Select Board Meeting — July 22, 2026

Good evening and welcome to the July 22nd Select Board meeting at 5 PM here in the Select Board meeting room.

Would you all please rise and join me in the salute to the flag and a moment of silence, please?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Mass General Law Chapter 30A, Section 20F requires is any person recording must notify the chair at the beginning of the meeting.

All select board meetings are recorded via audio and video and broadcast live on C-CON Cable 96.

Would anybody like to read the board and committee openings?

Sure.

Okay.

Volunteers are needed on the Capital Improvement Committee, 2 from the select board, 3 from the moderator.

Commission on Disability, 5 from the select board Economic Development Committee, 3 from the Select Board.

Energy Committee, 3 from Select Board.

Finance Committee, 1 by the moderator.

Historical Commission, 2 from the Select Board.

Okay, thank you very much.

Tonight we're going to do things a little differently.

Uh, if you look at your agenda, we're going to do priority matters.

Uh, number 1, community speaks, and then I want to jump over to item F, the joint meeting with the Board of Assessors, if that's agreeable with my colleagues.

Sure, that's fine.

Okay, all right.

So first on the priority matters, consider the conditional offer of employment to Jocelyn Moore for the position of full-time emergency telecommunications dispatcher.

And we have Director Winchell and— yeah, good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, sir.

Um, on July 14th Uh, we— myself and Mr. Kadeem held interviews with 3 individuals.

We, um, sorry, we went with, um, Miss Moore for her longevity, which she's been working in full-time capacity since 2020, demonstrating her longevity.

In valuation, she demonstrated initiative and strong commitment to pursuing a career in public safety communications by presenting certificates of completion for both the NextGen 911 and the APCO Public Safety Telecommunicator courses.

These are 2 fundamental courses required for the position that she's interviewing for, and completing them in advance reflects a proactive approach to her professional development.

Throughout the interview, Jocelyn was well-spoken, professional, and expressed a genuine desire to help people during some of the most difficult moments of their lives.

She conveyed a positive attitude, strong interpersonal skills, and an understanding of importance of teamwork in a communications center environment.

As a graduate of Seekonk High School, Jocelyn possesses valuable knowledge of the town's geography, which will be beneficial in emergency dispatching.

She developed— she describes herself as someone who remains calm under pressure, exercises patience when problem-solving, and adapts well to challenging situations.

Additionally, she is proficient in the Microsoft Office suites, learns new computer applications quickly, and appears capable of adapting in various software systems utilized within the Communications Center.

It's at this time, through you, Mr. Khadim, I am requesting Jocelyn Moore be offered a conditional offer of employment as a full-time emergency telecommunications dispatcher with the CPAC Public Safety Communications.

Mr. Chairman, I support the director's recommendation.

Okay, do we have a motion?

Yes, I move that the select board appoint Jocelyn Moore to the position of emergency telecommunications dispatcher, subject to and conditioned upon successful passage, as determined by the town administrator, of a pre-employment background and CORI check, physical examination, drug screening, psychological evaluation, completion of all pre-employment paperwork and successful completion of all required certifications to be a 911 telecommunicator for the town.

Second.

Moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

The board has voted 5 to nothing.

Welcome aboard.

Congrats.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Okay, next item is community speaks.

Does anybody here want to speak on anything affecting the community?

Yes, sir, come forward please.

Sit up here.

Yes, please.

All right, your name please.

My name is Tom Gridley, 313 Millet Street.

Um, hi.

First of all, I would like to— I am talking regarding the senior tax discount that is being discussed tonight.

A little bit of history about myself.

My— I am 74 years old.

My wife is also.

We've lived in, in Secaucus since 1975.

I purchased a piece of land in 1979, built my own house on that piece of land with the help of all my family, and have been invested in the town and paid taxes for over 45 years now.

As you and everyone in the room probably knows, cost of everything is going sky high for everyone nowadays.

You're lucky if you can shop for food and put gas in your car.

I, I've been trying for the past 3 years to get something passed to help out our seniors.

I tried at the state level first of all with Stephen Howitt.

That was unsuccessful.

They all got stuck in the Finance Committee and were just dropped, all the plans that were offered there.

I want to thank all of the Board of Assessors members for their hard work and diligence bringing something before you guys.

To help our senior population out.

The, um, the plan that's on the books already, number 41C, is totally useless in my opinion because of the income requirements for that bill.

They're, they're insanely low, and I believe only 28 people in the whole town qualify for that.

So we need something with realistic goals to help people out.

I originally personally was trying to get a senior tax freeze bill initiated, which in simple language, when I turned 70 years old and if I owned my house for more than 20 years in the town and I pay you $7,000 a year in taxes, I would pay $7,000 this year, $7,000 next year, $7,000 the year after until my wife and I die.

And then it would be a non-transferable plan where you can't give or sell the house to a family member or someone else.

It would start from scratch again after that.

That was the plan I was trying to get pushed through.

I was told by many different people that that's not possible.

Why, I don't know, but I am totally grateful to them for putting together what will be discussed here tonight.

And that's basically it.

I thank you for your time.

Uh, that's it.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Anyone else?

Sir?

Good evening, my name is George.

I live in town.

What's your last name, sir?

George Dumont.

George Dumont.

D-U-M-O-N-T. And, um, the address, sir?

165 Willis Avenue in Seekonk.

Okay.

And I'm here on behalf of the same, you know, subject.

Um, I got my tax bill last year, and my tax bill is now $12,000 a year.

I am 86 years old, and what's happening is I find myself having to work excessive hours in order to maintain my house.

Don't want to lose my house, but the cost of these taxes just keeps climbing, climbing, climbing, you know.

And I understand it costs money to run a town, but there has to be some way that you gentlemen can put something, you know, some Any kind of relief would be acceptable.

What is currently available as relief doesn't make any sense.

You got, what, 28 people that are capable of getting a relief, and the relief doesn't make much sense.

What's happening?

There's a run all over the country on property taxes.

People are hurting.

I know some seniors that may have to leave their house.

They, they're forced to sell it.

Because of the conditions.

And I built my house in— I came here in '97, built the first house on Willis Avenue.

And at that time, you know, we came here because we had a teenage daughter that was ready to go to high school.

And it's, uh, this is a great town, great, great town, great And it was affordable, you know.

So, and then I sold that house and I built a second house that I currently live in.

And I find myself, I worked right up until last year.

One year ago I retired.

I was 85 years old.

And the reason why is because I was trying to pay my house off, which I have since done.

So I stand here with a house that's fully paid for.

But now I've got a mortgage of $1,000 a month to pay my taxes.

Kind of outrageous.

Kind of struggling to do it.

And I don't want to leave the town.

I, I hope I don't have to.

But anyway, I, I just wanted to bring that up, and I'm hoping that the town is able to put together some kind of a program.

Any kind of relief is better than what you currently have.

Which really doesn't make much sense, as the gentleman said.

So I appreciate your time, and I thank you.

And just as a point of reference, any action to make anything of this nature become law requires town meeting approval and then a home rule petition to the state legislature.

I understand.

Okay, I understand.

I've been reading different towns across America, and Florida is probably you know, made some drastic changes.

And they didn't get the tax freeze that they wanted, but they did get some relief.

So I understand a tax freeze is difficult.

I previously worked for the town of Scituate, Rhode Island.

I was their building official, and I saw that they had a tax freeze, and it got to a point where it was not— they couldn't maintain it, so they dropped it.

But that there are still a number of people that are on that tax freeze.

I know of a gentleman that was 65 years old when he put the tax freeze in.

He's currently 93.

He's been, he's been able to stay in his house, and fortunately because— now I'm not asking for anything outrageous like that, but if you just hopefully were able to put something together to go forward that will make some kind of sense.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Is there anyone else?

Sir, come forward.

Your name for the record, sir?

Richard Michalski, 29 Shady Lane.

Okay, sir.

Uh, I'd like to start with saying I concur with the previous speaker, I, I think he's right on.

I retired in 2004 without a COLA, so that's the money I live on today and my family.

Fortunately, we do okay, but, uh, it's tough.

The reason I'm here is, uh, on a positive note, is to, uh, as you know, uh, Shady Lane or Arcade Avenue is being rebuilt.

And we've had a situation there at the end of my street, which comes out onto Arcade Avenue, that's been kind of dangerous for years.

Needed them— the, uh, where it enters Arcade Avenue was never wide enough, and I thought now that they're tearing up Arcade Avenue, it would be a good time to correct all that.

Unfortunately, it made it a little bit more difficult because there's a drainage called it right there.

So I went to the highway department, and Dave was on vacation, so I wasn't able to speak with Dave.

And one of the young ladies said, geez, this sounds like it might be a selectman's because everything needs to be re-engineered and blah blah blah blah blah.

So I said, well, I guess this is the beginning of the dead end that I expected.

Unfortunately— well, fortunately it wasn't.

I said, you know, they sent me there, so I'll give the chairman a call on the board.

And he said I'd look into it, he'd look into it, which he did.

And the real gist of my story is, damn, government worked exactly the way it's supposed to.

I made my complaint known, which I've never been bashful about making them.

But I came here to say thank you for everyone involved.

Gary, especially on this board, uh, I'm sure you all would have handled it in a similar way.

Dave, I apologize to him.

I didn't go around him.

I went to where they directed me to, and he understood that.

But the bottom line is they did a wonderful job today.

It's opened up, so when they repave It'll come out beautifully.

I give credit where credit's due.

I forwarded that to Mr. Gadeem and he made sure that it was addressed.

I appreciate it and thank you to all who's involved.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Last call, anyone else?

Okay, uh, next will be item F, joint meeting with the Board of Assessors.

Discussion of a proposed home rule petition regarding a senior real estate tax exemption.

And if you lovely ladies would, for the sake of identification, just name and name.

Oh, okay.

Jan Parker, Gene Drive.

Okay.

Joe Solomon, Brookhill Drive.

Okay.

So you have a quorum, you could open your own meeting for the Board of Assessors.

Okay, it's 5:10 on July 22nd, and we're here to discuss the senior tax discount that we're proposing for the town of Seekonk.

Okay, very good.

Go ahead, the floor is yours.

We are— we Can you make, make sure you pull the mics close to you, please?

Very close.

Okay, good.

A little closer.

Am I good?

I don't want to swallow it.

No, no, no.

We're here today, we're requesting a change to the current senior tax discount exemption that's currently offered by the town of Seekonk.

As you just heard from several of the, of the residents It's an embarrassment to the town.

This senior discount that we offer, 41C, was put into effect in May 2006, 20 years ago.

There has never been a call-up.

There's never been any annual increase to the amounts that you've gone through.

Now, we gave you all packages, and hopefully you'll allow me to go through them even though they've been talking about 41C.

The seniors in our town, they want our help.

They requested our help.

We've been working on this, the board, for about a year, and we have been— just a little bit of background— we've been working on it mainly really from last summer.

We talked with various MassTown assessors and throughout Mass.

We talked with the DSL— DLS, the Department of Local Services.

We've talked with the Municipal Finance Law Department, several attorneys.

We talked with Representative Howitt.

We had a meeting with him and Senator Duna's chief of staff.

They put us in the right direction, and we are prepared a proposal which has been reviewed by Representative Howitt's staff as well.

What we, what we are going to propose to you is really not what we wanted to begin with.

We started out— hopefully we wanted to do like $1,000 across the board tax for everybody 65 and over in Seekonk.

We can't do that.

Then we wanted to do a freeze.

That would be easy.

65 and over, 67, even 70 and older.

We can't do that.

The general laws in the state of Massachusetts will not allow us to do that.

But it will allow us to change 41C to 41C and a half, and it's at least some relief for many of our seniors, as you'll see.

To date though, we have not had— we've been unable to get an appointment with our local legal counsel, which we hope to get.

We hope to talk to them about this, but it has been massaged, the proposal that we're going to give you.

It's been massaged by Representative Howlett's staff, so they have given us the okay.

So that's why we're here with you today.

In the package that you have in front of you, you can see on page 1, it just goes through— all I did was put in here what we currently offer our seniors.

It's asset and income driven, okay?

For married people, they cannot make more than $50,000 a year, have $50,000 or more in assets.

Assets.

Single person, $40,000.

