than three units in anyone's structure so you're you're forcing away from an apartment building type built um into these the smaller and so therefore you need larger footprint and give coverage giving coverage is only so much footprint you can fit on a lot um I didn't look at the rkg thing so I can't really you know but the one that the one rkg thing I have on the brain is I did look at that study they did for Needum and the Assumption they used for students was ridiculous now that's obviously not relevant to their math on development costs and all that but I'm just I'm just I have that in the brain and that's something they did and that you mean relative to impact on the schools yeah like you know whatever the you know say it was 200 new units whatever was for need them their assumption was like 08 or something like what next ours is even less and um I got information from the schools hyal student increase with 34 four units they no it would be only if you look at the number of units in Manchester only um 27% there's only one 27% of the units number have a child yeah yeah but that's that's that's Apple you know because if you're comparing a 100 new brand new condos up on the other side of 128 that's a different structure than I mean the whole town obviously I'm concentrating on the 34 first because I agree with the 100 on the other side of 128 I think we need to use a calculation more tailor towards what Lop was doing yeah and work off of that but I think the 34 in town the thing that makes the most sense is to um base it on the number of units so the um the school information is where is it are you looking at the no I'm looking at Manchester So currently Manchester has the the the enrollment number expected as of 101 is 651 children in mchest in the public school system back in 2020 there were 823 um so we've lost 70 yeah H students from from Manchester since 2020 um and the so when you take the current number of units of 2433 divided by the number of students you come up with 27% number when the SLV study was done was a 32% I know we had taken a harder more conservative look yeah we took like the number of households and the number of students in kind of ratio right I thought I thought I remember 45% that so does that mean for the 34 units it'd be like or so yes yeah nine kids yeah so the 34 would be nine kids um versus if we looked at it the way we looked at SLB I those numers so that was very distributed across single bedrooms where we didn't have any kids two bedrooms where we had a ratio of small number of kids and then three bedrooms where we assumed that'd be at least some so you used a 32% number but that but that's Blended across one two and three bedrooms yes right that was 137 units because obviously for one bedroom one bedroom usum obviously right right so it doesn't seem like a terribly different result no right yeah so um and then of course the issue so the current cost per student is now 2,099 based on that 651 count and the budget fiscal 25 budget um in when we did SLV it was 18225 student in 2020 so we're not we're not putting debt in there operating so I think there should be some discussion about whether we're putting Deb in because we've got high school that's halfway through with working life and we're carrying that debt we've got Memorial School which is at the very infancy of its life and we're carrying that debt and so to do a per student cost and not throw debt in and I know it's all about incremental student ads but you're not going to build new buildings if you've lost 60 odd students no but at some point in there you got to to De with that and the the study for the new school is way down on the number of students what doesn't the operating cost factor in the debt I think the debts about two million and the operating is 16.3 so the debt is not a very large port but I remember with our SLV calculation we came up with about 186 on operating on students per Manchester and when you threw debt in there it pushed that number up to 22,000 it was significant yeah I mean you went 15.1 million and that was Prem Memorial School build being built not to I I'll be honest the only number I've heard that I agree with so far is the 25,000 I I think the 134 is too low and I think the ratio we used is too low but the ,000 that I'm fine from school no but the point is you could go down Mor's Road and you could actually you could go high you could go high he calls it debt I would call it capx the same thing but you could go higher because you're just covering operating you're not covering cap and and I think what we're trying to accomplish is what is the impact to the town of adding additional units and if we don't need if we if we're going to have fewer students even with additional units than we had when all the buildings were built then we're not looking at the need to increase infrastructure in order to cover the projected number of additional students and I think that's the difference I think it would be a whole different ball game if there were going to be so many students that we needed to add a building that's but that's where the 134 comes into play versus the 350 right if someone has a CST the ball and says that the 134 is like 100% accurate then I agree then there's no way you can be entertaining a new school because even if you had one new student for each unit which is you know that's not going to be enough to build a new school but if if it if it does turn out to be 350 units and each one of those units has one like then you actually can start to get out one that you might I need school right but the other thing you have to remember is in the state compliance month the assumed square footage per unit was a th000 square feet including common areas so as much as they said familyfriendly a thousand square feet including common areas is not very family friendly but that's that's a bare minimum that was that's that was the the compliance model used that number in order to come up with the we density counts so that's the number that was applied right and let's say I'm talking about the stuff no 128 right just because you know I mean that could be a th000 feet per unit it could be 2,000 per unit it could be 3,00 right like could be and so I'm suggesting for the the proportion north of 128 that we use the proportion that SLV had in their plans regarding one bedrooms two bedrooms and three bedrooms yeah I I I still that's way too low like we knew we knew exactly us we knew how many one bedrooms we know how many so we were able to actually do a very good estimate because we were able to look at the one bedrooms and say that's going to be zero students per unit right it's like a reality but right this is much more well and we don't even know if that Beaver Dam row number one we don't know if he's going to sell it there probably likely isn't but even if he does we don't know whether it even be for families whether it would be for seniors they're not precluded from building things for seniors we just couldn't mandate it but like I think part of our job is to air on the side of conservativeness or caution like right like I'm not saying you go to this extreme or you say 552 units times two students per unit but I'm also saying you don't go like you know you try to find a happy middle ground right yep or at least make an attempt to say this we feel this might be conservative let's Round Up to 150 you can go use that as a basis right like better to go too better to estimate too much they come in the other way than to be come in upside down right I mean what I'm proposing isn't that much more right from 34 to 50 so another thought on this and it's it's probably not totally PC but if you think about shingle play Hill those are pretty highend units and they're calling them affordable right but they're not affordable right I mean they're you're talking the 4 Shing yeah okay so that's a totally different economic Market potentially than what we're talking about about affordable housing being threaded through the community here but the the the the so we have permission to go up to 20% affordable but again it's at the 80% of Ami right now a developer can build something at 30% of Ami if you want but the the Restriction we had in the law was the maximum we could go with was 20% at 80% of am which is the same as so so the revers so 80 at a minimum 80% in our full market right that's allowed yes and and then maybe up to 20 is well no we've mandated 20% for anything with five or more units and they can't make a payment in lie of making of creating a unit like they can today so like the surf Village they paid the afford Housing Trust $178,000 for an affordable unit and they sold each of those Condos for 1.2 million so so 100 so 100 units of Bea Dam 20% have to be yes and then 80% are full right yeah um the importance of the number we come up with is merely to indicate to town meeting the impact I mean there's no would there be any reason to be other than conservative that is on the high side no I think we need to be reasonable I I think that people out there are panicking saying oh my God we're going to add a thousand kids to the school system the reality is we're not because the reality is that you can only add one or two units to some of these Lots but to go all the way to nine if I understand correctly seems stream in the opposite direction but but that's what the consultant determined I understand understand but we're asking for an independent determination of the cost I think that's our job isn't it that's what we're doing this evening right but we have to have data upon which we base it we think that they we must use their data that's what I'm suggesting I I think it's a valid report look I'm I'm all for a happy medium I mean I could certainly go to The Other Extreme I've seen I'm sure you've seen you know the Middleboro one yeah you know which is crazy a little bit you know they they're assuming it's only two or three bedrooms which is not the law they're assuming 1.25 students per unit right