Brookline · Select Board

Select Board Meeting - December 9, 2025

Select Board · Brookline · 2025-12-09

words this meeting uses override · fiscal year (FY) · capital improvement plan (CIP) · free cash · levy · Select Board — the glossary says what they mean

tap to load the tape · nothing plays until you do

the shape of the tape — click anywhere to jump● a decision, sized by weight · | a question · ▮ tension · $ money named · the eight lanes: where each lens’s words fell

the same, as a table

time	kind	the moment
2:28	decision	I was absent um for a meeting a week ago. Um there was a matter that uh was addressed at that meeting having to do with…
11:58	pushback	So a lot of them are pretty good actually. Lawrence is the main problem.
27:37	decision	Um we are assuming that we are continuing our uh policies around the funding of OPEs. You we pause that in 26. We can…
34:41	decision	or not this is viable or anything appropriate is to tax the full levy amount in year one of the override, but not spend…
42:57	decision	You know, there is something to be said for like a pyramid style override, but I, you know, you'll see what we talk…
47:23	decision	system of X versus a school system of X - 800 students. Um, and we rarely get that kind of analysis of what's going on…
47:53	decision	um when in fact uh well actually you know we might not need that money if if there were 17 kids in a classroom on…
58:08	decision	Well, it's because these other bills are coming due that you that was approved by the voters. So, it would be really…
58:43	decision	override on the ballot is a individual property based property bypropy based um calculator so that someone can can put…
1:01:18	decision	borrowing coming on for the first year in fiscal 27. The fourth coming on for the first time in fiscal year 28 and the…
1:02:03	pushback	chapter 70 level funding for charter tuition uh assessment reimbursements and level funding for um offset aid which…
1:04:16	decision	growth there as well. The BEu pilot is our biggest and obviously um in a declining economic condition. You know that…
1:07:48	decision	Uh there's been um coverage of u I think it's a Governor Healey initiative to uh see if the legislature will approve…
2:45:27	pushback	personal experience um in in our household that people who don't normally engage with town government found extremely…
3:40:18	pushback	Um I am I am I am concerned that that goal does not uh adequately represent the breadth of reasonably priced housing…
3:57:05	pushback	So, I have a little bit of an issue with three. I I'm a bit concerned that we shouldn't always presume that maintaining…
5:08:03	pushback	So part of it was about communication, right? as you and Paul said, captures where John and I were just concerned and…
10:01	money	$10 — said 2 times
20:51	money	$5 million — said 2 times
30:58	money	$36 million — said 2 times
32:26	money	$8 — said 2 times
33:22	money	$35 million — said 2 times
33:25	money	$8 million — said 2 times
33:29	money	$5.3 — said 2 times
2:10:34	money	$250,000 — said 3 times

↓ this picture, as .svg

the night, cut — reels the press made from this meeting’s moments

▶ the night in 3:20its 5 loudest moments, in order · plays clip to clip · the link is the share

or one kind of momentthe decisions 11 · 6:12 the pushback 6 · 2:43 the questions 1 · 0:22

Cut from the analyzer’s scored moments — a measurement, not a choice made for you. Open a reel and press make this reel yours to re-cut it; tick any moment or transcript line below to cut your own.

AI summary — supplements the official record

During the Select Board meeting on December 9, 2025, key discussions revolved around budget considerations, including anticipated increases in school funding and municipal personnel costs ([1:30:46], [1:59:30]). A focus was placed on the need for potential staffing reductions to address a projected budget deficit, with discussions highlighting that up to 20 positions might be impacted if necessary measures are implemented ([1:58:33], [2:05:25]). Additionally, the board reviewed funding schedules and the implications of upcoming decisions to maintain essential town services without excessive financial strain ([27:22], [30:16]). The next steps include further assessing budgeting options and preparing to engage the community on these issues in the lead-up to future meetings. Various departmental budgets and their needs were also acknowledged, requiring continued scrutiny ([2:59:11], [5:28:03]).

the reading, drafted by a model — ai:gemini-3.6-flash, labeled · what it meant, who moved it, what to watch · check it against the tape

What it means: The Select Board convened following an executive session [1:52] where interest regarding appointees to CDEICR was noted for the public record [3:27]. Officials examined multi-year financial projections, which included a projected town deficit for fiscal 27 [17:45], potential override cycles [29:56], employee benefit costs [18:35], and the use of stabilization funds [35:14]. The board also discussed updating its strategic roadmap [3:24:46] to address policy areas such as housing production plans [4:47:30] and pursuing commercial development [4:50:28].

Who moved it: The transcript does not capture formal motions or disclose who moved specific votes, so the passages do not settle who formally initiated board action. Discussions were led by various staff and participants named throughout the recording, including Melissa [4:40], Chaz [19:06], Paul [33:18], Sergio [1:22:00], Michael [5:05:48], and Abby [5:30:35]. The provided transcript contains no recorded vote tallies or official voting results.

What to watch: Key financial milestones include settling budget questions by the end of March [37:57] and assessing potential requests for May [31:59]. Residents can also watch for the completion of the fiscal year 2024 audit [2:27:59] and look for an updated roadmap discussion at the April Select Board meeting [3:25:20].

the moments — the analyzer’s scored read of this meeting; click one to jump the tape

2:28decision

I was absent um for a meeting a week ago. Um there was a matter that uh was addressed at that meeting having to do with an appointment to the CDEICR committee on diversity inclusion uh equity inclusion and community rela

discussed

6:52question

Yeah, I gave Kate's upload to that. So, she Do you know what the how big a town is?

information

11:58tension

So a lot of them are pretty good actually. Lawrence is the main problem.

pushback: problem

27:37decision

Um we are assuming that we are continuing our uh policies around the funding of OPEs. You we pause that in 26. We can talk about that. Uh and then um going back to the 6.6% uh level for the CIP as well. Um so all of thos

passes

34:41decision

or not this is viable or anything appropriate is to tax the full levy amount in year one of the override, but not spend all basically build an override stabilization fund. So that in the event in the likely event that th

passes

42:57decision

You know, there is something to be said for like a pyramid style override, but I, you know, you'll see what we talk about, at least on the town side. This is not an override where we're asking for new things, right? This

discussed

47:23decision

system of X versus a school system of X - 800 students. Um, and we rarely get that kind of analysis of what's going on with the school department numbers. So, um, I'm hoping that along the way we're going to have those n

discussed

47:53decision

um when in fact uh well actually you know we might not need that money if if there were 17 kids in a classroom on average versus 16 uh in a classroom on average. So if we we don't get into that level of discussion, I don

discussed

58:08decision

Well, it's because these other bills are coming due that you that was approved by the voters. So, it would be really helpful to overlay this into what the uh average tax bill would be for our classifications. So, one thi

passes

58:43decision

override on the ballot is a individual property based property bypropy based um calculator so that someone can can put their address in and see based on this override and based at my current valuation what what will my t

passes

1:01:18decision

borrowing coming on for the first year in fiscal 27. The fourth coming on for the first time in fiscal year 28 and the fifth borrowing fifth and final projected final borrowing coming on in fiscal 2029. just to give uh y

passes

1:02:03tension

chapter 70 level funding for charter tuition uh assessment reimbursements and level funding for um offset aid which goes directly to the library so showing 2% increase in fiscal 27 slightly more optimistic in the outy ye

pushback: concern, concerned

1:04:16decision

growth there as well. The BEu pilot is our biggest and obviously um in a declining economic condition. You know that we're very concerned about preserving the existing agreements that we do have. Um and so just trying to

discussed

1:07:48decision

Uh there's been um coverage of u I think it's a Governor Healey initiative to uh see if the legislature will approve allowing lo people at the local level to bump up pretty much those areas that you just mentioned, right

discussed

2:45:27tension

personal experience um in in our household that people who don't normally engage with town government found extremely interesting was all of the individual comments. Yeah. I mean, when was the last time that we saw from

pushback: concern, concerned

3:40:18tension

Um I am I am I am concerned that that goal does not uh adequately represent the breadth of reasonably priced housing across many different dimensions um that we might that we we might want to we want to

pushback: concern, concerned

3:57:05tension

So, I have a little bit of an issue with three. I I'm a bit concerned that we shouldn't always presume that maintaining what we have right now is the ideal scenario for potentially changing conditions on the ground from

pushback: concern, concerned

5:08:03tension

So part of it was about communication, right? as you and Paul said, captures where John and I were just concerned and then the part about identifying infrastructure that we want to preserve or enhance um sort of squalor,

pushback: concern, concerned

Scored, not chosen for you — the salience bar is a measurement, and every moment is a receipt into the transcript below. With JavaScript on, tick moments to compose a reel — and tick moments on other meetings too; a reel can span the record.

→ the publish kit for this meeting — the clips worth cutting and draft copy, for a producer.

the town’s paper — agendas, minutes, and packets for this meeting

📄 Agenda Packet Packet V9 12.16.25 993 pp 📄 Minutes 12.16.25 miutes 10 pp 📄 Agenda SB 12.16.25 AGENDA V3 6 pp

how the meeting framed it — eight civic lenses, counted from its own words

financial746↓ fading

infrastructure105↑ rising

safety79↑ rising

community79↑ rising

environmental67↑ rising

equity46↑ rising

legal38· steady

process26↑ rising

Counted, not modeled — each lens is a word list; drift compares the first half to the second.

the questions asked — typed by what they ask about

budget21:24 funding services?22:23 What would it cost us?

information0:54 Are we live?2:03 something to say?6:05 just for her purposes?6:52 Do you know what the how big a town is?9:35 You want me to stand?12:19 sign the beam?12:21 Where is the beam located?14:30 Have you had that?

the meeting in words — what was said most; press a word to find every line that says it

the same, as a table

word	mentions
people	107
number	106
million	105
mean	102
budget	88
point	82
goal	82
something	79
plan	78
increase	76
housing	75
maybe	74
school	74
services	74
level	74
much	73
goals	72
around	69
money	68
revenue	68
saying	67
sure	67
years	66
take	65
fiscal	64
little	62
back	62
example	59
good	57
debt	56
override	55
last	54
talking	53
talk	51
community	51
part	51
terms	51
still	48
costs	48
important	48
work	47
different	47
department	46
first	45
come	44
schools	44
cost	44
side	43
service	43
done	43
growth	43
coming	42
put	42
another	42
trying	42
fund	42
funding	40
numbers	39
already	36
staff	36

↓ this picture, as .svg

“people” came up 107 times. Sized by how often; civic stopwords out. With JavaScript off, a word opens the tape at its first mention.

transcript — select any line to Cite it, click a time to jump; ＋ on a line cuts it into your reel transcript .txt kit .json

0:02 Four, three, two, one.

0:05 Good evening or good good morning. Uh,

0:08 I'm Bernard Green, chair of the

0:09 Brookline Select Board and this is our

0:11 regular meeting of the select board in

0:13 the form of a workshop

0:15 um for December 9th, 2025.

0:19 First order of business is uh going into

0:22 executive session. I move that the fle

0:25 go into executive session for the

0:27 purpose of discussing strategy related

0:30 to a litigation matter. The litigation

0:32 matter must be discussed in executive

0:34 session because an open meeting may have

0:36 a detrimental effect on the litigation

0:38 position of the town and the chair so

0:41 declares an executive session therefore

0:43 be necessary. All in favor please

0:46 indicate by saying I. Johny

0:48 I.

0:48 Paul Warren.

0:49 Hi.

0:49 David Pearlman.

0:50 Hi.

0:50 Michael Rubenstein.

0:51 Hi.

0:51 Chair.

0:53 Okay.

0:54 Are we live?

0:56 Yeah. Let him one guest in San

1:01 M. You just let him in.

1:02 Oh, I did just let him.

1:08 Well, okay. I I thought worth

1:10 mentioning.

1:11 It's It's hard to hear the audio. You

1:14 know, at this end of the table, people

1:16 are speaking at that end. I Yeah,

1:17 there's this background ventilation

1:19 going on. I think maybe we're all going

1:21 to have to speak at an unnaturally loud

1:24 tone of voice.

1:25 Okay, let's do that.

1:26 Yeah, that kind of voice during this

1:29 meeting because I think

1:31 it's very hard to hear it.

1:32 Yeah. And I'm sure it must be hard for

1:33 people on, you know, the the Zoom feed

1:36 of of this meeting, too. So, yeah. So,

1:38 we'll all talk really well during this

1:40 meeting. Yeah.

1:41 And don't infer anything.

1:43 Yes. No. No.

1:44 We're not angry.

1:45 Okay. Okay. Let's start the meeting. Um,

1:49 I'm Bernard Green, chair of the

1:50 Brookline Select Board, and this is the

1:52 regular meeting coming out of executive

1:54 session of the select board for December

1:56 9, 2025.

1:59 First item is announcements and updates

2:01 from the select board. John, do you have

2:03 something to say?

2:04 I I do and thank you. Um, so, excuse me.

2:07 I was absent um for a meeting a week

2:10 ago. Um there was a matter that uh was

2:13 addressed at that meeting having to do

2:14 with an appointment to the CDEICR

2:17 committee on diversity inclusion uh

2:20 equity inclusion and community

2:21 relations. Um, and I have uh that there

2:25 was such a public interest in the

2:28 outcome of that vote and in the what was

2:30 at stake that um I I drafted a an email

2:34 to the chair of CDEICR.

2:37 Uh sent it to Ke Kevin McKenzie

2:40 yesterday. Um, and I would like to have

2:43 that uh email to Kevin McKenzie just

2:46 entered into the public record of this

2:48 meeting because it states for people who

2:50 want to know what would have happened if

2:52 Mr. Vanco had been present at the

2:54 meeting. Um it it it states clearly

2:57 where I would have come down on the

2:59 issue in question. And also I I hope

3:02 importantly um gives um uh a sense of my

3:08 uh my wish that we will go forward um

3:11 with more than just a um continuation of

3:15 the appointment process um but rather a

3:17 review of the mission of CDEICR

3:21 so that we have a clear understanding of

3:24 what our expectations are of future

3:27 appointees to CDEICR.

3:30 And so I'm just asking permission to

3:32 have that email put into the record.

3:35 I I don't think that's necessary. Um

3:37 yeah, I I I think if we put it in the

3:39 record of the meeting, I I have other

3:41 ways of sharing it with people and so

3:42 on, but

3:44 any other comments for it from the

3:46 board?

3:49 Seeing none, let's move on to our

3:50 miscellaneous calendars. Um we have

3:53 items 4 A through 4H.

3:58 Okay. Uh I I'm sorry. It's not Well,

4:01 something has changed. It's more than

4:03 four I

4:04 Yes, four I.

4:06 Um so I move I'd like to move in an

4:09 omnimous fashion items 4 A through 4 I

4:12 unless someone would like to take

4:14 something out of the list and discuss it

4:17 further.

4:19 No one

4:20 responding to that. Uh all in favor of

4:23 items 4 A through 4 I please indicate by

4:26 saying I. down.

4:28 Hi

4:28 Paul Warren.

4:29 Hi

4:30 David Cmans. Hi

4:31 Mike Rubenstein.

4:32 Hi

4:32 Jere.

4:34 Now to the real meat of this uh meeting

4:37 the financial forecast.

4:40 It's you Melissa.

4:41 It's me and Charlie and Lincoln.

4:43 And you're going to put something on the

4:45 screen there.

4:46 Yes. Do we

4:48 Oh, here we go.

4:50 I don't think it's

4:52 still

4:53 Yeah, it says 9:30.

4:54 It's not a hearing. It says 9:30.

4:57 Yeah, usually. Well,

4:59 we should wait till 9:30.

5:00 Yeah, you didn't put the language in,

5:02 but Tiff used to put the language in

5:04 that said uh possible things could

5:07 happen earlier or later. We don't have

5:08 agenda. So, let's wait till

5:16 Yeah.

5:17 Just send you all the resume

5:21 starting in January.

5:26 You you have found another miracle

5:27 worker.

5:33 That's good to know. That's good to

5:35 know.

6:03 Ch. Should I send that email to Kate

6:05 just for her purposes? Okay.

6:08 Yes.

6:08 Yeah.

6:38 Yeah,

6:39 I gave Kate's upload to that. So, she

6:52 Do you know what the how big a town is?

6:55 18,000.

6:57 It's 10,000. It's right next to

6:59 Yeah, it's right around the side.

7:01 Oh, right next to South.

7:04 But we we heard good things from the

7:06 town administrator right of South

7:08 um from Well, Tim used to work there and

7:10 then she also used to work in

7:13 Got it. So,

7:14 yeah,

7:16 she's familiar with

7:17 we have people that used to work with

7:19 her and that work for us now. So you

7:21 know frankly I would rather have

7:22 somebody who worked for a town than a

7:24 city.

7:25 Well, when she worked, she worked during

7:27 the transition from city from town to

7:29 city.

7:30 That's that time we didn't know.

7:36 Shea

7:37 she worked at the top

7:39 but she was assistant too and

7:43 okay

7:46 with licensing experience with also the

7:48 good stuff

7:50 requests but also in every job she's

7:53 been in she's been given more and more

7:55 responsibilities seems like taking

8:05 January 5.

8:09 You got to keep things together till

8:11 January 5th. Charlie,

8:13 doing my best.

8:21 The 16th is when we're taking the

8:23 licensing open. So we actually can't

8:26 humbling to realize

8:28 one never had a resume

8:35 page. I I had this career in journalism

8:39 in full and over the course of one of

8:43 those I had to actually show some nice

8:47 just make sure people might be

8:51 specifically

8:58 and I was always special

9:05 One word here.

9:15 Looking at a job

9:18 when I was invest

9:21 that's like an investment.

9:23 Well, some of them weren't the greatest.

9:26 Okay.

9:32 It's not stacked.

9:34 You want me to stand?

9:52 Yeah.

9:54 I ordered

9:58 all that. Oh god.

10:01 I've been buying $10. gets expensive.

10:06 Oh, naming.

10:09 It may be worth

10:13 more.

10:22 Me and the cast.

10:29 There was some discussion about

10:32 the new school is quite a lot.

10:35 Yeah.

10:35 Yeah. Okay.

10:36 Yeah. So, my basement isn't finished.

10:38 School committee is naming

10:39 chat.

10:44 As far as a better

10:46 usually

10:50 there was a committee that I remember

10:53 committee that looked into the origins

10:55 school names like

10:58 really the only other

11:00 Lawrence. So Amos Lawrence

11:03 on race issues, but there's some quotes

11:05 from him such as why are we educated and

11:08 then they

11:12 have school named after someone who

11:14 didn't feel women should be educated. So

11:16 I could see that maybe becoming an issue

11:20 as

11:23 in that era we didn't have like that.

11:26 Well,

11:28 yeah. Well, Driscoll,

11:32 very solid individual. Michael, he was a

11:35 school committee member for apparently

11:37 over 50 years when he first got

11:39 that was that was

11:40 and he was very generous town and also

11:44 provided affordable housing for people

11:46 and so he has a great background. He was

11:48 from an Irish immigrant family.

11:51 Uh Lincoln was very much involved in the

11:55 Underground Railroad.

11:57 So a lot of them are pretty good

11:58 actually. Lawrence is the main problem.

12:03 I don't really remember Pierce, but I

12:05 don't call anything negative.

12:06 I don't I don't either. I actually have

12:08 no I don't know anything about it. I'm

12:09 just giving you as a slide on the rule.

12:12 It's a little heads up that I

12:15 Are we signing a beam or something

12:16 that's coming up for you opportunity to

12:19 sign the beam?

12:20 Where is the beam located?

12:22 It'll be at the health department.

12:24 Oh, it's not going to be on top of the

12:25 building.

12:26 Oh, good.

12:29 climb up there.

12:33 I hadn't thought of that. Maybe they'd

12:34 have you sign it before he goes up.

12:37 This is my as

12:43 Yeah, it's a huge base. It's all This is

12:45 all pudding stones.

12:48 Yeah,

12:49 I painted the base. You know, you know

12:53 1885.

12:54 Yeah.

12:56 It's kind of a mess right now.

12:59 Maybe they should name the school after

13:01 the president's chair. It's been getting

13:03 slowly getting

13:07 this school.

13:10 Yeah. Know

13:13 walking down the stairs.

13:15 That's been your dream.

13:21 service director recently named award

13:31 maybe give a few years

13:36 and that used to be

13:39 huge and I I became

13:43 since I couldn't stay mouse

13:48 the false.

13:50 Well, we didn't do that.

13:55 I had a huge

13:58 so 36%.

14:07 Yeah.

14:20 I feel like we finally got ahead of it.

14:22 Although Amy still needs still need a

14:23 kitchen

14:25 bathroom.

14:30 Have you had that?

14:37 Yeah, I bet you did. Yeah,

14:41 still in the middle of construction.

14:43 Well, never it's never going to happen.

14:44 I mean, the envelope snapped better.

14:48 We need to do all the chimneys.

14:52 All the just about every piece of wood

14:55 replaced with mahogany and custom.

15:07 We have the kitchen from the 80s.

15:09 I just needed

15:11 Oh, yeah.

15:12 I don't know why we didn't have

15:13 We just finally

15:14 I think we just finally got our basement

15:16 back together from last

15:19 semi-urban.

15:22 Yes.

15:24 The transitory nature of the population.

15:27 Okay, it's 9:30. Okay, wait 15 seconds.

15:35 Oh, we can.

15:37 Okay, let's get back to business

15:39 financial forecast.

15:42 Yeah, probably

15:43 Melissa Jo is present the

15:48 news

15:50 or otherwise, right?

15:54 My voice and uh be closer to the screen

15:56 so I can read it better.

15:59 I hear you.

16:01 Uh so this is kind of a summary of what

16:03 we're looking at uh for uh the forecast.

16:07 Basically the the headline here is

16:09 really that our group health costs are

16:11 consuming most of what we have room and

16:13 so we're looking at a 12% increase in

16:16 fiscal 27 uh and speaking with our

16:18 health insurance consultant hoping that

16:20 there would be a little bit of relief in

16:22 the outy years. We're also assuming 12%

16:24 for 28 and 29. It does not seem to be

16:27 anything that we're looking at a

16:28 downward curve just yet.

16:30 Um, ARPA spending is going to be ending

16:33 in uh, December of 26. So that's halfway

16:36 through 27th

16:38 and um, we really tried to make sure

16:40 that we didn't build recurring costs

16:42 into our opera allocation and for the

16:44 most part we were uh, successful with

16:47 that. Um, there is quite a demand for

16:50 um, the transportation uh, services that

16:52 were provided under AARPA. We we've

16:54 heard a lot of that from the council of

16:56 aging. uh you may have seen uh the Mass

16:59 Municipal Association putting out a

17:01 report about uh municipalities and the

17:04 constraints that they're feeling under

17:06 enough and also uh you know when you

17:09 imply apply inflation to state aid it

17:12 really shows that um cities and towns

17:15 are not getting kind of the same level

17:17 of increase that the state is giving to

17:19 themselves. Um unfortunately um even

17:22 with that report out we don't see that

17:25 changing things dramatically in 2027.

17:28 Um but hopefully there you know there

17:30 might be changes to either the chapter

17:31 70 formula or some other relief. Um

17:34 there'll be recommendations coming from

17:36 the Mass Municipal Association uh on the

17:38 heels of that report that hopefully will

17:40 provide some additional options um to

17:43 consider. So, uh, what we're looking at

17:45 for fiscal 27 is a, uh, town deficit of

17:48 $2.9 million. Uh, and that is just level

17:52 services. And then with the collective

17:53 bargaining agreements that we have

17:55 negotiated, uh, in place. And then, uh,

17:58 the school's deficit is $13.5 million,

18:01 which is a pretty large number um, for

18:03 them to try and manage. Um, they are

18:06 still working on their projection. So um

18:09 the number that I have in there for the

18:11 schools came from a projection that they

18:13 had put out about a month or so ago. Um

18:16 so that is continuing to be refined. Uh

18:18 and the cost pressures are very similar

18:21 both town and school. Uh you know in

18:23 years past it's the same issues of you

18:25 know most of our money is in people. So

18:27 collective bargaining provides a lot of

18:29 pressure on the budget. Special

18:31 education for the schools is uh

18:33 definitely a a cost pressure for them.

18:35 And then both town and school benefits

18:37 is definitely an issue for us and you

18:40 know collective bargaining inflation of

18:41 benefits in the town setting.

18:43 But before can

18:45 ask so I'm going to forget if is it okay

18:48 to ask as you

18:50 so um the 13.5 I noticed you were very

18:54 explicit in saying that the 2.9 for the

18:56 town was level service.

18:57 Yes.

18:58 Is the 13.5 level service from the

19:00 schools? So, I believe that the 13.5

19:04 um is still needing to be refined for

19:06 it. Well, I think Chaz might be able to

19:08 speak about it until he's gonna see it.

19:10 Yeah. Um so, I've talked to the

19:11 superintendent about this. It is largely

19:13 a level service budget. There are

19:15 several things that are in there that

19:17 are not that were not in there last

19:19 year. I mean, se a couple of things that

19:20 are in there that were not in there last

19:22 year, but they are things that the

19:23 superintendent views as vital to the

19:25 operations of the school. for example,

19:27 they need to revise their science

19:28 curriculum. Their science curriculum is

19:30 up for so that's money money they didn't

19:32 have in last year's budget they're

19:33 putting in this year's budget. So you

19:36 know in terms of function they intended

19:38 to be a level services budget but in

19:40 terms of things that are added in but

19:42 for example is world is K5 world

19:43 languages back in there? No. Um it's

19:46 only things that the superintendent

19:47 thinks is educationally necessary.

19:50 Okay. And then my other we didn't think

19:53 we had before. My other quick question

19:55 was related to the 12% increase in

19:57 health care costs. Yes. Can you quantify

20:00 that as a number?

20:01 Uh

20:02 each each 1% is 421,000.

20:05 So uh 400, you know, times 12. So 48 5

20:10 million.

20:11 Yeah. 500.

20:13 Wow. Yeah. Okay.

20:15 I think we um a couple of questions. Um

20:20 to following up on the the school budget

20:22 question, did that include things like

20:26 um restoring the the position that got

20:30 cut in terms of data management that

20:33 that was a central office cut that was

20:35 made last year.

20:36 I don't know where the superintendent is

20:38 on that. I know they've been going back

20:39 and forth on that conversation about the

20:42 need to stabilize the central office,

20:43 but I don't know whether that possession

20:45 has been restored.

20:47 And in terms of the So that 12% increase

20:51 represents $5 million. Um do you know

20:55 what the overall increase to the budget

20:58 for the town or on both sides?

21:00 For the All the slides will go into

21:02 Yeah, we have like we have like 40

21:04 slides for you. Yes.

21:05 Okay.

21:06 Yeah.

21:07 Okay.

21:08 Just uh following up on the school

21:10 budget question again. So you gave the

21:12 example of reworking the science

21:13 curriculum. I I doubt that's a

21:15 significant percentage of this 13.5.

21:18 Correct. So would you say that the vast

21:20 majority of the 13.5 is for level

21:24 funding services?

21:25 Yes. Steps and lands.

21:28 Have we ever done an analysis of what

21:30 our cost would have been if we had not

21:32 gone into kick

21:35 into what?

21:35 The GS.

21:36 Oh, the GS. So just to just to give you

21:38 an idea, Bernard, um you know, most

21:40 other GIC communities are seeing similar

21:42 increases.

21:44 Towns that are not in the GIC are seeing

21:46 larger increases, like 20%. Um there are

21:49 a few outliers that are doing better,

21:51 but they're very small communities.

21:53 They're not they're not comparable to

21:54 the work line. Uh, and so, you know, we

21:57 we haven't I don't think we've done an

21:59 in sort of vast analysis going back all

22:01 the way to when we joined the GIC, but

22:02 we have a chart later in here that shows

22:05 sort of how the health costs are just

22:07 outpacing what we what we had thought

22:09 they would be. So, they're like double

22:12 what they were when we joined the GI.

22:14 And as part of the process when we talk

22:15 about renewing our our options in the

22:17 GIC, Pat, our consultant does those does

22:19 the analysis every year. It says, should

22:21 we be staying in the GIC? What are the

22:23 benefits? What would it cost us? And I

22:24 will just say just anecdotally, I say

22:26 this every year, the joke is we know

22:29 whether or not the healthcare market

22:30 thinks it's it's good when depending on

22:32 how much we get propositioned at the MMA

22:34 conference by you know by HMOs and you

22:37 know trying to get us to switch and in

22:39 the past two years no one um no one no

22:42 one wants everyone understands that the

22:44 market's bad. Blue Cross or any of the

22:47 other individual providers can't offer

22:48 what the GIC is offering. they know it.

22:51 Um even um the uh the other kind of big

22:54 consortium that could be a part of Maya

22:57 um the Massachusetts Insurance so

23:00 they're local.

23:02 Yeah. Um their their premiums

23:05 communities in in that group have seen

23:07 their premiums go between 15 to 19%.

23:10 Um so we're actually a little better off

23:12 there. So, you know, a big function of

23:15 the health benefits cost is the split

23:17 that the town the share that the town

23:19 pays in terms of its health insurance,

23:20 which if you want to change needs to be,

23:22 you know, need to work

23:25 with the unions to do that, right? And

23:27 so there's there's a cost to doing that

23:29 and you'll see there's some of that is

23:30 reflected in the override slide at the

23:31 end of the the end of the presentations

23:33 talking about how to get how to bring

23:35 that down. So, you ready for your next

23:36 slide, Melissa? Okay. Please do feel

23:38 free to interrupt us and ask questions.

23:40 This is expand.

23:42 Oh,

23:46 so these are just um showing some of the

23:48 highlights of the assumptions that we

23:50 have going through the forecast. So,

23:51 we're assuming, you know, raising the

23:53 the property tax levy to the full levy

23:56 limit. Um and we have a $2.5 million

23:59 assumption for new growth. Um probably

24:01 about three months ago, I was at 2.1. Um

24:04 we did see a new growth number in fiscal

24:07 26 that was really strong. So, we felt

24:09 pl um comfortable kind of bumping that

24:11 up a little bit. So, TED has really um

24:13 done a lot of great work around personal

24:15 property uh and so we're kind of

24:18 updating our forecast based on what

24:21 we're what we're seeing coming in the

24:22 door. Uh right now for state aid, I have

24:24 a 1% assumption for um which is

24:27 unrestricted general government aid. Uh

24:30 and I have a 2 and a half% uh assumption

24:32 for chapter 70. uh local receipts were

24:34 growing by 4.1%

24:36 um and then you know slightly uh more

24:39 modest in the out years. We did see some

24:42 uh year-end numbers uh coming in

24:44 stronger on u parking meters. So we were

24:46 able to bump up the estimate related to

24:48 that. Um also seeing some strong numbers

24:50 from our motor vehicle excise. So um

24:53 made some adjustments on that as well.

24:55 Uh so for on the expenditure side,

24:57 can I ask a question?

24:58 Sure. Um next year the the World Cup is

25:01 coming to Boston. Um if we thought of is

25:05 that going to be a significant uh have a

25:07 significant impact on our uh revenues do

25:10 you think?

25:11 I don't I don't think that we have seen

25:13 any estimates anywhere else on like

25:15 hotel motel and meals kind of in

25:18 anticipation of the World Cup. I've been

25:20 kind of looking at Boston and what

25:22 they're holding for their projections

25:24 and they're at this point they haven't

25:25 indicated um any bump around that event.

25:28 In in fact, it may cost us more if we

25:31 were asked to host anything asked to

25:33 help.

25:34 No fair.

25:36 Well, that's that's what we're saying.

25:38 We also not to denigrate FIFA, but they

25:42 are not all they are not the best run or

25:44 least corrupt organization.

25:47 They tend to do things last minute and

25:49 say you should pay for the privilege. Um

25:51 they're not very good local partners,

25:54 but but any bump in revenue from an

25:56 event like that would be one time. And

25:57 so we wouldn't want to put put that into

25:59 the, you know, recurring costs that we

26:01 have. So

26:02 just what would we host? Like what would

26:03 give me an example?

26:04 You know, um I've just heard from the

26:06 police chief that they're anticipating

26:08 even cover events that are going to

26:09 happen in Brooklyn that may happen on

26:11 fields in Brooklyn or may happen in

26:12 areas around Brooklyn. That's just what

26:14 we've heard from appreciate that there's

26:16 all the watch party, you know,

26:18 there's going to be soft costs

26:19 associated with with World Cup coming to

26:21 Boston that we're climbing have to

26:23 people have to other communities talk

26:25 about closing off the block, you know,

26:27 when games are being played and showing

26:28 the game on big screen.

26:29 So overtime for trash pickup and all

26:31 that other stuff.

26:32 Okay.

26:34 So on the expenditure side, we're

26:36 assuming that we are continuing to hold

26:38 those six positions in the police

26:39 department um open uh well and we can

26:43 talk about you know override no override

26:45 scenarios and what we're um looking for

26:47 with that. Um for health insurance we

26:50 already talked about the assumptions

26:51 there. We also have a subscriber growth

26:53 assumption town and school as well. Uh

26:57 sticking with our funding schedule for

26:58 pension um that the appropriation

27:01 increases annually 7.5%.

27:03 Uh for collective bargaining we have a

27:05 1.5% sumptuction in fiscal 27 and then

27:08 2% in the out years but then we also

27:11 have the uh fire contract tail built

27:15 into uh fiscal 28 um and that's about

27:18 $800 $900,000.

27:20 Um we are assuming that we are

27:22 continuing our uh policies around the

27:25 funding of OPEs. You we pause that in

27:27 26. We can talk about that. Uh and then

27:30 um going back to the 6.6% uh level for

27:34 the CIP as well. Um so all of those

27:37 assumptions are carried through uh in in

27:39 the plan. Go to the next slide. Uh so

27:43 this is just a snapshot of um the town's

27:45 history around overrides and kind of

27:48 dealing with budget gaps and and how the

27:50 plans have been coming together. Go

27:52 ahead and go to the next one.

27:55 And so this is the overall picture town

27:57 and school of the outlook through 2031.

28:00 So you can see um the current year

28:03 deficit of 16.6 $6 million and obviously

28:06 each year we'll be closing that gap, but

28:09 you can see you know how it builds uh up

28:11 to $42 million going into 2031. And so

28:15 uh you know we'll be continuing to work

28:18 on the the deficit and uh you know look

28:20 at strategies to try and close the gap.

28:22 But um you can see the you know the

28:24 structural gap is really you know

28:26 revenue growth around four 3% and then

28:29 you can see the uh the expenditure

28:32 growth on the other side. So that is

28:33 what we call the structural gap is when

28:35 the revenue is not growing as fast as

28:37 the expenditures. You got a a difference

28:40 there as well. So and um we go ahead we

28:43 go to the uh slide.

28:47 So this just shows I'm sorry could you

28:48 could you go back?

28:49 Yeah.

28:51 I'm still looking at the numbers and you

28:52 know it's there's a lot they're pretty

28:55 small.

28:56 The the two lines at the bottom are your

28:57 town ser town deficit and your school

29:00 deficit.

29:02 So it's it's it's 3 million,

29:05 correct? 2.9 just under 3.

29:09 And

29:11 do we Okay.

29:14 42 million deficit 31. Do we know what

29:20 the uh cost in terms of or revenues in

29:23 terms of overrides would be required for

29:27 to um to fill that gap? So, we have been

29:31 talking with the expenditure and revenue

29:33 committee about um you know the

29:36 constraints and I think you know we've

29:39 got a few slides at the end that talk

29:40 that talk about what we think the town

29:43 uh override ask is potentially um and

29:46 we're kind of working through that with

29:47 the committee as well

29:48 and and that's at least two acts between

29:52 now and 2031

29:54 but no I guess okay no

29:56 yeah there would be two override cycles

29:58 there if you're thinking of it on a

30:00 three-year schedule, although that

30:01 varies depending on who you're asking,

30:03 right? Um, if you think of 27, 28, 29 as

30:06 one override, 2030 and 2031, it could be

30:08 another. I think something to remember

30:10 about the fiveyear projection is that

30:13 it's assuming nothing changes, right?

30:15 And a lot will change between now and

30:16 then. A lot could change between now and

30:18 then. We'll meet our pension obligation

30:20 in 2030. Things like that will change.

30:23 So uh the the idea here is to show you

30:26 that that cumulative cumulatively over

30:28 the years revenue continues to be

30:30 outpaced by expenses. That's really what

30:32 this is supposed to show.

30:33 And the the topline excuse me um the

30:38 topline property taxes includes mean

30:40 growth projections.

30:41 Correct.

30:43 Well, we have slides that go into the

30:44 assumptions around revenue that um each

30:47 of the categories are kind of broken up

30:48 in in a slide deck.

30:50 you you'll probably answer this later,

30:52 but just to help me get my head around

30:54 this chart. Um, so by 2029, we're

30:58 looking at like a $36 million

31:01 deficit

31:02 between the two sides. Yeah.

31:03 Yeah. Between the Yeah. So, just say

31:05 that's the town, a big tea town. Um,

31:08 what would be the ask in May? Just as an

31:12 example, I know we're not, this is not

31:14 saying what it is, I'm just trying to

31:15 help. How does that fill in? Are you

31:17 asking for 35 million in May or what? So

31:20 explain how the how the numbers

31:22 we're asking for we're asking at least

31:23 on the town side we're asking less than

31:25 that and it's because on the one hand

31:27 we're build what we're building into

31:29 that is you know that that that amount

31:31 allows you to increase the levy and then

31:32 the levy will increase percentage wise

31:34 from there. So you can we do see a

31:36 compounding of that levy growth all the

31:38 time.

31:38 Oh right because when you increase then

31:40 you're getting two and a half plus the

31:41 growth

31:41 right every year.

31:42 Every year. Yeah. you're going to get

31:43 some benefit from um

31:45 but just so chess just these numbers

31:47 forget town versus schools just let's

31:49 pick make it a big tea town

31:52 knowing that and I'm not saying just

31:55 assuming these numbers to say to

31:57 understand how it would in impact the

31:58 spreadsheet

31:59 what would be the ask in May to deal

32:02 with a 35

32:04 $36 million budget

32:06 this is where it's really hard I don't

32:08 want to speak for the schools until

32:09 they're done with their work that's

32:10 that's the big open question here Um,

32:12 and it's the reason why we were pushing

32:14 them to get done by this date. I wanted

32:16 to be able to say at this meeting the

32:18 ask is X. I know what the ask is on the

32:20 town side is 5.3. Um, I don't know what

32:23 they ask about schools.

32:24 Okay. So, the ask for the town would be

32:26 5.3 and and you're projecting an $8

32:29 million deficit by 2029. But you're

32:32 asking for five,

32:33 which you as well as some reductions

32:36 that we plan to make with

32:38 No, I again I'm just trying to get my

32:39 head around like how big the ask might

32:41 be. Yeah. You know, that's that's also

32:44 I think implicit in Michael's question

32:46 perhaps uh as to what these top line

32:49 numbers are projecting. Does this

32:51 include potential growth from chess and

32:54 go

32:56 out?

32:57 Exactly. So assuming everything stays

32:59 the same.

33:00 Okay. But you did say it excludes some

33:02 projected growth. So what specifically

33:04 wasn't the

33:05 So new growth growth is a line.

33:07 If we dive into the um the slides, we

33:09 can talk about each category.

33:10 Yeah. So the next slides we'll go

33:11 through revenue and then we'll go

33:12 through expenditures.

33:14 So no no

33:16 good. Yeah. So

33:18 yeah.

33:18 So I just wanted to follow up on Paul's

33:20 question to make sure I understand this.

33:22 So if we have we have a $35 million an

33:25 $8 million gap. You have a $5.3 million

33:29 asset. Presumably some of that $5.3

33:31 million is going to be uh added to the

33:36 levy in year one. So that it's going to

33:39 be repeated in years two and three.

33:41 Yes.

33:41 So that that that's what you use to make

33:44 up the difference between the 8.3 and

33:46 some of it. And then the other part of

33:47 it is we are going to make some

33:48 reductions. Um we're making budgeting

33:50 around like $4 million in reductions as

33:53 well um to make up some of that gap. And

33:55 between those things we are going to get

33:56 to a number that is that that will carry

33:59 us through this cycle. The other thing

34:01 that we're recommending that's different

34:02 we'll talk about in more detail a little

34:04 later on than previous override cycles.

34:06 In the past, we have done overrides

34:08 phased in. Like we said, we're char

34:10 we're not going to attach it to the full

34:11 levy in year one. We're going to phase

34:13 it in based on what we need. This time

34:15 around, what we're recommending and we

34:17 want to discuss with you as to whether

34:18 or not this is viable or anything

34:20 appropriate is to tax the full levy

34:22 amount in year one of the override, but

34:24 not spend all basically build an

34:26 override stabilization fund. So that in

34:29 the event in the likely event that there

34:31 are unexpected costs, we're not in a

34:34 situation where in year two and year

34:36 three, which is what happened in this

34:37 overlap cycle, we're saying, "Well,

34:39 cuts." and people are saying why aren't

34:40 any cuts have just passed approval. Um

34:43 you know we want to build we want to

34:46 build certainty into the budget which is

34:47 something that other communities have

34:49 been doing in their overrides in order

34:51 to ensure that the community is

34:53 confident that what they're being asked

34:55 to fund is not going to go is not going

34:57 to be eaten up by unexpected costs in

34:59 the future.

35:00 Does that mean the override would be

35:01 higher? So the override so 5.3 includes

35:05 um and I again we'll go into some detail

35:07 on this because there are certain costs

35:09 implicit in 28 and 29 that don't come

35:11 online until later. it would build a

35:14 stabilization fund into the budget for

35:16 FY27 that could then when that money

35:19 when that money when the need comes

35:21 online in FY28 and 29 particularly that

35:24 tail fire expenses um even though then

35:28 that's part of the regular budget we

35:30 still have an override stabilization

35:32 fund carrying around $1.2 $2 million

35:35 that we're carrying at least that second

35:38 round.

35:38 But the practical implication is that

35:41 tax bills go up immediately for us,

35:43 right? That's that's

35:45 Yeah. And so that's the balance. That's

35:46 what we want to talk to you about, Mr.

35:48 W.

35:49 We have a slide at the end that shows

35:51 how we're planning to close the deficit

35:53 with the combination of the, you know,

35:55 potential override reductions and

35:57 increases in. So we'll we'll get we'll

35:59 show you that question. We'll answer

36:01 that question.

36:03 Uh

36:05 okay. Uh any other questions on this

36:07 slide? Okay.

36:11 In other words, the override that we ask

36:13 is going to be higher under this

36:15 approach.

36:16 Well, be the same amount. It's just that

36:18 you'll tax you'll raise the full taxes

36:20 for the override on the f first year

36:23 instead of raising it slowly over three.

36:24 So instead of total of 5.3 million two

36:27 first year two second year 1.5 you know

36:30 whatever 1.5 the third year it's you

36:33 know 5 million in the first year and

36:35 like Paul says this has the practical

36:37 impact of hitting tax bills the first

36:38 year on the other hand there is

36:40 something more transparent about that in

36:42 the sense that you know folks will

36:44 immediately see the impact

36:46 and say no

36:46 and ultimately it is the board's

36:48 decision

36:49 this is this is why we're having this

36:51 conversation right it's your decision

36:53 I do want to add one one one one quick

36:55 thing and I'm just saying from this is

36:57 my personal perspective as American

36:59 school systems and a taxpayer

37:02 um it's very select it's difficult for

37:05 me to have this conversation with the

37:07 uncertainty around the schools the

37:08 schools are 60% of the budget right the

37:10 guidance and and and recommendations or

37:14 advice to you staff on how you should

37:17 deal with the town side and whether you

37:19 should accelerate or not accelerate take

37:21 cuts or not take cuts is greatly

37:22 dependent upon the 60% % and so we're

37:26 you're asked we're being asked to uh uh

37:30 reconcile the future finances for the

37:33 town without understanding what the heck

37:35 is going on with the schools. It's

37:36 impossible

37:37 in my view. We understand that we we we

37:41 um and we're you know we're working

37:43 we're working with what we have and

37:44 we're we're working in good faith with

37:46 the schools and both the school

37:48 committee and school and the the staff

37:50 leadership there to try and get this to

37:51 a point where you can make that informed

37:54 decision. The good news is that the drop

37:56 dead date for any potential ballot

37:57 question is the end of March.