Their income cannot exceed $30,000.

$30,000.

Single, $20,000.

And they've got to meet this criteria in order to be eligible for the 41 exemption of $1,000, which is wonderful.

But out of the 1,947 properties of seniors 65 and older we have in Seekonk, only 28 for 2026 have been— are eligible.

In '25, we had 28 people.

In '24, we had 35 people.

In '23, we had 21 people.

That's a disgrace.

But no one has brought it to anyone's attention for 20 years.

And here we are.

The board has said, that's enough, we've had enough.

See if we can— what can we do?

After talking with Steve, Steve Howlett's office, and this is what the best that we can come up with, and that's a change to 41C, calling it 41C and a half.

So The state, uh, the state issues this.

We found out that the state issues us $79,000 to the town of Seekonk for all the exemptions that we offer, but for 31C, all they give us is $14,000.

That's because we have 20, 21 people, 35 people, 28 people.

So it's based on how much we're giving out.

And if we had 28 seniors at $1,000, that's $28,000 that the town is paying for our seniors, for a senior discount.

And taken away what the, what the state gives us, the town had to actually put in $13,000.

For the— this Attachment 1 just merely shows you what 41C offers.

That's, that's all.

I just— so you could have looked at that.

And it shows you the assets.

The assets are the bank accounts, checking accounts.

All of this is taken into consideration for them to even be approved for assets, let alone income.

On page 2, we outline, uh, the clause 41C.5.

That's what this is.

This is what the requirements are for 41C.5, but we can— the state will allow us to make some changes to it.

That's what I have.

I don't know if yours is highlighted or not.

But the very first one, it must be 70 years old on July— by July 1st.

We can change that, but if the town deems it good, 65 by the town.

We've opted as a board to go for 65+ in age.

It'll allow us a 5% discount on assessed property value, 5%, but we can go up to 20%.

So we put from 5 to 20% that we're allowed to do.

They must own the property or another property in Mass as a domicile for 5 years as of July, but the 5 years don't have to be consecutive.

They must occupy the property as a domicile July 1st and must be domiciled in Mass for the preceding 10 years.

The number of years can be reduced from 10 to 5 years if the town approves it.

They hasn't.

But this is not good asset and income driven.

It is income driven and it's driven by the income limit, the state income limit for the circuit breaker state income tax credit.

And that is changed.

It's increased each year for 2025.

For this year, $75,000 for single is the income limit.

They can't make any more than $75,000.

$98,000 for a head of household.

$112,000 for a married couple.

It's still low, but it's better than $30,000, $40,000 for assets.

At least it will— we'll be able to put in more seniors will be able to get a discount on their taxes using this criteria.

81C.5 will need to be approved by the Board of Selectmen and approved at town meeting vote.

The next page, the Attachment 2, merely shows 41C.5.

This is what the State has dictated.

On page 3, when we met with Steve Howlett and the representative for Senator Dooner, they gave us an example, a sample of what we could use for 41C.5.

And so we mirrored our request here, this home rule petition, based on that.

And the board is— we've all agreed that this is what we'd like to do, right?

Yeah.

Number 1, the discount percent to be applied on assessed residential property values: a discount of 20%.

We're asking for a discount of 20% off the assessed residential valuation will be applied to all eligible seniors age 65 and older.

A domicile should— shall include condominiums.

Eligibility: the property assessed value cannot exceed $1 million.

In our town of Seekonk, as you know, we have— with the, with the increase in all of the houses and whatnot, there are multitudes of houses that are a million plus.

B, eligible seniors are allowed to apply for this exemption, 41C.5, and one other exemption that is offered by the Town of Seekonk.

Under C, the applicant must be 65 at the close of the previous year, or if the property is held jointly by persons of which one is not less than 65 at the close of the previous year and the other joint applicant is not less than 60 years of age at the close of the previous year.

Under D, the qualifying property must be owned and occupied by the applicant or joint applicants as their domicile as of December 31st of the previous year to be eligible.

Under E, the applicant or at least one of the joint applicants has been domiciled and owned a home in the Thomas C. County for not less than 5 consecutive years before the application date, which is going to be April 1st.

Qualifying property, however, must be owned and occupied by the person whose prior year's income makes the person eligible for the Circuit Breaker state income tax credit.

This is all based on the income tax credit.

For single people that own homes in Seacock 65 and older, $75,000 is the income max.

For head of household, $98,000.

For married, $112,000.

It's a lot better.

It's not terrific, but it's better than what we have— $30,000, $40,000, and $40,000, $50,000.

Under 3, the Board of Assessors will approve an application, or they may deny the application if it exceeds a circuit breaker state income tax credit.

It all comes off of that.

For the previous year, for documentation that does not meet the supporting documentation requirements.

They need to apply— to apply for 41C.5, the deadline established by the Board of Assessors of the Town of Seekonk is on or before April 1st.

The applicant must file an application on a form adopted by the Board of Assessors and submit supporting documentation as described in the application.

Applicants must submit an application to the Board of Assessors each year to seek the exemption.

The tax levy— total amount of taxes exempted under this program will be redistributed across the residential and commercial and industrial taxpayers within the tax levy, or funds can be redirected.

In other words, the cost of the exemption is will be shared proportionately among all residents, all residential, commercial, and industrial property owners, or funds can be redirected.

And the act— this Act 41C.5 will replace the existing 41C exemption, and it will expire 3 years after the implementation of the exemption under this act.

Any changes to the adopted exemption made by the Board of Directors— the Board of Assessors and select board must be approved by town vote.

It does not— this 41C.5 does not automatically renew after 3 years.

It's, it's— they do— that's intentional.

It's called the sunset clause, and it expires so that it can be reviewed and modified by the town, not just let go for 20 years and no one ever touches it again.

So each— after 3 years, it can be revised, looked at and changed.

That's our proposal for 41C.5.

Again, it's not the best, but it's the best that we could do with what we have, with what the state will allow us to put forth in the town of Seekonk.

Attachment 3 was— that was Lydia's office.

Thank you, Lydia.

That put this together for us.

And it shows that in— and right now there's 65 plus 1,947 households or properties, and the total property value is a, a billion.

Lonnie and Lydia, a billion.

A billion 67 million.

And with a 20% exemption, it's going to cost the town $2,618,435.

To give a senior discount with 20% at 65 and a half, given that every senior that applies is approved.

Not 1,900 people are going to be eligible for this tax discount.

So to say that how much is going to cost the town, we really don't know.

We really don't know until the applications come in and the eligibility is predicted.

On Attachment 4, I kind of put together just a simple— I looked at $500,000 and $400,000 assessed value.

Remember, the percentage will be allowed will be discounted from the taxes.

A percentage we're looking for is 20% discount off the assessed value of each individual eligible senior in our town.

If their property is assessed at $500,000 with a 20% discount, the tax discount for that taxpayer will be $1,227.

If we, if we discount it at a rate of 15% off the assessed value, it'll be $920 off their taxes.

$500,000 at 10% and $500,000 at 5%.

At $400,000 Average— what do you think, Lydia?

Our average, average assessed properties in SEACOG is about, about 500.

So we're probably looking at, at 20%, $1,227.

For $400,000 at 20%, the taxpayers 65 and older will get $981 off their taxes if they're eligible and they meet the eligibility of the 41.5 and the circuit breaker maximums on the income.

At $400,000, 15%, and so on.

$700, $400.

I just kind of did an overview so you could see what each person will be able— what the town is going to cost the town.

That's what we got, and that's what our proposal is, and that's what we're trying.

We're trying desperately to get something, something for our seniors, something.

People are leaving our town.

Because they can't afford to stay here because of the taxes.

They're on fixed incomes, most of the people, and we're going for— we're trying 65.5.

Also, um, North Attleboro just went through this process, and very— it seems like a lot of money when you're talking millions to credit, but there's going to be so many especially 65 to 70s that are still working that aren't going to meet the criteria.

And that criteria is set by the state, so that we can't change for 4041.

So it's hard to tell, but I think Joyce had, had the figures from one of the towns you talked to about how many— yeah, they did 65 and older.

Yeah, and they had— they have a total of, in North Attleboro, 6,500 seniors.

Okay, and they just adopted this.

It's somewhat like ours, somewhat.

They have still income and assets, but we don't want that.

We want it just to be the income.

And of the total people, they had 6,500.

There were only 300 of the 6,500 that qualified.

300.

But that's asset and income driven.

But it's the, the income was the circuit breaker, the state circuit breaker, which is about 4%, about 4% of the seniors.

So if we've got 1,900, if we've got 1,947 taxpayers that are 65 and older, you figure, figure 4%, there's going to be about 800, 800 to 900 people that might, might be eligible for this 41C and a half.

That's a heck of a lot better than 28.

It's a heck of a lot better.

At least it's something.

It's something for our seniors.

Right now, it's 28 people that are poverty level.

Right.

Yeah.

It's a free— a freeze would be the best thing, but the state doesn't allow it, of course.

Even on a home rule petition, they won't?

No.

But Steve Howlett was— when we met with him, we talked about that.

We talked about a freeze.

We talked about $1,000, $600, $900, something across the board, just across the board.

Period.

And he said there would be so much red tape at the State House, you would never see it.

It would be delayed and delayed and delayed.

The best thing that we could do, which is a sample that he gave us, which is what we mirrored this off of, was the 41C and a half.

If we did that, and each year it'll be in— the amount of money will be increased so that income will be increased.

We don't have to automatically go for each year increasing the thing.

It'll just automatically be done by the the state for us.

So the amounts of money from $75,000, it'll go up next year, and the state dictates it.

But we don't want to put assets in it, and we're looking for 65 and older, and we're looking for the 20%.

So no assets?

No assets, no, just the income.

And the income is significant.

It's, you know, you have tax, your bonds, your stocks, all of that stuff.

But there are people that will qualify for it.

What's the difference between being single and $75,000 or head of the household?

I'm single and head of my household because there's only me.

So you'd go for the head of household.

What?

You'd go— you would apply for head of household.

$98,000 is my max income.

Yep.

If I had a million dollars in the bank, it doesn't matter?

No, right?

No, no.

Okay.

If your house is assessed at $999,000, you would be eligible.

We have a question.

Are you allowing— No, I'm not going to allow any questions right now.

Nope.

Okay.

What about, uh, so under the worst-case scenario, if you will, from a financial perspective for the town, it would— could create a $2.6 million shortfall, right?

Yes, that's the worst scenario.

Yep, that could hit everybody.

Qualified.

Well, you had 1,900 people, 1,900 seniors at 65 and older.

So just how many of them are going to— will be eligible?

So just to clarify that, so based on their proposal for the tax levy adjustment, there wouldn't necessarily be an impact on our tax revenue because what they're saying is, is that you're going to distribute that amongst all the other taxpayers.

If it's treated like any other exemption, then that would impact us.

So that would come out of the overlay account.

We currently only have about $990,000, I think it was, in the overlay account.

So we would have to throw— let's just assume, you know, our exposure would be 100% coming in.

If that was the $2 million, $2.6 million, that would mean on the 2.5% increase we only generate $1.3 million.

So all our new tax growth coming in for the year would have to go over to the overlay.

But that's not the way they're proposing it here.

Right.

So what do we have for a worst-case scenario?

I call it worst case.

If— or you might look at it as best case— if everybody actually qualified for this, what would the assessment be to the taxpayers?

I know it's spread out over residential, commercial, and industrial.

What would the hit be to everybody?

I mean, since we don't know the numbers, I think you've got to start with everybody qualifying and work your way away from that.

If you look at the chart that put together for us.

We'll be talking about the $2-point-something million.

Right here.

$2.68 million.

I don't know what those numbers say.

$2.6 million at the rate of a 20% exemption.

At the rate of a 15% exemption, it will be $1.9 million at age 65, if everybody qualifies.

No, but I think what the question he's asking is, is of that $2.6 million, dollars, if we need to redistribute it to the other residential properties and the commercial, what's that impact per property?

I think is what he's looking for.

I don't know what they're going to be saving.

I don't— I'm not a financial— I'm not— I don't handle any of the financial stuff.

I'm just putting together a proposal for us, right?

I'm just looking at what would the taxpayers absorb?

Absorb?

Yeah.

What would their extra be toward this?

