2026-09-23 - Finance Committee

00:05[music]

00:05Good evening.

00:07>> This conference will now be recorded.

00:10>> There we go. Um, calling the Finance

00:13Committee of Auburn to order. Tonight is

00:17September 23rd. It's 5:30 p.m. I'm going

00:21to read the open meeting law spiel. Uh

00:24this open meeting of the town town of

00:26Auburn finance committee is conducted

00:27both in person and remotely consistent

00:29with chapter 107 of the acts of 2022

00:32which suspends the requirement of the

00:33open meeting law to have all meetings in

00:35a publicly accessible physical location.

00:38Further, all members of public bodies

00:39are allowed to participate remotely as

00:41long as reasonable public access is

00:43afforded so that the public can follow

00:44along with the deliberations of the

00:46meeting. For the public to join the

00:48meeting remotely by telephone, dial

00:501408-6503123

00:53and use the access code 983263437

00:58or the public can join via computer at

01:00meet.go.com/awuburn

01:04select boardroom.

01:06All supporting materials that have been

01:08provided to the members of this body are

01:09available at the town's website. The

01:11public is encouraged to follow along

01:12using the posted agenda. Please note

01:14that this meeting is being recorded by

01:16Auburn Cable Television. Is anyone else

01:18present recording the meeting?

01:23No. I can see on the online the the

01:28conference there's no one other than us

01:30here. So, I'm not going to ask if

01:32there's anyone else present. Um, permit

01:34me to confirm that all members and

01:36persons anticipated on the agenda

01:37participating remote. Excuse me. Um,

01:41nope. That's that's not what I need.

01:42Just when I call your name, say you're

01:44here.

01:45>> Uh Trevor Sansusi

01:46>> here.

01:47>> Steve Consilio

01:48>> here.

01:49>> Andrew Shaw

01:49>> here.

01:50>> Uh the rest of the members of our

01:52committee are absent tonight. We also

01:54have town officials and employees

01:55participating. When I call your name,

01:57please respond in the affirmative.

01:59Assistant town manager Paul Dilquilla

02:01>> here.

02:01>> Fire chief and assistant town manager

02:03Steven Coleman

02:04>> here. CFO town Accountant Karen Haroise

02:06>> here. And executive assistant Amanda

02:09Chival. Did I get that right? Chival.

02:13Um, all right. That's everybody. Our

02:16first uh actual item on the agenda

02:18tonight is to review and vote on

02:19potential transfer requests uh over

02:22$250.

02:24Um, I believe we only have two and they

02:27are both from DPW and that uh Joanna

02:31Paclin of the DPW is here to discuss

02:33them if we have any questions. Um, I'm

02:35just going to read the first one in. Um

02:38there's a transfer from the facilities

02:40supervisor line item uh which has a

02:43present balance of $87,217

02:47to the wages account in the amount of

02:50$70,3312.

02:53The reason given for the transfer is due

02:55to the reorganization of the facilities

02:57division and changes in the personnel.

02:59The facilities estimator position was

03:01filled instead of a facilities

03:03supervisor. Uh Joanna, if you don't mind

03:06just giving us a a quick overview, that

03:07would be helpful.

03:11>> Good evening. Thank you. So, um

03:15a few months ago, um our facility

03:18supervisor,

03:19um position was vacated um and we

03:23promoted our um facilities

03:28position um to uh facilities estimator.

03:33that position was vacant when we did the

03:36budget. Um, and it's just it's a better

03:39fit. Um, this person was promoted to a

03:42higher position. He's done some training

03:45um, over the past year um, and got his

03:48license. Um, so he's perfectly capable

03:50of doing the job. Um, but it's just a

03:53better fit. Um, we're looking at

03:56facilities in general. um the facilities

03:58division, we um a few years back took on

04:03a little bit more bigger projects and um

04:07that took a toll on the DPW as a whole.

04:10We had

04:12um taken on a little too much. So, we're

04:15scaling it down. We're still doing a lot

04:17of projects around town, but not

04:19rebuilding whole buildings. So, um it's

04:22just a better fit for the division

04:24itself and for the staff.

04:27And just to uh head off a question that

04:30I anticipate, has the position that the

04:33current estimator was in previously been

04:36backfilled?

04:37>> Yes. So the um the facility supervisor

04:42had been out for quite some time. So um

04:46we actually had somebody in the

04:48department that um filled that position

04:51temporaril temporarily. Um so he had

04:54moved up to um to that lower position.

04:59>> Any other questions?

05:03>> Motion. Do I have a second?

05:05>> Second.

05:08>> With the motion and Andy with the

05:10second. Uh all in favor say

05:11>> I.

05:12>> I.

05:15>> Thank you.

05:16>> Um the second transfer is from the also

05:20from the facility supervisor line. Um it

05:22is the remaining balance of $16,858.88.

05:27It's being transferred to the skilled

05:28labor differential line. Uh reason given

05:31for this transfer is that the transfer

05:32is needed for DPW employees who assist

05:34in facilities section with special

05:36projects. I know we've talked about this

05:38before, but just for the purposes of a

05:40quick summary, um people elsewhere in

05:42the DPW when they work in deep in in

05:45facilities, there's like a union

05:48contract that requires us to pay a

05:49differential rate.

05:50>> Correct. So um so they they get a

05:53differential um if they're working on

05:56town time then um they get paid their

05:58regular rate and then the differential

06:00comes out of that account. Um at the

06:03beginning of the year we took on some

06:05projects that we weren't able to do

06:06during um town hall hours. So, um we um

06:11we had facilities come in over the

06:13weekend or um at night to um to get

06:17things done without interrupting um the

06:20work here at the town hall. So, um so

06:22the other highway division employees

06:26also u got concent compensated from that

06:29fac that account.

06:31>> Any questions?

06:34>> Motion to approve. I have a motion.

06:37Do I have a second and a second? All in

06:39favor?

06:40>> I

06:41>> Thank you, Jonah.

06:42>> Thank you.

06:45>> I believe that those are the only

06:47transfers over 250 that we had. There

06:50was also um one transfer under 250 that

06:54was approved by the town accountant CFO.

06:57Um $25 in the animal control department.

07:02If anyone has any questions, feel free

07:03to ask. Otherwise, we'll move on to item

07:06number four, [clears throat]

07:11which is uh a discussion and

07:13recommendation on options to fund the

07:15FY2026

07:17snow and ice deficit. Um Karen, I will

07:20let you take it away.

07:23>> Thank you. So, for FY2026,

07:26there was a snow and ice deficit of

07:28445,674

07:32due to the bad winter.

07:34Now, the town was awarded some

07:35additional funds, the winter recovery

07:37assistance program, 257,266.

07:43They're going to offset those funds

07:44against the deficit, which will bring us

07:46to a net deficit of 188,411.

07:51There's three different options

07:52available to fund the deficit.

07:55the full amount of the remaining

07:58deficit, the 188411, could be put

08:01directly on the FY2027 tax recap. That

08:04will cause us to go over the 2.5% and

08:08would put us at 2.8192%

08:11of the prior tax levy limit. Option

08:14number two would be to amortize the

08:16deficit over 3 years. The first year

08:20would be fiscical year 27. So onethird

08:23of the deficit would have to be put on

08:24the tax recap which would be 62,803.

08:28So again that'll put us a little bit

08:30over the 2 and a.5% at the 2.6067%.

08:35Now the third option would be to

08:37appropriate

08:39um excuse me let me just go back to the

08:40other option. The amortization would

08:43require a vote of the board of

08:45selectmen.

08:47The third option would be the net

08:49deficit of 188411 could be appropriated

08:53from free cash or stabilization. Now, it

08:56is not on the the warrant at this time,

08:58but we did check with legal counsel and

09:00they do believe that it's within the

09:02scope of the article. So, if this would

09:04be the preferred option,

09:07then that could be added to the um

09:10supplemental appropriation article two

09:13on the warrant.

09:17Legally, are we allowed to over two and

09:19a half%.

09:20>> Like your option one and two.

09:22>> Yes.

09:23>> Yes. Because we have excess levy

09:25capacity of over $9 million. Yes.

09:30>> Um so I take it from this this I guess

09:33two questions is one we're allowed to do

09:35this interest free like this

09:37amortization. There's no additional

09:39>> that that is correct. Even though it's

09:41called amortization, there is there is

09:43no additional fees or charges that added

09:45to it. We would just pay down the

09:47188411.

09:49>> Is that something that [snorts] um if we

09:52were to again have another tough winter

09:54where we were again to go into deficit

09:56the following year? Is this a like a

09:58one-time program where you're not we

10:01wouldn't be allowed to do this again in

10:03another year until that balance is paid

10:05off? Like how would that continue to

10:06roll? That would be generally if there

10:10we have a snow and ice deficit, we would

10:12have to um raise it in the next year. So

10:16either we'd have to cover it from free

10:18cash or other sources or we could put it

10:20on the recap. The department of revenue

10:23actually passed this amidization option

10:27specifically because of the bad winter

10:29that all the cities and towns had. So it

10:31is a one one-time option on this.

10:34>> Okay. So, this is this is something that

10:35they're the do is passing, but they're

10:37saying it's specific to year

10:39>> 26

10:40>> 27 or 2

10:42>> 2026. Yeah. So, wouldn't be um

10:44>> this isn't a situation where in three

10:46years we're going to be paying

10:48>> could be in a position where we're

10:50paying a third of each of the last three

10:52years is what I'm is what I'm

10:54>> correct. Okay. Yes. Would have to be on

10:56a yearbyear ca you know basis.

10:58>> Okay.

11:01>> Any other questions?

11:03Is there a reason why we didn't put this

11:06in the budget originally

11:09like this spring? Because at the spring,

11:11the summer, the winter was over and

11:13obviously you didn't know you were going

11:14to get the 257.

11:16But if you hadn't gotten the 257, we'd

11:18be looking at 400. Why? That wasn't time

11:21of the original budget discussion

11:24>> for the um for the the original one.

11:28>> Well, I think at that time that the

11:29numbers weren't finalized yet, so we

11:31didn't know exactly. I mean most of the

11:33expenses were incurred but we were still

11:34paying down some of the salt the

11:36contractors

11:38um at that time. So we had to just come

11:41up with a final figure at the end of the

11:42fiscal year.

11:45>> We're this year like how did we I don't

11:50but how did we budget this coming year's

11:55uh snow and salt compared to last year?

11:59>> We level funded the budget.

12:02in the same place

12:04>> depending upon you know what the what

12:08the winter ends up looking like. The

12:11year before we didn't have quite a quite

12:12a large deficit. We were able to cover

12:14it from other from other sources.

12:18>> So um my recollection is that we did

12:21increase the snow ice a few years ago

12:24and I think we've been level funding it

12:26since because we've been in this

12:27situation before. Um, I guess my

12:31question is,

12:33uh, how how close are we to 2 and a half

12:37now with the FY27 budget that was, were

12:40we right at 2 and a half

12:41>> with the supplemental appropriation? We

12:44are right at 2 and a half. Um, and then

12:48I guess the other question is, um,

12:52is this something that that typically

12:56like if we had if we had known about

12:58this deficit when we were putting

12:59together the FY27 budget, would it be

13:00part of the operating budget for FY27 or

13:03is it like treated separately?

13:06>> Would have to have a funding source for

13:08it. So, we'd we'd have to um So, ask the

13:12question again if you could.

13:14>> Yeah. So, um,

13:17had we known about this, would it have

13:20come out of the operating budget and

13:21therefore been a part of our like 2 and

13:23a half% calculation that we were doing?

13:26>> It would not come out of the operating

13:28budget because this is the result of it

13:30being in the operating budget is the

13:32deficit.

13:35>> I feel like I'm asking this question

13:37very poorly and so I apologize. Um, if

13:39if we had known the number when we were

13:42when we were in the process of creating

13:44the FY27 budget, we would have had to

13:48come up with this money in the FY27

13:50operating budget. Is that right?

13:54>> No. The only options would be because

13:56this is fiscal year 26.

13:58>> Yeah.

13:58>> So, you wouldn't appropriate it in

14:00fiscal year 27. you would have to fund

14:03it from another source such as free

14:06cash, such as stabilization, or you have

14:08to put it directly on the tax rate recap

14:11to raise it. Those are the only

14:13>> Maybe this is maybe this is my issue.

14:15Can you just give me a quick summary of

14:16what the tax rate recap like is as

14:18opposed to the two and a half because

14:21I'm I'm looking at this as we've already

14:24hit two and a half for 27

14:27>> and so this is either money that needs

14:29to come out of free cash or whatever

14:31else. so that we can avoid going over

14:33two and a half or we go over two and a

14:35half by tapping into excess levy. Uh but

14:39in my in my mind like if this wouldn't

14:42have counted towards two and a half then

14:44it seems like the do you know what I'm

14:46saying? Like for the purposes of Prop 2

14:48and a half which puts a cap on how much

14:50you can raise your taxes every year.

14:52Would this have counted towards that?

14:54Like would this have been part of our

14:55calculation had we known it when we put

14:57together the FY like our calculations

14:59for FY27 or is it something that like

15:04because the impact is on the tax rate

15:06like that that's one of the options

15:08right we increase the tax rate by more

15:09than two and a half correct

15:10>> and so most people I think are going to

15:12look at this as why are we going above

15:14prop two like why are we going above two

15:16and a half to pay for something I I

15:18think that that's likely to be the

15:20response that we get from from residents

15:23because anytime time we come even close

15:24to two and a half people are concerned

15:27about their tax rate. So

15:31the inclusion of like the tax rate in

15:33this in in as one of the options here I

15:36think is sort of confusing because most

15:39people when they see the tax rate all

15:40they really think about is two and a

15:42half. I know that's what I think about

15:43for the most part. And if this wouldn't

15:45have been included in the calculation of

15:47the 2 and a half for the budget, then

15:50like ultimately what we're doing is is

15:54coming up with the money by either

15:56increasing people's taxes, but it's not

15:58subject to two and a half or pulling the

15:59money out of free cash. Right.

16:02>> Correct.

16:03>> So I guess that's my question is like if

16:06we had known about this six months ago,

16:09what the dollar amount was?

16:12this 400,000 or 188, whichever number it

16:14is,

16:16>> would it have counted towards the two

16:18and a half that we were capped at for

16:20FY27?

16:21>> No,

16:22>> that's what I was trying to get at.

16:23Thank you very much, K. [laughter]

16:24Again, I I am asking leading questions.

16:27They are not eloquent and so I

16:29apologize. Um, I I guess what I'm just

16:32trying to say is like for anyone who is

16:33watching or listening, like we are

16:36talking about this as an increase to the

16:37tax rate, but this this if it isn't

16:39subject to Prop 2 and a half, then like

16:41that's a that's a separate question.

16:43Like we have to come up with this money

16:45because we already spent it. And so like

16:48if we end up having to go above 2 and a

16:50half for FY27, it's not because the

16:53operating budget in FY27 was too high.

