Comité de Reducción del Déficit – 18 ago 2026

Clerk's posting stamp: CITY OF BEVERLY, RECEIVED AND RECORDED, CITY CLERKS OFFICE, 2026 AUG 22 A[unreadable]

08/18/2026 Deficit Reduction Committee Meeting Minutes

6pm Beverly Public Library

Committee Member Attendees: Kathleen Feldman, Dan Hughes, John Mullady, Christine DePalma, Lydia Ames, Kaarin Robinson & Mark Munoz (remote)

Kathleen: Open meeting with timeline of committee work with phases and deliverables for each phase (attached) and discuss regarding public input and community engagement, one round of public information sharing with our committee work in a ward by ward meeting structure and then further community engagement in early 2027 based on recommendations of the DRC as well as the work of financial forecasting. Wanting to get updated numbers regarding the projected deficit for 2028-2031 based on fin. Forecasting and then go to the public with focus groups and surveys for future budget years and bigger infrastructure changes. Reminder that our committee can't set policy and we are for

Question from Lydia: can we still bring new ideas for revenue to table? Kathleen: Yes! Still seeking public input, leaving no stone unturned. Not a forum for public hearings, but happy to vet ideas any ideas via email, phone, etc and we can share in the meetings.

Christine: wants to create a google worksheet to track ideas from the public with dates, followup and discussion.

Kathleen: started a spreadsheet already with community input, but happy to hand off to Christine. Everyone's idea will be vetted, want this to be transparent and part of the presentation to the community.

New Ideas:

Mark - 3 ideas

1. Public reached out to Mark and suggested city not taking advantage of cannabis revenue. Data attached. Thinks we fall below neighboring cities, would like to look at longer term revenue there.
2. Audit or review of all NON-healthcare insurance
3. Number of city owned vehicles used for personal use, including cruisers. What are the rules and the added costs with insurance, fuel, etc.

Dan

1. Regional Dispatch - a million dollars in savings, would rather eliminate internal positions Kathleen - it's a little complicated - but will look into it further as we discussed in budget meetings and we decided against the elimination this year- and get back in touch with Dan

Lydia - Had community members ask about bringing up an override. Kathleen confirmed this is correct venue to start that discussion. Lydia expressed timeline as November 2027 election cycle. Dan expressed explaining to the public what an override really means to the public in our outreach. Kathleen, yes the public can better understand the 2.5% is on the assessed value, not 2.5% from last year. Kathleen expressed the need for these uncomfortable ideas to be presented and feedback from the public regarding the tough choices needs to be anonymous for some as no one wants to express some of these choices out loud.

Research reports:

Kathleen - not fully ready with parking research with Mark yet, but all in agreement that Lothrop st. needs paid parking. Deciding whether straight meters, Lynch Park parking sticker zone expansion, etc. makes more sense for our community. Going to meet with both Parks and Police to see which model works best. Dan brings up hybrid sticker plus meter system. Committee agrees unanimously with those present this is a definite recommendation for new revenue.

Mark

Reports attached for his meetings with Harbor Management Authority, Beverly Harbor Master HMA manages Glover Wharf. However this is enterprise fund, all internal supported finances within fund. Mark explains enterprise funds and how they are not related to general fund and enterprise funds the way the charter is written are not good avenue for us to look for funds. Dan asks whether any tax payer funds are used for HMA, and answer is no.

Beverly Harbormaster is different - collects fees and related to the city of Beverly general fund. Mark shared report (attached) regarding 600 Mooring fees and if we doubled the fees it would bring in about $100k more for the city. Fees haven't been reviewed for several years.

Beverly Golf and Tennis - again enterprise fund, not really any new revenue there as possible expenses are more necessary to keep greens and building in good shape so fees just cover that enterprise fund barely. The city doesn't spend or make any money on the golf course either way. This brought up the question though of, does our community "need" or want a golf course? Should we in the long run consider selling the land? Large piece of land that isn't doing anything for the city.

Mark questions the overall setup of enterprise funds and the restrictions it creates - Beverly has more enterprise funds than most cities. We have harbor, airport and golf which many other cities don't have one or all 3 of those.

Dan - this does raise question on airport, harbor, and golf all having commercial uses and doesn't have the city collect revenue.