which yeah it's high but like that's yeah but to me honestly I could I put my hand on the Bible and a i 75 to one like to me like that's that's not unreasonable especially if we're talking about the 100 units on the other side because if you're talking two three four bedrooms to assume an average of one for each I don't think that's that's not unreasonable but it's not what we have today but but we don't have an apple to app we don't have a thing like that like you're talking comparing that to the Blended average of the town right the existing residents right we don't have 100 unit structure with just two three four better p is my point that's that's a unique new thing don't that so you're right for the for the units inside 128 you're right it's hard to argue against the Blended right because okay but I'm saying okay for that one it absolutely can be very difficult right which is right yeah there's probably also a Time phasing going on here too you know you implement this you know of the 34 we might see four or five or six in the first three or four years now we might see who knows it might be linear or whatever the 100 could be six years in the years yeah who knows or it could be but it could be instantaneous too like I mean you just don't know right I mean except that what the developers who were on the task force were saying is that a storage unit business is very profitable from a cash flow standpoint and it's much more profitable then rentals residential rentals less hassle less hassle no repairs no nothing yeah the boxes don't complain and so it it makes it more difficult to sell a property like that to make it into residential because the current use is a more profitable use that's Beau I disagree with that well I mean look just because the numbers would indicate that the person should sell doesn't mean they will of course right we don't know like that right that happens but there's no question in my mind the math would say that he should it's no question whether you will or not I don't know TS would buy it you put it on the Marine you know mean but I just you know there's nothing there's nothing to compare for an existing situation for housing in town right for like a new 100 years you know right and and then like the other thing when you compare this pwn to I'd argue many other towns in the state to me it's it's a very different animal because we have a very good school system and you don't have to go too far for like not as good school systems right so to me I could I could draw people right I could I could show you 15 towns within a 30 minute radius where those public schools are not as good and so the second an opportunity right it'd be very different down in Welsley West and Wayland where like right if school system right if you're already in Wayland are you going to jump to Sudbury or Welsley or whatnot right like it's all the same thing we're different right like there's not you know yeah so explain to me maybe others okay let's let's 7:30 let's pause this discussion and switch over to the green B discussion I appreciate that and also would offer if you want to continue this conversation I I have nowhere else to be and it's interesting so it's entirely your choice I appreciate you accommodating my being here let's switch over the green B and get back to okay we have Crystal Point here from Green Bel good evening everyone Crystal point I'm president of ESS Green Belt appreciate time on the agenda this evening uh I have some some maps of the project area that I can pass oute um as you are likely aware um green belt is U working on a project in Manchester and Gloucester we have the opportunity to acquire about 330 acres of land on at the end of col Road in Manchester you runs across the border into glester and is adjacent to all of the existing conserved land up around cranberry pond it's just across the tracks from Hooper tras and then ABS more than a thousand acres of land that is owned by the city of Gloucester for watered protection purposes um for those of you who've been in town for a long time you will recall the the first phase of this conservation project in the late 1990s there was a development proposed um on the Manchester acreage at the end of clover Road the conservation effort was uh was organized in which 120 of the 150 acres in Manchester ultimately was protected with a conservation restriction and Philip Normandy was a conservation buyer in that scenario still owns the land now 30 Acres at the top of long hill was left unprotected um developable with access off the end of road but unprotected so the height of land um subsequently that land owner acquired ajacent 180 acres in in Gloucester from Boston main railroad thus the 330 acre assemblage uh we have the the opportunity to acquire all of acreage we have it under agreement for $3 million the the plan plan would be to for green belt to own all of the property and have the management responsibility going forward so hopefully you're familiar with green belt but we've you know we we own we've protected more than 21,000 Acres across the county but we own more than 8,000 acres of land all of which is open in public free of charge from Dill dusk for Passive Recreation so uh hiking biking skiing um uh and and so forth so the plan would be for us to own the land and be responsible for management making sure that the public has a good experience out there um on the glosser side the city has agreed to hold a conservation restriction over that acreage so an additional layer of protection over over that land um and on the Manchester side um we have submitted a request to the community preservation committee U for a $250,000 investment from Manchester into the project should that go forward should that be approved at town meeting the the town of Manchester through the Conservation Commission would hold a conservation restriction over what is currently unprotected on the Manchester Tech the rough on scenario would not acquire that L I'm just a little confused about the particulars here with respect to Manchester yes it would be a restriction a conservation restriction it would not be ownership green Bel would not seek ownership of that land green Bel would own the land would own the land then what's the necessity for a restriction yeah so a couple of things the the funding plan for the whole project is um uh of the $3 million purchase price we have a $1.1 million Grant from the state through the landscape partnership program um that grant program uh requires that um one we have Partners from the public and private sector um so green belt Manchester USS conservation trust city of Gloucester potentially the city of the town of Manchester um the the grant program requires that a component of this is that all of the land ultimately is protected by conservation restriction um but the the request to Manchester is really as part of the the funding Matrix that can make this happen we $1.1 million identified from the state we have um close to another 1.4 million identified between Foundation requests lead gifts request funds other fundraising that we're going to undertake and so of our of our funding gap which is around $550,000 we're asking Manchester to be a partner in the project to invest in a conservation restriction on the Manchester side so the overall that of gler also on their land so we have asked that of of Gloucester the difference between the land in Gloucester and the land in Manchester is notable so the the land in eng Gloucester certainly has value um it does not have access it does not have appraisable development value so their Community preservation committee um cannot and and therefore the conservation restriction that they would hold does not have value um their the city supports conservation of their acreage uh but Gloucester owns already you know north of 5,000 acres of land and they don't want to own and manage more land so they support the project as a holder of a conservation restriction because there is not appraisable development value of the Gloucester land that conservation restriction has virtually no value and the city cannot put public money into that portion as opposed to the Manchester side the developable portion of of land at the end of colber road has significant value the the appraised value of the conservation restriction $1.35 million that's been provided to the community preservation committee and so the request of the town is to help the overall project get done and and put 250 towards the CR that's worth 1.35 who owns the land in Manchester right now Philip to Normandy how many AC on the Manchester side yeah it's 150 acres 30 of which is unrestricted presently so 30 acres is developing right and the rest is restricted the rest is subject to a conservation restriction that's been in place since the late 1990s right so if the rest is subject to conservation restriction already why do you need to own it I mean if it's already restricted um strictly speaking we don't need to own it um we're buying the whole the whole the whole package so that we can own it manage it as a unit um fold it up right but but you could just buy the 34 acres and the whole thing would still be protected right theoretically yep but that's that's also not the not the the piece of land that's being offered but you are you are correct we could just buy the unprotected acreage the remaining acreage could be privately owned subject to the restriction and would be would be just fine the opportunity that we see is is acquiring and bringing all of that acreage into common ownership and and making sure that um it is a public resource going forward but if you acquired you will have a rest rtion on a whole piece of land right we will 30 AC everything will be subject to a restriction so if the town invests will be subject to a a restriction held by the Conservation Commission the existing Manchester essic conservation trust restriction on the other 120 will stay in place and then there will be one on on the land in BL what if we don't