16:55It's it's because we spent money we

16:58didn't have on a deficit. And again, I

17:01ap I'm not an accountant, so I'm

17:03probably asking this in an incredibly

17:04ineloquent way. Um, but

17:08what I'm trying to say is like I I find

17:11this a little bit misleading, like the

17:14options as, hey, we're going to increase

17:16the tax rate by more than two and a half

17:18because it's it's we are in reality, but

17:21this isn't subject to Prop 2 and a half.

17:23And so like that's not really a

17:25consideration that we should be thinking

17:27about other than like its impact on

17:29taxpayers, which is obviously the only

17:32thing that we really care about. So like

17:34I just I just want to make sure that

17:35we're not framing this as a we are

17:37making a choice to go above Prop 2 and a

17:39half. No, we might make a choice to

17:42increase taxes in order to pay it, but

17:44it's not subject to Prop 2 and a half.

17:46This isn't something that would require

17:47an override. It isn't something that

17:48we're doing that's like untoward. It's

17:50actually like, if I'm understanding

17:52correctly, are we even actually hitting

17:54our excess levy in order to do it like

17:57or or like because the excess levy is

18:00for the operating budget, right?

18:02>> No, no, the excess levy would be for for

18:05anything that we'd need. Correct.

18:07>> But usually there's a vote to use the

18:09excess levy. That's not like a mythical

18:13pile of, you know, millions of dollars

18:16that exists because it doesn't. It's

18:20excess levy is just a mathematical

18:23calculation that says I gave you a

18:25discount five years ago and I might

18:28crawl back the discount kind of a thing.

18:31It's not like you know people have been

18:33paying whatever the operating budget was

18:36all those years and we got through all

18:39those years and then you get to a year

18:41where

18:43the spending was a little bit of skew. I

18:46don't know how else to describe it. And

18:48so therefore you're going to crawl back

18:50because you don't have the money. But

18:53the question becomes you know because we

18:56did I think was it our last meeting or

18:58the meeting before where we did that you

19:00know omnibus transfer thing where we

19:03found you know quite a bit of money by

19:07you know sort of rating different budget

19:09accounts that weren't fully expended. So

19:12the question the natural it seems to me

19:14the first question would be you know do

19:16we have 186,000

19:19189 188 you know in various accounts

19:23that we could do the same thing again

19:25without necessarily hitting free cash

19:28and and I don't it's to me politically

19:32option one and two is kind of a third

19:34rail you know we you know if we're doing

19:37our job and we're on budget and

19:42predicting our needs and the and the one

19:44wild card obviously is storms,

19:47but there should be enough fat in the

19:48system somewhere to to find 188,000

19:52because we're doing all kinds of

19:54transfers every week that are

19:57generically sort of all the same thing.

19:59you know, we didn't hire this person, we

20:01didn't, you know, this thing didn't

20:02break or we got an insurance check back

20:05or there's a lot of money flowing around

20:09without the first reaction being, you

20:12know, we got to go past 2 and a half%.

20:14It seems to me we're way too early in

20:15the year to

20:17>> for this to be

20:18>> you can't take it out of the 2027

20:20operating budget because it's not a 2027

20:22expense. It's a 2026 expense that we

20:25incurred that we couldn't cover. So you

20:27can't just tr trim fat so to speak from

20:30another position because you're you're

20:33>> this is what I did a very poor job of

20:34trying to explain which is like you

20:36can't take money from the FY27 budget

20:38>> when we budget in general you have a a

20:40hard cap on the timelines of the

20:42expenses and what you incumbent

20:44>> when we finish the 26 budget

20:48as we did with that big arm to bus

20:50transfer

20:52this logically was no this was a

20:54relatively known cost at least we knew

20:56we were in the red. So, we should have

20:59addressed this before we closed the

21:01books

21:03>> through through the chair. There wasn't

21:04enough funds available in order to cover

21:08this. That's why um we're raising it

21:10now.

21:11>> I think ultimately what we're getting at

21:13here is this. We could have if we knew

21:15the number in June before the before the

21:18end of the year, we it would have ended

21:21up having to be pulled from free cash

21:23anyway to pay for it. So it's either do

21:25it then or do it now like in and

21:27>> or reject some part of the omnibus

21:29transfer from other parts of the budget

21:30which I don't think would have been a a

21:32a popular or

21:34>> well I just think

21:35>> decision but yeah

21:36>> I just think the timing is

21:40clumsy I don't know how else to put it

21:43>> yeah if I could just kind of come at it

21:45from a different way going back to your

21:47original question Mr. Consilio,

21:50[clears throat]

21:52your your question was if even if we had

21:54known about this in January when we were

21:57preparing the budget, we would not have

21:59been able to make an adjustment to the

22:01operational budget within the DPW for

22:04snow and ice

22:05>> because it's the

22:06>> because it's an because

22:08>> it's a pre we can't pay a previous

22:10fiscal fiscal year expense. So even if

22:13we knew that we were a half a million

22:15dollars I'm just going to make it. Even

22:16if we knew that we were half a million

22:18dollars short in January, you wouldn't

22:20have been able to address that within

22:21the FY26 operational budget. So it it in

22:26some cases I don't disagree that the

22:27timing is clumsy, but it almost forces

22:29you that way that you have to deal with

22:31it after the fact.

22:33>> I should have just asked somebody else

22:34to explain this because I feel like

22:36you've all done a much better job than

22:37my very clumsy questioning. So thank you

22:39all. Um, the other thing I just want to

22:41point out is like free cash is typically

22:43made up of the leftovers of previous

22:45year's budgets and then whatever we

22:47assign to it on our own. So like free

22:50cash is essentially what you're talking

22:52about finding the money that we didn't

22:53spend in previous budgets. Um, I you

22:56know obviously we should continue to

22:59discuss this if people have more

23:00questions or concerns. I think

23:02personally my preference would be to pay

23:04it out of pre-c free cash because that's

23:07that's the leftovers of our previous

23:09budgets. That's where this money should

23:10be coming from. Stabilization is a line

23:12item that we have in every budget for

23:14things like this where unexpected

23:16expenses come up. Um I I mean it says in

23:19here just free cash or stabilization. I

23:21don't know if the question is for us to

23:22tell tell the board to select which one

23:24we think makes more sense or if you're

23:26actually just asking pick an option. Um

23:29but so that is a question I have like uh

23:32what are the balances in both of those

23:33accounts? I know that we we typically

23:36have a general understanding of where

23:37those are at. Um

23:39>> it has

23:40>> is it in here somewhere

23:41>> that on that on that spreadsheet that

23:43we're going to um discuss as part of the

23:46warrant articles. It does have the

23:47balances on there.

23:51>> This one.

23:52>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

23:55>> So the free cash is Yeah. Free cash is

23:58at 8,284,913.

24:01Stabilization is at 5 thou 5,352,71826.

24:07Um, so again, like

24:10>> I I I tend to agree with you. Um, unless

24:13there's something that that that Karen

24:15that you guys have that would point

24:18towards

24:19um why doing one of the other two like

24:22why um amortizing it would make sense.

24:27Chair, the town manager's recommendation

24:29is to take it from free.

24:31>> We should have started with that. Okay.

24:33Uh, does anyone else have any other

24:34questions?

24:35>> No.

24:36>> Okay.

24:38>> So, this is not a uh it's a public

24:40meeting, but we do not accept public

24:41comment. So, I appreciate you being here

24:43and wanting to say something, but that

24:44it's it's not that kind of meeting.

24:47>> Under I understand what you're saying.

24:49The we have never taken public comment

24:51and it's not something that is a part of

24:53the way that that finance committee

24:54operates. So, I I do appreciate you

24:56being here and listening, and I I look

24:58forward to hearing what you have to say

24:59at a later date, but this is not the

25:01appropriate forum for it. So, thank you.

25:03Um,

25:05so

25:07I I guess I would entertain an a motion

25:11for a recommendation to the board of

25:12selectmen. Um, it sounds like I think

25:17we're all on the same page about it, but

25:18>> I'll make a motion to do option three.

25:22Okay, I hear I have a motion to

25:26let's see exactly how I should say this.

25:27A motion to uh pay the net deficit from

25:30an appropriation from free cash or

25:31stabilization

25:33under STM article 2 for FY27 uh

25:37supplemental appropri appropriation. Do

25:39we have a second?

25:40>> Second.

25:42>> Motion in a second. All in favor?

25:44>> I

25:44>> I thank you very much.

25:50And I guess Karen, I would just say we

25:53would leave it to to town administration

25:55to determine which of the two accounts

25:57makes more sense to take the money from.

26:01>> All right.

26:03Next on our list tonight is the special

26:06fall town meeting warrant articles. Uh

26:08we typically go through the warrant

26:10prior to special town meeting. Um and we

26:14will vote on each warrant article to

26:17remind everyone what our options are. We

26:20typically either recommend approval,

26:23vote to not recommend approval, defer to

26:26the petitioner, or take no position at

26:28this time. Um, and it does appear that

26:30we have all of our town department heads

26:32who have warn articles here to discuss

26:35anything that we need to discuss. So, I

26:38am going to just start by going through

26:39the town meeting warrants. Um, article

26:42one is uh the reports of the finance

26:44committee. We don't typically act on it.

26:46So, unless someone has something to say

26:48about it, we're just going to skip

26:49article one. Article two is um probably

26:53the one that I think is most interesting

26:56from my perspective. Um

27:01do you know if we have to read these

27:03whole things into the the minutes? I I

27:05don't think we have. Okay. [snorts] So,

27:07article two is is the uh every fall town

27:10meeting we have a supplemental

27:12appropriation to f to the FY whatever it

27:15is. budget. Um there are typically

27:18increases and decreases to specific line

27:20items. It looks like we only have

27:22increases this year. Uh so um I'll read

27:26the bottom line, which is um to see if

27:28the town meeting will vote to amend

27:30article 3 of the May 5th, 2026 annual

27:32town meeting to approve an amended FY27

27:36budget for the town of Auburn of

27:3886,976,92.

27:44Um, we do have a breakdown which I think

27:46was posted online as well. Um, that

27:49indicates that article 2 accounts for

27:53941 mil or 941,217

27:58um, of which uh, you know, amounts are

28:01coming from ambulance receipts, state

28:03aid, new growth, solid waste revenues,

28:06and the fire station debt exclusion. So,

28:10um I will open it up to the committee to

28:13ask questions about any specific line

28:14items that you might have. Um and like I

28:17said, we have uh town uh department

28:20heads here to answer any questions we

28:22might have.

28:27>> Trevor,

28:29>> let's just start with the first one. Um,

28:32can I'm just

28:34a little

28:36confused, concerned, not sure on on

28:41like I understand that there's probably

28:43a number that we we weren't aware of or

28:44weren't working with at the time, but um

28:48for the increase in in interest for

28:51$534,680.

28:55um like I'm I'm a little concerned as to

28:57how we missed the mark by that much in

29:00the initial

29:02preparation of the budget or or or what

29:05I'm not or maybe there's just something

29:07I'm not understanding here. Um

29:09>> if I could through the chair.

29:10>> So we didn't miss the mark. We went out

29:12for a bond anticipation note in June. So

29:16we borrowed $14 million for the fire

29:19station project. the amount of the debt

29:22excluded interest is 560,000.

29:25So that's the amount that um

29:30the difference that we had to add to

29:32that. So we had to find out how much for

29:34the cash flow, how much we were going to

29:36borrow. We needed to borrow $14 million.

29:38So when that was finalized, we got the

29:41at at the 6% interest rate for the bond

29:43anticipation note. That's how much the

29:46um the debt excluded interest

29:49is that we have to pay on that bond

29:51anticipation note.

29:56>> So, did we not include any interest when

29:58we went out to bid? Cuz that's what it

30:01looks like to me that we didn't plan for

30:03any kind of interest. The 75,000 was

30:06additionally budgeted from the non-debt

30:09excluded amount that we were going to

30:13borrow that was anticipated. The amount

30:15that we didn't know how much we were

30:17going to borrow. That's true. That was

30:18not anticipated in in the original

30:21budget.

30:23Did we um like I know it's it's not a

30:28perfectly analogous situation, but when

30:30we have like outstanding collective

30:32bargaining, I know we typically put

30:33money aside in a reserve account to to

30:36sort of in anticipation of potential

30:39increases to the contract. Did we put

30:41any money in reserve this year

30:42specifically for this purpose? Like we

30:44had to know that there was going to be

30:46interest. Correct. Did we think it was

30:48going to be a lot lower than this or did

30:50we

30:50>> Well, this is not hitting the This is

30:52not hitting the regular tax levy. This

30:54is the debt exclusion.

30:56So, was So, it was the voted debt

30:58exclusion. So, we wouldn't set any money

31:00aside for this.

31:04>> So, I guess maybe this is maybe again

31:07I'm not an accountant. Maybe the dumb

31:09question here is

31:11if this if this is approved, are are

31:16is there an impact on the tax levy at

31:18all?

31:20Like, do we need to raise additional

31:22funds in order to pay this line item or

31:24like from an accounting perspective,

31:26where does this money come from and

31:27where does it go? Like I I understand

31:29that we're getting a note and and this

31:31money like is it because we've now

31:33gotten the bond and so we're taking

31:34money from the bond and putting it

31:36towards the the ban like

31:40>> well people are just going to see a big

31:41number and they're going to say half a

31:43million dollars wasn't in the budget now

31:45it's in the budget. So I have to come up

31:46we have to come up with half a million

31:48dollars. Where is it coming from? And

31:50and I don't blame people for being

31:52concerned about that, but but I I do

31:54think it it's worth explaining like

31:57what's actually happening from from a

32:00from a money perspective.

32:01>> Well, this isn't coming out of the

32:03regular tax levy. So, this is the amount

32:05that the that the residents voted for

32:08the debt exclusion that we could go that

32:11we could go over two and a half by the

32:13amount to pay down the the debt on this.

32:16So this is the amount of the interest on

32:19the $14 million that was voted. So this

32:22is the first time that we're seeing

32:24anything being added

32:27to the tax levy. So yes, it is being

32:29added to the tax levy. It's over and

32:31above because it was voted and this is

32:34the first installment of the of the debt

32:37that we're seeing.

32:39>> So you're saying this is the first

32:42transfer to co of the 14 million. Is

32:45that fair or this is in addition to it?

32:48People voted for $14 million.

32:51>> No, the people voted for $23 million.

32:54That's a total amount of the debt

32:55exclusion. So now we're going to start

32:57borrowing it as we need it for the cash

33:00flow on the project. So it was estimated

33:03that we're going to need $14 million

33:05within the first fiscal year. So for

33:07fiscal 27, but the interest, the 6%

33:12interest that rate that we got on that

33:14$14 million, that's the amount that we

33:17need to pay by next June of 27. So

33:21that's why we need to put this in.

33:24>> Karen, again, I think I'm doing a bad

33:26job of asking questions and so I do

33:28really genuinely apologize. I I think

33:30the question that is ultimately driving

33:32all of our concern is like we budgeted

33:35$75,000 and the end number is over

33:39$600,000.