John brings up state decision and charter rules surrounding restricted/enterprise funds

Kathleen - Bears repeating every idea isn't feasible, but we owe it to the public to understand and explain why. Really appreciate even "dead-ends" as they are the exact work of vetting we need to do and explain to the community. Selling Beverly Golf and Tennis is a great example of the tough long term choices we are going to have to eventually decide on what we want as a community, so thank you for bringing this up.

PILOTS

Kaarin & Lydia

Connected with rep. Bowen and shared lots of data and information (attached) Kathleen confirms we will start to upload and include any information we reference with either the meeting minutes or the agenda if it is received prior to meetings.

Kaarin & Lydia Going to meet with Mark Dirksen who has expertise in this area. Reviewed other models, specifically Boston model. We used to have PILOT committee in Beverly in 2008.

Currently 81 properties that are exempt. Only 3 contribute to city general fund. Endicott is considered "donation" $167,000/year Montserrat $15,000 and Beverly Housing Authority $60-$80k/year but that one is formula driven by the state. So that one isn't flexible.

Kaarin - we are learning the strongest PILOTS have 3 questions - what is the value of the property it occupies? what expenses and services does it use? What does it contribute back to the community in $ in kind or directly?

Boston uses 25% as base formula and then allocates credits on the other 2 questions. PILOTS most successful with annual review and incremental process of raising based on a formula. A formula committee would give us the consistency needed to be successful.

John questions what is needed for the DRC to make a standing PILOT committee happen, is it recommendation? Kathleen says they (she and John) should request permanent city committee as councilors as that's the correct process and they can get started on that this month and submit to the council in September. Doesn't have to be filled right away, but good to have the infrastructure in place while we move through research and community engagement to find members in the community that would be good fits for the committee. The council request can precede the DRC recommendations.

Kaarin they are still in the research phase, and very interested in the properties being used by entities like Endicott that own properties not being used for educational purposes but still exempt. Almost need an audit by the future committee. John mentions committee should look into Landmark admitting a certain number of students in the city to be part of SILOT agreement.

CHARM facilities

Christine (slideshow attached)

Lots of research and opportunities here.

THE PROBLEM AND EXPLORING HOW SMART SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES CAN CUT COSTS, GENERATE REVENUE, AND BECOME PART OF BEVERLY'S STRATEGY FOR REDUCING ITS BUDGET DEFICIT

• The City of Beverly faces a recurring, structural budget gap where annual expenses are growing faster than allowed revenue growth.
• The deficit is anticipated to rise without intervention.
• Growing waste volumes accelerate landfill use, increase disposal costs, and shorten landfill lifespans"adding to the City's budget pressures.
• The biggest factor controlling the cost of landfill is how well pre-landfill steps are accomplished. This is where green initiatives could help to make a difference with the deficit and potentially generate revenue along the way.

WHAT ARE CENTERS FOR HARD-TO-RECYCLE MATERIALS (CHARM) FACILITIES?

• Centers for Hard-to-Recycle Materials are specialized drop-off centers that accept items traditional recycling programs cannot handle"things like styrofoam, mattresses, electronics, paint, chemicals, bike tubes, toilets, wine corks, and dozens of other "odd" materials. These facilities typically charge small fees and often generate revenue through user fees, sponsorships, grants, and resale of recovered materials.
• The City of Beverly does not currently have a CHARM Facility. Black Earth Compost offers residents pay as you go pickup options. The City also offers periodic drop off events for hazardous materials and electronics.

COULD A CHARM FACILITY ADD VALUE IN BEVERLY?

• Yes! CHARM facilities turn expensive-to-dispose-of materials into fee-supported services and recoverable value, while also reducing landfill costs.
• Every ton diverted from the landfill saves tipping fees, extends landfill lifespan, and reduces long-term capital costs.
• Key Benefits:
• Fees often cover operating costs and generate surplus revenue
• Many hard-to-recycle materials have resale value and programs can sell these materials to processors or manufacturers
• CHARM facilities can attract grants and sponsorships
• Opportunity to build upon other green initiatives in the City

CHARM FACILITIES TO EXPLORE AND RESEARCH

Local ChaRM Facility

• Saugus, MA (opened in April 2026)

Local Recycling centers that are not full ChaRM facilities but handle hard to recycle materials

• Gardner, MA
• Holliston, MA
• Somerville, MA
• Newton, MA

Out of State ChaRM Facilities

• Athens, Georgia
• Boulder, Colorado
• Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