pay 250 if if the town is not a partner in the Pro in the project project we will do what we always do which is is do the best we can to find replacement money from other sources and if that's the case we're able to find money from private sources or other sources uh Manchester Essence conservation trust would hold the restrictions so that we are so that we're able to comply with the state Grant you're probably not going to know this top of your head but I'll ask anyways do you know property tax revenue 15,000 bucks a year so that goes away I assume no oh I don't know is your land subject to taxes if we own it the land would be tax exempt tax exemp yeah pay money out the door and lose annual revenue I'd love some just talk a little bit about I can understand that so everything within the red I want to be sure I understand is what in one way or another you're seeking to purchase or otherwise correct fire in some way and that just so it goes through some very strange gations am I am I thinking about that the land that is on on the glosser side in particular does go through does have these these old wood Lots yes so if you were to see a plan of this whole area on the late from the early 1900s this whole thing is carved up into these long skinny Lots oh my so owns these bits so actually so I'm following I mean all this is the outline of the full acquisition AC unrestricted portion of the Manchester land thank you thank you and the square was is a piece of land that the town owns which was part of that original project in the late 90s and I believe that that has the potential to be a water tower or that Tower or fire tower but it is at it's at a high point another question don't know this this 30 Acres the part that is devolva like how many houses in theory could be built on that likely three single family homes that's the that's the basis of the appraisal par that's the that's the that's the highest and best use appraisal think get so yeah so so we didn't analyze what the most insane buildout that's possible so that's a different so let me clarify what my answer is the appraisal of of this property looked at the 30 Acres on a three lot buildout because three giant Lots at the top of the hill has the highest value that's what the that's what a what what the the easiest to develop least infrastructure highest return um in that neighborhood is likely to large Lots um that's not to suggest that there's I mean that the land that top of the hill is high and dry it's 30 Acres it's high it has fuse or is it covered your second floor by trees it's covered up by trees now I'll come out this way I know Sarah will know the what's minimum building I think is this District D it would be two acres AC so I don't know the design I don't know the frontage obviously but just the true answerers probably more also existing Trails I think trails and the existing Road for Access hiking and Wilderness Trails the doted yell where's where's the here yes oh yes it's very ft it's not right I think the you know the the conservation of land in this area is called out in your master plan it is a it is a you know this type of land conservation it's called out in your open space plan it protects cat Brook protects Wolf Trap Brook it is the it's a always a fair question in conversation about whether it's an appropriate investment what does the town get for it the town's own planning documents identify the areas as critical to being protected so that's that's the starting point and this is a tremendous recreational resource of regional importance and it's um you know packaged at this point in a way where we're able to bring the opportunity to the town at a fraction of the total cost using CPA funds cash on hand my understanding is it's about a half million dollar in cash on hand it's still our taxes 100% I pay I pay into the CPA in Hamilton and we've made choices about spending our tax money on I guess what I struggle with is I have no issue with putting a conservation restriction on Town own land I struggle with paying for a conservation restriction on land that's being purchased by a nonprofit that's going to protect it anyway that's what I struggle with if I could if I could clarify so that's a that would be a fair question if I were coming to you today and saying Green Belt owns this land and would like you to pay pay us for a conservation restriction what we're what we're actually saying is we have the contract right to buy this land we're amassing funds from the Commonwealth from a grant program we're raising money from foundations we're asking the town to be a partner in the acquisition we're all going to go to this closing together the fact that you um we're the the the conservation moment happens at that closing so we would all be there together it enables the whole Transaction what you're saying right we're already short of money right we're already trying to come up with money for schools past like all this stuff like I mean if you can put together the transaction privately or with you know teral funds like more power to you because it's still a net negative because we still lose the 15 grand a year in property taxes right but to suggest that we come up with Town money to like out the door and like that's I think one thing to think about here isold is one the 15K in taxes may have may just disappear anyway because this project may go forward whether Manchester is part of it or not and the second part of it is it's it's a little different than tax dollars that can be allocated anywhere so this is CPC and as you remember and Dean can speak this but CPC is basically open space Recreation historic preservation [Music] affortable housing and we've got we collect into that every single year and you've heard me say over and over we have all these applications come and we built these vinyl signs at singing Beach you know that Teeter and totter and we spent a crap load of money on CW Chapel you know and you know Roofing and pointing I mean $600,000 went into uh C Chapel over the course of like five years so these funds are some what restricted and how they can be used and and I think that is something we really need to take into consideration here because they're just gonna sit there waiting for the next project I'm 100% with you that we need to be more targeted sophisticated educated strategic whatever word you want to use on CPC F I'm 100% with you on that and and but to me that's like a separate conversation like that's you know what I mean like yeah but I don't think it really is I mean we struggle to use CPC funds for affordable housing and and the problem is in order to make a dent and affordable housing you need to probably have close to a million dollars to buy a lot or seed money to do something significant and we're not there and then we're always struggling to figure out what could we do with this and at the same time I think the taxpayers ask a reasonable question which is you're collecting this money but how long are you going to sit on it not do anything with it so you know here's a project coming along that has some benefit to the town has some benefit to a lot of things going on and I would Advocate that it's got more benefit than building more lights in the corner of things and vinyl sides and stuff like that which I mean we're so restricted on this we can hardly use it for Library Renovations because it doesn't fall within historic stuff so we got roofs falling down but we can't use funds on it again I'm 100% with you C is a problem and if it was up to me I'd blow the whole thing out and I I would eliminate it I'm like if that's the road you want to go down I'm I'm down that road I'm way ahead of you because I think it's you're right it's crazy but that doesn't mean you just kind of do a hurry up and like well you know here it is and so like it seems so counterintuitive and illogical that on the one hand we spend the first 30 minutes talking about adding housing and now we're going to do something that detracts from the ability to build more houses whether it's three houses or five or whatever that like that seems crazy to me I can't like and we can also amass funds up to the million I mean we could the answer to the public is we're amassing it towards public housing you said which is affordable housing which is a million to play in the field to be fair the affordable housing trust has 1.5 million to okay and we've been donating like 200,000 a year okay okay so we do we were told thank you for the comment y we were told at the end of last year the CPC anyway that it would be okay to build a kitty because they were talking about Sweeney Park the senior center an outdoor bathroom the Newport parking area singing Beach Bathouse I mean there is a list of of good things that we can be doing if we build a kitty but um getting back to the other question about this not being um a purchase but it was a a um a thing that I brought up at the CPC meeting that were under open space acquisition and is it with respect to the town it's more open space preservation um that that there is a Distinction on the on the application that from Manchester's standpoint is it's not really an acquisition it is from Green Bel so I had a a procedural thing on what the state would say about that as well as to the qualification for the funds has anyone asked the state I mean I've done this would be probably the the 30th of these that that I've done that CPC funding yes okay so and it's always been under so you would know better no no no no but it and and it's also I mean those are those are those are both allowable yes I I agree that they are allowable uses so it's one of the other an acquisition um finish your comment Chris on when where you're going now right now you I was just I guess I would I would offer if there's a question about that certainly the community preservation Coalition would readily clarify that um uh towns using CPA funds have certainly bought lots of land which is very clear they've also bought conservation restrictions as