33:41How did we

33:43like did we know it was going to be in

33:45the in the six figures and we just

33:47budgeted 75 cuz we weren't sure and we

33:50figured we'll just put a placeholder.

33:51Like I think the concern is just it's

33:53now going to be an October vote to

33:56increase the budget by half a million

33:58dollars. Um, and anytime there's a big

34:01number, that's the one people are

34:02concerned about. And so, like,

34:07why didn't we put more in the budget

34:09initially is is ultimately, I think, the

34:11question.

34:11>> Because we borrowed the money, $14

34:13million in June, which was after the

34:15budget was voted. We we did not know. We

34:18were waiting for the cash flow. We did

34:20not know how much we needed to borrow.

34:22And is that because we weren't sure when

34:24the project was going to start, how much

34:26we were going to spend in FY27? Like I

34:29guess that's we knew we were going to

34:31borrow money in FY27

34:33obviously because we set aside at least

34:35$75,000 in for interest payments. Like

34:38how did we so drastically underestimate

34:41that amount? Like this is a this is a

34:44two, you know, 600 or I'm I'm God. Yeah.

34:49Go ahead.

34:50>> Yeah. Um, so again, I don't think that

34:52it was underestimated. The project

34:54didn't start until July. So by the time

34:56we get a contract, the contractor sets

34:59the cash flow based on when steel's

35:02going to be delivered, when this

35:03benchmark happens. So the budget was

35:06finalized in June.

35:08>> Absolutely.

35:08>> Right. The contractor didn't come on

35:11board until after that and the cash flow

35:14really wasn't probably settled until

35:17probably August. I mean, by the time we

35:20really kind of figured out what the cash

35:21flow was, it was sometime late July or

35:23August. So, it wasn't a known number.

35:27So, you know, I mean, you know, the the

35:30financial situation that we were in,

35:31there wasn't $600,000 to set aside,

35:34right? So, we knew that there was going

35:37to be a number, but we did not know what

35:40that number was until the contractor set

35:42the cash flow. Then, we were able to

35:45determine it. to to put it in like the

35:48bluntest possible terms that I can come

35:49up with. Um it's a $23 million project.

35:52We knew we were probably going to spend

35:54several million dollars this year,

35:55right? Like the project is starting this

35:58year. We knew we were going to have to

35:59spend money, which means we knew we were

36:00going to have to go out and get a bond.

36:02I I think my concern is that uh we

36:07approved a budget and like went through

36:10with with a a red pen and like made hard

36:13decisions

36:16because we were sort of understanding

36:20that like this project was already a

36:22part of that. And so this this is half a

36:26million dollars that like

36:29I am concerned people are going to say

36:31we just approved an $86 million like at

36:33the end of this right we're now

36:35approving a an amended FY27 budget of 86

36:38million that's that's more than what we

36:40approved previously. So like this this

36:42is into that number right like the the

36:44500 or 534

36:48$534,000

36:50is being added to the number that's at

36:51the bottom of this article. So, at the

36:54end of the day, people are going to say,

36:56"We were told in May that we had a

36:59budget that accounted for everything we

37:01needed to spend in FY27,

37:04and now in October, you're asking us for

37:08$900,000 more, more than half of which

37:12is something that we should have been

37:13able to anticipate would be higher than

37:15$75,000." I don't know if that's true or

37:18not. Like, I genuinely don't. It may be

37:20that we couldn't have possibly

37:21understood that it was going to be this

37:22number, but it has always been my

37:25position as a member of the finance

37:27committee that my job is to ask the

37:29questions that other taxpayers are going

37:30to ask. And I think the very first

37:32question that people are going to ask

37:33when they see the town meeting warrant

37:34articles is how the hell did we

37:37underestimate by half a million dollars

37:40the amount of money we were going to

37:41need for the fire station project? And

37:42and I'm not saying that we did. I'm just

37:45saying I think that that's the question

37:46that's going to be asked. And I am

37:50concerned that like we knew there was

37:52going to be a number and we set it at

37:55$75,000

37:56and now it's $600,000

37:59and and I think people are going to be

38:02upset

38:04>> if I can. Yeah.

38:05>> Again, this this is not something that

38:08we would have gone through in the 27

38:09budget looking for money. This is a debt

38:12exclusion. This is added over and above

38:15the tax levy. So, it's not that we

38:19missed it. It's not that we

38:20underestimated it.

38:22>> To be very I'm sorry, Karen. I'm I'm not

38:25I'm not saying that that this was a

38:27result of of maliciousness or

38:29incompetence. I'm I'm just saying at the

38:32end of the day, people don't care if

38:34it's from the operating budget or the

38:36capital budget. They care what their

38:37taxes go up. And like we are now

38:40approving an amount of money that's

38:43higher than we did in May. And that

38:45typically happens, right? like we always

38:47have increases and decreases in the in

38:49the fall town meeting, but this is just

38:50a really big number. And so I think it's

38:54going to get more scrutiny than a lot of

38:56the other things that are in here do.

38:57And

38:59I'm not saying that what you're saying

39:01isn't true or accurate or I'm just

39:03saying I don't really understand it. And

39:05so I I suspect that many people in town

39:08are not going to understand it. And so I

39:10think that we need to work on explaining

39:12it to people in a way that makes more

39:13sense to to someone who's not an

39:16accountant. And and I have significantly

39:18more information than most people in

39:20town because I'm on this committee and I

39:23still am and I I I don't want to speak

39:26for my fellow members, but I I I don't

39:28think it's unfair to say that like all

39:30of us were a little surprised by the

39:31size of that number. And so like that's

39:35my issue is not that I'm asking you to

39:37explain yourself. It's it's that I I

39:39want to make sure that we are in a

39:40position to explain to taxpayers and to

39:42town meeting why this number is so high.

39:46Does that make sense?

39:49>> If it doesn't, that's totally fine. I I

39:51I often don't.

39:57>> Can I ask ask a question and see if I'm

40:00>> just I just want to make sure I'm

40:01understanding the the timing and all of

40:03this and and making sure that I get what

40:04you what is being presented.

40:08We have a $23 million fire station debt

40:12exclusion that allows us to borrow from

40:15it to again make payments as payments

40:18are due. Am I is that accurate? We have

40:2223 million here that we're saying we

40:24when when the contractor comes or the

40:26steel gets delivered or whatever comes

40:28they say we need this now time time for

40:31a bill we go and we we pull from that.

40:33Is that then that's correct?

40:36>> That's fair. Yes.

40:37>> So, what we're saying here is that I

40:41think part of what I want the

40:43discrepancy that I want to make sure

40:44we're understanding is we were unclear

40:47with the terms of when the project was

40:49going to start, when money was going to

40:50become due, when things were going to

40:52happen, and therefore

40:56there was really no metric to use to to

40:59put into that initial number to say we

41:01should be putting we should be

41:04borrowing from that debt or take not

41:06borrow taking from that debt exclusion

41:07at that time when the original budget

41:09was coming through.

41:11>> We have now we are now starting to pull

41:13from that.

41:17We are now starting to pull from that

41:19and we're pulling half a million from

41:22that from that debt exclusion. I think

41:25the concern is that it presents as if we

41:28are going over budget by $534,000.

41:32And I think what we just need

41:33clarification on here is that this

41:37534,000 was always a part of the plan to

41:40be borrowed and always part of the plan

41:43to flow into the project. It's just a

41:45matter of timing because I think had in

41:50say in April we were told this is when

41:54we're going to need this, this is when

41:55we're going to need this, this is when

41:56we're going to need this, this all would

41:57have been factored into the original,

41:59you know, they say February. April is

42:01not a good not good date, but February,

42:03all of this would have been pre-planned

42:05and pre-pulled out of the debt exclusion

42:07and incorporated into the budget. And

42:09it's we're really just dealing with a

42:10timing issue here. I think people just

42:12want to we want to make sure pulling

42:15this money is not an indication of us

42:16being overbudget in any way or

42:18overspending. Is that is that accurate?

42:21>> Essentially, what you're asking town

42:22meeting to approve is a dispersement

42:25from a previously approved amount of

42:26money. Right.

42:27>> Correct. That that's that's what I'm

42:30>> Is that right?

42:31>> No, it's not really a dispersement

42:33>> or or a uh

42:39I'm very bad at this and I really do.

42:41I'm like I I'm I'm really sorry. We have

42:44approved $23 million to be spent on this

42:46project over and above the budget. What

42:49you're asking is essentially we want to

42:51make our first debit out of that amount

42:54that we're allowed to spend as a town,

42:56right?

42:57Not exactly. The town, we can borrow tw

43:01up up to $23 million and we can pay $23

43:06million plus the interest associated

43:08with that under the debt exclusion.

43:12>> Okay.

43:14So, essentially the town approved $23

43:16million and associated fees, interest,

43:19whatever.

43:20>> Correct. And so this this is in addition

43:22to the 23 million in theory,

43:26but it's it's just because the 23

43:29million was a 23 million plus. And so

43:32this is just the first part of the plus.

43:34>> Yes.

43:36>> I'm really like I genuinely want to make

43:37it clear. I am not questioning how this

43:39is being done. I just want to make sure

43:41that we're able to explain it to people

43:43in a way that's not going to cause 45

43:46minutes of fighting at town meeting

43:47because that's my my only goal as the

43:51member of the finance committee is to

43:52have town meeting be short. So like

43:54>> just 45 just 45 minutes here.

43:57>> Yeah, exactly. I'd rather waste my own

43:59time than 100 people's. So like

44:02I'm what I'm trying to get at is like

44:05this money has already been approved.

44:07We're gonna have to come up with it. But

44:09like the point is

44:13um

44:14>> it's inside the scope of everything

44:16that's already been

44:16>> predetermined through through the chair.

44:18We I get I get what you're saying. We

44:20will we will come up with a with a

44:23better easier way to explain this. But

44:25to go back to Mr. Sansusi's point when

44:28he said um you know we want to make sure

44:30that people understand that this this is

44:32an overbudget. The project came in

44:34millions under budget. So this is this

44:37is not over budget. We're well within

44:39the budget because the project came in

44:41millions under. So

44:43>> and this is just a an anticipated fee

44:45correct that we did not have an amount

44:47for associated with a a project that is

44:49already under budget.

44:51>> Correct. Right. So we we will figure out

44:53a better way to

44:54>> I need to figure out a better way to

44:55talk about these things because

44:57obviously I'm doing a poor job. But like

44:59I really do genuinely want you guys to

45:01know my whole goal of these meetings is

45:02to end them with people not being able

45:04to ask the dumb questions that I'm

45:07asking at town meeting. And I know they

45:09will anyway, but like I I want you to be

45:11prepared to answer them because if I

45:13have the dumb question, someone is

45:15almost certainly going to ask the same

45:17question at town meeting because I'm

45:20definitely not the smartest guy in town.

45:22know like there's there's someone has a

45:25good question and and I I just want to

45:26make sure that we're in a position to

45:28explain these expenses so that people

45:30don't say no. Like my I've said this to

45:33you since the beginning of the fire

45:35station project like I want to make sure

45:37that when we ask the town for money they

45:38say yes because saying no is bad like

45:41it's not going to be helpful. So thank

45:44you and I again apologize for my

45:46ineloquence but um I think I think we

45:49have gotten to the end of that question.

45:51>> Yeah. Can I ask?

45:52>> Yes, please.

45:54>> So, the because this was obviously a

45:57line item in the budget and it was set

45:59at 75,000. Now, it's going to be 69,000.

46:04So, this takes care of the full year

46:07until the next fiscal year. We'll have

46:09to do the same thing because we'll have

46:11borrowed whatever we've borrowed

46:14because we're not completing the fire

46:15station this year. Correct.

46:17>> Correct. So logically we'll be doing the

46:20same thing next year where we've however

46:23even if we're under budget we'll

46:25[clears throat] be borrowing as the

46:27building is being completed

46:30and so then we're going to get a new uh

46:33pro because this is really a projection

46:34of interest due correct

46:36>> no that's actual interest do on the note

46:39yes

46:43>> I mean it's a it's a projection based on

46:48[clears throat]

46:49>> they they work with a contractor and

46:51have timing and know when the money is

46:52going to get pulled and when

46:53everything's going to happen. So it's

46:54it's it's a it's a it's an in factual

46:57number based on the bank they the

46:59contractor tells the bank we're taking

47:01the money on this date. They know when

47:02the money's going to come out. It's it's

47:04a planned the same thing as if you were

47:06to build like on a smaller scale. If you

47:08were to build your own home when you go

47:10to the bank to take out the loan to

47:11build the house you have a a schedule

47:13with your contractor that says this is

47:14when

47:15>> Okay. same difference. So every time we

47:17take money to pay the contractor, we

47:20will have a line item that says we need

47:22to pay the interest.

47:24>> They've already built that schedule and

47:25with that schedule, they know what the

47:27interest is going to be at the end of

47:28the year because they've already built

47:30out when the money is going to be

47:31pulled.

47:31>> Well, that was that was my original

47:33question. Is 60 is the is the is the 609

47:38a 12-year projection? And the answer was

47:41no, it wasn't. So that's now I'm

47:43confused.

47:44>> No, she said it's actual. She said

47:45that's actual.

47:46>> It's actual, but it is

47:47>> Karen. Go ahead.

47:48>> It's a projection for the year.

47:50>> So, we actually we we borrowed $14

47:52million.

47:54So, as the contractor invoices come in,

47:57we pull money against that 14 million.

48:01But that interest rate is already sent

48:03set against that 14 million. So we know

48:05exactly how much interest is going to be

48:08due next June

48:10>> because we've borrowed essentially we've

48:12borrowed more than our bills are today.

48:16That's going to go down but we're going

48:18to pay the interest on the full 14

48:20because we have so that hence your

48:22answer. It's all due today. But from a

48:26from the from the mechanics point of

48:28view this

48:30expenditure covers the full year until

48:32we get into the next year. we borrow the

48:36second half of the building and then we

48:38would do the same thing again presumably

48:40not putting 75,000 as a placeholder but

48:44either it doesn't really matter because

48:46at some point you have to calculate the

48:48number based on

48:51>> through the chair if I could well at

48:52this point we have a cash flow and the

48:54cash flow will continue to be updated by

48:57our OPM so we will know when we go into

49:00our putting together our FY2028 budget

49:04We should know what about what we should

49:07estimate for interest. So it should be

49:08in that budget that we vote in May.

49:11>> The interest rate that we have

49:13is the interest rate for 14 million for

49:16this year and then we're going to have

49:17to borrow the the extra nine next year.

49:20Does that is that a different interest

49:22rate or are we locked in for the full

49:2423?

49:25>> It will be a different interest rate at

49:26the time that we borrow.

49:30I I think to to wrap it all up, I guess

49:34uh we do not anticipate needing to

49:38change the number in FY28 because now

49:41that we have a borrowing already, we

49:44already know what the interest will be

49:45that needs to be paid in FY28. And so

49:48ultimately, this is like a one-time we

49:50now know what the number is, we need to

49:52put it in, right?