OTHER GREEN IDEAS TO REDUCE WASTE AND POTENTIALLY GENERATE REVENUE

• Pet waste composting
• Dog waste digesters
• Construction & Demolition Material Recovery (salvaged lumber, brick, fixtures, and metals are resold)
• Bulk mulch/compost sales
• Solar arrays
• Tree nurseries
• Repair Cafés & Fix-It Hubs
• Green burial sites
• Battery storage facilities
• Anaerobic digestion
• Tool libraries rental fees
• Maker space memberships

Next Steps

• Engage City sustainability staff
• Engage Green Beverly and the community
• Do more focused research on ideas the community feels are potentially feasible in Beverly
• Reach out to Saugus facility to see if they are open to sharing more about their facility and program

Currently Standley street dump is managed by Casella and part of our contract, so certain revenue streams not possible here, but others are not under contract because they aren't being done in Beverly or locally.

Newton has really carved out a niche revenue stream with mattress recycling and is the go-to community for that.

We go down a new Casella bulk item policy rabbit hole, and could see this as a new revenue stream IF we had the space and resources but also it's under contract with Casella right now.

Kathleen talks about the "library of things" available already at Beverly Public Library and how we can build on this.

Municipal Utilities

John (reports attached)

Airport - underutilized restaurant space. 4.5 acres undeveloped space, unsure of wetlands limitations. Conversation with Gabe at airport also illuminated some needs (plows, security software, etc.)

Dan questions whether we should even have an airport. We will ask about it and have someone else explain the airport and the relationship with the city. He also affirms he likes human neighbors, despite his love of robots.

John on utilities - we already have 2 substations. Looking at regionalization possibilities with Hamilton/Wenham. Meeting with Marblehead next week. Looking to connect with Reading as well. Many neighbors have municipal power. Salem has not been responsive yet.

Dan - Biggest investment in municipal is the substation, so great that we already have 2.

John - next meetings will be available on BevCam Kathleen says the audio recording of this meeting is available by request

Kathleen - Each idea needs to be distilled into one "slide" for the public. Follow same format. Each idea = feasible or not? If not why? If feasible, how much money it saves/generates, and pros and cons for the stakeholders.

[Note: The attached file contains six pages numbered 1 to 6, not pages 7 to 12 of 27. The transcript below covers the six pages provided.]

Kaarin & Lydia will create the slide deck, we as individual committee members will generate the content for our assigned ideas & research.

Dan wants to include looking into eliminating dispatch to be a regional service as well as full AI automation of City Hall services. But for now Dan is reporting on his research for Pension Deferral and Health Insurance changes.

Based on his research, pension deferral doesn't make sense, it just kicks the can down the road so there is no recommended change there.

Employee health insurance had lots of possibilities and a robust discussion on options.Dan's notes attached.

Insurance was focus of Dan's effort and has most possibilities. Currently 80/20 split for all employees, contracts and renewals always up July 1st. Focus on master medical because the health insurance is after salaries, the largest expenses the city incurs. Conservative estimates vs. base estimate. If we switched to 70/30 from 80/20 for municipal non-school employees, the savings would be about $721,000, for school employees the savings would be $1.21 million if it would be dropped to 70/30. Reminder that the school employees are under negotiated contracts, and this would all be up to the negotiating parties in terms of possible scenarios for all union negotiated contracts.

Retirees also get 80/20, state requires 50/50, but 2 different retiree buckets. Medicare eligible (city plan listed as secondary insurance) & non-medicare eligible. If we dropped both categories to 50/50 then the savings for Medicare retirees is $599,000 and non-medicare retirees is $1.13 million.

Big savings would be GIC - 76 communities on it. State run health insurance commission- big pool, less costs for municipalities. Average savings switching to this plan are 10%, used a conservative 5% savings by switching, which would mean a savings of $1.1 million. 320 city employees, 824 FTE at the school. John noted communities of Brookline, Franklin, Marblehead and Swampscott are both on GIC. Lydia & Kaarin expressed concern that benefits changes like that could have a detrimental effect on hiring and retaining top talent for our schools. Dan says if you look at tax payers they don't have 80/20 split and we have a taxpayer retention policy too. Lydia mentioned having to look at surrounding schools.

Kathleen - to clarify 3 separate things we're talking about here: Retiree split to 50/50, Joining GIC, and Employee split to 70/30 - which is also is dependent on negotiations

Lydia mentions the Dedham committee (like us) report and reminds everyone we are not policy makers, we are researching and presenting information and recommendations.

Dan there are more retirees than current employees on our health insurance.