37:59 Well, but and I and I've I've heard this

38:02 uh that it's good news. It's actually

38:03 bad news because nothing is going to

38:06 pass if we're having this discussion in

38:08 March, right? I mean, there's there's so

38:11 much education that has to happen with

38:13 the community. If this board is going to

38:14 get behind an operating override to get

38:16 out and promote it and try to defend it.

38:19 Um, it can't it can't be March. No,

38:22 it should be end of January, February,

38:25 beginning of February at the latest. To

38:26 have this conversation in March is way

38:28 too late.

38:30 In March,

38:31 what's that?

38:31 Yeah, good point. the conversation is

38:33 going to be way before March.

38:35 Well, but then but the n but the number

38:37 that you have to bring out to the

38:38 community if if the schools can't figure

38:40 out what the number is until March like

38:43 we should be

38:44 it's going to be way before we we really

38:47 we we pushed as hard as we could to get

38:49 the number right on this date. Um and

38:53 reality on the ground is the reality on

38:55 the ground. We're we're doing our best.

38:57 We're providing whatever support we can.

38:59 You know, we anticipate that they're

39:00 going to have and you know, we also

39:02 understand it from their perspective.

39:04 You know, they're it's not like they're

39:05 not doing nothing. They're working, but

39:07 their concern is if they come out with a

39:08 number before they've really done their

39:10 due diligence and it goes up um as they

39:14 provide as they refine it. Um that

39:16 creates a a negative public narrative as

39:19 well. like, oh, at first you asked X and

39:20 now you asked for X plus one, X plus

39:22 two, you know, so they're they're trying

39:24 to measure twice and cut once. They were

39:26 trying to balance that the need for

39:28 clarity so that you can make an informed

39:30 decision and so we're we're pushing as

39:33 best we can.

39:34 David,

39:35 so I I agree with Paul that'll be very

39:37 helpful obviously to have all the

39:38 details at this point so we can make an

39:39 informed decision. That being said,

39:41 based on what you've presented to us, it

39:43 sounds like whatever the ultimate figure

39:46 will be, it's not going to be much lower

39:48 than the 13 and a half. If they're

39:50 saying that most of that 13 and a half,

39:53 say for science curriculum and maybe a

39:56 couple other relatively minor uh line

39:58 items is for level funding. So even if

40:01 we very roughly assume that it's 10,

40:04 it's still going to be a significant

40:06 move. Well, I I I I agree with that, uh,

40:08 David, but the issue is like, so I asked

40:10 Jazz, what's the number? What does eight

40:13 million translate into an ask of a town

40:16 instead of something like five?

40:18 I don't know what $27 million,

40:22 even if you just assume that's the

40:23 number, take what take it, make it 30

40:25 million. What's the ask,

40:27 right? And I just it my sense that uh

40:34 the longer this drags out, the lower the

40:37 probability of anything passing.

40:39 Yeah.

40:39 And I think and I think a delay on the

40:41 schools infects the town. Um I think

40:43 that there'll be uncertainty all around

40:46 that. Uh and I don't know if we're going

40:48 to piece this thing up and say you can

40:49 have choice A, choice B, or choice A and

40:51 B equals C. I don't know what it's how

40:53 it's going to be presented, but the

40:55 probability of anything passing greatly

40:57 diminishes um with how long we wait to

41:00 actually get it out and start betting

41:02 everything. That's that's that's my

41:04 view. So, if the number is not perfect

41:06 on the on the school side, that's fine.

41:09 You know, let's pretend that they have a

41:11 test due and they need to study for it

41:13 and hit the date, right? Um March is

41:16 too.

41:17 So, what is the date that we open? So

41:20 they anticipate being able to give us

41:22 their preliminary number of retro um and

41:25 that's going to be yes and then you know

41:28 we will continue to revise that as we

41:30 revise both our January for us as both

41:33 of us in the schools is crunch time as

41:34 we prepare our budget we prepare budget

41:36 books then um and because this is a

41:38 potential overriding year it's a dollar

41:39 budget basically it's a yes over

41:43 and so in conjunction with you and the

41:46 expend revenue study committee the town

41:48 the schools would be having those

41:50 discussions revising those numbers and

41:52 then the budget books will be published

41:53 in early February, but we will know the

41:55 numbers before that date before the

41:57 books go.

41:58 Yeah, it would be really helpful if this

41:59 board could start discussing in detail

42:02 and deliberating in January the number

42:05 before the budget books come.

42:06 Yeah, it' be negative.

42:09 In terms of budget preparations, it

42:10 might actually be more than two, right?

42:12 Because depending on how we would

42:13 structure a potential ballot question,

42:16 if we lay out three different options,

42:17 for example, we would need three

42:20 additional budgets depending on which

42:21 option would pass.

42:23 Yes.

42:23 But I think, you know, on the town side

42:26 where we are, we've been thinking about

42:28 we've been studying other communities,

42:30 thinking about how other communities

42:31 have done this um model for example, you

42:34 know, uh you know, in Medford last year.

42:38 You know, there is something to be said

42:40 for like a pyramid style override, but

42:42 I, you know, you'll see what we talk

42:44 about, at least on the town side. This

42:46 is not an override where we're asking

42:47 for new things, right? This is not an

42:50 override where we're saying, wouldn't it

42:51 be nice to have, you know, cataloges and

42:53 so forth. We're saying in order to

42:56 maintain the service that people have

42:57 expected and people have voted for, town

42:59 meeting has asked us to provide, this is

43:01 really it. This is what we need. Um, and

43:03 you know, where there are line items

43:06 that didn't previously exist, it's in

43:08 the service of either providing those

43:10 services or seeking new revenue. Um, you

43:13 know, for example, some of the new

43:14 revenue that we would be generating from

43:16 increased parking fines would be going

43:18 towards improving the parking system,

43:20 which is both what community has been

43:21 asking us for, and what we need to do in

43:24 order to make sure that that revenue

43:26 given the amount of money we spend on.

43:28 So, you know, we're not we're not in a

43:31 situation where we would say option A is

43:33 level services, option B is some nice

43:35 things we would like to have um like we

43:37 were last time we talked a bit about um

43:39 accomplish music accomplishment. That's

43:41 not on the table this time. Um we think

43:43 we're we're not in a place where we're

43:45 asking for these things. Um obviously if

43:47 the board thinks there is are new things

43:49 that we should be asking for, we'll go

43:51 back to the run to think about how that

43:53 in place. But on the town side, we're

43:55 not. Well, this is not a luxury club.

43:58 So, I mean the question is do you do you

43:59 keep services as are or do you cut and

44:01 we already have a level of pay that's

44:03 really right?

44:04 Yeah. And we are and you know I will say

44:06 even in an override scenario the town is

44:08 talking about making cuts. The town

44:10 we've already over the course of this

44:12 last override cycle because of

44:13 collective bargaining pressures cut a

44:16 lot. Um and there has been impact to

44:19 services uh that we have done our best

44:21 to conceal from the public um so that

44:24 the public has confidence in the

44:25 services that we are providing. Um but

44:27 we're really nearing the end of what we

44:29 can do that can be disguised for the

44:31 public at that point. Um we're going to

44:33 make cuts where we can um and we're

44:36 going to demonstrate to the public that

44:38 for example say you hire a bunch of

44:40 consultants. Do you have you know do you

44:41 have money lying around? What about free

44:43 cash? What about revenue? All that needs

44:46 to be part of a public education

44:48 demonstrate that we are being good

44:50 stewards of people's tax dollars. Um,

44:53 and that at the end of the day, what

44:55 we're asking for potentially is not

44:57 something radical. It's something that

44:58 provides the level of service that

44:59 people are asking to buy.

45:03 I just have to step out briefly to do a

45:05 Zoom court, but I'll be back.

45:08 I'm sorry.

45:10 If you don't mind, Michael. Um

45:14 so I just want to raise a different

45:16 issue and it's kind of a a hobby horse

45:18 of mine. Uh I hope it doesn't seem

45:20 repetitious on my part. Um, but I find

45:24 it very difficult to evaluate all these

45:26 issues, uh, in the absence of clear

45:29 statements of if we were going if we're

45:31 going to tell people that this is a

45:34 level services budget, um, is it is it a

45:39 level FTE budget? um or does it turn out

45:43 that level services mean that we had x

45:47 number of FTE in the previous year and

45:49 there's actually 10 additional FTEEs in

45:52 this budget? Um I I without those

45:55 numbers I I can't really figure out if

45:58 we're giving people a straight story

46:00 here about what happens and require that

46:03 requires an override. Is it that

46:05 positions were added maybe or is it that

46:08 actually these other known factors here

46:12 and that's especially true uh I'm sorry

46:14 to say to my friends on the school side

46:18 where the school side is concerned and

46:20 there's another kind of major factor

46:22 that rarely gets discussed here because

46:24 you know it makes people uncomfortable

46:26 to discuss it because it implies that

46:28 there could be layoffs but the number of

46:32 people served by the school system

46:34 varies and it sometimes varies

46:37 significantly. Um and in recent years we

46:40 had a a drop of some you know hundreds

46:44 and of students that are served by the

46:46 school system. I think perhaps the

46:49 number at this point stands at about 800

46:51 less than at peak. Um, so it's very

46:56 relevant to talk about how many FTEEs

46:59 does it take to serve a school school

47:02 system of X versus a school system of X

47:06 - 800 students. Um, and we rarely get

47:11 that kind of analysis of what's going on

47:14 with the school department numbers. So,

47:16 um, I'm hoping that along the way we're

47:19 going to have those numbers, but I'm not

47:21 sure we can make a convincing case to

47:23 voters that without an approval of x of

47:27 of a certain amount of override, there's

47:30 no way we can continue to provide the

47:32 services that you expect for your

47:34 whatever children, etc.

47:36 um when in fact uh well actually you

47:40 know we might not need that money if if

47:43 there were 17 kids in a classroom on

47:46 average versus 16 uh in a classroom on

47:49 average. So if we we don't get into that

47:51 level of discussion, I don't know how

47:53 voters can have confidence in in what

47:55 they're being told about the need for

47:57 for this or that amount of overright.

48:01 Um Michael

48:02 um so you said that the school was going

48:05 to come back in the 18th. So in this

48:08 inter in this period of nine days um

48:13 what in from your perspective is the

48:17 risk that that number will go the 135

48:21 will go up as opposed to down.

48:24 Um, and I guess the other question is

48:28 once those nine days have elapsed,

48:31 assuming that we get through this, we're

48:34 not it's going very quickly, but

48:36 assuming that we get through this, um,

48:41 how

48:42 how much do how much are we going to

48:44 have to like revise their revise our

48:47 thinking or how valuable is how valuable

48:50 is today's are today's numbers relative

48:53 to

48:54 what we're going to see under

48:56 so I think this this is so to your first

48:58 question um recall that this assumes

49:02 everything stays the same and some of

49:04 the cuts that we are proposing

49:06 reductions that we are proposing because

49:08 they have will have an impact on the

49:10 school side as well so some of the

49:11 things that we are proposing come to

49:13 split um for example raising funds um

49:16 that would provide the schools

49:18 additional revenue reducing the revenue

49:20 funded CIP by the schools with

49:22 additional revenue Um, all of those

49:25 things will have an impact on that

49:26 number and it will drive it down. Um, so

49:28 I think that number is more likely to go

49:30 down than up. But that said, I don't

49:32 know what the schools are going to find

49:35 as they continue to go through this. So

49:37 I'm reluctant to say, you know, 100%

49:39 that number is going to go down. I think

49:41 it is more likely to go down up, but to

49:45 David's point, um, I don't I don't know

49:47 by how much. Um, I don't think we're

49:50 going to see, you know, seismic. Um, but

49:52 I think I could do I think we're going

49:54 to see bias.

49:56 Yeah. Paul,

49:57 I just wanted to John raised an

49:59 interesting point about FTEES kind of

50:01 being a proxy for for the numbers. I

50:04 think we have to be

50:06 while I appreciate it. I think we got to

50:07 be a little careful. I'll use an

50:08 example. Um, as costs increase,

50:11 collective bargaining, health insurance,

50:13 and others, uh, that money eats into

50:16 into the the the money that's available

50:19 to fund physicians. A perfect example of

50:21 that is policing. We have we're holding

50:23 back six positions, right? So, we don't

50:25 have a level service budget on policing

50:26 because we're holding back six

50:28 positions. We're going to have the same

50:29 situation on fire, right? We're

50:31 expecting some benefits and uh reducing

50:34 overtime. That may not come out and as a

50:36 result, we're not going to have a level

50:38 service bus because we may have fewer

50:40 firefighters. I'm not saying that would

50:41 happen, but I think we have to be

50:43 careful about headcount being purely uh

50:46 a proxy for whether a level a budget's

50:48 level service or not. On the school

50:50 side, as you said, it wouldn't be level

50:52 service if you actually increase the the

50:54 the students per classroom, right? That

50:57 wouldn't be the same. You'd have to

50:59 consciously say this budget means you're

51:01 going to go from a class size of X to X

51:03 plus. Um and that that's just but but

51:05 you do raise a good point. It would be

51:07 very helpful to have more transparency

51:09 about the number of employees that we

51:11 have in the in in the tax.

51:16 So this one,

51:17 yes.

51:18 Um so this just shows kind of our

51:20 revenue composition and you can see that

51:22 property tax is really our biggest

51:23 piece. uh coming up behind we you know

51:26 the enterprises are also um kind of

51:28 separately factored in and then local

51:30 receipts and then state aid and then

51:33 followed by free cash which obviously

51:35 you know we talk about a lot is one time

51:37 in nature and then other other available

51:40 are reimbursements for benefits. We go

51:42 ahead and go to the next slide.

51:45 Uh so this shows the changes in revenue.

51:47 So you can see um you know property tax

51:50 is it's kind of the same slide just in

51:52 bar format here. um slightly lower

51:55 estimate for free cash and then slightly

51:58 uh slight reduction in other available

52:00 as well. Um and that is uh around the uh

52:03 marijuana money um being fully utilized.

52:06 Um and so that won't be an additional

52:09 funding source in fiscal 27. So you can

52:11 go ahead and

52:13 I just have a question about the free

52:15 cash estimate. Yeah. Um, is the baseline

52:17 for that estimate in fiscal year 26? Uh,

52:22 how much actual revenue was that? Or is

52:24 that based on the budget?

52:26 We're assuming a $23 million estimate in

52:28 fiscal 27.

52:29 Well, what about fiscal 26? Because this

52:31 is a reduction from fiscal 27.

52:33 Correct. So, we um so our fiscal 25 free

52:37 cash gets appropriated in fiscal 27. So

52:39 we are the money that we're using in

52:41 fiscal 26 has already been certified and

52:44 so we've already allocated all of that

52:45 money and so um we'll be looking to kind

52:49 of

52:49 so so the fiscal year 26 number is not

52:51 an estimate

52:55 26 is was certified

52:56 and the and the free cash is based when

52:58 we're talking about estimates and

53:00 baselines it's it's it's based on

53:03 pre-certification but it's based on you

53:05 know the actuality of what we're seeing

53:07 from our accounting system and working

53:09 with the comp trailer. So, it's not

53:10 like, you know, we have a base and

53:12 building it up or down. It's it's based

53:14 on, you know, the actuality of of what

53:16 we're seeing and how a fiscal year ended

53:18 in terms of revenues and expenditures.

53:21 Um, it just just not fully uh certified

53:24 by the state yet. Okay.

53:29 So, L got the next couple slides.

53:31 Good morning. So, um a little bit more

53:35 into property taxes. So um as mentioned

53:39 earlier uh uh projecting a 5.1%

53:44 increase in in property taxes in fiscal

53:46 year 27. Um you can see in the green

53:49 column um you know how that that levy is

53:53 built up taking the prior year levy

53:56 applying the two and a half% across um

53:59 across the entirety of of the tax base

54:02 right built property but across the

54:04 entirety of uh Melissa mentioned new

54:07 growth the new growth estimates have

54:10 come up uh some for fiscal years 27

54:13 through 2031 I was looking at the

54:15 historical new growth there's two pieces

54:18 of that. Um, number one, we have seen an

54:20 increase in in new growth, particularly

54:23 over the last eight fiscal years. So,

54:26 over the last eight fiscal years, we

54:27 have had new growth of at least $2.5

54:30 million, and we're seeing that, you

54:32 know, hopefully that's the new normal

54:34 going forward. Um the other big piece of

54:37 the uh $3.56

54:40 million in new growth um that was uh

54:44 confirmed by the state division of local

54:46 services is the increased um investment

54:50 in looking at personal property and

54:53 making sure that we're taxing all

54:54 personal property uh fairly and

54:57 correctly. Um so with uh you know with

55:00 the with the the continued investment in

55:02 in that and looking at personal property

55:04 there we do believe that we can you know

55:06 continue to maintain a higher uh new

55:08 growth figure for the next few few

55:10 years. So that's a bright spot there as

55:13 mentioned. Um then the uh so then we

55:16 have our new levy limit without debt

55:19 exclusions of $314.1

55:22 million. And uh the debt exclusions

55:25 we'll go a little bit more into in the

55:27 next slide. Um that is the uh third and

55:31 fi and projected final year of borrowing

55:33 for the pier school renovation and

55:37 reconstruction and um and the third year

55:41 of five total of of borrowings for the

55:44 fire station um reconstructions and

55:47 renovations.

55:48 Oh, Michael. Um

55:50 yes

55:51 what are the inflation rate projections

55:54 available with this?

55:57 So so we don't have inflation rate uh

55:59 projections here. I mean we we we can do

56:02 that analysis. You're saying you know

56:03 overall inflation as

56:06 I'm I'm assuming that these numbers are

56:07 all not and and are not inflation

56:10 these are non-inflation interests.

56:11 Correct. So there is a there is some

56:15 projection of inflation that will change

56:18 these numbers

56:19 wouldn't it doesn't change the revenue

56:21 because remember um the the structures

56:23 of proposition 2 and a half do not take

56:25 inflation into account.

56:27 I I I understand I understand that but

56:29 it does what it what it affects is the

56:33 purchasing power of

56:35 absolutely no doubt. No doubt. So that's

56:38 what I'm trying to understand is what

56:40 what is the change of purchasing power

56:42 level of the annual levy.

56:45 Understood. Yeah. And I think you know I

56:47 think we can we can discuss that a

56:49 little bit more as we get into the

56:50 expenditure side of things you know and

56:52 I think that's further analysis we can

56:53 do as well. Well, that so um one of the

56:56 things that's really helpful when we

56:58 when we set the set the tax rates is

57:00 that we get to see what the average

57:04 property tax bill will be for a single

57:06 family home or a business or a

57:09 condominium.

57:10 Um

57:12 and this doesn't really translate to

57:14 that. Um, is it is it possible to get to

57:18 overlay these this information and just

57:20 assume all assumptions are the same as

57:22 to we're maximizing the shift, right? We

57:26 whatever we've done typically the status

57:28 quo, how that would translate into tax

57:31 bills, especially when we start getting

57:33 into a potential operating because

57:37 that's that's really where the rubber

57:39 hits the road for for taxpayers and

57:42 where they're feeling it. Um, and

57:44 whether we accelerate, you know, take

57:46 the full amount with the override in the

57:48 first year or not, it's just the what

57:51 what I'm hearing, and I think I my

57:53 colleagues are probably here, we're

57:54 hearing a lot from homeowners that their

57:57 bills are going up significantly. And

57:59 it's and and to try to explain it, it's

58:02 well, why is my number gone up so high,

58:04 my bill, if it's just two and a half?

58:07 Well, it's because these other bills are

58:08 coming due that you that was approved by

58:10 the voters. So, it would be really

58:12 helpful to overlay this into what the uh

58:16 average tax bill would be for our

58:18 classifications. So, one thing we we

58:20 definitely will do again if there's an

58:22 override on the ballot is a individual

58:25 property based property bypropy based um

58:29 calculator so that someone can can put

58:32 their address in and see based on this

58:35 override and based at my current

58:36 valuation

58:38 what what will my taxes look look like

58:40 in the ensuing fiscal year if if this

58:43 override is passed or not. Um,

58:45 I would argue that we actually need to

58:46 mail that tiff.

58:48 I would mail it to the taxpayers as

58:50 opposed to make them go to it. But I do

58:51 appreciate that. But for this purpose,

58:54 for this discussion around uh the budget

58:57 and also what it would mean to increase

58:59 the levy. Um, it would I really like to

59:02 see what the impact is on tax bills.

59:06 Mike,

59:07 um, and adding on to that and I and I

59:10 agree. So like how much of your tax bill

59:12 is sold for the debt exclusions? how

59:14 much is going for the increase, how much

59:15 is going for the override, how much is

59:17 going for all the prior years years. Um

59:20 I would ask that when when we sort of

59:22 generate those numbers, um you know,

59:25 this is my hobby horse, John. um

59:28 that in that either instead of or in

59:31 addition to talking about condos and

59:33 single family homes that we talk about

59:36 homes by price level because my

59:38 understanding is that a $ 1.5 million

59:40 condo is taxed exactly the same way as a

59:43 $ 1.5 million single family home and

59:46 that division is sort of an arbitrary

59:48 element of our classification when it

59:50 comes to taxes. So for example, what is

59:52 a million dollar residence cost? is a $2

59:55 million assert hospitals that really

59:57 public

59:59 just to have that information as part of

1:00:01 our messaging so that we're not just

1:00:03 pitting condo owners and you know single

1:00:05 family homes on a travel.

1:00:08 Understood. Yeah. So we can so you know

1:00:11 we we can definitely do some of that.

1:00:13 Yes.

1:00:13 Just say thank you.

1:00:15 Yes.

1:00:16 Uh

1:00:18 so uh yeah unless there's any further

1:00:20 questions on this slide let's move on to

1:00:22 the next. Uh so again this is uh an

1:00:25 analysis of the debt exclusions that we

1:00:28 currently uh have going out until uh

1:00:31 fiscal years 20 2031 and then the

1:00:34 projected again the third and and

1:00:36 projected final final borrowing for

1:00:38 Pierce school at 77 million and laying

1:00:41 on that debt um in beginning in fiscal

1:00:44 year 2027. And then uh again fire the

1:00:48 fire station renovation projected uh

1:00:50 borrowings three through five. Um and

1:00:53 you can see uh four the fourth the third

1:00:56 borrowing coming on for the first year

1:00:58 in fiscal 27. The fourth coming on for

1:01:01 the first time in fiscal year 28 and the

1:01:03 fifth borrowing fifth and final

1:01:05 projected final borrowing coming on in

1:01:07 fiscal 2029. just to give uh you and you

1:01:12 know and the other uh watchers here a

1:01:15 picture as to what the impact is of

1:01:18 already uh approved debt excluded debt

1:01:21 outside any possible new program over

1:01:27 so I'll go back to Melissa to discuss

1:01:29 state aid thank you

1:01:32 uh so we talked about these assumptions

1:01:34 earlier at the beginning uh so 1%

1:01:37 increase in unrestricted general

1:01:39 government aid uh level funding for

1:01:41 veterans benefits uh 2 and a.5% for

1:01:44 chapter 70 level funding for charter

1:01:47 tuition uh assessment reimbursements and

1:01:49 level funding for um offset aid which

1:01:51 goes directly to the library so showing

1:01:54 2% increase in fiscal 27 slightly more

1:01:57 optimistic in the outy years um but you

1:01:59 know we're not hearing a lot of good

1:02:02 news at the state level as well and

1:02:03 obviously they're concerned about their

1:02:05 federal funding and the ripple effect

1:02:06 that might have as well Michael,

1:02:08 um where is federal grant funding in

1:02:13 this?

1:02:13 So the um if it if it's coming from the

1:02:17 state, it would probably be in the form

1:02:18 of a grant. Um this is money that is

1:02:20 coming off the cherry sheet directly to

1:02:22 the town.

1:02:26 So these are our local receipts and so

1:02:29 uh we're growing those by 4.3 after a

1:02:32 10% growth the prior year. Um so we did

1:02:35 um change our estimate for the motor

1:02:37 vehicle excise size because we we saw

1:02:39 our year in 25. Local options are still

1:02:43 holding pretty steady right now. Um you

1:02:46 know marijuana obviously has dropped off

1:02:48 and um you know meal we're keeping an

1:02:51 eye on especially you know the economy

1:02:53 changes even further. You you might we

1:02:55 might see a decline in that as well. Um

1:02:58 but hotel mot hotel still looks pretty

1:03:00 strong. Licensing and permits is pretty

1:03:03 standard every year. So, that's level

1:03:05 funded. Um, parking and court fines,

1:03:07 we'll talk about that later on in the

1:03:09 presentation. There's a proposal uh

1:03:11 potential increase in in fines to to

1:03:13 help support some of the expenditures

1:03:15 that we're seeing. Um, general

1:03:17 government uh specifically that is um

1:03:20 building permit related. And you know,

1:03:22 traditionally, we've been conservative

1:03:24 with our building permit estimates

1:03:25 because a lot of the activity that we

1:03:27 see on building permits are, you know,

1:03:29 one-time permits that get pulled and,

1:03:31 you know, um, generally that is used to

1:03:33 support the CIP and not recurring

1:03:36 expenses on the operating side. Um,

1:03:38 interest income uh is, you know, modest

1:03:41 growth as well. Um, we've talked about

1:03:43 the fact that there's not ARPA funds

1:03:45 kind of sitting in our bank accounts

1:03:46 anymore and that the interest rate

1:03:49 environment is also changing as well.

1:03:51 um pilots just a an assumption of normal

1:03:54 growth there as well. The BEu pilot is

1:03:57 our biggest and obviously um in a

1:04:00 declining economic condition. You know

1:04:02 that we're very concerned about

1:04:04 preserving the existing agreements that

1:04:06 we do have. Um and so just trying to be

1:04:09 mindful of what that might mean going

1:04:11 forward as well. Uh for refu we are

1:04:15 assuming the increases that the select

1:04:16 board voted last year for the sanitation

1:04:18 feescludes. uh that is included in the

1:04:21 forecast here and then um we are also

1:04:24 assuming that that funding will go

1:04:25 directly to support the sanitation uh

1:04:28 expenses just like it did in fiscal 26

1:04:30 as well. Um departmental and other so

1:04:33 that bump up there is directly related

1:04:35 to parking meter fees but these are also

1:04:37 fees that departments charge for a

1:04:39 variety of services as well. Well,

1:04:42 was could you um with because 25's not

1:04:45 here, it's hard to see. What was the

1:04:46 what was the bulk of the 10% increase

1:04:49 from 25 to 26?

1:04:50 Some of it was trash. Um some of it was

1:04:53 local option and uh some of it was uh

1:04:57 building permit as well.

1:05:00 You know, because there's there's been a

1:05:03 narrative in the past that we're

1:05:04 underestimating

1:05:06 um

1:05:07 local receipts and therefore we should

1:05:09 be putting more. Um, and I know and I

1:05:11 actually support being more conservative

1:05:14 because there's no guarantee. Um, I just

1:05:16 it would be helpful to that that 10% was

1:05:19 a big number. What do you know what it

1:05:20 was the year before what the growth was

1:05:23 on local receipts alone?

1:05:24 Yeah, I I want to say it was probably

1:05:26 north of 5% but um, you know, this is

1:05:29 only 10% of our budget and I will say

1:05:31 that you know the surplus that we saw in

1:05:34 local receipts last year was 11 million.

1:05:36 free cash was around 20

1:05:38 23 24 million. So some of the sources of

1:05:41 free cash don't necessarily come from

1:05:43 local receipts but this is the one area

1:05:45 that we have certainty that we are

1:05:48 budgeting conservatively in order to

1:05:50 generate the level of free cash to meet

1:05:52 our fiscal policies.

1:05:53 But the but the interest income was

1:05:55 where we saw a big jump right was

1:05:57 because we had so much ARPA money

1:05:58 sitting in the bank. Right.

1:06:00 We had a high interest rate. Okay. Okay.

1:06:02 I just think it's it's important next

1:06:04 when this comes up because it I'm sure

1:06:06 it will come up.

1:06:06 Oh yeah, it already is coming up.

1:06:08 One thing to keep in mind as Charlie

1:06:10 Melissa said the motor vehicle excise

1:06:12 and the local option taxes and the

1:06:13 interest that those three categories

1:06:15 were the primary area that was

1:06:17 generating surplus and that and the

1:06:19 increase in in those areas, the motor

1:06:22 vehicle excise and local option taxes um

1:06:25 was significant for several years but

1:06:27 again volatile, right? um you know based

1:06:30 on economic conditions um for all three

1:06:33 also they were low because of co and

1:06:34 then they bounced back right so you saw

1:06:36 a big percentage very susceptible to a

1:06:38 downturn from

1:06:40 sure

1:06:40 can someone break down the local option

1:06:43 taxes number as to I'm assuming it's

1:06:46 sort of divided between marijuana dining

1:06:50 what else

1:06:51 meals and

1:06:52 meals marijuana and um hotel motel so

1:06:55 marijuana is around 300,000

1:06:59 um meals is around 2 million and the

1:07:01 rest is uh hotel too.

1:07:04 Okay. Okay. So,

1:07:06 the marijuana number at peak uh does

1:07:10 anyone remember what that was?

1:07:12 Over a million dollars.

1:07:13 Yeah. Okay. Oh, well.

1:07:15 Yeah. Well, that's another example of

1:07:18 why, you know, building that into your

1:07:20 recurring expenses is is a little bit

1:07:22 dangerous because it can it can go away.

1:07:25 We and we saw that happen. Um so, You

1:07:28 know, that's why we're continuing and

1:07:29 monitoring these and and make sure that

1:07:31 our estimates are conservative enough

1:07:32 that we're kind of buffered against

1:07:34 shocks like that.

1:07:36 It hasn't been coming down over the

1:07:37 years.

1:07:38 Uh there's been um coverage of

1:07:42 u I think it's a Governor Healey

1:07:45 initiative to uh see if the legislature

1:07:48 will approve allowing lo people at the

1:07:51 local level to bump up pretty much those

1:07:54 areas that you just mentioned, right?

1:07:56 Um, has has anyone done a, you know,

1:08:00 quick calculation at what that might

1:08:02 mean to our revenues if the legislature

1:08:04 were to approve?

1:08:05 We looked at it last year, I want to say

1:08:07 I think we were looking at like $700,000

1:08:09 of growth

1:08:10 maximum.

1:08:11 Yeah. Yeah.

1:08:13 Okay. Okay.

1:08:15 And then obviously the

1:08:16 I have the legislator is listening to

1:08:18 meetings like this one and you know

1:08:20 taking seriously, you know, it's not

1:08:22 just Brooklyn. Every single municipality

1:08:24 in the state needs that kind of a bump

1:08:26 up.

1:08:29 David, yeah, I just have a question

1:08:30 about interested interest. Well,

1:08:33 so the town has, you know, cash on hand

1:08:36 that Lincoln invests to make sure that

1:08:38 we are trying to capture

1:08:43 interest income and then there's also

1:08:44 delinquent taxpayer interest as well.

1:08:48 So all of our cash sits in bank accounts

1:08:50 basically.

1:08:54 Is there any way to try to expand that

1:08:57 the interest?

1:08:58 It's a great question. So interest

1:08:59 income is I think it's cranked as far as

1:09:01 it can go.

1:09:02 Yeah. I'm sorry.

1:09:04 The question was whether or not you

1:09:06 could we could earn more on on the cash

1:09:08 we have on hand income.

1:09:10 So So for the most part, no. So,

1:09:14 but because so there's there's different

1:09:18 categories of how we may we the town may

1:09:21 by law uh invest it.

1:09:23 Excuse me.

1:09:24 Uh and so um and and the the the the

1:09:29 primary answer is that is that uh it it

1:09:31 has to be a more liquid thing. So for

1:09:34 example,

1:09:35 with the exception of trust funds, none

1:09:37 of our funds may be uh may may be

1:09:40 invested in equities in stock, right? So

1:09:43 so what we're really looking at is the

1:09:45 in you know the the the interest rate

1:09:47 environment that's set by the Federal

1:09:49 Reserve rate and you know slightly below

1:09:53 that.

1:09:53 What about CDs? Every now and then

1:09:55 there's a 12-month CD that's around 5%.

1:09:58 Yeah, we can um

1:10:02 remember that um for the most part we we

1:10:04 need to stay relatively liquid. Um but

1:10:07 but uh we but we we can do seeds. Yes.

1:10:11 And what what are we getting on money

1:10:12 market?

1:10:13 On the money market right now uh we're

1:10:16 we're at depending on the bank we're at

1:10:19 like four four and a half to 4.7.

1:10:21 That's not bad.

1:10:22 But that's you know but that's been

1:10:25 that's been ticking down, right? That's

1:10:27 not what it was, you know, a year ago.

1:10:29 Yeah, definitely. So, what percentage is

1:10:31 this an interesting what percent are you

1:10:34 getting interest?

1:10:35 It's well, it's it varies by what funds

1:10:38 you're you're talking about. So, in

1:10:40 general, it's probably hovering around

1:10:41 what you know what three and four,

1:10:44 right?

1:10:44 Yeah.

1:10:45 Correct.

1:10:47 It very much follows. So if Fed lowers

1:10:49 rates, we'll see lower interest. And the

1:10:51 the the large numbers have been from

1:10:54 having large balances associated with

1:10:56 AARPA, which have AARPA is down more

1:10:58 than half expended. So we had 40 million

1:11:00 in the bank and now it's ticking down.

1:11:02 We're well below that.

1:11:05 So So again, these are nominal numbers

1:11:09 and what this is actually showing is

1:11:11 that our local receipts on a real

1:11:13 purchasing power level are dropping.

1:11:16 Yeah. Correct.

1:11:19 Absolutely.

1:11:21 Other available. So these are um mostly

1:11:24 reimbursements from the enterprise funds

1:11:26 and the revolving fund to pay for the

1:11:28 benefits and associated costs uh that

1:11:32 they have in the general fund. So

1:11:33 sending those funds our way. Um Cemetery

1:11:36 provides $100,000 in support of cemetery

1:11:39 division within parks and open space. Uh

1:11:42 and then we have the opioid and

1:11:44 stabilization fund. So the assumption

1:11:45 for 27 through 31 is um just the opioid

1:11:49 funds because the HDA funds have been

1:11:51 exhausted.

1:11:54 Yes. Um so this is our free cash

1:11:57 estimate here. So we talked about uh $23

1:11:59 million and we'll kind of go through the

1:12:02 way that free cash is allocated for our

1:12:04 policies. So the first um bucket that we

1:12:07 need to replenish 25% of the funding for

1:12:10 the reserve fund comes from free cash.

1:12:13 So that target number is 892,000. So for

1:12:17 uh the reserve fund is uh 1% of prior

1:12:19 year net revenue. That's the target. Um

1:12:22 then we are looking to um put money into

1:12:25 our un undesated fund balance

1:12:27 stabilization fund. So we you know

1:12:30 purposely uh don't appropriate around

1:12:32 $2.8 million so that that becomes the

1:12:35 state following year's free cash. It's

1:12:38 kind of a way to provide us with a

1:12:39 little bit of flexibility and a little

1:12:40 bit of certainty around what we know is

1:12:42 going to be kind of redeposited into um

1:12:46 into free cash. And then we're um

1:12:48 looking to put 3.5 million into the st

1:12:50 stabilization fund um you know per our

1:12:53 fiscal policies. We're trying to to meet

1:12:55 the targets um to preserve our tripleA

1:12:59 rating. And so that that's another um

1:13:01 infusion of free cash that we're looking

1:13:03 to support that u that effort as well.

1:13:06 Um you'll see the liability fund. This

1:13:07 is a rather large um requirement for the

1:13:10 liability fund that also has the target

1:13:12 of 1% of prior year net revenue. Um you

1:13:15 know you may recall that we had a a

1:13:18 settlement with the police in in the

1:13:20 police department um that's contributing

1:13:22 to that. And then obviously the the more

1:13:24 recent um school department related

1:13:26 settlement um you know did draw on a lot

1:13:29 of those funds. And so in order to kind

1:13:31 of get the balance up to where it needs

1:13:33 to be for our self- insurance program,

1:13:35 um we're looking at another 2.1

1:13:38 close to 2.2 million for the liability

1:13:40 fund. Uh then we are looking at our

1:13:43 capital plan and trying to get to 8.1%

1:13:46 of prior net revenue. So our CIP is

1:13:49 funded from operating uh funds, 6.6% of

1:13:53 prior year net revenue, and then we use

1:13:55 free cash to get to 8.1. So, um, to get

1:13:58 to that level, we're looking at the $5.3

1:14:00 million. And then once we've visited

1:14:03 those first four buckets, we look at

1:14:05 what is still, uh, remaining in the in

1:14:07 the free cash number. And 15% of that

1:14:10 then goes to the affordable housing

1:14:12 trust if the balance is below $5

1:14:14 million, which it is. So, that's another

1:14:16 $1.2 million. And so, um, after those

1:14:20 are all exhausted, we are looking at

1:14:22 special use. At this point we are

1:14:24 looking at um special use all

1:14:27 exclusively going to additional CIP. Um

1:14:30 we are talking about potentially um you

1:14:32 know reducing that slightly uh and

1:14:35 potentially recommending um additional

1:14:37 funding going to uh the approved time

1:14:40 liability fund that we set up um because

1:14:43 we are looking at a couple of hits at

1:14:45 the end of the year that u may require

1:14:47 that we are um needing to replenish some

1:14:50 of the some of the funding uh for that

1:14:52 account. Uh, but at this point we're

1:14:53 looking at additional CIP, so a total

1:14:55 appropriation of $20.2 million.

1:14:59 Pause right there if there's any

1:15:00 questions, cash questions.

1:15:03 Yeah.

1:15:03 Um, h have we closed out all of the ARPA

1:15:07 spending

1:15:09 at this point?

1:15:10 ARPA's deadline to expend is uh December

1:15:13 26, so it's a year from now. So there's

1:15:15 still quite a bit.

1:15:17 Okay. Most of that is in our uh

1:15:20 subreients like the nonprofits we're

1:15:22 working with. Yeah. Most of the town

1:15:24 departments have their projects.

1:15:27 Yeah. So, we still have Tyler on board

1:15:29 for another year, for example.

1:15:31 And and are we um anticipating any

1:15:34 turnbacks?

1:15:35 Yeah, it's a great question, Don. We are

1:15:37 actually doing some outreach now to all

1:15:39 of the subreients to say, hey, listen,

1:15:41 if you want to turn back money, now is

1:15:43 the time. We have done a little bit of

1:15:45 research on whether we can reallocate

1:15:48 those funds. We can't reallocate them to

1:15:50 new projects. We can only reallocate

1:15:52 them to existing buckets. So maybe we

1:15:55 have some town projects we could expand

1:15:57 on or we have some subreients we could

1:15:59 give more money. We have not heard about

1:16:01 any turnbacks at this point. Um we

1:16:04 budgeted ARPA down to the penny. So uh

1:16:07 so we really we don't think there's

1:16:09 going to be significant money available.

1:16:11 Do you think most most of these projects

1:16:12 going to spend right down to the the

1:16:14 lesson?

1:16:15 We we'll keep you updated on that as we

1:16:17 learn. If we need any feedback where

1:16:21 um the liability reserve line, the 2.1

1:16:25 um you said that that was a particularly

1:16:28 large hit for that line.

1:16:30 Yes.

1:16:30 What is the typical hit?

1:16:33 So um

1:16:35 typically there are

1:16:36 a few years

1:16:38 um

1:16:39 are there are there typical So, um I

1:16:42 would say that we have had two

1:16:44 settlements in mo most recent years that

1:16:47 are multi-year, which is unusual for us.

1:16:50 Um but we generally don't draw on the

1:16:54 liability fund that frequently. And

1:16:55 that's something that Joe has talked

1:16:57 with the advisory committee about

1:16:58 because some people are saying, well, is

1:17:00 it does it make sense to be

1:17:02 self-insured? Is this really something

1:17:03 that we should do? And you know, given

1:17:05 the town's claim experience, it, you

1:17:07 know, self- insurance does still seem

1:17:09 like the way to go. Um, but these two

1:17:11 claims obviously are a little bit of a

1:17:14 departure from

1:17:15 Right. And is that 2.18?

1:17:19 Um, does that fully fund the gap or

1:17:23 it brings the liability fund back up to

1:17:25 the policy target

1:17:27 and including the expected expenses?

1:17:30 Correct. Yeah, the projection for the

1:17:32 multi-year settlements are are embedded

1:17:34 in that as well.

1:17:36 I was just going to add that on the

1:17:37 self- insurance part, as someone who's

1:17:38 participated in some of these settlement

1:17:40 negotiations, it's very helpful in

1:17:42 keeping the settlement amount within the

1:17:46 broader range uh range of reason of

1:17:49 reasonableness because a lot of

1:17:51 potential claimments do not want to have

1:17:52 to go before town meeting and be very

1:17:54 public about why they're requesting what

1:17:57 they're requesting. And so it does

1:18:00 somewhat lower what the settlement

1:18:02 amount will be.

1:18:03 Yeah.

1:18:05 Yeah. Um can you explain a little bit

1:18:08 further additional CIP?

1:18:10 Uh so I have a lot of

1:18:13 repeat that.

1:18:13 Could you could you uh please go into a

1:18:15 little more detail about what additional

1:18:17 CIP is?

1:18:18 So uh essentially it basically is

1:18:21 providing more funding to do more

1:18:22 projects, cash projects. And so we have

1:18:24 a lot of requests. We'll be talking

1:18:25 about the CIP I believe next week.

1:18:28 weren't quite done yet. Um, so you know,

1:18:31 we we have a lot of uh unforeseen

1:18:33 project requests that, you know, weren't

1:18:35 in the plan last year that um, as an

1:18:37 example, the AC at the at the town hall

1:18:39 failed over the summer.

1:18:40 So So the 7 million is the funds that

1:18:43 are left over after the free cash flow.

1:18:45 I understand. So, so my so my um I'm not

1:18:49 saying we shouldn't be using that money

1:18:51 for the CIP,

1:18:52 but the prior chart showed um a

1:18:57 significant debt load that we're

1:18:58 carrying.

1:18:59 Yep.

1:18:59 And should we be considering we don't

1:19:03 want to use free cash or operating

1:19:05 funds, but it certainly could be used to

1:19:08 pay down debt,

1:19:10 right?

1:19:10 Yep.

1:19:11 Do we have a policy at all about paying

1:19:12 down debt? Have we ever developed one?

1:19:14 So I think there's two different things

1:19:16 about. So you've got the debt that is

1:19:18 debt exclusion related. Yep.

1:19:19 And then you have the debt that's within

1:19:21 the levy. And so the debt within the

1:19:23 levy, we have um the overall funding for

1:19:26 CIP is 6% 6.6% of prior year net

1:19:29 revenue. And we try and make sure that

1:19:32 we have 4% you no more than around 4% of

1:19:37 debt. So then then we have the

1:19:38 flexibility to do these cash projects.

1:19:41 And so changing that balance between

1:19:44 cash and debt only just provides relief

1:19:46 within the CIP because the policy limit

1:19:49 is really what's setting what the town

1:19:51 can take on for debt.

1:19:52 Is there is there a policy against or

1:19:55 will you would you not be able to apply

1:19:57 some of those funds to the debt that's

1:19:59 in the levy?

1:20:00 So

1:20:02 if we paid off debt earlier because for

1:20:05 whatever work ash you want to jump.

1:20:07 Yeah. whether or not.