Because it's not like an exemption, as the town administrator just said.

It would be redistributed.

So other people would pay for this.

That's right.

It's a zero-sum thing.

I mean, if we're giving it here, we're taking it from there.

So if we're going to redistribute and people are going to pay more on their taxes on the residential, commercial, industrial at 20% as proposed, start at a starting point, what would people be paying?

That's what— that's the number I'm looking for.

And how are we going to know that until someone applies?

Yeah, well, no, I'm saying the worst case scenario, if everybody— if we use the $1,947, is that what you're asking about?

Yeah, what would the worst case scenario be?

If everybody was able to get this, 1,947 people, I'm just looking for a starting point.

What would the worst this could possibly be to the taxpayers that will have to absorb this?

So you're asking the $2,618,000— how much is your tax going to go up?

How much is— right, how much each household's tax?

That's what he's asking.

Because you're going to have a lot of angry people saying my taxes are going up because of this, and they're going to want to know.

Right.

Redirect it.

Redirect the funds.

How much money is going to the school department?

How much money is going to other departments?

But he's saying it's going to another taxpayer.

They want— he wants to know how much is it going to redirect so that it's not really being absorbed by each individual taxpayer.

I don't know.

I don't know how you would do that.

I'm not— I don't do the budget.

You guys do.

I can get that number for you tomorrow.

Yeah.

So we're just going to— we're just going to run it like it was a debt exclusion.

So we'll give you what the total cost would be per $100,000 on your property value.

So that'll give you a rough estimate of what it would look like.

So I, I'll run it for all the scenarios, right?

I, I just think we've talked about this different meetings on different projects and different things.

If this passes and goes to town meeting, um, people need to know.

It has to be completely transparent of what they could be up against, and that's the best way for them to vote, to have all the information they need.

I'm not, I'm not Please, I'm not being negative about this.

I'm just bringing a point up that people need to know.

I know you can't nail down the figure, but you have to start with a figure that it's the worst it could be, and then it'll— it can only get better from here.

But I think you need that number.

And as the town administrator said, he'll get that number tomorrow.

But it is, it is an important number for people to, to have that information when they, when they go to vote at town hall, if it ends up that way.

I agree.

I agree.

All right, Liz, do you have anything?

Um, the $1 million, where did you get that from?

Is that from another town, or the $1 million threshold for the property value that's on here?

Is that what you're talking about?

Age 65 and over, you have The number of properties are 1,947.

Mike, use the microphone.

No, the question was the million dollars, the property value.

Yeah, the property value of a million dollars is excluded.

So anybody with a million dollar property value home is not, is not included in this.

Yes.

Yes.

How did we come up with that?

Yeah, well, it's on Steve's microphone.

We looked at other towns in, uh, Mass— Reading, North Reading, and North Attleboro, and other.

And I've talked with assessors that haven't got it, and then what they want to do this— we're going to be like a pioneer when we get this done.

Um, and some towns had $600,000 Some towns had $1.2 million, and we just looked at our town and the average— not the— it's not the average house, but we've got homes in Seekonk that are $1.2, $1.5, $1.6 million now.

We've got seniors that are in homes that they probably bought at very low prices that are now way up there, $700,000, $800,000, $900,000.

So we just figured an average of $1 million, put $1 million.

That's negotiable.

Okay, we did put that down.

Yeah, because other towns have it and they had more.

So we said, well, we're about $1 million, that probably would be good.

We can, we can negotiate down to $900,000 or whatever.

The income had come from the state, so I was just curious.

I was curious where the, um, yeah, the property assessed property value came from.

That's all.

You mentioned North Attleboro, um, you referenced that one.

I know Healey signed that one.

Is there a cap on property value?

I don't know.

I don't know.

She— I was told, um, I talked with the assessor and she didn't have all of the information.

She said they were looking for 67 and 67+ and a co-owner of 62+ age-wise, and the income was based on the circuit breaker, state circuit breaker.

But they had assets.

They're requiring assets for the— of $30,000 and $55,000.

$30,000 single and $55,000 for— that's what they wanted to do in North Attleboro.

So that asset is part of that deal too.

So you not only have to meet the income, you also have to meet the, the assets, and they have to own the property for 10 years.

And they also adopted 41D, which is COLA, so that they'll have increases each year.

But I— that's all that she had at the time.

That was last week when I talked with them.

Michael, you got any questions?

I don't have any questions.

Chris?

I gotta agree with Gary when he said, so a senior can have $1 million in liquid cash in the bank and they're still eligible for a discount?

If they fall— if their income— well, because you're thinking income, your bank accounts, you gotta look at bank accounts, you're going to be looking at CDs, money markets, all of that stuff added up.

If it comes to more, plus your salary and any other income wages that you have, that's all part of the criteria for 41C.5.

If you are under $75,000 as a single and under $112,000 as a married couple, then you're eligible to get a discount at 20% of the asset assessed value of your property.

Someone who's got a million in the bank, I don't think is going to qualify.

Well, I thought you were getting rid of the assets and just going strictly to income.

I thought that's what you were proposing.

Well, part of the income— your income includes— if you have a million dollars in the bank, how's that income if it's sitting in the bank?

Income includes your bank accounts.

That's what I'm saying.

What is it?

Your interest, your bank accounts, your CDs, your stocks, all of that, right?

It's all part of income, not assets.

I'm not talking about houses or whatever that you might own.

I get the interest.

It's just income.

Well, I think we're talking 2 different things.

Assets and income are 2 different things.

Right, right.

2 different things entirely.

So it's— yeah, it has to be clarified what we're talking about here.

But some of the assets generate income.

They do.

Looking at the— they do.

But income and assets are 2 different categories.

We have to clarify that.

That's just a fact.

So we're just looking at their income and their— I mean, assets do generate income.

Massachusetts passive income.

Yeah, obviously we're looking at their income tax, Massachusetts income tax, uh, returns, as well as banks and all of that.

That's all going to be part of it.

If I may ask, uh, Miss Lydia, uh, how many additional employees in your office will you need to administer?

Do I need— would you need to administer at least 3 overnighters?

Well, 3 overnighters.

3 overnighters, people working during night shift.

I need help.

Oh, okay.

No, seriously, you could— if this went through, I'm going to need another person.

You're going to need some additional employees, right?

Other towns didn't.

Did other towns add?

Could I just quickly— the question regarding the million-dollar valuation for the homes, can you give us— I know you said the, the average is $500,000.

Can you give us the median home value so we can see where the middle road is?

Because obviously we've talked about this, the average skewed when you have higher home values versus home values that are significantly lower.

But if we can get the middle, uh, where the middle layer is, and then that kind of gives you— yeah, so that just gives the board a better indication.

So if it's $600,000 is the middle road, so we know that at least 50% of the people are below the $600,000.

I think that gives them a little bit more comfort in terms of what that valuation looks like.

I will say I did have a resident reach out to me about a month or so ago, a young couple with children, when after Howard was here and spoken, she reached out with kind of a counterpoint to what we're doing here tonight with this, that what about the young parents that are struggling to stay in their house as well?

What are you going to do for us?

And I understand that.

There are challenges for everybody on the financial side and elsewhere.

And my counterargument to that, appreciating it, is when you get to be a certain age, whether that age is arbitrary, whether it's 70, 75, the gentleman that came up tonight, 86, seemed to be in great health.

It's different strokes for different folks.

But at a certain point in life, you no longer have the ability to generate the income.

It's not like just go out, start working again so I can stay in my house.

Where if you're younger, you might have that ability.

It might be a strain, but I understand at a certain point you just can't generate that income as an older person.

As another point, just looking at it, I think it's a little aggressive, in my opinion.

65 years old.

FRA, federal guideline, full retirement age is 67.

I think 65 and 20%, in my opinion, is just a little bit aggressive.

I'm only one person.

I'm just looking at it, and I've looked at it quite a bit over the months.

I tend to push that number at least 67.

And back off of the 20%.

I just, again, just me, I think that's going to come down a bit.

I appreciate what you're doing.

I'll tell you right now that I do support this initiative.

I think it's just a little bit aggressive for me on the top tiers of what you're doing.

But just wanted to say that.

We're willing to listen to anything, okay?

Really, we put these figures together based on other cities and towns and what the board, what the 3 of us came up with.

That doesn't mean it's cast in concrete, but we have to do something.

We've got to do something for the seniors.

We have to.

Their, their incomes, like you said, they cannot generate the income that a young person can generate through the years.

Look at all the years that they're paying.

They're paying for all schools.

They don't have any kids in school.

They don't have grandchildren in school, but they're paying for it.

And what is— at what rate?

I mean, what's, you know, what's the tax rate?

What percentage is schools that they're paying for?

Significant in the taxes.

And they're not complaining, and they're doing it.

And the taxes— and they're scrounging and they're working.

There's a woman over at Stop& Shop over in Seekonk.

She's 86 years old, and she's working behind the counter to try and make ends meet.

I mean, that's— it's an embarrassment.

What we currently have is an embarrassment.

We can't do this anymore.

It has to be changed, whatever we can do, whatever you guys can approve for us.

Well, you know, let me stop you.

It's not what we approve, it's what town meeting will find.

And I can tell you, I think there's going to be as many people opposed to this as there are in favor of it, just because of the numbers.

Because at the end of the day, if we take $2 million someone else is going to be picking up the tab.

Sure.

Okay, so, and we have nobody better than Mr. Gadeem when it comes to numbers.

This chart, what I'd like to see you do is run it under different scenarios, all right, and look at the North Attleboro model, which used the median price home.

And I, in advance of this meeting, I would like to take this meeting and continue it till the 12th or the 13th of whatever the Wednesday is at the senior center, which will accommodate a lot more people.

And then I'll open it all up to questions, and anybody has any questions or any comments, we'll make a whole night of it.

We can send out for pizza if we have to.

We'll start at 6 o'clock.

It'll be the only thing that's on the agenda.

All right, in the interim, I'd like to see you go on Cable 9 and make a presentation so that the residents of the town— this is the first we're seeing this or anybody's hearing about they have a better understanding, and I think that's going to bode well for everybody.

Now, bearing in mind we have a lot of time, because ideally you want to bring this to the November town meeting, so we want this all buttoned up by the beginning of October if we're going to do something.

Yes, right?

Yes.

So is that agreeable to everybody here?

Michael?

Yeah, we welcome, we welcome whatever suggestions you have.

We can massage the age, and the percentage are both negotiable.

I mean, those the town can, can set.

I mean, we were going for 67.5.

We could do 70 plus, 67.5.

But you got to remember, 65 years old, they're still working, they're still generating income.

67, still.

70, perhaps not.

And this way too, so Nadim can give us a recommendation on what he thinks the town could best afford.

Forward.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, so is that agreed with everybody?

I'm good with that, sure.

Okay.

Yeah, so, yep.

All right, so we'll continue this.

So when the date is— is that the 12th?

Oh, the, uh, town meeting you talked about?

No, no, no, no, the next.

Yeah, we're meeting on the 5th, so it would be the 12th.

The 12th?

Yeah, 12th of August, 6 o'clock at the senior center.

Hey folks, thank you all for coming, and we'll see you all there.

I just get a clarification at one point.

I've heard several people up there say we have 1,947 people in Secaucus, and then on here it says 1,947 properties.

Which is it?

Several people have people when you were talking up there.

That I missed.

If I said— if I said people, I misspoke.

I should have said properties.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you all.

You're welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting if you like.

One way to clean house.

Need more information.

Okay, we'll jump right on.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

Okay, item A under general business, consider the request to lay out the roadway known as Madison Court and forward to the planning board for recommendation for possible acceptance at the fall town meeting.

Mr. Cadime.

Uh, Mr.

Chair, we just need this to be referred for the— to the planning board.

Okay, so I entertain a motion to refer item 8 to the planning board.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Consider and sign the September 1st, 2026 state primary election warrant.

Oh, we have to— didn't we have to close the meeting?

No, that was a— that wasn't a public hearing.

Yeah, okay, they have to close their meeting.

Yeah, that's what I mean, they do.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's just gonna be a new meeting.

Oh, I get what you're saying.

Yep.

Consider and sign the September 1st, 2026 state primary election warrant.

