2023-12-05 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government
2023-12-05 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Minute late, but, welcome everyone, to our hearing of the joint committee of municipalities in regional government, state representative Carol Faiola, house chair, and I'll be presiding over today's hearing. And I'm also, Wanna just let you know that, my counterpart chair, Jacob Olivera, could not be here today, but extends his and and good wishes. Couple of housekeeping announcements is that, Those testify for those there are people testifying in person and virtually. This is also live streamed on the legislature's public website.54 We ask those persons who are, not testifying to please mute, your devices until called upon to speak. We're also going to keep our testimony to 3 minutes or up to 3 minutes, if that's possible. And, of course, you can send, Written testimony, at any time up until Tuesday, December 12th, at the end of the day. We will, though, take legislators, as you know, out of order because they may have another hearing to attend to, and, we'll extend that to them, and also ask them to keep their remarks for 3 minutes as well. So at this time, I would like to introduce my house committee, members98 that are here today, but I'll indicate all of them. And I'm not sure who's on virtual.102 Do we see that? I don't have my
SPEAKER2 - You do.
SPEAKER1 - You'll you'll give me that. Okay. So to my left, I have, representative Dawn, Shan of Newburyport. I have representative Ted Phillips of Sharon. I have Noah from the, chairman, Oliveira's office with us, Jeff from, my office, and Hailey. And on the screen, we have representative Scarsdale, who, could not be with us today. Oh, 0, and we have with us our ranking minority Member representative, Matt139 Moratore. So thank you for being here, everyone. So with that, I think we've done Housekeeping and okay. That's fine. Little notes here. I'm gonna start, because the first person I have on my list is senator Susan Moran. And I don't know if she is virtual or in person.
SPEAKER3 - I am virtual, madam chair.
SPEAKER1 - Welcome. I hear you're gonna hello there, senator.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you, madam chair, and and thank you for the Combination in allowing me to testify out of whatever. I am testifying on senate 13 15. Am I coming across alright?
SPEAKER1 - It's kind of in and out, but maybe keep near the microphone. That would be helpful. Thank you.
SPEAKER4 - Hello? Hello?
SPEAKER5 - Will do.
192 SEN192 MORAN192 -192 SB192 1315192 -192 Thank192 you, Madam Chair, and, thank you also to members of the committee for the opportunity to testify out of order. I am testifying on Senate 1315 today regarding equity in Steamship Authority operations. The Steamship Authority runs a public ferry service between206 Cape Cod towns and the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. The authority coordinates It's the transportation of people, cars, cargo, and necessary provisions for the Islands and the Cape Towns. The voting members of the Steamship Authority consists of the towns of Falmouth, Barnstable, and New Bedford on the mainland, as well as the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. Under current statute, control over the Steamship Authority operations is significantly one-sided, however. Together, the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard control 70% of voting power, which gives the islands full control over steamship authority operations and disenfranchises the mainland towns. The authority controls critical operations that directly affect all towns, both mainland and island. Mainland towns need to have a say in authority operations to ensure an effective collaborative system. Senate 1315, an act relative to municipal equity in Steamship Authority Operations would give mainland towns that say. The Bill would change the approval requirements for Steamship Authority action to include the vote of at least one of the mainland member towns. The294 Steamship Authority serves over296 3,000,000 people per year.
It's important that all of this service hosting committees receive an appropriate amount of equity in the decision-making process. As we struggle to address climate change, increase collaboration to tackle the many environmental issues that the Cape and Islands communities deal with, would be a major benefit from this legislation. Passing the legislation will provide the mainland with proper representation and effort in the decision-making process, and to further ensure the proper functioning of the Steamship Authority, I have requested that the honorable Diana DiZoglio of the auditor’s organization do an audit which would help to identify by the current weaknesses of the authority as well as provide necessary transparency and effective oversight. I believe that a successful audit and the passing of this Bill will promote collaboration and compromise to resolve issues. The Steamship Authority364 plays a vital role in the overall success and well-being of the Cape and Islands communities, and it's paramount that we, as legislators, make every effort to enable its prosperity. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and the committee members for taking me out of turn. I'm on the way to give a middle school child an award, and I think that that's, paramount for the next generation, so I'm very grateful, and there will be more members from the community393 testifying on this Bill. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, senator. We will, look forward to that testimony throughout the the hearing. I appreciate
SPEAKER7 - that, and
SPEAKER1 - We'll have questions at the let's let the panel the different numbers come forward first. Does anybody have a question for
I don't know what this, I don't know if it's me. Turn off the phone. Okay. No questions of the panel? Alright. We'll424 move on. Thank you, senator. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you, madam chair.
REP FIOLA - Thank you. I do have one question. The430 audit you referenced, I didn't hear, is that underway or you're requesting an audit? SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Maybe she's gone. Okay?
I know, before I, acknowledge, rep Scarsdale who450 as a question. I'd like to also acknowledge we've been joined by the committee senate vice chair, senator Edward Kennedy, virtually. So welcome, senator.
Rep Scarzio?
SPEAKER8 - Thank you, madam chair. Is the senator is still with us. Otherwise, I can send a question in writing.
SPEAKER1 - She is does not appear to be with us still, but there will be other Community members and people testifying, in support of this bill that you may direct your question to them if you feel appropriate or follow-up with a written question to the486 senator. Thank you.
SPEAKER8 - Thank you.488
SPEAKER1 - Okay. I see we have senator Jamie Eldridge here with us, to discuss s 1294. Welcome, senator.
SEN ELDRIDGE - SB 1294 - Thank you, Chair Fiola. Thank you so much for taking me out of turn. So good morning to the members of the joint committee on municipalities and regional government. And, yes, I'm here to testify on, my Bill; Senate 1294, an act encouraging municipal recycling and composting. This is a Bill that I filed for many years, both out of feedback from the towns and cities I represent that there's not enough of a robust recycling and composting program as well as a lot of tenants who live in apartment buildings where the unfortunate landlords are not providing the means for them to recycle or compost their household items. So, what this Bill would do is require all cities543 and towns to establish recycling programs for any type of solid waste and require that residents separate the recyclables and compostable waste from their solid waste for the recycling program established either city or town. Then the second thing the Bill would do is require the owner of any apartment building with three or more units or any condominium association consisting of three or more units564 to provide the means and materials necessary to allow tenants or owners in those units to recycle as570 determined by a municipal recycling program.
