Select Board Meeting - December 9, 2025
2025-12-09

[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