part of these joint projects so Donovan reservations syamore Hill and Hamilton and IPS Essex same situation Green Belt brought money to the table state grants hamilt M Town bonded $1.75 million of CPA money at town meeting to buy a conservation restriction Essex put CPA money in to buy a restriction DCR we just we all came to the closing together so it's a it's a it's a common um it's a common approach I think Manchester also has history of this because with Al the AL property I think about six years ago we with CBC funds with a restriction yeah it was a little different it was town there more Town access there but we certainly use CPC funds ultimately this you know this would be a question to right exactly not for us to decide we just have to decide whether we're going to support or not but I I had one other um for a reason justify us spending the 250,000 would Green Belt entertain somewhere down the road in the future of working with us if we were to say need to put a third quarter from Atwater AV down to Summer Street through here at some point in the future I mean for what Ro to to relieve School Street and Pine Street as the the development progresses um I mean it I was looking at trying to squeeze something through here I had a nice route but um I I know we're away ways away from that but if stuff gets started build out in the limited commercial District it's really going to put a lot of pressure on those connector roads those two know schools stre particular which is overheating because everyone every student from essics has to go through that Pleasant Street intersection right but your problem is is your access over 128 isn't yes no exactly but I mean in the old days we used to build Bridges and that's why and the other thing with gler they say there's no access but a simple Bridge off a kondic road or a crossing and all of a sudden that whole are is accessible to they want so you know there is a good reason to to buy that land it's right in their water Shi they're not so I don't know there there's a lot of questions can I just clarify the question that the the city the question about why the city isn't buying it they said that there's because it's not accessible yeah the the number of just like your CPC needs to ensure that the money that is invested is is appraisable right that there's a that there's an appraisal done to appropriate standards that demonstrates that there's value Gloucester would have to do the same thing so you're you're not wrong that if you if someone bought a property on condlin road and negotiated rights to cross the railroad and then got to this land that perhaps they could do something no appraiser is going to assume a plus b plus you know these five things to happen and therefore it's worth a bunch of money the city is not your your town wouldn't want to invest money in that in the city won't either so I agree with you and a reason we're interested in it is yes I think there is development potential there but it's not a phras as it sits today I would support the use of CPC money or something like this because I think it has value uh for the town um preservation of this kind of property I think has value um and especially in light of you know regardless of where we go with CPC down the road we have it today there's money in the in the account and I would much rather see it go towards some sort of tangible even if you know we're not necessarily holding the rights to it it's being held you know on our behalf and and I think uh it's a it's a far better use than the Myriad projects be that crazy I mean some of the CBC funds have gone towards good stu things right like to do Renovations on things that otherwise the town would have had to well didn't we didn't CBC money go TN Street field yes it that's right it was a natural field it couldn't go toward stff talked about that c they got by the maintenance Turtle somehow right it was maintenance main right defers so long that it becomes rehab that seems to be the the strategy a lot of there are a lot of constraints on its use so I think for the bath house for example you know it used to have like Cedar floors or something and they wanted to go with plastic materials because of bare feet and plastic materials don't qualify for historic preservation so you know suddenly it can't be used for this or that I mean it's there the little narrow Pathways where um no we're on the same page that at a high level it's like more trouble than it's worth I think right especially at a 14% it's like we're chasing right what what was it 14 14 down from 100 we're chasing a 14% match it's like you know it's like someone telling me they're saving money on taxes because they're spending more money on interest to get the deduction it's like okay so not coming out the right way where are you falling on this time kind of see both sides of it I'm still struggling I think I'm leaning towards Mory and Andy but against yes I'm in of support the road yeah so have we discussed it enough yes um I'll make a motion at the town of Manchester support we investment of $250,000 for the purchase of this uh to support the purchase of this property using CPC funds on hand 5 Seconds a second and seconds any more discussion take a vote Mike no Dean yes Tom yes Peter no Andy yes Mor yes votes yes so we'll support I appreciate it okay back to the workshop on the MBTA zoning fiscal analysis I a question so explain to me so I have a good understanding maybe for other people too what's the negative side of taking a slightly more conservative approach on the stud issue as Mike is suggested I just think it needs to be realistic okay um that the challenge I have is we've lost 167 Manchester students in five years I struggle to find out to to figure out how 34 new units will aviously impact the cost of our schools that's where I'm coming from I agree I think the 100 out of Beaver Dam Road that's a different store but I I think that the 34 units within the 128 Zone I I just struggle to figure out how it's going to impact us from a financial stand here's the problem with using the current and you take what is it 22 household 2200 household whatever the toal 2433 2400 you take those 2400 households and you say Okay across the board right you're taking one number and it's 27% or whatever it is and to use that same number for like 10 new units 20 whatever you know it there's a lot more to it than that right like meaning I almost want to look at the last I don't know 100 real estate transactions in town and see like who you know who moved in because my gut would say it's not you know a 80-year-old elderly couple moving in to buy a new it's it's a young family like happened near me you know what I mean so like it's changing the demographic I guess what I'm struggling I understand what you're saying Mike what I'm struggling with is the fact that this finance committee put together a report SLV and they used the 32% number which was based on the number of students per unit in Manchester and so now I'm struggling with why would we adopt a different approach um for a similar type situation at a bare minimum that 32 is Blended across one two and three bedrooms right forv right it was it was it was 32 32% of the units would have schoolage children and that's the number that was used that's a blended across the one-bedroom two-bedroom three so my point is that's an average we plugged in a zero for the one-bedrooms and then we plugged in a number for the two bedrooms and a number for the three bedrooms and the average of those three is that 32 right so why why is this any different why would why if the number is now declined to 27% why is that any different than the the the thought process used to get to the 32% that's what I'm struggling with why is that not acceptable anymore okay so why why would the ratio of rooms be different like units with three bedrooms two bedrooms one just so I'm clear the 32 was what we use festively right the 27 is just that's the that's the across theboard average for the whole town yep am I right y okay so so to say that it declined from that's apples and ares the 32 is SLV the 27 is just take all the households in town and just divide the kids by the number of households those are two different things right and all I'm saying about the 32 is the 32 is lower than it would have been if let's say it was only two and three bedrooms for SLV let's say it was only three bed right that 32 clearly would have been high right because part of that 32% was zeros for the one bedrooms and I think it was a third I think a third one bedrooms a third two bedroom and the third three if I remember I don't no it was it was um heavily weighted for uh towards two bedrooms rather than three okay yeah okay well my point is there were some one-bedrooms yes I guess that's my end of the day point there was some one-bedrooms in the SLV in my brain I don't see any of these being one bedrooms like why for economics for the fact that I mean we can debate about the you know familyfriendly thing but like I just pulled it up it's it's there like it's St it's not in the law it talks about familyfriendly but the law does not restrict you with respect to the number of bedrooms you need in a unit in both directions and our zoning that we submitted to the state which they gave preliminary approval to does not restrict does not State how many bedrooms there needs to be to unit there's no reference to that at all this is right off section 3A and it has the Clause shall be suitable for families with children I know am I like where where am I reading this what I'm saying Mike is that is a feel-good statement by the state by the state it's not it's not statistic and it's not a requirement that they put in for us to include in our zoning there's no metrics to they put it in because there's an impression that this is for single people I mean the state put the language in the law I mean I I don't I just I don't understand how you can say it's not part of the law it's not part of what we're required to