Can we just have the assessors close the meeting first?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes, Jan, on the record, if you would— you wouldn't— Jan, would you come forward too, please?

So you just vote.

You need to vote to close the assessors meeting.

Yes, I make a motion.

Okay, I make a motion to close our meeting at 5:56.

6:07 PM on, on July 22nd, 2026.

Joe Solomon.

I thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks for your time.

I appreciate it.

Appreciate being here.

All right, let's do it.

Okay, let's just do something.

All right, we have in attendance our, uh, Tong Court, if you would like to come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Kadeem, Chairman Segar, and board members.

Here tonight, um, just if you could sign the warrant for the state primary on September 1st.

Okay, and that's all that's needed is just to sign?

That's all you guys got to do is sign and then it'll get posted.

Okay, so entertain a motion to sign the September 1st, 26th state primary election law.

Moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

I'll sign it and pass it around.

You want to sign more than one?

You need more than one?

No.

No.

Okay.

And discuss early voting hours.

Uh, before you is also just the required early voting hours that were dictated by the state.

For Saturdays, they need at least a 6-hour time span.

We can do it in one day.

I chose to put on for August 22nd from 11 AM until 5 PM because at 5 PM is the deadline for anyone to register to vote that day.

So that way we'll be here in case they want to register and vote.

So shift it.

So we're going to shift it early.

Yeah, so we'll start on Saturday, August 22nd, from 11 to 5.

Monday, August 24th.

Tuesday, August 25th.

Thursday, August 27th, from 7:30 AM until 4:30 PM.

And then Wednesday, we'd be open from 8 until 5:30 PM.

So regular normal business hours.

Thank you.

So, uh, Chair, would I entertain a motion to adopt the early voting hours as submitted by the town clerk?

So moved.

Second.

Moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

And vote to annually appoint election officers in accordance with Mass General Law Chapter 54, Section 12.

So the selectmen of every town shall annually, not earlier than July 15th or later than August 15th, appoint the election officers.

The Board of Registrars met on July 14th and proposed the list that was submitted to you for the 2026 election poll workers.

All of the members on the list that you received did have training, and the training was on July 14th.

And training was given by Bridget Murphy, the Secretary of Commonwealth Elections Division.

Okay, so any questions?

If not, I'd entertain a motion to appoint the election officers as listed and supplied to us.

So moved.

Second.

Seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

So voted.

All right, next I have discussion on finances and facilities.

Thank you.

We have a school.

Yes, thank you.

You reached out to them and they have going through a little bit of management turnover, reorg or turnover.

Yeah, yeah, it's a good way to delay coming here, right?

But in the interim, what I'd like to do is have you reach out to our recreational people.

And/or I know the discussion with public safety as far as come up with a list of what we want them to allow us to use.

The property?

Yes.

Okay.

Fields, buildings, pools.

And then we'll present it at a later date.

And then that'll give us something to work off of.

If that's agreeable with everybody.

Yes.

Yep.

Okay.

All right, next we have to consider and authorize the chair to sign the Massachusetts School Building Authority MSBA initial compliance certification.

We have, uh, chairman of the school committee and the superintendent, if you'd like to come forward, please.

Okay, yeah, yeah, okay.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Just for the record, you are— oh, uh, Bob Girardi, uh, Seacog School Committee chair and resident, 256 West Rebecca Kidwell, Superintendent of Schools.

Very good.

Good evening and welcome.

Thank you.

We're just here if you have any questions about it.

This is a standard letter that the MSBA provides to districts who are engaged in the first phase of considering a building project.

This is just to certify that you understand the rules of participating with the MSBA and that if you do not not follow the rules of participating with the MSBA, the MSBA will not let you participate.

It's not open for discussion what the rules are, so it's pretty straightforward.

The committee has already voted to sign, so Dr. Girardi will be able to sign on their behalf.

I'm required to sign as well, and the chief executive officer of the town, which in our application we listed as the chairman of the board of select— select board.

So Mr. Sagar would be the third signature.

So we come before you to ask if you have any questions and Hope that you will authorize for him to sign.

This is due by July 31st, so we're hoping to get it done tonight.

It's a big night for me.

It's the only time in my life I've been a chief, so I just— I wouldn't be you.

Chief executive?

No, it's— they're looking for, uh, elected board, right?

Yeah, elected official.

Yeah.

Okay, so what's the pleasure of the board?

So moved.

Second.

Moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Do you need more than one?

How many copies do you need?

I would think you would want— let's do 3.

Okay.

Here's 2 more.

Yep.

All right, all right.

There's 2.

I'll give you one more.

Okay, is there anything else you'd like to share with us?

Um, the Building and Facilities Subcommittee has a work— Do you not want me to share anything?

Do you have a question?

Apologize.

No, we'll sit.

Okay, sorry.

Um, the Building and Facilities Subcommittee has solicited applications for the School Building Committee.

That closed on Monday.

They will be meeting next week to review the applications and set up interviews as needed by the town charter process, and we will keep you updated on that.

I believe you're going to have at least one member on that committee as well to be part of that process.

So very good.

I'm looking at you.

He's like staring me down right now.

He does that often.

Thank you, board.

We appreciate your help tonight.

Thank you for getting this done for us.

Okay, thank you.

Have a great day.

Thank you.

Okay, taking out of order, uh, item M, cable licensing review, discussion, and potential vote on whether to formally initiate the initial cable television licensing process in the town to allow for the licensing of additional cable providers in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable, DTC, regulations under 207 CMR 3.

Good evening.

Good evening, everyone.

Nicole Cassanzo from KP Law.

So I understand that Verizon has approached the town looking to expand cable services to provide to town residents.

Under the Cable Act, there is a— there's 3 ways that you can initiate to work with Verizon in order to have a cable franchise agreement with them, which is required under state law and under federal law.

One process would be for Verizon to initiate and to file an application on its own for the town to review and consider.

Under state regulations, they're pretty archaic.

They were created a while back, first when cable was brand new, and the intent really was to provide for a lot of competition.

So the process, if Verizon initiates it itself with an application, will require multiple public hearings.

What Verizon is asking instead is that the board vote to initiate the process, which will cut out at least one of the public hearing requirements.

As part of this, in order to initiate the proceedings with a new cable operator, the board would also have to create a report and essentially put it out there for other cable operators to come in and to submit applications to provide services in town.

I understand right now you just have Comcast request.

Looks like you signed a franchise agreement with them in 2021 that runs through 2023.

This would provide residents an additional option to have Verizon in town.

We've also prepared a proposed letter in the event that the board does want to initiate the process to have Verizon come in.

We've also prepared a proposed letter to request some waivers from DTC to excuse the town of some of the more onerous requirements, including multiple public hearings and having to put out report for other cable providers since we would say that it's already a competitive process where you have Comcast in place here now.

And also, so really it's a different climate now than it was, you know, 20, 30 years ago when cable was brand new and operators were coming in trying to get the advantage of having their, their poles set up.

For the most part, the poles are already there.

We understand Verizon already has a fiber network in town and provides broadband.

So this would just be additionally so that they could have cable as well to residents.

Just to correct the record, so the— we have a 10-year contract.

I know you said 2021 to 2031.

Yeah, sorry, I misspoke.

Okay, so, so yeah, so the reason we brought it before you originally, Verizon did approach us, so they're looking to switch it and just have the town initiate the, uh, the initial conversation.

Obviously foregone one of the public hearings.

So I just need a vote of the board that you're okay with moving in that direction.

Okay, so you would recuse yourself, Mr. Stachula?

Correct.

Okay, as an employee of Verizon.

All right, so the chair will entertain a motion to accept or initiate the cable television licensing process, correct?

Correct.

Okay, I'll make that motion.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

And on the record, Mr. Archambault abstains.

Yes.

Okay, through the chair, would the board also like to authorize us to request waivers from some of the procedural requirements?

Okay, yeah, I'll add that to my motion then.

Yep, then motion to include that.

Is everybody agreeable?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Okay, discussion and vote for the relocation of utility poles around Arcade Avenue starting at Newman Avenue, including 12 poles ending with pole number 1412.

Mr. Cabral, could you come forward please?

We're on H. H. H. Okay, so how this originated— I know it's late, but I know Michael brought this up a while ago, and we were having a discussion the other day and thought it'd be prudent if we could get those poles in that section, because that's the only place on the street where the poles are in the middle of the sidewalk.

Uh, even if we had to section that off and leave it to the end, it wouldn't interfere with the curbing or the milling and the overlay of the road.

Give you the floor.

I, I have a couple questions.

I guess first and foremost, the relocation of the poles would be to the other side of the street?

No, just move them back to the back of the sidewalk.

Yeah, that creates some concerns as well.

And I, I did get a little bit of the text that was, um, included through the town administrator's office.

I just, I just want to go over a couple items.

One of the items was, um, in here it indicates that they are currently located in the sidewalk area interfering with the handicap accessibility and snowplow operations.

So the ADA requirement out there was looked at.

We do meet ADA, uh, the ADA on the back side of the utility pole.

Minimum requirement around utility pole is 36 inches, recommendation 48 to 60 if you can it.

For my sidewalk equipment plow operations, I typically need 50 inches minimum to get the apparatus around, V-plow, what have you.

We looked at those locations.

We did a site walk on this job when Lynch was on board as a site walk day one.

I think it was June 29th, looking at any concerns along the project that may come up, including ADA.

So I guess there's the question now of— and I did reach out to Jim Noyes just asking him if he could comment on the accessibility issue out there, specifically for those 12 poles.

So there are the first 2 poles coming in from Newman Avenue are located more towards the back of the sidewalk.

I did measure those.

The clearance there, they're a little bit different.

All of the 12 poles, 2 are at the back of sidewalk, meaning more away from the gutter line.

The other 10 poles are all at the front of sidewalk.

So when I say front of sidewalk, at the gutter line.

So those first 2 poles, uh, we have a clearance out there.

I'm sorry, let me go to the pad.

This will be better.

Pole number 1401 has 2 guy wires coming off of it until right behind the sidewalk.

There's a clearance there, including the berm, of 3 feet 5 inches.

That would give you the minimum 36-inch required for ADA.

So that particular location, the next pole coming up, again back of sidewalks, has a 6-foot clearance including the berm to that face of the curb.

All the other poles out there would allow for 5-foot— the other 10 poles allow for a 5-foot clearance.

The discussion would be more if that one to be paved or not paved.

We would propose to pave 48 inches for the recommendation of ADA, so we would exceed that minimum of 36 by a foot, go with the recommendation, ensure that we're not on private property because some of the areas out there tend to get a little tight, the stalls and what have you.

So in terms of specifically for ADA requirement, all 12 of those poles would accommodate the ADA.

There are some additional poles further up, numbers 13 to 17, So it's 1413 through 1417 on the same side of the road, but they— most of those poles are behind walls or up in the grass embankment area at the back of sidewalk.

One of them is located in proximity.

There's a wall there.

It has a minimum clearance.

There's one section that's in front of a stone wall that's there, and it has 4 foot 9 inches.

So again, we would still meet the ADA.

The sidewalk plow there would be, you know, this 57 inches could probably stay on there and still just off the edge of the road a little bit.

So I just wanted to clarify that first off.

Um, the second component in terms of interfering with the schedule, this will absolutely interfere with the roadway schedule right now on that, uh, roadway project.

I did mention to them there may be a possibility of poles being relocated.

The contractor initially, you know, right away responded saying if there's a delay, we have some grade issues, we're trying to fix some drainage puddling that's occurring, we've changed a little bit of the profile, absolutely will impact the schedule.

To go further, Verizon, National Grid in the past, you're probably looking at a year.

I know if the board tries to put a demand or request that they do this sooner, generally, and MassDOT projects typically will put out an advanced utility contract contract.

Um, you know, we kind of looked at these poles, we didn't see an issue.

To go now and ask National Grid to remove these poles, I think you're probably a year out, my personal opinion.

Um, you have things out there too, the back of that berm, you're in some embankment area in the wetland area.

I don't know if they would require to get environmental permitting.

They also have the top of the pole crossmember, and even without the crossmember, this is a 3-phase power supply out there.

So it's not just a utility pole with wires attached to it.

The utility poles— at the top of the pole is a crossmember.

It has 3 different overhead primary lines coming down, overhang the sidewalk area, overhang the street.