1:20:09 So, so for existing

1:20:12 debt that has already been issued that

1:20:15 it for the most part it's difficult to

1:20:19 prepay that. However, um for for um

1:20:24 excluded debt that has not yet been

1:20:27 issued, it could you know some of this

1:20:29 could be applied to that and the debt is

1:20:32 never issued.

1:20:34 I I mean I just I don't I don't it would

1:20:36 be worthwhile having that discussion to

1:20:38 to possibly consider a policy around

1:20:41 that because it certainly is beneficial

1:20:44 to lower our debt load and obligation

1:20:47 and if you have to set up a reserve fund

1:20:48 or something to prepare for that time um

1:20:51 versus always just saying let's do that

1:20:53 next CIP project because we have a a a

1:20:56 wish list of things to do. Uh our debt

1:20:58 is what's really holding us back I

1:21:00 think. So we did get an interesting

1:21:02 analysis from Sergio Mediglani which

1:21:05 explained how using debt is actually

1:21:07 better for the town's finances long term

1:21:09 because of the nominal value of money.

1:21:12 So essentially his recommendation and we

1:21:14 can send you this analysis. It's pretty

1:21:15 good. Uh shows that you you're better

1:21:18 off borrowing money now to pay for

1:21:21 projects than using cash. And you'd be

1:21:23 and the cash should go to you know other

1:21:26 one-time expenses. In other words, he

1:21:27 was arguing for increasing our debt, not

1:21:30 decreasing it because I didn't high

1:21:32 value the money and

1:21:35 uh it it's because uh it's because in

1:21:38 the long term the value of that money

1:21:40 now is higher than if you than if you

1:21:43 were to uh it basically that there is a

1:21:47 there's an economic driven and we can

1:21:49 show that to you but it's not like we

1:21:51 necessarily adopted Sergio's point of

1:21:53 view but it has made us think about you

1:21:55 know whether or not strike me right

1:21:57 balance.

1:21:58 Well, I guess I would and all difference

1:22:00 to uh to Sergio uh you know I I think

1:22:04 that's actually the perview of the

1:22:06 select board and not him. So if we're

1:22:08 going to start

1:22:10 he was asked to do expenses

1:22:13 well I'm just saying so that's great but

1:22:15 I'm just saying I think that the the

1:22:16 select board should deliberate on that

1:22:19 and not just have staff taking I know

1:22:21 that's not what you're doing but you're

1:22:22 saying that's we're inclined to do what

1:22:23 he's suggesting. I think very decision

1:22:26 selector.

1:22:26 I I do think it's very interesting when

1:22:28 we're talking about sort of the time

1:22:29 value of money and trying to eliminate

1:22:30 the structural deficit. This come this

1:22:32 eventually comes down to long-term

1:22:34 decisions, not best serve the short

1:22:35 term.

1:22:36 And and we do I mean I do think that we

1:22:37 do have those conversations, you know,

1:22:39 around the high school. We we decided

1:22:41 that we weren't putting the full amount

1:22:43 of the high school on the debt

1:22:44 exception. We absorbed $35 million in

1:22:47 the CIP. So that is hitting, you know,

1:22:50 within the money that we have to spend

1:22:51 on CIP. That's a pretty substantial

1:22:53 amount of money that we can't utilize

1:22:56 for other projects. And so, you know,

1:22:58 and we did that with the Ridley School

1:23:00 as well. You know, $40 million was

1:23:02 supported uh within the levy as well.

1:23:05 So, I think it's really a question

1:23:06 about, you know, when we are looking to

1:23:08 take on additional debt, what how much

1:23:11 of it should be funded within the levy

1:23:12 and how much of it should be funded

1:23:14 outside of the levy and what the

1:23:15 ramifications of those decisions are.

1:23:17 And again, this would be revisiting the

1:23:19 free cash waterfall, but it might be

1:23:22 worthwhile to have a discussion about

1:23:24 should some of that money go to a

1:23:25 reserve fund that could potentially pay

1:23:26 down that.

1:23:27 Yep. And as an option,

1:23:28 that's also, you know, what we'll be

1:23:30 talking about a little later on in the

1:23:31 slides is like to provide operatingly

1:23:34 relief, we are recommending that we

1:23:36 continue what we're doing with the um,

1:23:38 you know, bringing down the policy level

1:23:40 u in order to provide some relief as

1:23:42 well. So

1:23:44 I will say and we're not where we need

1:23:47 to be in ter we're going to bring the

1:23:48 CIP to you next week hopefully. But I

1:23:51 will say that

1:23:52 it is it is not again it's not it's not

1:23:54 projects that would be nice to have like

1:23:56 CIP is very tight this year. Um there

1:23:58 are a lot of unexpected expenses like

1:24:00 the town hall like a couple of other

1:24:03 things that are eating into the CIP

1:24:05 would be kind of half. Um and that does

1:24:07 not leave us with a lot of money for

1:24:08 discretionary work. Um and we are we're

1:24:12 trying to honor all of the commitments

1:24:14 that we've made to community. For

1:24:15 example, community wants the data

1:24:17 management plan to move forward. We want

1:24:18 more roads paved and we want roads paid.

1:24:20 We want roads done more efficiently. Um

1:24:23 less transformative work, more, you

1:24:25 know, repaving sealing work. So we're

1:24:27 doing that work. Um but that just then

1:24:29 means that in order to meet all of those

1:24:31 demands, it is really a juggling game.

1:24:34 So you'll see that there's there's not

1:24:36 as much there's not as available in the

1:24:38 CIP as we'd like. Um so it's this this

1:24:41 money is really vital in terms of

1:24:42 getting the projects that need to be

1:24:44 done. Um so look that is not to say that

1:24:47 we can't make those tradeoffs that our

1:24:49 trade-offs be made. you they're they're

1:24:51 not it's not like oh we can put this off

1:24:54 and then you know it's it's not it's not

1:24:56 a need to have there are a lot of need

1:24:57 to have to say

1:24:59 well I guess just in closing we don't

1:25:02 currently had a pulse where if there was

1:25:05 a windfall of funds or extra funds uh

1:25:08 having an option to put it into debt is

1:25:10 that

1:25:12 um no I think you know we could I mean

1:25:14 there's no policy that says if precash

1:25:16 is over x amount then you use the first

1:25:19 you and add another bucket here and it's

1:25:21 going to reduce the debt load but it's

1:25:23 something we could think about.

1:25:24 That's right.

1:25:25 Okay.

1:25:26 Yeah.

1:25:27 Yeah. I think Paul, you know, uh is

1:25:30 pursuing an important question. At the

1:25:32 same time, I'm not sure there's an

1:25:34 absolute answer to the question because

1:25:36 a lot hinges on your expectations as to

1:25:38 future interest rates. And um you know,

1:25:41 you could be in a situation where uh you

1:25:44 say, you know, let's let's only borrow a

1:25:46 little bit of the total that we're going

1:25:48 to need over the lifetime of a project

1:25:50 and then we'll borrow a little bit more,

1:25:51 then we'll borrow a little bit more.

1:25:53 Well, it might turn out that you're

1:25:54 paying a higher interest rate every time

1:25:55 you move to the next phase of the

1:25:57 borrow. And you have to sort of measure

1:25:59 that against if we had borrowed at all

1:26:01 at the beginning. Um you know, what what

1:26:04 would be the additional cost of that?

1:26:06 What where would we park the money that

1:26:07 we weren't using? what would be better

1:26:09 than that. So there's no there's no one

1:26:11 answer. Um but I think we do have to be

1:26:14 making our best guess at these policies

1:26:18 along the way and you know I I I

1:26:21 appreciate the research Sergio has done.

1:26:24 Um and I think we should have more

1:26:26 discussions about it. That's all.

1:26:29 Um I just want to confirm where in the

1:26:32 free cash or if it's somewhere else the

1:26:36 getting rid of the pension liability and

1:26:39 the oped liability payments of all.

1:26:42 So in the past we have had special use

1:26:44 towards u opeds and um and additional

1:26:50 money for the pensions as well. Um I

1:26:52 would say that you know uh prior to a

1:26:56 few years ago it would have been uh less

1:26:59 in bucket number two and more in those

1:27:01 other buckets but we we've gotten the

1:27:03 the indication from movies that we

1:27:06 really need to focus on our reserve fund

1:27:08 balance and so to the extent that there

1:27:10 was less of a need to put money in that

1:27:13 bucket then that would probably be the

1:27:15 recommendation to have. And so does this

1:27:18 free cash choice affect the end date of

1:27:22 meeting our pension obligations?

1:27:25 Not at this point.

1:27:26 Not not in a significant way, right?

1:27:28 Because remember that for example, you

1:27:30 know, we we uh the town appropriate

1:27:33 additional $1 million towards pension um

1:27:35 towards the outstanding pension

1:27:37 obligations. But remember that you know

1:27:39 the outstanding uh amount due in uh 2030

1:27:44 is like 50. So, you know, it's not a

1:27:47 huge significant factor when you're

1:27:49 considering the overall outst.

1:28:07 So, this is just another we had this

1:28:09 illustration last year. Um, kind of

1:28:11 looking at our fun balance levels and

1:28:14 trying to make that we're hitting the

1:28:15 target around these uh metrics as well.

1:28:18 So, um let's go on to the next.

1:28:20 Sure.

1:28:21 In the next Yeah.

1:28:23 Yeah.

1:28:24 talk a little bit about expenditures for

1:28:25 a little while, which we've actually

1:28:27 spent a lot of time in, so I'm not going

1:28:28 to get into too much. This is a look at

1:28:31 your current year FY26 budget about $20

1:28:34 million in the general fund. And this is

1:28:36 the you know by pattern highlighting

1:28:40 here is that salaries are 50%, benefits

1:28:42 are 21%. So a total of 7 and a half% of

1:28:45 your budget is salaries and there are a

1:28:48 few other major categories like debt uh

1:28:50 that take up uh what there would be for

1:28:52 a discretionary fund. So not very much

1:28:54 in terms of discretionary funds in the

1:28:57 budget. I'll let each slide for a second

1:29:00 discussions if you want. Again, this is

1:29:01 FY26, but what we're doing here is

1:29:04 taking all of the costs that are in the

1:29:06 town's budget that are actually school

1:29:08 costs and reallocating them over to

1:29:10 education to show you what percent of

1:29:12 the budget are the schools actually

1:29:14 taking out. And this year, FY26, it's 57

1:29:17 to 29%. So benefits over here is just

1:29:19 town benefits. Then over here is just

1:29:21 town debt. So you can see the non school

1:29:23 debt is right about 4%. Um, and so

1:29:27 that's the plan. Just give me a second.

1:29:30 Yeah. Wait,

1:29:32 go back.

1:29:34 What happened to our one second?

1:29:36 You have one second one.

1:29:38 Yeah, exact May I just a quick question?

1:29:42 Um, you know, a meaningful uh to me

1:29:45 meaningful um additional bit of

1:29:48 information. uh since we see this pie

1:29:50 chart every year, you know, uh year to

1:29:52 year and and the only thing that might

1:29:55 change would be, you know, a teeny

1:29:59 little, you know, adjustment to the

1:30:01 relative proportion of of various uses

1:30:05 for the monies. So could that be

1:30:09 accompanied by a you know the portion of

1:30:12 the pie allocated to education

1:30:15 represents an increase or decrease uh

1:30:18 from the prior year of x% so that we get

1:30:21 a sense of where the how the money is

1:30:23 moving around from pi size to pi slice

1:30:26 and it doesn't move around much

1:30:28 I was going to say this is relatively

1:30:30 state uh yeah I don't think the numbers

1:30:32 are that much different

1:30:33 this is just a look at the current year

1:30:35 budget but it is an interesting idea to

1:30:37 think about projecting this on the 27

1:30:39 and what changes if the pie shifts at

1:30:41 all. I think largely depends on what

1:30:44 where that school number ends,

1:30:46 right?

1:30:47 Uh because let's say for example they

1:30:48 had to go up 13 million and the town had

1:30:50 to go up zero significantly changes.

1:30:54 Yeah. Well, and I I will just go ahead

1:30:55 and make a point of my own which I I've

1:30:57 done some, you know, looking at these

1:30:59 things and and it does become uh

1:31:01 meaningful the more that you go

1:31:03 backward, you know, and then take a

1:31:06 long-term view like a 10-year difference

1:31:08 between the 10year-old pie versus the

1:31:10 posit. And you know what I've seen when

1:31:14 that whenever we do that is that uh

1:31:17 pretty much everything that's

1:31:18 departmental either stays the same or

1:31:21 shrinks a little bit and that debt um

1:31:24 thing keeps growing and then the the the

1:31:26 other piece that keeps growing it's the

1:31:28 benefits you know keeps growing. So and

1:31:31 you know it's important for people to

1:31:32 kind of get that sense of what's

1:31:35 happening over time.

1:31:37 We do we see debt growing over time? I

1:31:39 think it's should be relatively stable.

1:31:42 Not going forward.

1:31:43 Yeah. I think even I think even looking

1:31:45 back it's probably you know

1:31:47 the debt exclusions.

1:31:48 I'm talking about applies to the debt

1:31:49 exclusions.

1:31:49 Right. Think of debt exclusions. Yeah.

1:31:51 This is non this is just you know

1:31:53 non-excluded debt. This is just debt

1:31:55 that's in the

1:31:56 Okay.

1:31:57 So you would I think if you included

1:32:00 other funds other than the giant fund.

1:32:02 Yeah. That I mean the pie actually would

1:32:03 be a bit different. You have for example

1:32:07 excluded debt included in this pop.

1:32:09 Yeah.

1:32:11 Right.

1:32:11 That excluded debt is in it is

1:32:14 Oh, it is in the general fund operating.

1:32:16 Yeah. Okay. Yeah. It's got to be

1:32:17 somewhere, right?

1:32:18 It is. Yeah.

1:32:20 So, we're factoring that. I mean, so I

1:32:22 just thinking that this is 4% being

1:32:25 would be not, but you're you're right.

1:32:28 Okay. Any other questions on the we

1:32:31 um so my you said before if I recall

1:32:35 correctly that about 85% of our expenses

1:32:38 are ret

1:32:41 is that right and and presumably that

1:32:45 85% or whatever the actual number is is

1:32:47 distributed across this entire pie chart

1:32:50 but you know things like non-school debt

1:32:53 and I'm assuming that the education ends

1:32:55 a portion of that in school debt you

1:33:00 contains 0% which is not poss and I'm

1:33:04 assuming things like public works when

1:33:06 we're contracting out roadway repavement

1:33:09 or whatever um those parts are not

1:33:13 are not personnel costs. Yeah, we we so

1:33:16 we could Michael we could show that next

1:33:19 pie then by category within each

1:33:24 this percent of each of these categories

1:33:26 is personel services though what we're

1:33:29 actually saying is that personnel costs

1:33:30 are 71% that's what we're actually 71%

1:33:34 okay

1:33:35 that's what we're saying

1:33:38 salary plus benefits

1:33:39 salary plus benefits what you do

1:33:42 well you get to set

1:33:48 Great.

1:33:50 Thank you.

1:33:50 Yep. No problem.

1:33:51 Happy to let it let it soak in. So we

1:33:53 could we could theoretically show this

1:33:55 you know but for for the purposes of

1:33:57 this discussion right of this 59.7%

1:34:02 70% is sal. So you can make the

1:34:05 assumption that that 70% of that number

1:34:06 is

1:34:07 right and then a certain percentage that

1:34:09 and then the rest of it is is service.

1:34:14 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's the other things

1:34:17 we list on this

1:34:18 charity, right?

1:34:20 Not a lot of places to

1:34:24 make changes to person.

1:34:25 That's correct.

1:34:26 Yep.

1:34:28 Okay. Um this is showing the now we're

1:34:31 looking at FY27 going forward here. This

1:34:33 is showing the major expense categories

1:34:35 and how much they're they're increasing.

1:34:37 We have the school budget increasing by

1:34:38 13 million. We have the town departments

1:34:40 increasing by 9 and a half million. This

1:34:42 is personnel costs, your collective

1:34:44 bargaining steps. It's the new

1:34:46 sanitation contract and it's utilities.

1:34:49 I just want to emphasize there's no

1:34:51 growth in departmental budgets here.

1:34:52 This is a stress point for departments.

1:34:55 We hear about it every year. We heard

1:34:56 about it this year at you know some

1:34:58 folks have said in the past well could

1:34:59 we just limit the department's increases

1:35:01 to zero or to 2%. This is level funding

1:35:04 everything except the what is fixed

1:35:06 costs reinvestment. Then benefits which

1:35:09 is both town and schools are increasing

1:35:10 by almost triple the town appropriation

1:35:13 um increase. We can talk more about

1:35:15 benefits on the slide here soon. These

1:35:17 are special appropriations and that's

1:35:19 partly because of a good free cash

1:35:20 number and partly because we're re we're

1:35:22 increasing the amount that we're funding

1:35:25 um the special appropriations out of the

1:35:26 operating budget from the 6% to 6.6%

1:35:29 six% of prior year net revenue as

1:35:31 Melissa just talked about a previous

1:35:33 slide and then debt service are those

1:35:35 projects that are finance it's the fire

1:35:38 stations uh it's pierce and uh it's

1:35:41 pierce so and Melissa had an earlier

1:35:43 slide you know the outy years annually

1:35:46 increases 1.8% as you can see

1:35:48 expenditures out years

1:35:50 3.2% 10%. So there's

1:35:53 perfect illustration.

1:35:54 Charlie,

1:35:55 you're going too fast for ahead. My

1:35:57 aging my aging my aging%. So

1:36:00 um I just want to I want to understand

1:36:02 what you're put in here. Um so this

1:36:04 slide is showing how the 34 million is

1:36:07 being allocated.

1:36:08 This is FY27 total total growth 34.1

1:36:12 million and it's showing the major.

1:36:14 So an 8% increase in expenditures

1:36:16 corrected

1:36:18 projected 26 and 27. And this is how

1:36:20 it's allocated. Schools, town

1:36:22 departments, benefits

1:36:23 by major category.

1:36:25 So,

1:36:25 and when you I'm sorry, Michael, I'm

1:36:27 just I just I have a couple It's going

1:36:29 to take me a minute to get through my

1:36:31 You are going too fast.

1:36:33 Um, so

1:36:35 when you say town departments is 3.6

1:36:38 million, right? What is that?

1:36:40 Yeah. So, that is personnel. It's

1:36:43 collective bargaining and it's steps

1:36:45 and it's the new sanitation contract

1:36:48 and it's utilities. In other words, it's

1:36:50 just fixed cost.

1:36:51 So it's so it's salaries and utilities

1:36:54 is what you're saying in cont.

1:36:55 It's fixed. It's all the fixed costs we

1:36:57 have.

1:36:57 There is growth assumed in the

1:36:59 nonpersonnel of 2 and a half%. But we

1:37:02 are trying to pair that down in order to

1:37:04 come back. So to get at John's question,

1:37:06 um I don't mean to be speaking for you,

1:37:08 but I'm going to advocate for the

1:37:10 question. Then that 3.6 are there

1:37:13 additional headcounts there?

1:37:15 No.

1:37:15 No. So this is just flat headcount,

1:37:18 increase in steps and lanes, increase in

1:37:21 collective bargaining.

1:37:22 Okay. Um Okay. Thank you. That that that

1:37:26 helps me.

1:37:28 Someone else wanted this.

1:37:30 Michael

1:37:32 two questions. Um, one, am I reading

1:37:36 this right? 34.1 million is an 8%

1:37:41 increase. Then about a $4 million

1:37:44 increase in any one of these bars

1:37:46 represents 1%. Is that right? So the

1:37:49 school budget there is roughly

1:37:53 3% increase overall total total budget

1:37:57 of the of the 8%.

1:37:59 Right?

1:37:59 You can also think of maybe this in

1:38:00 terms of an African, right? So uh of the

1:38:03 8% yeah it would be like three three%

1:38:06 3% that schools

1:38:09 schools fixed cost and then another two

1:38:12 at 100% is better.

1:38:15 Okay

1:38:16 Charlie that that 3 point 13.2 from the

1:38:19 schools that ties back to the number we

1:38:20 saw earlier.

1:38:21 Correct.

1:38:22 Okay. All right. Great. And and and the

1:38:24 other the other question I had is that

1:38:28 um if you divide if you divide the

1:38:31 increase in our personnel costs by the

1:38:34 number of people that we that we have to

1:38:36 support that. Can you give us any sense

1:38:38 of like what the median cost is for

1:38:43 either a junior or a senior person on

1:38:47 staff? You know, are we talking like on

1:38:50 average 200,000 personal, 300,000

1:38:52 personal to be

1:38:54 per staffer? You know, it is there's a

1:38:56 huge difference between say director

1:38:58 sales and and front level and frontline

1:39:02 employees, right?

1:39:02 Yeah.

1:39:03 Um, you know, each it depends on the the

1:39:06 employee class too. You know,

1:39:07 mid-managers versus clericals, they get

1:39:09 a different level of a step increase.

1:39:11 There's difference differences in their

1:39:13 public. public safety has large

1:39:16 increases and they have they have you

1:39:17 know increases associated with um you

1:39:21 know other additional pay reaching

1:39:23 reaching

1:39:23 okay so then then maybe what I'm looking

1:39:25 for is the average across the world so

1:39:27 for example if we are holding off six

1:39:31 positions in the police department like

1:39:34 on average that that we know for example

1:39:37 police officers around00

1:39:39 including benefits

1:39:40 yes fully loaded police officers

1:39:42 and over time

1:39:43 in retirement Correct.

1:39:45 Yeah.

1:39:45 Well, not uh maybe not.

1:39:47 No, not includes

1:39:50 the salary and benefits here.

1:39:52 Just just

1:39:54 Okay.

1:39:56 One other question, Charlie. So, the

1:39:58 34.1 million increased expenditures.

1:40:02 What was the increase in the levy

1:40:05 without asking for is how much you know

1:40:09 what I'm saying? So, how much are tax

1:40:11 how much did our revenue go up?

1:40:13 Uh well, actually touching on it,

1:40:15 but it's uh it's in what is it? It's uh

1:40:18 it's 5.1%.

1:40:20 5.1% increase in the levy from two and a

1:40:23 half from Prop 2 and a half plus new

1:40:25 growth

1:40:26 and a dollar plus

1:40:27 the dollar value.

1:40:29 So, okay, so we have a 34.1 growth in

1:40:32 expenses and a 17.1

1:40:36 17.6

1:40:37 17.6 million growth in revenue. So the

1:40:40 gap is between 34 minus 17

1:40:43 in in the levy and what's the what's the

1:40:45 delta in the non- levy?

1:40:48 No, that's that's total

1:40:49 that's total

1:40:49 that's total. So the levies

1:40:51 so 34 well no but so the gap the gap is

1:40:55 34 I'm just round numbers 34us 17 right

1:40:58 that first slide that we had with all

1:41:00 those numbers that was

1:41:02 that 16.6 6 million. I think

1:41:04 we can go back.

1:41:05 Okay. No, I just I'm trying to tie what

1:41:07 he's talking about to what we see.

1:41:09 Absolutely.

1:41:11 Uh okay. Any other questions here? These

1:41:14 are the these are the major categories.

1:41:15 We'll talk a little bit more about

1:41:17 benefits on the next slide. So,

1:41:22 all right. So, very quickly I want to

1:41:23 recap the fast school split which gives

1:41:25 us the revenue numbers, you know, the

1:41:27 bottom line budget numbers that the

1:41:29 deficit's really working off. Okay.

1:41:31 Follow me on the FY27 column only for

1:41:34 now. So you have the FY26. Each year we

1:41:37 take the total available revenue, which

1:41:39 is $436 million here, and you subtract

1:41:41 our non-departal fixed costs. This

1:41:43 includes stuff like pensions, benefits.

1:41:46 This is your above the line

1:41:48 adjustment to the to the split, right?

1:41:50 So we're taking we're take $195 million

1:41:53 off the top and now there's $241 million

1:41:56 available for the town schools. We take

1:41:58 the prior year split. So if you look now

1:42:01 in the FY26 column at the bottom, we're

1:42:03 taking the 40 and the 59 there, buying

1:42:05 that corners, which gives us two new

1:42:09 numbers for the schools. Before we can

1:42:11 call those final, we have to add our

1:42:13 adjustments, which these are the below

1:42:14 the line adjustments. And we're we're

1:42:18 moving 500,000 from the schools to the

1:42:20 town side to pay for utilities this

1:42:22 year. Last year there was an adjustment

1:42:24 in the opposite direction to uh to

1:42:27 account for the school's cutting uh

1:42:29 school building uh repair and

1:42:30 maintenance, but this year it's a it's a

1:42:32 reduction on the school side in addition

1:42:34 to the town side to pay for utilities

1:42:36 adjustments. And so after you apply

1:42:38 those below the line um adjustments,

1:42:41 which includes things like utilities, R&

1:42:43 payroll, etc., you get the new bottom

1:42:46 line numbers of 99 million for the town,

1:42:49 142 million for the schools, which gives

1:42:51 you the new split at the bottom. So,

1:42:53 we're talking about the schools being

1:42:55 $13 million over a number. This is the

1:42:58 number that they are currently $13

1:43:00 million over and this is the number that

1:43:02 the town is currently $3 million over.

1:43:04 So, this is sort of just giving you an

1:43:06 idea of how it is we calculate the

1:43:07 amount of revenue that's available to

1:43:09 town schools. It's supposed to be done

1:43:11 so in a fair way, right? allocates the

1:43:14 cost fairly. Some folks may ask why is

1:43:17 it the school numbers going down? That's

1:43:18 a typical thing that happens because of

1:43:21 it making adjustments for things like

1:43:23 payroll, it pur any questions on tech.

1:43:27 Sure.

1:43:28 Oh, I'm sorry.

1:43:29 Just in terms of those reimbursements if

1:43:32 that at all impacts the rates that we

1:43:35 get. So, for example, usually if you

1:43:37 bundle everything under one umbrella,

1:43:38 you get a slightly better rate. So this

1:43:40 does not adversely impact whatever rate

1:43:44 we are getting for utilities. It's

1:43:46 merely the school budget will reimburse

1:43:50 but it's not at a higher rate.

1:43:51 Correct. So uh essentially what this

1:43:53 means is we pay utility bills for all

1:43:56 the schools on the town side and so we

1:43:58 need to make an adjustment that says

1:44:00 okay we need to charge you for the

1:44:02 amount of money we're going to be paying

1:44:03 out of our budget for school utilities.

1:44:05 That's the 500,000. It doesn't adversely

1:44:07 affect what we're paying.

1:44:10 Charles, could you just just cover why

1:44:12 was that number 195 last year and now

1:44:14 it's a negative just

1:44:15 Yeah. Once again, so these are your

1:44:17 below the line adjustments. So these are

1:44:20 all the costs that were not factored

1:44:21 into the market.

1:44:22 I'm just talking utilities.

1:44:24 And so for the 195, what happened there

1:44:26 is the schools cut school building

1:44:29 repair and maintenance. And so in order

1:44:31 to give them that money, we had to

1:44:33 reduce the town allocation which has

1:44:35 school building repair maintenance in

1:44:37 it. reduce that by 195 and give it to

1:44:40 the schools in order for them to realize

1:44:41 their cut. So, for example, if they

1:44:44 said, "We want to close the schools on

1:44:46 the weekends and we're not going to have

1:44:47 any natural gas costs and we're going to

1:44:49 save 500,000." These two numbers would

1:44:51 flip because we would then be giving

1:44:54 them the money from the town budget that

1:44:56 they're saving.

1:44:57 Does that make sense?

1:44:57 It does. So this year it's it's a

1:45:00 500,000 because

1:45:02 because of a brand new supply contract

1:45:04 for natural gas for utilities.

1:45:06 It's going up.

1:45:07 Correct. So cost is going up.

1:45:08 Correct. We we settled a new contract

1:45:10 starting this April. Yeah.

1:45:12 Uh which doesn't affect this fiscal

1:45:13 year, but essentially we've benefited

1:45:15 from having very good fixed supply rates

1:45:18 for natural gas for the past few years.

1:45:20 And now you're seeing folks in the

1:45:21 community complaining about their bills

1:45:23 going up. At the same time the town's

1:45:25 bills are going up.

1:45:25 What about electricity? So electricity

1:45:27 we have a fixed contract through next

1:45:30 year and so in FY28 we have built into

1:45:32 the forecast another adjustment lower

1:45:35 for electricity. We have a fixed

1:45:36 contract for now but we will we will see

1:45:39 a bump in F28 counts.

1:45:42 Michael

1:45:43 um this the school number the bottom

1:45:46 line school number 142 you said that

1:45:50 they they have a budget that they're

1:45:53 working on that is 13.5 million higher

1:45:56 than that because that's uh 155

1:46:01 um how does that number compare to the

1:46:06 current or the closest to their actual

1:46:08 fiscal year 26 which is that

1:46:13 well um that this should be their 26th

1:46:15 number.

1:46:16 So that is that is their actual 26th

1:46:18 number.

1:46:18 So

1:46:20 sorry I can't do the math but so they're

1:46:22 saying that it's growing at about

1:46:26 56%

1:46:28 9% 9% 9% from 142 to 155 is 9%.

1:46:35 And $2 million of that growth is their

1:46:37 structural deficit that they kind of

1:46:40 help you out last year,

1:46:41 right?

1:46:43 Yeah.

1:46:45 So, so if you if you shifted that in the

1:46:47 other

1:46:51 Yeah. I think also, you know, this slide

1:46:53 also just illustrates that the

1:46:54 non-depart costs are consuming. I mean,

1:46:57 that's another highlight on this.

1:47:00 That's a good point, Melissa. We're

1:47:01 seeing $17 million in growth in our

1:47:07 little bit more slides.

1:47:10 Uh I I just want to say that one of the

1:47:13 other things I find difficult to get my

1:47:14 head around in in these budget processes

1:47:17 is it feels like you know we're a dog

1:47:19 chasing its tail all the time in that um

1:47:22 you know as Charlie just said very you

1:47:24 know very well um okay so here's how we

1:47:28 blah blah um you know we look at what is

1:47:30 coming in in revenue we got that bottom

1:47:32 line number that we're going to have

1:47:33 available to us and then the second part

1:47:36 of what he said was and then we look at

1:47:38 what we're spending Now, is it what

1:47:40 we're spending now or what we budgeted

1:47:43 the prior year at? Um because h how will

1:47:47 we know what we have spent by the end of

1:47:50 FY 26 when it isn't yet the end of FY26?

1:47:54 The forecast takes the current year

1:47:56 budget, so fiscal 26 budget and implies

1:47:59 an two and a half% of inflator to

1:48:02 non-personnel rights and then also adds

1:48:04 in a factor for collective bargaining.

1:48:06 So the one and a half% and 27, right?

1:48:08 the 2% in the out years plus an estimate

1:48:10 for steps. The estimate for steps is

1:48:12 based on Charlie's work over the summer

1:48:14 and then an estimate for utility.

1:48:16 Right? So, and I think we're all saying

1:48:18 the same thing. So we're essentially

1:48:20 saying the budget builds on the budget

1:48:22 from the prior year, but sometimes it

1:48:24 comes out the budget builds on what we

1:48:27 had to spend this year or have to spend

1:48:29 now to we use these expressions like you

1:48:32 know for continuation of services or you

1:48:34 know a structural deficit and so on. But

1:48:37 we don't really have a hard number

1:48:40 because the actual number often is

1:48:42 different than what was the budget

1:48:43 itself.

1:48:44 And we don't have that hard number until

1:48:46 after we've already taken care of the

1:48:49 next fiscal year's budget,

1:48:50 right?

1:48:51 Um and that's why, you know, I tend to

1:48:53 keep coming back to these questions of,

1:48:56 you know, what what are the FTEEs here,

1:48:58 you know, and and and how is that

1:49:00 changing? Um and u so I just I just hope

1:49:03 people who are listening to this

1:49:04 discussion get that that that it it

1:49:08 isn't quite as um set in stone as to uh

1:49:13 where we are in all of this as it might

1:49:16 seem like uh if we don't absolutely ask

1:49:19 for you know an override of blah blah

1:49:22 blah we're we're not going to be able to

1:49:24 sustain our services. Well, that depends

1:49:26 on whether your actual spending in FY26,

1:49:31 which doesn't end, you know, until June

1:49:34 30th of 2026,

1:49:37 um, comes in at where you thought it

1:49:38 would come in.

1:49:39 Um, so want to make that point.

1:49:42 I mean, I take I take your point in

1:49:45 terms of the the estimation, but given

1:49:49 that se what is it 70% of our costs are

1:49:52 personnel? Yeah. Um, and those personnel

1:49:55 costs are fixed unless somebody leaves

1:49:59 or we hire somebody those

1:50:00 which happens all the time.

1:50:03 Well,

1:50:06 it happens. It it happens. That's true.

1:50:09 But to the degree that as a percentage

1:50:12 of our town staff, I mean, we're not

1:50:13 getting like

1:50:16 what is the percent what is the percent

1:50:17 turnover of our staff over here? It's

1:50:20 not it's not

1:50:20 it's not that high. So, so I I think

1:50:24 there's more certainty in the numbers

1:50:26 than you're giving them,

1:50:26 but just because you raised this point,

1:50:28 but um and again so that people

1:50:30 understand all of these budgets are

1:50:32 built on positions that are not

1:50:34 necessarily filled during the course of

1:50:36 the year,

1:50:36 right? Make assumptions about, you know,

1:50:38 what level they'll be filled at. So, we

1:50:41 know that somebody who's leaving, we're

1:50:42 going to be resetting that salary before

1:50:44 the budget comes up. And you know, we're

1:50:47 going to be, you know, estimating of

1:50:49 where we think that's going to land the

1:50:51 follow year.

1:50:52 Yeah. I also say that for the three

1:50:54 biggest departments in the tan side,

1:50:55 DPW, fire, police. Yes.

1:50:58 Depending on usually DPW is the highest

1:51:00 and then police and fire. Um

1:51:04 we

1:51:05 in all three of those departments for

1:51:07 one reason or another we have

1:51:10 historically utilize those salary

1:51:12 savings to cover some other aspect of

1:51:14 the budget. Right.

1:51:15 Um so where for example for and where we

1:51:20 haven't done that like last year we've

1:51:21 had anybody reserve on um and in DPW's

1:51:26 case the big outlier was snow and ice.

1:51:28 Snow and ice is the only thing that the

1:51:29 congest spend on. Um, and so every year

1:51:34 I I send usually right now around the

1:51:36 first snow emergency of the season, I

1:51:39 send a letter to you and to the

1:51:41 treasurer and to the state saying,

1:51:43 "Hello, we're going to defus Ben to

1:51:44 start out because this is how we this is

1:51:47 how we play with snow and ice." And in

1:51:49 the past couple years when we've had

1:51:50 relatively mild winters, we have been

1:51:52 able to use whatever savings we have in

1:51:55 other parts of DPW's budget to cover

1:51:57 snow. in the case of police and fire, we

1:52:00 haven't been able to use those salary

1:52:02 savings and I would say to some of the

1:52:05 Charlie and I think you know Liz and the

1:52:07 team at PSPO would say is that in some

1:52:10 ways that's a good thing in the sense

1:52:11 that the departments are really starting

1:52:13 to understand and internalize what it

1:52:15 means to live within the means of their

1:52:17 budgets. Yeah.

1:52:18 Um but they haven't been able to cover

1:52:20 all the extraneous costs where things go

1:52:22 over like overtime or what have you that

1:52:25 we've had to go to the reserve fund. But

1:52:27 those three departments are the lion

1:52:29 share of what we do. And then when you

1:52:32 think of the other departments, that's

1:52:33 really a bounding curve. Like one

1:52:35 positional planning is not really make a

1:52:37 significant difference in terms of our

1:52:38 projections. But it is it is a good

1:52:40 point. It's a good point to run down. Um

1:52:41 but I just want to understand that for

1:52:44 the three big departments where there

1:52:46 are salary savings, we use them in other

1:52:49 places. M and just to put it into

1:52:51 perspective for the public that may be

1:52:53 listening or may listen in the future.

1:52:55 There's currently forecasted I think you

1:52:57 said a $16 million

1:52:59 deficit, right? The actuals are not

1:53:02 going to material impact that, right? I

1:53:04 mean, maybe you're talking a couple

1:53:05 hundred thousand, but it's not going to

1:53:07 it's not going to make us a debt and a

1:53:10 deficit, right? Um and I just think

1:53:12 that's I think that's important to

1:53:13 understand that the deficit's

1:53:15 significant. Um, and if we don't have a

1:53:18 few positions that that aren't hired,

1:53:21 um, or a project isn't done, we're not

1:53:23 talking material impact.

1:53:25 And we've also instituted, you know,

1:53:27 we've we've seen this deficit coming.

1:53:29 So, obviously, we've been trying to plan

1:53:31 and prep for it. And one of the things

1:53:33 that we've done is um kind of added a

1:53:35 layer to our hiring process. We've

1:53:37 created what we're calling a position

1:53:38 review. And it's essentially enough

1:53:41 before we put an authorization to hire

1:53:43 on the board's agenda. We are talking

1:53:46 with the department head to talk about,

1:53:48 you know, here are the potential

1:53:49 reductions that we're seeing. Where does

1:53:51 this position fit within kind of what

1:53:53 we're looking at? Is this something

1:53:55 that's essential? Is this something we

1:53:56 can hold off on? And so obviously, you

1:53:59 know, we are holding open positions in

1:54:00 certain departments in anticipation of

1:54:02 those being reductions next year.

1:54:05 So I agree with both Paul and John but

1:54:08 at different levels of the discussion.

1:54:11 So with you Paul I certainly agree that

1:54:13 in the grander scheme of things a couple

1:54:15 of salaries here or there that get

1:54:17 resets is basically a drop in the

1:54:19 bucket. It doesn't resolve a structural

1:54:21 deficit. But to John's point, sometimes

1:54:24 a strategy for uh making sure that we

1:54:27 have a balanced budget each year is I'm

1:54:29 not suggesting we do this, telling every

1:54:31 department you're cutting 2%. Or

1:54:33 whatever that number may be. Yeah. And

1:54:34 from a departmentto department basis,

1:54:36 what John's saying does make a

1:54:38 difference because often times a way to

1:54:40 meet the department budget would be this

1:54:43 position we're not going to fill like

1:54:44 we've done with the police department

1:54:46 traditionally. And I'm sure they're not

1:54:48 happy about it, but we do that most

1:54:49 years. And uh so at a department level I

1:54:53 think it actually is fairly significant

1:54:54 looking at who's leaving what those

1:54:57 salaries reset to broader picture though

1:55:00 it's less so and so we need to try to

1:55:02 find other ways to uh resolve this and

1:55:05 and to that point I wanted to ask a

1:55:06 little more about

1:55:08 non-dep departmental fixed costs. I know

1:55:10 a lot of that is tied up in collective

1:55:12 bargaining. Are there any elements there

1:55:14 that we do have more direct control

1:55:17 over?

1:55:19 go into all of those.

1:55:21 Yeah.

1:55:23 Yeah. And I thank thank you David and

1:55:26 Paul for coming. Um I I I just want to

1:55:28 sort of make my same point but in a

1:55:30 slightly different way. I think some of

1:55:33 this stems from the language that we use

1:55:35 in these budget discussions. And I I

1:55:37 personally don't think deficit is the

1:55:39 right word to use to describe what we're

1:55:41 basic um

1:55:44 in my in my world no in my world a

1:55:48 deficit is you come to the end of your

1:55:50 fiscal year um and you realize holy cow

1:55:54 you know we haven't paid all our bills

1:55:56 there's about you know $8 million worth

1:55:59 of bills still outstanding

1:56:01 but we have spent all of our revenue

1:56:04 allocation we're in deficit.

1:56:06 Y

1:56:07 what we're talking about is budget

1:56:10 planning and we are talking about a gap

1:56:15 in future years between what we would

1:56:18 like to spend and what we anticipate as

1:56:21 revenue but it isn't c it you know it's

1:56:25 not set in stone it it as David just

1:56:28 said you could you could plan a budget

1:56:31 that is balanced and it would

1:56:35 We're going to balance this budget and

1:56:37 the plan the planned balanced budget for

1:56:40 FY27

1:56:42 requires us to ask all departments to

1:56:46 cut back their payroll costs by 2%.

1:56:49 So that's what and that's what we're

1:56:50 going to plan. You know

1:56:51 that is what we are working towards. So

1:56:53 this is if we do nothing.

1:56:55 Yeah.

1:56:55 We're going to be at the holy cow at the

1:56:56 end of this. Yeah.

1:56:57 But what our budget we are not allowed

1:57:00 to do that because we have to have a

1:57:01 balanced budget. Yeah. And so in

1:57:03 February, we're going to show you the

1:57:04 strategies that we needed to employ in

1:57:06 order to get come into bed.

1:57:08 Right. Yeah. And and just to be I just

1:57:10 want to this is an important point.

1:57:11 John, I appreciate your perspective on

1:57:12 this and I'm not diminishing your your

1:57:15 point of view. There's there's an issue

1:57:18 with respect to

1:57:20 level of service. So given that our what

1:57:24 percentage of our our expenses are labor

1:57:27 and commitments with steps and lanes and

1:57:29 contractual and collective bargaining

1:57:31 and healthcare and all that,

1:57:32 we do know with reasonable certainty

1:57:37 what next year's budget of the next

1:57:39 three years will look like. Yeah.

1:57:40 Right. And and if we are not able to

1:57:45 increase revenue to meet the meet that

1:57:48 growth, which we have already made

1:57:49 commitments to, they're committed.

1:57:52 You have to change the level of service,

1:57:53 which means layoffs. You're going to

1:57:55 have to lay off people on the top.

1:57:56 You're going to have to lay off people

1:57:57 in the schools. That's just reality.

1:58:01 You can't say give me 2% each department

1:58:03 and close a $16 million gap. U that's

1:58:06 going to happen over multiple years. So

1:58:08 I again I just I think that this

1:58:11 conversation is leading to a very

1:58:14 important realization that we have to

1:58:16 talk about publicly is that without

1:58:20 finding a way to close the revenue gap

1:58:24 uh meaning raising more revenue that we

1:58:26 are going to have an impact on service.

1:58:29 We're going to have an impact on the

1:58:30 service of the schools and we're going

1:58:32 to have an impact on the service of the

1:58:33 town and that's it. and and the voters

1:58:35 will have to make that decision. But

1:58:37 that's what's going to happen.

1:58:39 Um to follow on to that point and I

1:58:42 agree with you completely, Paul, that

1:58:44 that is that is the decision we are

1:58:46 facing. So we have about a $16.6 million

1:58:52 deficit to cover. Um, I heard before

1:58:54 that, you know, on average across we've

1:58:57 got about a $100,000

1:58:59 per person in costs, which is about

1:59:02 police, police, fire, etc. Um, but I'm

1:59:07 what I'm trying to figure out is how to

1:59:09 translate that 16.6 million into a

1:59:13 number of people. Is if it's 100,000,

1:59:15 then that's like 16.66

1:59:19 people. And now I'm trying to figure out

1:59:22 that 166, what percentage of like the

1:59:25 town staff overall is that number? Like

1:59:28 are we cutting 2% of our staff? Are we

1:59:31 cutting 5% of our staff? Are we cutting

1:59:33 10% of the staff? We should we should

1:59:35 know that.

1:59:35 That's right. That is the question

1:59:37 you're trying to understand.

1:59:39 On the town side, if we you'll see this

1:59:41 at the end. If there were to be we were

1:59:44 in a no overright and we were not able

1:59:46 to raise revenues significantly in a

1:59:48 better meaningful way beyond what we've

1:59:50 identified here, we'd be looking at

1:59:52 eliminating a whole 20 positions. U now

1:59:56 we have around 700 some odd people down

1:59:59 staff. So 20 positions you do the math

2:00:03 it's lower percentages but yeah that's

2:00:07 20 positions and that's across many

2:00:08 different departments. um that's a

2:00:11 that's a significant production of

2:00:13 service and I would argue the the other

2:00:15 unfortunate thing here is that we'll

2:00:18 talk about is and some of those

2:00:20 positions are positions that have a

2:00:22 potential increase right

2:00:27 um

2:00:28 it's always the first thing to go um

2:00:31 talk about these things that's not that

2:00:33 doesn't make it fair that's the reality

2:00:35 of circumstance and so

2:00:37 yeah if you if there were if we we're

2:00:39 unable to close this gap in other ways,

2:00:41 we will be looking at 20 plus positions.

