tap to load the tape · nothing plays until you doDuring the Select Board meeting on December 9, 2025, key discussions revolved around budget considerations, including anticipated increases in school funding and municipal personnel costs ([90:46], [119:30]). 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 ([118:33], [125:25]). 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 ([179:11], [328:03]).
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.
Counted, not modeled — each lens is a word list; drift compares the first half to the second.
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.