National Grid typically wants a 5-foot easement area to the back of that pole, from the face of the pole out 5 foot minimum, to not have any issues with aerial obstructions of any kind whatsoever.

So there's a lot going on here with the request, and I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

I do have an email response from Jim Noyes regarding the pole location, the clearances we're able to get.

I did walk that corridor again, um, yesterday.

I was back out there again today because there was some construction activity that I couldn't get to all the poles, just to verify that we do have the requirements needed for ADA compliance.

And in terms of my sidewalk operations, you know, 4-foot would allow me to have that sidewalk machine, the V-plow or the blower on it, the doing that now in some areas.

We don't even have 4 foot of pavement there, we have some, you know, 3 feet.

They're still able to get over into the grass area.

Sometimes they do a little bit of damage to the back of that, but most of that is along the reservoir side.

One particular property across the street where these poles are is actually owned by the City of East Providence.

Along the reservoir, they have a piece of property there that abuts right up to the back of the embankment, so that easement area would probably be through riding we'd be dealing with the City of East Providence in that particular location, at least for an easement.

So I just wanted to express the concerns.

Uh, we'll have an impact on the schedule.

Don't know how far out.

I really, you know, don't, don't have a good sense of that other than typically it's at least a year.

Uh, if there's permitting involved, there's also some concern on the back edge of those poles in the embankment area to the wetland of the stability.

Those poles are in the ground quite a bit.

The closer we get to that embankment on the backside, I don't have the same structural stability to support the pole.

So that's kind of what I, after spending 2 days looking at this from Tuesday and again this morning, trying to get my arms around what would the request be to National Grid, what are we trying to accomplish, I just wanted to give some useful information to the board of what I find out there, what Jim Noyes from GPI has indicated to me.

There is an email if you'd like a copy, I can distribute it, but that's what I have for you tonight.

So my concern was seeing the pole and the existing sidewalk where it is now, but if you're saying it's going to be widened sidewalk, so behind the poles there's adequate area to meet ADA?

We— yes, I would, I would propose that we do 48-inch asphalt paved area behind each utility pole.

So we have a 5-foot sidewalk coming down.

When we get to that utility pole, if it's— if it's the back of the pole's 2 foot off center, we're going to go another 5— we're going to go 4 feet to that face of the pole on the back side towards the reservoir and put 4 foot of pavement to the back side of those poles to allow for the recommended ADA.

In some areas, you know, we could probably pave it 5 feet.

I don't know that we need to do that.

But 4 feet would certainly allow the ADA recommended clearance, and we have that out there.

It would also allow my sidewalk machines— because we're regrading a little bit, we're making that elevation behind the sidewalk even.

So if you have pavement ending along this edge to the grass area, it's an even transition.

We're not— you know, some of those locations right now where we have water going over the sidewalk have eroded the embankment down.

My guys won't go there.

They know in that machine, if you go to the backside of that pole, your chances are you're going to flip over and then down in a bank, so they skip it.

But there's areas that had waterfowl that will be reestablished within the parameters of the wetland, and the sedimentation control measures we have in place would allow us to bring that up to level so that at least when the machine's on there, there'll be no problem maintaining that.

You know, and we probably need to put some stabilization fabric so grass will grow to get it there, but it will provide a stable area for, you know, the majority of the weight of that equipment out there to stay on the pavement, go off the, the, the off-road a little bit, if you will, and not have it look— with the 5-foot, just, I don't think it's going to aesthetically be pleasing.

And then we're kind of committed to keeping that sidewalk up that can break at the edge.

I would recommend 4-foot clearance behind the utility poles.

Okay.

Conservation's good with all that?

They're, they're aware of the project.

We're within the parameters of the work that's going on there, within the right-of-way Yes.

So everything that I mentioned to you tonight falls within the work that we've put forward in our request through our notice of intent to do exactly what I'm discussing this evening.

I agree.

You're good.

Take care of it.

Yeah, I'm good.

I mean, originally I just asked Mr. Gadeem to ask you if during the process of planning the project those poles were discussed, only because of the location, they're the closest to Arcade Avenue.

That was my original question, was just to see if it was discussed and if it could be moved and everything else like that.

From my standpoint, I just thought it would be easier if they were on the other back side of the sidewalk, away from the roadway, because they are very close to that roadway.

And I, I'm— I just look at it this way.

I truly believe, and I will bet any amount of money, we're going to get everything done and either someone's going to clip one of those poles or that's going to rot out and fall over, and we're going to be replacing them anyhow.

And my intent was just to ask the question, and that was what I asked you, and I was just waiting for the to see if there was a discussion prior to— and you answered a lot of questions— overhead wires, they need space, they need this, they need that.

That's fine with me.

I don't— listen, as long as it meets all the requirements.

My only concern was when you come around that corner, the first 2 poles are set back a little bit, but after that they're right on the edge of that curb.

And to that point, because I'm always looking at projects, right, we're ending our limits of work before 44.

We have a roadway project coming in with the new traffic light.

It's in design right now.

I hope in 2 or 3 years we see that built.

Fall town meeting's coming up.

One of the things I'll be putting forward through Mr. Kadeem is putting the traffic light in at Newman Avenue and Arcade Avenue.

Needed.

We finally met warrants.

I had a discussion some time ago, but I'll be back before you in the fall because there's more information on that.

There'll probably be— hopefully we'll have language to be able to get it on warrant articles to get a light out there like we did at the high school.

At that time would be the proper type because it'll fall within the limits of the construction for that signal, we can look specifically at those 2 poles.

And that's going to take a little more coordination with utility anyway because we may be looking at some takings to get the left turn lanes in there.

There's going to be a little bit more to that picture.

It's just another project that's going to tie in later on.

Okay, we all set?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You.

All right, continued discussion on speeding on Brown Avenue.

We received— everybody has this— the letter from the residents on Meadowlark Drive, in addition to some pictures I'm going to hand out to everyone.

I don't see it.

So, um, did everybody read the letter from the residents of Interlock?

Okay.

Did the chief read it or know about it?

Well, it's— it was addressed to him.

Do you have it so he knows what we're talking about?

Okay, um, a resident reached out to me with these photos, um, that there's speeding going on like after hours because it's such a long straight great stretch.

Um, I could try to ascertain what, what time this is happening, but, um, it's, it's somewhat of a problem.

So I know we had discussed lowering the speed limit to 30.

Um, I think we need a letter from DOT.

Is that— well, they're doing the traffic counts right now, right?

Okay, we do a machine.

The machine, we're having a with the machine.

I'm waiting to hear back what is going to be the resolution on it.

It's been some time since we used it.

The traffic division used to use it for these things.

We haven't had a traffic division sometime because of staffing.

But as soon as I get the word on what needs to be done with the equipment, we'll move forward with the speed.

And also Dave's working with SERPED to do a traffic study over there, right?

If you don't lines.

In terms of the speed limit, just for clarification purposes, it was discussed last time there is an existing regulation out there for the speed limits out there.

So the 40-mile-an-hour posted speed out there is by regulation, and that's important because if it's not, you can't enforce a non-regulatory sign.

So those are by the regulation we have on record for a 40-mile-an-hour posting.

The last meeting we had, there was discussion about doing a count for trucks in traffic volume, if you will, classification count, mainly due to the truck traffic from the R&L Trucking.

So I also know you're looking at doing a speed study.

So my request into CIRPED, I have made that request asking them to do a traffic count, which is classification count.

It'll tell you you have 10,000 vehicles on the road, you know, 5,000 of them going this direction for half the day, the other for that half the day.

They'll give you the peak hours, It'll also break it down into trucks.

It'll tell you vehicles versus trucks, possibly motorcycles, but you're really looking at trucks and vehicles.

I've requested that through them.

They're gonna get back to me.

I haven't got anything yet in terms of schedule.

They typically do these over the summer, and I also just asked them to do a speed study.

They also will do a speed study.

So in conjunction with what Chief is doing here, we will get some information through Serpac if they can set up those cameras.

That information, though, will not be— it'll be useful to find out what the speed is out there, that 85th percentile running speed out there.

It will not change the speed limit.

To change the speed limit, you're going to need a formal traffic study indicating why it needs to be changed, approved by the state after being adopted by the board.

But your study would have to show that there's a need to reduce the speed.

Then you would ask me at DOT to subsequently endorse that, and then you can establish a new regulation.

So it's a little bit more involved in terms of trying to change that speed limit, but at least looking at what we have out there, you'll get some useful information anyway for traffic counting, the classification count, and speeds.

I think part of the problem though on this street is when you first enter Brown Ave from Newman Ave, it says 30, and then as soon as you turn that corner, then it says 40.

And then when— at the other end, when you approach Pine, it goes back down to 30.

So it's inconsistent.

But aside from that, I think we, we need to come up with something with the speeding and, and this type of activity.

So what we have done— Brown Ave is at the beginning and end of 2 different posts, so we have 2 offices that post those, uh, that, that street.

We have multiple, uh, traffic post set up.

We have the traffic trailer there with the speed on it.

Still there?

Okay.

Yeah, well, I had to take it out for a little bit because we needed it somewhere else, but it's back there again.

Okay.

And we recently received through the grant a speed limit sign, a digital one.

DPW's got it and it's gonna make its way out there.

The guys and girls at the department are doing traffic posts on those— on that road.

There's a handful of roads that take priority.

We've got multiple complaints.

Um, Brown Ave is at the top of that list.

Um, to say that we're going to be around every time, right, like that, that's impossible.

No, I understand that.

That's impossible.

Um, but like I said, Brown Ave is, uh, the beginning and end of 2 different sectors in town, so it gets more attention the most because it's the outer limits of both.

One comment in that letter was the resident raised about striping's really worn on that street, and it's worn in a lot of places in town.

What's, what's your plans on striping in general?

So we are— I am moving forward trying to get thermoplastic recapped in town, including Newman Avenue, Brown Avenue.

I'm aware of it.

It's just been a matter of timing to try to get my schedule to get them in here to do that.

So that'll happen probably in August to get those roads recapped in advance of school especially.

But there's a good stretch on Newman Avenue I'm aware of, Brown Avenue as well.

All over Baker's Corners.

There's a few, yeah.

There's areas that are worn out up there.

That is in the works and, you know, through Sean I can give you a schedule when I do get that scheduled.

But that'll be coming and should be in place before school starts.

Thoughts for sure.

Okay.

On that subject of striping, is there a maintenance schedule for that, or is it just when it's perceived as worn out, we address it then?

It's, uh, it's evaluated.

I try to keep a list going every year.

Um, part of the— a little bit of lag this year from some sections I would have had done already with the Anthony Street project last year, just taking more time to get out there, took away from some of my normal things that I routinely do.

Um, but we are in the works of getting that done.

In general, I kind of evaluate that prior to school.

We do— we go out there, we do the crosswalks, all the high-visibility locations around the schools and so on.

And that's when we start honing in on areas that need that, whether it's painted or the areas that have the thermoplastic.

It just gets worn out over time.

It's time to recap some of those, and we just annually try to come up with a list and keep that moving forward.

So there'll be sections on Newman Avenue from the reservoir up to about Jacoby Way light that need to be redone, and then we can skip that and get up towards Baker's Corner where the traffic light— this traffic is crossing those lines, they get worn out.

So how far in advance, or we'll revisit this again as far as the status of the studies, like how long roughly, just in case, so I can give them answers?

I— and well, in terms of my studies, when I know when CIRPAD is going to schedule that I can inform Sean so he can at least let you know that they've been scheduled.

Okay.

Typically, this is their busy time of the year too.

They're doing these services for all the communities in our region.

I put the request in for those 2 studies.

Usually I'd hear back, and I'm hoping to hear back by the end of this week.

As soon as I hear back that they're going to acknowledge that they've received it and will schedule it, if they can give me a date definitive, I'll pass that along to Mr. Kadeem.

Okay.

After the— and it may take a little while to get that report.

They did the traffic signal study for us and they had that done, but then it took them into the fall before they were able to get the data out.

So, right, I can keep you posted on all that through Mr. Kadeem in email.

Okay, so I will work in progress.

Yes, I will as well.

Once we get the recorder up and running, uh, okay, I'll send that information through Mr. Kadeem and, uh, we'll continue to, uh, perform traffic posts in the area.