do ver zoning but it's wording in the law it's it's it's not it says familyfriendly is a very um generic term absolutely but bedroom is not familyfriendly like that's like that doesn't but the law the the the regulations do not have any reference to number of bedrooms required that's not what we're required to do we can both be correct on that you can be correct in saying there's nothing in the law that says you can't have one bedrooms but I could also be right saying that the law says suitable for families which implies that like one bedroom doesn't work state is not enforcing that in our zoning the state is not saying we need to include we our zoning needs to reference number of bedrooms so we don't need to do it so it's up to a developer whether they build three bedrooms or one bedroom or 10 bedrooms I guess I won't even then I'll just go defer to economics and the economics would say that they're going to make more money on a two three four bedroom than they would on a one so so sir I hear you talking as being reason right what's that range that would fit within your concept of reason reasonable that's a range that term refers to not just one number because I'm looking for something that's closer to I think the question Tom which is is if anything I'd rather be conservative and have that number within that range you want I was going back to what the finance committee determined was reasonable when they did the SLV no there not okay well I'm not with you are well even if we were ass we 100% knew exactly the data with that sopie I agree with that so so so it is different and this at least at a bare minimum where we don't know like right like we don't know at least SV we knew the all the units the numbers we knew how many were one bedroom how many like so well we don't know what the metrics are are going to be for the development of 100 units I mean they could be the same ratio as SLB and that's what I was suggesting that for the 100 unit one do a pra of the SLV I'm more comfortable with that than dealing with a 34 number model I don't know that two bedrooms are automatically more profitable on a square foot basis than one bedroom so I think SLV put together the the breakdown that they provided to maximize their profits my point is you could assume that the 100 units at Beaver Dam is going to be 101 bedroom units and I could assume they're going to be 104 bedroom units and guess what we both have just as much chance of being correct what I was that's my point where is SLV but neither of us is saying that I'm saying I'm saying Bas it off of unless there's a good concrete argument that's my suggestion for Beaver Dam Road but SLB would we KN like yes but we have to make an assumption and what I'm suggesting for Beaver Dam Road is that we extrapolate from the numbers we had for SL so that it is um I'll tell you the numbers some numbers I did it is 63.7% the size of what we did for SLV because the calculations done for SLV were for 157 units and 100 units is 63.7% yeah so if you took that number times the appraised value they had yeah um and then appraisals have increased 26% since fiscal year 21 in Manchester you would come up with on a praise value of about 37 million which would be taxes about 346,000 this is just be yes just be ratio right to come up with the assessed value and then I'm suggesting that we do the same thing for the school aged children um we had 50 um and if you do a proportion of that yeah which is what you come up with if you do the 27% of the number of units the numbers come out the same I mean I I could I could see okay we look at the ratios that SLB had and we say okay let's just for the sake of conservatism let's be slightly more conservative than SLB was let's let's play with those ratios let's assume that you know instead of you know 30% one bedroom units we're going to say it's 20% and that it's you know it's 40% two bedrooms and you know the remainder or three bedrooms something like that that's that's some sort of a rationale that I think I could you know get behind but if we want to try to be more concertive so on the SLB thing just to go back to that we Mark and I work pretty hard on that and the number we came up with it's closer to nine students and that was because we said Okay a two-bedroom is very po possible to have one student in it and a three bedroom is more likely to have a student or two in right and so we ratioed all that out and at the end of the day I think we all collectively on this committee got cold feet when we said I think it's 96 and SLV came in and said we think it's five we said whoa big gap here let's be safe and average so that's how we came to kind of the 50 I would say maybe we were a little aggressive but we went over those numbers and probabilities and expected numbers of kids a lot I mean we had spreadsheets that were smoking on this thing I think SLB probably said we really want to pass this thing let's just see if we can get away with six and threw that number out so at the end of the day I think if they were more honest their number might have been closer to like 25 we probably would averaged in somewhere around 60 65 maybe 70 but so I just we we keep talking about 50 but I think we did come to middle ground and and and the data point from SLV was in my humble opinion laughably L and and to your point I agree with every like AB probably just threw out the five or six just like why not right like any kind of negotiation we Comm ined whatever you said 996 the second we proposed split in difference that even that number was probably way better right than any number they could hope for so of course they jump on it but that's kind of that situation transactions different I'm with you like if we you said 90 out of what was the total number un 130 157 it's it's can't well it's it's I've got it here see like that but but to your but to this point you know we look at the 34 I think of the 34 is threaded through a community that's already existing so it's it's adding a space to an existing house that sort of thing so it's like it's I I don't think we can sort of say okay it's huge but I think the model for Beaver is different because that's that's like open territory control Al delete what are we going to do with this boom um so it really is two different models when you get down to right that's why separately and that's why if on the 34 we use the current percentage you come up with nine students on that portion and then for increased assess ments you could assume 1500 square feet per un if you want which is not unreasonable Meester and if you used the and you had a 1500 foot square foot unit you would typically have a one bedroom I mean would that be big enough to could be a two bed it could be a sure yeah um if and if you use the assessments from Som Circle which is kind of the the newest build I could find that was multifam those are assessments are like about 350 wor which would bring you in at um which would bring you in assess to 525 um and 525 time 935 this tax is about 49 for not including CBC that's just does that seem reasonable for the 34 my problem with the 34 is the 34 well I I was gonna say um I thought we were like compromising to go from 34 to 50 and even if on what basis that 34 seems low yeah but you can't just say well just slow so we picked 50 out of the starting with 550 so so if we had 50 and even if 550 so if we had 50 and we go with a 35% ratio for students we come up with 15 students but even at that I agree with you that that's almost going to help our SCH system be more it's gonna it's G to help with the ratio with essics it's going to do a lot of things so I don't think the schools are a big negative impact I I think what I'm hear from people is that they're scared about the congestion and the Aesthetics um and that there's a good chance this might not pass is from my my or my barometer from people I know well that's not our problem I know but I'm just saying I'm just what I'm saying let's not beat a dead horse on the students because I don't think the schools is a big factor I think that these other two issues are are much more concern and I don't know how to put a monetary cost on that it's going to be hard once you once you figure out the added population and who that population is then you start thinking about cost to serve that population so to your point Dean if we've got older people we we're dealing with fire and oxygen and you know and that's the cost element if we're dealing with younger people it's a school system and and you know we talk about 18K or 21k or debt load of 25k but if we have a special needs person roll into this equation you know now we're maybe talking 80k we're talking 100K and oh by the way we're carrying that through however many years in the system so it's all part of the cost fabric to go on what the schools are seeing today you can't just saying well we don't think we like the population of the schools so we're going to making an assumption there's going to be more special needs the school numbers take into consideration the special needs in District and out of District that's part of the money and that's when we divide the operating by the number of students the town that's a fair way to look at right but if if if we've lost 167 students in five years right adding whatever the number is is not going to materially impact cost of the schools right and I would venture to say if that Trend continues for another five or seven years we have bigger problems worrying about these 15 students you know that's another so what are we need to agree on we need to agree on some numbers need to agree on the 34 and 100 or something around that we know the Beav long we know the numbers we know that Beaver Dan World cannot be more than 100 because there's a cap in the zone so that is that's limited to 100 100 is one thing that there's no no questions about that one of the few things not them yeah we don't talking about 34 we don't know whether it's going to be familyfriendly we don't know whether it's