Most tenants who live in relatively large apartment buildings, of course, there's the place to put their trash, but very few have that opportunity or place to bring the recyclables. I just want to highlight that according to the DEP's 2020 solid waste data in Massachusetts, in 2020, Massachusetts produced 5,900,000 tons of solid waste. Of that, 3,700,000 tons were disposed within the state, 660,000 tons were put in a landfill,602 and 3,000,000 tons were combusted. According to the EPA, municipal solid waste landfills are the third largest source of human related methane emissions with methane having 25 times the heat trapping abilities of carbon dioxide, so it's clearly a climate concern as well. High methane emissions are so a serious human health risk as they reduce available oxygen and contribute to global warming, which worsens smog. So, I think a simple way to address this, and I think we're finding all the different ways to address and combat climate change, includes, recycling and composting. So, this would make it easier for citizens to recycle and compost at their homes and believe, the legislature should take stronger action in recycling and composting this session. So, thank you so much to you, Chairwoman Fiola, for taking me out of turn and, consideration of the Bill. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, senator. Any questions of the senator?
FIOLA - Recycling is different than it was years ago. I'm hearing this from communities though too, I'm hearing the high cost of recycling too, does that play into any of the discussions you've had regarding this Bill? Just that it's not as efficient for communities, it seems like they're not taking the recycling in a lot of places.
ELDRIDGE - Yes, the market has changed a lot, and I guess I would say is that, at least, my thought is that for economies of scale point of view, is if you can massively increase recycling, then you have a greater ability to get a better rate and more robust programs for recycling. Then I will say on the compost front, you know, composting is actually a form that can create energy, and so there are cities like San Francisco that have a universal compost system where they actually make on composting. So, it certainly would be a challenge statewide, but I think this is a good way to look at it and see if we can both increase recycling and composting across the state.
FIOLA - And this bill does indeed tie them together, recycling and mandating recycling and composting. Is that correct?
ELDRIDGE - Exactly. As well as the, requirement for apartment units of731 three or more units to provide just the means to recycle, so that could be a recycling bin and a place to put the recycling. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER9 - Great. Thanks so much for taking the time.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, senator.
Next, we had oh, welcome to the house vice chair, Lindsay Sabadosa of Northampton. Welcome. Welcome. Vice chair. I have rep Bruce Ayres Next on the list, I don't see him here. That's I don't Either in person or virtual? Do you Yeah. Okay. So, we'll get back to him, if he does indeed show up.
Next, I have rep, Scarsdale, committee member and someone who has a bill here to discuss with, a few members of the town of Groton.
REP SCARSDALE - HB 4194 - Good morning, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, and honorable members of the committee, and likewise, thank you for taking me out of order. I am here to speak in support of H 4194, an act to amend the charter in the town of Groton. What this Bill is seeking to do is make one small but very powerful change to the town's budget process. Currently, the town manager has to submit a balanced budget to both the select board and the finance committee by December 31st. The issue is that Groton has two regional schools that it sends its students to, Groton Dunstable Regional School and Nashoba Valley Technical High School and those two schools don't finish their budget process until the spring, which makes it really hard for the town manager to present accurate numbers and know how to move the town forward. So, Groton is seeking to change the charter to allow the town858 manager an additional month until the end of January to submit his budget. The town, as a whole, wholeheartedly supports this Bill, they voted at their October 2023 town meeting, won 18 to 6 to amend the town charter. So, it has a lot of support, and I am asking for a favorable report on this Bill from this committee and thank you for hearing the testimony. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Any, questions of the rep? Oh, should we continue on with the panel. Did you have, panelists with you, rep?
SPEAKER8 - I do. I see Dawn Dunbar, who is the town clerk
SPEAKER1 - I see, Mark Haddad and Dawn Dunbar. Is that, they both on the line? You know, whoever wants to go first.
SPEAKER7 - I'm here. Don Dunbarlet, town clerk Mark Haddad, the town manager, cannot be here this morning. He's tied up in another meeting.
SPEAKER1 - But I think,920
SPEAKER7 - thank you.
SPEAKER1 - We hear you. You're on, darling.
DAWN DUNBAR - TOWN OF GROTON - HB 4194 - I'm so happy to answer any questions that the committee has, but I think Representative Scarsdale did a great job explaining what this charter change would mean for the town.
FIOLA - So even though the budgets are done in the spring, you just need that extra month to just gather all the data and give yourself a little breathing room. Well, it seems pretty logical.
DUNBAR - Yes, that's correct. We have to have our budgets finalized to the select bard and the finance committee has explained by December 31st. This additional month would allow us, additional time needed to work with the two regional school districts and, also with the town of Dunstable as our partner with Regional School District to have more accurate numbers to present to the spring town meeting. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee? No? Okay. Dawn, have a good day. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER7 - Thank you so much. Have a good day. Bye bye.
SPEAKER1 - Next, I have Ali Dimitayo from the MMA Regarding s 1325, an act relative to local opt in for permanent dining.
SPEAKER10 - That's right.
ALI DIMATTEO - MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION - SB 1325 - Thank you so much for having me this morning, Chair Fiola, and1007 esteemed members of the committee. It's great to1009 be here. My name is Ali DiMatteo,1011 and I'm a legislative analyst with the1013 Massachusetts Municipal Association. Thanks for the opportunity to testify1017 before you on behalf of cities and towns, in support of S 1325, an act relative to local opt in for permanent outdoor dining. S 1325 would allow for a city or town to approve a request for the expansion of outdoor table service and allow their local licensing authorities to grant approval for the restaurant's change in description for purposes of permitting outdoor alcohol services. This would codify the changes that are set to expire on April 1st, 2024. The expansion of outdoor dining options during Covid as a necessity and throughout the recovery period have been extremely popular for both diners and restaurant owners alike. Allowing for municipal flexibility in this permitting area has allowed for a faster turnaround time for approval as well as more localized understanding of needs and existing infrastructure.
Many of us may not be thinking about outdoor dining in December, it is a little chilly1074 right now, but many businesses and municipalities are working to plan ahead for the1080 during patio dining season. Making these changes permanent will invite municipalities to invest more in creating accessible design standards and templates, create better tracking systems, and further expedite the permitting process. Businesses will also continue to invest in outdoor spaces and patios, bringing in more diners and in turn more tax revenue. Local main street businesses are the backbone of our local economies, and the revenue generated by this extremely popular option is important for both the stability of local businesses and local finances. We'll be submitting formal testimony, of course, on this Bill and are grateful for your support. We respectfully urge a favorable will report out.
FIOLA - I think we've1127 seen how successful it has been, and it Saved our businesses, during the pandemic and,1133 certainly continues to allow1135 them to enjoy that benefit depending on when the weather is. So, April 1st, 2024 is when its sunsets and so you're looking ahead, and that's why you're prepared.
DIMATTEO - Exactly, folks are starting to think about investing now for the spring season, and so having stability and assurance that it will be allowed to continue is really important. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you much.