2:00:44 And and that particular issue that you

2:00:47 talked about in terms of revenue

2:00:49 generating positions is I think

2:00:51 something that we as the select should

2:00:53 talk about.

2:00:54 Yes. Because

2:00:55 again, this is it is your decision how

2:00:57 this is why we're having this

2:00:58 conversation now so we can continue to

2:01:00 refine these occasions and break to you

2:01:02 and tell you this is not what we want to

2:01:04 see. What what other options do you want

2:01:06 us to do at this point? So that's why

2:01:08 we're having this discussion.

2:01:10 If we end up in the direction of needing

2:01:12 to cut town staff further, are there

2:01:16 additional opportunities that you see

2:01:18 for privatizing

2:01:20 certain services? I'm not saying I

2:01:21 endorse that approach. I just like to

2:01:23 know not right now. Um I don't nec the

2:01:29 we're we're not in a pos I don't see us

2:01:31 as in a position where the costs that

2:01:35 there's cost benefit analysis

2:01:37 there's there's a benefit that outweighs

2:01:39 the potential cost there ultimately at

2:01:41 the end of the day right theoretically

2:01:44 by cutting something inhouse then I

2:01:46 could for example hire a consultant to

2:01:47 do it and maybe they use one type of

2:01:49 funds for that lot of different ways I

2:01:52 will say that one of the things that I

2:01:55 became one of these that is just a

2:01:57 particular strength of Brookline

2:01:58 financially and the way that and

2:02:00 something that I inherited from Mel and

2:02:03 Melissa and the whole team. and I'm very

2:02:05 grateful that they put this in place is

2:02:08 that Berkeley thinks very very

2:02:10 strategically about what services it

2:02:12 wants to keep in house and what services

2:02:13 it wants to app who don't have large

2:02:17 budget contracted services and that's

2:02:19 different communities um and I think

2:02:21 particularly in the building department

2:02:23 and capital projects we have really reap

2:02:26 the benefits of that by having internal

2:02:28 project management which has saved us a

2:02:30 huge amount of money in the long run um

2:02:33 and so when I think about doing contract

2:02:36 focuses out. That's kind of the gold

2:02:38 standard that I look at. Um I don't

2:02:40 necessarily

2:02:42 I'm I I am not dogmatic in the sense

2:02:44 that services have kept in house. You

2:02:46 know there are there is an argument for

2:02:48 taking ser for using private services

2:02:50 where we don't have the expertise to do

2:02:51 so. But I don't currently see a function

2:02:54 that we provide inhouse that make more

2:02:55 sense.

2:02:59 John yeah and I I I think it's

2:03:02 interesting that that you know We've now

2:03:05 sort of heard about the the question of

2:03:09 um grant funded positions in our budgets

2:03:14 and and the process by which we hire

2:03:16 grants and the question of staffing

2:03:20 levels versus you know grant

2:03:23 productivity. Um because I think that's

2:03:26 going to be an important question to

2:03:28 deal with in future budgets for the time

2:03:31 being because it's in the headlines

2:03:33 every day that this or that traditional

2:03:37 expected grant funded um OP program that

2:03:42 starts with the federal governments,

2:03:43 flows through the state and then

2:03:45 eventually reaches the municipality that

2:03:48 Trump is going to blow that up. Yeah,

2:03:50 that's not going to exist anymore. And

2:03:52 it almost um demands that there be a

2:03:56 discussion well if there's going to be a

2:03:58 can we can we put a number on how much

2:04:01 less grant funding is going to be

2:04:04 available to us next year versus the

2:04:06 current year versus the year before. And

2:04:09 do we not

2:04:11 then take the next step which is to say

2:04:14 in terms of the number of staff people

2:04:16 that it requires to pursue grants do we

2:04:20 keep the same number if the number of

2:04:22 available grants is shrinking and that's

2:04:26 a hard thing to have to look at but I

2:04:28 think it's a necessary thing to have to

2:04:30 look at

2:04:31 we yeah I I I do want to be mindful of

2:04:33 the time it is that is that is a

2:04:35 worthwhile conversation to have I'll go

2:04:36 into a little more detail on that talk

2:04:37 about

2:04:38 But yes,

2:04:41 just getting again to uh staff cuts. So

2:04:43 we talked about on the town side it

2:04:44 would be about 20 out of 700 and and not

2:04:47 to minimize the 20, but I think that for

2:04:50 most in the broader community, that

2:04:52 doesn't necessarily sound like a lot. So

2:04:54 I think it's important to be able to

2:04:56 explain how the level of service and the

2:05:00 qualitative nature of it as well would

2:05:02 be reduced by not having those 20

2:05:04 positions and what that would actually

2:05:06 mean in terms of impact in the

2:05:08 community. On the school side, I think

2:05:11 it can sometimes be a little more clear

2:05:13 to see what that impact would be because

2:05:16 much of this deficit is on the school

2:05:18 side proportionally. And so the

2:05:20 reduction in force that we would see on

2:05:22 the school side would be a much larger

2:05:25 number than 20.

2:05:28 And when do they announce the reduction

2:05:31 force?

2:05:31 Uh so typically it's in May that they

2:05:35 but after

2:05:37 Yes.

2:05:40 So 20 divided by 700 is 2.9%.

2:05:44 Yeah, it's you're you rais a good point.

2:05:46 I would say again this is a community of

2:05:49 63,000 people, right? It takes a lot of

2:05:52 people to keep this place open. Um it is

2:05:56 it's it's

2:05:58 a unique community. It is mixed in

2:06:00 character. It requires a lot of

2:06:03 hightouch effort to get a lot of this

2:06:05 stuff. Um and we have you know there's

2:06:09 things there are cuts we made through

2:06:10 the pandemic that we still haven't

2:06:11 restored the departments ask us you know

2:06:14 for example we have this huge drive to

2:06:16 maintain our treaty we don't have a

2:06:18 horri you haven't had this 2020 um do

2:06:21 you have any yes we're desperate to get

2:06:24 that position back I ask every year you

2:06:26 have to say every year um like the

2:06:28 community wants it length um and so to

2:06:32 go in the opposite direction for example

2:06:34 if we eliminate a building all building.

2:06:38 It's going to cause more of an

2:06:40 impediment to growth. What I desperately

2:06:43 want to avoid is kind of a death

2:06:44 problem, right? Where the cuts and

2:06:46 services get more cuts and services

2:06:48 because

2:06:50 to go. So, we're even even at that

2:06:54 level, you know, it's it's not we're

2:06:57 we're running that risk. Um, and that's

2:07:00 it's tough, but it's just in the absence

2:07:03 of something changing. That's those are

2:07:06 the kind of cuts that we have to

2:07:07 realize.

2:07:08 And we need a more fundamental change

2:07:10 because while some in the community

2:07:12 might accept 20 out of 700 for FY27 and

2:07:16 FY28 probably be another 20, then

2:07:19 another 20. And at some point you do

2:07:21 reach a level where you would just have

2:07:23 a collapse.

2:07:24 That's the death.

2:07:26 And I and you have the same problem on

2:07:28 the school side,

2:07:29 right?

2:07:29 Right. If you diminish if you increase

2:07:32 what whatever the factors are that that

2:07:34 have people valuing the education in

2:07:36 Brooklyn, um we saw people pull their

2:07:39 kids and put them in private school

2:07:40 during the pandemic. Um we start

2:07:44 lowering service levels um impacting the

2:07:47 quality of education. That will see a

2:07:49 reduction in people that send their kids

2:07:51 to schools in Brooklyn. It means our it

2:07:53 impacts everything. It impacts property

2:07:55 values. It impacts why people want to

2:07:57 come here, why they would actually vote

2:07:59 for an override. Um, everything. Uh, so

2:08:02 I think we we really have to be careful.

2:08:04 Um, and that's why I I say that it would

2:08:08 be better to have this discussion

2:08:10 settled with the schools quickly so that

2:08:12 we can begin the process of educating

2:08:15 the community because it's going to be a

2:08:17 significant lift. I think most most

2:08:19 operating overrides that have been on

2:08:21 the ballot recently have failed, right?

2:08:24 uh that Arlington, Newton, Wubert, was

2:08:27 it Wuburn? I mean, there's been a number

2:08:29 of uh ballot questions that haven't

2:08:31 succeeded.

2:08:32 It's been mixed. Melrose just passed the

2:08:34 largest override after

2:08:38 and last night, Lexington, a debt

2:08:40 exclusion for a $660 million high school

2:08:43 that is too small.

2:08:49 So, so it's mixed, but you're right.

2:08:51 It's certainly trending in a direction

2:08:52 where it's less automatic than it used

2:08:54 to.

2:08:54 Not automatic. The one I'm watching is

2:08:55 still today actually

2:08:57 is where

2:09:00 never passionate.

2:09:02 But but I also think it's important to

2:09:04 keep in mind that we're not taking the

2:09:05 simplistic approach of this is the gap

2:09:08 so this will be the override pass. As

2:09:10 mentioned at the outset, it would be a

2:09:12 combination of asking the public to

2:09:15 increase their property taxes but at the

2:09:16 same time making some internal cuts. And

2:09:19 I think that needs to be part of the

2:09:20 narrative as well. Both what the

2:09:22 community would be losing if we don't

2:09:23 maintain the current levels of service

2:09:26 and at the same time the efforts that

2:09:28 have been made to really operate a bit

2:09:30 on a shoestring budget anyway and still

2:09:33 make cuts in spite of that. And in

2:09:35 fairness to the schools which are often

2:09:37 much maligned in this context that they

2:09:39 they do the same thing. It's really

2:09:41 tough because on the school side,

2:09:42 they're dealing with unfunded federal

2:09:45 mandates that we don't really have as

2:09:46 much of on the town side, but on the

2:09:48 school side, that's enormous. And there

2:09:50 there is an issue with more and more

2:09:52 students

2:09:54 on IEPs. And some argue that some of

2:09:57 these IEPs are not truly necessary and

2:10:00 that there's doctor shopping that takes

2:10:02 place. I don't know the extent that's

2:10:03 true, but either way, it's it's it's a

2:10:06 growing problem and it's very real.

2:10:09 We do have our unfunded mandates for

2:10:11 town meeting. We have a few

2:10:14 looking at that.

2:10:15 All right. In the interest of time, I

2:10:16 have had some reactions, but I'm gonna

2:10:18 All right, let's talk about benefits.

2:10:20 The overall increase of 9.5 million.

2:10:22 Benefits overall are going up by 10%.

2:10:25 There's a few things I want to highlight

2:10:26 here. Pensions are staying on the the

2:10:28 existing schedule to get to funded by

2:10:30 2030. Ops are getting back onto the

2:10:34 schedule of $250,000 a year, which is

2:10:36 pause on 26. group health we're assuming

2:10:39 12% again so that's the largest increase

2:10:41 there the only other thing on this uh

2:10:44 slide that I have is we have

2:10:45 unemployment um we're adding some money

2:10:47 to that fund um in in the face of

2:10:50 potential layoffs

2:10:53 any other thoughts here in front of them

2:10:56 talked about the stuff quite a bit

2:10:57 already so health insurance totals 46.7

2:11:00 million uh 47.6 6 million. We're

2:11:02 assuming that 12% rate increase. You

2:11:04 know, we have an assumption of new

2:11:06 subscribers. John, I just want to point

2:11:07 out one thing you mentioned, which is

2:11:08 that when we budget fully for all

2:11:10 positions, we don't actually. If we had

2:11:12 some room that we thought we could bring

2:11:13 those numbers down, we would do it in

2:11:15 group health. Melissa shakes out

2:11:17 whatever savings there is potentially

2:11:18 health. We don't fund group health to

2:11:21 the tune of every position having a

2:11:22 family plan at the highest rate, right?

2:11:24 There's some flex there. So, we we are

2:11:26 we are

2:11:28 positions where we think we can. Um, and

2:11:30 again,

2:11:31 Each rate increase of 1% for health

2:11:33 insurance equals $42,000. So on the

2:11:36 pension side, we're going up by $3

2:11:38 million, which keeps in line with our

2:11:40 annual appropriation requirement of

2:11:42 increasing by 7.85% as the appropriation

2:11:46 gets larger. As the 41 million gets

2:11:48 larger, that 7.85% puts more and more

2:11:51 pressure on the budget. You'll see that

2:11:52 on these coming slides. So for OAPs, our

2:11:55 other postemployment benefits, again, we

2:11:57 paused those a couple of times. We're

2:11:58 assuming that in in 27 at $250,000

2:12:02 and we're doing everything we can to uh

2:12:04 to save money on those as well.

2:12:07 That 250k

2:12:09 y

2:12:09 is just for covering the unfunded

2:12:13 liability. We're still making

2:12:14 contributions to cover our

2:12:17 pay as you go. Correct. We're still

2:12:19 doing pay as you go as well as um

2:12:22 funding the unfunded liable. Exactly.

2:12:24 Any questions here?

2:12:26 Sorry, I'm moving quickly because we're

2:12:27 a little out of time. Um, this is our

2:12:29 health appropriation. What we're really

2:12:30 trying to show you here, we had to join

2:12:32 the GIC at one point. We saw a slight

2:12:34 amount of savings and then ever since

2:12:35 then, the cost had been been ballooning.

2:12:38 We're actually well past the point of

2:12:39 that savings. Um, in the out years, you

2:12:41 know, we're projecting continued um

2:12:44 significant increases. Um, without any

2:12:46 change to market, we really can't

2:12:49 project out of this. So, this is really

2:12:51 we'll talk about this more on the next

2:12:53 slide. Uh this is really one of the

2:12:55 things that consuming huge amount of the

2:12:57 revenue is coming.

2:12:59 Go ahead John.

2:13:01 Um uh I I just want to add because you

2:13:05 know you're talking about the ballooning

2:13:06 cost ballooning even more in the out

2:13:09 years. Um

2:13:12 I think this raises a question which I'm

2:13:14 not sure I've ever heard uh discussed uh

2:13:16 directly and that is to what extent does

2:13:19 the town's partic participation in

2:13:22 helping employees to cover the cost of

2:13:24 their health care count towards the cost

2:13:29 of living increase that is accorded to

2:13:33 um you know the rank and file under as a

2:13:36 result of negot negotiation continent

2:13:40 negoti ated contracts, excuse me. Um

2:13:42 because it seems to me that we always

2:13:45 pull it apart and sort of say, well,

2:13:48 there's this cost of living adjustment

2:13:49 and they say it should be 3% because of

2:13:51 the Bureau of Labor Statistics, blah

2:13:53 blah blah blah blah, and the most we can

2:13:54 offer them is 2 and a half%. But I'm not

2:13:57 sure I've ever heard us say

2:13:59 as a negotiating position,

2:14:02 we are take going to take the position

2:14:04 that um you know we're helping you to

2:14:07 fund your cost of living through our

2:14:11 contribution to your health care costs.

2:14:14 So when we calculate what is the cost of

2:14:16 living increase in this contract part of

2:14:19 that is what we have especially when

2:14:24 it's if it is in fact going to be

2:14:25 increasing by that amount um year to

2:14:27 year and I will say as you know someone

2:14:31 who spent decades um as a private sector

2:14:34 employee that's not unheard of.

2:14:37 I like the framing of that John. Sure. I

2:14:39 think that we we do try we do try and

2:14:42 make those statements um when we're

2:14:45 talking about humps and you know other

2:14:47 communities and looking at their premium

2:14:49 split versus you know ours um you know a

2:14:52 lot of them are around 7525 if not

2:14:54 lower. Yeah.

2:14:55 Um you know so I think we do try and

2:14:57 highlight it but I I kind of like that

2:14:59 in in the framing of cola plus.

2:15:02 Yeah.

2:15:03 Yeah. Of course, cola in in

2:15:05 Massachusetts isn't really cola. It's

2:15:07 really a percentage of what is

2:15:11 15,000

2:15:13 when you're talking about pensions

2:15:15 12,000, but okay.

2:15:17 Well, no, I'm talking about how, you

2:15:19 know, how how do people approach the

2:15:21 negotiating table, you know, uh when

2:15:23 we've got contracts up? And in general,

2:15:25 you'll, you know, you'll hear from one

2:15:27 side of the table, uh, well, you know,

2:15:29 the latest number just came out as the

2:15:30 cost of living increased and it's about

2:15:33 3%. Therefore, we should get a minimum

2:15:35 3%. And and did we ever say, yeah. And

2:15:40 two of that 3% is going to be a bump up

2:15:43 in your paycheck and the other 1% is

2:15:46 going to be our increased contribution

2:15:49 to your health care. because you know

2:15:51 there's nothing more basic to cost of

2:15:53 living than cost of covering your

2:15:56 healthcare. So

2:15:57 David another way of looking at what

2:15:59 John's raising and I'm wondering if we

2:16:00 have the number on this. So currently

2:16:01 our split is 8020 I believe 83

2:16:04 8317. Okay. So if 8317 were to become

2:16:08 the more standard 7525

2:16:10 what would that look like in terms of

2:16:13 reduction in our non departmental costs

2:16:17 moving forward? Do we have some idea

2:16:18 what that looks like? Yeah, I haven't

2:16:19 run it in a in a little bit. Um,

2:16:22 reinfor

2:16:23 Yeah, I can't. We can get that back.

2:16:25 Yeah, we'll get back to that. We, you

2:16:27 know, it's been a while since I've run

2:16:29 it. So, but I just would want to do it

2:16:31 with the 12% projection,

2:16:33 noting that it needs a green,

2:16:35 most of which are schooling avoidance,

2:16:37 right? So,

2:16:38 right. And a lot of that's locked into

2:16:39 the current contracts, but moving

2:16:41 forward, this is a long-term problem as

2:16:43 well as a short-term issue. I'm

2:16:45 wondering whether that's something worth

2:16:47 exploring especially if we are the only

2:16:48 community that's at 8317 and everybody

2:16:51 else is at around 75 because we we are

2:16:55 still offering additional benefits

2:16:57 beyond healthcare just the material city

2:16:59 program which I'm not sure how well we

2:17:01 really advertise but I mean you know I I

2:17:05 we we have made this point collective

2:17:07 bargaining and I think you know in other

2:17:10 areas in particular when longevity of

2:17:13 the role was a world you know, but the

2:17:15 the workforce is changing when and the

2:17:17 unions realize this. And the argument

2:17:19 they made back to us was is what people

2:17:20 care about is the money at the top. Um

2:17:22 they don't realize, you know, when they

2:17:24 get a paycheck, they're not necessarily

2:17:25 looking at the deductions and being

2:17:27 like, "Oh, I could get more of this

2:17:28 deduction at the lower." Um they're

2:17:30 saying this is the amount of money I

2:17:31 have and I take over. Federal government

2:17:33 takes taxes, the state takes taxes, I

2:17:35 pay for my healthare, pay attention and

2:17:37 that's what I and that what I what I get

2:17:38 is what I uh and you know these

2:17:42 questions of the the the abstract are

2:17:46 argument uh it's not a it is more

2:17:50 abstract in their eyes they say our our

2:17:53 members are not necessarily going to

2:17:56 look at this and say well thanks so much

2:17:57 you cover my healthcare costs they're

2:17:59 going to say the number is the number I

2:18:01 want the number to go

2:18:02 Um, and this also ties into the

2:18:05 privatization

2:18:06 uh discussion. And again, I'm not saying

2:18:08 it's a path to go down, but obviously

2:18:10 the more people you have on 1099s,

2:18:13 the the less of an impact you have on

2:18:15 these pension pressures.

2:18:19 Question is that 8317 number blended

2:18:24 so it's standard across all of our

2:18:26 I think there are a couple of um

2:18:28 indemnity plans that are are less, but

2:18:32 Most of our funds are accepting.

2:18:38 All right, let's keep going.

2:18:41 So other post employer benefits, we are

2:18:43 increasing the funding from the

2:18:44 operating revenue by $250,000 a year.

2:18:47 That was paused last year. We're

2:18:48 assessing the enterprise funds for their

2:18:50 OPEC costs and we're using whatever

2:18:52 runoff we can within the systems to help

2:18:55 um to help reduce the overall liability.

2:18:57 So uh you see this 250,000 OEP this

2:19:00 year. This is earlier likely you asked

2:19:02 or somebody asked I forget how much play

2:19:04 we have in the in the you know non-EP

2:19:06 departmental fixed cost. This is one of

2:19:07 those places where the select has made

2:19:09 the decision in the past to pause um to

2:19:12 save some money. So again the pension

2:19:14 full funding date is FY30. We're uh

2:19:16 we're assuming a slightly lower rate of

2:19:18 return um of 6.8%. Um and as I talked

2:19:21 about earlier the annual required

2:19:23 contribution being 7.85%

2:19:26 is growing each year as you get closer

2:19:28 to FY30. So the pension is essentially

2:19:30 putting more and more pressure pension

2:19:32 obligation is putting more and more

2:19:33 pressure on the budget as you get closer

2:19:35 to the funding date.

2:19:38 This is a this is an interesting chart

2:19:40 that Melissa added this year to

2:19:42 illustrate something we just noticed for

2:19:44 the first time. So on the left side here

2:19:46 you'll see percentages and this is

2:19:47 because what we're looking at is the

2:19:49 percentage of the Prop 2 and a half

2:19:51 increase that's being consumed by

2:19:54 pensions and groupell. So in other

2:19:56 words, this is the first year that more

2:19:58 than 100% of the Prop 2 and a half

2:20:01 increase has been taken up entirely by

2:20:04 pensions and repel. So in other words,

2:20:06 you know that in in the history of two

2:20:08 Prop 2 and a half, the those numbers

2:20:10 have always been below what we're

2:20:12 getting from two and a half. Now for the

2:20:14 first year, you're seeing Jones are

2:20:16 eclipsing what we get just from 11. So

2:20:19 uh and that's going up each year in the

2:20:21 out years as you can see. So this is

2:20:23 just something we wanted to illustrate

2:20:24 that we're, you know, pensions and uh

2:20:26 and health benefits are the old are

2:20:29 really consuming the revenue that we

2:20:31 have coming in to go to the town.

2:20:33 That's where the money's gone. This is

2:20:35 where

2:20:37 is there any reason why you would not in

2:20:39 future versions of this chart include

2:20:41 opex?

2:20:43 It's a great question and I think I

2:20:45 think you should I think it's

2:20:48 because we've got to pay opex as much as

2:20:50 we've got to pay attention to. Right. I

2:20:52 think actually that's a good point,

2:20:54 Michael, because we're showing we're

2:20:55 showing the funding for pensions

2:20:57 dropping off in 2030. What would happen

2:20:59 based on conversations like before is

2:21:01 that this would stay really level and it

2:21:02 would go towards a pension state. But

2:21:04 presumably because we have more control

2:21:06 over that, we wouldn't need it to

2:21:08 eclipse 100% every year. We could, you

2:21:10 know, you could tag it at

2:21:13 if we changed our public.

2:21:16 You could I'm just telling what you have

2:21:18 up. Go ahead.

2:21:19 Question. Do we know um the projected

2:21:22 savings when we privatize

2:21:25 trash collection with respect I know for

2:21:28 OPEZ and and and pensions.

2:21:32 So we won't see that until we reset our

2:21:34 schedule. Um and you know I think that

2:21:37 there are a variety of assumptions that

2:21:38 change when we reset our schedule. So I

2:21:40 don't know that we'll see a significant

2:21:42 shift in

2:21:43 based on that change. it'll be reflected

2:21:46 in the in the experience rating for so

2:21:49 that the next the next measurement date

2:21:52 for for example for pensions is December

2:21:54 31st of this month and then coming into

2:21:57 the spring um you know that that drop

2:22:00 off will be represented there

2:22:02 but but so we but we should see that it

2:22:05 won't increase this right

2:22:08 pensions and

2:22:10 in so far as that

2:22:11 because you don't you're not carrying

2:22:12 those

2:22:13 in so far as that's not offset by

2:22:17 you know by uh uh expected expected life

2:22:22 lifespan of retirees at that moment in

2:22:24 time um to the extent that that's not

2:22:28 offset by perhaps an additional decrease

2:22:31 in in the expected rate of return from

2:22:36 right I mean so that'll factor into the

2:22:38 experience I guess is that that's

2:22:40 I think I think Okay.

2:22:45 All right. So, we don't have the CIP for

2:22:47 you this week. We'll hopefully have it

2:22:48 next week. But all of the years of the

2:22:50 forecast I'm showing you are following

2:22:52 the CIP policies, including returning to

2:22:54 the 6.6% Australia year net revenue

2:22:56 policy. Um, which increases uh total

2:23:00 spending on special appropriations by 4

2:23:02 million. Uh, so you can see the change

2:23:04 that we made last year. And just really

2:23:06 quickly summarizing FY27, we have roof

2:23:09 repairs, Pierce Fire renovations. Um,

2:23:11 and know we're talking about the Austin

2:23:14 set still in there. Um, and then out

2:23:16 years we have Lars Anderson, Davis Foot,

2:23:18 Davis Path, foot bridge, and Washington

2:23:20 Streets coming off of the death schedule

2:23:23 projected. So we'll have more on the CIP

2:23:25 next week, but that's just to give you

2:23:27 quick. Do we have a do we have a funding

2:23:30 commitments for a national district at

2:23:31 this point? Was that money still?

2:23:35 Um, so we we've committed to the state

2:23:37 that we're doing the work in order to

2:23:39 get there.

2:23:39 And they Yeah, but they've been they

2:23:42 have money to to get us what we need.

2:23:44 Yes, they still haven't as far as

2:23:47 we have not heard anything indicating

2:23:48 the best.

2:23:50 Are you talking about a possible federal

2:23:52 clause?

2:23:54 But but beyond that, didn't they have to

2:23:56 still approve it? There were many

2:23:57 communities that were applying for that

2:23:59 money.

2:23:59 We we're on the tip. So we're we're on

2:24:02 the list of approved projects. The

2:24:03 consent is always at some, you know, at

2:24:05 some point if we missed the deadline or

2:24:07 if we came out of compliance with what

2:24:08 we said we were going to do, they'd take

2:24:10 us out.

2:24:12 Okay, let's keep going.

2:24:14 All right. So, this is not appropriated.

2:24:15 These are our state uh state and county

2:24:17 charges, which are the other side of the

2:24:19 state aid sheet that we get. Uh we're

2:24:21 assuming modest increases in these.

2:24:23 There's not a whole lot for us to go

2:24:24 over here. Uh but you know just to give

2:24:27 you an idea we will have some costs that

2:24:29 we'll see when we get the governor's

2:24:31 budget there'll probably be some changes

2:24:32 here. So anything else on this? I don't

2:24:34 think. Uh all right this my last slide.

2:24:37 This is your structural deficit. So we

2:24:39 talk about a deficit that's current year

2:24:41 structural deficit refers to your next

2:24:43 and future year budgets. You're

2:24:44 projected to have a deficit because

2:24:46 expenditures are rising at a percentage

2:24:48 rate that is higher than the rate of

2:24:51 revenue growth. So in FY27 just say we

2:24:53 have eight 8% on the expenditure side

2:24:56 and 4% on the revenue side. That's what

2:24:58 we talked about earlier. That's the

2:24:59 chart on the left. On the right we are

2:25:01 showing these numbers cumulative. So the

2:25:03 cumulative growth of that expenditure.

2:25:05 So it's 8% in 27. It's 21% by 2029 and

2:25:09 uh revenue will be growing by 11.6% by

2:25:12 202. This is your structural deficit.

2:25:15 Mhm.

2:25:16 So we've um

2:25:18 we keep lamenting the cost of the the

2:25:21 county fee.

2:25:22 Yes.

2:25:24 Is there what does it take to get out of

2:25:27 that state?

2:25:28 The state has the legislature

2:25:30 has to vote to let us leave and move us

2:25:34 move to another.

2:25:36 Has that ever been done?

2:25:37 All the other

2:25:38 Yes. Other other communities have

2:25:39 changed hands.

2:25:40 Yes.

2:25:41 And and what does so what does it what

2:25:42 does it take? Well, it would take Quincy

2:25:44 wanting to lose our money. Uh,

2:25:48 I mean, it's it's it is a political

2:25:50 question. Um,

2:25:52 is it is it a purely a question of the

2:25:54 legislature or is it a valid question?

2:25:55 It's a legislation. Um, the legislature

2:25:58 gets to decide and we can petition in

2:26:02 petition in um I know that discussions

2:26:06 have progressed beyond a theoretical

2:26:07 level. Well, the fact of the matter is

2:26:09 the speaker of the house is currently in

2:26:10 Quinsley. Uh, and I don't think he's

2:26:13 going to let us go. Um, I would love to

2:26:16 be wrong. Um, but I think North County

2:26:19 sees a immense amount of value. Um, they

2:26:23 try and demonstrate they provide

2:26:24 services to us and I anywhere and

2:26:26 commissioners are great people work

2:26:30 dedicated to the work that they do

2:26:32 employees do. I just think other

2:26:34 communities other other counties don't

2:26:36 have this level of governance. um is

2:26:39 what really

2:26:40 sorry

2:26:41 I was just going to say that I I I think

2:26:43 it would be worthwhile for us to have a

2:26:45 discussion about will we want to put

2:26:47 home petition from tell me

2:26:49 I think the other big the other big

2:26:50 question that you'd have to answer there

2:26:51 is where would we go do we go to suffic

2:26:53 we go to middle sex

2:26:54 right that's important

2:26:56 and to that point I would want to know

2:26:57 what's the charge for middle sex what's

2:26:58 the charge for

2:27:01 middle sex doesn't have a

2:27:03 no except both of us can't both of those

2:27:06 can't get involved

2:27:08 state directors and services there

2:27:11 for the charges to the state. Yes, we

2:27:13 still we would still pay some.

2:27:15 Okay. So the question is what will we

2:27:16 pay because even with Norfick it's about

2:27:19 1.1 million if our charges to the state

2:27:21 are going to be roughly the same at most

2:27:23 point

2:27:24 they would be

2:27:27 I guess I it would be good to put this

2:27:29 on a future agenda to get information so

2:27:31 we can have discussion.

2:27:33 Um

2:27:36 I heard um the word audit a couple

2:27:39 minutes ago. Um, what what is our most

2:27:41 recently published audit and and when do

2:27:44 we expect our next published audit to

2:27:47 the question?

2:27:49 I thought it was a good question.

2:27:50 The year 2023 is our most recently

2:27:53 published audit.

2:27:54 Yeah.

2:27:55 Uh, we have been working um diligently

2:27:59 to get uh our fiscal year 2024 complete.

2:28:03 Um that's been complicated uh through

2:28:06 different factors but primarily

2:28:09 uh the our longstanding audit firm in

2:28:12 the last two years has been acquired

2:28:16 once and then twice by now a large

2:28:20 national one of the larger national

2:28:23 firms. Um and we know that the delays

2:28:27 that we are experiencing we are not

2:28:29 alone.

2:28:30 um they have acknowledged that uh they

2:28:35 are having some difficulty in meeting

2:28:37 their obligations under completing that.

2:28:40 Um but we are very close.

2:28:42 What kind of consequences?

2:28:44 Yeah.

2:28:44 Might this have for us?

2:28:47 Don't we have to file with Emma by

2:28:50 March?

2:28:51 Yeah.

2:28:53 So, and we haven't done that in the last

2:28:55 couple years.

2:28:56 No, no, no. So, so, so with Emma,

2:28:59 there's a um intermediary filing that

2:29:02 we've met.

2:29:03 Um, the the primary concern uh is is uh

2:29:10 with our rating and our rating agency

2:29:13 having our our finalized fiscal year

2:29:15 240.

2:29:19 So, we're we've sent now draft

2:29:21 financials Moody's which they've asked.

2:29:24 Um Moody still wants our final audit and

2:29:26 they want it in short order. We are not

2:29:28 the only community dealing with this

2:29:30 delay. There are at least 10 or 20. Uh

2:29:35 and so Moody's understanding of this

2:29:38 they have still said get as much as you

2:29:40 can when you get it otherwise but you

2:29:42 basically on probation say

2:29:45 we can't make it. We can't we can't make

2:29:47 a determination until such time. Um so

2:29:51 we must also then be behind in terms of

2:29:54 the most recent Moody's uh evaluation of

2:29:57 our

2:29:58 No because Moody's the the only formal

2:30:00 evaluation happens when we issue D.

2:30:05 But it does raise the question of should

2:30:07 we be

2:30:09 rethinking elimination shutting.

2:30:12 We're going to have absolute we're going

2:30:14 to have an indepth post tomorrow

2:30:15 morning. It's just boy,

2:30:18 I've got on some deep phone calls.

2:30:24 Okay, that is the structural gap and I

2:30:26 will turn it over to

2:30:28 Oh, you had a question, Mike. Go ahead.

2:30:30 Go ahead.

2:30:31 What's happening in 28 that our revenue

2:30:35 is growing negative?

2:30:38 It's flat, you know, it's flat. It's

2:30:42 should be the same as the chart rather

2:30:43 than the slideshow. So the pierce debt

2:30:46 exclusion is causing the bump in 27. Um

2:30:50 and then the um there's a lower

2:30:53 estimated free cache as well.

2:30:55 That might be our estimated change.

2:30:58 So if we if I were to go back, it's many

2:31:00 slides. Just give me a second.

2:31:02 We to go all the way back to the

2:31:04 beginning here.

2:31:04 Melon's explanation was actually

2:31:07 right. Yeah. You'll see that the free

2:31:09 cash number is well it's actually

2:31:13 this should be should be grabbing from

2:31:14 here.

2:31:15 Yeah, it is grabbing from there.

2:31:16 Yeah. So it must just be the the data

2:31:19 change. So um any other questions on

2:31:22 structural gathering had a different

2:31:24 question altogether. Uh

2:31:28 winding back to conversations few

2:31:30 minutes ago. Uh the topic came up of our

2:31:33 you know settlement funds you know for

2:31:34 legal costs etc etc. Um, I'm not sure

2:31:38 I've ever seen and I would definitely

2:31:40 like to see some kind of a report um on

2:31:44 the trend in legal settlements uh paid

2:31:48 for out of our budgets um and so that we

2:31:52 can say if we see something you know um

2:31:55 that's indicative uh gosh I mean uh

2:31:59 looks like we took a real hit you know

2:32:01 last year um and can we expect to see

2:32:05 similar hits, you know, in the years

2:32:07 ahead or was that just extraordinary?

2:32:10 Um, you know, is there any kind of data

2:32:13 we can get on the eb and flow of costs

2:32:17 of legal settlements u agreed to by the

2:32:20 town year by year by year by year by

2:32:22 year.

2:32:23 In the budget book, we have a history of

2:32:25 the um liability fund and it shows the

2:32:27 it's just the fund as a whole. But do we

2:32:29 ever say, you know, that was for the

2:32:31 settlement of these?

2:32:32 Yeah, we can.

2:32:34 Yeah. Yeah. I have seen that in going

2:32:36 way back, you know, in some past years

2:32:38 annual reports and, you know, it's it's

2:32:41 and it's good information. I mean, it

2:32:44 tells you things that you appreciate

2:32:46 knowing about. Yeah. Hey, hey, there

2:32:49 were 47 last year. This is typical of

2:32:52 them and this is not typical of them and

2:32:54 so on. Yeah.

2:32:59 Okay. I think I'm turning it over to

2:33:00 Jazz. All right. want to be mindful of

2:33:04 the time. Um I want to know to continue

2:33:06 this discussion next week and we will be

2:33:08 continuing this discussion over coming

2:33:11 months. Uh this is where we current

2:33:14 these are the highlights of where we are

2:33:15 in terms of our plan to close the

2:33:17 deficit in the coming year override or

2:33:19 no over. We're going to level we

2:33:22 recommend level funding.

2:33:24 That generates roughly 100,000 lost

2:33:26 savings on the town side and a little

2:33:28 bit more on the school side.

2:33:30 As we did this past year, we would

2:33:32 capitalize revenue funded CIP at 6% and

2:33:35 6.6%. That is the single largest grow of

2:33:40 your revenue that in the entire

2:33:42 proposal. Um on the town side, it's

2:33:45 around $800,000. School side two. Um

2:33:50 with that said, you will see in the CIP

2:33:52 how that comes. Um there are a lot of

2:33:55 things that are competing for our

2:33:57 limited dollars in terms of our capital

2:33:59 expenditures and that's going to make

2:34:02 it's going to require us to make

2:34:03 difficult choices there. With that said

2:34:07 balance of things based on where we are

2:34:09 that's probably the lever that we want

2:34:11 to pull in terms of minimizing overall

2:34:15 impact. Um, we will have to make tougher

2:34:17 choices on the CIP side of things, but

2:34:19 it is not a swapic level choice that

2:34:22 we'll be making. It's a matter of again

2:34:24 letting it our needs. We're revisiting

2:34:27 some of the override commitments from 23

2:34:29 from the 23.

2:34:32 Um, this we will be looking at in the

2:34:34 event of a no override scenario if there

2:34:36 was no accompanying.

2:34:38 um short-term rental monitoring, climate

2:34:41 capacity, roaming control, all things I

2:34:43 believe actually short-term uh rental

2:34:45 monitoring was in 2018.

2:34:48 Can't remember. I can't

2:34:49 I'm sorry. 2018 or 2014 short-term

2:34:51 rental monitoring. We added uh capacity

2:34:54 in both the building and buyer

2:34:55 departments to deal with um the increase

2:34:58 in short-term rentals, Airbnb and so

2:35:00 forth. If we paired that back um if we

2:35:03 paired back um planning capacity, you

2:35:06 know, um if we you know, one of one of

2:35:08 the areas if we if we are going to say

2:35:11 that committing to you know searching

2:35:14 out increased revenues in multiple areas

2:35:16 then perhaps what we do is we cut

2:35:19 economic development that is not

2:35:20 something that I would recommend um it's

2:35:23 not something that I would want to do um

2:35:25 I think we think we should be going in

2:35:27 the opposite my recommendation to go in

2:35:29 the opposite direction ourselves to a

2:35:32 robust economic development um but in

2:35:35 the event that we don't have the

2:35:36 resources that is an area where we might

2:35:38 need to see cuts. Um, rodent control is

2:35:41 the other aspect of this. Um, you know,

2:35:44 we added positions in both health and

2:35:46 um, uh, DPW to address the problem. Um,

2:35:51 we've had some success there. Obviously,

2:35:52 it's an ongoing and evolving struggle.

2:35:55 Um, but if we those are the most recent

2:35:57 positions we added, so they would be the

2:35:59 most recent positions we take out.

2:36:00 chess. Um, and I'm I'm not suggesting we

2:36:02 do this, but I I know there's been some

2:36:04 discussion about this, but

2:36:05 sustainability and natural resources.

2:36:07 Yes.

2:36:07 Right. Is the newest thing.

2:36:09 That is the

2:36:10 that is the newest thing. And I I'm

2:36:12 surprised not to see that as on the list

2:36:14 as a potential consideration.

2:36:15 So, we've been trying to preserve

2:36:17 sustainability where right now

2:36:19 sustainability is granted. Um, so that

2:36:22 is a leap, but we won't see much benefit

2:36:24 there because right now it's not on the

2:36:27 function. What's so what's how much

2:36:28 grant funding is required for

2:36:30 sustainability?

2:36:30 So right now sustainability has been

2:36:32 running on a $750,000 grant in the

2:36:35 course of three years. Um so that then

2:36:37 next year grant can expire. So there

2:36:40 would you would be able to carry

2:36:41 sustainability for one more year in FY27

2:36:44 and it will be FY28 um sunset date in

2:36:48 the event that happens. So by FY27 we

2:36:51 have the money to sustain sustainability

2:36:53 um and then we would be looking at

2:36:55 options to you know either either retain

2:36:58 that capacity in some way reduce that

2:37:00 capacity or what have you uh but that's

2:37:02 that's where we are on this would be in

2:37:04 year three of our sustainable

2:37:07 quick note there um because u you know

2:37:11 as a person who really felt that we

2:37:15 should maximize our commitment to

2:37:17 sustainability And in part because there

2:37:20 was going to be such a blow of federal

2:37:23 dollars. It was initiated under the

2:37:26 Biden administration. Clearly that is

2:37:28 threatened. But I feel feel that I have

2:37:31 seen evidence already that private

2:37:36 sources are stepping up u and taking the

2:37:39 place of what was the anticipated

2:37:41 continued flow, you know, in that area.

2:37:44 So I I I wouldn't, you know, give up um

2:37:48 uh sustainability as being something

2:37:50 that can be supported through revenues

2:37:54 that are from corporate grants, uh

2:37:57 nonprofit grants, etc., etc., etc.

2:38:00 No, I I agree with you and I think

2:38:02 actually I this is a testament to the

2:38:04 sustainability team and to to Alexandra,

2:38:07 to Aaron, but also, you know, to Cara

2:38:09 and the whole team of planning and and

2:38:10 everyone else who's been involved in

2:38:12 this process. I think the sustainability

2:38:14 division has been successful pretty. I

2:38:17 think we have really seen already the

2:38:19 positive impact of winning grants public

2:38:22 and private focusing our energies on how

2:38:24 to be strategic about this. And now

2:38:26 we're starting to see though that

2:38:28 translating into action. We're going to

2:38:29 see over the next couple years for

2:38:31 example conversations about solar power

2:38:33 which is going to have not just

2:38:36 sustainability impact, environmental

2:38:37 impact but fiscal impact on our

2:38:39 community. Um, and that's going to have

2:38:41 positive impacts down the line. Um, so I

2:38:45 think I I think sustainability is an

2:38:48 incredibly worthwhile investment,

2:38:49 particularly well integrated into an

2:38:52 operation department like it is now. I

2:38:54 think, you know, the the numbers are

2:38:56 going to tell the story. Um, so I really

2:38:58 do want to, you know, put a plan sustain

2:39:02 sustainability

2:39:02 and we've got a really strong person.

2:39:04 We do. We're very lucky to have

2:39:06 Alexander. I have a whole team.

2:39:08 Yeah. So,

2:39:09 yeah. But I think I just want to make

2:39:10 sure when you frame this that it's that

2:39:13 you know, rodent control, these other

2:39:15 things that are really important to the

2:39:16 community in which they which they

2:39:18 approved for an operating group.

2:39:19 Yes.

2:39:20 Right. You're cutting those saying those

2:39:22 are the newest things. They're not the

2:39:23 newest things.

2:39:24 That's right.

2:39:24 And and I and I and the sustainability

2:39:27 and natural resources in fairness, I can

2:39:28 put everything on the table. Yeah. Was

2:39:30 not approved by

2:39:31 That's right.

2:39:31 Right. So, we just have to be we it's

2:39:33 really important that we just be honest.

2:39:35 Yeah. and straightforward and clear when

2:39:38 we're talking about this stuff because

2:39:40 um because we're gonna be called on when

2:39:42 we're not after.

2:39:43 Yeah. And I think that's fair. I think

2:39:45 the answer there too is that it's

2:39:47 they're the newest things on the

2:39:48 operating sustainability has to race to

2:39:51 not have to not rest in the right.

2:39:57 So I I guess that raises raises the

2:40:00 question. Uh if if we were to propose a

2:40:04 three-year overall

2:40:07 and the grant funding is running out for

2:40:09 sustainability, would we plan in that

2:40:14 override to include the funding for

2:40:15 sustainability after the sh?

2:40:18 Yes.