49:53>> No, this is the number for fiscal 27.

49:56>> Okay.

49:57We're going to borrow additional funds

50:00probably next June

50:03based upon the cash flow until we get up

50:05to maybe 21 million or the total amount

50:08of the project. But I guess what I'm

50:10saying is that because we have a cash

50:12flow now that when we come to next May

50:16we can build into the budget what we

50:19anticipate.

50:20>> That was what I was again trying in

50:22eloquently to get at. We will do a

50:24better job next year of estimating what

50:25the ban not a better job. We will have

50:27more information and therefore be able

50:29to more accurately forecast ban interest

50:31in FY28.

50:32>> Correct.

50:33>> Awesome. I promise that I'm nice. Like I

50:36do I really I try real hard [laughter]

50:39>> from the uh from the state that feels

50:41like the birthplace of projects that end

50:44up going on too long and costing more

50:45than they were supposed to. I think it's

50:47just again just trying to make sure we

50:49have the the right language and the

50:51right things to be able to explain to

50:52people that we're moving in a within the

50:55within the reigns of what we expected it

50:57to be and we're not doing anything or

51:00starting to go above and beyond where

51:02where we planned to be and what was

51:03already voted on.

51:05>> That's all. Not a and yeah, not in not

51:08in any way, shape or form to the

51:10questions make it seem like we're

51:13questioning any how anything's being

51:15done. just wanting to understand it to

51:18to be able to speak to it.

51:21>> Do we have any other questions either on

51:23this item or any of the others in

51:25article 2?

51:27>> Um

51:30and I'll let you guys go first. I'm sure

51:32I have a few.

51:34>> Yeah, if we I' I'd like to hear from the

51:36on the second one from the school school

51:38department.

51:39>> I see our superintendent and business

51:42manager for the schools.

51:44>> [snorts]

51:44>> I I think the question is just generally

51:47these new positions, what are they? Why

51:49are they great? Give us the give us all

51:52of it.

51:52>> Happy to do so. And I think I recall you

51:56saying voting no is bad. Did you say

51:59that?

52:00>> We'll have to check the minutes with

52:02>> I mean I I am I I think many people in

52:05town think I vote yes way too [laughter]

52:07easily. So,

52:08>> so we I am under the impression that we

52:12received $198,000

52:14in additional funding, state aid funding

52:16from chapter 70 after the governor's

52:19original cherry sheet went out. Uh,

52:21which I was elated to hear. Um, it came

52:25at the right time because we needed uh

52:28additional funding for these three

52:31requests that we have under article 2.

52:32So, the first is for a special educator

52:35at the high school, and I'm requesting a

52:38one-year position until I can get a firm

52:41handle on what's happening at the high

52:42school in terms of special education

52:44programming. I'm under the impression

52:46right now from my consultation with

52:48principal D Longamp and the assistant

52:50principal Greg Walton that we are not

52:53servicing minutes on individual

52:56education plans in the number of 840

52:59minutes a week. So, in order to make

53:01that number and meet these minutes, we

53:04need at least one additional special

53:06education teacher. With that teacher and

53:08a reconfiguration of the schedule and

53:11how they operate within their programs,

53:13I do not

53:15expect this to be a persistent problem.

53:17I think this is something that I'm

53:19inheriting. Um maybe uh some new

53:22programming because of need in the

53:24school and we're just trying to do a

53:26little damage control in the meantime.

53:28So, that is roughly like a $60ome

53:30thousand salary for this one-year

53:32position, which would be prrated. We're

53:34already um approaching October, and we

53:37haven't filled it. We're hope we're

53:38hopeful that we will fill it soon. And

53:41again, with this position, I believe

53:43that we will be able to get a handle on

53:45things with special education at the

53:46high school in particular. One other

53:48important note is that we are in a needs

53:51assistance status with the Department of

53:53Education for our special education

53:55programming in Auburn. So a new model

53:58like they are working toward with sped

54:01teachers working with gened teachers.

54:03This also supports that model which will

54:06ultimately be the direction that we'll

54:07probably be heading in in the future.

54:10One of the other requests is for roughly

54:12$25,000

54:14or so dollars I'll cut my figures

54:16straight. Um for it's I'm sorry. It is

54:20$25,429

54:22in additional state aid funding to

54:24offset the salary of our new director of

54:26pupil services. We are very excited to

54:29bring this individual on board. Our

54:31previous director of pupil services had

54:34um not a lot of experience in the

54:36position and therefore her salary was a

54:38little lower. The person that we brought

54:40on board has a lot of experience. She's

54:42going to do a lot with that experience,

54:45but it comes with a bit of a higher

54:46annual salary that we needed to offset

54:48by requesting this funding. And then

54:50finally, we had a move in from an out of

54:53district placement. So when these

54:54children are placed out of district, it

54:57comes with a significant price tag. So

54:59we're fortunate that we had a student

55:00come back in to district, but they don't

55:02come back into district without a level

55:04of need. So coming back in requires some

55:07support from a staff member, an applied

55:09behavior uh tech who ABA personnel who

55:13will provide support to this student and

55:16we didn't have that budgeted for. So

55:18that's roughly um anticipating the

55:20middle of the range with step would be

55:23about $38,000 um.

55:26So those are the three requests that we

55:28have for a sum of $125,351

55:32to come out of the additional $198,000

55:36we received in in state 8.

55:40Thank you very much. So, uh, my question

55:42for you, I guess, is that these requests

55:45are all to meet existing needs for for

55:48students that are already in town, um,

55:51or people we've already hired. And on

55:54top of that, you I'm assuming especially

55:56if we're in needs assistance like status

55:59already, these are things that like

56:02best practices from an education

56:03standpoint, but also likely there is

56:06some rules around what we are and are

56:08not allowed to to sort of provide for

56:10services that mean that we have we have

56:13to do these things.

56:15>> Correct. The these IEPs are legal

56:17documents where you run yourself at risk

56:20for providing compensatory services for

56:23students. Uh and that can also come with

56:25a price tag. You are paying related

56:27service providers or uh providing

56:29tutoring aside from the school outside

56:31of the school day to make up for the

56:33minutes lost. We don't want to continue

56:34down that track. We want to we want to

56:37address this problem now with one

56:39additional one year only hopefully

56:41special educator to get a handle on

56:43things. And then uh for Karen

56:48um when we saw the increase in state

56:50aid,

56:52are we like the increase in state aid is

56:55higher than this request? Are we

56:57offsetting like other parts of the

56:59budget with that increase in state aid

57:01or how does that work?

57:04Yeah. So, we're offsetting every the

57:08items that are in article two against

57:10that the difference

57:15>> which I believe we are leaving 72,697

57:19on the table.

57:29>> Are there any other questions on uh

57:30article two? any of the other items.

57:39I think we've we've hit the biggest

57:40numbers for the most part.

57:50All right. Seeing none, I would

57:53entertain a motion to uh either

57:56recommend approval or not recommend

57:58approval on article two.

58:02Since this is a financial one, I don't

58:04think we

58:05>> Can I just ask about the electricity one

58:07because that's

58:08>> Absolutely.

58:09>> Oh, no. It's only 7500. Never mind. I

58:12was thinking went up 150. That's fine.

58:15>> Um I'd motion to recommend article two

58:17as written.

58:19>> I have a motion. Do I have a second?

58:23>> A motion and a second. All in favor?

58:26>> I

58:27passes.

58:29All right, article three.

58:31>> Thank you.

58:31>> Thank you very much. I appreciate your

58:33time. Um, this is also the school

58:35committee, so you guys may have more

58:37questions, but um,

58:40article 3 is about appropriating

58:42$150,000 from stabilization, free cash,

58:45or borrowing to fund a purpose a portion

58:48of the all-purpose field at Auburn High

58:50School. Um, I know

58:54just from having been in previous

58:56meetings that that field is in poor

58:58condition. Um, and I I think article 3

59:01and article 4 are both related. Um, if

59:04you want to give a brief summary,

59:06Superintendent Scaza, that would be

59:07great. I

59:07>> I I I do and I apologize for sitting

59:10down um and coming back up. So, we um we

59:15have to replace the multi-purpose field

59:18at the high school. It is original to

59:21the build of the um high school 2000

59:24dated to 2006 or 20 years from that

59:28point with a field that probably has

59:30like a 15 or so year life expectancy. So

59:33if you were to go to that field, you

59:34would see that there's very little give

59:37in it when you're walking on it. Um all

59:40of the artificial grass is kind of um

59:42stamped down, tamped down, if you will.

59:44Uh the field hockey team loves it

59:46because the ball runs fast on that. uh

59:49surface. However, it's not safe um if

59:51students and a lot of other teams play

59:53on that field if they were to uh take a

59:56fall uh hit their head. Um so again,

1:00:00with the length of um existence for that

1:00:03field and the safety concerns that

1:00:06currently exist or are on the verge of

1:00:08existing, we recognize that we need to

1:00:11replace that field in the immediate

1:00:12future. So what we have proposed is a

1:00:15number of reallocation of funds from the

1:00:18capital improvement um lines from

1:00:20previous years. Um repurposing of funds

1:00:24for some projects that we have been able

1:00:26to accomplish with uh minimal funding in

1:00:30comparison to what we originally

1:00:32anticipated such as a parking lot uh

1:00:34project, a roofing project, etc. at some

1:00:37of the other schools. So with all of

1:00:40that um repurposing that I had presented

1:00:44at the town select board meeting

1:00:46recently, what we are requesting from

1:00:48the town uh would be $150,000

1:00:52to put us in a good position where we we

1:00:54would be able to pay for the cost of a

1:00:56new field.

1:00:59>> Thank you, Karen. the um on these on the

1:01:04spreadsheet that makes that has the

1:01:06recommendations on the articles, the

1:01:08town administration is recommending

1:01:10borrowing $150,000

1:01:12for this article.

1:01:17Looks like we have one other borrowing

1:01:19later that would be included in that.

1:01:23We don't need to talk about it now, but

1:01:25just to confirm this. It would be

1:01:28included in a a bigger borrowing related

1:01:30to at least one other article

1:01:32potentially.

1:01:34>> Well, it would be borrowed when when it

1:01:36was needed. Yes. With with other

1:01:38purposes that were authorized to be

1:01:41borrowed.

1:01:43>> We're hoping for a spring construction

1:01:46if possible.

1:01:48>> Any questions?

1:01:52No.

1:01:54>> Is this just a resurfacing? Uh 150,000

1:01:57seems relatively low for

1:01:59>> that's going to add to the repurposing

1:02:01of additional funds from previous um CIP

1:02:06funding.

1:02:07>> Article 4 also is is a re is the

1:02:10repurposing of other funds. Article

1:02:12three is the authorization of the

1:02:15appropriation from stabilization free

1:02:17cash or borrowing and then article four

1:02:20is the

1:02:21>> I'm going to phone a friend here um

1:02:23business manager is going to give a

1:02:24little bit more detail. Thank you.

1:02:26So, just to know in FY27 we have um and

1:02:30I might be let me make sure I have the

1:02:32right FY

1:02:41in FY25. We have 150,000 set aside for

1:02:44the all-purpose field. So, that we have

1:02:47that 150,000. We're requesting 150,000

1:02:51um from the town and then we have we're

1:02:54asking to reallocate $250,000

1:02:58for a total of

1:03:00$550,000

1:03:03>> article 62. I apologize.

1:03:05>> Sorry.

1:03:06>> Okay. Yeah, I remembered a a number of

1:03:09750 when when we talked I think at the

1:03:11all hall all committee meeting we had.

1:03:13So that that makes more sense to me.

1:03:15>> Right. So, at this point, we're we're

1:03:17requesting or putting and reallocating

1:03:20some of the other CIP funds for a total

1:03:23of 550. We have not had it engineered.

1:03:26We don't have prices yet. Um there may

1:03:30be a time we at spring town meeting that

1:03:33we need to request additional funding to

1:03:36bring us to the total, but at this

1:03:38point, we thought 550,000 would

1:03:41definitely get us started. And

1:03:47Thank you.

1:03:50>> I I have one while we're if we're just

1:03:52can just under the understanding we're

1:03:54just going to kind of hit all these at

1:03:55the same two, four, and six kind of all

1:03:58together while we're talking about this.

1:04:00Um it looks like the

1:04:0360,000 and 40,000 in article 6 is coming

1:04:06from old projects that maybe there was

1:04:09an excess there that wasn't spent. And

1:04:11then article four, the Binmar parking

1:04:14lot rehab that that was a project that

1:04:17was intended to start that we're pushing

1:04:18back. And I'm just

1:04:19>> No, actually the Binmar parking lot was

1:04:21done quite a while ago by the DPW. So

1:04:24that project was already completed.

1:04:26>> Okay. So this so all three of those are

1:04:28from projects that have been fully

1:04:30completed and that's just excess funds

1:04:32that were there. We're not pushing any

1:04:33projects.

1:04:34>> We're not pushing any projects for this.

1:04:36the $150,000 for the Binmar that had

1:04:39been a project that was already

1:04:41completed.

1:04:42>> Okay.

1:04:42>> 40,000 from the Auburn High School

1:04:44building rehab for scoreboards.

1:04:47We have determined that we can utilize

1:04:52those funding that we don't need them

1:04:53for the scoreboards at this time.

1:04:55>> The scoreboard is functioning.

1:04:56>> Yep. That it's functioning and will be

1:04:58great. And then 60,000 from the parking

1:05:02lot resurfacing for Auburn High School.

1:05:04We will not need the entire 175 that was

1:05:08designated for that. That will be able

1:05:10to do the work that needs to be done

1:05:11with 115,000.

1:05:14Okay. Lot I just want to let you know

1:05:16with our facilities manager Glenn

1:05:18Gregoire a lot of thought and looking at

1:05:22everything that we have and our CIP

1:05:24projects and everything. We don't want

1:05:26we don't want to kick the can down the

1:05:28road. We want to ensure that the

1:05:29projects that we have also have on, you

1:05:33know, in the queue are happening as

1:05:35well.

1:05:36>> Slightly biased as someone who's got a

1:05:38kid with a couple more years left at

1:05:39Binmar and many years away from the high

1:05:41school. So I, you know, just wanted to

1:05:43make sure we're

1:05:44>> No, your parking lot of Brimmar was

1:05:45already done.

1:05:46>> All right. Thank you.

1:05:48>> Yep.

1:05:51>> So

1:05:53I do I'm fine with the appropriation.

1:05:56And I I do think that field needs having

1:05:58been on it, coached on it, played on it.