Kaarin - Chapter 70 allocation explained, state determines minimum amount of money each community would receive, then adjusted according to property tax values in each community. Looking into state funding and allocating more for Beverly and the funding equation in talks with Hannah Bowen, including special ed. Lydia brings up that Beverly is a minimum aid community and will be meeting with Bowen & Lovely regarding that status changing and other sources of school funding. Special ed transportation is really challenging and working on making sure community leaders understand Beverly's unique needs.

Kathleen mentions Sept. 29th at 6pm State Aid Community Conversation hosted by Rep. Bowen at Farms Branch of the library.

John wants to look into enterprise funds further - like Parks department may be better as part of the general fund. Lydia and Kathleen mention including that in the research and work on camp fees. Preliminary research shows not many surrounding communities charging for camps or parks fees for residents. Kathleen, Lydia & John will be meeting with parks dept.

Kathleen emphasizing the "one slide summary" for each idea for the community will help direct our group and flow into our final recommendations.

1. New ideas added to list
2. Start idea tracking spreadsheet
3. Compile work product, notes and articles (forward to Kathleen)
4. In future, send anything you would like to discuss with the group to Kathleen 7 days prior to meeting so we can add to the agenda
5. Kathleen & John to work on PILOT committee letter
6. Line up speakers (Charm facility, municipal utilities, state reps) for Sept 14 & Sept. 28th meeting
7. Work on getting supporting documents uploaded to city website

Meeting adjourned at 7:54pm

Deficit Reduction Committee

Draft Timeline 2026-2027

| Meeting Dates | Meeting Objectives | Deliverables Due Date | Completed | |---|---|---|---| | July 2026 | Develop ideas/task list | 7/29/2026 | x | | August 2026 | Assignments/research | | | | September 2026 | Research/presentations | 09/30/2026 | | | September 2026 | List of FY 2028 budget recommendations | 10/26/2026 | | | October-December 26 | Internal & External Stakeholders Presentations; Financial Forecast; Public Outreach re FY2028 budget recommendations | | | | January 2027 | Develop Larger Infrastructure changes list of possibilities for 2029 budget | | | | January 2027 | Create & Schedule Public Outreach Ward by Ward meetings Public Surveys | | | | February 2027 | Public Outreach/Data Analysis | | | | March 2027 | Public Outreach/Data Analysis | | | | April 2027 | List of Recommendations based on Public Outreach & Stakeholder Research for long term budget consideration | | |

AGENDA

1. The Problem & Exploring Sustainability Initiatives as a Strategy
2. What are CHARM Facilities?
3. Could a CHARM Facility add value in Beverly?
4. CHARM Facilities Examples & Outreach Next Steps
5. Other Green Ideas to Reduce Waste and Potentially Generate Revenue

The Problem and Exploring How Smart Sustainability Initiatives Can Cut Costs, Generate Revenue, and Become Part of Beverly's Strategy for Reducing Its Budget Deficit

• The City of Beverly faces a recurring, structural budget gap where annual expenses are growing faster than allowed revenue growth.
• The deficit is anticipated to rise without intervention.
• Growing waste volumes accelerate landfill use, increase disposal costs, and shorten landfill lifespans – adding to the City's budget pressures.
• The biggest factor controlling the cost of landfill is how well pre-landfill steps are accomplished. This is where green initiatives could help to make a difference with the deficit and potentially generate revenue along the way.

What Are Centers for Hard-to-Recycle Materials (CHARM) Facilities?

• Centers for Hard-to-Recycle Materials are specialized drop-off centers that accept items traditional recycling programs cannot handle – things like styrofoam, mattresses, electronics, paint, chemicals, bike tubes, toilets, wine corks, and dozens of other "odd" materials. These facilities typically charge small fees and often generate revenue through user fees, sponsorships, grants, and resale of recovered materials.
• The City of Beverly does not currently have a CHARM Facility. Black Earth Compost offers residents pay as you go pickup options. The City also offers periodic drop off events for hazardous materials and electronics.

Image: CHARM Facility in Athens, Georgia

COULD A CHARM FACILITY ADD VALUE IN BEVERLY?