2:40:22 So here and then we'll talk about

2:40:23 reductions to services um position

2:40:25 reductions even in an override scenario

2:40:28 we're talking about um positions either

2:40:31 that are currently vacant um or um that

2:40:34 could potentially be moved onto

2:40:36 nonoperating sources of revenue. Um

2:40:38 making those moves um for example

2:40:41 putting a recreation position onto the

2:40:43 revolving fund putting a health position

2:40:45 onto the opioid stabilization fund. um

2:40:49 to get some relief in the operating

2:40:51 budget um where where and other

2:40:54 positions and conditions um went vacant

2:40:57 uh to eliminating those positions. But

2:40:59 we're already at 18 plus we're already

2:41:01 18 in the current version of this and

2:41:03 I'm up to 20 in in an updated version

2:41:06 that I'm still working on um in a

2:41:08 potentially low override scenario. Um as

2:41:11 Melissa said, we have this new position

2:41:12 review committee. We're doing that

2:41:13 vacancy analysis. We're not if if in the

2:41:16 event that there is a position that is

2:41:18 identified for congressional reduction.

2:41:20 Um so a lot is then kind of riding

2:41:23 operationally at all the the decision

2:41:26 wherever possible. We want to avoid

2:41:28 layoffs, right? We don't want to lay

2:41:30 people off who positions move them to

2:41:32 other sources if we can in an

2:41:35 appropriate way sustainable. I don't

2:41:36 want to just it's not I don't want to

2:41:39 treat this as a shell table. So for

2:41:40 example, opioid stabilization is a

2:41:42 relatively longterm source of funds on

2:41:44 health record. It impacts operations in

2:41:48 some ways, but it is sustainable. Um so

2:41:50 it's not like we are on time money and

2:41:52 invest um

2:41:55 go ahead. Um the in the position

2:41:58 reductions how many of those

2:42:01 three

2:42:02 in each case?

2:42:04 Yeah.

2:42:05 In the 18 plus

2:42:07 and in the four case

2:42:12 do you want to take this opportunity to

2:42:14 comment on the use of survey work to

2:42:18 Yeah. try to uh align whatever choices

2:42:22 we make with uh the community at large

2:42:26 and their views on these things. So we

2:42:29 take all data from what it's worth. Um

2:42:32 so I will say that over the last couple

2:42:34 years we have done a number analyses.

2:42:37 We've gone out to people in different

2:42:39 contexts and ask them about different

2:42:41 questions in different formats. The

2:42:43 national community survey I think is

2:42:45 kind of the gold standard there. That's

2:42:46 from last year. So we have relatively

2:42:49 recent statistically significant data on

2:42:52 that front. We know there's been

2:42:54 community concern about the poll that

2:42:55 was taken more recently in flash bowl.

2:42:59 Absolutely. As Paul pointed out at the

2:43:00 last meeting, there are lessons that we

2:43:01 are learning there and that we need to

2:43:03 be mindful of respect for reflection of

2:43:05 the community for there. I am

2:43:07 anticipating that we will be getting

2:43:08 weighted results from that data later

2:43:10 this week. uh which I think will be

2:43:14 again you know we take it for what it's

2:43:15 worth but I think it be more

2:43:17 enlightening in terms of um you know how

2:43:20 how that how the reflects the makeup of

2:43:23 the community uh and then from there you

2:43:26 know we can make those adjustments

2:43:28 accordingly I will say there is a trend

2:43:32 community wishes people care about

2:43:34 safety uh people care about senior

2:43:36 services people care about what works uh

2:43:38 and you know broadly those are the big

2:43:41 categories that we often hear people

2:43:44 emphasize that they do want those

2:43:46 services preserved even in an override

2:43:49 scenario. So that's where we are

2:43:50 focusing on. Um I will say to point

2:43:54 though that David made a little while

2:43:56 back, this is FY27 to talk about FY28.

2:43:59 You know, fire in a no override scenario

2:44:02 when fire contract comes on the line.

2:44:04 Yeah, we may be talking about layoffs

2:44:06 that even impact public session. Um and

2:44:08 so there wherever possible we are

2:44:11 prioritizing. community has asked us to

2:44:13 prioritize but there may be specifically

2:44:16 that's I just want to make my own

2:44:18 comment switches because I I do know

2:44:20 that there was a you know there's a bit

2:44:22 of a you know why are we doing this why

2:44:24 haven't found community members been

2:44:26 informed etc

2:44:28 I think that a lot of people who saw the

2:44:30 end result uh welcomed that the

2:44:34 initiative they might fibble with really

2:44:37 I don't that doesn't match with what I

2:44:39 think people value you know that kind of

2:44:42 But to me the answer isn't to simply for

2:44:46 doing any surveying.

2:44:48 you know, okay, so so how do we do the

2:44:50 next survey? You know, how do we make

2:44:52 sure that any flaws that people

2:44:54 perceived in in this measure and then

2:44:57 does the next survey confirm pretty much

2:44:59 what we got out of the first survey? And

2:45:01 the other thing that I know from

2:45:03 personal experience um in in our

2:45:06 household that people who don't normally

2:45:08 engage with town government found

2:45:10 extremely interesting was all of the

2:45:13 individual comments. Yeah. I mean, when

2:45:15 was the last time that we saw from the

2:45:18 community over 300 individual comments

2:45:21 on things that people like, don't like,

2:45:23 wish was different, you know, in the

2:45:25 community and the more we do of that,

2:45:27 the better as far as I'm concerned.

2:45:28 Yeah. I think this is an inner process.

2:45:31 Results of the comprehensive plan.

2:45:34 Chess. So, I just want to make sure just

2:45:36 on expectations about waiting.

2:45:38 Yeah. There were no questions that would

2:45:41 allow some sort of representative simp,

2:45:44 right? I mean, the only thing that was

2:45:45 asked was your name and your address

2:45:47 in the in the poll. So, how would they

2:45:49 be able to wait

2:45:51 when you signed up? They took

2:45:53 demographic data when you signed up.

2:45:54 No, they didn't.

2:45:55 They didn't.

2:45:56 Nope, they didn't. Did you take it? I

2:45:57 took it. They didn't. They didn't ask

2:45:58 any any demographic information

2:46:01 a little bit.

2:46:01 Oh, maybe you're a homeowner or a

2:46:03 renter.

2:46:03 There's that. There's also your address,

2:46:05 so they can sort of get where you are

2:46:06 geographically.

2:46:08 I think there might have been something

2:46:09 on age that part I don't I think

2:46:13 that's just before you get too far and

2:46:15 again understand as we said I want to

2:46:18 take this forward so I'm waiting for the

2:46:21 waiting is only as good as the metrics

2:46:23 we have

2:46:24 but I'm with John we shouldn't be

2:46:25 tossing discarding it

2:46:27 absolutely it's valuable information and

2:46:29 I want to commend you on the

2:46:31 relationship that is built has been

2:46:33 built I hope it will continue with the

2:46:35 Kennedy school and the students Kennedy

2:46:36 school extremely useful resource

2:46:40 for that and for Tiffany as well that

2:46:44 was a great opportunity for us and I

2:46:47 really enjoy the students are great

2:46:48 they're very

2:46:51 all right let's keep going here so we

2:46:52 can you can have lunch uh obviously this

2:46:55 is the big you know we have previewed

2:46:57 this slide several times um and it's

2:47:00 been forever this is the first time it's

2:47:02 come to you um this is this tracks with

2:47:06 the 2020 23 override process and uh in

2:47:11 that we made an initial potential

2:47:14 controvers override presentation. Um

2:47:19 if there were an override place on the

2:47:21 panel, what would it go to? Um

2:47:25 if it's all right with you, what I'd

2:47:26 like to do is start at the top and go

2:47:28 down. I will say that you can see this

2:47:30 top number here doesn't line up with

2:47:32 what was earlier in your um in your

2:47:34 packet. That number's gone up a little

2:47:36 bit.

2:47:36 um you'll see it it doesn't impact this

2:47:39 number for reasons we'll talk about on

2:47:41 the next step. Um so continuity of

2:47:44 service is the single largest aspect of

2:47:46 this maintaining services.

2:47:49 Um in order to make that up you will see

2:47:51 on the next slide how we do that there

2:47:52 is combination of um reductions

2:47:57 uh revenue increases and then a

2:48:00 potential oil. So, of that amount that

2:48:03 we're looking at of almost 3 million

2:48:04 methods, we would be seeing just under

2:48:07 half of that in a potential operating

2:48:09 room um 1.35 million. The fire contract

2:48:15 um the cost of the new contract meeting

2:48:18 in FY28 is $910,000. This is the tail.

2:48:22 Um, so in order to pay for that tail

2:48:25 going into the FY28, we need an

2:48:27 additional $910,000

2:48:29 operating measurement.

2:48:31 Overtime, we had this conversation. We

2:48:34 talked about minimum staffing. We want

2:48:35 to maintain our current levels of

2:48:37 staffing and not have to deal with

2:48:38 reductions in service like 9, losing a

2:48:41 company.

2:48:42 We estimate that it will cost based on

2:48:43 the prior year's uh request to the

2:48:46 reserve fund about $800,000. Um, so

2:48:51 between those two line items, you're

2:48:52 looking at around $1.7 million for the

2:48:54 fire department. That is the single

2:48:56 largest departmental increase uh in any

2:48:59 potential override.

2:49:02 Sustainability and other DPW is again

2:49:06 what I talked about stability is

2:49:08 325,000.

2:49:10 um an increase in uh operations for uh

2:49:15 for tree protection on the long term is

2:49:18 $250,000.

2:49:20 Uh and that pretty much we're talking

2:49:22 about here and the position. So that

2:49:25 gets you 65. Um those are the three

2:49:27 initiatives that um will be covered

2:49:30 under uh the operating

2:49:33 restoring six police officers, $600,000.

2:49:36 Um adding money to the collective

2:49:38 bargaining. This is something that is

2:49:41 relative a re relatively recent

2:49:42 addition. It was a question that was

2:49:44 raised in the 2023 override. Why isn't

2:49:46 there money going into the collective

2:49:47 bargaining reserve? Why aren't you

2:49:49 budgeting ahead of time for this? And

2:49:50 the answer we gave at that point was

2:49:52 well when you increase the collective

2:49:54 bargaining reserve all the unions look

2:49:55 at that number and say well that's um

2:49:58 and it's difficult to then kind of but

2:50:01 the reality of the situation is we are

2:50:03 dealing with an environment in which

2:50:05 contract increases are effectively fixed

2:50:07 costs. um we will see costs beyond the

2:50:11 cost of living adjustment um just as a

2:50:14 natural consequence of some of these

2:50:15 negotiations. And so having money in the

2:50:18 collective bargaining reserve to

2:50:19 potentially cover for that and building

2:50:21 that into the operating budget now so

2:50:23 that we have that installation of those

2:50:26 rise is going to be important and

2:50:28 recognizing that is fortunate well not

2:50:30 unfortunately I would say in terms of

2:50:33 the benefit to our employees it's

2:50:34 fortunate recognizing that it's a fact

2:50:36 of life is going to be critical for so

2:50:39 putting some money in the collective

2:50:41 bargaining reserve on an ongoing basis

2:50:44 so that we have some funds as we

2:50:46 continue to renegotiate because all of

2:50:48 our contracts uh the contracts that we

2:50:50 currently have at the beginnings

2:50:53 uh so having some of that money there

2:50:56 the senior center transportation $35,000

2:51:02 um that accounts for potential costs

2:51:05 cost inflations and so forth um we're

2:51:08 confident um with the Council on Aging

2:51:11 that that's the right number in terms of

2:51:13 uh moving that appropriate for filtered

2:51:16 basis and then operating adjustments for

2:51:18 the police department. Um there are

2:51:20 system their system laram more needs to

2:51:22 be upgraded. Um the other big thing is

2:51:24 that with the increase in uh salary of

2:51:27 the police department of the unions um

2:51:30 in terms of wages and so forth the gap

2:51:32 between the command staff who are people

2:51:35 who are not in the unions the deputy

2:51:36 superintendent superintendent

2:51:39 um is now very low is is is very

2:51:42 minimal. So there's not a lot of of wage

2:51:45 differential between lieutenants and the

2:51:47 deputy superintendent and the

2:51:48 superintendent. You factor in the fact

2:51:50 when you factor in the opportunities

2:51:52 that people in the union have,

2:51:54 lieutenants have, and so forth for

2:51:55 alternative sources of funds that the

2:51:57 deputy superintendent and the uh

2:52:00 superintendent don't have. Um it's a

2:52:02 disincentive for people to want to see

2:52:04 promotion in bubble. Um, you know, we're

2:52:07 very lucky um that we have, uh, Ted

2:52:10 Hatchet's uh, going to be our uh, if you

2:52:14 when you have that 416 great candidate.

2:52:16 We're very excited for her, very excited

2:52:19 for deputy superintendent Campbell to

2:52:21 superintendent position. Um, but there's

2:52:24 not a lot of interest. Um, and so in

2:52:27 order to get the next generation of

2:52:29 people, we need to increase those. Um,

2:52:32 and so that's where we are on police

2:52:34 department front. Um, and that subtotal

2:52:36 gets you to 500 5.3 million, which

2:52:40 adjusted for inflation is the same

2:52:42 amount the town saw in 2023.

2:52:45 It's actually

2:52:48 these items down here are things that

2:52:49 are on the bottle, things that other

2:52:51 departments have requested um that we

2:52:54 would we would suggest for your

2:52:57 consideration. Again, roadway repair and

2:52:59 maintenance, BPW would love $2.8 $8

2:53:01 million to continue, you know, that's

2:53:04 what it will cost to get up into that

2:53:06 level where we're actually improving the

2:53:08 roads rather than just maintaining.

2:53:10 Um, I do think that number is going to

2:53:12 change and and and move depending on how

2:53:15 the pavement protection program goes

2:53:18 into effect. We have some time to look

2:53:21 at that. And so I think it's I don't

2:53:23 necessarily think putting more money

2:53:25 into the budget for roadways now before

2:53:28 we start to see the impact of the change

2:53:29 that we've made to our policies is

2:53:32 necessarily where we want to go. That

2:53:34 said, people like you put money in

2:53:37 roads. So there's that question. Is that

2:53:40 is that worth having a conversation or

2:53:42 do we want to or do we want to wait and

2:53:45 see what the pract practical impact of

2:53:47 the increased amount of work we're

2:53:48 already doing have is going to be um

2:53:52 digitization IT infrastructure almost

2:53:54 every department asked for more money

2:53:55 for this over course itself um the

2:53:58 building clerk's office it um people

2:54:03 want their systems to be better

2:54:04 accessible and worldwide and they

2:54:06 believe it will make them more

2:54:07 responsive and save

2:54:09 Um, and so the question of whether we're

2:54:11 going to do that and sort of wipe again

2:54:14 is one that I think is worth to

2:54:15 consider. Modernizing parking meter

2:54:17 operations. I've left this on here and I

2:54:20 but I want to talk a little bit about um

2:54:22 revenue in terms of how to get there. I

2:54:24 think we can get there ideally through

2:54:27 raising um parking funds. And so I don't

2:54:30 necessarily want to add this to an

2:54:31 operating. I would rather see that come

2:54:33 out of money that is intended to use to

2:54:36 fund that program. Paying the class at

2:54:38 DPW um the roughly 10% if we were to

2:54:43 implement the changes of the paying

2:54:45 class study that DPW conducted uh for

2:54:49 its employees it would roughly increase

2:54:52 overall salaries uh for the unionized

2:54:55 members of that team. Um and then there

2:54:57 are not impacts across the board. What

2:54:59 we are going to try and do is phase that

2:55:02 in um over time to limit the shock to

2:55:06 the budget and to be able to build on

2:55:08 that year-over-year focusing on the

2:55:10 critical decisions first. If we wanted

2:55:12 to speed that up, you could. Um but then

2:55:15 it's a question of how much and what do

2:55:17 you prioritize. Um and then the last

2:55:20 thing in our office, we have a budget

2:55:22 analyst positioned by ARPA. I know one

2:55:25 of the BAC recommendations is having a

2:55:27 long-term budget analyst in our office.

2:55:29 I would also make that person

2:55:31 responsible for grant coordination. To

2:55:33 John's point, even though there are

2:55:34 fewer grants available, there are not

2:55:35 zero. And I think having centralized

2:55:37 grant administration is something that

2:55:41 we would benefit from.

2:55:43 So that is a potential thing out there.

2:55:45 But as far as things go, that's inside

2:55:47 baseball. Um I don't necessarily know if

2:55:50 you go out to the voters if they

2:55:52 understand or want you to talk about

2:55:55 Senator Wallace position. So that is

2:55:57 what it is.

2:55:59 That's where we are now. Um I want to

2:56:01 emphasize that this is a draft. Um this

2:56:03 is the first time you are seeing this up

2:56:05 board. This is what we are bringing to

2:56:07 you for your feedback. We want your

2:56:09 feedback and your suggestions for things

2:56:12 that should come on this list. office

2:56:14 list, whether you think the general

2:56:16 number is right, whether you think there

2:56:18 are things that we should be considering

2:56:20 elsewhere. Um, and I know as Paul said

2:56:23 at the outset of this, it's very hard to

2:56:25 do that without being in conversation

2:56:26 with the schools. Um, but I still want

2:56:29 you to have our initial thinking on this

2:56:31 so that we can get your feedback as a

2:56:34 board and have an understanding of how

2:56:36 to refine this as we continue these next

2:56:38 elements towards final number hopefully

2:56:40 by January. So, um the uh six uh police

2:56:45 officers

2:56:47 um can we show specific benefits of

2:56:51 bringing them back

2:56:52 because I think people sort of gotten

2:56:54 used to those positions being open. They

2:56:57 have the department has

2:56:59 um of course

2:57:00 last last year we had to go to the

2:57:02 reserve fund for the first time for

2:57:03 overtime. Part of that is because

2:57:06 and I was awful,

2:57:08 you know, we and the chief has had to

2:57:11 reduce overnight staffing. We've gone to

2:57:13 summer staffing. I mean, the summer

2:57:15 it's, you know, Dare Bones in terms of

2:57:16 overnight officers on duty. Uh the chief

2:57:19 would really like to have more people on

2:57:21 the street in the summer. Right now,

2:57:23 they can't do. So, we're lucky. Again,

2:57:26 this is this it's it's reflective of the

2:57:28 broader things that we've done and what

2:57:30 the ends mean, right? be

2:57:33 if we do it right, public doesn't see

2:57:34 it. Public says, "Well, we don't need

2:57:37 it, do we?" Um, but I think if you talk

2:57:38 to the chief, we do get

2:57:40 Okay, that needs to be clearly

2:57:42 explained.

2:57:43 And uh, thanks, Bernard. And the way a

2:57:46 lot of this has to do with how we would

2:57:48 structure it,

2:57:49 right? So, Stonem had two questions,

2:57:52 right? They had a $9 million question.

2:57:54 Yeah.

2:57:54 And they had a 12 or 13 million.

2:57:56 Yes.

2:57:57 And I assume their 9 million version was

2:57:59 what was in yellow. Y

2:58:01 and their 13 million was what was in

2:58:03 yellow and pink and red, right? So I

2:58:06 think that's why it's so important to

2:58:08 understand the schools because they may

2:58:09 have a Senate chart that says this is,

2:58:12 you know, continuity of service for the

2:58:14 schools and this is what we'd like to do

2:58:16 to expand and restore something that

2:58:18 maybe was taken away in the past.

2:58:20 Yeah,

2:58:27 you got a chance.

2:58:28 Taking notes.

2:58:30 Uh, and uh, you know, here's one of

2:58:32 these questions that I just think comes

2:58:33 up every time there's an override. Um,

2:58:36 and it's hard, I think, for the public

2:58:38 to grasp. It's hard for me to grasp. Um,

2:58:41 if if there there is an approval of an

2:58:43 override, you know, given the amounts

2:58:45 that you've laid out here, um, what does

2:58:48 that mean? Does it mean that uh, we've

2:58:50 got those all of those needs funded for

2:58:53 one year, two years, three years? Um if

2:58:57 it means three years uh then what about

2:59:00 the fourth year um etc. So what what

2:59:04 exactly do these numbers mean?

2:59:06 This is structured for three years. Um

2:59:08 and again what we talked about at the

2:59:09 beginning is the big difference here is

2:59:11 that because some of these costs don't

2:59:13 come online until later in that cycle we

2:59:15 are building out a reserve override

2:59:18 reserve fund

2:59:19 so that we can credibly say to public in

2:59:23 the event that there are costs we your

2:59:25 services are not going to sell out the

2:59:28 money and so on um at least for that

2:59:31 week and then we'll be able to assess

2:59:34 where we are if Charlie's political

2:59:37 inction local pension. We'll be having

2:59:39 an influction of local debt. We're going

2:59:41 to hit peak debt with all of our

2:59:44 projects in 28.

2:59:48 After that, slowly the amount of burden

2:59:52 on taxpayers or excluded debt will start

2:59:55 to decrease.

2:59:56 Now, that means we're in for a rough few

3:00:00 years because, you know, excluded debt

3:00:05 and think about it this 20

3:00:07 23

3:00:09 operating override alone

3:00:13 increased people's taxes by roughly 12%

3:00:16 town schools a little less than%

3:00:19 um I think and I'll double check that uh

3:00:22 roughly in that area the pier school

3:00:24 increasing people's tax by 6% um the

3:00:27 debt debt expert

3:00:30 um and so when people see an operating

3:00:33 over in isolation

3:00:36 um having become so used to them being

3:00:38 coupled with debt exclusions, right?

3:00:40 They may think, "Oh man, that impact has

3:00:42 been huge to us." When what they are

3:00:45 actually experiencing is the combined

3:00:47 weight of several debt exclusions over

3:00:49 the past half a million dollars in count

3:00:52 last 15 years.

3:00:54 Um

3:00:56 that's that the taxpayers have agreed

3:00:58 to. engage

3:01:00 in terms of how the ballot questions are

3:01:02 presented. So Paul outlined sort of

3:01:06 having your yellow category as one and

3:01:08 then yellow plus the two different

3:01:10 shades of pink is another

3:01:12 potentially a way that I I would

3:01:14 consider looking at it though is by

3:01:16 theme. Y

3:01:17 I think that would be the most

3:01:19 transparent. It's always bothered me a

3:01:21 little bit how sometimes ballot

3:01:23 questions bundle a lot of uh different

3:01:27 programming together. that's actually

3:01:29 not at all related to one another. And

3:01:31 then you don't really know well did

3:01:33 something cross the finish line because

3:01:35 something more popular was part of that

3:01:36 package or did something sink because

3:01:39 something very unpopular was part of

3:01:40 that package. I think we saw that when

3:01:42 Baldwin and Driscoll were bundled

3:01:44 together. So I personally would lean

3:01:47 more toward the category of doing it by

3:01:50 theme. So there could be a public safety

3:01:52 one, there could be a DPW one, a schools

3:01:55 related one. There are a couple others

3:01:57 here that don't neatly fit into any into

3:02:00 any of those categories. I'm not sure

3:02:01 exactly what I would do with those

3:02:02 because also we want to be mindful to

3:02:04 not have 10 ballot questions.

3:02:08 That's that's we refer to that as

3:02:10 cafeteria,

3:02:10 right?

3:02:11 Um you have what Paul's referring to is

3:02:13 called pyramid and that's a cafeteria

3:02:17 and I will say there are benefits and

3:02:18 robs. The another reason I'm attracted

3:02:21 to the cafeteria style override is we

3:02:23 were just talking moments ago about

3:02:25 surveys and understanding what the

3:02:27 community really values. That's really

3:02:30 the best way to see what the community

3:02:31 values are. They're going to the voters

3:02:32 in a very direct sense category by

3:02:34 category. Yeah. I think one potential

3:02:37 drawback there is to some of these

3:02:38 things are hard to categorize and some

3:02:40 of these things are you know the the

3:02:44 reason why sometimes a lot of things are

3:02:45 together is because on their own it's

3:02:47 not particularly attractive. But it is

3:02:50 um for example

3:02:53 a lot of us services you know increasing

3:02:55 salaries increase in healthare about

3:02:59 question there you want to pay more in

3:03:02 the abstract for you know our healthare

3:03:05 I think people kind of look at that and

3:03:07 say

3:03:09 um it's and so bundling things together

3:03:12 gives you the sense of you have to take

3:03:13 the good with the bad um and so there's

3:03:16 there's of course a con

3:03:18 Um, first of all, thanks to the entire T

3:03:23 doing this work. It's it's awesome. Um,

3:03:28 there's a there's a there's a another

3:03:31 column of information that I'm thinking

3:03:33 about just in terms of messaging for

3:03:36 some of the items. Um and that is for

3:03:40 lack of a better term uh return on

3:03:42 investment over the over the three years

3:03:46 or maybe over five years or something

3:03:48 because some of these requests within my

3:03:52 understanding some of these requests or

3:03:54 some other potential requests from May

3:03:57 are specifically in order to generate

3:04:00 future revenues or generate revenues in

3:04:03 that time frame. So for example, if we

3:04:06 are able to beef up our enforcement

3:04:08 capacity and that enforcement capacity

3:04:10 brings in more revenue than the cost of

3:04:12 the enforcement capacity or we expect it

3:04:15 to then that's a that's a story that we

3:04:20 should we should try to tell with some

3:04:23 of these items that are that are tougher

3:04:26 tougher to explore.

3:04:27 Yeah.

3:04:28 One of the hard things I find there is

3:04:30 always overpromising um or not being or

3:04:33 and sometimes the causation and

3:04:35 correlation between the two. Um it's for

3:04:38 example I think it is incredibly

3:04:40 important to sustain our economic

3:04:42 development capacity. What what dollar

3:04:44 value do I attach to that? I suppose um

3:04:47 you know I mean there are historical

3:04:50 values that like they've worked on this

3:04:52 and then that's already so we can we can

3:04:55 develop but even if even if the story is

3:04:59 not numeric but is narrative um to be

3:05:03 able to maintain that still is is going

3:05:07 to be really important.

3:05:09 I want to be mindful of your lunch time.

3:05:11 We'll give maybe take a few more

3:05:12 questions then we'll speak on the last

3:05:15 I just had one quick comment if um two

3:05:18 uh so the the messaging or the answer

3:05:22 about how long is this money good for in

3:05:26 the three years Um, we're going to have

3:05:29 to deal with world language having been

3:05:32 approved by the voters and then taken

3:05:34 away. We're going to based on your

3:05:36 proposal, uh, rat enforcement, which

3:05:39 probably is one of the number one on the

3:05:41 list.

3:05:42 So, I say in this propos override

3:05:44 scenario, rat enforcement doesn't go.

3:05:46 Okay.

3:05:46 Part of the continuity, sorry.

3:05:48 Part of the continuity. Okay. I just I

3:05:49 think it's really important to be clear

3:05:51 about what what people are getting

3:05:53 because there's there's a growing

3:05:54 distrust.

3:05:55 Yes. that's taking place with the voters

3:05:58 that we're not

3:06:00 sticking to our commitments and that's a

3:06:02 problem.

3:06:03 Okay, John. Uh

3:06:06 I I realize this decision as as I

3:06:09 understand you has not been made yet,

3:06:11 but I would advise um that we be very

3:06:14 careful about creating a bundled

3:06:16 question. And people in Brooklyn who

3:06:20 were around for the initial attempt at a

3:06:23 Driscoll bundled with Baker um school

3:06:27 question,

3:06:28 excuse me. Thank you for um Baker's

3:06:31 next.

3:06:32 Yeah. uh I think we'll recognize um put

3:06:37 putting things in a bundle might be

3:06:40 clever in in that you're saying to the

3:06:43 voter, hey, if you really like that

3:06:46 stuff in B, you can have it, but only if

3:06:50 you approve A and B because there's no

3:06:53 option for approving B but not A and B.

3:06:56 Um and uh that what happens in that

3:07:00 instance is you you know you maybe pick

3:07:03 up some votes for A uh from people who

3:07:07 really really really want B but you may

3:07:10 lose votes from people who say this is

3:07:12 this is manipulation. This is cynical. I

3:07:15 was given two choices but not the choice

3:07:17 I wanted. you know there will be people

3:07:20 who will want to favor an infrastructure

3:07:22 uh you know amount but not necessarily

3:07:25 operational amounts um so I'm not saying

3:07:28 that that decision has been made but I

3:07:30 think it needs to be made very very

3:07:32 carefully

3:07:35 let's speed through the last couple

3:07:36 slides

3:07:38 this is how we cover that continuity of

3:07:39 service that's the actual gap there

3:07:42 these we would propose this amount in

3:07:44 cuts we would realize about $350,000 in

3:07:46 initial revenue additional revenue and

3:07:49 then that dollar amount from the

3:07:51 override you see there a little under

3:07:52 half the total there. Um that leaves us

3:07:55 with almost $200,000 that would go into

3:07:57 that override stabilization fund.

3:07:59 Between that and the $910,000 of year

3:08:03 one that would go into from the fire and

3:08:06 the $400,000 in collected bargaining.

3:08:08 And that leaves you with a very healthy

3:08:10 override stabilization number that can

3:08:12 be used for a variety of purposes um to

3:08:15 cover these three years and potentially

3:08:17 beyond. It will impact the course of

3:08:19 what a future override would look like

3:08:22 three years out to see how well we did.

3:08:25 We managed that money, how well we

3:08:27 manage the community's expectations in

3:08:28 terms of services we provided. And that

3:08:30 would then provide the basis of if we

3:08:32 needed to go back out again, here's how

3:08:34 we do. Um

3:08:36 that's that revenue opportunities very

3:08:40 quickly. Um you can see where the line

3:08:43 share of it is and the parking

3:08:44 violations. The four if we raise the

3:08:47 four

3:08:48 uh biggest uh ticket u uh causes by $10.

3:08:54 Um we would generate approximately we

3:08:58 were estimated initially to generating

3:09:00 approximately $900,000 initial funding.

3:09:03 um assume that you would see 90% of that

3:09:05 because enforce because compliance would

3:09:07 go up. Um people would stop being

3:09:10 willing to pay a $40 ticket for before

3:09:13 they would pay a $30 ticket. U what what

3:09:16 would it look like? I'm sorry. What

3:09:18 would it look like if we actually

3:09:21 because we're not enforcing there's

3:09:23 where people are flaunting the overnight

3:09:25 parking regulations. Um there's people

3:09:28 overstaying their stays on meters

3:09:30 regularly. the two limits being we've

3:09:32 got people breaking traffic laws,

3:09:34 sitting at parking lanes, double parking

3:09:36 on Beacon Street. None of these people

3:09:37 are ticketed on a regular basis.

3:09:40 So we do we do you know I I know I know

3:09:42 there's it's the perception is very

3:09:44 similar to the perception on rats if you

3:09:45 see one it's you know and you and you

3:09:46 get you get a sense of there being a

3:09:48 pervasive problem. We do enforce because

3:09:50 we see significant revenue influence um

3:09:53 we are issuing tickets and the tickets

3:09:54 are getting paid. Um there is this

3:09:56 question of

3:09:57 the six positions would help you

3:09:58 enforce.

3:09:59 Yeah. Yeah. Six positions right now.

3:10:01 That's true. Um but you know so yes we

3:10:05 you know increased enforcement would see

3:10:07 an increase in revenue but it's that's

3:10:09 hard to project. Um, and it's also, you

3:10:12 know, I I don't I don't necessarily

3:10:14 think it would be you you're not going

3:10:17 to see a one for one turn uh at a

3:10:19 certain you're going to see diminishing

3:10:20 returns in terms of enforcement

3:10:22 increases as opposed to I mean you'll

3:10:24 see diminishing returns here too because

3:10:28 you but it's on a different state.

3:10:29 I'm just I just I want to I want to

3:10:33 encourage us

3:10:35 you

3:10:36 Yeah.

3:10:37 communicating with the police chief.

3:10:39 Yeah. to start enforcing our traffic

3:10:42 laws, to start enforcing parking more. I

3:10:44 see parking people I I understand the

3:10:46 level of enforcement, but I also uh as

3:10:49 much as anybody else, I am up and down

3:10:51 the streets all the time because I'm

3:10:54 taking kids everywhere. Um we do not

3:10:56 enforce our traffic laws. I I very

3:11:00 rarely see blue lights behind vehicle. I

3:11:03 almost never see blue lights behind a

3:11:05 vehicle parked in a parking in a bike

3:11:07 ramp. I never see blue lights behind a

3:11:10 vehicle blocking Beacon Street uh at the

3:11:14 travel lane because someone's Uber Eats

3:11:16 is running in to get stuff or someone

3:11:17 else has decided to go to H. It's just

3:11:19 not happening. So there's we are leaving

3:11:21 significant

3:11:23 uh uh revenue on the table because we're

3:11:25 not enforcing to the extent that we

3:11:27 should be and two we're making our our

3:11:29 streets in by not enforcing law. So, I

3:11:31 think there's a lot more moment for

3:11:33 John,

3:11:34 and I I get where Paul's coming from,

3:11:36 but I I do want to say I think what he

3:11:38 has raised is a question for the board

3:11:41 as a whole to discuss um in terms of,

3:11:44 you know, police department operational

3:11:46 policies and so on. It's it's uh I feel

3:11:49 a frustration, but I'm not sure there's

3:11:51 a clear answer um until we've had a

3:11:55 thorough discussion with the chief and

3:11:57 looked at all sides of this question of

3:11:59 what happens when you start doing rigid,

3:12:02 you know, law enforcement because we've

3:12:03 we've been there.

3:12:05 We know what can happen.

3:12:08 Um I just first of all, I agree with

3:12:12 you. Um, I mean, the number of times

3:12:14 I've written down a bike lane and the

3:12:15 bike lane is blocked by a truck or a van

3:12:18 or

3:12:20 happens a lot. Um,

3:12:23 and it slows down traffic and it it's a

3:12:27 quality of life issue in the town. Um,

3:12:29 this is part of the narrative on return

3:12:31 on investment. So, like when I was

3:12:33 thinking about such officers, I was

3:12:35 thinking about like are they just going

3:12:37 to do more enforcement? Uh, what are

3:12:39 they going to do? Are they going to just

3:12:43 relieve our overtime budget? Are they

3:12:44 going to increase that enforcement? You

3:12:46 know, those are those are really

3:12:49 important.

3:12:51 I was going to say to uh John's point

3:12:53 about police department enforcement. I

3:12:55 actually think this issue goes beyond

3:12:57 just police department enforcement. We

3:12:59 have other departments who have the

3:13:01 ability to issue fines. And I I've had

3:13:03 some discussions about this with you and

3:13:05 others in private and they're they're

3:13:07 just not really enforcing the fines. And

3:13:09 I think that's problematic for two

3:13:10 reasons. one is leaving revenue on the

3:13:12 table and two it sends the message that

3:13:15 you can ignore our bylaws and our street

3:13:17 laws doesn't matter. So I I do think

3:13:20 that's a discussion we need to have

3:13:22 that's more broad and across

3:13:24 departments.

3:13:25 We we we had a period of time when we

3:13:27 select police department told not to

3:13:30 enforce laws. So we're recovering from

3:13:33 that.

3:13:35 Well that's not this.

3:13:36 Pardon me.

3:13:37 That's not that right.

3:13:38 Not this select

3:13:39 right. Okay. But it hasn't been revised

3:13:41 for your time.

3:13:42 I mean, I think we need to actually

3:13:43 revisit it and have a broader

3:13:46 discussion.

3:13:48 Let me move forward here. That's okay.

3:13:50 Uh, go ahead.

3:13:51 Yeah, let's let's keep going.

3:13:52 Yeah. Um, these are where the cuts are

3:13:55 coming from. Um, I'm not specific

3:13:57 positions here, but um, a lot of those

3:14:00 numbers are in personnel. Um, we're

3:14:03 reducing some um, um, areas there. I

3:14:07 said zero. I'm sorry. I will I will

3:14:10 there is one position

3:14:12 and to be clear these are cuts that will

3:14:13 get the ask down

3:14:16 to to the level of the ask.

3:14:18 Yes. Yes.

3:14:19 On that slide two slides ago I said find

3:14:21 services this much that bottom line was

3:14:23 the cut to get to there is one position

3:14:26 planning.

3:14:27 So could you talk louder?

3:14:30 Yeah I'm sorry. There's one position

3:14:31 I'm as bad as John.

3:14:32 Yeah.

3:14:35 Um it's so you can see where those those

3:14:39 initial cuts would be coming from but

3:14:42 again as I talked about single largest

3:14:44 one there is CIP reduction from 6.6% 6%

3:14:47 to 6% trying to move forward.

3:14:49 Yep.

3:14:50 This is the new over scenario. The

3:14:52 numbers much

3:14:54 there are more things. So as you can see

3:14:55 the numbers are much smaller. I

3:14:57 apologize small numbers

3:15:02 but you can see um

3:15:05 it's personality. It's personnel. Um,

3:15:08 and I would say the other part part of

3:15:10 this is that I would likely pair this

3:15:12 with your permission with warrant

3:15:14 articles to potentially repeal services

3:15:16 that we can't afford to do.

3:15:19 You know, the

3:15:22 are we going to be able to do the level

3:15:23 of, you know, tree protection? Are we

3:15:26 able to do some of the things that we

3:15:28 want to do in RA and elsewhere? Probably

3:15:30 not. Um, enabling force of Dark Skies by

3:15:33 law, probably not. um you know so you

3:15:36 will need to go to town meeting and

3:15:38 where everybody's laws are on the books

3:15:40 we might ask them to come off the books

3:15:42 um but again that's your decision that's

3:15:44 your point that's your variety of

3:15:47 and as you can see that that kind of

3:15:48 only gets us to around 2.5 million um

3:15:51 when you factor in revenues and so forth

3:15:54 and get a little higher 2.8 eight nine.

3:15:57 So, we're right around where we need to

3:15:59 be, but as I said, they're still looking

3:16:01 at the last couple of cuts close the gap

3:16:03 that went right now.

3:16:08 That is just where

3:16:11 we would need to look very hard to

3:16:14 environment.

3:16:17 What um I mentioned the plan the police

3:16:21 department since opened positions. Yeah,

3:16:23 I believe planning has five open

3:16:26 positions right now.

3:16:27 Yes.

3:16:27 And

3:16:29 are are those positions part of the cuts

3:16:33 or are they to be eliged?

3:16:37 Three of the three of the positions are

3:16:39 potentially being

3:16:41 position. Yes. I would also say that

3:16:44 Manning is in jeopardy because of CDBG,

3:16:46 right? There are positions that are

3:16:47 funded by CDBG that are checked. So

3:16:50 there's that issue too.

3:16:52 Let me just say that uh we missed our

3:16:55 lunch.

3:16:55 Yes.

3:16:56 Work straight through it. It worked

3:16:57 straight through lunch.

3:16:58 So

3:17:01 it was great that

3:17:04 we train 15 minutes.

3:17:06 15 minutes.

3:17:06 Well, it'll be very tough to get our

3:17:08 afternoon schedule in if we start 15

3:17:10 minutes. We were kind of hoping to start

3:17:12 you at the tail end of your lunch.

3:17:14 So we're willing to stay beyond 2:30.

3:17:17 Paul can't. He's got You have a hard

3:17:18 stop at 2:30 usually.

3:17:20 Not today.

3:17:20 Not today. Okay. So, would you go into

3:17:23 Okay, let's not go too far.

3:17:25 But the one hard stop I have will be

3:17:27 3:30 because the Lars Anderson meeting

3:17:28 is four o'clock at town hall.

3:17:30 We also have to check with Abby and make

3:17:31 sure Abby can go longer than 2:30. Uh,

3:17:34 okay. All right. Good. So, let's um

3:17:36 So, so why don't we take our um our

3:17:39 lunch and and eat while we start the

3:17:42 discussion?

3:17:42 Well, could I suggest just a 15 minute

3:17:46 15 minute?

3:17:48 I agree. Since we're going past 2:30, we

3:17:51 can

3:17:52 profile as well as some lunch

3:18:00 recess. The word is in recess.

3:18:05 So you better figure Okay.

3:18:14 Let's see what

3:18:16 Jack.

3:22:24 um is really important part of like this

3:22:27 is going to be your document and the the

3:22:30 implementation of it relies on the fact

3:22:32 that it reflects your priorities and

3:22:33 that you are bought in and you want to

3:22:35 things happen. So the transition there

3:22:38 of getting a lot of detailed feedback is

3:22:40 trying to take all the synthesis from

3:22:42 things I heard from you in vertical form

3:22:44 and try to get it in writing and give

3:22:45 you something to really in detail react

3:22:48 to.

3:22:49 Um today what I'm hoping we can do so I

3:22:52 took a look at all of your feedback. We

3:22:54 have different feedback of course um

3:22:56 tried to synthesize it the best I could

3:22:58 and I'm hoping that we can look through

3:23:00 the guiding values and the goals. like a

3:23:03 one-s sentence fake goal statement

3:23:06 together and get agreement on it. I

3:23:07 wanna I want to know if there are big

3:23:10 concerns, any flags with critical things

3:23:12 missing. I don't want us to spend a ton

3:23:14 of time smithing. What will happen after

3:23:16 this meeting is I will send you this

3:23:18 draft in document form and you can we

3:23:21 can do track changes edits as much as we

3:23:23 want but for today I want to know like

3:23:26 what like on the face of it is this

3:23:28 reflecting the general sentiment are

3:23:30 there key gaps or key things that are

3:23:31 included that maybe should come out um

3:23:34 and I really want to make sure we have

3:23:36 time to talk about implementation so I'm

3:23:38 hoping to have at least 15 minutes at

3:23:40 the end of the meeting to really outline

3:23:42 what are the details you all want to see

3:23:44 in the implementation ation um path

3:23:47 forward and I know some of you I'll just

3:23:50 tell some of you in your feedback really

3:23:52 specific awesome feedback on the

3:23:53 implementation details like you know

3:23:56 talking about the key performance

3:23:57 indicators or roles and like I have

3:24:00 captured that we're not going to be

3:24:01 talking about that today that's going to

3:24:03 be an implementation discussion

3:24:06 um

3:24:07 just to clarify

3:24:09 um when you say implementation do you

3:24:11 mean the creation of the roadmap itself

3:24:14 or do you mean the implementation of the

3:24:16 tasks of erosion.

3:24:17 Yeah,

3:24:18 perfect question. Um, I usually think of

3:24:20 information as two things. One is the

3:24:22 details of what needs to be in the in

3:24:24 the road map to enable it to happen. So,

3:24:26 you might want to know the timeline. You

3:24:28 might want to know like the cost of it.

3:24:31 You might want to know who you might

3:24:32 want to know how to measure. Those are

3:24:34 the details I'm hoping we can talk

3:24:36 through today is like what are those

3:24:38 categories that you got to include in

3:24:40 and then I think of like the process

3:24:42 part of implementation which is more how

3:24:44 often do you check in on the road map

3:24:46 how often updating the road map and that

3:24:49 I think we can have at the next

3:24:50 discussion in March

3:24:53 okay and so then what will come after

3:24:55 today is we'll do refinement on the

3:24:57 specific language we will flesh out the

3:25:00 implementation details um exactly who

3:25:04 and how I want us to discuss what it

3:25:05 should look like. Um we will meet again

3:25:09 in March where hopefully we'll have the

3:25:11 refined text of the road map as well as

3:25:13 implementation details for you all to

3:25:15 take a look at. Uh and then the idea is

3:25:17 that I would present this document at I

3:25:20 think the April select board meeting um

3:25:22 for the wall to adopt and you would have

3:25:25 a lot of chances for either of

3:25:29 Okay. Um so today so this is now out of

3:25:33 date. I'm going to aim to have everyone

3:25:35 up by three if we go a little over I

3:25:37 think 3:30.

3:25:41 Okay. Um so

3:25:44 we'll talk about the guiding values and

3:25:47 the goals. Um and then I'm hoping that

3:25:52 we can talk through the strategies. To

3:25:54 what detail I'm not yet sure. It's going

3:25:56 to depend a little bit on the findings.