going to be seniors but I think we have to assume that it's families I mean you know normal Apartments that's I mean I'm more comfortable where we are with deeper I know with the downtown so for Beaver what assumptions are we making so I'm just gonna ask do we have any sense of what our peer communities are doing with mdta on this thing so for example we saw I've seen what Middleboro did which is I'm sorry but a laughing stop um so they went to the state saying it was going to cost them all this money because all of their units were going to be three or four bedrooms and it was going to require them to build new schools it was requiring them to build new water towers and Sewer treatment plants now one of the things in the law is that if if a proposed development if if the current infrastructure water and sew infrastructure is not sufficient to support the osed development you can deny the building say that again if if the existing Water and Sewer infrastructure in a town is not sufficient to support a proposed development you can deny the building part except for us all 40b that's different this is a law and in this law they specifically say if if the town doesn't have the infrastructure to support development you can middleb was using that Middleboro was saying they were going to need all this new infrastructure water and specifically water water and sewer yeah that's why I say what they did was kind of laughable um so another approach Hilton I don't know their water I don't know their water system because this this particular law says if you don't have the infrastructure you can deny the building purose right and what I'm saying is I don't know middle bur's current sewer and water system but I'm saying what if they were at like what if today at 100% of capacity yeah then then clearly adding any units means they they can pass the zoning and then deny all the building permits because they don't have the infrastructure to support it s yeah it's you comply with the law and then you deny the building perms exactly you comply with the law because you've got the law on your side with the water correct you avoid the state suing you and you still have access to gr but sah sounds like what you were saying was they built a case for these extremes of three and four bedroom UNS required in order to make a case that they didn't have the infrastructure their their argument is that the law is an unfunded mandate okay and if it's unfunded mandate the T the state has to fund it and so they were coming up with millions and millions of dollars they said the state would have to pay them to fund them you're saying they want to pay state taxes instead of local taxes yeah I'll be the first be first to agree that they that their assumptions you know obviously were on this end right but I feel like all we're talking about here we're like over here like and so I I just want to be in the middle like I'm not I'm not suggesting EXT you know and to me it's like any other kind of negotiation whether you're negotiating business or a house salary like right you people can start at the extremes and then you right you usually end up haggling to the middle right and you know so over here you got if I the middleb route you got 550 units two kids per unit right that's this extreme and then there the whole water so it's like then you know then you got .27 students per unit you know and 134 over here and like I'm just you know should be in the middle and another one of Hamilton I've heard is joining joining Milton in the yeah that um Zing is not thinking into this argument that has nothing to do with what we need to do right but you you saying other Town yeah I mean there's a group of towns that found you know and the hearing is on October 7th and it's open to that's have we considered [Music] that did not no were they considered not doing it hasn't been a topic okay know so looking for something looking for just on round just on round numbers yeah if you went back to the 823 students that we had five years ago eight 823 and div and you divided it by 2433 households you're at about 34% if you take the declin student number now which is 600 51 students and you divide it by the same number of households 2433 yep you end up with roughly 25% yeah so when you add when you add those up for 134 units 34 at one extreme you got 34 students and in another extreme you've got 46 students so I mean those seem like a reasonable point in sand either of those to go with you know differential between the two is well you know it's right I mean I think we need to come up with a number and get going on this because we got a roll in fire and police and DPW it all builds off of you know if I can make a brief comment I do recall in the SLV that the developer did present a grid of maybe nine or 10 similar developments that he had at 138 not 156 and the student count was somewhere in the 30s I don't remember but it was somewhere in which is the number you're kind of pushing around here but I remember seeing that I can't remember whether he took in know account for one two and three bedrooms but he looked at other developments and he had a lot of them that were all within the 100 to 200 area and said how many kids yeah the problem with that is it's not Apple to Apple to compare manchest by the SE I agree that to Wayland right like I'll pick on Wayland because that's where one of his developments were Wayland is to all the W towns right towns that's my point so if you're already renting in one of those nice towns do Sherborn Wayan Weston you know like there's no incentive to then you know hop to the next town over just because it's a new apartment unit because you're already right where it's very different than us here right like I could right draw radius of 30 minutes and there's plenty of towns that have public schools that are nowhere near as good as ours and so all of a sudden if there's an opportunity to go rent the two-bedroom or three-bedroom you're going to jump up that that's it's very different apples and oranges except the the only counter I'll make to that Mike is the fact that the history over the last five years has shown that families are not moving into Manchester to use the school system because our our student count is declining and can I address that because if to get into access the school system need to buy a house for 1.6 that's very different than if you can go rent a two or three bedroom for 1,825 right like that's that's part of that's part of what explain those are not our rents in town we have lots of rentals but they're not in that price range sure the $8,000 hous is over by right but that's not what that's not Sawmill Brook Sawmill Sawmill Circle 8,000 is 8,000 and their townhous is about 2200 square feet they're not huge mansions several houses for rent right now but they're all four 5,000 and my my point is if you add a 100 units over there Beaver Dam as much as the developer would love it he's not going to get eight grand a month in rent for all those I agree with that like they're going to be Market whatever Mark you know what I mean and and so then but we don't even we don't even know they be rentals they could all be sold as condos and then the condo owner buys it and rents it out so end up at the same place yeah it's it's a challenge because we don't know my point is on the declining enrollment it's just if the only way to access the schools is to either rent a house for eight grand or buy one for 1.6 million that's a much tougher lifts heavier lift than if you can rent a two or three bedroom for you know 2500 three right like those are you know those are two different things I would think we could use the the fact that we have a very highly rated school system is defense for using Mor's conservative numbers the 46 and just leave that that on I agree with that okay does that make sense I think I I go back to what Mor said about the 90 whatever that is 90 whatever we did for Civ you just you said and I appreciate that you and Mark spend a lot of time and you came up with 90 and like that actually smells good right I'm divid by what is it 157 155 like that 90 67% of 90 is 57 students what I'm struggling with is defending the methodology which I think is solid that was used for SL yes but not having the same known factors we dealt with then which I wasn't even around for so I don't I guess I'm struggling with not understanding why we can't on the margin add a couple of heads there as a risk premium for not knowing some of the stuff we need I don't know how that fits into the methodology but does that make sense 10 safy yeah something so go with yeah no some sort of risk premium there just so because we don't we don't have the same knowledge base I like I you know I like the like the rationale for the numbers that Mor was identifying and I can certainly get behind you know having a little bit of padding on top of it simply because we don't know what the development's gonna be and at the end of the day like Dean was saying you know we're struggling with these little numbers for the school system I'm not problem on the margin add adding a few heads to be a little more conservative change the equation no and I I think the other thing we have to recall is because I kind of went through and and wrote down um how many students were in each grade um and there's you know it ranges from low 70s um up to 90s with the exception of grade 11 which is 111 which will be gone in a couple years so we're running in the the 70s to you know low 70s to 90ish people per grade which is which is not very many and the other thing we have to recall is we have something like 82 school choice which the schools have used to fill empty seats is these is total students per grade Essex and Manchester yes yeah Manchester is only between 25 and 60 is that more heavily loaded in the first eight years yeah I was curious about that does it thin out when you get into the last five the high school high school is a little more than the others the kid the the Elementary