Roberta Harbach, regarding h 2 0 5 0. Welcome, Roberta. An act relative to the acceptance of Massachusetts Community Preservation Act.
SPEAKER6 - Hi. Hi, everybody.
ROBERTA HARBACK - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 2050 - Thanks for having me. So, I've more been working on this for a while. I would like the legislation to change, to be amended for the Community Preservation Act. I attempted three times to bring it through my Representative of Falmouth town meeting, and they will not allow it to go back1199 to the voters to vote yay or nay on this community preservation tax. So, what these changes does, it allows me to collect the 1,000 signatures, 10% of my registered voters and bring it automatically back on the ballot, which we actually did do, but we realized we had to bring it in the same way. It went through town meeting to get on the ballot, so it needs to go through town meeting to get back on the ballot. My town meeting would not allow me to bring it back to the voters to see if the people still wanted to accept this self-induced tax, and basically, that's what it is.
I also added to it that 10 years after adopting the community preservation tax, it would automatically go back on the ballot on your town's1246 annual 10 year with election because people move. Let's be honest, look around your neighborhood. In 10 years, new people have come, new people have gone. I shouldn't have to pay; my children shouldn't have to pay for a tax that they weren't even allowed to vote on because they were children at the time. So, I think that when they made the law, I don't like to use the word assume, but assuming that town meeting let you vote for it, that town meeting would allow you to put it on the ballot to resend it. And unfortunately, for me and stone with representative town meeting, I cannot get this back on the ballot. Alright.
FIOLA - So, I assume then your interest comes from your community, and has CPA?
HARBACK - Yes. It does.
FIOLA - And your feeling is and your drive here is that you should be able to revoke it at any time, but to get on town meeting, you've done it a few times?
HARBACK - Three times.
FIOLA - Three times, and it has or has not been revoked.
HARBACK - Not to revoke it, it was a ballot question. So, they brought it to town meeting but the law reads right now,1315 you can either bring it through town1317 meeting or bring it through regular ballot vote. Stoughton, when the people who wanted to enact it went through a town meeting, and they got it on the ballot, the voters said no to it, they brought it back through town meeting, the town, and he says put it back on the ballot, and the taxpayers or the voters voted at 51/49. So, 12 years later, I come along wanting to rescind it, give the people in the town a chance to see if they wanted to keep it. Three times in a row, town meeting members will not, it's not rescinding CPA, it's the question to ask the taxpayers If they would like to keep this tax. I'm not downing1362 the tax; it has its merits. But I want the people that are paying for the tax having a say if they want to pay for the self-induced tax. Not the parents, not the people that they bought the house from 15 years ago, and I think it's just a way for the new people, the taxpayers, our residents, to see if they want to keep paying for this tax. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Alright. Thank you. Any questions? Any of you CPA communities have questions? I know mine is 1. Well, ours was 1st urban community to pass it, which was very, for a gateway city to go ahead and pass that. And, yeah. I can understand. People are stressed. Thank you very, very much.
SPEAKER6 - You for considering this.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
SPEAKER6 - Have a great holiday.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, Roberta.
Vincent Lauren Dixon, s 1 3 0 5, an act to study establishment of and definition of a Middlesex Regional Commission.
Welcome.
VINCENT LAWRENCE DIXON - TOWN OF WINCHESTER - SB 1305 - Thank you, Representative. Those online, staff, my name is Vincent Lawrence Dixon residing at 60 Lake Street, Unit Chester, Mass 01890. For about four years, I was on the finance committee of my town of Winchester, and this flows from some of that knowledge, and I have still some involvements there. Though this is not an official position, it's my Bill that I filed, this proposed legislation, S 1305, addresses the complex interaction of various issues relating to environmental concerns, overdevelopment, and other related issues, especially strongly of concern in Eastern Massachusetts and Middlesex County. Many communities feel pressured by relatively weak resources in planning and related municipal functions in the face of deep pocketed and often large developers who intersect with one community after another and often show a lack of apparent concern for the individuality of local communities. There are those that believe that the Cape Cod Regional Commission has had value, and so this references that model as being a potentially useful comparative body. Middlesex County as a whole with 54 municipalities can be viewed as a rather large area, so it may be that sub defined districts of Middlesex North and Middlesex South could be and should be defined. While housing issues and 40B related issues are important, there must be a broader view of appropriately balanced interest that relieves some of the sense of pressures on local communities by an approach that is more fundamental than just master planning processes, which can stall.
The balancing of environmental concerns, educational services in local schools and a dynamic of more community friendly standards among various regional and subregional areas must be more thoroughly considered. While the Commonwealth ultimately possesses substantial authority, there's been a sense of a significant loss of constructive local input. An example of what a regional commission might accomplish would be to screen and recommend developers who are more or less interested in particular types of development of varying sizes and characteristics, a kind of prescreening so that local and thinner staffed individual communities could have some useful preliminary information. I'm in no way suggesting that there's a single solution to the complexity of environmental concerns, housing needs, school enrollments, and operations, and also the need for improved regional transportation needs. Rather, we must recognize that among other realities, the absence of county government, formations of any significance and the competing individual economic and community concerns have left individual communities and certainly, many areas in Eastern Massachusetts feeling pressured in ways that do not have adequate mechanisms by which to address these complexities among weaker local resources. I look forward to further discussion with each and every one of you as you are interested and we are severally able. Please seriously consider a positive recommendation for S 1305, these are the hopefully bits of grass among the weeds of local government that are so important. Thank you.
FIOLA - Thank you, Mr. Dixon, I appreciate that. Is this the first time you brought this forward?
DIXON - No, I brought this forward before. I've tried to put together some legislation that's now a package called, expanded Massachusetts agenda to be constructive problem solving rather than just ideological alignments, and some of these come from my own experience with finance and the local towns that are very pressured. We are densifying Eastern Massachusetts while a good part of the state is empty, and that includes Middlesex County, which has a lot of communities that our town, I think, has one planning officer, some people don't want to spend the tax money to have a second one, and then you wind up with a lot of, lack of information, literally, to do the modest development that you might have in your small downtown area. There are lawyers who are getting several hundred dollars an hour to stay at a meeting till 10:00 or 11:00 at night while people who are volunteer government and volunteer citizens are struggling to keep their lives together. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, I appreciate your, passion on this. Do the any of the committee members have Question. No. Thank you very much for taking your time and interest. Appreciate it.
I now have, Joyce Tomaselli and Grace Marie Tomaselli on s 1326. Are you here? An act to provide clarification to mass general laws? We expected them in person. Are they virtual, any chance? No?
Alright.
SPEAKER9 - Yes.