And no, they have seen a You know, they, they did— they have admitted that they have seen a difference, but I think it's at night that this happens.

And again, you can't have anyone there 24/7.

The 4 to midnight folks are pretty busy.

Yeah, traffic's really not— no, it's understandable.

Mostly done during the day.

Maybe the overnight guys keep an eye out, but there's not much traffic out.

So, right.

And we just recently posted, now that staffing's back up, traffic officer position.

So once we have the few folks we have on field training, once we get them closer to the end, we'll fill that vacancy.

And that person acts as a liaison, right?

So instead of me getting something like this and passing it on patrol, like, they take an active role.

They reach out to these people, you know, right?

They dig down deep into it.

Okay.

And it's definitely a great thing that we can do.

Great.

Great, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Just one last thing for the sake of, um, Elizabeth.

You mentioned about the signage out there, and I do want to clarify one thing.

The regulation, the way it's stated and written and should be adhered to— I did take a ride out there after that last meeting.

Um, the, the first sign that you see, and the regulation is in here, but it indicates as you turn in from Newman Avenue, there should be a 30-mile-an-hour posting right there, and this one, right, as you get past Lowell Drive.

And I think that's the reason why it's 2 different roads.

But you have traffic coming around Newman Avenue at speed.

They're going 45 miles an hour and they continue at speed there.

I think it's to try to get them to slow down prior to getting to Lowell, because if you're at Lowell— makes sense, right?

Right.

So the signs ought to be posted by the regulation.

I just want to let you know I am looking at that and we're going to adapt them because it's Newman Avenue, 30 miles an hour, and then essentially the mileage they give you is essentially right after that, it goes to 40.

So that part of it is correct.

There's an old sign at Pine Street when you approach Pine Street on an old pole there that had a 30-mile-an-hour posting before the intersection.

That was there before we changed out the regulation signs.

Okay.

And it was left there.

I'm not opposed to leaving it because you do have a T-intersection.

It doesn't hurt anything.

You're kind of telling the traffic that's going 40 that there's a stop sign, right?

If you will.

No, that makes sense.

So that one, I would almost say we could leave it there and just— we know it isn't part of the regulation, but we can leave it.

Coming the other way, the first sign you should see coming down Pine Street, which is a straight shot, is the 40-mile-an-hour sign, right?

And that should continue all the way to— so it indicates in here Pine Street, 40 miles an hour, up to the last 7.17 miles, which is just before Lowell, to knock that speed down again to 30.

That sign's missing.

I did notice that the sign prior to Lowell So coming in from Newman, there should be one right there on the corner, which is the— before Lowell.

Coming the other way, just before you get to Lowell, should be the sign having them drop down.

And it's twofold: limited visibility again coming out of Lowell, especially if making a left turn, and you have Newman Avenue coming at you.

So I think one new sign will be added on the other side of the roadway to match the regulation.

I think me personally, given schoolchildren being on the road bus stops and the truck traffic.

I think it should be 30, but I know we have to go jump some hurdles to get there, and we'll get there.

We will.

We'll get there.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right.

Thank you.

Don't go away.

Consider acceptance of the $253,284 and 5-cent grant from the MassDOT for the Shared Streets and Spaces program.

So we got this— this was our second attempt at this grant.

Um, I got as creative as I could with the language to try to sell it because they always like to have aspects for just doing sidewalk projects.

Um, if you read the write-up I did in there, I did emphasize the fact that we're looking for continuity of our sidewalks.

Sidewalks down Peck Street would tie into the Route 44 project.

They are looking to include a pedestrian crossing.

It was going to be at the Public Safety Driveway.

Through prior conversations with Mr. Cadime, I've been trying to lobby to at least see if we could get a sidewalk project along Peck Street so that if they're going to put a pedestrian crossing on 44, an actual crossing on 44, pedestrian actuated, why not put it at Town Hall?

No one's using the public safety driveway essentially to walk, but we have a lot of folks that are employed here or whatever that will use that driveway.

So I tied that in, I tied in the Arcade Avenue sidewalk project, which also tied in the trails, the proximity to the YMCA, the proximity to the senior center.

So the write-up was, they mentioned, was well written in that regard to try to get the buy-in.

Have all these connections.

And, you know, as part of the grant, we did an estimate.

I did sit with GPI.

I used their master DOT form, came up with that dollar amount.

It would be granite curbing and cement concrete sidewalks, which I think would look great.

It would be on the right-hand side of Peck Street as you come in from 44, that grass area.

I actually, over the years, have taken trees down.

And if you— the folks that have been here longer, if you guys have come to town hall There were probably about 7 or 8 trees along that corridor in that area that we have taken out, either dying or— there's one left and one fire hydrant that needs to be relocated.

We'll move to get that done, but the project's going to have to go out to bid, award the contract, and then will be overseen by probably myself or department for the installation of it.

And I think we have until December of 2027.

I'd have to look at the contract, but Again, it's a great opportunity for us.

It's $253,000 that we wouldn't have had.

It will tie into the Route 44 project later, which is going to be a nice aspect as well.

Months ago, you made a— you had a discussion on the planning board, and you gave them an average cost per foot for sidewalk.

Remember what that was?

Off the top of my head right now, I don't know.

It's probably more because of the granite curbing prices always changing.

I don't remember off the top of my head right now what that number is, but I could certainly— I mean, we've based it on estimates of the MassDOT form and prior MassDOT contracts, which is generally the guide.

And I had GPI look at it for— what they use is they have engineered numbers over the years for different projects, like roadway projects, and they'll take an average of these different projects and say curbing right now is going for $140 a linear foot.

So there is a breakdown.

I could share with the board.

I don't want to bore you with all the numbers and details, but certainly could forward it to anybody that might want to take a look at it.

Mr. Zorra, you're probably more familiar, but I use the standard MassDOT form as an attachment on the back end of the whole application.

You may not have that, but as part of the application package, there was an engineer's estimate sheet done that they require for the grant to come up with numbers.

And if anyone's interested, I can forward that to Mr. Cadime.

If you'd like to have it.

Okay, very good.

So you need us to accept this, correct?

Yes.

Okay, so the chair would entertain a motion to accept.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Nice job, Mr. Gabron.

Thank you.

All right, now the other discussion, uh, to identify funding to move Department of Public Works administrative staff offices to 911 Taunton Avenue.

We, we now own the building, and I— the previous conversation I had with you, I told you of a conversation I had with a former official that swears that Chapter 90 money can be used for doing building renovations.

Have you ever heard that?

I, I know there are different uses you can use for that money, um, even buying equipment like trucks, but we tended by past practice not to do that because we usually use that money for our roadway program.

So I know there are other uses.

I'm not, you know, I know, but we, we just got a supplemental amount of what, $280,000?

Yeah.

So it would seem to me we could take a portion of that and do what we got to do to the offices to get that administrative staff at least moved over there.

Is that feasible, Sean, if the board votes to to approve it.

We would just need to figure out, you looking just to move the administrative staff, or you know, just to get them in there?

So Dave, that should be the number one priority, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So we would just, we would just need to walk through, see what the— I mean, there's office spaces there now.

So I don't know that there's a whole lot of, you know, painting, maybe some flooring, some wiring for the computers and everything.

What about the bathrooms?

How old or dated are they?

No, the building's in pretty decent shape for office space, but if we're talking about long-term planning, I hate to just throw money at it if we're going to, you know, change everything and move everybody over.

I just wanted to get the offices— I see the offices and get the administrative staff over there because they're working in the hall.

Yeah, so this would be a permanent move for administration?

We wouldn't be moving them again?

No, that's what That's the whole reason we bought that building, I think, was one of the reasons was for office space.

So if we spent this money, this would be one and done for administration?

I would think for the foreseeable future, yeah.

I don't think there's any guarantee of that.

I totally disagree.

I don't, having walked that building.

Bigger question, the previous DPW building committee, are they still together?

Were they disbanded after the vote on Fore River Avenue?

They haven't officially disbanded, but they haven't met, so they're okay.

Yeah, well, just from my standpoint, before I do anything with this piece of property, I think that, you know, if the building committee needs to get reappointed to the address of 911, you're gonna have to look at that property, figure out what we're gonna do with the building before we start moving people in it and start renovating and spending any type of money in there.

I would hate to see— move people in there, and yes, there's office space in it, they could probably use it, but eventually it's going to get reconfigured it.

We don't even know what the needs are in that building.

We don't even know what the, the DPW director or the committee would look for for that in that building, if any portion of that building can be used for what we want to use it for.

That's just my personal standpoint.

Yeah, that was a little bit of my concern looking at it.

Um, Dave and Mr. Halpin were nice enough to give me a little tour through there because I had heard people going in for recycling and different things and saying, boy, that's It's a tough spot to work.

And, uh, we spent, what, 90 minutes that day?

You guys took me through everything, and I, I commend you guys.

You stretch every dollar, and you've done a tremendous job doing everything you need to do with, with so little over there, and with the repurposed furniture, and every inch of that space is used.

And I commend you for it.

And, and Tanya and Naomi, and they're in tight quarters, and yeah, Yeah, at this point, yeah, you deserve better facilities.

I'm just— I guess that's the point.

I commend you for all that.

But before we spend money, a little bit what Mike's talking about is if it was a one and done and we knew we'd move it into space and we weren't going to be moving it again and spending money to move it again, it would be without hesitation.

But if we're going to spend money to move administration and have to spend money to reconfigure again, it seems a little wasted to me because we can see the finish line coming and it's going to be done, but I just wouldn't want to waste the money if we have to redo it again.

How about if they take a walkthrough and see what a minimum amount would need just to spruce it up so they could move them in?

Yeah, walkthrough would be great because whatever we're going to sit there and then committee is going to meet for 6 months or a year and then the building just sits there and they're still in deplorable conditions.

Yeah, no, the, uh, they are deplorable.

And again, commend you guys, do a great job in there with what you got.

Would that be agreeable, just let them come back with it, see what needs to be done on a minimum basis?

Take a look.

Yeah.

So you'd be talking about moving your senior clerks as well, recycling, or just you and Dave Halpin, Mr. Halpin?

I'd have to look into that.

This is the first time hearing about the administrative move, but we'd have to look at that.

Yeah, if we're looking for the administrative, it would be the clerical staff, the— I would assume recycling coordinator, and then Dave and Jim as well.

So at least, you know, yeah, the walkthrough would be great.

I mean, we— the more we can learn about it, the better.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, discussion regarding the expenditures to install an artesian well on Water Lane.

Can I, uh, just before we move on, so am I doing anything with the building committee, or— I just asked if they were still— yeah, that would be my direction, is to have the building committee meet again, discuss that property, because that was the reason why we bought it, was we're going to look at a whole entire new complex there and not just piecemeal it.

Because I'm just afraid if we move one portion in there, we're going to end up moving them out.

And whether some of that building needs to be severely renovated or not, or— that's not my termination.

But we haven't even done any like real big testing in that building.

We haven't looked at it.

We don't even know what the committee or anybody we're looking at to put over there.

That's— I would like for you to walk through it and come back with a number of a minimum amount of work that would be needed to get the women basically out of there.

And I mean, if we're talking Under $50,000, I don't— that's well worth doing.

We did walk through it.

So if they move there now, you're going to be paying utilities and everything else on a building that we're not even sure what we're going to do.

So you want to keep them where they are?

I don't want to move them, get their hopes up, then all of a sudden they're coming back because we have to renovate the proper way.

We're gonna— I get what— I get what you're saying.

It's a little bit better facility.

So when we did that, when we did the tour, it's a lot of stuff has to be knocked down and taken out.

Not in the office section.

Well, the office is attached to the rest, correct?

So for them to go in there, I mean, we don't even know if there's any— what's the fire alarm system?

Does that have to be brought up to code now that it's going to be used for municipality?

A question that should be answered.

You are absolutely correct.

There's a lot of what-ifs.

And yeah, but I, I don't want to leave those employees the administrative side and at the deplorable conditions that they're in.

And then the other— longer than they have to be.

The other piece is when we inquired taking that property was we were going to put an access road going through it to the front so they're not pulling out with the— where the current entrance is with the hill coming over.