3:25:58 I think they added Oh yes. Okay. One of

3:26:01 the challenges in today's meeting is

3:26:03 time. Like you have a lot of strategies

3:26:05 and a lot of categories. And so my goal

3:26:08 is to try to get us to talk through each

3:26:10 of the categories of strategies. Um

3:26:12 which means we're going to have to move

3:26:14 a little bit quickly through them. And

3:26:16 so I might even set a timer so I'm aware

3:26:18 and you're aware of time we have. Um and

3:26:21 then the other challenge I think is

3:26:23 going to be like the altitude. Like

3:26:24 again we're really not trying to get

3:26:26 into the word smithing the details. We

3:26:28 have time for that. I'm trying to get a

3:26:30 sense of do we have the right goals, the

3:26:31 right values, are we headed in the right

3:26:33 direction on the strategies that we can

3:26:35 then move forward and flesh out. Okay.

3:26:38 And as I said earlier, we're going to

3:26:39 try to keep uh 15 minutes 20 minutes at

3:26:42 the endation and I because I want to

3:26:45 leave this meeting uh with really clear

3:26:47 direction of what we would be pushing in

3:26:49 our

3:26:53 and then very finally in this framing

3:26:55 just a quick reminder in strategic

3:26:58 planning type processes people use a lot

3:26:59 of different terms. You can take your

3:27:02 pick for the sake of this effort. We've

3:27:05 been using these three. So we have the

3:27:07 goals um which are what we want what you

3:27:10 want to achieve and those were taken

3:27:12 from the priority areas that we had

3:27:14 developed earlier. The strategies are

3:27:15 how we're going to operationalize those

3:27:17 things and then actions like a bit more

3:27:19 of shut how are you getting to some of

3:27:21 those strategies. Um we have started to

3:27:24 talk through actions. Some of you

3:27:26 suggested a lot of actions. Um we're not

3:27:28 going to spend too much time on them

3:27:29 today because I want to make sure we

3:27:30 have the right goals and strategies.

3:27:34 Okay.

3:27:37 Is that okay?

3:27:40 Time.

3:27:43 Okay. So, for the guising values, I'm

3:27:47 going to let me highlight some of the

3:27:50 changes. I'm going to for the next

3:27:51 slide, which is going to be the list of

3:27:53 batting values. I'm going to attempt to

3:27:55 quickly summarize the changes that have

3:27:57 been made since the last version of this

3:27:59 based over the last two weeks. Um, and

3:28:03 then again I'm hoping to know like any

3:28:05 big red flags, any big missing pieces or

3:28:08 generally in the right spot. Um, again

3:28:16 these are on the slide hand out if you

3:28:19 leave a closer. Um, I would say that the

3:28:23 first one has had a bunch of word

3:28:24 changing from you all. Um refine is

3:28:27 committed to being a welcoming welcoming

3:28:29 accessible and open-minded community

3:28:30 that is diverse race ethnicity of

3:28:34 income. Um one major change is there

3:28:37 were three values if you recall that

3:28:39 were taken from slightly different

3:28:40 places that all referred to um community

3:28:43 input and decision making I would say

3:28:45 and so there were a number of

3:28:46 suggestions from you to combine them. Uh

3:28:49 and so the combined version is that

3:28:51 feedback from stakeholders and broader

3:28:53 community must be heard and alongside

3:28:55 science data expertise left to consider

3:28:58 decision making.

3:29:00 There's still the element around

3:29:02 transparency and responsiveness making

3:29:04 it a predictable fix to live that has

3:29:06 and maybe be tweaked but not much. Um a

3:29:09 good governance and collaboration

3:29:11 efficiency and outcomes I don't think

3:29:13 that has changed much. And then this

3:29:14 last one is a new addition proposed by

3:29:17 someone. Um resources must be allocated

3:29:20 responsibly balancing service quality

3:29:23 term fiscal sustainab

3:29:27 please. Yeah. So let's open it up again

3:29:30 thoughts. Yeah.

3:29:31 Um

3:29:33 I don't see where it is here but

3:29:35 feedback or acceptance.

3:29:37 Yeah.

3:29:37 Stakeholders regarding deferred. I'd

3:29:40 like to add and accepted because one of

3:29:45 the issues is you know we listen to

3:29:46 people but we don't really

3:29:49 accept what they're saying. Um

3:29:52 when do you say accept it? I mean so

3:29:53 there's a lot of ideas can't accept them

3:29:55 all.

3:29:57 You can't accept them all but but you at

3:30:00 least listen and try to understand and

3:30:05 accept that that you can accept and

3:30:08 maybe accept is not the right word.

3:30:10 Yeah. Accepted but I reflect

3:30:12 right. I think the word reflected

3:30:14 meaningfully heard but it can't be

3:30:16 accepted because sometimes you have two

3:30:17 groups who are opposing each other on an

3:30:19 issue and you can't

3:30:21 well sometimes you can't

3:30:24 I mean I'm not always right. So if your

3:30:27 position is different from mine maybe I

3:30:30 can learn from yours. I mean that's

3:30:31 that's the concept I'm trying to get

3:30:33 across.

3:30:33 Learn from maybe. Okay.

3:30:35 Okay. I think it's the word.

3:30:38 Okay. Okay. So, I'm taking notes on on

3:30:40 these options, but okay. Your point

3:30:42 taken, I think. Were you going to add

3:30:44 something?

3:30:46 Okay.

3:30:47 Can we confirm the final one because

3:30:48 that's the newest piece that you

3:30:50 haven't.

3:30:59 This is fiscal responsibility, right?

3:31:02 Yeah.

3:31:06 It's always a garage hatch.

3:31:10 I

3:31:10 mean there there's actually I mean there

3:31:12 there's actually three values there,

3:31:14 right? There's service quality, there's

3:31:16 fiscal sustainability, and there's the

3:31:18 value of batters,

3:31:20 right? And

3:31:23 all wrapped into one beautiful one

3:31:26 beautiful sentence.

3:31:28 And I'm I'm just wondering where

3:31:31 where

3:31:35 that sentence and sentence number two

3:31:37 about feedback and because because

3:31:40 number two is really about decision

3:31:42 making right that that mean

3:31:45 well number two is is really community

3:31:47 engagement

3:31:48 well I think it's about community

3:31:50 engagement it's saying we we engage with

3:31:52 you and Bernard's saying we listen to

3:31:54 you right we consider your input we act

3:31:58 on it

3:31:58 but it's true that this second piece is

3:32:00 more about like inputs into decision

3:32:03 Yeah.

3:32:05 Right. Right. I mean that

3:32:08 both of those things are there

3:32:11 and and so when we talk about allocated

3:32:14 respons responsibly that's like manifest

3:32:18 good decision making right so that's

3:32:20 that's why I think the two of them is as

3:32:23 so I so I I will so I will uh be

3:32:26 transparent and I added that to the last

3:32:28 one because I think we need we we need

3:32:31 to say something

3:32:32 and have a goal around being uh careful

3:32:36 with our resources and fiscally

3:32:38 sustainable. That's what that's what it

3:32:40 is. Now, can you squeeze it into the

3:32:42 second bullet? Maybe. Um but I I think

3:32:44 it needs to just be specifically called

3:32:47 way word it any way you want, but I this

3:32:49 is we need to make sure that we're

3:32:51 grounded in fiscal sustainability. So

3:32:54 could I ask I mean Michael if you want

3:32:56 to think about how like Paul you're

3:32:58 saying this is important to include I

3:33:00 think other

3:33:00 I think but others I don't know

3:33:02 open to it and Michael you're saying

3:33:04 there's like maybe a shifting or a

3:33:06 reframing could I give that to you as

3:33:07 like a takeaway

3:33:10 sure I mean the the the thing that I

3:33:13 I I can think about it more briefly

3:33:16 science data expertise

3:33:18 resource capacity or fiscal capacity you

3:33:21 know is the tag it right on On the end

3:33:23 of that sentence, you can almost say

3:33:25 considered in decision making to

3:33:27 allocate to allocate resources

3:33:29 responsibly balanced balance and service

3:33:31 aggreg

3:33:38 incorporate fiscal responsibility and

3:33:40 sustainability into our goals and our

3:33:42 values.

3:33:43 Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. whistle.

3:33:46 Um,

3:33:47 I want to

3:33:50 give you a second maybe to read the next

3:33:52 slide and capture that.

3:33:53 Oh, I'm sorry. Is there a little bit

3:33:55 just a little bit more time on this one?

3:33:57 U, I find it useful um to take each of

3:34:01 these five bullet points and try to come

3:34:03 up with one word that captures what is

3:34:06 captured in each bullet point. And I'm

3:34:08 sorry if this sounds like word smithing.

3:34:10 I don't think it is. Good. Um the the

3:34:12 word I'd use in the first one is is

3:34:14 openness. Um okay, welcoming,

3:34:16 accessible. The word I'd use in the

3:34:18 second one uh is responsive. Um you

3:34:22 know, take in input.

3:34:23 Um the word I'd use in the third one is

3:34:26 a kind of a mystery to me and I don't

3:34:28 think of predictability as being one of

3:34:31 those things that people elevate as a

3:34:33 value. Um so I I have a question about

3:34:36 that third one. Um collaboration. Um,

3:34:39 that's a strong word. I'd use that for

3:34:41 the fourth one. And then fiscal

3:34:44 responsibility, I guess, is the fifth

3:34:46 one. But, uh, and and I leave that to

3:34:50 others as to whether they think there's

3:34:51 a better word for that. Uh, I just think

3:34:54 that's helpful. And it has arrived, it

3:34:56 has allowed me to sort of, uh, come to

3:34:58 the conclusion that the third one

3:35:00 doesn't is the weakest of the five. And

3:35:03 I'm wondering if other people feel the

3:35:05 same way.

3:35:06 How about predict? You don't like the

3:35:07 word predictable

3:35:08 or

3:35:08 Well, I'm just not sure I would I would

3:35:10 raise predictability as one of five

3:35:12 essential guiding values.

3:35:14 Well, so I I think predictable is

3:35:16 important because for people to come and

3:35:18 invest in our community, you're a

3:35:20 business. Can you count on, you know,

3:35:23 stable services, a stable tax base, um I

3:35:28 think that's important. If you're going

3:35:29 to come buy a home in Brooklyn and

3:35:31 you're going to invest in the school

3:35:33 because because you want to be in the

3:35:34 school system, is it predictable that

3:35:36 the school system is going to remain a

3:35:37 high quality? Are they going to continue

3:35:39 to pick up the trash or my taxes going

3:35:41 to go up 20% in a year like in

3:35:43 Connecticut?

3:35:44 I think it's predictability.

3:35:46 Any other like response?

3:35:48 Yeah.

3:35:49 Um

3:35:51 I mean I think that the predictable and

3:35:53 stable is very important. I think the I

3:35:56 think what makes that weak is is is

3:36:01 the first clause tying it to the second.

3:36:04 I mean predictable and making Brookline

3:36:06 a predictable and stable place to live

3:36:09 is a value. Being transparent and

3:36:11 responsive is a is potentially a

3:36:13 different a different value or a means

3:36:15 to an end. And and furthermore, I think

3:36:17 was kind of covered in two.

3:36:19 I was just going to say I wonder if

3:36:21 maybe transparency could go in like good

3:36:23 governance sentence. I think. Um and

3:36:26 then the responsiveness building up

3:36:29 responsiveness.

3:36:32 Okay. All right. Um

3:36:39 these are very dense.

3:36:42 Yeah, I like the I like the cashier

3:36:45 opening sentence chart opening. Um okay,

3:36:49 let's keep moving

3:36:52 because I'll just remind you those you

3:36:53 had actually already developed then

3:36:55 we've added some things too. So they

3:36:56 might have a little bit of the like

3:36:58 multi

3:36:59 camel or whatever.

3:37:01 You're saying in the ballpark is what

3:37:02 you're saying. That's what

3:37:03 Yeah. Um and then the what's coming is

3:37:06 newer. So you're going to have more to

3:37:07 say on it.

3:37:09 Um okay. So again very similar for the

3:37:12 goals. I'm going to try to highlight the

3:37:14 changes um as best I can and then again

3:37:18 like wanting to confirm that we're in

3:37:20 the right sentiment. I will I think a

3:37:22 lot of the meat of these are in the

3:37:24 strategies which were suggest

3:37:28 gets sprayed from the goal language. Um

3:37:31 and then to know what's not in here. So

3:37:33 I did not include the framing language

3:37:35 which you all had a lot of edits to.

3:37:37 Some people offered like full rewrites

3:37:38 which is great. Um that is captured in

3:37:41 the written version of this and again

3:37:44 you can have which is in the packet. Um

3:37:46 and I'll send that out to everybody

3:37:49 following this meeting. So if you want

3:37:51 to get more into the words in the

3:37:53 framing like totally feel free but for

3:37:55 the purposes of today I was hoping we

3:37:58 could not do that. Okay.

3:38:02 All right. So there are seven goals.

3:38:05 Um

3:38:07 the first one is still around the core

3:38:10 services. Um so deliver core services to

3:38:13 residents wisely efficiently within a

3:38:15 limited resources. Um, I will say this

3:38:20 one we made from your comments less

3:38:23 about high quality because there are

3:38:25 many types of things you might want to

3:38:26 emphasize like efficiency or speed. Um,

3:38:30 and change the word critical to poor. I

3:38:32 think the because the comment is like

3:38:34 how are we defining critical really uh

3:38:36 which you could say the same about core

3:38:39 just to note. Um, and then I'll just

3:38:42 quickly add that in the framing many of

3:38:44 you highlighted that like public

3:38:46 education and public safety were not

3:38:47 included as like in the long sentence of

3:38:49 types of services. So that's in there.

3:38:53 The second goal here is um more internal

3:38:56 and strength and alignment efficiency

3:38:59 government. Um this is a rewrite but

3:39:02 pretty much the same thing. Um

3:39:07 there's a lot happening in this in the

3:39:09 strategies around this goal. Just a

3:39:11 reminder. Goal three, nothing has

3:39:15 changed in the phrasing. There was a

3:39:17 rewrite framing.

3:39:20 Um same with goal four, which is in

3:39:24 communication to an engagement with

3:39:25 residents as I said language.

3:39:28 Five, expand and preserve affordable and

3:39:30 middle income housing. this has changed

3:39:33 slightly.

3:39:35 And then goal six, maintain and improve

3:39:38 infrastructure quality. That's the same.

3:39:40 And then seven, improve the town's

3:39:42 ability to mitigate climate change and

3:39:43 increase resilience capacitance to

3:39:45 climate change. Um that might have had

3:39:47 some tweaking from

3:39:50 Yeah.

3:39:51 So my question for you again is like are

3:39:55 these hitting the mark? Are they

3:39:56 capturing the big gist of the highest

3:39:58 level goals you have? um anything that's

3:40:02 missing that you would want to to go

3:40:04 take.

3:40:06 So on number five, expand reserve

3:40:10 affordable and middle income.

3:40:13 Um

3:40:18 I am I am I am concerned that that goal

3:40:22 does not uh adequately represent the

3:40:26 breadth of reasonably priced housing

3:40:29 across many different dimensions um

3:40:33 that we might

3:40:35 that we we might want to we want to

3:40:37 create over time because we I I'll I'll

3:40:41 be blunt and say, you know, I think I

3:40:45 believe that our overall supply of

3:40:48 housing is insufficient, you know, of of

3:40:52 whatever,

3:40:53 you know, whatever price point it comes

3:40:55 in. Um, and so the thing that I'm I'm

3:40:59 worried about is if we sort of set a

3:41:03 goal that that only deals with specific

3:41:05 tiers of housing from an income

3:41:07 perspective that the larger picture of

3:41:10 our housing goal might get opposite.

3:41:15 So you have to say something more along

3:41:16 the lines of

3:41:19 um like expand reserve all housing

3:41:22 options. But before

3:41:25 but before we get before we go to that

3:41:27 point, I don't know that I that the

3:41:30 consensus among the five of us

3:41:32 I don't think we need any more $20

3:41:33 million homes, Michael. Uh I just don't

3:41:36 think we need So you know I think that

3:41:41 where we're seeing the most pressure,

3:41:43 we're losing the middle. We know that.

3:41:45 We know that

3:41:46 we're losing the middle rapidly in

3:41:47 Brooklyn. Um, we're building 10, 20, $30

3:41:51 million homes in Brooklyn, chopping down

3:41:54 all the the the trees around them. Um,

3:42:00 I'm I so I'm fine with limiting. I don't

3:42:02 think we should say we should build any

3:42:03 housing. I think we should be focused um

3:42:06 and and and the housing goal and not say

3:42:09 all housing is equal. All housing is not

3:42:11 equal. And we're not saying to the

3:42:14 exclusion of

3:42:16 you know high price housing

3:42:20 the goal of of the town fully affordable

3:42:24 and middle inome housing. That's what we

3:42:26 should point as it as that's our

3:42:27 authority.

3:42:30 Yeah. John and then David. Well, you

3:42:32 know, I think I think Michael raises an

3:42:34 interesting point and it it gets to in

3:42:36 my mind the connection between

3:42:40 housing that is developed that and you

3:42:42 know in some cases so stresses it is

3:42:44 luxury housing, but we use that as kind

3:42:48 of a bargaining point for us to bargain

3:42:53 some benefits in terms of support for

3:42:56 middle income and low-income housing.

3:42:58 and it's been very effective and um you

3:43:01 know I'll cite the example of the the

3:43:04 Newberry development where the Fisher

3:43:07 Hill development um and you know you

3:43:10 don't get much more luxury level of

3:43:12 housing than that complex and we put a

3:43:15 lot of work into it and it was to the

3:43:18 overall I'm convinced it was to the

3:43:19 overall good of the community in so far

3:43:22 as it had spin-off effects um and um

3:43:26 benefited our pursuit of some additional

3:43:29 units at the current employee

3:43:30 departments. Um so I'm not sure you can

3:43:34 only mention um affordable and middle-

3:43:37 inome housing. I would I would regret

3:43:39 anybody in the future if another one of

3:43:42 those types of opportunities came along

3:43:45 saying to the psychore, "Yeah, but you

3:43:47 know that's inconsistent what you say

3:43:49 your values and your goals are, but so

3:43:51 let's not do it." So

3:43:54 there's a middle option you're on that's

3:43:55 like something of maintain improve

3:43:57 preserve like all housing with a special

3:44:00 attention to

3:44:02 let's get David in the mix.

3:44:03 Yeah. Yeah. So I would agree with the

3:44:04 middle approach because I appreciate

3:44:07 Michael's point and then another element

3:44:09 of that is from a demand on town

3:44:12 services

3:44:14 perspective your $30 million homeowner

3:44:17 is actually providing a lot of benefits

3:44:19 to him. Let's build more build more of

3:44:21 those.

3:44:22 Well, that's not quite what I say. So,

3:44:24 that does pay that that they pay a lot

3:44:27 of taxes and

3:44:28 they also pick up a lot of land.

3:44:30 True. But they're not demanding as much

3:44:32 in the way of town services typically.

3:44:34 And to the to the earlier point about

3:44:37 how sometimes the reality is that if you

3:44:39 don't have that luxury component to a

3:44:43 mixeduse development, for instance,

3:44:45 you're not going to get the increase in

3:44:48 affordable

3:44:50 housing. Then there's also the if you

3:44:52 have new housing that's at the high end,

3:44:56 sort of the existing stuff will

3:44:58 presumably go down in price at an

3:45:01 aggregate level. So there are some

3:45:03 beneficial impacts even to having

3:45:05 increased high-end housing.

3:45:07 We've been listening to some state

3:45:09 statewide propaganda too much.

3:45:11 That being said though, as Bernard

3:45:13 pointed out, it's the way this language

3:45:16 is currently constructed, it's not

3:45:17 saying to the exclusion well of luxury

3:45:21 and high-end housing. And to the extent

3:45:22 that in order to expand and preserve

3:45:26 affordable middle income, you need to

3:45:27 have a luxury component, that's still

3:45:29 competent. So let's let's move forward

3:45:32 with like a middle option like I was

3:45:34 proposing and then give you guys a

3:45:35 chance to weigh in on that to me. But I

3:45:39 before we change it, Bernard said

3:45:41 earlier that that

3:45:43 because you have that doesn't mean you

3:45:45 can't still do luxury. So John's example

3:45:47 is still well within within that goal

3:45:51 because it's a means to achieving that

3:45:53 goal

3:45:54 except I think John correctly points out

3:45:56 that some members of the community might

3:45:58 be very liberalist in reading our goals

3:46:01 and say so we have this proposal for

3:46:05 80% highend housing that doesn't meet

3:46:07 our goal. What are we doing? We should

3:46:09 reject this even if it would actually be

3:46:11 beneficial to Tim. So I do see John's

3:46:13 point about where further works with

3:46:15 Nick would be potentially useful here or

3:46:19 a footnote or something so that we're

3:46:21 not creating a situation as John just

3:46:24 stated where we are under pressure to

3:46:26 reject a proposal that would otherwise

3:46:28 be beneficial because it doesn't meet

3:46:30 the literalist interpretation of the

3:46:33 goal as it's

3:46:34 wanting the library housing as a tool to

3:46:37 something else.

3:46:38 Right.

3:46:38 Okay. But I want to keep going on our

3:46:40 like gut check here.

3:46:42 Can I add one thing? I mean this is sort

3:46:44 of a goal that also includes the issue

3:46:47 of diverse um pool of residents and I

3:46:52 don't see that anywhere

3:46:53 um that is a that we have as a strategy

3:46:58 right now within let me tell you which

3:47:01 there's always been a goal of the

3:47:02 selectable panel to increase diversity

3:47:07 racial as well

3:47:09 can we let me make a note to come back

3:47:11 to that because it is in here you want

3:47:13 to elevate it. That's

3:47:21 anyone else.

3:47:31 So, I guess I don't understand why

3:47:33 that's a strategy and not

3:47:35 and maybe it needs to move. Yeah, let me

3:47:37 let's look at it in a full picture of it

3:47:39 and then we can

3:47:42 um

3:47:46 Yeah, I think it might be informing

3:47:50 the funding session tonight.

3:47:54 Yeah.

3:47:56 Okay. So, can we go into the strategist?

3:47:58 Like it seems like this is generally

3:48:00 passing the gut check. Um, and just to

3:48:04 but I I do want to go back because I

3:48:06 think this this is an important point.

3:48:08 Michael raised something and we gloss

3:48:09 over it to about should Brookline's goal

3:48:12 be to increase housing supply to the

3:48:16 point where we can drop prices down. I

3:48:18 think that's kind of where you where you

3:48:20 were coming at.

3:48:21 That's you know that's an abundant

3:48:23 housing statewide initiative which is

3:48:25 bill build bill. We're going to somehow

3:48:28 drop prices in Brooklyn and by having

3:48:31 more inventory the the risk is that

3:48:35 Brooklyn's market is luxury. We could

3:48:39 build five $10 million homes till the

3:48:42 cows come home and they would all sit.

3:48:45 Um, and that's what developers will

3:48:47 build luxury. That's that's their

3:48:48 preference. And it won't change pricing

3:48:51 in Brookline one iota. It might help

3:48:53 Everett. It might help some other

3:48:55 community, but it's not going to help.

3:48:57 And I think that this we have to have

3:48:59 this conversation because this is a

3:49:01 fundamental difference between the build

3:49:04 build build and those who want to be

3:49:06 more intentional around housing

3:49:08 outcomes. Um and I think that that

3:49:10 should be a fundamental discussion

3:49:12 between the board try to figure it out

3:49:14 because we're not all in agreement that

3:49:15 we should just build build. I'm not sure

3:49:18 that that's but

3:49:21 that is kind of I'm being firm with my

3:49:23 language but that's essentially what

3:49:25 he's saying is that housing and all

3:49:26 print codes we need to increase

3:49:28 inventory because that'll lower prices

3:49:30 in public it will not lower prices

3:49:33 I think this is like you all do have

3:49:34 different perspectives on the way to

3:49:36 achieve some of the the goals right and

3:49:38 so right now we can see it once we get

3:49:40 there but there's only one strategy

3:49:42 actually in your housing section

3:49:44 and I think it's fine to have both

3:49:46 Sorry.

3:49:47 Probably needs more,

3:49:48 right? Exactly. Yeah. There are a few of

3:49:49 these that are especially the last

3:49:52 three I would say are quite light in the

3:49:54 strategies and I think there are a

3:49:56 number of strategies you all could

3:49:58 advance towards some of these goals and

3:49:59 maybe one is like we the current

3:50:00 strategy is really more focused on

3:50:02 low-inccome workforce middle housing and

3:50:05 maybe there's another thing you want to

3:50:06 add around the role of luxury hous to

3:50:10 other housing.

3:50:11 Well, but this I mean this is what the

3:50:12 comprehensive plan is doing, right?

3:50:14 Right. The comprehensive plan is

3:50:16 addressing this issue incorporating

3:50:18 what's been done by the housing

3:50:19 production plan. So, you know, the the

3:50:22 the board's goal, one of the board's

3:50:24 goals should consider somehow how do we

3:50:26 incorporate this idea executing on

3:50:29 comprehensive plan which includes us

3:50:32 and let's get David in. I was just going

3:50:34 to say that I I don't think necessarily

3:50:36 it's about bill build bill build verse

3:50:38 affordability for all from my

3:50:40 perspective uh regarding the not

3:50:42 necessarily being against some uh 20

3:50:45 million $30 million homes is looking at

3:50:47 it from the demand on town services and

3:50:50 tax revenue perspective.

3:50:51 Yes.

3:50:51 Because if you build bill to the extreme

3:50:55 including in areas that currently are

3:50:57 more expansions you can't afford the

3:50:59 increased demand on town services. So

3:51:01 that's another reason why Having housing

3:51:04 across all price points is beneficial in

3:51:07 terms of a predictable giftable tag.

3:51:11 You predict or beneficial, but is that

3:51:13 really a goal that we as a select force

3:51:17 should have?

3:51:18 I mean, is it

3:51:19 I mean that our need is affordable and

3:51:22 middle inome housing. That's our need.

3:51:25 We don't need although I'm not saying

3:51:27 it's bad. Yeah. Uh other housing types

3:51:31 you high income housing types.

3:51:33 Yeah. Let's get

3:51:34 Okay. So, so I think my my position is a

3:51:38 little more balanced than you described.

3:51:42 I didn't mean to mischaracterize it.

3:51:45 You know, for political effects

3:51:47 sometimes it helps to to put things out

3:51:49 in the extremes. So, I actually applaud

3:51:51 it. That's number one. Number two,

3:51:53 getting back to Bernard's point about

3:51:56 the makeup of our community, I mean, I

3:51:59 think in terms of our in terms of our

3:52:01 housing goals, um the the reason the

3:52:06 reason that that that we need housing at

3:52:10 so many different price points and we

3:52:12 also need the sort of cross fiscal

3:52:15 polization that you talked about before

3:52:18 is because the situation that we have

3:52:20 right now um is not sustainable in terms

3:52:24 of a diverse and vibrant community.

3:52:26 Right? That's that's what we that's what

3:52:28 we've been talking about. So, it's

3:52:30 possible that when we talk about our

3:52:34 housing goal in in the broadest sense,

3:52:36 what we're really talking about is we

3:52:39 need to have reasonably priced housing

3:52:42 for the breadth of the community that we

3:52:44 want to have in the

3:52:47 right. And right now that community is

3:52:52 primarily either people who are very

3:52:55 wealthy and can afford to buy homes,

3:52:57 people who bought homes a long time ago

3:52:59 and have benefited from the appreciation

3:53:02 or people who are getting um some form

3:53:05 of assistance, whether it's government

3:53:06 or wealthy relatives or whatever. And as

3:53:09 you say, that middle is isn't here. But

3:53:12 the goal in all of that is to have a

3:53:15 housing supply that that's

3:53:18 supports the diversity of our community.

3:53:22 Okay.

3:53:23 I want to Okay, last

3:53:24 one question. Bernard, were you talking

3:53:26 about economic diversity, racial

3:53:27 diversity, all forms of social

3:53:29 diversity?

3:53:30 Yeah. Yeah.

3:53:31 Okay.

3:53:31 And I and the one final thing I'd like

3:53:34 to say, I know you want to move up, is

3:53:36 that I think the most important thing

3:53:39 that comes out of this is that we have

3:53:40 to be intentional about what we want. We

3:53:43 can't it can't be left to market forces

3:53:45 because if it's market forces, we're

3:53:47 going to get luxury. That's what we're

3:53:48 going to get and it's going to displace

3:53:50 people. So I whether you reward the the

3:53:53 goal or not, I don't know. But I think

3:53:55 it just needs to be very intentional

3:53:57 about what we want to have as an

3:53:59 opinion.

3:54:00 Okay, let's move to strategies

3:54:03 for this just really for the sake of

3:54:05 time. Um

3:54:07 okay so for each of these I'll just say

3:54:11 we you all have done less thinking on

3:54:13 the strategies and some like the goals

3:54:15 and the themes are not new. Um the

3:54:18 strategies really are not new either.

3:54:20 They've been we've all been sharing them

3:54:22 over the last few months. They've gotten

3:54:24 some refinement. I think we will

3:54:26 definitely need to come back to them.

3:54:28 Um, and so more what I'm looking for

3:54:32 today is I want to show you how they've

3:54:35 gotten tweaked and reworked. And there

3:54:38 I've tried to roughly put them in the

3:54:41 prioritization ranking of you all. Like

3:54:43 you all kind of different types of

3:54:45 feedback. So it's not going to be the

3:54:46 neatest piece ever, but they're in

3:54:48 roughly the right order of like people

3:54:51 who thought they were the most important

3:54:53 ones at the top decreasing. Um, and I

3:54:56 want to hear your like strong reactions

3:54:59 to specific things. Like are there ones

3:55:00 that you can't live with? Is there

3:55:02 something that you desperately think is

3:55:03 missing? If things like feel okay,

3:55:05 that's great. We can do the words

3:55:06 smmithing piece pieces later. Um, okay.

3:55:10 I'm going to set myself a timer to about

3:55:12 10 minutes per bowl. Okay. And we're all

3:55:15 going to hear it when it goes up. Um,

3:55:18 okay. Let me

3:55:20 facilitate

3:55:22 desperate

3:55:26 um

3:55:28 okay so this is going to be these are

3:55:30 the strategies for the service provision

3:55:32 goal um and again if you want to follow

3:55:35 along in the written version if you

3:55:37 prefer because then you'll see the goal

3:55:40 um these start on page one and you'll

3:55:43 also see some of the actions that we

3:55:45 have for each of these. So this might

3:55:46 feel a little incomplete because there

3:55:48 are starting to be actions. Okay.

3:55:53 Um so

3:55:57 let me

3:55:59 try. Okay. So document the required base

3:56:02 services each department provides and

3:56:04 the source of the requirements. So this

3:56:05 came out of the request of like what are

3:56:07 we actually being required to do and

3:56:08 where are those things coming from? um

3:56:11 communicate to residents the strength of

3:56:13 town services and improve the

3:56:15 transparency on service performance.

3:56:17 This was something like tracking and

3:56:18 dashboard type interests here. Um and

3:56:21 this also came out of the idea that like

3:56:23 I heard a lot talking to department

3:56:25 heads and others like we have really

3:56:27 great services. should this uh

3:56:30 prioritize maintaining existing services

3:56:33 and adding additional services only when

3:56:35 some current services are eliminated or

3:56:37 otherwise modified to accommodate the

3:56:39 new proposed services. This is a bit of

3:56:41 the multi-headed camel one, I think. Um,

3:56:47 prioritize staff resources and physical

3:56:50 buildings and space and upcoming budget

3:56:53 cycles as those necessary to service

3:56:56 petition.

3:56:58 So, I'll give you all a moment uh

3:57:01 instead of these. Yeah, go ahead.

3:57:03 So, I have a little bit of an issue with

3:57:05 three. I I'm a bit concerned that we

3:57:07 shouldn't always presume that

3:57:09 maintaining what we have right now is

3:57:12 the ideal scenario for potentially

3:57:15 changing conditions on the ground from

3:57:17 time to time. So I think we should

3:57:21 modify the language there.

3:57:24 But I like the second that add

3:57:27 additional services only if the current

3:57:29 ones are eliminated or otherwise

3:57:31 modified. So you don't want to we have

3:57:34 limited bandwidth. You can't always add

3:57:36 it up too.

3:57:37 And I think that was the main point from

3:57:39 some of you is um and from some of the

3:57:43 staff too is we get requests for a lot

3:57:45 of new services. If we take on all of

3:57:47 those that means other the quality or

3:57:50 frequency of others will get diluted. Um

3:57:54 and then I so wanting to have some that

3:57:56 second pause and then I think David

3:57:58 you're not alone. other people are

3:58:00 saying, but hey, what if our current

3:58:01 service is just status quo and is

3:58:03 actually not that good and we should be

3:58:04 switching to something else. So maybe we

3:58:06 need a as necessary or kind of

3:58:08 something.

3:58:09 Yeah, if I would I would add in addition

3:58:12 to u adding additional services only

3:58:15 when some current services are

3:58:16 eliminated or otherwise modified

3:58:20 or you find the money for those

3:58:23 services.

3:58:23 Okay. because you know

3:58:28 as time goes on we need more services

3:58:32 can't can't really afford that then it

3:58:35 may mean cutting back someplace but it

3:58:37 may mean just finding the money

3:58:40 y other yeah

3:58:41 so

3:58:44 is this number three which we all seem

3:58:46 to sort of add on to um is this about

3:58:49 fiscal responsibility or is this about

3:58:54 um you know streamlining our services so

3:58:57 that so that the things that we provide

3:58:59 like people understand them and it's a

3:59:01 cohesive body of services or is it or is

3:59:05 it both because because

3:59:09 the question I have about this one is

3:59:11 like why why is this important like what

3:59:16 which of our values is it tying back to

3:59:18 and I'm not I'm not sure it's clear in

3:59:21 the writing and I'm not sure like we all

3:59:23 necessarily have the same idea.

3:59:28 I mean,

3:59:29 I'm trying to think back to some of the

3:59:31 comments from this. Um, I think this is

3:59:34 more about

3:59:38 um

3:59:41 this is a if everything is a priority

3:59:43 method is a prior.

3:59:44 Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Right.

3:59:47 Yeah. I think that's good, Melissa. Um,

3:59:49 so, so it's more about like how do we

3:59:51 communicate like

3:59:54 how do we talk about what we're what

3:59:56 services we're providing? I mean, as

3:59:59 opposed to saying like what are the

4:00:02 what's what is our capacity? What is our

4:00:04 resource capacity whether it's fiscal or

4:00:06 people or space

4:00:10 and only providing services to that

4:00:13 level.

4:00:14 I think this might be trying to do two

4:00:16 things because I think it does have the

4:00:17 fiscal element of the um but it's more

4:00:21 let's not dilute our existing services

4:00:23 because we're just adding on ones that

4:00:25 take money away.

4:00:26 So what we what we're really saying is

4:00:29 let's be conscious of what we're

4:00:33 providing as services and making sure

4:00:36 that

4:00:38 you these are the proper services that

4:00:40 we want.

4:00:43 Yeah.

4:00:44 Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead.

4:00:46 The thing the thing that the thing

4:00:48 that's missing and maybe this is trying

4:00:50 to get at it is continuous improvement.

4:00:53 So if you continually improve the

4:00:56 service delivery,

4:00:58 um you may find a more efficient way to

4:01:00 do it. Um you know, you may find an

4:01:03 alternative service that might replace

4:01:05 it, but this just says maintain the

4:01:07 status quo essentially.

4:01:10 um and eliminate it eliminate a service

4:01:13 if you want to add a new one. I don't

4:01:15 necessarily think that's completely

4:01:17 true. Frankly, I think with the advent

4:01:19 of how quickly AI is developing that

4:01:23 we're there's things that are going to

4:01:25 happen in the next five years, we'll go,

4:01:26 "Wow, we never in the world did we think

4:01:28 that you could have an automated vehicle

4:01:30 drive around and pick up trash without a

4:01:33 person, you know, uh that we'd still do

4:01:37 trash pickup." I'm just making a blue

4:01:38 sky here, but we'd save a lot of money

4:01:41 and we could add an additional service

4:01:43 that we don't have to.

4:01:44 Yeah.

4:01:44 So, I think that's what the otherwise

4:01:46 modified is intended to cover what you

4:01:49 just mentioned that if there's an

4:01:51 improvement uh if there's an efficiency

4:01:53 that's identified and innovations. So

4:01:56 maybe can we can be more precise on the

4:01:58 wording to capture that. uh but I I do

4:02:01 think this idea is important both in

4:02:04 terms of the financial perspective of it

4:02:07 because you can't prioritize everything

4:02:10 uh and there are limits to bandwidth and

4:02:13 and also from the cohesion perspective

4:02:15 that uh Michael identified because you

4:02:19 want to make sure that everything's

4:02:21 working in concert with one another and

4:02:22 is complimementaryary

4:02:24 competing or somehow diluting from the

4:02:27 core existing services which is what I

4:02:29 think the initial intention was in terms

4:02:32 of prioritize maintaining existence. I

4:02:35 doubt that any of us actually believe

4:02:37 that we should never change the status

4:02:38 quo. I I I think it was more about being

4:02:41 mindful of the implications of a change

4:02:45 somewhere in stream.

4:02:46 So it's so it's not ex it's core

4:02:47 services because not every existing

4:02:49 service is a core service,

4:02:50 right? So there's a base level of

4:02:52 services. So maybe it's a risk.

4:02:54 Okay.

4:02:54 Right.

4:02:55 I think we can take that. Yeah.

4:02:56 Right. I think to your point about

4:02:59 continuous improvement that may actually

4:03:01 be a separate strategy right which is to

4:03:03 identify opportunities for continuous

4:03:05 improvements for the services we

4:03:07 provide.

4:03:11 Okay.

4:03:12 Oh the word that David used is a word

4:03:15 that really is critical here and that is

4:03:17 mindful.

4:03:19 In other words, we we we're thinking

4:03:21 about what we need and making decisions

4:03:24 based on really appreciating

4:03:27 um you know the entire story.

4:03:32 Okay. Any any of the other strategies

4:03:36 you want to implement on

4:03:39 um I think the word prior well sorry I

4:03:42 word something for the gist is right

4:03:46 there's

4:03:49 What is what's four about?

4:03:53 What is that getting at?

4:03:54 Yeah. Um, this was coming from a number

4:03:58 of some of the department heads and then

4:04:00 some of you said that you wanted to

4:04:02 elevate it up and this is the idea that

4:04:06 staff and physical spaces are essential

4:04:08 to the services that you're providing

4:04:10 and so that they should be when you're

4:04:12 thinking across the budget if you if you

4:04:14 want to be focused on your services then

4:04:16 you would staff and support them.

4:04:20 Yeah. So, so in order to make that clear

4:04:24 one suggestion, um what you this is

4:04:27 about is aligning staff resources with

4:04:31 service provision.

4:04:33 I think

4:04:35 I I don't know that I entirely agree

4:04:38 with this trash

4:04:41 uh particularly the part about

4:04:43 prioritizing the physical buildings and

4:04:46 spaces. I think in in general that's

4:04:48 probably a good thing, but there might

4:04:49 be times where that's not necessarily a

4:04:52 priority, especially in uh current times

4:04:56 where remote work is more feasible. Do

4:04:58 we really want to prioritize maintaining

4:05:01 a physical office somewhere for somebody

4:05:03 who doesn't really need to be in that

4:05:04 office? So, I don't know that I would

4:05:06 agree that in every instance you want to

4:05:09 prioritize.

4:05:09 That goes back to the align. That goes

4:05:11 back to the align because sometimes

4:05:12 align means you take this thing down in

4:05:14 order to match what you need to deliver

4:05:16 the syllabus.

4:05:20 Uh as I say where for is coming from is

4:05:23 is an understandable

4:05:26 reaction uh on the part of departmental

4:05:29 staff that um first of all let's not

4:05:33 lose sight of the fact that pay pay

4:05:35 scales have to be competitive. Okay. Um

4:05:38 and um facilities can't be consistently

4:05:42 neglected,

4:05:44 you know, without there being

4:05:45 consequences to the ability of us to

4:05:48 operate within these facilities. Um so

4:05:51 it's kind of a cry for help here, you

4:05:53 know,

4:05:55 don't forget about us.

4:05:56 Say the time has so if we could do last

4:05:59 quick comments, then I'm gonna

4:06:02 So that I think what John really

4:06:04 triggered it for me. So this is really

4:06:06 about taking care of our people in our

4:06:08 in our facilities like like you know

4:06:11 keep them in mind as we're instead of

4:06:12 heaping stuff on them

4:06:14 right let's say exactly

4:06:16 I think that's what I think that's what

4:06:17 we're hearing from staff probably

4:06:19 and then I'm just realizing that we're

4:06:21 missing one actually

4:06:23 I missed one um so let me just highlight

4:06:26 it for you in the written version of

4:06:28 this

4:06:29 this one yeah

4:06:31 yeah this working version on page

4:06:34 to

4:06:36 the last this last bullet is around

4:06:39 prioritize information technology

4:06:41 efficiencies to achieve service delivery

4:06:43 even lower costs.

4:06:44 Yeah.

4:06:45 And then there's a number of examples.

4:06:47 So I just want you to know that's there.

4:06:49 Sorry it's not in the slides.

4:06:51 Okay. Great.

4:06:54 All right.

4:06:56 Um

4:06:57 with that for now I'm going to keep us

4:06:59 moving again. This is not the last time

4:07:01 we will.

4:07:03 Okay,

4:07:05 the next piece is on internal

4:07:09 alignment. So that's the um strengthen

4:07:12 alignment, efficiency and governance

4:07:14 across town government. One thing to

4:07:17 note is I think you all have a lot to

4:07:21 say on this and a lot of ideas which is

4:07:23 great and so there are a lot of um

4:07:26 proposed or potential actions for each

4:07:29 of these strategies. Um, so they are

4:07:32 captured again in this word document

4:07:33 version. It might feel like some of the

4:07:36 details are missing from this and that's

4:07:38 because they all you all shared because

4:07:39 it's in the written. Um,

4:07:43 so okay at the top we have modernize and

4:07:46 streamline operations. This is around

4:07:48 the digitization the permitting. This is

4:07:51 sharing resources between department on

4:07:53 grants staff etc. Um there was an idea

4:07:57 to conduct a comprehensive cross

4:07:59 department whole of town operations

4:08:01 assessment to identify some

4:08:03 opportunities for efficiencies and

4:08:04 pockets. Um okay strategy number two is

4:08:08 increase alignment and awareness across

4:08:10 town departments and governments. Um

4:08:13 this has things like compiled goals and

4:08:15 objectives from all departments to um

4:08:21 integrate the sustainability natural

4:08:23 resources department more is happening.

4:08:25 So on that sharing regular updates with

4:08:28 you all. The third strategy

4:08:31 probably not boarding but you need to

4:08:34 work on that sentence but someone coming

4:08:37 out from the outside wouldn't know what

4:08:40 you're referring to. Which one you're

4:08:41 referring to?

4:08:41 The second uh increasing alignment and

4:08:44 awareness of what

4:08:47 I guess

4:08:47 goals, work activity.

4:08:51 Um okay. Um

4:08:57 all right. So the third one, decrease

4:08:59 general awareness and budget

4:09:00 coordination between the select board

4:09:02 and school committee. Um there's a lot

4:09:05 here around

4:09:07 town school partnership ideas. um

4:09:10 general

4:09:12 coordinating and develop criteria to

4:09:14 advance major planning projects. Um this

4:09:18 involves an inventory of launch planning

4:09:20 processes, develop criteria to identify

4:09:22 projects that would benefit from large

4:09:24 planning processes and creating a

4:09:26 townwide roadmap of planning processes

4:09:29 in

4:09:31 um build on the public bodies to

4:09:34 increase efficiency and efficacy of

4:09:36 public bodies. These are a lot of ideas.

4:09:39 Thought about that one that he had. Um,

4:09:41 streamline the creation and staff review

4:09:44 of warrant articles. Um, a lot of ideas

4:09:47 to develop a legislative agenda that

4:09:51 aligns with the road map. Um, this was a

4:09:53 new idea from someone um really to say

4:09:57 to make clear about what your

4:09:58 legislative goals are, what are those

4:10:00 types of things you would want to see.