SPEAKER1 - So we'll come back. At this point, I it looks to me that the rest of the1723 people who are testifying are testifying in support of s 1315, regarding an act relative to municipal equity and steamship authority operations. So, are any of those people in person? Having none, everyone's virtual, so we'll start with Nathaniel Trumbull from the Mass Southeast Mass Regional Transportation Citizens Task What?
NATHANIEL TRUMBULL - SOUTHEAST MASS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION - SB 1315 - Good morning. My name is Nat Trumbull, and I live in Falmouth. I'm representing Southeast Massachusetts Regional Transportation Smart Citizens Task Force. SMART is a regional transportation advocacy group of more than 300 members. Smart expresses our full and unconditional support for favorable action on Senate 1315, an act relative to municipal equity in steamship authority operations. I'm also speaking on behalf of thousands of highly frustrated residents and voters from Falmouth and Barnstable. Today, two voting members of the Steamship authority board representing Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket control 70% of the Steamship Authority board vote. When the two islands vote together, the votes of Falmouth, Barnstable, and New Bedford, that is the other three1796 voting members of the authority representing together 30% of the board vote are meaningless. Here are some examples of problems that mainland port towns cannot solve without a restructuring of the authority voting system because of the mainland town's voting status. The Steamship freight scheduling today deprives thousands of port town residents a reasonable night's sleep as the Steamship Authority scheduled its heaviest freight trucks through our residential neighborhoods in predawn hours. The harm of noise pollution is well documented, but the Steamship Authority boards, support voting structure allows the island board members to ignore that harmful impact.
Expansion of freight operations are today overwhelming Falmouth and Barnstable. Absent is Steamship Authority Island board member acceptance for launching an off-cape freight port as the islands to grow. We see no interest or action on the part of island board members to address this problem. In the case of Falmouth, the Steamship Authority regularly dismisses local zoning and traffic concerns in Falmouth as the Steamship Authority expands its physical footprint with larger and larger freight operations and holds it without consultation with local residents or local town government officials. More broadly, island board members ignore the steamship authority's growing carbon emissions and environmental impacts despite Commonwealth guidelines for emissions reductions. As a longtime resident of one of those mainland port communities, Falmouth, I can vouch personally for the municipal inequity of the current voting structure. Mainland town residents are completely disenfranchised by the current voting arrangement of the Steamship Authority Board. Senate 1315 Seeks to promote negotiation and compromise to ensure that the island and mainland port communities can work together to solve problems. Senate 1315 does so by requiring a broader consensus of votes by the authority in the form of a vote by the islands and of a vote from at least one mainland port town. So long as the islands can control Steamship Authority decision making by voting together pursuant to their 70% voting share, cooperation and regional planning will be blocked. Tensions between the islands and mainland will continue to intensify, this is not good public policy. SMART respectively ask for a favorable report from your committee. Thank you very much.
FIOLA - Thank you, Mr. Trumbull. Quick question; has this Bill been filed before? Do1951 you know?
TRUMBULL - My understanding is that this Bill was filed a year and a half ago with the joint transportation Committee, but someone may want to correct me.
FIOLA - And can I just ask another question, and there are others to speak on this. How many years has the current structure been in play? Do you know that you're recommending the change in this particular legislation?
TRUMBULL - I think the answer is 22 years. But Attorney DeWitt could address that, I believe he's going to be testifying as well.
FIOLA - So since its inception, pretty much?
TRUMBULL - No, the Steamship Authority was created five decades ago, the latest adjustment to the voting occurred 22 years ago, I believe in 2001.
FIOLA - So it sounds to me freight is the tipping point of the issue, what I'm reading here and hearing from you and seeing in here. Is that the main issue here in terms of the balance?
TRUMBULL - Yes, that's absolutely correct. Freight is the problem, and the assistance on the steamship on channeling that freight all through Falmouth and Barnstable rather than through additional off cape ports.
FIOLA - And by changing the voting structure, you would have more power to change that. Is that pretty much kind of the point of the legislation, if I'm reading it?
TRUMBULL - Correct. The Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, 70% voting block would no longer have that monopoly on its choice of Freight ports, I think solely, Falmouth and Barnstable today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much, mister Trumbull. We'll hear from everyone else too, and, that would be very helpful. Does anybody have a question to mister Trumbull? No? Okay. Thank you, mister Trumbull. Much appreciate your, Clarification and input. Appreciate it very much.
Philip Logan, Southeast in Mass, the smart citizens task force as well, on 13/15.
Is Philip Logan here?
There you are.
I think you are muted, mister Logan.
We can't hear you.
SPEAKER4 - There we go. Yes.
SPEAKER1 - Okay.
SPEAKER4 - Can you hear me now?
SPEAKER1 - We hear you now.2123
SPEAKER4 - I can hear you. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - We hear you now.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you.
PHIL LOGAN - SOUTHEAST MASS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION - SB 1315 - Thank you very much for this opportunity. I would like to make a few brief comments, and I expect to be followed up by other folks, with more detailed comments. As a retired federal economist, I am unaware that the QPA, the quasi-public authority that is pretty rampant in Massachusetts has many advantages to get particular tasks done. But few of these QPAs are so obviously open to competition from the private sector, which we all embrace. It wasn't always the case when the Steamship authority was first proposed in 1960 as a lifeline to the islands, which was necessary as a backup to the collapse of the commercial service out there.2188 But since then, the Steamship Authority has taken over all of the activity with a few exceptions that were grandfathered, but certainly all the freight activity. The task report 23 years ago pointed out that there was a need for some relief to the mainland port communities because of the increase in the freight traffic, that was 23 years ago.
So, the enabling act suggest that all the members of the Commonwealth are to benefit from any of its government actions. The enabling act allowed the Steamship Authority to be captured, of course. It was set up that way, and so the Steamship Authority has been2241 captured by the islands, of course. And in turn, they've been captured by the transport, in my opinion, by the transport interests of the islands. The cost recognized by the state in looking at the Steamship Authority is whether it is able to cover its own costs, its own financial costs, and not any of the community costs that these operations2271 imposed on the communities. For example, none of the cost of risk, none of the cost of pollution, none of the cost of dangerous traffic, I could go on and on. So, basically, my message is this; the2289 costs are rising. We get over 650 trucks a day in high season, and that number is increasing. This is not a problem that's going to go away on its own, so2302 we2302 think that S 1315 will be an opening to have the island communities reflect a bit on the fact that we have some say in the future of the growth of the problems. Thank you very much for your attention. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much.
Mister Logan, appreciate that. Does anybody have a question?
Thank you very much.
FIOLA - How long has the Southeast Mass Regional Transportation Citizens Task Force been in existence? Just curious.