1:06:00It's it's rough. Um the town, I just

1:06:05want to I guess prophesize here, the

1:06:08town needs to do a better job, whether

1:06:09it's a school or the town on these

1:06:12fields as a whole. I mean, 20 years on a

1:06:15on a turf field, this should have been

1:06:17done probably 5 years ago. And again, I

1:06:20know Dr. Scazi, you're new, and I I know

1:06:22Jen, you haven't been in the role that

1:06:23long either. So, I'm just saying we

1:06:26shouldn't get to the point where we're

1:06:28not insurable on a field um with

1:06:31students in mind first off, never mind

1:06:33adults, but students uh using those

1:06:36fields. We have, you know, 10-year-olds

1:06:38playing on that field weekly uh in my

1:06:40soccer program. So again, I I know I

1:06:43probably speak to everybody here, but

1:06:45these these types of things I don't

1:06:48think should be surprises going forward

1:06:49and whatever we can do to make sure that

1:06:51doesn't happen without some kind of, you

1:06:53know, unforeseeable thing. Um,

1:06:58again, you know, it just seems crazy

1:07:00that we're coming into another half a

1:07:02million dollars in,

1:07:04you know, without really knowing about

1:07:05it. It just seems that seems to be the

1:07:08the order of the day, unfortunately. So

1:07:11I off my

1:07:12>> just know we have started um and we're

1:07:15not even we've been in communication

1:07:16with the town manager and talking about

1:07:19the fields and when we had our joint

1:07:21meeting that was certainly brought up

1:07:23and making sure we have a cycle to take

1:07:26care of the needs um and looking at

1:07:29equipment and how the regular

1:07:32maintenance can happen because that will

1:07:36extend the life of the fields as well.

1:07:39And it's just one of those things like

1:07:40Michael said on on the previous thing

1:07:41that you know we we do charge for these

1:07:43fields for the town to use them the the

1:07:46programs in town. So that when we're

1:07:48spending extra tax levy on it that

1:07:50really irks people. So just knowing that

1:07:52under you know again I'm not saying it's

1:07:54not a valid reason. We should absolutely

1:07:56spend it make it safe but knowing that

1:07:58you know I think is important to try and

1:08:00get ahead of it as much as possible

1:08:01going forward. So thank you. I I

1:08:05appreciate the discussion and the

1:08:08transparency and the look back and the

1:08:10management of shifting money around over

1:08:12the years and changing priorities. It

1:08:15all makes a lot of sense. My only

1:08:18question is is if you're pretty much

1:08:20anticipating to come back in the spring

1:08:23when you have an actual number,

1:08:25why do this now? Why not just do the

1:08:27whole thing in the spring?

1:08:30because we would like to go out to bid

1:08:32and find a project manager and start the

1:08:34process now so that we can do the work

1:08:36in the spring if we don't come to you

1:08:38until the spring. We're not going to be

1:08:40able to start and have an engineer look

1:08:43at it and do all of that. So, we we

1:08:46really need to they're going to shut

1:08:47that field down if if we don't address

1:08:50it.

1:08:50>> We already have money allocated to the

1:08:53field, don't we? So, we already have and

1:08:57maybe I'm wrong, but we already we've

1:09:00already appropri appropriated some money

1:09:02to the field, haven't we?

1:09:04>> Yes.

1:09:04>> You could use to do to send it out to

1:09:06bid with

1:09:08>> $150,000 is not going to get us very

1:09:11far.

1:09:13However, I I will say and I might eat my

1:09:15words on this one with my new found

1:09:18knowledge of turf fields is if you do

1:09:19not need a lot of um work within the

1:09:24field in terms of uh logo uh hash marks

1:09:29sideline

1:09:30uh etc. This cost comes down

1:09:33significantly. So the football, the

1:09:35stadium field for instance, there's a

1:09:37lot of cost associated with that because

1:09:39of everything that is embedded in that

1:09:41field in terms of the logo, the hash

1:09:43marks, the the end zone, etc. Uh with

1:09:46this multi-purpose field, it's more of

1:09:48the the grass and the sidelines and

1:09:51whatever is necessary for field hockey.

1:09:53Um I think there's limited linage with

1:09:56with field hockey. So

1:09:59>> we're hopeful that it will come in at a

1:10:01reasonable amount. it. We'd be lucky if

1:10:03it came in at 550, though.

1:10:07>> I'd like to make a motion to take

1:10:08articles three, article 4, and article

1:10:11six as one.

1:10:14>> Motion to take article 3, four, and six

1:10:15as one. They're all related to the

1:10:17all-purpose field at Auburn High School.

1:10:19>> Second.

1:10:20>> Second. All in favor?

1:10:22>> I.

1:10:24>> And [clears throat] I'd like to make a

1:10:25motion to approve articles three

1:10:28recommend approval of article three,

1:10:29article four, and article six. Motion to

1:10:31recommend approval of articles 3, four,

1:10:33and six.

1:10:34>> Second.

1:10:34>> And a second. All in favor?

1:10:36>> I.

1:10:37>> I.

1:10:38>> Thank you very much.

1:10:40>> I do think you have one more. [laughter]

1:10:44So, article five is uh to see if town

1:10:48meeting will vote to raise an

1:10:49appropriate $70,000 to fund a portion of

1:10:51the replacement of the school

1:10:52department's wheelchair accessible

1:10:54multi-function activity bus. Would act

1:10:56anything relative there too. Um,

1:10:59again, if you could just give us a brief

1:11:01sort of background on this.

1:11:03>> I'll start off and then uh Jen can help

1:11:05with some of the finer points. So, I've

1:11:08inherited three vehicles. Rocket one,

1:11:11two, and three. Rocket 3 is brand new.

1:11:14It's the van that was recently

1:11:15purchased. Um, Rocket 2 is in decent

1:11:19shape. Um, Rocket One is an older

1:11:22vehicle that has the wheelchair um, lift

1:11:26and accessibility um, for the

1:11:28wheelchair. That vehicle is older and

1:11:32um, constantly in need of repair. I want

1:11:35to say there was $10,000 roughly in

1:11:37repair that was done in the last two

1:11:39years to Rocket One. Um, it's used quite

1:11:41often. Uh we have students in our rise

1:11:45and evolve program who use it on a daily

1:11:47basis to do mail runs and and it's used

1:11:50quite often for athletics as well. Um

1:11:53it's kind of run its course so to speak.

1:11:56We have an opportunity through the fair

1:11:58share earmark um supplemental funding

1:12:01through the governor's office to have

1:12:02$70,000 of potentially we just put in

1:12:06the grant application uh which we

1:12:08anticipate to be half of the cost of

1:12:10this wheelchair accessible vehicle

1:12:12funded through grant funding and we're

1:12:14requesting for the second half of it uh

1:12:1670,000 to what we believe uh pay for a

1:12:20total cost of $140,000 for a brand new

1:12:22vehicle.

1:12:26chair.

1:12:26>> Just to clarify, our brand new one last

1:12:29year was fully funded through the fair

1:12:31share earmark money. We didn't have to

1:12:33come to the town for that at all, but

1:12:35unfortunately a wheelchair accessible

1:12:37van is much more excessive uh expensive

1:12:41and our Yeah. our special ed programs

1:12:43use them every single day.

1:12:49>> Did you have some?

1:12:50>> Yes, if I could through the chair. So

1:12:52the the language in article 5 to see if

1:12:54the town will vote to raise and

1:12:55appropriate 70,000 to fund this. It

1:12:58actually should say to vote to

1:13:01appropriate from free cash because if it

1:13:03if the language says raise and

1:13:05appropriate that would that would um

1:13:07defer to tax levy.

1:13:16>> Thank you for your question.

1:13:24Um, so I am I think we can assume that

1:13:29this will be amended on the floor of

1:13:30town meeting, but I I don't I don't we

1:13:34can't amend the warrant article. So, um,

1:13:37if you Yeah, go ahead.

1:13:38>> The chair, if I could, I do believe that

1:13:40the language will be revised prior to

1:13:42this being printed.

1:13:44>> Fantastic. Love that. Thank you.

1:13:48Um, does Sam have any questions,

1:13:50concerns?

1:13:51>> The uh Rocket One, it's that's the only

1:13:55uh wheelchair accessible van that we

1:13:57have currently.

1:13:58>> Yes.

1:13:58>> Okay. I just want to clarify that. Yeah.

1:14:01>> And so I'd just like to say too, it is

1:14:03also used when um a particular student

1:14:06need is going to go on a field trip for

1:14:08their grade level. So it does also save

1:14:11us in the cost of going out to use a

1:14:15contractor to then rent the bus for the

1:14:18day.

1:14:20>> So there is a cost savings to it as

1:14:22well.

1:14:25>> Any other questions?

1:14:28>> Any motions?

1:14:30>> So can we can we motion to recommend it

1:14:32as re as revised or should we

1:14:35>> I think that's fine.

1:14:36>> Okay. Um, I'd like to make a motion to

1:14:39for to recommend article five. Um, given

1:14:42the language uh clarification from

1:14:45Karen.

1:14:47>> We have a motion,

1:14:48>> a second

1:14:49>> and a second. All in favor?

1:14:51>> I

1:14:51>> I

1:14:54>> thank you.

1:14:54>> Yes.

1:14:55>> I think we got you all. So, we should be

1:14:57good.

1:15:00>> All right. [sighs] Article seven

1:15:03um is about appropriating $75,000 from

1:15:06free cash to fund a new or updated

1:15:08economic development strategic plan. Um

1:15:12I don't know if you guys have any

1:15:13background. I I should have assumed Paul

1:15:16Delquilla might have some some

1:15:19background on this.

1:15:20>> Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. Uh the last

1:15:23economic development strategic plan was

1:15:24done in 2017. So it's a and the work was

1:15:27done probably started in 2016. So a lot

1:15:30of the assumptions and data uh were

1:15:33based on 2016. Obviously a lot has

1:15:35happened since then.

1:15:36>> Has it?

1:15:36>> I think a few things have happened in

1:15:38the world. Um but certainly there's you

1:15:39know obviously the impacts of COVID

1:15:41we're still dealing with. There's uh you

1:15:43know uh uh different funding coming out

1:15:45of Washington these days. So there's a

1:15:47lot of different circumstances going on.

1:15:49And so working with the economic

1:15:51development committee over the last year

1:15:53uh we've been thinking it's time to

1:15:55update this plan. And by allocating this

1:15:57funds, it could allow us to engage a

1:16:00consultant to do that work. That said,

1:16:03uh we would also intend to apply for

1:16:05grants through different state programs

1:16:07to potentially offset those costs as

1:16:09well. [snorts] But as often is the case

1:16:11with some of these state grants are

1:16:12getting more and more competitive with

1:16:14less funds available. Uh towns that uh

1:16:17have quote unquote put skin in the game

1:16:19have tend to be more successful in their

1:16:21applications. So uh that would be our

1:16:24intent. So the the goal is to get the

1:16:27plan done. We would hope to do it

1:16:28through uh we would hope to get grants

1:16:31to offset the full cost of this.

1:16:34>> Any questions?

1:16:34>> I I I do and I and I I might be jumping

1:16:37the gun and I don't mean to to do that,

1:16:38but in here between articles 7, 10, and

1:16:4311 we're doing

1:16:46staffing study, building study,

1:16:48long-term plan, [clears throat] you

1:16:50know, if if all of them were to to move

1:16:52ahead at this time. And I'm just

1:16:54wondering if there's any legitimacy to

1:16:57the idea that we can't do one until the

1:16:59others are done and how long all the

1:17:02other studies might be and does it make

1:17:04sense for some of these to be more 28

1:17:07issues than 27 issues if we're not you

1:17:09know does that I I I think I think I

1:17:12understand your question but I think I'm

1:17:13only really capable to comment on

1:17:15article 7 on the economic development

1:17:17side of it. I can tell you those other

1:17:19plans uh aren't necessary for an

1:17:22economic and strategic plan. Um but uh I

1:17:26I will defer to others on the other

1:17:28items.

1:17:29>> Yeah. I just in my I I don't work in it

1:17:32all all the time like you guys. I just

1:17:33my thought is like if we were to start

1:17:35putting money into a a plan and we have

1:17:36the strategy for where we want our money

1:17:38to go and then a building plan comes

1:17:40back and all of a sudden we're changing

1:17:42the way we're considering allocating our

1:17:44our dollars in the town because

1:17:47the buildings need different things than

1:17:49we thought they did or our staffing

1:17:51study comes back and it turns out that

1:17:52we need to start putting money into

1:17:54different things because we're

1:17:57not reaching where we I just it just

1:17:59seems like a lot to be doing all at once

1:18:01and I just didn't know if there's

1:18:03someone could speak to the timeline of

1:18:05when those things would happen and if it

1:18:07if they're all truly

1:18:10things that we can take on in one year

1:18:12because it we're moving a like we've

1:18:15we've had a lot of conversations over

1:18:16the last bit about how money's tight,

1:18:19state funding isn't always coming in the

1:18:21way it used to be. We're where, you

1:18:23know, we're talking about things moving

1:18:24in excess of two and a half. I I just

1:18:27don't want to start pulling too much

1:18:28money around if it's not all

1:18:31that or or put my name on a

1:18:32recommendation to move money around for

1:18:34things if it's not all necessary at this

1:18:36at this point in time. I think we need

1:18:38to be a little a little frugal on things

1:18:41if we if we have if we have to be.

1:18:43That's all. So, if if Chief, if you you

1:18:45look like you're ready to to to go

1:18:48>> that I I think I have an answer to your

1:18:49question uh through the chair. So, um,

1:18:52article 7, uh, 10, article 7 is not

1:18:56related to articles 10 and 11. Article 7

1:18:59is to update the town's economic

1:19:01development plan, which is the strategy

1:19:03to attract business to the community.

1:19:05>> Okay?

1:19:06>> Articles 10 and 11 are uh are before you

1:19:10in this Warren article because these

1:19:12were goals and objectives that were set

1:19:14by the board of selectmen to the town

1:19:17manager as part of her annual goals.

1:19:19Okay. So, the board of selectmen um

1:19:21would like to see uh the the staffing

1:19:25study sort of and it's going to go

1:19:27beyond staffing. It's not just it's not

1:19:28just staffing. It's uh looking at the

1:19:32efficiencies, how are we organized, you

1:19:35know, where 16 years postcharter. Um so,

1:19:39it's really sort of an independent look.

1:19:41So, in article 10, the $70,000, the town

1:19:43manager has a quote from the Collins

1:19:45Center uh to come in and sort of do that

1:19:47that full study looking at the town's

1:19:49operations. And then the same thing with

1:19:51article 11. Um

1:19:54Joe Fehee, who's retired from the uh

1:19:57school department, the facilities

1:19:59director. Um we've maintained Mr. uh

1:20:01Fehee part-time. He's been managing the

1:20:04energy project with all of the mini

1:20:06splits. um he's been a tremendous asset

1:20:08to us even kind of dabbling in some of

1:20:11the other building related things. So um

1:20:14we're not specifically saying that the

1:20:1680,000 in article 11 wouldn't be used to

1:20:19hire um potentially some outside

1:20:22independent um but the goal is for Mr.

1:20:25Fehee to do the bulk of this building

1:20:27analysis to view um you know all of the

1:20:30town facilities. So 10 and 11 again were

1:20:33were uh goals and objectives set by the

1:20:36board of selectmen for the town manager.