• Yes! CHARM facilities turn expensive-to-dispose-of materials into fee-supported services and recoverable value, while also reducing landfill costs.
• Every ton diverted from the landfill saves tipping fees, extends landfill lifespan, and reduces long-term capital costs.
• Key Benefits:
• Fees often cover operating costs and generate surplus revenue
• Many hard-to-recycle materials have resale value and programs can sell these materials to processors or manufacturers
• CHARM facilities can attract grants and sponsorships
• Opportunity to build upon other green initiatives in the City

Image source: freepik.com

CHARM FACILITIES TO EXPLORE AND RESEARCH

Local CharM Facility

• Saugus, MA (opened in April 2026)

Local Recycling centers that are not full ChaRM facilities but handle hard to recycle materials

• Gardner, MA
• Holliston, MA
• Somerville, MA
• Newton, MA

Out of State ChaRM Facilities

• Athens, Georgia
• Boulder, Colorado
• Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Next Steps

• Engage City sustainability staff
• Engage Green Beverly
• Reach out to Saugus facility to see if they are open to sharing more about their facility and program

OTHER GREEN IDEAS TO REDUCE WASTE AND POTENTIALLY GENERATE REVENUE

• Pet waste composting
• Dog waste digesters
• Construction & Demolition Material Recovery (salvaged lumber, brick, fixtures, and metals are resold)
• Bulk mulch/compost sales
• Solar arrays
• Tree nurseries
• Repair Cafés & Fix-It Hubs
• Green burial sites
• Battery storage facilities
• Anaerobic digestion
• Tool libraries rental fees
• Maker space memberships

Next Steps

• Engage City sustainability staff
• Engage Green Beverly and the community
• Do more focused research on ideas the community feels are potentially feasible in Beverly

Healthcare Estimated City Saving

| Change | Estimated Annual Savings | |---|---| | Active municipal employees → 70/30 | ~$721K | | Medicare retirees → 50/50 | ~$599K | | Non-Medicare retirees → 50/50 | ~$1.13M–$1.50M | | School employees → 70/30 | ~$1.21M | | Estimated Total Savings | [unreadable] |

| Scenario | Estimated Annual Savings | |---|---| | Lower case — predominantly 75/25 plans | ~$3.46M | | Midpoint/mixed enrollment | ~$3.78M | | Upper case — predominantly 80/20 plans | ~$4.10M |

| Plan | Coverage | Current Employee / Yr | Employee at 30% | Increase / Yr | Increase / Week | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | BCBS Network Blue | Individual | $2,933 | $4,400 | $1,467 | $28.21 | | BCBS Network Blue | Family | $7,663 | $11,494 | $3,832 | $73.69 | | Harvard Choice | Individual | $2,993 | $4,490 | $1,497 | $28.78 | | Harvard Choice | Family | $7,820 | $11,730 | $3,910 | $75.19 | | Master Medical | Individual | $6,409 | $7,691 | $1,282 | $24.65 | | Master Medical | Family | $15,959 | $19,151 | $3,192 | $61.38 |

Beverly's proposed FY2027 budget allocates $1,292,017 to Public Safety Dispatch, up from $1,079,750 in FY2026, an increase of $212,267, or 19.7%.

The detailed FY2027 dispatch budget is:

| FY2027 Public Safety Dispatch | Budget | |---|---| | Department Head | $101,430 | | 11 Full-Time Dispatchers | $789,587 | | Overtime | $180,000 | | Mutual Aid | $10,000 | | Holidays | $34,000 | | Night Differential | $15,600 | | Wellness Incentive | $1,200 | | Longevity | $2,200 | | Education Benefits | $8,500 | | Training | $12,500 | | EMD Dispatcher | $10,500 | | Part-Time Dispatchers | $70,000 | | Uniforms | $5,000 | | Supplies | $5,500 | | Total Personnel/Operating | $1,246,017 | | Equipment | $46,000 | | TOTAL FY2027 DISPATCH | $1,292,017 |

Regional Dispatch Scenario

Massachusetts actively provides State 911 funding for regional PSAPs and Regional Emergency Communication Centers. The state's FY2027 Development Grant program explicitly supports regionalization of 911 and dispatch operations.

There is already a relevant North Shore model: the Essex Regional Emergency Communications Center, which has provided public-safety communications/dispatch services under intermunicipal agreements with communities including Middleton.