We had talked about relocating that if we— so public isn't pulling in and out.

And I know they've done it for years going into that building.

The gentleman owned the but we talked about making it safer coming through the current property we own now and a road out towards Lake Street.

So there was many things that we had talked about when we were going to purchase the property, what should be fixed, what, you know.

So I don't know, I mean, I just— the road, I mean, I think getting maybe the building committee to go through and, and get an idea, or even everybody here with the building committee, to get an idea of what the endgame is going to be and then go from there.

I mean, I don't have to go, I'm just saying, like— and I think that's why I've said it, I've said it repeatedly.

Our priorities— what are we doing as a board?

Do we want a DPW garage?

If we do, let's do it right.

Let's get the building community back on board.

Let's look at the property.

Let's decide what can go there.

Okay.

All right.

And what's reasonably affordable for the town?

Obviously, we know a $40 million project is not going to fly.

Okay, that's— that was a given.

That was loud and clear to the people.

Yeah, right.

So now we have a— we purposely went and got this piece of property to relocate DPW because it's still centrally located.

It's adjacent to the property that we own.

What can we do with that piece of property?

I cannot answer that question.

I am not going to answer that question.

We have a building committee that can answer that question.

Let's do And if they go back forward and do their due diligence and come forward with a plan, then whatever we have to do, we go forward with it.

Let's get— let's schedule it then.

Schedule them to come in, redirect it to that address, and let's put it down for a meeting in 4 weeks maybe.

Well, you can reach out to the building committee and see what their thoughts are, John.

Okay.

I just don't want to see the thing sit there for 6 months, right?

If that's why I'm saying $1.6 million, for the reason to satisfy a need.

So let's, let's put it where it's foreseeable, where we can see it, you know, have them do a walkthrough, and then we meet again to discuss and go from there instead of just leaving it hanging.

All right, so on the Artesian well, I'd like to have a full explanation of how the taxpayers have now spent $13,000 and have come up empty?

Okay, the short answer, we went through the process of getting a permit for putting in a new well.

And to step back a little bit, there was money in a warrant article from years ago that was set aside through the former Parks and Rec director for putting in a new well at Water Lane because we didn't get the— we weren't getting enough capacity out of the existing existing well.

That got picked up.

Jim from my office went out, talked to the Board of Health agent about getting a permit to put the well in.

So we followed the process.

We got a plan that he provided us, a septic plan, to save us the cost of coming up with a site plan.

The well, uh, was located.

It was discussed with the Board of Health agent.

We applied for the permit.

The permit was approved.

Contractor came in and with discussions, I wasn't there privy to that, but my understanding of it is contractor came in to install the new well, suggested that location get moved a little bit away from the existing well because of the drawdown.

His, from what I gather, was the existing well that's there doesn't have enough drawdown.

You're better off moving it, you know, a little away to get you a better chance of getting more capacity out of that well.

That's where that came into play.

My department was never made aware of any well protection zone out there at all.

That all came about later.

So I just want to set the stage of how it came about.

We went to the Board of Health agent, told them what we were looking to do.

We were given a septic plan.

I think Sean just sent that off this afternoon.

We were given a plan of a septic drawing to save us the money from getting a site plan, to save the town money, okay?

Number one, then the plan was shown, was used generally to say the well's going to go in close proximity.

That was the whole idea behind it, put the well close proximity to the existing well.

It made sense, the plumbing, the piping's there, the whole bit.

The well driller, we like to rely on expertise too, suggested moving it.

We had no idea there were any parameters that we had to work within.

There was nothing in the permit guidelines telling us that.

If we knew, we would have never put that well there.

But that information was not known to my department nor the well digger.

It was as the well got installed down there that Rob Bernardo from the Water District reached out and mentioned to me that that well was put in the well protection zone.

I immediately went down and talked to Brian from the Board of Health, indicated that to him.

We looked at the location.

He said it's going to be close to where that is.

But that information was never shared with us as part of the permit process.

We found out after the fact when the casing was put down and drilled, and we stopped right there.

I immediately set up a meeting with Mr. Cadime, explained to him what happened.

We weren't aware of the well protection zone.

When that new well was being proposed from the existing— around the existing well location and moved closer to those Conex boxes, a grade stake was put there indicating where that well was coming up.

Who put the grade stake there?

The contractor working out there from what I got.

And I, again, my understanding of this is this is how things transpired.

We had a well that was going to go there, it got changed, we moved it.

The contractor suggested putting it in, you know, if you're looking to put a well somewhere else, where would you put it?

Not that far away from the concession stands but closer to the Conex boxes.

You just put a grade stake there.

My understanding, Jim from my office reached out to the Board of Health, told them we were going to be moving that well a little bit closer towards that location.

There's a grade stake there.

I believe it stayed there for 2 weeks before it went out and we dug the well because we were not aware that there was anything restricting us from doing that.

I would never in a million years have put a well in knowing that that's there.

Since that permit got pulled and all this transpired, there are now safeguard measures in place because I had— I was not aware that there was a well protection zone.

How does it come into play?

Why wasn't that captured?

Why weren't we made aware of it, right?

All these after the fact come about.

So with all that said, I know now that that permit has been changed with the safeguard measure to specifically ensure that a well protection zone area is going to be identified if one exists.

We are now going out to get an engineered plan before I will even decommission the well.

That's— and I did reach out, that's in the process, that's happening now to decommission that well.

I know the water district has been very anxious to get that done.

I'm trying to make that happen.

So as soon as we have that plan, which has been surveyed— I did reach out to O'Kell Engineering today.

The plan— he has all the information he needs.

He just needs to give us that existing conditions callout, that well to be decommissioned, get the new permit in place just like we had to do before to put the well in, and we will decommission that well as soon as that happens.

Going forward, we sat down, we looked at the budget, we kind of know where we are right now.

I believe we had $48,000 total in the budget.

Even with the glitch that we had there of not knowing that that well was being put in the wrong spot, we, to the best of my knowledge right now, should have enough money to get that well installed for that $48,000 the way it was intended in the first place, even with the expenses we've incurred here unknown to us at the time.

So that's how we got to be where we are.

That's as simple of an explanation I can give to try and follow the process.

So when you say the contractor put a stake in the ground, was that the well driller?

I believe— I, I— Jim is probably— Jim is here tonight.

He could probably elaborate more.

I wasn't the guy in the field to do it, but I know there was a discussion had and there was determination made that that would be the new location.

Yeah, the contractor, Paul's Water Works, he also drilled the well as well, right?

Yes.

And he chose the location?

Yes, sir.

That's— in all the years I've been in the contracting business and all the wells I put in, a well driller would never choose the location.

He would rely on a surveyor or an engineer to identify the location.

So if he put it in the wrong location, then he should drill the next one for free.

We can have— we can have that conversation with— well, I mean, the taxpayers took a hit of $13,000.

We had the Little League in here a while ago wanting to know about watering for the fields.

The taxpayers come up empty.

I've never heard of a well driller taking the responsibility of identifying where the well should go.

Well, I'll take responsibility for that.

I've never— we haven't done a well in town in a long time.

I relied on the contractor's knowledge.

Yeah, but what I'm saying, I've never heard of a contractor— they rely on an engineer or surveyor.

To say drill here.

So if it's on them, let them make it whole.

And I would just, for the record, just indicate again, however it got to be that location got changed, there was no parameter telling us that we had an area that was restricted to not put the well.

I guess is my— the only thing I can tell you, because I could see this happening from any people.

I can see this happening from the way that this process went about, as I always do.

And I've done permits in this town where people told me I don't need them, including the gazebo down at the library.

I pull a permit for everything.

I want coverage.

I want it done right.

We have the resources here.

Why would I not get a building permit for a gazebo if that thing ever collapsed?

I go out of my way, right?

But again, to this point, we followed process.

We followed procedure to the best of ability.

Unknown to us, there was a restraint.

So how it came about, I can clearly see how it came about from a practical situation that could have happened to anybody.

And it must have had an impact on the Board of Health because they changed their permit now to make sure that this won't happen again.

So I just want to put that out there on the record.

Okay, what's done is done, but I really do think you should— the town should pursue Yeah, I'll work with Dave and Jim to talk about the, uh, contracting.

Okay, well, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else have any questions?

No.

All right, next is discussion regarding Habitat for Humanity proposals.

I'm Charles Beecham, 127 Allen Avenue, Seekonk, and this is Kim— Kim Thomas, CEO of Old Colony Habitat.

Hi everybody, how are you?

Welcome back.

Thank you.

So I put together a packet here.

That has the, um, the HUD median income for Seacong.

And, um, I think we were going to be talking a little bit about that tonight around the, um, the median household income.

And 31% of Seacong residents fall within the affordable housing for, um, we do up to 80% AMIs.

So those are the particular income based on households.

So we had— we've done a few homes now.

We've done one in Taunton and Norton and Attleboro and Franklin.

We rehabbed an old church in Franklin and the family just moved in June.

And I know Charlie is a big advocate of us coming and see Conga.

I also would like to.

And I know we talked about Burnside Ave before.

And I wasn't sure the questions might be around the family and the need, the income levels, and then also, you know, what we've done in the past.

I did put in the chart there the other homes that we've built and what we had for the mortgages.

So we're just kind of circling back to see if there's an interest still and if you have any questions for us around the Burnside property.

I know last time we came we discussed it and just checking back.

Yeah, so we're interested in both the old fire station on County Street, 170 County Street, and 0 Burnside, which is kind of at the north end of, uh, Secog.

Um, we would, we would be interested in developing those— either of those properties as affordable housing?

So I would just say, with regards to Burnside, I just have to double-check.

I think the board voted to keep that one because I think there might have been a culvert.

There's a culvert or something.

Yeah.

So we can go back and double-check just to work with Dave Cabral just to make sure that there truly is a culvert there and that there's a need for it.

But the board did authorize me on the, the County Street Fire Station to go out.

So my goal is the properties that have been approved by the board to actually have an RFP— start the RFPs for August.

So I'll bring that before the board just to make sure if there's any stipulations that you want to put in there, what type of proposals you want to see.

Because I know for Habitat for Humanity, they want to be able to have some type of housing component to be able to be competitive with their proposals.

So could you refresh my memory?

Were they talking about putting a duplex at the old fire station at one point, Habitat for Humanity, but it wouldn't fit?

Or is that what their goal was?

I think there was discussion about that.

I think we talked about it.

Maybe we do single right now, single residence, but, um, depending on the property.

I remember it was discussed.

Talk about that.

I think, I think it might have been a board member that brought that up.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, because I think that was the response, that you only focus in on single families.

Yeah, at this point.

But we're, you know, open to thinking more about that too.

If I remember, you, when we had the discussion, you were more interested in the building being tore down and try to put 2 single-family houses there.

And this one was the fire station.

Oh, it would be one single-family house.

I don't think that that property will support 2.

No, unless you've got zoning approval.

Yeah, you do that as well.

We're pretty flexible.

Um, we're just such in need.

We have just opened up our Norton home.

A private donor gave us an undersized lot, 4,000 square feet, and now we're building a home.

We have over— since July 15th, 52 applicants coming through already, and they're from all around, including Seekonk, Norton, and everywhere in our service area.

So you all know the need is great.

I mean, we all know that, and we would be very open to discussing particular projects and whatever we think would work for both us and the town.

Okay, anything else?

No, everything.

Um, so getting back to your RFPs, so if you're going to go in August for them, um, what additional information we have to have in those RFPs so they could be— I sent samples to you.

I think there's some samples.

Yeah, there is.

Um, but it's just a determination on what you're looking for proposal, if there's any.

But we— I'll put that together and then get it to the board so we can talk about it in advance.

And then, so the goal would be probably to get out the, you know, the RFPs for September.

Just work on the RFPs, document itself.

So I just want to make sure they'll have a chance to be competitive in that process.

That's what I want.

Because we just can't give it to them.

Well, for them, you'd have to identify the properties because it would be very specific.

Yeah.

And then we would apply through the RFP.

Very good.

Great.

All right, well, good to see you.

Questions?

What would fit on that lot?

You, you've looked at it quite a bit, 170 County.

What structure would you, would, would you propose for that lot?

Those are the, the one that you're actually looking at there for Norton and Taunton.

Um, those are the type that we build.