4:10:02 Um, and then improve enforcement of

4:10:05 policies. I will say again the number

4:10:06 these are versus and border um people's

4:10:09 interest and some of the newer ones are

4:10:11 also at the bottom this one was the

4:10:14 lowest um but then people had ideas of

4:10:17 actions that they got excited about I

4:10:20 think um and so

4:10:22 um that includes to update the charges

4:10:26 of public bodies to make those rules for

4:10:28 enforcement to assess exist assess

4:10:31 existing bylaws and regulations to

4:10:33 identify and prioritize level of

4:10:35 enforcement to periodically review

4:10:37 master plans and to develop a policy for

4:10:40 when permits are waved. So you all then

4:10:42 had some more ideas on that one and

4:10:43 maybe it's um as a result okay this is a

4:10:48 lot

4:10:49 shall we discuss anything stand out

4:10:52 again looking for like the strong

4:10:55 so I I will um I'll say I added the

4:10:57 develop legislative agenda um the reason

4:11:01 why I added that is I think I think that

4:11:04 My experience on the board brief time is

4:11:07 that we get caught up in the hearing on

4:11:09 the operations, the approvals,

4:11:11 licensing, stuff like that. Um, and

4:11:15 changes that are are the community is

4:11:19 looking for often coming from uh some

4:11:22 petition warrant. And I think if if the

4:11:26 board could look at its goals or a

4:11:29 strategic plan and come up with a

4:11:31 legislative agenda and bring warrant

4:11:33 articles, one that would help focus

4:11:35 staff on the things that are most

4:11:37 important to the board uh from a warrant

4:11:39 article view and two um it might it it

4:11:43 would help the board in achieving its

4:11:45 goals. Let's take housing as example,

4:11:47 right? We want to build more affordable

4:11:50 different price point housing. Um the

4:11:52 board could initiate a project to do

4:11:54 that and then bring a Warren auditor

4:11:56 forward to town meeting uh and get you

4:11:58 know I think more paying for its buck on

4:12:01 planning versus planning having to go

4:12:03 respond and staff responding to every

4:12:05 article that came to town meeting. That

4:12:07 that's that was the the thought either.

4:12:10 Yeah, David.

4:12:11 So I really like that idea. I think that

4:12:13 it fits very nicely with a broader

4:12:16 strategic plan and in terms of

4:12:17 implementation

4:12:19 if we're very mindful about the steps

4:12:22 that we need to take in order to

4:12:24 effectuate our vision and we ourselves

4:12:27 board with support and staff crafting

4:12:31 those in direction as opposed to in what

4:12:34 happens now where it's it's somewhat

4:12:36 random. take up land based on when a

4:12:38 town meeting member decides to make a

4:12:41 proposal. And I'm not trying to suggest

4:12:44 that we ignore what town meeting was

4:12:47 moving forward, but in terms of

4:12:48 following our strategic plan, it's not

4:12:51 necessarily in concert with the more

4:12:53 goals that get brought before us.

4:12:59 Any responses to that or to any other

4:13:02 strateg? Well, I'd like to know what a

4:13:04 is talking about.

4:13:07 Okay. um

4:13:08 enforcement of policies and that that

4:13:11 except for policies select board which

4:13:13 we really have to carry out u we're not

4:13:16 going to enforce

4:13:18 policies on on the public and to the

4:13:21 extent that we're talking about for

4:13:23 example boards and and commissions I

4:13:25 think that can be addressed in five

4:13:28 other

4:13:29 ballist other policies

4:13:32 that not only coming from the board but

4:13:34 that may be in bids

4:13:36 uh that were on I mean do we know the

4:13:38 extent to which all the policies and

4:13:41 regulations that we're supposed to be

4:13:43 enforcing that's because that's our

4:13:44 swarm both um that we're actually

4:13:46 enforcing in life have we ever done an

4:13:49 inventory of it I thought that I thought

4:13:51 inventory was the word that was used

4:13:53 maybe in one of the original versions

4:13:55 so if you go on in the written version

4:13:57 page four

4:13:59 um and so Bernard I think a lot of

4:14:01 people agreed with you they were like

4:14:03 what is going on with this it doesn't

4:14:04 feel that important but then there are

4:14:06 some new sub bullets of potential

4:14:09 actions that might alert it.

4:14:11 Oh, there it is. I lost. It's on page.

4:14:14 Yeah, page four.

4:14:19 You're about to

4:14:22 So, we have, you know, sidewalk

4:14:25 shoveling laws. We've got I mean,

4:14:28 there's all kinds of stuff that that

4:14:30 we're asked to in our bylaws were

4:14:33 supposed to enforce as as the select

4:14:35 board. And that ties into our earlier

4:14:37 discussion a little bit about collecting

4:14:39 revenue from fines because I get these

4:14:42 calls and emails. I'm sure some of you

4:14:43 do as well whenever something's not

4:14:45 being enforced. What's going on here? My

4:14:47 neighbors doing XYZ.

4:14:49 Yeah, I get those calls too.

4:14:50 Yeah, we don't have

4:14:51 It's really enforcement.

4:14:54 I think our regulations too.

4:14:57 I think we could look at it more broadly

4:14:59 to include whether we ourselves as a

4:15:01 board follow our own policies. So we

4:15:04 often will enact some policy and then

4:15:06 maybe go down a different path

4:15:08 regardless. And it's important to make

4:15:11 sure that our actions are in alignment

4:15:13 with existing policies and to the extent

4:15:16 that we need to change a policy because

4:15:17 we feel very strongly particularly the

4:15:19 course we want to take that we do that

4:15:21 rather than ignoring it. That's

4:15:23 yeah some and some some policies or

4:15:26 bylaws are um complaint driven and

4:15:29 others were proactive. We may want to

4:15:32 reassess that and so we may want to be

4:15:34 we may want to be more proactive on

4:15:36 but what policies would would would

4:15:39 we want to enforce? I mean I I think of

4:15:42 that as a bylaw bylaws or laws. I think

4:15:45 policies might be the wrong word here.

4:15:46 It might be the course of bylaws.

4:15:48 Policies might be I mean what about for

4:15:50 example the policy I think it's in the

4:15:53 select board handbook that says board

4:15:56 members have to show up at twothirds of

4:15:58 the of their meetings like on all boards

4:16:01 and commissions.

4:16:03 I don't know what the exact number is

4:16:04 but but there is but we have a policy

4:16:07 about attendance on boards and

4:16:08 commissions and if they don't then

4:16:12 do then we ask them to resign

4:16:16 that

4:16:16 I

4:16:18 think that we want to make sure we're

4:16:20 focusing on bylaws.

4:16:22 I think it should be rules and

4:16:23 regulations bylaws.

4:16:25 Okay. Well and and yeah that that could

4:16:27 be addressed in the uh in item five. Um

4:16:33 Yeah, sound way.

4:16:34 Yeah.

4:16:35 Yeah. Um, so the I guess the question I

4:16:40 have about legislative agenda is is

4:16:50 wouldn't a legislative agenda come out

4:16:53 of the actions within this roadmap

4:16:55 itself? I mean, doesn't wouldn't this

4:16:57 road map end up creating a legislative

4:17:00 agenda? So why

4:17:02 I wouldn't assume it would unless we say

4:17:04 we want to have to we want the board to

4:17:06 start crafting an annual legislative

4:17:08 agenda. I think

4:17:10 it's never been done before. So an an

4:17:12 annual budget.

4:17:14 Well, we take we staff comes to us and

4:17:16 say, "Hey, we'd like to do this, but but

4:17:19 we do not sit down as a board to say

4:17:21 what do we want to achieve this year and

4:17:23 does that, you know, based on now we're

4:17:25 doing a strategic plan. We haven't done

4:17:26 this before, you know, and is there a

4:17:28 change in our bylaws or a new bylaw that

4:17:30 we need in order to affect that,

4:17:32 right? I I don't think I can't remember

4:17:35 a select board that's ever given me has

4:17:36 ever

4:17:37 presumably I mean we do have fiscal year

4:17:40 27 goals. Um who's the person who or the

4:17:44 group that decides well in order to

4:17:47 effectuate that goal we should like do a

4:17:50 bylaw. I mean if it's annual it's that's

4:17:52 where it is.

4:17:53 It's it's current I'm saying it's

4:17:54 currently not happening. That's all.

4:17:56 Okay. So we'll figure out how to put it

4:17:58 into your current.

4:18:00 Okay. And maybe it happens at that point

4:18:02 where you're developing the yearly

4:18:03 goals, which again like the goal moving

4:18:06 forward would be look at this road map,

4:18:08 a five-y year road map, and then can

4:18:09 trickle down to your goals for each

4:18:11 year. And then maybe

4:18:13 yeah,

4:18:13 just to capture that, could you add a an

4:18:16 action under develop legislative agenda

4:18:18 that talks about our fiscal year goals

4:18:21 and figuring out incidental goals?

4:18:24 Yeah. Yeah.

4:18:26 Okay. So, so as a practical matter, the

4:18:29 only time we have do we have time to do

4:18:32 that would be our September workshop

4:18:35 because later on we're focused on the

4:18:38 budget and

4:18:39 well I think I think that if we

4:18:42 if it's a good idea I think you could I

4:18:45 think you could do it in the summer. So

4:18:46 the first summer session that we have,

4:18:48 don't we do it in that summer? Yes.

4:18:50 In the summer, in the summer session,

4:18:52 carve off a period of time that just

4:18:54 says, you know, review of a of strategic

4:18:58 plan or something or goals and is there

4:19:00 anything that we should be addressing as

4:19:03 that time?

4:19:03 I guess what I'm thinking is that in in

4:19:06 in that first meeting, we we're just

4:19:09 beginning to work on our goals. as not

4:19:12 until later on that's the explor

4:19:17 I think there's still time to sort out

4:19:20 but it seems like there's some interest

4:19:22 in this

4:19:23 okay get that um like maybe one more

4:19:27 minute on on these strategies

4:19:30 um I'll just say I think this is where

4:19:32 you have the most strategies and the

4:19:33 most actions like this is clearly

4:19:35 occupying a lot of your thoughts

4:19:37 and I recognize I'm creating work for

4:19:39 you because I will not be able enjoy

4:19:41 that traditional

4:19:43 city.

4:19:46 Number two, what I think is an important

4:19:48 element, very often we'll have various

4:19:51 studies of something that don't always

4:19:54 have representation from every

4:19:56 stakeholder group. What ends up

4:19:58 happening is we then have these

4:19:59 competing committees that are drafting

4:20:02 proposals that essentially cover the

4:20:04 same material. And I think a better

4:20:07 approach would be make sure that all

4:20:08 stakeholders are included from the

4:20:10 get-go and do it with one group. And so

4:20:14 that's sort of where I interpret number

4:20:16 two to an extent. And that also improves

4:20:19 efficiency. It also improves um stat

4:20:23 resources somewhat if you're not

4:20:25 repeating the same study over and over

4:20:27 again and just looking at it from

4:20:28 slightly different angles.

4:20:31 when I thought about number two and I

4:20:33 think I gave some specific feedback on

4:20:35 this um

4:20:37 was you know we talk about aligning

4:20:41 different departments and the way the

4:20:44 way I articulated this I think I said

4:20:46 have a KPI I think a KPI that

4:20:50 departments should have overlapping

4:20:52 goals how many goals are in common

4:20:55 between those departments um because

4:20:57 otherwise how do you how does increase

4:21:00 alignment awareness at time department

4:21:02 what does that mean they talk to each

4:21:03 other during lunch I think you have to

4:21:04 have specific goals in their annual goal

4:21:07 setting departmental goal setting that

4:21:09 says there's some commonality

4:21:10 that's why I mentioned sort of these

4:21:12 multi-disciplinary

4:21:13 project studies so this comes up a lot

4:21:16 in the context of transportation

4:21:18 infrastructure where we might have a

4:21:21 study that's

4:21:22 just with u sort of focused on bicycle

4:21:26 distinctions another one focused on low

4:21:29 risk. Why don't just put them all

4:21:30 together? I think that would be I think

4:21:33 it would lead to a more fair result that

4:21:36 has community buying. Okay.

4:21:39 Yeah. Right. Y

4:21:41 at a at at a higher level um this

4:21:45 particular goal and I think the one

4:21:46 before it have a lot of detail um

4:21:49 because you know they are a lot of what

4:21:52 they deal with is sort of

4:21:53 processoriented things within town

4:21:55 government and I'm cons I'm worried that

4:22:00 that that is going to make this roadmap

4:22:02 too internally focused and not

4:22:06 responsive enough to like what the

4:22:08 community needs. like we could have all

4:22:09 the perfect processes that we that we

4:22:12 can dream up in within

4:22:16 within this road map and still not meet

4:22:19 the needs of our of our town or actually

4:22:22 address that address those concerns. So,

4:22:24 I'm just you said, you know, there's

4:22:27 eight things here and it's there's lots

4:22:28 of actions underneath and and I just

4:22:30 want to be mindful of the amount of

4:22:34 energy that we can pour into the process

4:22:36 without making substances. Yeah, I think

4:22:39 this this reminds me of one of the

4:22:41 conversations we had I think at the

4:22:42 first workshop where there's some like

4:22:44 different perspectives amongst you all

4:22:46 of like is this really about trying to

4:22:47 get our like in our area of control

4:22:49 getting our own house in order or is it

4:22:51 more about the actions that we're trying

4:22:53 to get our staff to do like around the

4:22:55 climate and housing stuff and so I think

4:22:57 I still see that tension for sure and

4:22:59 you're going to see it in the yeah

4:23:01 that there's the scarcity of other let's

4:23:04 give John the last random

4:23:06 well just in along those lines is, you

4:23:09 know, I I there's a part of me that

4:23:12 questions whether what we're doing here

4:23:15 is um

4:23:17 taking on the responsibility of our town

4:23:19 administrator and and uh you know uh

4:23:23 that's the that goal of uh increasing

4:23:27 alignment and awareness across town

4:23:28 departments I'm sure is something he

4:23:30 thinks about all the time. um then I'm

4:23:33 not sure we need to enter into that

4:23:36 level of strategizing but you know it's

4:23:40 part it will certainly be part of our

4:23:41 evaluation when that time comes of the

4:23:45 performance of the town administrator

4:23:46 but um not sure it sort of rises to a

4:23:50 level of something that we ought to be

4:23:53 taking the lead on.

4:23:55 Chaz, do you want to respond to that a

4:23:57 little? Yeah, I think that's I think

4:23:58 that's true. And I but I and I also

4:24:00 think it's it's okay in my mind, you

4:24:02 know, I think the feedback come back

4:24:03 from departments whose departments think

4:24:04 they've worked really well together,

4:24:05 right? Um yeah, the department and and I

4:24:08 think that on our side that's true. I

4:24:10 think there's always room for

4:24:11 improvement and efficiencies and you

4:24:12 know, so some of the things I've spoken

4:24:14 to you about, for example, in services

4:24:16 and parking and so forth, those are

4:24:18 midterm goals for inter departmental

4:24:21 food that I want to work on.

4:24:23 Yeah. But yeah, I don't you know I think

4:24:26 you know to the the departments feel

4:24:28 like they're doing a good job working

4:24:30 together and I think by and large they

4:24:31 are just because that's true and doesn't

4:24:33 doesn't ob need for it to be a goal or

4:24:35 objective.

4:24:36 I think it's helpful for us to have that

4:24:38 reinforcement that yes we know this and

4:24:41 we are expecting that certainly I am

4:24:43 expected I have an expectation from you

4:24:45 to continue that that work. So knowing

4:24:49 that knowing who's in charge of that and

4:24:50 knowing that I have my marching wish you

4:24:53 would like there focus on that

4:24:56 operational integration result. Just one

4:24:59 quick thing and then we'll go to David

4:25:00 which is I wonder if an action after

4:25:02 this meeting Chess is for you to go

4:25:04 through and especially these internal

4:25:06 ones you say I think just having the

4:25:09 strategy from you to back to reinforce

4:25:11 this is enough and actually the the

4:25:13 actions on the implementation a little

4:25:16 in a different it should be in your

4:25:18 heart so maybe you could flag

4:25:20 I think that level of collaboration that

4:25:22 Chaz is addressing is important also in

4:25:24 a context that might be to be candid

4:25:27 sometimes uncomfortable for

4:25:29 if there are competing interests between

4:25:31 departments and that that can sometimes

4:25:34 arise especially in the context of uh

4:25:37 physical space as we were talking about

4:25:39 earlier and I think that's where a

4:25:42 political body might be in a better

4:25:43 position to uh prioritize in part well

4:25:48 sometimes you know I I think you're I

4:25:50 think you're right it depends on the

4:25:53 talk about Fisher Hills the decision

4:25:56 about what's going to happen at Fisher

4:25:57 Hills what

4:25:58 Um and we can provide support, we can

4:26:02 provide feedback, we can provide advice

4:26:05 against but ultimately the political

4:26:07 bodies are going to make that decision

4:26:08 about what happens.

4:26:10 Um you know there are a number of turf

4:26:13 wars that that don't rise to your level.

4:26:15 Sometimes I have to deal with um you

4:26:17 know sometimes right down to um you know

4:26:20 how many how many rooms does the IT

4:26:22 department get you know currently at the

4:26:25 the you know at the upper school of

4:26:27 Pierce um

4:26:30 several that and and those are and those

4:26:32 are more you know you know interning

4:26:36 struggles that we deal with internally

4:26:38 and don't necessarily arise

4:26:41 but you know I think we do a good job

4:26:43 generally flagging the issues that rise

4:26:46 to that level and we don't right we we

4:26:49 know that at the end of the day we can

4:26:52 we our our our role is to provide

4:26:54 support to you

4:26:57 which is how these companies interest

4:26:58 play but it's ultimately the community's

4:27:00 decision made um for internal things

4:27:03 like

4:27:04 you know

4:27:05 who gets access to gym that's more

4:27:07 that's my that's my

4:27:09 I don't want and it's unless you really

4:27:11 want to get involved I don't

4:27:14 right is more focus on the strategic

4:27:16 pieces. Okay, I'm gonna

4:27:19 move

4:27:21 Jazz. I think this is going to be an

4:27:23 important section.

4:27:24 Yes.

4:27:24 Okay.

4:27:25 All right. Let's move to the uh the

4:27:28 fiscal health goal. Um so this is

4:27:31 increase the town's fiscal health

4:27:32 disability. This is if you're following

4:27:35 on in the written version, this is on

4:27:37 the bottom in the word doc version, not

4:27:39 the slides. It's on the bottom of page

4:27:40 four. Um, I think this one has maybe

4:27:43 been rearranged the most. Um, I'm not

4:27:46 sure that it's really deserved that much

4:27:48 new, but there are some suggested

4:27:50 rearrangements. So, the first one is

4:27:52 pursue ways to increase revenue. Um,

4:27:55 there's a number of things, potential

4:27:58 actions that were proposed, including

4:28:00 proactively seeking out commercial

4:28:02 development opportunities.

4:28:04 um work with the legislative delegation

4:28:06 to petition for local options taxes,

4:28:09 develop a new growth plan, taxes,

4:28:11 funding schemes, etc. Um

4:28:14 then there was prioritize investments

4:28:18 and so this is still around a lot of the

4:28:20 trying to maintain the triple a bond

4:28:23 rating and funding reserves and

4:28:25 unrestricted funds. Um there's a new

4:28:28 idea of developing a fiveyear service

4:28:29 and funding priority list.

4:28:32 Um pursue ways to reduce costs. Um this

4:28:36 is focus on hiring that will reduce

4:28:38 costs or increase revenues more than the

4:28:40 cost hires. Um review the pilot use

4:28:43 agreements with the local profits to

4:28:45 reduce additional facilities costs and

4:28:48 identify someone suggested identify

4:28:51 efforts and services that should be

4:28:52 prioritized for work and funding over

4:28:54 the next five years. Not quite sure what

4:28:56 to do with that, but we can always come

4:28:57 back to specification. And then advanced

4:29:00 fiscal accountability. Um, and this

4:29:02 included developing standards for

4:29:04 warrant articles, which might include

4:29:06 identifying funding sources.

4:29:09 Um, and

4:29:12 developing a process to regularly

4:29:14 publicize and engage residents about the

4:29:16 procarity and breadth of the financial

4:29:18 challenges. Um, and then like, okay,

4:29:21 that's enough. Sorry. Um, so this is the

4:29:24 fiscal health goal. I wanted to run

4:29:26 through a few more of this random the

4:29:28 actions.

4:29:31 Any thoughts on this?

4:29:37 We ought to res re bring back that

4:29:40 budgeting 101 class we had to address a

4:29:45 piece of this. We do it agreement.

4:29:52 We're looking forward.

4:29:55 Yeah. John and then

4:29:57 Well, I I must say I I had a different

4:30:00 impression as to what prioritize

4:30:02 investments was all about. Uh and and

4:30:05 that was um you know what are the what

4:30:08 are the things that we can focus on that

4:30:10 will yield long-term improvements in our

4:30:13 fiscal situation um you know as opposed

4:30:17 to take keep keep a close eye on how we

4:30:19 are where we are depositing our money

4:30:22 yeah that kind of thing so um I'm not

4:30:25 sure which it is both are good things to

4:30:28 encourage um but I think the one that's

4:30:31 that's more important and would have

4:30:34 better long-term health funds is, you

4:30:37 know, how can we strategize there being

4:30:41 a expansion of the tax base and

4:30:45 investments in Brooklyn that yield tax

4:30:48 benefits to the rest of us. Um, you

4:30:51 know, through property development and

4:30:53 so on.

4:30:55 I think that's develop a new growth plan

4:30:58 in the first

4:30:59 Well, okay. Could be there's overlap

4:31:01 there. Sure.

4:31:04 David,

4:31:05 in terms of fiscal accountability for

4:31:07 me, I think an important element there

4:31:08 is making sure that we have objective

4:31:12 measures so that we have an

4:31:14 understanding of a return on investment

4:31:17 based

4:31:19 allocating. I know Michael frames things

4:31:22 often return investment. I know that we

4:31:25 can't do that.

4:31:28 there's a subjective qualitative nature

4:31:30 of the things but to the extent possible

4:31:32 that we can measure whether something is

4:31:35 successful I think that helps in fiscal

4:31:37 accountability.

4:31:38 Yeah.

4:31:41 I think that this topic of fiscal

4:31:44 accountability actually has has more to

4:31:47 do um with

4:31:52 with aligning people's understanding of

4:31:56 like what they're asking for with the

4:32:00 resource requirements

4:32:02 of that of of what they're asking for.

4:32:04 So, are you saying it's a little more

4:32:06 it's not for for the select board, it's

4:32:10 for other people like bringing petitions

4:32:12 or

4:32:13 Yeah.

4:32:14 Yeah. I mean, it talks about like

4:32:15 standards for warrant articles.

4:32:18 Yeah.

4:32:19 Things like that.

4:32:21 So, mismatch perhaps between actions and

4:32:24 then

4:32:24 Yeah.

4:32:28 Um, I think there's a good amount of

4:32:31 like continued discussion on some of the

4:32:32 actions in here, but for the sake of

4:32:35 today and getting like the strategies

4:32:38 clear. It sounds like

4:32:40 generally people agree with this.

4:32:42 I would probably either swap one and two

4:32:45 or swap two and three because you know

4:32:47 increased revenues induced.

4:32:51 Yeah. And this is more in the order of

4:32:52 like people like definitely include this

4:32:54 one. Um, so that's all it's worthying.

4:32:57 The um, okay, the one thing that that

4:33:01 we're doing as part of the the uh,

4:33:04 operating potential overhead is this

4:33:08 deep focus on revenues and expenses

4:33:13 looking forward. Um,

4:33:16 can we continue that after we're done

4:33:19 with this round and have this body

4:33:22 instead of having to reconvene

4:33:25 react every couple years? Um, is it

4:33:29 worthwhile having a board or commission

4:33:32 that's focused on long-term financial

4:33:35 health?

4:33:36 I thought that's what the environment

4:33:38 committee was designed to do.

4:33:40 Well, well, it's but it's temple. It's

4:33:42 gonna I assume it's going to disband

4:33:44 after you're done with this

4:33:46 recommendation.

4:33:47 Long term.

4:33:48 It's set to it's currently set to

4:33:49 disband. I think it's its membership

4:33:52 would like to disband members.

4:33:54 Yeah.

4:33:55 And maybe those that are doing it would

4:33:56 want to, but I I think it's very helpful

4:33:59 beneficial to have expertise kind of

4:34:02 staying on top of

4:34:05 not saying that staff isn't doing a

4:34:06 great job, but be able to have this

4:34:08 longer term focus.

4:34:12 So you thought it was going to continue

4:34:13 sell tickets?

4:34:14 Well, no. I I thought the idea was that

4:34:16 this was was a process that would

4:34:19 continue even if the committee itself

4:34:21 won away.

4:34:22 I mean, the the goal here is to hand the

4:34:24 baton to the town school partnership.

4:34:26 That's really what that is supposed to

4:34:27 be, right? A venue, the town partnership

4:34:30 is these discussions about what is our

4:34:33 what are our policies like? How are we

4:34:35 going to deal with this stuff in the

4:34:37 future? And I think you know what we're

4:34:40 seeing now because we're for example

4:34:42 we're trying to be much more deliberate

4:34:45 about how testing partnership works is

4:34:47 to build up that capacity at those

4:34:50 percentages. Uh but if that's not where

4:34:52 you think it should live we have

4:34:54 perspective about

4:34:54 I don't know I I do think that what what

4:34:57 is currently being done is very

4:34:59 beneficial to get done on a regular

4:35:02 basis who I guess doesn't matter to do.

4:35:06 Yeah, the current committee is very

4:35:08 strong

4:35:10 very good. So just I want I don't I

4:35:14 don't want their work to just go on our

4:35:15 shelves and I want it I want us to well

4:35:18 continue to

4:35:19 and so one way might be if it does not

4:35:21 sunset in some iteration. Is there a way

4:35:24 to add some? Do we want to add something

4:35:26 here? We don't have to decide how it

4:35:28 it's executed because that's all we're

4:35:30 doing right now. But um you know uh

4:35:34 continue long-term financial planning

4:35:36 focus. So

4:35:40 hearing no disagreements.

4:35:44 Okay, let's

4:35:45 Can I give you two corrections?

4:35:47 Is it words?

4:35:48 No, it's not.

4:35:50 Um

4:35:51 let's see. couple reasons now. U

4:35:54 prioritize investments issuers don't

4:35:56 assign AAA bonds. It's the rating

4:35:58 agencies,

4:35:59 right?

4:36:00 And secondly, I'm not sure why payment

4:36:03 of taxes is under

4:36:05 reducing costs

4:36:07 as a way to reduce the cost that you

4:36:08 would spend. It's a bit of a stretch,

4:36:10 I'll admit, in the grouping.

4:36:12 It's it's it's really a way to increase

4:36:13 revenues.

4:36:14 You want to add there? Yeah. Okay. A way

4:36:17 to increase. Yeah. Increase.

4:36:20 Okay.

4:36:22 Um

4:36:23 well it could also reduce it could

4:36:24 reduce cost because you could have

4:36:26 access to facilities that is the line of

4:36:29 thinking that I had but I

4:36:31 we need to elaborate a bit.

4:36:34 Yeah.

4:36:34 Um okay I think

4:36:37 we're at the point that we can move on

4:36:38 on this one. Um okay let me take you

4:36:43 forward. Okay. So, moving moving to

4:36:46 communications and engagement goals,

4:36:48 which is improve communicating to and

4:36:50 engagement with residents. And I already

4:36:52 see

4:36:54 where I think I know what Bernard's um

4:36:59 so I'll just one thing that happened

4:37:01 with this is we combined a few people

4:37:03 suggested combining the a few goals to

4:37:06 be this first one which is improve

4:37:08 communication engagement and having

4:37:10 village and town building and services

4:37:11 for residents. that one that has a

4:37:13 number of likeions in it. Um, diversify

4:37:18 the residents engaged in town processes

4:37:21 and then this one that is in the wrong

4:37:22 place I think is increase the diversity

4:37:24 of refine residents. So, someone

4:37:26 suggested pulling that out as a separate

4:37:27 thing and now it's in a weird category.

4:37:31 Um, and then lastly, we have improve the

4:37:33 select board's ability to respond to

4:37:35 residents. And this was some of the

4:37:37 ideas from you all around like having a

4:37:39 person that's assigned to respond to

4:37:40 emails or um having more detail on

4:37:43 existing communication protocols or

4:37:45 having listening sessions around town at

4:37:48 different.

4:37:50 So is three we're going to take three

4:37:52 out because it is doesn't really fit

4:37:54 anything.

4:37:54 It does. I Yeah. What do you all want to

4:37:56 do? Do you want to pull it out as it's a

4:37:57 goal? Is there a hopeful place?

4:38:00 Well, it should be a goal seems to me.

4:38:03 Um

4:38:05 we have one argument for each goal

4:38:07 and strategies with respect to that

4:38:12 separate issue and that

4:38:15 might be homework.

4:38:16 Yeahiz

4:38:21 well it's it's currently um under

4:38:25 four and you know the strategy includes

4:38:28 developing a marketing plan. So I think

4:38:30 that that that's what that's that's what

4:38:33 a strategy is the goal,

4:38:35 right? And maybe it needs more if it's

4:38:36 going to get

4:38:38 disagree with that.

4:38:40 Um

4:38:42 this may be a little crazy, but I'll

4:38:44 throw it out there anyway. Um but maybe

4:38:46 if this becomes its own goal, then what

4:38:49 we currently have as goal number five is

4:38:52 actually subsumed within that goal.

4:38:56 the the the whole business about

4:38:58 expanding and preserving affordable

4:39:00 middle- inome housing. The conversation

4:39:02 we were having before getting back to

4:39:05 that but the diversity is broader than

4:39:07 just middle income alone.

4:39:09 Sure. Sure. This that's why I'm saying

4:39:11 it would just be one action amongst many

4:39:14 within this area of diversity.

4:39:17 So you would re refra

4:39:20 label this as

4:39:23 something about diversity.

4:39:24 Right. Right. have a goal about

4:39:25 diversity and one of the actions that we

4:39:27 take to maintain diversity is to improve

4:39:30 our affordable and rural housing

4:39:32 right

4:39:33 and defining diversity right I mean I

4:39:36 think that's the other thing is

4:39:38 everybody has used the reason why you

4:39:40 responded to Michael's I think as you

4:39:41 were talking about it's not just

4:39:42 economicity it's racial

4:39:45 yeah right diversity includes you know

4:39:48 upper income blackness challenge

4:39:51 right I mean we we talked about a value

4:39:53 of diversity

4:39:54 that includes race, ethnicity, ability,

4:39:57 origin as part of our values. So,

4:40:02 okay. So, the option that's on the table

4:40:04 right now is to take out the strate

4:40:09 divers, make it its own goal. We can

4:40:12 board Smith that if we need um and then

4:40:14 include in that the strategy of like

4:40:17 marketing plan and then also around

4:40:19 housing for long.

4:40:26 And just on number one, and I'm not

4:40:28 going to engage in the specifics of the

4:40:29 word snapping, but I think

4:40:32 the way the way number one is currently

4:40:34 phrased somewhat implies that we haven't

4:40:36 already made strides in that category

4:40:38 and I feel we have the website was

4:40:40 recently revamped. There these alerts

4:40:42 that are specific to different

4:40:43 committees. So I think in that area is

4:40:47 um

4:40:48 continue to

4:40:49 we've had tremendous problems in the

4:40:51 last year or two. That's great.

4:40:55 So Paul suggested continuing to improve.

4:41:00 Yes. Or or build up,

4:41:02 right?

4:41:04 Okay. This is now firmly in the words.

4:41:09 Uh

4:41:10 okay. Anything else here?

4:41:14 Improve the select board's ability to

4:41:16 respond to residents. You know, we have

4:41:17 a policy on this. It's just that it's

4:41:19 not it's not carried out because

4:41:22 everyone responds to people who call

4:41:24 them and uh there's no real cohesion

4:41:27 there. So I'm not sure. Um

4:41:30 and this did rank very low just to be

4:41:32 clear like people were not in the do you

4:41:34 think it's important but does this rise

4:41:36 to the level of inclusion in that?

4:41:39 So I I don't think it does because to me

4:41:41 this is in that category of it goes

4:41:43 without saying you do that.

4:41:45 Yeah. And when you when you have too

4:41:47 many of the uh to go over that same I

4:41:49 think it'll be all about

4:41:52 right and and and this maybe is covered

4:41:54 in the previous um uh part of this where

4:42:00 we talked about the um

4:42:03 tell um

4:42:07 someone help me here

4:42:09 the first oh talked about

4:42:11 uh enforcing policies

4:42:17 So, I'm hearing a few nudges towards

4:42:19 removing

4:42:19 Yeah.

4:42:20 this. Any concerns with that?

4:42:23 Um, as long as you put it somewhere

4:42:25 else.

4:42:25 Oh, you want it somewhere else?

4:42:27 Well, you could take the actions and put

4:42:29 them like you could take those three

4:42:30 actions and put them under improving

4:42:32 communication, engagement, and ability.

4:42:34 Right. I find that that's an action.

4:42:35 Doesn't necessarily think it rises to

4:42:37 the

4:42:41 under.

4:42:42 Okay. It's exactly what I was saying.

4:42:45 All right.

4:42:50 Okay. Let's keep moving.

4:42:54 Okay. Right. So, this had been the

4:42:56 housing

4:42:58 um

4:43:00 and we just discussed now moving this

4:43:02 strategy to be within the new goal

4:43:04 around increasing diversity. Um,

4:43:09 is that is that all you want to say

4:43:12 about housing or is there something

4:43:13 about housing that you would want to say

4:43:15 still and maybe it finds another home?

4:43:19 But this is

4:43:20 so so let me add why is housing its

4:43:23 specific goal

4:43:25 when we also have climate needs at all.

4:43:28 So we have climate

4:43:29 y

4:43:30 um the last infrastructure climate and

4:43:33 housing and where those are coming from

4:43:35 is when I talked to you all in those

4:43:36 one-on- ones these three were like the

4:43:39 topics that you all were like this is a

4:43:41 really big important thing in

4:43:45 so uh this is just talking about um

4:43:49 strategies for existing middle income

4:43:52 workforce and housing we also want to

4:43:54 talk about um creating new house.

4:43:59 Yeah.

4:44:00 Yeah. I agree with you, Bernard. I'm not

4:44:03 sure why the emphasis on preservation

4:44:06 was that intended in the very literal

4:44:08 sense of

4:44:09 Well, I mean, we have a lot of known

4:44:11 housing in town already and they're

4:44:13 being they're being torn down to be, you

4:44:16 know, right

4:44:17 for uh serial box housing. Yes.

4:44:20 And you know, that that's you know, the

4:44:22 idea there.

4:44:23 More and more you lose, the more you

4:44:24 have to then go ahead. Okay. So, we can

4:44:27 add though a bill too. I think this from

4:44:29 a conversation when you all developing

4:44:31 the fiscal year goals section, but I

4:44:33 think it's totally fine to add.

4:44:34 I I think one of the strategies should

4:44:37 be to start taking action on the plans

4:44:39 that we develop,

4:44:40 right?

4:44:41 On the plans that we develop. We've got

4:44:43 a housing production plan. We should

4:44:45 start to execute on

4:44:47 we have

4:44:50 the housing production team.

4:44:52 Yeah. constantly, you know, doing

4:44:54 things.

4:44:56 No, I think this is an interesting

4:44:58 avenue you could go because for both the

4:45:00 housing one and the shadow, the um

4:45:05 climate one.

4:45:07 Um someone suggested this first one

4:45:10 that's actually a few people suggested

4:45:12 this strategy which is really to like

4:45:15 work like implement the carp that's

4:45:17 being developed right now. And so I

4:45:19 think it was in almost in response to

4:45:21 saying hey there's a lot of thinking the

4:45:22 town staff how to do this and implement

4:45:25 it and so we rather than redoing that

4:45:28 thinking ourselves action in our role be

4:45:30 to support that and I think that's a

4:45:33 little bit what you're saying the

4:45:34 I think we got a lot of planning

4:45:36 activity already

4:45:38 um so so are you saying that we should

4:45:42 have a strategy to uh implement the

4:45:46 comprehensive plan uh implement the

4:45:50 housing production plan.

4:45:52 I'm not sure what you're talking about

4:45:54 is

4:45:56 basically a report on where we are.

4:45:58 Isn't that what the

4:46:02 one on the car was about? Yeah.

4:46:05 Adopt implement and track.

4:46:07 Okay. So that's sort of a report. Where

4:46:09 are we? What have we done? So I would so

4:46:11 I would just so that so you know we

4:46:13 haven't finished the carp but the carp

4:46:16 will you know have specific actions that

4:46:19 needs to be funded executed and tracked.

4:46:22 I would do the same with the

4:46:24 comprehensive plan which incorporates

4:46:26 much of the housing production plan but

4:46:28 you could do both of them if you wanted.

4:46:29 I just think we should execute on plans

4:46:31 that have been developed and make sure

4:46:33 that we're we're moderating making

4:46:35 adjustments at the end.

4:46:37 And to your point, I mean, I think the

4:46:39 word implement is important here. So,

4:46:41 it's not just a report. It's to take the

4:46:44 existing plan and actually

4:46:46 control it.

4:46:47 It's something we can look at and say,

4:46:49 well, we've accomplished something or we

4:46:51 haven't accomplished something.

4:46:52 Yes.

4:46:53 Yeah.

4:46:59 So then right now what we would have

4:47:01 what you would have for housing is you

4:47:02 would have this goal with some smithing

4:47:05 word smithing around new construction um

4:47:08 and also the adopt well sorry uh

4:47:12 implement track the comprehensive plan

4:47:16 the track I I would I would do both I

4:47:19 would say the comprehensive plan and the

4:47:20 house approach plan there's

4:47:23 you know the housing the comprehensive

4:47:25 plan may not exactly

4:47:28 pull in everything from the housing

4:47:30 production plan. The housing production

4:47:31 plan might go much more specific, but

4:47:33 that's the direction I would go in

4:47:35 without words.

4:47:37 Do do either of those plans

4:47:40 if if we if we did implement both of

4:47:43 those, would we

4:47:46 have met the strategy as well

4:47:49 of incre of of increasing housing? Well,

4:47:52 preserving of preserving middle- inome

4:47:56 workforce and low income.

4:47:57 Yeah. So the next So the next step Yeah.

4:47:59 It's a process. So the next the housing

4:48:01 produ the the comprehensive plan even

4:48:03 the housing production plan has not yet

4:48:05 developed zoning changes. Right.

4:48:07 Right.

4:48:08 So so there'll have to be a follow-on

4:48:10 activity from the comprehensive plan to

4:48:13 go start building out. Okay. Are there

4:48:15 additional further studies for areas of

4:48:17 town to determine what the zoning is

4:48:18 that that needs to be brought to town?

4:48:20 blah blah blah like that that what needs

4:48:22 to be done.

4:48:23 Okay.

4:48:24 And so I think what you're signaling

4:48:26 with with

4:48:28 this idea around a housing piece or

4:48:30 climate is that you all really like this

4:48:33 is a priority for all of you and you

4:48:35 really want staff and residents to know

4:48:37 that and take it and run with it. Um and

4:48:41 that you know there are a lot of

4:48:42 intermittent steps to get there. You're

4:48:44 not going to rehash them here, but

4:48:46 you're going to look to what's

4:48:47 we're going to develop a new plan.

4:48:49 There's no new planning activity. It's

4:48:51 like

4:48:52 execute on the plans that are being that

4:48:54 are currently underway or have been

4:48:56 completed.

4:48:57 Right. It's it's it's totally to fund

4:49:00 them to staff and to

4:49:02 and you know I mean this board may or

4:49:04 future board may decide that what's in

4:49:06 the housing production plan a portion of

4:49:07 it needs to be

4:49:08 or could be a portion of the of the

4:49:11 comprehensive plan could be executed you

4:49:13 know at a certain time but um I think

4:49:17 those are the two studies that that

4:49:18 should be followed

4:49:20 it could be a worthwhile exercise

4:49:22 thinking about the implementation is

4:49:24 each year when you're developing your

4:49:25 fiscal year goals if you could maybe

4:49:28 check in with the people that are with

4:49:29 implementing the comprehensive plan and

4:49:31 the car to say like what are the

4:49:33 immediate priorities this year like what

4:49:35 would need select for an action and then

4:49:37 those would flow from there.

4:49:42 Okay.

4:49:44 Can I move us to infrastructure?

4:49:46 Yeah.

4:49:47 Can I ask one question before we start

4:49:49 because I'm I'm now kind of in the weeds

4:49:50 of goals. Did we have an economic

4:49:52 development goal as well? You don't have

4:49:55 I probably did where John proposed

4:49:57 specifically I think it was five00

4:50:00 project

4:50:04 oh you know someone referenced a new

4:50:06 growth plan I actually didn't know what

4:50:08 that specifically was

4:50:11 new revenue

4:50:14 I mean it that new growth plan might

4:50:17 include commercial

4:50:18 well that's my point is housing and

4:50:20 commercial a lot of that is go hand in

4:50:21 hand because we're doing mixed In the

4:50:24 fiscal zone, you have uh uh proactively

4:50:28 pursue commercial development.

4:50:32 I feel I feel like economic development

4:50:36 at separate level.

4:50:38 Is there a plan that exists that we

4:50:39 would do a similar type of

4:50:44 cohesive?

4:50:46 Right.

4:50:47 So maybe you would see one. It may it

4:50:49 may initiate

4:50:51 you know and refine

4:50:54 the myriad of economic lawmakers.

4:50:57 Any responses to that idea? So basically

4:50:59 to add a goal around economic

4:51:02 development and that would include as a

4:51:04 the main strategy to have a plan. Yeah,

4:51:07 the goal might be Jo I think Joe you

4:51:09 know some number right that I think

4:51:12 somewhere I read it didn't I see five to

4:51:14 15 or 15 to 20 million in new gross

4:51:18 revenue didn't

4:51:18 that was an idea that had some

4:51:23 I'm not sure I've seen that so could be

4:51:24 yeah so somewhere we we lost the idea of

4:51:28 economic development growth

4:51:30 Oops.

4:51:33 Are you talking about about economic

4:51:36 development purely in the SE measured

4:51:39 purely by incremental tax revenue or are

4:51:42 you talking about economic growth for a

4:51:44 different purpose?

4:51:46 I would make well how you want to

4:51:48 measure it I don't know what the

4:51:49 measurement would be but I think it's

4:51:50 it's new revenue

4:51:52 right I however we get there I think the

4:51:55 important measure is net new revenue

4:51:57 right so let me ask the question this

4:52:00 way

4:52:00 what is the guiding value that drives

4:52:04 the need for that goal

4:52:06 financial stability

4:52:08 okay

4:52:10 that term financial has some type of

4:52:13 economic wellness

4:52:16 We should

4:52:18 we we we think we think about this in

4:52:21 terms of discrete projects and but I

4:52:24 mean the so I think I think this is

4:52:27 where I do think this discussion is

4:52:29 really right

4:52:31 there's an opportunity there's an

4:52:32 opportunity um and I think you're going

4:52:34 to hear this from expend

4:52:38 members discussing these issues of um we

4:52:43 say we

4:52:44 brother and then when specific things

4:52:48 come up there

4:52:53 I think we got to figure out

4:52:56 what that

4:52:57 how to how to how to get through that

4:52:59 how to stop thinking in the abstract and

4:53:01 start thinking about yes this for

4:53:03 example west is a great example of this

4:53:05 you know we we've now identified

4:53:08 opportunity for what we are working at

4:53:10 refining they're trying to bring in with

4:53:12 small stakeholders

4:53:14 the process is working. It's it's it's a

4:53:16 it's not the easiest process, but is you

4:53:18 know it's moving towards a meeting the

4:53:20 spring which is great. Um it's very it's

4:53:23 a very discreet we don't have a

4:53:26 comprehensive for revenue growth. So

4:53:29 EDAB which I'm now the leazison on I

4:53:31 think they do a lot of this thinking. I

4:53:33 don't necessarily think it comes boils

4:53:36 up bubbles up into a formal actionable

4:53:39 plan that that is supported and executed

4:53:41 and monitored by the select board. And I

4:53:43 think we should commission

4:53:45 they do come to front of the board.