For Beverly, I would model three potential regional-dispatch costs rather than assume Beverly could eliminate the entire $1.65 million:

Combined savings

The clean number for the committee is therefore:

Three regional-dispatch scenarios

I would model these three cases:

| Scenario | Regional | Current Cost | Annual Savings | Savings % | |---|---|---|---|---| | Conservative | $1,000,000 | $1,650,000 | $650,000 | 39.4% | | Base Case | $750,000 | $1,650,000 | $900,000 | 54.5% | | High Savings | $500,000 | $1,650,000 | $1,150,000 | 69.7% |

Health Insurance Reform + Regional 911 Dispatch

Health Insurance Reform + Regional 911 Dispatch = approximately $2.95 million in recurring annual savings.

That becomes substantial over time:

| Period | Cumulative Savings | |---|---| | 1 Year | $2,945,067 | | 2 Years | $5,890,134 | | 3 Years | $8,835,201 | | 4 Years | $11,780,268 | | 5 Years | $14,725,335 | | 10 Years | $29,450,670 |

Higher-savings scenario

If Beverly obtained a 10% reduction in underlying health premiums through GIC and changed the contribution to 70/30, the picture becomes:

| Initiative | Annual Savings | |---|---| | GIC + 70/30 Health Insurance | ~$2,810,000 | | Regional 911 Dispatch | ~$1,292,000 | | Total recurring savings | ~$4,102,000 | | 5-year savings | ~$20.51 million |

Deficit Reduction Initiative

| Item | Amount | |---|---| | Healthcare contribution restructuring | ~$3,800,000 | | Regional dispatch – conservative | 650,000 | | Combined – conservative | $4,450,000 | | Regional dispatch – base case | 900,000 | | Combined – base case | $4,700,000 | | Regional dispatch – high savings | 1,150,000 | | Combined – high case | $4,950,000 |

Beverly, MA — Consolidated Deficit Reduction Savings Model

| Deficit Reduction Initiative | Conservative | Base Case | High Savings | |---|---|---|---| | Healthcare – Active City Employees → 70/30 | $650,000 | $720,000 | $800,000 | | Healthcare – School Employees → 70/30 | $840,000 | $1,210,000 | $1,575,000 | | Healthcare – Non-Medicare Retirees → 50/50 | $1,125,000 | $1,310,000 | $1,500,000 | | Healthcare – Medicare Retirees → 50/50 | $500,000 | $560,000 | $600,000 | | Total Healthcare Savings | $3,115,000 | $3,800,000 | $4,475,000 |

| Item | Conservative | Base Case | High | |---|---|---|---| | Regional Dispatch – Current Cost | $1,650,000 | $1,650,000 | $1,650,000 | | Less: Estimated Regional Assessment | ($1,000,000) | ($750,000) | ($500,000) | | Net Regional Dispatch Savings | $650,000 | $900,000 | $1,150,000 | | TOTAL RECURRING ANNUAL SAVINGS | $3,765,000 | $4,700,000 | $5,625,000 |

| Initiative | Conservative | Base Case | High | |---|---|---|---| | Healthcare contribution restructuring | $3,115,000 | $3,800,000 | $4,475,000 | | Regional Dispatch | $650,000 | $900,000 | $1,150,000 | | Subtotal Before GIC | $3,765,000 | $4,700,000 | $5,625,000 | | GIC assumed incremental reduction | 5% | 10% | 15% | | Incremental GIC Savings | ~$1,100,000 | ~$2,200,000 | ~$3,300,000 | | TOTAL RECURRING SAVINGS | ~$4,865,000 | ~$6,900,000 | ~$8,925,000 |

Conversation with Clint Allen at Danvers Municipal Plant

Rate Comparison:

16.5 cents per kilowatt in Danvers vs. 44 cents per kilowatt with National Grid

Recommendations: Feasibility study could show that it may work but the competitive rates might not be as low as some of the older municipalities. Another benefit would be that service would improve with local lineman.

For Future Consideration

• DPU Annual Report
• Beverly already has two substations and could potentially regionalize with Hamilton and Wenham.
• Beverly is right in the middle of Danvers and Peabody.

Future Taks: Contact Reading and Marblehead

Email with City Solicitor on August 8th

Hi Councilor -

Revenues generated by the airport stay with the airport. The Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurance 25 states:

> "All revenues generated by the airport and any local taxes on aviation fuel established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for the capital or operating costs of the airport; the local airport system; or other local facilities which are owned or operated by the owner or operator of the airport and which are directly and substantially related to the actual air transportation of passengers or property; or for noise mitigation purposes on or off the airport..."

Assurance 25(a)

I am happy to answer any other questions about this topic; however, Airport Manager Gabe Hanafin is the best resource for information related to the specifics of grant assurances.