We are adding to them with like a, um, a peak in the front with the farmer's porch.

So we work with, um, Coldwell Architects, and he donates all of his time to design the home and adds to it based on what we would want to do.

So it'd be similar to that white one, very narrow profile to the front.

Yeah, it's pretty square, but we're open to changing.

We have a lot of flexibility.

That'd look a little weird with that big lot there to have this little— that would.

Yeah, yeah, we could do, um, something different there.

We have a— we have another, um, home, um, Holman Street in Attleboro.

That's a really nice home that's wider and with a porch.

It's not on this packet, but we have those plans too.

Okay.

Do you know what the square footage was?

Is it in this book?

I'm just curious.

About 1,900.

We're doing a 1,500 and 1,900.

The church was 2,200, but that was different.

Church was a crazy project that we just wrapped up.

Yeah, it is.

Yeah.

Good.

And then we'll try to do— finish the basements for the families too, so for that extra space.

That senior citizen discount applies, do they also get a portion of 4B split up, or do they get different qualifications for tax exemptions?

Say it again.

So if someone— if they build a house there, Habitat community, yep, would they be in the, um, with the rest of the residents that would share a portion of the tax increase if the seniors pass their thing?

They would, yeah, right.

There's no exception for that.

Okay.

I don't know, I thought they had different exemptions for— yeah, for different valuations what they pay taxes on.

You know, we talked about that for the last time we were here, is that we— the cities and towns allow us to have the families pay the actual mortgage that they receive for the taxes versus the appraised.

That'll be affordable housing in perpetuity, so Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good seeing you again.

You too.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay, item O, accept the resignation of Nathan Kowski from the Department of Public Works effective July 21st, 2026.

How long is this gentleman with us?

Do you know, sir?

Uh, 2 years.

2 years.

Oh, Dave, Dave looked that way.

2 years.

Okay, so moved.

Second.

Moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Accept the resignation of Jeremy Tibolo from the position of IT specialist and analyst effective August 6th, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Q, accept the letter of retirement from Constantino Natal from the Secaucus Police Department effective August 1st, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Uh, consider Hmm.

Considering appointment of Jeffrey Mello as per diem building commissioner.

It just looks funny being there seeing we just got his resignation.

So, so we've got two.

So what we're looking to do is have Mr. Mello as a per diem building inspector.

He holds his commission and license, and then also Bill McDonough, William McDonough, who's serving, who's working in Attleboro.

He's filled in for us.

So between the two of them, they'll be able to offset some of the inspections that we have.

Okay, so under item R, for a second— moved and seconded.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Nay.

Okay, so voted.

Consider the appointment of William McDonough as per diem building commissioner.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Uh, consider the appointment of Daniel Jerez as per diem plumbing inspector and gas inspector.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Oh, it's good to see a Sikh kid getting a job in town.

Yeah, yeah.

I'll tell you a quick little story.

I recommended him and he got interviewed by Mr. Gadeem.

He, uh, is on vacation very northern Maine.

And he actually said to me, if I have to— I— he really wants this position, he'd drive home 7 hours to make an appearance and then go back with his family.

I said, I think that'd be necessary.

So I said, if you want, come in the next meeting and just introduce yourself to everybody, you know.

So he told them yes and then put him last on the agenda.

I could think it was Fort Kent where you scoop snowmobiles.

Youth up in Caribou.

Consider approving the open session meeting minutes of July 8th, 2026.

So moved.

A second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

So voted.

Okay, community speaks.

Is anyone here to speak on community speaks?

Seeing none.

Other business, discuss other topics not reasonably anticipated by the chair 48 hours before the meeting.

I do not believe we have any.

I, I did have something.

We're all set with Auburn Street with— oh yeah, I sent you the email.

Did you see that?

Yeah, I did see the last second.

The resident's been very patient.

Yeah.

Multiple times, um, and it's in our right-of-way.

They've removed— we've removed other trees adjacent to it because they've died.

Um, Auburn.

Yeah, so there's about 80 trees that were put in there as part of the— I would assume part of the, um, subdivision.

So we did remove a few.

So most of them are either dying or are dead.

So we've, we've removed about 40 of them.

So every year we've, we've done a number.

So the individual who has put the complaint in is— I think there's 8 or 10 coming out there directly right in front of her house.

So I would like to make a request that someone, whether it's the operator, he said, uh, sorry, Dave's staff, at least knocks on the door and talks to the people, says, gives them a rough idea of what the plan is going forward, because they are, they are frustrated, and it's, it's been quite a while.

So, all right, we can do that.

That'd be great.

Town administrator's report?

Uh, nothing at this time.

I'm sorry, was it 17?

17, open.

Okay.

Uh, council payable warrant, we've taken care of that.

TV9 liaison report?

Oh, nothing at this time.

Okay.

Bristol County Advisory Board?

Yes, the, uh, the budget, the agenda was hand-delivered to Town Hall.

August 6th is the meeting, so I'll, uh, be there for that meeting August 6th for Bristol Advisory to go over the tri-county and all the payroll.

So report back after that.

Okay.

Adiris Farm Committee.

Um, just waiting.

Mr. Kadeem, anything on the traffic study?

Uh, yes.

So Mr. Auburnwood just clarified, uh, with the chair on which direction we wanted to go with on the traffic, uh, just in terms of the active recreation on Elm Street.

So we're just going to take the master plan, pull that forward.

So he's put together the language.

Uh, we're going to do— we're going to use not GPI but our peer use.

So we're going to put out just an estimate.

Doesn't need to go out to bid because it's engineering, so it's exempt from 30B.

But we are just getting some estimates on that, so we should have that within the next couple weeks.

Okay.

And then, um, one last thing, um, and this is just for my own— whenever we are reviewing documents, if we could get all of them so that what happened, we could avoid that, please.

Yeah, and I apologize, it was The question was about the contract, so I didn't send all the supporting document with us.

Yeah, just next time, just so we have everything.

That's all.

I talked about the CHA contract.

Yeah, we didn't have the appendix.

You didn't have the bid document?

Yeah, the whole scope of work.

Okay, so the next board meeting will be the 5th of August, and We will now end our regular session.

So I'd entertain a motion to— All right, I got a couple questions though.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

No, I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.

Go right ahead.

So I got 2 things.

One thing, a resident must have watched our last meeting, a couple meetings ago, Mr. Archambault brought up about Pride, how they didn't have fencing around their job site.

Someone asked me about Fantasyland.

They were wondering how come Fantasyland tore down all their fencing.

Now all those ponds and the golf holes and everything are exposed to— if kids want to go in there, is there anything that we could, could do?

Because they, they said we were concerned about kids walking into the Pride Hyundai, but what about Fantasyland now that they took out their miniature golf?

And then, so I'll ask.

I'd have the, uh, building— one of the building inspectors drive by.

But the difference between Pride and I think Fantasyland is, is that Pride was is under construction, so they're required to have the fencing.

But I wasn't— I guess I'm not aware that Fantasyland's doing any work.

Um, I mean, they cleaned up a lot, I guess, months ago.

They did, right?

Cleaned up a lot of stuff.

I don't know if there's— because there was some activity, uh, just homeless, right?

Yeah, I guess they must have noticed the fencing going in some areas, so they were saying kids can go in there, and that's an issue.

But the other one— yeah, I mean, we keep— I'll make sure that there's no public safety issue, but we can't enforce it.

I mean, if a property owner doesn't want to put a fence up, they don't need to put a fence up.

Um, I mean, if there's active construction going on and there's a safety hazard, then they should have that.

Okay, so, all right, but I'll take a look at that.

That was one of them.

So the second thing, I sent Mr. Sagar and you an email about, uh, protesting for the South End Fire Station.

Is that still going through, or is that coming back to this board for a vote.

Well, the way it stands, Mr. Miller forwarded— signed off on the building permit for the building committee because we applied within the time frame to meet the deadline for, uh, the new energy code, so we can do the— do it under the old energy code if it gets approved.

There was a holdup way back when, from a year or so ago, that the, the, uh, health agent wanted an additional perk test done on the site in the reserve area, I guess it was.

So I discussed that with the town administrator operator, and I told him I'd even pay for it, and he said he didn't think that'd be necessary, the town could cover it.

So I guess, uh, Oak Hill Engineering is going to work with, um, the health agent at some point, and they'll go down and do a perk test.

How much are we talking?

So I haven't seen the, the invoice of the cost associated with it, So under the LEED Act, which was signed by the governor in 2024, I believe, it allows for the extension of building permits to go for an additional 2 years.

I don't— I'm not sure that the actual building permit was issued for this project.

I think we just put in for the building permit to make sure that we had the stretch code.

So part of the stipulations were for the building code to be relieved we would need the septic.

Um, so that's, that's where we stand.

I just, I don't have it.

Yeah, the design of the septic system is good till, uh, July of '27.

The health agent just wants to see one more perk test in a reserve area.

So if you get a perk test, you're saying that's only good until July of '27?

The plan under the LEED Act would be good until July of 2027.

Because typically when we do stuff like this, the town administrator comes to us for a vote of authorization, so there's, um, so people know where, you know, where the authorization came from and everything like that.

That's always been his practice, is coming to us for, uh, authorization for, for, uh, taking out any funds out of the operating budget.

Especially if it's significant and if it goes towards a property that— now that we're looking to build a fire station, that we've been looking, um, I think it's just what we've been doing for past practice.

I'm not sure if you want to change that.

Like, no, people just— you can just— no, I think, I think the practice still needs to take place.

I guess what I would clarify, and I'll just get more information for you, is, is that in order for the building permit to be issued, we we need the perk test, right?

So I don't know that a building permit was issued.

I think it was just applied for to keep us in abeyance for the stretch code, right?

So in order for any type of building permit to be issued, we would need that, that perk test.

So we don't necessarily need it right now for— because there's no project right now for the building project.

But from my understanding, the stretch code allowed— once we submitted the application, it allowed for Uh, the stretch code to be held in abeyance, so we didn't need to go to the new stretch code.

But I'll confirm that and send out an email to the board.

And you're comfortable with taking that money out of the operating budget?

Well, I, I need to know what the cost associated with it is.

I haven't seen the costs.

Okay.

I just don't— I don't, I don't think a member individually should be paying for a subdeck for a town project.

I didn't know he offered, but he put it on the record.

I'll say that now.

But my response was I don't, I don't think he should be paying for it.

If we're going to do a perk test, it should come out of the town.

Okay, so we've done secondary perks before in town, I'm sure.

Is the initial perk much bigger expense than a request for a secondary perk on a reserve area?

Or is this a start from scratch all over again?

No, he just, he just wants— the health agent wants one additional PERC test done in the reserve area to make sure the conditions— for that, to make sure conditions haven't changed.

The last PERC was done when?

2023.

So, so the building— the application for the building permit was submitted in June of '23, but it hasn't, hasn't been released.

I based— when I go into the system, it hasn't been, been released, so it hasn't actually been issued.

So there's no real physical.

There's one hold on it, and that's the Board of Health.

Okay.

Everybody else has signed off on that.

Okay.

Michael, do you have anything?

No, I don't.

Anything else from the board members?

No.

Chris, you all set?

I'm good.

All right.

So are we going to return to open session?

No.

No.

Okay.

Chairman, entertain a motion to close open session and to go into executive session for the purposes of— at 7:17.

7:17.

Okay.

To discuss strategy with respect to litigation pursuant to General Law Chapter 38, 21A1.

To discuss complaints brought against a public officer, employee, staff individuals.

B, to conduct strategy sessions with respect to negotiations with Superintendent of Public Works, MGL 30A-21A2, as having discussion open session would be detrimental to the litigation or bargaining position of the town.

C, to conduct a strategy session with respect to negotiations with the Steelworkers Supervisory Unit, Local 9517-09.

Per Mass General Law 30A and 21A3 as having discussion in open session would be detrimental to the litigation or bargaining position of the town.

And D, consider approving executive session minutes of July 8th, 2026.

So moved, Chris Zorra.

Second, Michael Healy.

Okay, roll call vote.

Bob Archambault.

Robert Archibald, aye.

Elizabeth Elmazian, aye.

Chris, all right.

Mike Healy, aye.

Gary Segar, aye.

So we're in executive session at 7:20.