LOGAN - There have been resistance to the Steamship authority for a very long while, but the smart, under Nat Trumbull's leadership has been in existence for approximately six SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
years.
and, like, not can wreck me.
SPEAKER6 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Well, thank you very much. We'll You're looking at this, and I really greatly appreciate your testimony. Thank you.
We're going to continue on. I see, Thomas Celis are here. We'll come2386 back to you in a little bit. Welcome. We did call you earlier.
SPEAKER13 - My phone.
SPEAKER1 - Edward DeWitt, on s 1315, an act relative to municipal equity and steamship authorities.
SPEAKER14 - Thank you, madam chairman. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - I hear you. It's a little muffly, but we hear you.
SPEAKER14 - Okay.
EDWARD DEWITT - TOWN OF FALMOUTH - SB 1315 - For the record, I'm Edward DeWitt of Falmouth. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of Senate Bill 1315, an act relative to municipal equity in Steamship operations. After retiring from the coast guard, I served as the Falmouth representative to the governing board of the Steamship Authority. This was back at the turn of the century. I learned firsthand that the mainland communities have never had a fair voice in Steamship operations, and unless the enabling Act is changed, it never will. When I identified problems with the pilot freight program from New Bedford, easy fixes that would have enhanced both operational and economic success, I was voted down by the islands. When I identified problems with the exclusive reliance on roll on, roll off freight, I was told we've always done it that way, why change? And again, voted down. Also, at the turn of the century, Governor Cellucci heard the cries for equity and appointed a task force headed by Judge Rudolf Cass. The report the task force issued noted that an off-Cape port was necessary, overdue, and inevitable because mainland ports, particularly, Woods hole was already choked, choked with traffic, choked with noise pollution, and choked with emissions. Adding New Bedford to the board with 10% vote was a direct result of the cast report.
The weight of Falmouth's vote was reduced to 10% by splitting its minority voting rate with New Bedford and empowering Barnstable at the time. In the 20 plus years since the task report, every attempt to add a legitimate off cape relief report has been blocked or extracted by island representatives. The islands have also blocked efforts to eliminate noisy and polluting2532 truck traffic in residential neighborhoods as early as 4:30 in the morning. This is despite the authority never establishing an operational necessity for such early morning freight boats. The so-called model of the authority has been a lifeline to the islands. The reality is the islands have used their votes to build an equivalent of a bridge to the islands. Indeed, an official from the authority stated that the authority needs to think about 24/7 service. The negative impacts of the authority on mainland communities are well documented going back to even before cast. The authority lapses both operationally and economically are also well documented. The current voting system facilitates the authority moving forward full speed ahead without any regard for the negative impacts on mainland communities. This Bill is not a solution, but it does bring some hope for fairness and balance and authority decision making. The authority right now is the only governmental body where a minority of members wins every vote. I urge you to vote the Bill out with a favorable report. Thank you, and I'd be delighted to answer any questions you might have. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Appreciate, you’re adding to the to the discussion. And, do any of the members of the committee have a question, for mister DeWitt? No? No. No. Thank you very much.
FIOLA - You mentioned 4:30 in the morning. Is that every day? 4:30 in the morning? You said there's 650 trucks a day coming to Falmouth?
DEWITT - Well, it depends on the season. The earliest morning boats run from right now, May, until the late fall. So, they don't run in the winter, and the high number of volume of trucks is seasonal, but there are trucks throughout the year. It's a 6-mile residential corridor that the trucks are running through in order to get to the boat. Two lane town road, it's not highway, it's 6 miles of two-lane town2670 roads. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much, mister DeWitt. Appreciate it.2674
SPEAKER4 - Oh, I'm sorry.
SPEAKER1 - Rep Meritori. Go ahead.
2683 Oh,2683 6 650 trucks
SPEAKER5 - a day.
REP MURATORE - 650 trucks a day, I heard that number earlier in the testimony. Is that2691 what is happening?
DEWITT - Yes, I think that's the the right number. Mr. Trumbull has the full number; we'd be happy to share with the committee the graphs on traffic if that would be helpful.
FIOLA - I think that's very valuable information, it's either 650 or 550 or 300 or 100, that's a lot of, trucks. So, I think those are the kind of pieces of information that inform a committee. So, thank you. If you could just verify that and I'd appreciate that. Thank you.2732 SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Sure.
SPEAKER1 - Anything else, regulatory would you like to thank you. Anybody else? Thank you. Thank you, mister DeWitt. Appreciate that. And if you have written testimony of your comments, please feel free to, send them along to the committee. We'd appreciate that.
Next, I'm going to, break, our routine. And I'm going to bring up now, rep Ayers, chair rep Bruce Ayers, who is here to talk about h 2026. Welcome, Raffair.
Thank you, madam
REP AYERS - HB 2026 - Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning, I'll be brief. Members of the committee, I'd like to speak in support of2782 House Bill 2026, an act to hold property owners more accountable for reoccurring public nuisances. Madam Chair, this Bill would do two things; it would hold negligent property owners more accountable for reoccurring public nuisances while protecting the quality of life and well-being of our residents in the neighborhoods. What it does is it creates a financial penalty that shifts the burden from municipal costs associated from responding to these incidents from the taxpayer to the property owner. When our local police departments respond to a disturbance, it requires additional resources and personnel at the cost of the municipality and taxpayer. Some of the common calls disturbing the peace, loitering, littering, suspicion of drug activity, I've heard from many of my constituents, and I know others throughout the Commonwealth have these neighborhoods where it affects the quality of life for the residents in the neighborhood. How this Bill would work is after 10 consecutive calls to the police from one address within one-year, local municipalities would have the option to shift the cost associated with the police responses onto the property owner. With these repeat offenses, it's clear that no responsibility is taken seriously by the property owner to address and prevent these occurrences. Properties like these are the root cause of frequent disturbances that exist in every community. This will protect our constituents and help promote a better quality of life, no one should have to tolerate this undesirable behavior in the neighborhood. My intent, again, is to protect the rights and promote the wellbeing of our residents, who by no fault are victims of these disturbances. With the passage of the Bill, we can set a strong precedent that this undesirable behavior won't be tolerated while easing the financial burden on the police, municipalities, and the taxpayers. I'd appreciate any support and consideration you have for this SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Bill.
Thank you. Does anybody have a question?
No. I know this is comes up in a lot of communities, and so, it's certainly interesting. I know our community itself has that, and our police are very good about it. But you're right. It it it's it's It's subject to the particular communities right now and, does it does cause disruption. Thank you.
SPEAKER15 - Thank you, ma'am Thank you. Appreciate you taking me out of order.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Okay.