grades are lower certainly I'm talking about just for Manchester when you look at just Manchester Manchester is is heavily weight more heavily weighted um seventh grade 9th through 12 really yeah just the yeah I don't know but I also think that the thing we have to recall with these numbers is that Co was in 2020 21 and a lot of parents pulled their kids out of the Manchester school who were young the young kids because the schools didn't come back online and the private schools did and then once they went to private school stayed they stayed there um so I think it is you know that subject to change is what you're saying yeah yeah it's hard to correlate those can we work with 50 yep we can use 5050 for all the arguments youve all put forward certain know and certain things that are just not known I need to say for the record that I'm not in agreement at all so I mean I know we didn't take a vote but I'm not in agreement at all that that would be the calculation that would be the calculation if you took the SLV at the 90 y times the smaller size of Beaver Dam no you're using a percentage of5 no no no the number was let me take the 134 divided by 157 right no we can't which would be 86% so using you're using 086 for the Beaver Dam units no this is total so I'm using the total 134 units the total new units of 134 okay and that's 86% of the 157 units originally proposed it s and um 90 times 86 is 77 which seems high to me if you do if you do the 100 the um 64% of the 90 is um 60 is yeah 6 times 90 is 57 so we're using 50 I would say the 50 number sounds reasonable because the 100 you could do a comparison with SLB yeah it's a it's a ratio but the 34 are threaded through the community and it's it's a it's a little ad here in a tear down of a garage a little there it's very into the fabric kind of thing so I don't think and we want to stick with 34 we have no better data what was the total number you at s 157 157 that was what the calculations were done on by the finance committee the actual project came in at 136 after the LI you were doing it during the L okay what so for the assessments can we use the assessment the finance committee came up with for SLV times the percentage y of the 100 and increase it by 26% for the increase in assessments since that year okay and then for the ones in town use 1500 square F feet at the 3 350 and that comes out to what number it's just okay that calculation comes out to how many students I'm talking about assessments not students oh I'm sorry I think I'm talking I moved away from students okay okay I'm sorry talking about Revenue what is the dollars per unit either assessment or annual property tax the assessment for the 34 would be 525 per unit the assessment would be 525 525,000 which is um about 5,000 taxes pre 4,900 using the 1500 and using the per square foot assessment that they use at sill sir just for the structures not including land I'm just doing structure calcul yes so that would be the increase in assessment within the town which if you take um 4900 time 34 you're talking about 167,000 additional taxes I I like to think about per unit so I'll go through 5 okay okay and then for the Beaver Dam so the finance committee had assumed a 46 million 99 800 assessment theirs was a little higher than report that was for SLV at 157 if you take 63.7% of that which is what 100 Beaver Dam would be 100 units that's 63.7% that would come out to an assessment of 29 milon 36 5 and then if you increase it by 26% for the amount the Assessments in town have increased from 20 I only have it back to 2021 from 2021 to um to to to 2023 that would come out to an assessment of 37 million I I would not use that increase I'd be concerned that the U that increase is going to go away when we have to deal with more increased congestions the values will go down don't think I don't agree with that Dean what what what do you end up at Dollar unit for the even there oh it would be um it's 37 million divided by 100 370,000 that's a good deal that is a good de that's that's not market price that's 34 I don't want to keep my mouth shut I don't know what else to do on the assessment I mean we don't have any other property in town that we can extrapolate from um actually um I don't have a with me but Green Belt did some assessments when they did the appraisal of that property that has nothing I'm not doing land I mean one's just sold for over a million those AR could be we don't know or it could all be senior Assisted Living housing I have no idea what that would be assessed out [Music] mean that's what people in town want you know 55 plus for the mimic Fair unit and you know assisted living and apartments and you know i' be hold supp of that yeah but we don't know and we don't know about the time cost this you know is this going to happen over 10 or 15 years or is it going to happen over two years well my opinion is my opinion is there's 177 communities that are doing the zoning and there's a lot of them that have had to zone for a lot more units and they're allowing big multi-story buildings I see I think the developers would go there first okay so now when we talked to police and fire and DPW with the CST they said there's no additional cost was it for we didn't we didn't get from no he's extrapolating from um current population yeah you say it again they said for CST no additional cost no additional cost yeah I mean they have two people shift for you know three people three shifts per day two people a day yeah well it's a commercial it's a commercial entity different than a place where people live 247 365 and for Poli fire not it wasn't a real number but it was it's like 370 employees by the time the whole thing gets running coming and going twice a day per call and so when you look at that and say okay somebody's going to fall in the St stairway and somebody's going to do whatever 200,000 but it's almost it's like it's almost built into the structure of what we already have for the police fire if you're telling me the answer is greater than zero I'm with you because it it is my point is more whatever the police and fire cost for a commercial entity is residential is high that's my own point if if it's zero for CST I think on the same page probably not zero because there are going to be employees they get there are going to be calls there's going to be smoke alarms or I whatever yeah but based on the number of calls projected it didn't require any additional Staffing with CST that was I think that was the thing is there was so few additional calls that this is also this is also a very very dialed in facility with a lot of sensors and a lot of lot of assets equipment it's not a steel mill you know where you can suddenly the half the building's on fire you know it's a different my point is just residential is a different an that's that's my we end that there was going to be an additional no so we said that no it wasn't done on that it was just done on a number of calls what it calls it wasn't such a big number that made us think that they were have to I'm sort of off off the top of my head I think it was 220,000 I could it right here um police was 219 calls at 475 each for 104,000 fire was 76 calls at 1100 each for 83,00 200,000 so it was just an extrapolation of the per call charge but but you don't incur additional costs unless you need additional people so I'm did with SLB it's being conservative and it's not an issue the big one was um even the SLV consultant put in 10 grand for DPW cost and we said there were oh we don't need that but I think that that's the big you're going to have sidewalk intersection improvements drainage improvements water and S you know there there could be I think that would be paid for by a developer if if you have a a development with a hundred units they would pay for the sidewalk in front of the development they wouldn't pay for a sidewalk all the way down that part of the per that's what's all being negotiated with CST right wow so it's all you know I I don't think that that's something the town would have to DARE the cost of I think the that's not how developments work are we still talking about CST or we talking about additional residential we're talking about I thought we were talking about the um NBTA zoning and the the police and the fire we can use the SLV stuff but the DPW I was saying we said zero for SLV and even the developer put in 10 grand and and I I think we should put something yeah I agree we should put like the answer is not zero like I and I don't know how you come up with the number but it's not zero I mean when you think about the pi of the total Town budget what's DPW it's large I was going to guess 15% I'm not far off right thank you yeah 15's pretty close I'm somewhere in the right yeah it's roughly what 1 8 it's the fourth biggest department because you get schools fleas fire and then DPW um DPW is 1352 1. 