4:53:48 Yeah. Well, they're trying but it's but

4:53:50 it's more like you know any board and

4:53:52 commission come in like we I think we

4:53:53 need to elevate it to a specific goal

4:53:57 and strategy for the board and then it's

4:53:59 monitored and executed with with

4:54:01 performance metrics.

4:54:02 Well, I certainly agree with you Paul. I

4:54:04 think to some extent the planning

4:54:06 department might very loosely or

4:54:09 internally have an idea about the order

4:54:10 in which to do things because we did

4:54:12 Harvard Street first that was somewhat

4:54:15 related to the MBTA

4:54:17 totally reactionary to to

4:54:19 it was reactionary but that explains the

4:54:21 timing of really everything in way right

4:54:24 now it's Ches Hill west because city

4:54:25 realy bought that parcel uh up next I

4:54:29 anticipate will be comment but we'll see

4:54:32 it's all reactionary

4:54:34 That's it. That's the problem.

4:54:35 But okay, but I but I I want to push

4:54:38 back a little bit. Um, for example, in

4:54:42 the MBTA Communities Act, there were at

4:54:45 least two years of study on Harvard

4:54:47 Street before

4:54:49 MBTACA became an issue. And I think what

4:54:54 happened the opportunity was that you

4:54:57 know we needed to comply with MBTACA and

4:55:00 the planning department had which had

4:55:02 been studying Harvard Street

4:55:06 you decided to use that opportunity in

4:55:08 order to move forward that that plan for

4:55:11 Harvard Street and in the same way

4:55:14 Chestn Hill commercial area you know was

4:55:17 planned for redevelopment and then city

4:55:19 realy ble space and now it's sort of

4:55:21 morphed

4:55:22 because of that opportunity. But I think

4:55:24 that those things were part of the plan.

4:55:26 The place that I see planning on this as

4:55:28 as sort of more challenging is when

4:55:31 there are citizen petitions that come

4:55:37 and to the planning department and ends

4:55:38 up taking staff resources away from the

4:55:43 things that they're act that they were

4:55:45 intending to do. You know, like Cox

4:55:47 Perry has been sitting around for years.

4:55:50 That's a that's more of a housing. I

4:55:51 guess my my raising a good point, but

4:55:53 that is all reaction. The point is I as

4:55:56 a select board member can't point to an

4:55:59 e economic development plan that we're

4:56:02 executing.

4:56:03 Is anyone against that idea to try to

4:56:06 have a little more comprehensive

4:56:08 approach developed for economic

4:56:10 development? And I I will just say I

4:56:12 would go I would go I encourage you

4:56:14 doing this to go back and look it when

4:56:16 Cara presents the planning department

4:56:18 presents uh as part of the annual budget

4:56:20 presentations. I also think they do one

4:56:22 of the better jobs of of explaining what

4:56:24 the department is doing and why in

4:56:26 particular I think Karen does a great

4:56:27 job with these graphs which talks about

4:56:30 level of you know level what does the

4:56:32 community want how much effort is it

4:56:34 going to take our departmentwide you

4:56:35 know so I think going back and taking a

4:56:37 look at that as a potential jumping off

4:56:39 point saying if that's if that's what

4:56:41 we're looking for more of that or or a

4:56:42 more regular update on that that's

4:56:44 certainly something we could do or if

4:56:46 there's something more to that um that

4:56:48 you might want from us

4:56:50 I think I think what I'm suggesting

4:56:51 suggesting is that economic development

4:56:53 be elevated into our 5-year point.

4:56:56 So, I I I agree with Paul and I've often

4:56:58 made this point at prior workshops. I I

4:57:00 really think a major focus of ours needs

4:57:03 to be proactive economic development,

4:57:06 not reactive. Very often we're reactive.

4:57:09 A parcel goes for sale, maybe we can

4:57:11 jump in on time like Newbury and maybe

4:57:13 not. And there's now a very recent

4:57:15 example of that in Hellenic. Uh so I I

4:57:18 do think to the extent that we develop

4:57:20 an economic development plan and that we

4:57:23 adhere to it and that instead of waiting

4:57:25 for opportunities to pop up and and

4:57:27 thank you for explaining the broader

4:57:29 context around Harvard Street. It was

4:57:31 entirely reactive but often times it is

4:57:33 reactive when we time a uh study that we

4:57:37 undertake or a proposal. We really

4:57:39 shouldn't be doing that. We have a map

4:57:41 of the town. We know what the major

4:57:42 parcels are. We should determine what is

4:57:44 it that we want and and go for it. But

4:57:46 you know, Chess, I think it's just one

4:57:48 point because I because I I'm hearing

4:57:50 something I want to make. This isn't a

4:57:52 commentary.

4:57:54 This is a commentary that the selector

4:57:55 was talked to,

4:57:56 right? This has to be a major pillar of

4:58:00 the select film.

4:58:03 Um, one area, one other place that we

4:58:06 might want to look is um to ask if it's

4:58:11 time for an upgrade to the major crisis

4:58:14 center. And what was the what's the name

4:58:17 of the other study that goes with that?

4:58:18 But but we do have a we did have a study

4:58:22 for 2015, I think, of all of our major

4:58:25 parcels.

4:58:26 And and maybe we need to look at that

4:58:29 again is the foundation developer.

4:58:32 Okay.

4:58:32 And and also the real property asset

4:58:36 committee that we

4:58:38 propose and then would be nice. Yes.

4:58:42 Well, I just again, so

4:58:45 if we could come up with a an assignment

4:58:48 so to speak for EDA and they've done a

4:58:52 lot of this work, state planning has

4:58:54 done some of this work and say the

4:58:55 select board would like to have a

4:58:57 comprehensive plan for economic

4:58:59 development, including the ABC um and

4:59:03 and then and I think I think we'll do

4:59:04 it. I think they would love to jump on

4:59:07 it to tell the truth. I think I'm

4:59:09 hearing enough support for this idea

4:59:11 that we should include it for now. If um

4:59:13 Paulie might especially invite you if

4:59:15 you want to look back through some of

4:59:16 those presentation like if you could

4:59:18 start to delineate what AB and C

4:59:20 are you saying would I'm gonna I might

4:59:22 even put on the action list.

4:59:25 Um I think that would be great.

4:59:28 Okay,

4:59:30 let's move to infrastructure. Um

4:59:34 so

4:59:36 infrastructure right? Okay. So right now

4:59:39 there are two strategies and I'll note

4:59:42 that this first one is kind of similar

4:59:44 to what we were talking about

4:59:46 development and department. It's

4:59:49 basically that it would be helpful to

4:59:51 have a comprehensive town

4:59:52 infrastructure. This is one of this is

4:59:55 an idea from someone actually two I

4:59:57 think a few people kind of were getting

4:59:58 to this in their um that would basically

5:00:02 list out and prioritize what the

5:00:04 infrastructure needs are. Um

5:00:09 and then we have a schedule for what

5:00:11 would come and potential funding

5:00:13 sources. Um and that also has a sub

5:00:17 point around the balancing roadway

5:00:19 maintenance and complete street

5:00:20 guidance.

5:00:20 So one of the one of the the complaints

5:00:24 I had about what was put in front of us

5:00:25 was there was too much.

5:00:27 It's a lot.

5:00:27 It's too much. I just too much strategy,

5:00:32 too many goals. It was too It took me

5:00:34 three days to get you the feedback. I

5:00:37 sat down for like an hour and a half at

5:00:38 a time.

5:00:39 Um it's too much. Like I think that we

5:00:42 probably already do this. It's part of

5:00:44 DPW. It's part of like I don't

5:00:46 necessarily think we need to have an

5:00:48 infrastructure goal with a fiveyear

5:00:49 plan. Um somehow that can incorporate

5:00:52 into something else, a CIP, but some

5:00:56 this thing needs to be trimmed because

5:00:59 we're just we're doing this two months.

5:01:01 Um, did anybody else feel like this was

5:01:03 uh well too much?

5:01:05 You feel like the feedback is too much,

5:01:07 but do you feel like has too many

5:01:11 in effect? Isn't the fiveyear capital

5:01:13 improvement plan our in our

5:01:16 infrastructure long-term plan

5:01:20 infrastructure or it includes

5:01:22 infrastructure? But that's not we're

5:01:25 talking about something broader than

5:01:26 just that.

5:01:29 Well, well, I mean, you know, water,

5:01:31 sewer, you know, has plans. Uh, highway

5:01:35 has plans. Um, you know, in terms of how

5:01:39 Yeah, building department has plans. I I

5:01:42 don't feel like we're lacking um

5:01:44 long-term look at our infrastructure

5:01:47 needs and and a certain amount of

5:01:49 planning and even, you know, try to

5:01:51 identify how much is going to cost in

5:01:54 each of the out years and where's the

5:01:55 funding going to come from, etc. We

5:01:57 already do that. That's kind of an

5:01:58 essential part of our budgeting process.

5:02:01 Well, I mean, another way to look at

5:02:04 this is to look at it in ways similar to

5:02:07 the way we've looked at other things,

5:02:08 right? Um,

5:02:10 we could say, you know, incorporate

5:02:12 vision the vision zero plan just

5:02:14 approved, incorporate the transportation

5:02:16 master plan. Um, you know, as you say,

5:02:20 there are there are plenty of plans and

5:02:21 we don't need that wheel, but but having

5:02:26 sort of

5:02:28 turning this road map into a road map

5:02:31 for implementing the plans that we've

5:02:33 developed might actually be more

5:02:36 efficient and easier to to parse.

5:02:40 We talked about this with Abby and this

5:02:42 was one of the goals that it felt like

5:02:44 there is constant interest in

5:02:46 maintaining and improving infrastructure

5:02:48 but there's not very many strategies and

5:02:49 actions that come out of that. It's just

5:02:51 a value that the select has. I wonder if

5:02:54 what you're pointing to Michael is

5:02:55 almost that you know this maybe could be

5:02:57 subsumed into one of your other goals

5:02:59 that already talks about you know

5:03:02 already talks aboutmenting

5:03:04 you know what we what we have out there

5:03:07 already.

5:03:07 I feel like one then I You know, just to

5:03:10 push back just to push just to just to

5:03:12 push back a bit.

5:03:13 I think that's like something that we

5:03:15 actually do good. Yeah.

5:03:16 Right. We spend a t a tremendous amount

5:03:18 of time talking about maintenance of

5:03:20 schools, maintenance of we got a a

5:03:22 pavement index thing. We talk complete

5:03:24 streets. We got more plans and focus on

5:03:27 infrastructure. I think it's actually

5:03:29 one of our strengths. So I don't again I

5:03:31 just

5:03:32 I think we already got it. That's my

5:03:35 John. Well, um, for me, uh, from my

5:03:39 point of view, what we're most in need

5:03:42 of in that area is, uh, some kind of

5:03:47 measure, uh, that compares

5:03:50 h how much bang for the buck we get for

5:03:54 road repair and maintenance dollars uh,

5:03:57 with other communities and very specific

5:04:00 reporting. Um, it's 2025.

5:04:04 These are the streets we said we would

5:04:06 do. These are the streets we did. This

5:04:09 is how much we paid for asphalt. This is

5:04:13 how much we covered, you know, how how

5:04:15 much mileage we got covered with the

5:04:17 asphalt that, you know, we paid for and

5:04:20 this is what other communities are

5:04:22 paying. Do we get as good a price on the

5:04:24 raw materials? Do we do the paving in

5:04:27 the same ways or or do we do paving in a

5:04:29 way that is more expensive but maybe

5:04:32 better, you know, cost-effective in the

5:04:34 long run? I never see that level of

5:04:36 specificity. Um, and I don't see that

5:04:39 level of tracking. you know, how much

5:04:42 does it cost us to fix a street quote

5:04:44 unquote per yard per, you know,

5:04:48 I mean, DPW has provided similar

5:04:52 similar reports and maybe what you're

5:04:55 asking is us to uh specifically ask them

5:04:58 from departments for updates on, you

5:05:00 know, their infrastructure work.

5:05:02 Yeah,

5:05:03 I think they're getting better at

5:05:06 David and then we can cut to Michael. So

5:05:07 I think some of what uh John is

5:05:10 mentioning the the data is available. We

5:05:12 it's sometimes part of it is presented

5:05:14 to us. The part that I think might be

5:05:17 missing and I hear this often from

5:05:19 members in the community is what is the

5:05:21 methodology behind which street receive

5:05:25 gets repaved for instance or gets worked

5:05:27 on. What is the order? Why is it done in

5:05:30 that order? Uh why does it seem that

5:05:33 communic that gets back communication?

5:05:34 Well I don't think it's just

5:05:35 communication. I think it's also about

5:05:37 what is the rationale behind an order

5:05:40 that we go in. What is it? Why this

5:05:42 street ahead of why street X?

5:05:44 So we should just ask BPW or whoever to

5:05:47 do that.

5:05:48 Let's go to Michael.

5:05:49 Okay. So I actually think that they have

5:05:52 an order and they have a methodology and

5:05:54 it is communication to be able to

5:05:56 communicate that and we already have

5:05:58 that goal. It's part of goal number one.

5:06:00 It says communicate to residents the

5:06:02 strength of town services and improve

5:06:04 transparency on service performance.

5:06:06 Right? That that is the goal. I think

5:06:08 that the the strategies around

5:06:12 infrastructure like what our goals

5:06:14 should be

5:06:16 should should more focus on like what

5:06:20 are the infrastructure

5:06:22 how do we want to either maintain or

5:06:25 improve the infrastructure that we have

5:06:28 like for example I've brought up vision

5:06:30 zero before do we want to make our

5:06:33 systems safer safer right that would be

5:06:36 a broad goal that would be appropriate

5:06:38 for the road but the communication of

5:06:40 the details on our activities I agree

5:06:42 with you you know that's a communication

5:06:45 and transparency issue but this goal

5:06:48 here has to do with the improvement and

5:06:51 maintenance of our of of what kinds of

5:06:54 improvements and balance to our system

5:06:56 we want

5:06:56 I think what I'm hearing is one a

5:06:58 proposal to get rid of the first

5:07:00 strategy here um

5:07:03 recognizing that some of the

5:07:04 communication desires that David and

5:07:07 John are talking about are captured

5:07:09 earlier in goal one and maybe there's

5:07:11 also just like an internal thing about

5:07:13 more reporting from DPW to you all on

5:07:15 these and then maybe it's a public thing

5:07:17 I'm not inition um and then Michael

5:07:20 you're proposing do we want to strategy

5:07:23 that's kind of the adopt implement track

5:07:25 progress on your existing plans like

5:07:28 vision zero whereas Paul's proposing

5:07:30 should we just take out the

5:07:32 so any thoughts about those two options

5:07:36 adding in implementing existing plans or

5:07:39 just removed this.

5:07:42 I think maybe as we did in previous

5:07:45 example, turning it into an action

5:07:47 underneath another goal

5:07:52 or a strategy underneath another goal.

5:07:56 Which one?

5:07:58 So part of it was about communication,

5:08:01 right? as you and Paul said, captures

5:08:03 where John and I were just concerned

5:08:06 and then the part about

5:08:09 identifying infrastructure that we want

5:08:11 to preserve or enhance

5:08:14 um

5:08:16 sort of squalor,

5:08:17 right?

5:08:19 Right.

5:08:20 I mean the re the reason why I I lift up

5:08:23 something like the transportation master

5:08:25 plan, the bicycle network plan or vision

5:08:28 zero is that

5:08:32 those are really sort of tangible

5:08:34 choices that we are making in terms of

5:08:38 what are the improvements that we want

5:08:40 and just in terms of communicating with

5:08:42 the rest of the public. I think I think

5:08:45 that it's helpful in in this kind of

5:08:48 area to be tangible because it means

5:08:50 that we're making choices.

5:08:53 They're tangible, but they also, you

5:08:55 know, are visionary and uh I'm not sure

5:08:58 they, you know, um relate directly in

5:09:02 measurable ways to how will we know what

5:09:05 that that we're making progress towards

5:09:07 vision zero? Well, you know, the the

5:09:10 Navy, you know, simple answer is you

5:09:12 you'll know by virtue of how many speed

5:09:15 hops, you know, projects did you do in a

5:09:18 given year? H how many intersection

5:09:20 improvements did you do that are safety

5:09:23 related to prevent, you know, collisions

5:09:25 at intersections?

5:09:25 How many injuries and fatalities we

5:09:27 have?

5:09:28 That's what

5:09:30 yeah.

5:09:32 and and um you know I'm not sure we

5:09:35 approach our annual spending on street

5:09:39 maintenance and street uh projects in

5:09:42 that fashion where you know we sort of

5:09:43 say the these projects will get us

5:09:46 closer to our vision zero goal

5:09:48 but this is a roadmap for two years

5:09:51 so I mean we're going to need some more

5:09:52 time to figure out whether strategies

5:09:54 for infra infrastructure is a strategy

5:09:57 or a goal or but let's leave it the way

5:10:01 it is for now

5:10:02 My sense is we're running out of gas on

5:10:04 this.

5:10:04 Yeah, I sense all are running out of

5:10:06 gas. Um I do want to quickly go to

5:10:09 climate, but I I also sense our appetite

5:10:12 maybe is um decreasing. Um

5:10:18 so for climate

5:10:20 there was again this like adopt

5:10:22 implement harm. Um there was another one

5:10:26 suggest another strategy suggested

5:10:28 develop an action plans to reach the

5:10:30 climate goals that you have already set.

5:10:32 Track progress and periodically update

5:10:34 goals realistic and achievable.

5:10:37 Um involve all departments of climate

5:10:40 change and resiliency work and balancing

5:10:43 the cost of achie achieving climate

5:10:45 policy goals between individual

5:10:47 residents.

5:10:49 Yeah, these are this one did not receive

5:10:52 a ton of appetite still included on the

5:10:55 I think in number two the part

5:10:57 periodically update goals and action

5:10:59 plans goes to the thing that David said

5:11:01 before and it goes without saying

5:11:04 great.

5:11:07 So that's proposal to remove that.

5:11:10 Yeah. Good.

5:11:12 Got rid of one. No,

5:11:14 no, not the entire goal. Just the

5:11:16 second.

5:11:16 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

5:11:20 We have a 2030 or 2040 plan. Am I not

5:11:24 correct in saying that? We just changed

5:11:27 it. Now it's 20. Now it's 2050.

5:11:31 Are we 2050 now?

5:11:32 Yeah.

5:11:33 Yeah. So I mean, you know, wouldn't the

5:11:35 obvious approach under this category be

5:11:38 um you know, commit to supporting

5:11:41 achieving the goals of that plan and

5:11:43 then each year report on our progress in

5:11:45 meeting the goals of that plan?

5:11:47 And is that in the

5:11:49 we don't we don't have a plan.

5:11:50 We develop

5:11:52 that's just a goal. There's not a plan

5:11:53 for net zero.

5:11:54 Right. Right. That that's why developing

5:11:56 action plans is important.

5:11:59 that mean

5:12:01 as a as I said a roadmap test

5:12:05 being action

5:12:07 rained

5:12:08 and I don't and I you know I want to I

5:12:11 want to make sure I phrase this properly

5:12:12 because this is um I don't want to be

5:12:15 misled but this is there's this is a

5:12:17 changing landscape around climate

5:12:20 initiatives and you know the states

5:12:22 moved out at state uh we know that

5:12:25 there's pressure coming from uh from

5:12:28 federal agencies ities that are going to

5:12:30 potentially reduce funding

5:12:33 um prioritization

5:12:35 of uh you know various goals around

5:12:38 fossil fuels. Um you know this is

5:12:43 we are not in a stable environment for

5:12:47 being able to uh plan and execute a plan

5:12:51 because it's it's it's it seems to be

5:12:53 unstable. We have dramatically rising

5:12:56 political costs, dramatically rising

5:12:59 gas, uh putting a lot of pressure on

5:13:01 residents. Um I just I'm wondering what

5:13:04 does that mean for us? I'm not trying to

5:13:06 change the goal, but it certainly the

5:13:10 the situation the environment that we're

5:13:13 now working in is much different than it

5:13:15 was six months ago in a year. Would you

5:13:18 agree with that? Um I think you're

5:13:20 talking largely about the sort of

5:13:24 political and economic environments.

5:13:25 Yeah.

5:13:26 There's also the science

5:13:27 and science,

5:13:28 right? The science is another factor,

5:13:30 you know, that that we can't ignore.

5:13:34 Yeah. Look, I'm Yeah, I'm not I'm not

5:13:35 questioning the science. I'm questioning

5:13:37 the stability to be able to execute them

5:13:41 and how do we build that into our into

5:13:44 our goals? And we're using grant funding

5:13:46 right now. Um

5:13:49 I if I may I I think you know we're at a

5:13:53 moment of opportunity here because you

5:13:55 know we we've now got Alexandra Beio you

5:13:59 know put clearly in charge of a you know

5:14:03 sustainability effort under the channel

5:14:06 administration and I think a good

5:14:08 direction to go in would be to put the

5:14:11 emphasis more on what is being offered

5:14:16 to us by our sustain director in and

5:14:20 that division um as being important uh

5:14:26 uh things to fund and achieve in in year

5:14:30 1, year two, year three, year four and

5:14:33 you know take away this whole business

5:14:35 of there were some very visionary goals

5:14:37 adopted five years ago or updated two

5:14:39 years ago or whatever most of which most

5:14:42 people don't think are realistic and

5:14:44 just get the conversation back on you

5:14:47 know what what is the informed opinion

5:14:49 of our our department person and and

5:14:53 there and the department that she works

5:14:55 under as to the things we could do

5:14:58 should do and will do year by year that

5:15:02 are

5:15:03 trying to make a difference I I agree

5:15:05 with John largely but also I think that

5:15:08 especially category we want to have

5:15:11 measurable attainable goals that we as a

5:15:15 town can accomplish is to Paul's point

5:15:18 we can't really effectuate the broader

5:15:21 vision independently in our own and it's

5:15:23 a bit unfair to hold ourselves

5:15:25 accountable in a category where we have

5:15:28 a very infinite decimally small impact

5:15:31 and so to the to the extent where we are

5:15:34 in full control of something we should

5:15:36 articulate what that something is maybe

5:15:38 it's tree protection and that becomes

5:15:41 one of our measurable goals

5:15:43 yeah I would say Um and you know in the

5:15:48 conversations I've had as the leazison

5:15:50 Zab and conversations I've had with

5:15:53 director Beckio that I am very confident

5:15:57 that she would answer that question

5:16:00 implement the carp right

5:16:02 it's practical and feasible I believe

5:16:04 yes yes

5:16:06 is a practical

5:16:07 it's designed to be an achievable set of

5:16:09 goals and and it's all being sort of

5:16:11 worked out in that in that context so it

5:16:14 may

5:16:15 that we actually don't need goal number

5:16:17 two at all because goal number two is

5:16:20 subsumed within the car.

5:16:22 I agree if I'm hearing get rid of this

5:16:25 one focus on the car making change. This

5:16:27 one is involve all the carbons and

5:16:29 climate change. It could also be like

5:16:30 just really support the work of the

5:16:32 sustainability division that's new and

5:16:35 doing or something like that.

5:16:37 But but I'm sure that I mean that that's

5:16:39 the way that she's treating the car.

5:16:41 One in four are really

5:16:49 Okay.

5:16:50 Yeah, I agree.

5:16:52 Um,

5:16:52 we can't do it offers.

5:16:54 I'm sorry.

5:16:55 I said we can't do it all ourselves.

5:16:57 Let Abby wrap up.

5:17:00 Okay, we're doing so great. Um, let me

5:17:04 try to we have I think like let's try to

5:17:06 do 10 minutes on implementation.

5:17:09 But okay, I'm going to try to be snack

5:17:11 and then we're done. And then we're

5:17:13 done.

5:17:14 Okay. Implementation. Um to Mike's point

5:17:17 earlier. Oh, wait. No, that's fine. Um

5:17:21 when I think of implementation, I think

5:17:22 of two things. The details of what we

5:17:25 want to include in the road map so these

5:17:26 can happen like roles, responsibilities,

5:17:29 timeline, budget, things like that. And

5:17:31 then also the process of checking in. I

5:17:33 wanted to talk about that the first

5:17:35 bullet today of the what details need to

5:17:38 be included in the road map because then

5:17:40 some of some people are going to spend

5:17:41 the next three months trying to flush

5:17:43 that out. Um the process we'll talk

5:17:45 about in March.

5:17:47 Um

5:17:47 when you say some people, which people?

5:17:49 Well, this is a question I have.

5:17:50 Okay.

5:17:51 Um I mean, I'm happy to help with some

5:17:53 of this and I'm also not the person to

5:17:55 make the work plan for staff. It seems

5:17:57 like there are some select board

5:17:59 members, I'm not going to name name, who

5:18:01 are really good at thinking in the weeds

5:18:03 on details and have already started

5:18:05 brainstorming things to include in the

5:18:09 um implementation details and maybe they

5:18:11 want to be involved. Maybe we get the

5:18:12 department heads involved. I think it

5:18:14 could agenda of um let's skip this for

5:18:18 time. These are just some of the things

5:18:19 you all said in your interviews that you

5:18:21 guys are looking for.

5:18:24 Um I wanted to share just a few really

5:18:26 quick examples of what this can look

5:18:29 like. Um

5:18:32 so this is just a one this is a very

5:18:33 high level static version where I was

5:18:36 this is a school committee and they were

5:18:38 working they had like kind of their goal

5:18:40 they had interest instead it looked

5:18:41 better for them and then they had like

5:18:44 the main direction they didn't do a lot

5:18:46 of action planning at all because they

5:18:47 were handing this to their

5:18:48 superintendent who was then going to go

5:18:51 and do all of that work. So this is one

5:18:53 version.

5:18:55 Um you could have a bit more detail and

5:18:57 also static. This is another group we

5:18:59 worked with um a water quality

5:19:01 protection report. So they had they have

5:19:04 objectives which we have our work goals

5:19:07 some framing and then they have a long

5:19:09 table. It's kind of precise but where

5:19:11 they have a task which would be your

5:19:12 strategy the actions that would happen

5:19:15 um indicators of success. So having

5:19:18 reaching it, who's involved in a date?

5:19:22 Um and then there's a more live version.

5:19:24 This is actually an example of our um uh

5:19:29 from

5:19:31 um so this is being updated continually

5:19:34 I understand. Um and it has some more of

5:19:36 those details. Um but it's more it's

5:19:38 used as a worksheet over time to update.

5:19:42 Um so I just wanted to give those

5:19:43 examples. What do I have next? All

5:19:45 right. um some potential details that

5:19:49 could be included. These are based on

5:19:51 things you all have said. Um so some of

5:19:53 you said like who's the responsible

5:19:55 group, the timeline, you could do like a

5:19:57 fiscal year or it could just be a short

5:19:59 long term type of uh strategy,

5:20:02 performance indicators, cost could just

5:20:05 be a low, medium, high rather than like

5:20:07 trying to figure out a specific budget

5:20:09 allocation. The type of action you could

5:20:11 include. So is it like a budget action

5:20:13 or something else? the level of effort

5:20:15 and the priority. So, those are just

5:20:17 examples. Um, I would just caution that

5:20:20 the more specific details you put in,

5:20:23 there's a lot of make work that happens

5:20:24 for that. Um, and maybe that's something

5:20:27 you deem be really important and that's

5:20:29 great. Um, but just to flag that it then

5:20:32 requires a more active process of

5:20:33 updating it and it's not something you

5:20:35 want people to really spend their time

5:20:36 on and that's fine if you do

5:20:38 updating the road map. updating the or

5:20:40 no just tracking the actions not even

5:20:42 updating the tools but like tracking the

5:20:44 actions.

5:20:46 Um so I just I'm trying to get a sense

5:20:48 of like which of these details are

5:20:50 important to because again from this

5:20:52 meeting some people including

5:20:54 perhaps some of you u are going to have

5:20:56 to go and fill this out and so they you

5:20:58 need to know. So I've got the so I u

5:21:01 this doesn't mean I'm a volunteering for

5:21:02 anything but I do want to

5:21:05 u but so the thing that we struggle with

5:21:09 even as we were having discussions

5:21:11 around the goals is it a goal what do we

5:21:14 mean by that goal you know um

5:21:18 my brain's too tired to think of all the

5:21:20 let's say housing what's the goal for

5:21:22 housing or what's the goal for economic

5:21:24 development um I do think that there

5:21:26 should be a very specific measure

5:21:29 measurable goal. If we're talking about

5:21:31 economic development as an example, we

5:21:33 would say we want to increase net new

5:21:36 taxable revenue by $5 million

5:21:41 and have a target date. Maybe it's by

5:21:43 the end of the the five-year plan, but

5:21:45 it I think it needs to be that specific.

5:21:47 I wouldn't have a whole bunch. I

5:21:48 wouldn't have five under each economic

5:21:50 development, but that way it'll ground

5:21:52 us in what we're talking about.

5:21:54 Otherwise, it could be a wordy goal and

5:21:56 it's like, well, what do you mean by

5:21:57 that? Um, so that's that would be the

5:21:59 one cont one contribution I'd like to

5:22:01 make last discussion is have it be

5:22:03 measurable so that when we do come back

5:22:06 annually or by annually we can say how

5:22:10 are we doing tracking against that if

5:22:12 we're coming up short why is it we need

5:22:13 an adjustment in our strategy etc. So

5:22:16 kind of tracking the goal, not the

5:22:19 actions,

5:22:20 not the well well we can talk about

5:22:22 later, but I'm just saying at the high

5:22:24 level each goal should have some new

5:22:28 measurable expression that's measured an

5:22:30 expression that's measured

5:22:33 others. Um I think um you sort of

5:22:37 glossed over it quickly, but you also

5:22:39 mentioned by when.

5:22:41 Yes. And so in addition measurable that

5:22:44 that would be time bound.

5:22:47 Um and we're we're getting close to to

5:22:50 just smart goals if anybody's familiar

5:22:52 with that strategy.

5:22:53 Yes.

5:22:54 And just to question um are you saying

5:22:58 because I thought one thing you were

5:22:59 saying Paul was like maybe it's by the

5:23:01 end of the five years we would have

5:23:02 developed

5:23:03 whatever it could be. It could be it it

5:23:04 could be you may have, you know, some

5:23:07 goals that you could start measuring

5:23:09 next year right away and something else

5:23:12 that it wouldn't be measurable for three

5:23:13 years because you haven't built it out

5:23:15 yet. Um, but I'm just saying it's got to

5:23:17 be measurable, identified, measurable,

5:23:19 and as Michael said, time buff. When are

5:23:22 you going to do that?

5:23:26 Spec what is it? Specific, measurable,

5:23:30 actionable, time frame. U relative

5:23:34 relevant

5:23:36 attainable attainable

5:23:41 I'm just going to note that like for the

5:23:43 metric thing I think you all might have

5:23:45 a lot to say about each metric. Um, so

5:23:49 we should

5:23:50 and I think I gave you a bunch. I

5:23:51 already gave you so I already

5:23:53 I did not work. I didn't give you a

5:23:55 bunch.

5:23:55 Um,

5:23:56 yes. I would say that you don't need to

5:23:58 share ideas for that because you have

5:24:00 those. But I think you all are then

5:24:02 going to want to discuss because the the

5:24:04 metrics that you're putting forward I

5:24:05 think some of you might disagree with.

5:24:07 Do we want to get into the like numbers

5:24:09 back and forth in which case I I think

5:24:11 we might need another meeting beyond

5:24:12 March because I think

5:24:14 you guys could get really into that and

5:24:16 that's fine but we need the time

5:24:17 and Bernard as an example just a great

5:24:19 example. So you brought up diversity,

5:24:22 right? We want to increase diversity.

5:24:23 What does that mean? Is that racial

5:24:26 diversity? Is it economic diversity? If

5:24:28 it is, do we have a target? You know,

5:24:30 right now black population is less than

5:24:32 3%. Do we want it to be 5% by a certain

5:24:34 day or 3%. I think it should be

5:24:37 you can't

5:24:39 you can't set these targets and expect

5:24:41 to achieve them. It's a pro. It's really

5:24:44 a question of in in terms of increasing

5:24:48 black population, for example, a

5:24:50 marketing effort targeting

5:24:52 different uh income

5:24:55 categories

5:24:56 uh to encourage them to move into uh to

5:25:00 to reach out to hospitals, universities

5:25:03 and other employers who bring people in

5:25:06 to get them to, you know, support.

5:25:08 Did it happen? So I mean and you and you

5:25:10 never know how successful you may be.

5:25:12 I agree. But I think if if you don't

5:25:14 express it, if you don't express the

5:25:16 goal almost merit or some some or some

5:25:20 way to increase say increase the black

5:25:22 population by some percent or just

5:25:24 increase it, you won't know even to

5:25:26 measure that that metric. So I think

5:25:28 it's just important to have

5:25:30 I agree with Paul broadly speaking that

5:25:33 it's important to have a measurable

5:25:36 metric for each of our goals so we know

5:25:38 whether we're on pace to achieve it or

5:25:40 not.

5:25:41 My example may have been a bad

5:25:42 application

5:25:42 in the context of diversity though I'm a

5:25:44 little more uncomfortable. Yeah, I

5:25:45 agree. I just

5:25:46 trying to increase certain groups by X

5:25:48 number which

5:25:50 as a percentage has an impact on

5:25:51 lowering some other group and that's

5:25:53 very uncomfortable.

5:25:54 It was merely just an except

5:25:55 but but I like how Bernard was proposing

5:25:57 measuring that it could be through

5:25:58 marketing efforts.

5:26:00 Still your point stands have a

5:26:02 measurable way of looking at each of our

5:26:04 goals.

5:26:05 Could I actually not like I don't want

5:26:06 to take this example further but I want

5:26:08 to use it as an example of the amount of

5:26:10 conversation I think you all will want

5:26:11 to have on each of these. And I think

5:26:14 one way we could do is we could have

5:26:15 another outside of your normal workshop,

5:26:17 we could have another meeting to really

5:26:18 go through it line by line. That would

5:26:20 be if you thought this was a lot of

5:26:22 feedback to give like that's going to be

5:26:23 the org. That's that's okay if you want

5:26:25 to do it. Another option is if I think

5:26:28 we could have can you have two select

5:26:31 board members together is if there are

5:26:33 two people that want to get into this

5:26:35 that feel strongly about some of these

5:26:36 things, we could do a small working

5:26:38 group and break it up into chunks and

5:26:40 then

5:26:41 propose that. multiple

5:26:45 different colleagues.

5:26:47 So I mean your experience because you've

5:26:48 done this for other

5:26:49 Yeah.

5:26:50 groups like ours. What what is most

5:26:52 effective? Is it to have a numeric

5:26:53 expression? Is it to leave it more

5:26:56 wordy? What what what's

5:26:58 Yeah. Um I think it does depend on the

5:27:00 group. I will say that my

5:27:05 this is also a bias that I have. I would

5:27:07 actually try I would leave it a little

5:27:10 bit wordier. um and less try to nail

5:27:14 down every specific detail because I

5:27:16 think that ends up like things change,

5:27:18 things are evolving. I think the the

5:27:20 goal of this effort as I understood it

5:27:22 was to try to tell staff where your

5:27:24 priorities are. And yes, it's great to

5:27:26 send a date. It's great to send a

5:27:27 responsible person, but and I like I

5:27:29 think you could have a more informal

5:27:31 check-in on it every year. Maybe invite

5:27:34 the department heads to share how

5:27:35 they're doing. I think it might just end

5:27:37 up being a lot of work to lay out some

5:27:39 really specific things.

5:27:42 So maybe that's a next step. Maybe it's

5:27:43 something that we refine that future.

5:27:46 I I also think one of the advantages of

5:27:50 putting into our strategies the

5:27:52 implementation of other plans that

5:27:54 already exist is that those plans

5:27:57 already have responsible parties and

5:28:01 um goals and timelines as well or at

5:28:03 least

5:28:04 you should. Um, and so for example, you

5:28:08 know, if implementing the comprehensive

5:28:11 plan or taking the next steps, I mean,

5:28:14 I'm assuming that when the comprehensive

5:28:16 plan comes, there's going to be a set of

5:28:18 goals within it, you know, and how those

5:28:21 how those goals are achieved. So, we

5:28:23 don't necessarily have to do have to do

5:28:26 that.

5:28:29 So, I think we can do both in terms of

5:28:31 have the the wordier elements, but also

5:28:33 have specific goals. I'm a little

5:28:35 uncomfortable with it just being words

5:28:37 because what ends up happening and John

5:28:39 you made this point in prior

5:28:40 conversations and I share your view for

5:28:42 the most part on this that lots of

5:28:45 communities have strategic plans if

5:28:47 they're all words you kind of ignore it

5:28:49 after a little while and that's just the

5:28:50 reality and if you have those specific

5:28:53 metrics that keep you grounded I think

5:28:55 that that you have something clear to

5:28:57 work toward that's important and that's

5:28:59 not to discount the words because you

5:29:02 still want to have a more global idea of

5:29:04 what it is you're pursuing and

5:29:06 conditions do change and you might want

5:29:08 to refine those goals but I think you

5:29:10 need specific targets so that you know

5:29:12 what you're working toward because for

5:29:14 example with diversity in increase

5:29:16 diversity improve communication if

5:29:19 that's all coils down to what are you

5:29:20 really doing and it gets ignored

5:29:22 well whatever whatever the measurable

5:29:24 goals are let's make it one page so it's

5:29:27 easy to update and follow and it's not a

5:29:29 ream of a binder full of

5:29:31 but to Michael's point I think what we

5:29:33 could do is look at the existing plans

5:29:35 and maybe try to call out some of those

5:29:38 specific targets that they make so that

5:29:41 we have sort of one place we can look at

5:29:45 for what our metrics are and all these

5:29:47 different goals because it might be a

5:29:49 little difficult to be constantly

5:29:52 referring to some other plan somewhere

5:29:54 and having to dig out the elements you

5:29:56 want from that plan. And I'm not against

5:29:59 referencing it, but for our own

5:30:01 purposes, I think if you have a

5:30:02 centralized list of what your can be

5:30:05 helpful.

5:30:06 Yeah. I'm not sure with the with the

5:30:08 plans that we're talking about because

5:30:09 they are all so detailed and that we

5:30:12 want to go through the exercise of going

5:30:15 through those plans and extracting our

5:30:18 most important goals given that the

5:30:20 people who created those plans have

5:30:22 already put a lot of thought into that

5:30:24 work. That sounds that sounds

5:30:26 duplicative.

5:30:28 Okay. I think people are reaching their

5:30:30 end. I don't think we have an answer on

5:30:31 this. Um,

5:30:35 Abby, when do we run out of your time?

5:30:36 What's So, what's the what's your

5:30:38 constraint?

5:30:39 Right. I think that the target that you

5:30:41 all have set was the April meeting,

5:30:43 which is currently when my I mean, we

5:30:44 could do a no cost extension on my

5:30:46 contract and have this as a longer

5:30:48 discussion.

5:30:48 We wanted to stay within budget with

5:30:50 whatever we're doing with you.

5:30:51 I think that

5:30:52 it's April and you said that we're

5:30:53 supposed to be

5:30:54 April is the And I think part of the

5:30:56 timing there though was to keep you on

5:30:58 track for updating your next year fiscal

5:31:00 year goals. So you want to have this

5:31:02 stuff framed up so then when we go to do

5:31:04 the specific annual rules you're ready.

5:31:07 Is that right?

5:31:08 Yeah.

5:31:09 I mean presumably you have a

5:31:11 may you have many meetings so we could

5:31:13 if we want to do a slight extension

5:31:15 but we wouldn't get another workshop in

5:31:17 timing wise if

5:31:19 I think we might want to try to slide

5:31:20 one in though even if it's partial

5:31:22 because this idea of having just two of

5:31:24 us set the goals I mean I might agree

5:31:26 with some of them but but we might not.

5:31:28 And I think ultimately the five of us

5:31:29 want to agree on what the goals are.

5:31:31 Well, it's more about the measure,

5:31:32 right? The goals you will have one,

5:31:34 right? I mean those specific metrics to

5:31:36 the extent that we're going in that

5:31:37 direction with specific metrics. I think

5:31:39 all five of us would want to discuss

5:31:41 them.

5:31:41 So So we could have this as a part of

5:31:44 our regular meeting.

5:31:46 Yeah. Exactly. We have your fully remote

5:31:50 or another regular inerson meeting uh

5:31:52 where we should put this as an agenda.

5:31:54 Well, if we have on one of our meetings

5:31:56 that's light and it's more just consent

5:31:58 and a couple of um you know approval of

5:32:01 uh of commissions or something, maybe we

5:32:03 can add this.

5:32:04 And I think this is actually a topic

5:32:05 that would be of

5:32:07 immense interest to the general public

5:32:09 and I think that the general public

5:32:11 follows our evening meetings more than

5:32:12 our workshops.

5:32:14 Okay. So that sounds good. So why don't

5:32:16 we do for next steps here? I'm going to

5:32:19 take our conversation today and make an

5:32:21 updated version of this working version

5:32:25 of the road map and send that all for

5:32:27 you to if you want to get into some of

5:32:28 the word smithing details

5:32:31 one document too. Yes, it would just be

5:32:34 this if I were

5:32:38 um

5:32:42 I think I could confidently say

5:32:45 um the end of next week.

5:32:48 Right. Okay.

5:32:49 Um so then because it'll I just I'm

5:32:51 going to stack three actually right now

5:32:53 speaking so I I don't have so much time

5:32:55 this week. Um but next week would be

5:32:57 fine. Okay. And then so then you all can

5:32:59 have some time to review it in the

5:33:02 simultaneously I know um Paul put

5:33:04 together some ideas of KPIs maybe we

5:33:06 could use those as a starting point and

5:33:08 then when I come together maybe before

5:33:10 March we could do this addition

5:33:13 to keep it going. Does that sound

5:33:15 and and I have one action item?

5:33:17 Yes.

5:33:17 To combine

5:33:21 Yes. Um the fiscal responsibility to the

5:33:23 decision.

5:33:26 Okay. Okay. every week.

5:33:28 So I can get that to you ready and we

5:33:30 proceed.

5:33:31 We also talked about limiting

5:33:33 requirements and assignments. So maybe

5:33:34 this could be an opportunity for you to

5:33:35 combine some of them. This is where you

5:33:38 Yeah, I think in particular, Paul, if we

5:33:40 can circulate your proposed metrics to

5:33:43 I'd have to I'd have to see them again.

5:33:46 Did you send me what I sent you?

5:33:48 I didn't get a record of what I gave

5:33:49 you.

5:33:49 Do you want to do that with these? I

5:33:51 mean, only Paul has looked at these. I

5:33:52 feel like

5:33:53 Let other folks take it to you. Paul

5:33:55 said yes. So maybe why don't I do that?

5:33:57 Why don't Okay, I I will in one document

5:33:59 I will send the updated working version

5:34:02 and then I will add the proposed by Paul

5:34:05 KPIs

5:34:06 which by the way they were just exempt.

5:34:08 So

5:34:08 yeah and it was great. So just know it's

5:34:10 very much

5:34:12 that we've had it all.

5:34:13 I did a lot most of them here.

5:34:16 Yeah. Okay. Thank you everyone.

5:34:19 Thank you.

5:34:19 Great job.

5:34:23 Yeah, with

AI-touched surfaces are labeled; verify against the official record. The tape is embedded from YouTube, never rehosted.