SPEAKER1 - Yeah. Okay. We're gonna continue back to, 315 because Suzanne has been holding on. Suzanne Kuffler, I think you are virtual?
SPEAKER16 - Yes. I am.
SPEAKER1 - Welcome, Suzanne.
SUZANNE KUFFLER - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1315 - Thank you very much. I'm going to select from my notes here because some of the topics have been covered. I could give you one statistic which is that the freight traffic to Woods Hole terminal have increased by 39% since 2012, this translates into 59,233 trucks in 2020. The carbon emissions alone are unsustainable for health reasons, and so it is accumulating. I don't think anybody would want to have this type of air in their environment and the focus of my notes was air quality and carbon reduction. What happens often is that the bottom line for the Steamship authority is a primary organizing principle for policy, they don't want to lose any income from freight or any other leasing to another company. So it's quite important to reduce to meet the Commonwealth carbon reduction goals by leasing to other freight companies. In fact, there is a current proposal from a New Bedford freight company to expand this barging to Nantucket to Martha's Vineyard. And if equity was a real issue for the Steamship Authority, this offer would be a priority, and they would think of it as an equity item. Barging is also cost effective, and that's an important issue in the management of the Steamship.
However, just on the heels of this information about the company, a member of the board from one of the3075 islands said had concerns that it would lose valuable truck income for the company. So as long as the bottom line is very much in focus, it's very hard to obtain equity, and the only way to counter it is to improve the voting structure so that we're properly represented. In fact, the health of Falmouth Residents are pretty much on the line with this. There are three things in the Commonwealth that are currently talked about; the carbon reduction goals, the regional transportation goals, the marine highway program, especially 11/21. All this would change how the Steamship authority operates if they were actually applied and, Falmouth and other residents of the Cape that are affected would have a better quality of life. We'd have electric boats3139 coming online, we'd have barging, we'd have a better scheduling, their biodiversity issues would not be a concern for local residents, there'd be no idling buses and trucks, no black smoke would come from ferry stacks and licensing would be3158 freed up. So it's important that the committee take seriously the equity issues and be favorable toward this Bill because we've been fighting, some people in the community have been fighting for 30 years to try to rein in organization that has had a way of operating, and nobody has been able to say no to them. We need to have that capacity to sit down and discuss issues and come to some reasonable decision of how the Steamship should should operate vis a vis its, port communities. So that's a scattered selection from my notes since other things have been covered, but thank you very much.
FIOLA - Suzanne, are you from Falmouth, Woods Hole or from Barnstable on here?
KUFFLER - I'm from, Falmouth Woods Hole. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Okay. Yep. Thank you, Suzanne. Appreciate your input, and testimony. Does anybody have a question? No. Thank you, Suzanne.
Thomas Crane, s 1315.
THOMAS CRANE - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1315 - Madam Chair, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to summarize my written testimony submitted to the joint committee on December 3rd of this year, and this is just a brief summary. For all the reasons that have been stated before by Senator Moran and community members, I support Senate Bill 1315. I also do want to address the wider concerns of the failure of fiscal oversight of the Steamship authority and the untenable, antitrust conflict of interest in the present structure where the provider of ferry services Steamship authority also regulates and, gets to oppose, alternative providers. So number one, I do ask the committee to consider an independent treasurer would be appointed. Although the current legislative authority requires the position of a treasurer that has never been implemented, I propose an independent treasurer that would have the powers and voting rights, submitted in my testimony. But most importantly, that would have a reallocated voting structure, so neither the Islands nor the mainland would have a majority, but would need the vote of an independent treasurer. I think that follows along with the concerns of the current legislation, in 1315, but also favor's fiscal oversight. Any opposition to this approach would raise concerns that the islands are not in favor of fiscal oversight. I turn briefly to the idea proposed of breaking apart the, functions of regulations and transportation to the creation of a new authority that would have the authority to regulate competition and also oversight of the ferry operations. This is consistent with the model of the Massachusetts Port Authority. I think that summarizes my views, I'd be happy to answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, we did receive your, comprehensive testimony and much appreciated. Do any of the members and everyone has received it. Does anybody have a question?
Miss Crane, thank you very much, Tom. And, you know, it's a lot to take in. Obviously, you've been working at this. The committee, Given this, bill, there's a lot, a lot of perspectives, and certainly, 1 that we're taking a close look at. So thank you.
SPEAKER13 - I appreciate it. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - And, the last person on s 1315 I hear is Wayne Kirker, the president and owner of Hyannis Marina.
Wayne, are you here?
I'll give you a minute to oh, Samaya's here. I didn't see it. Well, if you are, we'll catch you in a few minutes. We're gonna keep moving along, and we're gonna I think we have our last in person panel, and, we called upon you a little earlier, just so you know, but, You hadn't yet made it in, and, we have with3474 us, a panel of 2. And I'm gonna get my list here. Let me see. Miss Tomaselli. Joyce Tomaselli and Grace Marie Tomaselli on s 1326, an act to provide clarification to mass general laws. Welcome.
SPEAKER17 - Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. We did call from the road and left messages, so you probably all have messages.
SPEAKER1 - It's okay. We're here, and you're here, and so that's good. I
SPEAKER17 - Alright. Thank you. Thank Thank you, Chair Fiola. What we're going to discuss, show you before we speak are those, letters of testimony, someone, Haley?
SPEAKER2 - A lot. Oh. There's a guy in the chapter, the changes we made.
SPEAKER1 - Well, we have the bill. I What is that But maybe we'll take those. Thank you.
SPEAKER17 - But it's in bold. The changes are in bold.
SPEAKER1 - Make it easy. Well, we're gonna be reviewing all of this after the hearing as as well. So we are going to, he be here to listen to your 3 minutes as we've allowed everyone 3 minutes. So you'll each3542 get 3 minutes of testimony. So, that starts as soon as, after you've said hello and, introduce yourself.
SPEAKER2 - Alright.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Welcome.
SPEAKER17 - Thank you. Good morning, rep rep chair, Viola. And I don't know his names, but
SPEAKER1 - No. Well, the chair is, not with us today. Chair Olivera. So, but his staff is, and, we, capture all the testimony.
SPEAKER17 - Alright. Very nice to meet all of you.