1:20:38So those you know they could certainly

1:20:41not be funded. Town meeting may vote not

1:20:43to support those and then the board

1:20:45would have to you know have

1:20:46conversations with the manager to

1:20:47readjust the goals and objectives.

1:20:49>> No that and that's fine. I I and

1:20:52my brain kind of just took economic

1:20:54development and threw it to the side and

1:20:55just read it as we're we're just coming

1:20:57up with a a new strategic plan and we

1:20:59had all these other things in line. That

1:21:01makes a lot more sense. I appreciate the

1:21:02clarification.

1:21:05>> Any other questions on article 7?

1:21:07>> I just have one. The we just did a we

1:21:10just did a presentation recently

1:21:13um which basically came down to knock

1:21:16over the the old fire station

1:21:21that was part of this economic

1:21:23development consultancy which that was

1:21:27taken that was from grant money as well.

1:21:29>> Yeah. through the chair. I think uh the

1:21:31members referring to the urban land

1:21:33institute study that was done in June.

1:21:35We had a one-day sharet where they did

1:21:37an analysis focused on the Drury Square

1:21:40Auburn Mall area. Indeed, we did late

1:21:43last year did apply for a grant uh to

1:21:45get funding to cover that. They did

1:21:47certainly make recommendations for uh

1:21:50those geographies and some suggested

1:21:53ideas. Some we agree with, some not uh

1:21:55some more than others. uh but that this

1:21:58the economic development strategic plan

1:22:00would be more big picture for the town

1:22:02and would uh might address other areas

1:22:04of town as well but it's more about uh

1:22:06sort of the the higher level strategy

1:22:08whereas the recent ULI uh report will

1:22:12inform the economic development uh study

1:22:15but it's only a a small component of the

1:22:18bigger picture

1:22:20>> and if if grants are available do we

1:22:22actually need to fund this at this time

1:22:25>> uh as I said well again is never certain

1:22:27that you can get grants or not. As the

1:22:30chief Coleman indicated, economic

1:22:31development was one of the uh priority

1:22:34items given to the manager by the select

1:22:36board. Uh again, we may not need to use

1:22:40that those funds, but we could

1:22:41demonstrate that the town to make

1:22:43ourselves more competitive to get those

1:22:44funds if we can demonstrate that they're

1:22:46willing to uh put the money on the

1:22:49table, so to speak, to back it up. So,

1:22:52uh, yes, in theory certainly we could

1:22:55not allocate these funds, still apply

1:22:57for grants, uh, but we just might not be

1:22:59as competitive in our application.

1:23:00>> I mean, we do have yourself a committee.

1:23:04I mean, I don't know.

1:23:06It just strikes me that,

1:23:10you know, at some point we have to,

1:23:13you know, the idea that you can hire a

1:23:15consultant to tell you what you need,

1:23:17you know, that's fine when you're when

1:23:18you're sick and you go to the hospital,

1:23:21but we should be able to I think we

1:23:22should be able to figure out our own

1:23:25future because we have to chart our own

1:23:27future and we know all the players.

1:23:29>> Yeah.

1:23:30>> By the time we get other people up to

1:23:31speed, I was not too happy with that

1:23:33report. They answered the question they

1:23:35were asked and they did a great job

1:23:37presenting the question they were asked.

1:23:39Um, but I also thought it was

1:23:44[sighs]

1:23:47just it just didn't fit at all to be

1:23:50honest with you. And I could go into a

1:23:52number of things that I take issue with.

1:23:54My daughter's in planning, so it's not

1:23:57like I'm unfamiliar with this stuff. And

1:23:59I understand how hard it is, and I think

1:24:01they did a great job of answering the

1:24:04question that they were asked, but I

1:24:05probably would not have asked them that

1:24:07question. My understanding is is that

1:24:09the part of the grant process was that

1:24:12they had to look at that area. Even

1:24:14though that's probably the best

1:24:16developed area in on on Southridge

1:24:19Street, we still got the Empty Mall.

1:24:21We've got uh the old Yankee drama. We've

1:24:25got other empty places,

1:24:27you know, and I'm not sure that a

1:24:29development plan

1:24:31from a third party is going to fill any

1:24:33of those places. I think we need to hit

1:24:36the road and and find the people that

1:24:39are going to spend the money and invest

1:24:40in the town.

1:24:42I don't think, you know, consultant is

1:24:45just going to say, you know, you should

1:24:48fill it up, but we already know we

1:24:49should fill it up. So, I'm I'm kind of

1:24:52inclined to not approve this recommend,

1:24:55but that's just me.

1:24:57>> Sure. Well, through the chair, if I

1:24:59could just uh add to that. Uh

1:25:01[clears throat] the the grant

1:25:03specifically was to study how to better

1:25:05interface the Auburn mall site and Drury

1:25:07Square, how to get the smaller grained

1:25:09activity in that vicinity to connect

1:25:11more to the mall area and also to

1:25:13provide recommendations on how we could

1:25:16uh as we know there areow areas of the

1:25:18mall, the former Sears portion of the

1:25:20site. We were looking for some

1:25:21strategies to address that. Now uh we

1:25:24have not we have not posted the final

1:25:26plan yet. So I know you you might be

1:25:28referring to the presentation that they

1:25:29gave. They're still working on a draft

1:25:31of their final report, but I think we

1:25:33know where where some of their

1:25:34recommendations are already. Um, of the

1:25:37as relative to the other things,

1:25:38certainly the economic development

1:25:40committee uh has been a a strong force

1:25:42uh recommending this. They would be a

1:25:44part of any uh process that would be

1:25:47going on as would staff. So, as you

1:25:49alluded to, we do have certain levels of

1:25:51expertise already here and they would be

1:25:53an important part of the process helping

1:25:55to steer any uh any study that is done.

1:25:59Any

1:26:04other questions?

1:26:08>> Any motions on article 7?

1:26:11>> Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to

1:26:12recommend article 7 as written.

1:26:14>> Recommend approval.

1:26:15>> Recommend approval. Sorry.

1:26:17>> It's okay. I don't know if it can a

1:26:20second. All in favor?

1:26:22>> I. Any opposed?

1:26:24>> All right.

1:26:26Article eight. Um I believe this is one

1:26:30that we typically get a number prior to

1:26:32town meeting. Is that right?

1:26:35>> Through the chair. Actually the um

1:26:36administration is recommending for

1:26:39article 8 and article 9 150,000 each

1:26:43from free cash.

1:26:49>> Can I just make one note on this on

1:26:52article nine? Um I I it maybe it doesn't

1:26:57matter to the purpose of what we're

1:26:58trying to do, but it's showing the 150

1:27:00coming out of free cashache, but I feel

1:27:02like we might want to show that going

1:27:04into stabilization on the other side so

1:27:06that the net it shows the net impact and

1:27:08stabilization is positive because we're

1:27:11effectively transferring 100.

1:27:12>> Okay, I see what you're saying.

1:27:13>> You know what I mean? I think it just it

1:27:15looks like we're asking for 150 more

1:27:17than we really are because it's going

1:27:18from one to the other. So, I think it

1:27:20just might um help the presentation on

1:27:24that. That's all. But

1:27:24>> that's a good recommendation. Thank you.

1:27:26>> Before before when there's when all the

1:27:28pieces are coming, I think it just make

1:27:30it'll it'll make it

1:27:33someone might be a little less

1:27:35to it.

1:27:38All right. Um so article 8 is uh we're

1:27:43being asked to make a recommendation on

1:27:46appropriating 150k from free cash to

1:27:49oped.

1:27:51Um any questions, concerns, motions?

1:27:54>> Um just comment. This has been a long

1:27:57thing that we've talked about

1:27:58year-over-year that adding to this on a

1:28:00regular basis above and beyond our

1:28:02obligation helps us in a number of ways.

1:28:04And if we have the money to do it, I

1:28:05think we should continue to try and do

1:28:07it to whatever extent we can. Um so with

1:28:10that, I'd like to make a motion to um

1:28:13for recommendation of article 8 at

1:28:15150,000.

1:28:16>> A motion to recommend approval of

1:28:18article 8.

1:28:19>> Second.

1:28:20>> Second.

1:28:21>> And a second. All in favor?

1:28:23>> I.

1:28:23>> I.

1:28:25Article nine to see if the town meeting

1:28:28will vote to appropriate a sum of

1:28:30$150,000 from free cash to town

1:28:32stabilization.

1:28:34Um any questions, concerns, comments?

1:28:39Seeing none, any motions?

1:28:42>> Motion to recommend article 9.

1:28:44>> Motion to recommend approval of article

1:28:469. Do I have a second?

1:28:47>> Second.

1:28:48>> Second. All in favor?

1:28:50>> I.

1:28:51Article 10.

1:28:53Um, we did talk about this a little bit,

1:28:55but to see if town meeting will vote to

1:28:56appropriate 70,000 from stabilization or

1:28:59free cash to fund a staffing study for

1:29:01the town of Auburn. Um,

1:29:04you know, based on our earlier note,

1:29:06it's an item from the select board that

1:29:08uh they've asked the town manager to to

1:29:11handle. Um, any questions?

1:29:14>> Just is this intended to be across all

1:29:17town departments or is there a high like

1:29:18a certain highlighted area that we're

1:29:20focusing on?

1:29:20>> Yeah, all town departments excluding

1:29:22schools. Okay.

1:29:25>> And again, the idea is not just like are

1:29:27we appropriately staffed levels, but are

1:29:30we organized correctly? Are there

1:29:31efficiencies?

1:29:34>> Okay.

1:29:34>> Great.

1:29:35>> Didn't we do this under Julie Jacobson?

1:29:41>> There was a a compensation study that

1:29:43was done under Julie. I don't believe

1:29:45there was a there was a like a staffing

1:29:48study in terms of the organizational

1:29:49structure of things. I could be wrong,

1:29:51but

1:29:51>> correct. We're still waiting for the

1:29:54division of local services to come back

1:29:56to us. I mean, to me, I would probably

1:29:58just wait on this

1:30:01um

1:30:03until other pieces fall out because

1:30:06we've got a lot of turnover and it just

1:30:10>> I mean, quite frankly, I if if just to

1:30:12play devil's advocate to it, I think

1:30:14when you've had turnover, there's

1:30:15usually a reason for it. And also that

1:30:18when we have positions that are open and

1:30:19we're going to be in the potential

1:30:22potentially being told that things might

1:30:23not be structured the right way, I think

1:30:25it might that's a better time than ever

1:30:26to look at it while there's vacant

1:30:29positions that we might be readjusting

1:30:31responsibilities for as opposed to

1:30:33hiring somebody for a role and then

1:30:35having our staffing study come back and

1:30:36have us say that that role might be a

1:30:38redundancy or that we might want to

1:30:40reposition it in a different way that

1:30:42now the person that we hired is no

1:30:43longer as qualified as they were before.

1:30:46just a just

1:30:48again for a little

1:30:49>> just I I I kind of see it the the

1:30:53opposite way but

1:30:56>> I mean you not to be blunt but there's

1:31:00[clears throat] no other way usually

1:31:01people do this and then you know the at

1:31:05least certainly at one of my jobs in the

1:31:07past you know they come back and well

1:31:09everybody needs a raise that's because

1:31:12that's what you paid them to tell you so

1:31:14to me We, you know, the the world is

1:31:17competitive, but we also know

1:31:18something's going to hit the fan.

1:31:19>> So, just

1:31:20>> so I think we need to be

1:31:23>> a compensation study, I think, is what

1:31:25you're talking about. A staffing study

1:31:26is typically like, do we have the right

1:31:28number of people and are they organized

1:31:30correctly? Are there departments that

1:31:33should be combined or or separated,

1:31:35>> right? And that's division of local

1:31:37services. I'd like to hear what they

1:31:39have to say first before we get into

1:31:41this. We can we can appropriate this in

1:31:45the spring. And

1:31:46>> I guess I would ask uh Steve or Karen,

1:31:49do are you aware that

1:31:50>> so I to be clear this is not a compos a

1:31:53compensation study that that will not be

1:31:55part of the scope of this. The scope of

1:31:58this is to look at the historical

1:32:00organizational structure that we've had

1:32:02over the past 16 years since the reorg

1:32:05and figure out whether or not that's

1:32:07still working for us today. 16 years

1:32:09later, post organizational change.

1:32:14>> And Steve mentioned the Division of

1:32:16Local Services [snorts] a couple times.

1:32:19Are we waiting on a report related to

1:32:22town organization from the Division of

1:32:24Local Services? I I'm not aware of that.

1:32:26So, I just wanted to

1:32:27>> The only report that I'm aware of,

1:32:29correct me if I'm wrong, Karen, was the

1:32:31uh DLR

1:32:33report.

1:32:34the the state was not looking at

1:32:36anything else other than the

1:32:40>> that's my understanding as well. So

1:32:42Karen, go ahead.

1:32:43>> Right. And I know that we were going

1:32:45maybe discuss it a little bit further on

1:32:47but we have received the audit but we

1:32:49haven't had a chance to review it and go

1:32:51through it yet. So we will be bringing

1:32:53it forward at a later date.

1:32:55>> That was like an I mean that

1:32:57[clears throat] was an audit that wasn't

1:32:58like an assessment of how we're

1:33:00organized as a town, right? Yeah. Okay.

1:33:03So I I son and not in the bios and set

1:33:07up there because they're there just

1:33:08basically

1:33:09to help. They're not there to sort of

1:33:12correct. Well, to help, but to suggest

1:33:16as opposed to correct as a career

1:33:17auditor, I've I've never been told I'm

1:33:19there to help. [laughter]

1:33:21>> I just I just I but

1:33:25>> you asked them to come.

1:33:26>> I guess what I'm trying to get what I'm

1:33:27trying to get at is

1:33:28>> shows up to check, right?

1:33:29>> They had a different mandate than what a

1:33:31staffing study would is is what I'm

1:33:33trying to say. So I I I I don't think

1:33:35the DLS report is going to be the like

1:33:38one, we already have it, so we'll be

1:33:40able to review it before we go out and

1:33:42hire someone to do the staffing study,

1:33:44and two, I genuinely don't think that

1:33:46there's a ton of overlap between what

1:33:48the DLS is going to tell, the DLS report

1:33:50is going to tell us, and what a staffing

1:33:52study. kind of my question which which

1:33:55you know we got an email from Dori about

1:33:58[snorts]

1:33:59um

1:34:01uh payroll processing I guess is the

1:34:03best way to put it and and she and she

1:34:06was suggesting that um using an outside

1:34:09service because the um because it was

1:34:14getting too complicated and too much

1:34:16turnover in the staff and I forget what

1:34:18the exact

1:34:20email was all about but I'm curious as

1:34:22to because I thought I might see that

1:34:24discussed at a uh board of selectments

1:34:27meeting. it maybe it was and I missed

1:34:29that particular meeting but I was

1:34:31wondering what actually came from that

1:34:34like what what actually

1:34:36>> so we we

1:34:37>> a change

1:34:38>> we can we can we can talk about it later

1:34:40like I really want to focus I want to

1:34:42focus on the artic I don't think it is I

1:34:44mean a staffing study is going to look

1:34:45at every department in town and decide

1:34:47well not decide but make recommendations

1:34:49on whether or not they're appropriately

1:34:51staffed and organized that is a very

1:34:53specific issue and like I also just I

1:34:58don't know how much of that

1:34:59>> I just wonder if this is part of that

1:35:03struggle I guess is probably the best

1:35:04word but

1:35:07>> I'd imagine they'd be working in

1:35:08conjunction and making any

1:35:09recommendations based on what

1:35:11information we're giving them. So if

1:35:12there's a concern within our payroll

1:35:13department on something that that would

1:35:16be discussed with them when they're

1:35:17doing a study of the of in analyzing

1:35:19what we should do but I could be wrong.