Thank you

Phone Call with Airport Manager Gabriel Hanafin

If allocated more funding what would be some of his priorities:

• More robust staffing, 3.5 FTEs here.
• 1 Full time maintenance, takes care of all the land (2-3 days a week)
• 1 part time mechanic
• Constantly harping on equipment. Snow removal and plows,
• Age of Equipment:
• Plow Trucks are 25 years old, tractors are between 15 and 20 years old.
• Updated Security system, 10+ years, software system is old and it would improve safety if able to update it.

Some possibilities:

• Restaurant space available at the airport (according to one friend in the restaurant industry it is not well advertised.)
• 4.5 acres of land not designated for aeronautical purposes could be used for development. Open to exploring this idea, not sure how much land is wetlands.

Waiting to hear back from Conscom.

Meeting with Dave Gelineau 8/5/26 ( Dave is the city purchasing agent, as well as a member of the BG&T commission.)

BG&T is an enterprise fund. Currently the management company pays the city $400,000 per year for the contract. All that money goes back in to a fund managed by the golf and tennis commission, and is used for course / clubhouse capital improvements etc.

The city does allocate approximately $17,000 per year from this money to cover city employee time supporting BG&T. Current contract goes through 2029.

The course does not cost the city anything, as any city employee time spent supporting BG&T is covered by allocations from the $400,000 fee. Conversely, the city does not make any money from BG&T, as any profits go to the management company.

Considerations:

Based on the research there does not appear to be any opportunity relevant to our DRC work. BG&T is a wonderful asset for a relatively small number of residents (full disclosure I am a member.) However, looking at this with a critical eye and from a purely financial point of view would suggest that this is a valuable, under-utilized asset. Could the city sell or lease the property for some other use that could lead to a consistent tax stream? That and other similar questions should probably be asked and reviewed in the future, maybe prior to the end of the current contract in 2029.

Meeting with Todd Rotondo 8/4/26 (Todd is a BHMA board member.)

Harbor Management Authority:

Set up by the State, sits outside of City Government. Funding comes through fees collected at Glover Wharf, plus grant funding. Glover wharf falls under BHMA. Fees are reviewed yearly and approved by the BHMA board.

All fees collected / grants received remain with BHMA. They maintain reserves to fund capital projects related to the waterfront. Excess fees (and any fee increase) go to those reserves by State law.

The Harbormaster is separate from BHMA and is part of city government.

Considerations:

Based on the research, the only opportunity relevant to our DRC work is to verify that the city is allocating any support costs back to BHMA.

Meeting with Harbormaster Peter Dickman 8/5/26

The Harbormaster is separate from the Beverly Harbor Management Authority, and reports to the mayor. Also works closely with the fire and police departments.

The revenue (mainly fees) collected by the harbormaster go to the City's general fund.

Current annual revenue is approximately $125,000.

The main revenue source is permitting fees. Every boat on a mooring in Beverly must have a permit. Currently there are approximately 600 permits issued (~360 to Beverly residents, ~240 to non-residents (For comparison, Salem has ~1400 permits and Marblehead ~1800.) The fee is $7 /per foot per year, with a $100 minimum. (For comparison, Salem is also $7/per foot, Danvers is $5/ per foot, Marblehead is $13/ per foot.) The waiting list for a mooring in Beverly is 3-5 years. There are 100 or so people on the wait list.

There are also Private Guest Moorings. These are moorings that may or may not have a permanent boat. These are typically in front of someone's property, and may be used for guests etc. The fee for this is currently $100 per year. There are 20-30 of these in Beverly.

The rates are reviewed and proposed by the Harbormaster. The rates were updated last year. Prior to that they had been consistent for at least 10 years.

The city has 10 transit moorings in the harbor that are currently underutilized. The harbormaster has been working on potential plans to better utilize these moorings, which could lead to increased revenue. One of these plans would likely require a launch service, so the capital and labor costs would need to be considered.

For consideration:

Potential new revenue opportunities-

If the mooring fee were doubled (to $14/ft), with an average boat length of 25 ft, it would generate an additional $105,000 per year. On average that is an increase from $175/yr to $350/yr per boat owner.

If the private mooring fee were to increase (based on an average of 25 moorings.)

• $200/yr = $2500 additional annual revenue
• $300/yr = $5000 additional annual revenue
• $400/yr = $7500 additional annual revenue
• $500/yr = $10,000 additional annual revenue