GRACE MARIE TOMASELLI - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1326 - Good morning, Chair Fiola. My name is Grace Marie Tomaselli. This is my sister, Joyce and, we're from Salisbury Beach now. You might wonder why would two people want to take the time to write this kind of legislation and make the changes? Because you must have wondered, why would they do this? Chapter 80 and Chapter 83. Well, we learned the very hard way, thank God for the Department of Revenue and many of the people on their staff. They guided us regarding when Chapter 80 and 83 come into play. The reason we're here is because I lost my restaurant, Manjira Cafe restaurant, my property, my home, my livelihood, all because of sewer betterment Bills and sewer user fees that we didn't owe. We bought our property on March 7th, 1991, for those of you who bought property, you know that you do a title search, and the attorneys had clean title, there were no liens, no encumbrances, and a municipal lien certificates reflected no liens or encumbrances, and there was no reference on the bottom of the MLC regarding that any assessments would be charged. Therefore, when we bought our property in 1991, we planned to open that restaurant, live there, and everything would be well. We went to Northeastern, we went to restaurant management, we knew what we were doing, and we loved cooking Italian food, so that's also a bonus. So, anyway, we found out we were hit with almost $50,000 worth of sewer bills.
With a 28 seat restaurant, you can imagine the nightmare that is, just being able to survive. But we did find out the hard way, we found out that when we receive these bills, there was no way we could pay it because the interest was so high. It's 14% when it goes into tax, and when it goes into tax title, it's 16%, sense, so it hurt you even more. So the bills just mounted and mounted, so we were closed with no notice on New Year's Eve, we lost our restaurant in 1994. From 1994 until now, we have to rectify this wrong that happened to us. It's happened to many people, but the worst part of it is that the judges have misused the statutory scheme because the municipality attorneys know how to maneuver the law. I hate to sound this way, but it's true, these are the facts. On May 17th, 1982, the town voted3742 to construct the sewer, the Department of Revenue said that's the date3746 that the betterment is imposed, that's the date that gets recorded at the registry of deeds, it wasn't. March 1991, we purchased that property, no liens. April 1992, the bills were sent to the wrong owners, us, and our building was auctioned in April of 2022 for $775,000, and we didn't get a penny, all over bills we never owed. So please, read what we gave you for the changes, the judges misused the word imposed. Imposed was the initial date of the vote. Also, our case with at the Land Court, judge Piper, has changed case law for everyone in Massachusetts, now when you do a title search, it's critical. It's not going to help us, it's too late for us. But I hope I help others from what we learned. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, miss Thomas. Ellie, much appreciated.
SPEAKER17 - Very hard
SPEAKER1 - to talk to. Surely.
SPEAKER17 - It is very hard.
SPEAKER1 - Can't imagine. I will ask your sister to speak, and then we'll open up if anybody has any questions.
SPEAKER17 - I'm Grace
SPEAKER1 - Take your mic.
SPEAKER2 - Yeah. Grace Marie Tomaselli. You're Joyce.
SPEAKER1 - You're Joyce.
SPEAKER2 - Here I am.
JOYCE TOMASELLI - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1326 - I am Joyce Tomaselli. I presented this to you, what I did is I highlighted the words and I made them bold, the words that need changing in Chapter 80 and 83. As Grace said, the word imposed since the legislation intent was filed, but the judges misused the legislature. They focused on Chapter 80, Section 1, municipalities may assess betterments, but they failed to use the other parts of the statutes where it says it must be recorded, the owner liable is the owner who owns the property when the vote to construct is taking place. They misuse sewer user in Chapter 83, and I'll tell you why the impact. Because the town failed to record the vote to construct the sewer, the 1982 vote, we purchased the product in 1991. The town claimed to us and to over 1000 residents in Salisbury that the assessment date was 1992, that's when a sewer commission voted a $7,800,000 betterment in 1992 for, as they call, The project. We found out through years of investigating in wonderful men like Tony Populios, who said, why did you get these bills? The sewer was paid for.
We said, what do you mean it was paid for? We bought a building on sewer. He said EPA paid for the sewer, the state, USDA paid for the sewer. The town charged $7,800,000 in 1992 to 1,000 unsuspecting residents and new buyers who were not liable. They got away with it, they took our home, they took our business. They left me with nothing, they punished us because we discovered the truth, and the language needs clarification. Judges cannot be able to say the statutory law is this, and have not used the whole statutory law. You can't use one sentence out of, like, a million sentences and say, okay, you're liable for betterment because I used this one sentence. No, it has to be who imposed it? When is it imposed? You can't add projects to projects. Salisbury added projects to the project, and they claimed it was the project, but it really was five project. Plus, they charged maybe another $5,000,000 that nobody knows where that came from, they charged $7,800,000. People just believe your selectmen and your sewer commissioners and your town council in your town, but you can't because they fabricated more than I can even say in three minutes.
Since 1876, Congress is duly, it was found that the vote to construct the sewer is the4031 time of the municipal improvement. Neil Harrington knew this since 2003, the town manager, and he made us go to every court for 20 different judges using the assessment date was 1992, knowing it was before we bought the property in 1991. They got away with it and the sewer4051 user fees might sound minor people, unless you're charged, like, $4,000 a year to use a sewer for 28 seat restaurant. Between 1991 and 1994, the town charged us about $14,600 to use a sewer for a 28 seat restaurant. We didn't know the bills were wrong, we called, they said that they are your bills, you have to pay your bills. Plus the betterment,4082 we found out that they are supposed to use the actual water method, and that's4086 why I proposed this. If they would've used the actual water method, our bills would have been under $2,000 instead of $14,000. The town knows how to manipulate the money in the Sewer Enterprise Fund that claimed there was a $28,000 deficit in the Sewer Enterprise Fund. I contacted DOER, they had $24,000,000 in the Sewer enterprise fund. The town claimed they needed to raise the rates because they didn't have enough money and they did, they raised the SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
rates.
This is certainly very heartfelt, and I can feel your pain, of what has happened to you. Thank you. That you have taken action, and we're gonna review
SPEAKER2 - I don't want other people to go through this hell over the language and Statutes, it's it's god awful.
SPEAKER1 - I have a question, but I just wanna see if anybody else does. Does anybody have a question for the Thomas Sally, very thank you for coming. It's very important.
FIOLA - Do you know if the changes you are proposing have been adopted in any other states?
J. TOMASELLI - Well, you know, I don't, but the changes aren't really so much changes as clarification. What I did is I did endnotes, and I used the case law that supports what I'm saying. We used the case law that supported what we were saying, but no matter what we presented, the judges ruled it was 1992 to make us liable, and we did lose everything. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I'm very sorry to hear that message. Thank you very, very much. Thank Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - I pray to God this helps so many people.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to come in. It means a lot.
G. TOMASELLI - I think the most important for all of you is that our case in the land court with judge Gordon Piper changed case law. That's where all of you, including title insurance companies, need to take heed because our case now takes precedence.
FIOLA - So they'll record the lien now at?