1:35:22>> You're correct.

1:35:23>> That's twice. It's twice. I'm keeping

1:35:25score.

1:35:27It's the first two times he's ever heard

1:35:28those words.

1:35:30All right. Are there any other questions

1:35:32on article 10?

1:35:35Seeing none, any motions?

1:35:37>> I'd like to make a motion to uh for

1:35:39recommendation of article 10.

1:35:41>> I have a motion to recommend approval of

1:35:42article 10. Is there a second?

1:35:44>> Second. All in favor?

1:35:45>> I. Any opposed?

1:35:48>> None. Article 11 to see if the town

1:35:51meeting will vote to appropriate 80,000

1:35:52from stabilization or free cash to fund

1:35:54a building study and analysis for all

1:35:56town owned buildings. We discussed this

1:35:58earlier. I think the plan is primarily

1:36:00to have Mr. Fehee review town buildings.

1:36:03Are there any other questions or

1:36:04concerns about article 11

1:36:08through the chair just to just to put it

1:36:10into the public record? This will be a

1:36:11full analysis of of all of the town own

1:36:13buildings, including its electrical

1:36:15systems, mechanical, plumbing,

1:36:17structural condition, um all of those

1:36:20things.

1:36:22>> So, we're never going to get another

1:36:23unexpected uh repair bill. That's what

1:36:25I'm hearing. [laughter]

1:36:27Um if there aren't any other questions,

1:36:29so I have a motion on article 11.

1:36:31>> I'd like to make a motion for

1:36:32recommendation of article 11.

1:36:34>> Motion to recommend approval of article

1:36:3611. Is there a second?

1:36:38>> Second.

1:36:38>> Second. All in favor? I

1:36:41>> opposed.

1:36:43Article 12 to see if town voting will

1:36:45town meeting will vote to appropriate

1:36:4735,000 from free cash to fund a new

1:36:49police department phone system and all

1:36:50required equipment and services

1:36:52associated with it. Um I do see the

1:36:55chief of police here. Um if you want to

1:36:58give us a quick summary, I guess that

1:37:00would be helpful. Good evening. Uh the

1:37:04town has undertaken a full phone upgrade

1:37:07and obviously our phones are on the town

1:37:10system. The bulk of the money is for

1:37:13upgrades to the infrastructure of the

1:37:15building. Um we've experienced a series

1:37:18of failures of our phone system over the

1:37:20last 3 months where we actually went out

1:37:23and bought a refurbished modem. We

1:37:25thought that was going to answer the

1:37:27problem and then it didn't. So we bought

1:37:28a new version of that modem and didn't

1:37:30fix it either. Um, the good news is most

1:37:34of the staff knows how to reset the

1:37:36phone system now, but it's not

1:37:38sustainable, you know, as far as our

1:37:40operations go.

1:37:41>> Is that good news?

1:37:43>> It's a learned skill.

1:37:46>> Crossf functional training, I think they

1:37:48call that.

1:37:49>> Um, all right. Are there any questions,

1:37:51concerns, comments?

1:37:53I I only have one question and it's I

1:37:56know that uh I think we probably talked

1:37:58about this when there was discussion of

1:38:00about a public safety building but I

1:38:02know that the the current police station

1:38:06is already uh like wired to the gills

1:38:11essentially like is my understanding

1:38:12there's a lot of equipment a lot of

1:38:15cabling and everything like that. Um,

1:38:18when you say that we need to redo the

1:38:19infrastructure,

1:38:21are we confident that $35,000 is going

1:38:24to be enough? Do we like Do we have a

1:38:25quote already or I Yes, we do have a

1:38:28quote. It's a little bit less than 35,

1:38:30but

1:38:31>> what I like to hear.

1:38:33Thank you. Any other questions?

1:38:37Do I have a motion?

1:38:38>> I'd like to make a motion to recommend

1:38:40article 12.

1:38:41>> Motion to recommend approval of article

1:38:4212. Is there a second? [clears throat]

1:38:45All in favor?

1:38:46>> I

1:38:47>> I

1:38:48>> Thank you.

1:38:48>> Thank you.

1:38:50>> Article 13 to see if the town meeting

1:38:53will vote to appropriate 20,000 from

1:38:55stabilization of free cash to fund

1:38:57roadway improvement software program.

1:39:00I suspect that Miss Pacwin might have

1:39:02something to say about that and I would

1:39:04love to hear it. [snorts]

1:39:09Hello. Uh so I believe that this is also

1:39:12part of um the goals and objectives of

1:39:16the town manager. Um but we're basically

1:39:19looking to um fund software for the DPW

1:39:22to use to evaluate roads. Um there's

1:39:26some newer um opportunities that um a

1:39:30newer technology that we can uh take

1:39:32advantage of um software that will

1:39:35capture photographs every I think 10 ft

1:39:39of roadways. Um so it gives us a record

1:39:42of how roads deteriorate at the same

1:39:44time rating it using AI um and um gives

1:39:49us a better record of of what's out

1:39:51there. um using AI, it also can um

1:39:55detect faded stop signs, faded street

1:39:58signs, um inventory that we really don't

1:40:01have the capability of of really keeping

1:40:04track of just inhouse by you know human

1:40:07staff. So, um it's a great opportunity

1:40:10for us to not only um be able to rate

1:40:13streets and um forecast, you know, um

1:40:17roadway improvement projects, but also

1:40:20all the other uh components of the

1:40:22roadways.

1:40:26>> Uh yeah, when we spoke close to budget

1:40:29season, we were talking about kind of

1:40:30the re um reassessment of the long-term

1:40:34paving plan. I'm assuming that something

1:40:36like this would help us in kind of

1:40:38recalibrating that.

1:40:39>> Correct.

1:40:40>> Okay.

1:40:41>> Through the chair. Also, um some of

1:40:43these programs also um help to um look

1:40:47at different um

1:40:51capital improvements plans and uh and

1:40:53other options of of resurfacing as well.

1:40:56So, tying it all in together.

1:41:00Is this a annual license or a purchase?

1:41:05>> Uh, so this would be an annual license.

1:41:12>> Are there any So you you mentioned like

1:41:14photos of the roads. Is there like an

1:41:17infrastructure component of this? Like

1:41:18are we are we taking photos? Is it

1:41:20something you attach to vehicle? Like

1:41:22>> So there's

1:41:25different options. Um some have um

1:41:29equipment that is um attached to a

1:41:32vehicle. Uh some actually use a um a

1:41:35phone app that catch it that captures

1:41:38the the images. So it would just depend

1:41:41on the final product, but um it's it

1:41:44could be done either way.

1:41:45>> Is there is there like a a personnel

1:41:48cost to that? Like if we have to have

1:41:50someone walk around and take photos of

1:41:51the whole town on their phone. So, um,

1:41:55again, different options. Um, there's

1:41:58some options where personnel drives. Um,

1:42:00it's basically driving all the roads,

1:42:03which we've already done.

1:42:04>> Uh, so we could do that, but we could

1:42:06also have um the the company do it as

1:42:10well. So, there there's some options

1:42:11that that

1:42:13>> depending on on the the package that we

1:42:15choose.

1:42:20>> Any other questions?

1:42:23I guess my last question, it sounds like

1:42:24there are multiple options. Are we um

1:42:27have you,

1:42:29>> you may not know the answer, but have

1:42:31you looked into like whether any of

1:42:32these softwares are covered by a

1:42:34statewide contract?

1:42:36>> I

1:42:37I've kind of dabbled into it. I haven't

1:42:39seen anything, but um sometimes

1:42:41statewide contracts are a little

1:42:44>> They're great. Don't don't start.

1:42:47>> Yes, they're wonderful. I haven't seen

1:42:50anything yet, but I'm I'm gonna do a

1:42:53little bit of a deeper dive.

1:42:55>> I I work for the Executive Office of

1:42:57Technology Services and Security. Uh

1:42:59they do have an like a a a team for

1:43:03municipalities and schools that can help

1:43:06um sort of point you in the right

1:43:09direction from a technology perspective.

1:43:11So, I think it's probably worth reaching

1:43:13out because I'm sure this is a type of

1:43:15software that many municipalities are

1:43:16using and it's it's possible that it's

1:43:19on a statewide contract. And if it's

1:43:20not, it's also possible that some other

1:43:22town has gotten it. And my understanding

1:43:24is that if you can talk to other towns,

1:43:27you can often uh get the price somebody

1:43:30else is already paying and not the price

1:43:31they're offering you now. So,

1:43:33>> just make sure you enter promo code

1:43:35Marshall.

1:43:35>> Yes. Yeah. Like and subscribe. Um, all

1:43:40right. Are there any questions,

1:43:41concerns, comments?

1:43:43>> I'd like to make a motion to recommend

1:43:44for a motion for recommendation of

1:43:46article 13.

1:43:47>> We have a motion to recommend approval

1:43:48of article 13. Is there a second?

1:43:50>> Second.

1:43:50>> All in favor?

1:43:52>> I. Any opposed? No.

1:43:56>> Thank you very much. Um, article 14 is

1:44:00uh a zoning bylaw. I believe we have

1:44:05typically not weighed in on these. Um, I

1:44:09don't know if you've had an opportunity

1:44:11to to to review it and you have concerns

1:44:15that you think are finance specific, I'm

1:44:17happy to talk about them. Otherwise, I

1:44:19would entertain a motion to defer to the

1:44:21petitioner

1:44:23or take no position, whichever you think

1:44:25makes more sense.

1:44:29>> I' I'd like to make a motion that the

1:44:31finance committee take no position on

1:44:32article 14.

1:44:33>> Motion to take no position. Do I have a

1:44:35second?

1:44:37I would curious if there's a cliffnotes

1:44:39version of what this is all about.

1:44:42>> I know that that Paul is here and can

1:44:44weigh in. I was also on the um the

1:44:47zoning bylaw review committee for a

1:44:49brief period of time and was uh a part

1:44:52of this. This is the inclusionary zoning

1:44:54bylaw. So yeah, go ahead.

1:44:56>> So just uh so prior to my getting here,

1:44:59I've been here just over a year now. Um

1:45:01the uh previous town planner had worked

1:45:03with CMRPC uh based on a recommendation

1:45:06of the housing production plan to do an

1:45:08inclusionary zoning bylaw. The reason

1:45:10inclusion is inclusionary zoning bylaw

1:45:12is important, it creates housing that we

1:45:15can count towards our 10% requirement at

1:45:17the state for affordable housing. If

1:45:19we're at 10% or above with our

1:45:21affordable housing stock, it's called

1:45:23the SHI. Uh we do not have to accept any

1:45:2640B projects. As it stands today, we are

1:45:29at 9.92%

1:45:32uh in town. So, we need somewhere

1:45:34between seven and 10 units uh to be

1:45:37produced uh that would then kick us

1:45:39above the 10% and would uh not uh would

1:45:43enable the town to not have to accept

1:45:44any 40b applications. So, this is one

1:45:47tool that hopefully uh that if if we're

1:45:50enacted can allow us to generate several

1:45:53affordable units over the next couple

1:45:55years to kick us above that 10%

1:45:57threshold.

1:45:59>> How long is the 10% threshold good

1:46:02thought?

1:46:02>> Well, it's a it's theoretically it's an

1:46:04ever evolving uh ever evolving

1:46:07situation, but uh because some some

1:46:10restrictions are 30-year restrictions,

1:46:13some are in perpetuity. Uh I think most

1:46:16of ours are in perpetuity

1:46:22or let me just through the chair. Let me

1:46:23just correct you know some 99 years or

1:46:26you know some some big number.

1:46:31>> We have a motion to take no position. I

1:46:35I I will just say in the past I believe

1:46:38we have typically deferred to the

1:46:40petitioner on articles advanced by town

1:46:43administration.

1:46:44>> Fair enough.

1:46:45>> So if anyone would like to

1:46:47>> Yeah, I'd like to resend my motion.

1:46:48>> Okay. Thank you Trevor.

1:46:49>> And then I would like to remotion to

1:46:52defer to the petitioner on article 14.

1:46:54>> We have a motion to defer to the

1:46:56petitioner on article 14. Do I have a

1:46:57second?

1:46:57>> Second.

1:46:58>> Have a second. All in favor?

1:47:00>> I. Thank you. Article 15 is another

1:47:04zoning bylaw. Um,

1:47:07I'm going to summarize very quickly, but

1:47:09uh, it's it's removing some

1:47:11maximum height language and changing it

1:47:13to something else. I think Paul, I don't

1:47:16know if you want to weigh in here. It's

1:47:18it's about the regional mall uh, overlay

1:47:20districts

1:47:21>> through the chair. Actually, this this

1:47:22is one that actually did grow out of

1:47:24conversations ahead of the ULI workshop

1:47:26that was done. They had observed a

1:47:28discrepancy in the zoning bylaw a couple

1:47:31years back. uh some changes were made

1:47:33that allowed for uh height up to 80 to

1:47:36100 feet within certain zones in town by

1:47:39a special permit. Uh part of the intent

1:47:42was to make the mall site more

1:47:43attractive to potential development and

1:47:45redevelopment. However, uh that that

1:47:48that

1:47:49measure did not account for the fact

1:47:51that the mall is also in a a mall

1:47:53overlay district. And so because there

1:47:56was a conflict there was a conflict

1:47:58between uh between the the new

1:48:00requirements and the regional mall

1:48:02district and this uh attempts to

1:48:04reconcile that.

1:48:06>> I will just say I remember from town

1:48:08meeting a few years ago that the the

1:48:11previous change to the zoning bylaw

1:48:14was explicitly done with the intent of

1:48:16only really applying to the mall. I

1:48:17think it was like the only property in

1:48:19town that could even potentially be

1:48:22subject to that. So, it does seem like

1:48:25uh it makes sense. Anyway, this is a

1:48:27zoning bylaw, so we don't necessarily

1:48:29need to weigh in. Um, does anyone have

1:48:31any questions, concerns, motions? I'd

1:48:33>> like to make a motion that we defer to

1:48:34the petitioner on article 15.

1:48:36>> Motion to defer to the petitioner. Do I

1:48:37have a second?

1:48:38>> Second.

1:48:39>> Second. All in favor?

1:48:41>> I.