1442 I think is what we came up with but um then I I think we got to add in all the other little components rightnation so it's two million yeah two million out two million out of 42 million make two and half% which is probably about right 55 and five Poli fire DPW School of 50 then you got town government in there fraction well my point is just to assume to assume zero is crazy like and I don't know how you get there but that's why I was just talking about the pie whatever percentage of the pi is like you know increase that's that's that's a ratio right like that's what we're doing with everything else right right can we do it by the number of units so the increase in number of units ver what we have today times so we have 34 units over no we're talking 13 13us divided by 2400 total number of households you can take you can just take the total assessed value of those 134 units and then 5% right 5% of p and honestly using assess you're coming in a little low but whatever at least there a methodology saying 5% of the tax rate I'm saying take the total assess value of these 134 units that's going to give you a dollar value I'm saying take 5% of that you'll have to calculate the DPW you saying for the DPW 37% of the total budget yeah there's your that's your incremental DW C it's it's a very obviously 40,000 foot but at least it's got logic it's got It's not zero it's not zero and it's spends a lot of money yes you get all the projects okay first time heard you talk about 40 usually it's 10 or we really jumped up 10 yeah that must that's indicative of something you're in the Strat about that that's good I was making sure you're paying attention barely really high 20 20,000 really yeah um Gail circulated minutes to anybody have time to look at them did it look fine to me were pretty simple because we just the date oh 18 18th I think yes SE September 18 okay okay somebody want to make a motion to approve them oh no I had a comment okay so under the one bullet it was noted that it would be a benefit to have previous fiscal year data with proposed fiscal year budget I remember it as being that we wanted to include any Associated Revenue projections with the operating costs and that wasn't remember that was something we were in agreement on as far as one of the things um that that we wanted to have so any operating costs right we wanted to see the revenue we also wanted the prior data so you can include that one if you thought that that was valid but I i' wanted to include the one that I was looking for to include any Revenue operating cost so that and see what these costs are bringing in you know on the same yeah we were always flipping so we have an amendment includ work out a lot of numbers moving around so where's this added I'm sorry well I think it's just the added bullet now okay I agree with you it just needs to be added and maybe I do recall that too right because the collections she was showing them under collections but the collections don't translate to the depart there the wrong including Revenue with the operating cost by Department yeah take a vote Yes Dean yes Mike Iain Tom yes Peter yes s yes okay um next meeting I believe we have a joint meeting with the select board on Monday night the 7th um I'm waiting for confirmation the purpose of that meeting would be to discuss the fiscal year 26 priorities too bad John left fiscal year 26 priorities that the select board came up with at their workshop over the summer and it would be at 7 Monday the 7th next Monday and I have a conflict that night so I will not okay seven yeah um and then we have a meeting on the 16th and I'm hoping that that meeting bre will be able to present us with the long-term capital budget anything else we want to cover at that okay and I will try to write up what we discussed tonight and C circulated okay okay then we'll we'll come back at the 16th to our actual vote I think so yeah um I think the planning board wants it before then but I just don't think that's realistic you know they're not going to be having public meetings before the 16th so should we have on our agenda um the town meeting warrant what what's yeah I'll put the yes I I was curious whether there was a plan to vote on these MBTA districts individually or just the one up or down one it's one um we're voting on The zoning changes which includes the districts in the zoning changes so it's one big vot know any Warr articles at this point in time I am not aware of anything what oh maybe the flag pole that's like dogs on the beach that's gonna suck all your sorry that's Double Dogs on twice as much resources they're trying and and the other thing I know that's on the warrant we're GNA have to vote on is that um there were two bills um for consultants for the um SLV appeal that the town hired and apparently bills never got to Andrea so they're prior year bills that we have to vote on to pay they we're talking I don't know what it was 5,000 maybe it's not not big bucks but somehow yeah PR your fisal she didn't have she had done all the transfers so she had no money left in the budget and so and where do they then come out of when they're voting it's a it's a supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year 26 I think budget we can't is that what it is 26 yeah it's got to come out of the 26 because we've already closed out yes 25 yes yeah just up our tax read okay ask question I didn't see public comment yeah we'll allow you we W weren't going to take public comment but because you made the effort to come to this meeting and sat through all this yeah I um just a quick question so when so when you're doing the fiscal analysis just because obviously you know I'm involved but coming to Tommy I think my thought process is when you guys are putting this together I think people including myself want to know whether you vote Yes or no I don't care but if you were to vote Yes or you would have vote no I think people like myself want to look at okay here's a fiscal analysis if we vote Yes and we have this estimated 50 out of students D compared to the grants that we may or may not get okay like y that are built into this four buckets of money I'm not including the 13 added in the guidelines but it's four buckets of gr and people are going to ask you that question they're going to go okay income Miss smish blah blah blah like you know students per year I mean I know that we were yet last year 1160 students and you're running low but our budget was still the highest to spend in a long time we're at 30 million we know that so we're still paying x amount of dollars for every student that you bring into the district next year 20,000 22,000 whatever again 10 years whatever it's just looking at that number and saying to somebody okay like every year you're going to have a million dollars coming in that we're going to pay onto this budget versus 4 million over 10 years of grant money that you might need yeah and I have all of that Grant yeah and I do too it's just one of those things that I want that that's what I want to I meant to discuss it and I forgot to but you don't have to discuss it tonight it's fine I'm just saying that presentation be really great we have some information on the grants and the other thing which I was going to put in and just kind of reflect with the tax rate how that would impact the tax rate um we and also caveat the fact that the states seeking more money from the federal government to give out his grants so grants could change over time with climate resiliency that type of thing we don't know um and then the other thing um I was going to put in a a little blurb about um if we don't have any money from the state it would mean that affordable housing projects would not be feasible because 80% of the funding for those projects comes from State sources um grants and tax credits oh GRS yeah um so I was going to put that in too just so that people because people like data I think people want to know if you don't get the grants this is what it's going to be over a period of Time Versus the implications of taking on this infrastructure and the students and the families and whatever it could actually be we're spending more money or losing more money at the community by voting yes versus voting know I'm losing out on grants either way I'm not saying I want either one I'm just saying having that data well it's just going to be one question that's going to be answered by you guys right away and and it's not going to go on for 10 hours at town meeting right about the financial piece that's going to be asked you know so I just y want to make sure that that that budget is compl yes and no here's the pro pros and cons of both sides I think that be really really helpful and we'll do things in a Range too you know it's not really really great yeah I appreciate it the the only problem unfortunately is as you can tell from watching this meeting there's a lot of subjective input right so there's some factual things it costs 25,000 a year for student M so there's 100 units you know North right like some hard numbers but then you get into some of the other stuff as you can tell but it's also you're not guaranteed to get a grant either right that's right that's subjective as well you might apply for a $2 million dredging Grant but most of the time you're only getting half from the state and then the bid comes in low and you're getting and half of that it's a range right so those are the things like you may you may add the $2 million drudging Grant in there but it's never going to be 2 million it's going to be X right so it's just a range and just having those even even to give people a sense of if there's two million dollar of Grants if if we don't get $2 million of Grants what's that due to the tax rate yeah that's also useful you know and that's such great information for people to really make you know that decision on November 18 just to see the pros and cons on both sides right exactly yeah just so that people have the data absolutely because I was talking I put a letter to the editor in this week's paper to kind of do some fact checking on last week's letter nothing to do with that and I was talking to somebody who said he was dead set against it and then I was kind of talking about the zoning and exactly what the impacts might be it's all oh he says I'm glad I talked to you it's like you know people don't have a clue you that's why the facts are really important in the data that you guys put together for the it'll just make it easy and hope of the meeting will buy quicker you know and they we're not there for seven hours trying to just debate numbers it's clearcut from the finance committee and I think you guys job yeah at the end of the day no one's got a crystal ball though SLV was a binary right it was two situations zero or I know I know very at least able to right this he's now big be here you just came down to 5,000 you're better off all in favor of joury raise your hand thank you thanks thank you thank you for the oh struggl we're looking for something better than that you know how long do we have to wait before we're going to get the whole operation week more weeks