G. TOMASELLI - Well, it's been in the statute, the town just doesn't do it, they just don't. If they would have, we would've been serving shrimp scampi right now. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
And we would enjoy that very much. I would It runs to $50. Right? She's a funny 1. Thank you, ladies. Much appreciated. Happy holidays.
SPEAKER17 - Thank you. Happy holidays. Okay.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
SPEAKER17 - Because we had the opportunity. This week.
SPEAKER1 - I appreciate it. Okay. So I am gonna look here and,4247 that does is anyone else here? I don't. Anyone else here to testify? Okay. Anyone virtually?
SPEAKER7 - We
SPEAKER1 - Oh, did we have Wayne before?
SPEAKER5 - Yep.
SPEAKER1 - Wayne, are you here now?
It's coming up. Okay.
Hello, Wayne.
Wayne, can you hear us?
Well? Going once? Technical. Technical? It's muted. Mhmm. Are you muted, Wayne?
I'm gonna give you another minute to collect yourself here before we wrap up. I do,
We are going to read into the record4312 some of the other bills. I think do we have any that had not been, testified, in person or virtually today. And, Wayne, if you figure that out, we'll get you in. If not, we invite you if you hear us, or we'll be in touch with you to, welcome you to send some written testimony, unless we get you through. Today, we are going to also enter into the record, h 2 0 7 0, an act creating commission to study the effects of unfunded mandates. H 2 0 7 3, protecting municipalities from unfunded mandates. 20794344 relative to sanctuary cities and towns. 2080, an act4348 relative to miss municipal land ownership.4350 88 5, an act relative to the sale of foreclosed residential property to certain cities and towns. H 38/23, an act relative to travel mileage, rate fees for sheriff's deputy sheriffs and constables, 41 h 4156, an act providing for alternate members of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission. H 4158, an act relative to the town of Landsborough employee training. H 4159 enact providing for an alternate member of the town of Mattapoisett finance committee. H 4170 enact authorizing the town of Sharon to change the use certain posture of land, h 4184, enactor mending the child of the city of Chelsea. 40 h 4185 and after authorizing the town of Mashpee to lease4395 certain town land to the Boys and Girls Club of Cape Cod. H 4201, enact authorizing the administrative assistant to the board of assessors of the city of New Bedford to be a nonresident. In h 4202
to an act of ending the charter of the town of Westborough. And lastly, 2 s 2501, an act relative to the date of the charter of the town of Walpole for the annual town election, and s 25/19, an act relative to the Wareham Town charter. And is Wayne with us yet?
SPEAKER10 - Hi. Wayne is here.
SPEAKER1 - Oh, hi, Wayne.
SPEAKER10 - Hold on. Hi. Hold on 1 second.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. 3 years in pandemic, we still can't. None of us can really figure this out fully.
SPEAKER5 - Yes. Hello. Thank you. I'm glad you
SPEAKER1 - Alright. Hi, Wayne. You are our last, before we gavel out, you're our last word. Alright.
SPEAKER5 - Well, I'll try not to hold you up for too long.
SPEAKER1 - So 31/15, and we get Yes. We get the message. Well Good.
SPEAKER5 - Yeah.
WAYNE KIRKHAM - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1315 - So I'm Wayne Kirkham from Hyannis Marina in Hyannis Harbor, which is where Steamship down here, and I'm in favor of S 1315 relative to the Steamship Authority for the following reasons. The Steamship Authority creates a severe property tax imbalance that is in because the properties they buy get taken off the tax rolls, and they get used for parking lots, staging areas and, of course, the waterfront and docks. But given that they've taken so much of Hyannis up, it's become difficult for the residents of Hyannis. Secondly, in addition to the fees for the ferries, you should consider that the Steamship Authority makes money on these parking lots as they should, but but Barnstable citizens still make up for whatever taxes the steamship doesn't pay. What DPW does, the wear and tear on the roadways from unnecessary track from trailer operations, it's costing our town a fortune. If you go on the Internet, you'll find that the estimates range from 8,000 automobiles to 11,000 automobiles do the road damage equivalent to one tractor trailer as wild as that sounds. So every truck which rolls over our streets is is costing us money, and, of course, the DPW, so much of their budget goes that way and it's a shame that that is allowed to happen because freight that doesn't originate on the Cape, it doesn't need to come to the Cape.
It could just go through New Bedford, and New Bedford, for the longest period of time has wanted the business, they're an industrial harbor. So take a truck that's bringing, stock food from Stop and Shop or gasoline, diesel, heating oil, whatever else gets freighted in from out of state can go to New Bedford because they pass New Bedford on the way to the Cape, and it saves them from driving over the bridge and all that and getting in traffic and etcetera. So you've got a town that wants the business, New Bedford, a town that doesn't want the business, which is Barnstable, and the citizens are getting creamed. One last thing, in addition to all of the regular properties they've taken off the tax rolls, the amount of space they've gobbled up in Hyannis Harbor is huge because whatever area they gobbled up could have been used for dozens and dozens and dozens of boats, all of which have owners that would be paying for the space, town gets its taxes and they would also get the excesses that those people do with hotels and restaurants, etcetera, etcetera. So, for those reasons, I really support the Steamship's portion of S 1315. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
And so thank you for
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, mister Kerker. Thank you, Wayne. Appreciate any questions. Obviously, this is a very passionate, Piece of legislation proposed legislation.
FIOLA - Are you also, Mr. Kirk on the Smart Commission?
KIRKHAM - I'm not on the smart commission, maybe I should get on it, but I don't even know of it, actually.
FIOLA - Well, there you go, there is one, I guess discussing this very topic. So, there you go, maybe they'd appreciate your input as well, and I'm sure that SMART Commission is accessing and working with the people of New Bedford and the other communities as well. So I hear you, I thank you, growth is oftentimes very difficult and can be very painful.
KIRKHAM - The boats are so large. Incidentally, I think this is an old subject, but they are so big that every trip they make it in and out of the harbor, they chew up the bottom, the sedimentation goes into water column, it settles at either the 2 yacht clubs. It settles, my marina, it settles everywhere. All of us absorb immense expenses for digging out the dirt that they push in here. That's been going on forever, so I probably should have put that idea first. But that only hits the waterfront homeowners, everything else they do, it's everybody. So thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. That concludes, those who've signed up to testify. So I thank you everyone. I really wanna thank our staff members who prepare for the hearing. Wonderful court officer. Scott, thank you so so much. It's very appreciated you being here, those of you who came in person as well. So with that, favor of, motion to adjourn.
SPEAKER5 - So moved.
SPEAKER1 - There you go. We have a lot of and so moved. So with that, we'll end this hearing, and thank4785 you very much. Thank you to the being here.
© InstaTrac 2025