1:48:42Article 16. Um, again, I'll summarize

1:48:46very quickly, but it's it's related to

1:48:47easements for storm water. Um, again, I

1:48:51I believe this is one that we have

1:48:52typically in the past deferred to the

1:48:54petitioner. Um, if anyone has any

1:48:56questions or concerns, feel free to jump

1:48:58in, but otherwise, I'll entertain a

1:49:01motion.

1:49:02>> I'd like to make a motion that we

1:49:04>> I would actually like to understand it a

1:49:07little better if we could.

1:49:13>> Hi Joanna, how are you? you. Uh so um

1:49:17article 16 is for an easement on hard

1:49:20scrabble road. It's uh to benefit uh 15

1:49:23hard scrabble road where um currently

1:49:26Cassella is located. Uh they are making

1:49:30storm water improvements um including

1:49:32storm um water quality um as part of

1:49:36their own permit. Um so as part of their

1:49:39improvements

1:49:41um they're looking to um change some of

1:49:45their storm water infrastructure.

1:49:47Currently they're tied into the town's

1:49:50storm water which is not something that

1:49:54we typically allow. Um it reduces

1:49:58capacity in our own system. So um that's

1:50:01not something that we really want to

1:50:03have. Um what they're proposing is to um

1:50:08disconnect from the town's

1:50:09infrastructure and basically direct

1:50:12their overflow across the street into

1:50:15the wetlands. So it's a direct um direct

1:50:19connection without going into the town

1:50:21system because their infrastructure is

1:50:24going to be located on the town's right

1:50:26of way. They're going to need an

1:50:28easement for that. Um that will do two

1:50:31things. Um, they'll be able to put their

1:50:34infrastructure, their pipes on the

1:50:37town's land. And it will also allow the

1:50:40town to enter into an agreement where we

1:50:43can um set guidelines or or set um rules

1:50:48where if there's settlement in the

1:50:51roadway, if there's issues with the

1:50:53road, um they have the they have the

1:50:58authority to go in there and fix it. and

1:51:00they're going to have to fix it. So, um,

1:51:03we're not going to be on the hook for

1:51:04fixing failing pipes that we don't own.

1:51:10>> Is it is I thought the whole idea of,

1:51:13you know, the EPA and the storm water

1:51:16system was to not be dumping

1:51:19[clears throat and snorts] stuff into

1:51:19the banks and members.

1:51:21>> So, that we're making it easier to do

1:51:25that. So through the chair they they do

1:51:28have um they're so the whole point is to

1:51:32infiltrate back into the ground, right?

1:51:34And they're still doing that, but they

1:51:35still need a way to have an overflow. Um

1:51:39so the water historically was going into

1:51:42the wetlands, it was going into the

1:51:44waterways. We just want to limit it to

1:51:47what was previous to development. So,

1:51:51um, they're doing their part, but

1:51:52there's usually an overflow because

1:51:55before it was developed, there was still

1:51:57water down running down the hill across

1:52:01land into the waterways. So, um, still

1:52:04mimicking the pre-development

1:52:06uh, conditions

1:52:08um, just in a different way because they

1:52:10are treating it on site and then um,

1:52:13discharging it.

1:52:16Any

1:52:18questions, concerns, motions?

1:52:21Um,

1:52:21>> I'd like to make a motion that we defer

1:52:23to the petitioner for article 16.

1:52:25>> Motion to defer to the petitioner. Do we

1:52:27have a second?

1:52:28>> Second.

1:52:28>> Second. All in favor?

1:52:30>> I.

1:52:32>> Article 17 is uh where Chief Coleman

1:52:35makes his money here. Um to see if the

1:52:38town management will vote to fund from

1:52:40ambulance receipts the following items

1:52:42to the fire rescue department. 25,000

1:52:44for fleet training and equipment. 8

1:52:4680,000 for ambulance supplies um of

1:52:49which 4,500 is replacing money from

1:52:51reserve,

1:52:53410,000 for six new cardiac monitors,

1:52:56three blood analyzers, three EMS iPads,

1:52:59eight cases mounts for mobile data

1:53:01terminals,

1:53:03um and 29,000 for 60 waterproof rescue

1:53:06jackets for department members. Anyone

1:53:08have any questions?

1:53:15money coming out of the ambulance

1:53:16receipts going towards,

1:53:18you know, safety equipment. So, from my

1:53:20perspective, this all makes sense. Any

1:53:22um questions, concerns, motions?

1:53:26>> Makes sense to me. I'd like to make a

1:53:28motion that we recommend article 17.

1:53:30>> A motion to recommend approval for

1:53:31article 17. Do I have a second?

1:53:32>> Second.

1:53:33>> Second. All in favor?

1:53:35>> I I thank you. [gasps and sighs]

1:53:38Article 18 to see if the town meeting

1:53:40will vote to appropriate 99,000 from

1:53:42sewer retained earnings for the purpose

1:53:44of a sewer truck replacement purchase of

1:53:47a sewer truck replacement. Uh which is

1:53:49an Yeah, whatever. Um any questions,

1:53:53concerns, comments?

1:53:57Joanna's here, so we might as well bring

1:53:58her up. I just I guess I would just ask

1:54:00how old is our current truck and is this

1:54:04in the capital improvement plan like for

1:54:06a future date and we're just moving it

1:54:07up? Yes. So, this is replacing a 2014

1:54:12um sewer truck and it is on the CIP for

1:54:15FY28. Okay.

1:54:17>> So, we're just moving it up a winter.

1:54:21>> That covers the cost.

1:54:23>> I'm sorry.

1:54:24>> That'll cover the cost of the truck and

1:54:25the plow.

1:54:26>> Yes.

1:54:28>> And I assume we'll take it off the

1:54:30capital improvement plan for FY28. All

1:54:32right. Any other questions?

1:54:35I'd like to make a um

1:54:38>> for recommendation um for approval of

1:54:40article

1:54:41>> a motion to recommend approval of

1:54:42article 18. Do I have a second?

1:54:44>> Second.

1:54:45>> A second. All in favor?

1:54:47>> I. Article 19. Also the super sewer

1:54:51superintendent. Uh CF town meeting will

1:54:53vote to appropriate 170,000 from sewer

1:54:55retained earning for the purpose of a

1:54:57replacement pump for the pinrock pump

1:54:59station. This feels fairly

1:55:00self-explanatory, but if you have

1:55:02anything you'd like to add, happy to

1:55:03hear it.

1:55:04>> Uh, so this is for the Pinrock pump

1:55:07station. As you may know, our Penrock

1:55:09pump station is the last pump station um

1:55:12at the end of the run out of um out of

1:55:16Auburn and to the upper Blackstone. So,

1:55:19it takes up takes all of Auburn sewage.

1:55:23Um we have four pumps in that station.

1:55:26one of those pumps is um in need of

1:55:30repair. Um we we do have redundancy. So

1:55:34that pump is currently off, but um it

1:55:37looks like the amount of time that that

1:55:40pump's been running is much greater than

1:55:42all the other pumps. So it makes sense

1:55:44that it's going first. Um there is a

1:55:48one-year lead time on pumps. So, we're

1:55:52we're going to keep that in place and if

1:55:54we need to use it, we'll use it. But, um

1:55:56but moving forward, we'd like to replace

1:55:59that and then evaluate the rest of the

1:56:01pumps.

1:56:02>> Same question, I guess. Um is this on

1:56:04CIP?

1:56:06>> It was not.

1:56:09>> Um Okay. Any other questions?

1:56:13>> Um I'd like to make a motion for the

1:56:15recommendation of article 19.

1:56:17>> Motion to recommend approval of article

1:56:1819. Do I have a second? Second

1:56:20>> and a second. All in favor?

1:56:22>> I.

1:56:24Article 20 is a zoning bylaw temporary

1:56:28moratorium on the construction of data

1:56:30centers. I'm sure that we all have

1:56:32thoughts. Um but given that this is a

1:56:34zoning bylaw and uh in my opinion at

1:56:37least doesn't have a financial impact.

1:56:39Um entertain a moment a motion to defer

1:56:42to the petitioner.

1:56:44>> I'd like to make a motion.

1:56:47>> I have a motion to defer. Do I have a

1:56:48second?

1:56:50Second

1:56:50>> and a second. All in favor?

1:56:52>> I I

1:56:55article 21.

1:56:58>> I don't know why you sat down.

1:57:01[laughter]

1:57:02>> U to see if town meeting will vote to

1:57:04approve the water street culvert

1:57:06replacement project totaling $1.4

1:57:08million and to raise said funds by

1:57:10borrowing yada yada yada. Um, also

1:57:13coming from the DPW director

1:57:17Joanna, please inform us.

1:57:20>> So, uh, this warrant the the funding for

1:57:23the construction was on the town meeting

1:57:26warrant

1:57:28I think about a year ago, a year and a

1:57:29half ago. Um, we had funded the design

1:57:33of the um, the covert. um we had just

1:57:37submitted to Masdot for approval of um

1:57:41an review of the preliminary plans. Once

1:57:45those preliminary plans are reviewed um

1:57:49then we were we're going to be u moving

1:57:52forward with the permitting of the

1:57:53project. We did receive a grant from the

1:57:56state for the permitting. Um and this

1:57:59money is looking to follow that

1:58:03permitting towards um bidding and

1:58:06construction.

1:58:09Um

1:58:10the only question I'll ask is I know at

1:58:13a previous meeting um Kevin Kennedy

1:58:16who's not here tonight had asked a

1:58:18question around uh whether we had looked

1:58:20into just like dead ending Water Street

1:58:23and and not building the culvert. I'm

1:58:26curious if anything came of that.

1:58:28I think the um the board of selectmen um

1:58:35recommendation was to repair the culvert

1:58:38and keep the street flowing

1:58:42and the stream.

1:58:43>> Any other questions, concerns, comments?

1:58:48>> I'd like to make a motion for the

1:58:49recommendation of article 21.

1:58:51>> Motion to recommend article recommend

1:58:53approval of article 21. Do I have a

1:58:55second?

1:58:56>> Second.

1:58:57and a second. All in favor? I

1:59:00>> I.

1:59:02Article 22 [sighs]

1:59:04um is related to flock cameras. Um was a

1:59:09citizens petition. Uh we have typically

1:59:12taken no position on non-financial

1:59:16impact citizens petitions. Um,

1:59:20I also believe this may end up being

1:59:22moot or or it may still get voted on,

1:59:24but um, my understanding is that these

1:59:26cameras were taken down. Um, so I would

1:59:30entertain a motion to take no position

1:59:32at this time.

1:59:35>> I wouldn't mind asking the chief, are

1:59:37these all gone now? What is the

1:59:40status of these things?

1:59:43>> The chair. Um, the cameras are still in

1:59:46town. They haven't been taken down yet

1:59:48because I'm sure as you're aware there's

1:59:51been a backlog of towns that [snorts]

1:59:52have moved away from those systems. So I

1:59:56don't know where we are in the queue. I

1:59:57know that they're completely

1:59:58disconnected and they're no longer

2:00:00operational. But as far as actually

2:00:02taking them down

2:00:04it we're in the queue like I said but

2:00:06I'm not sure that we have very much

2:00:08control over a company that we no longer

2:00:09have any business relationship with. So

2:00:12[clears throat]

2:00:15>> thanks Chief. situation.

2:00:18>> Sorry,

2:00:19>> it's a weird situation.

2:00:21>> That's a good word. Sure. [laughter]

2:00:26>> I'd like to make a motion that we um

2:00:27take no position on article 22.

2:00:30>> Motion to take no position on article

2:00:3122. Do I have a second?

2:00:33>> Second.

2:00:34>> Second. All in favor?

2:00:36>> I. Thank you.

2:00:38>> The chair.

2:00:39>> Yes. Um before the meeting, it was

2:00:41brought to our attention uh by the

2:00:43petitioner, Mr. Richards, who is here.

2:00:45um that this is not the complete

2:00:47article. Um he brought it to our

2:00:49attention that there is something

2:00:51missing from his um from the proposed

2:00:55article. We don't have access to that

2:00:57this evening. So I would re there's a

2:01:00couple options that the committee could

2:01:02do. If for some reason you had a reason

2:01:04to meet next week, you could take it

2:01:06then or I know that uh normally the

2:01:09finance committee meets prior to the

2:01:10town meeting. we can have you the full

2:01:13uh article

2:01:16for that meeting and you could take a

2:01:17position then. But uh according to Mr.

2:01:20Richards, this is not complete this

2:01:21evening.

2:01:22>> Understood. I I know that Mr. Richards

2:01:25is here and given that this is an

2:01:27article that he proposed, I'm happy to

2:01:30hear from him if he wants to just make a

2:01:31a quick statement on what's going on.

2:01:40Good evening, Eric Richards. It's my

2:01:43article. Uh, I did provide the missing

2:01:45portion before the meeting.

2:01:48Um, the funding and the majority of the

2:01:52meat and potatoes, shall we say, was in

2:01:54part two that was missing from your

2:01:56packet there. It looks like there's just

2:01:5975K to do a random audit, but it's

2:02:02actually more well thought out and

2:02:05heavily involves the finance committee

2:02:08on the results end of things and moving

2:02:11on. So, and there are hooks in there to

2:02:14when the 75 gets funded. I don't know if

2:02:17you were given an opportunity to get the

2:02:19second half of the copy. I'm happy to

2:02:20answer questions.

2:02:22>> I we don't have a copy of it at this

2:02:24point. Um, it also wasn't in the

2:02:26publicly available documents for the

2:02:28town like for the meeting that were

2:02:30posted. I'm assuming if this is what was

2:02:31posted with it. So, uh, we do typically

2:02:34meet prior to town meeting. I Are you a

2:02:37town meeting member?

2:02:38>> I am.

2:02:39>> So, typically about a half hour before

2:02:42town meeting, finance committee meets if

2:02:43there are any open items that need to be

2:02:45discussed. Um, I [snorts] personally

2:02:47think it would probably make more sense

2:02:49so that we actually have an opportunity

2:02:50to review it to defer our vote on this

2:02:52item until then. Um, I understand if you

2:02:56would prefer not to, but but at least

2:02:58from my perspective, I don't think we

2:03:00have enough information right now to to

2:03:01to make it an informed decision. Um, so

2:03:05if you're comfortable with it and the

2:03:07and the rest of the finance committee is

2:03:08comfortable with it, um, I would

2:03:10entertain a motion to defer this to our

2:03:12next meeting, which would happen prior

2:03:13to town meeting. I don't have a choice.

2:03:15You can't perform your statutory duty

2:03:17with a quarter of the information. So,

2:03:21>> I I would if if we can and I I'm not I

2:03:24don't want to put a timer on anybody,

2:03:25but

2:03:26>> because this is televised and typically

2:03:28our meetings right before town meeting

2:03:30true

2:03:30>> are not televised because they're held

2:03:32>> right prior to them that

2:03:35>> um for anybody who is utilizing that. Um

2:03:38I I if and I if we could just get a

2:03:43elevator pitch of what of what exactly

2:03:45we're looking at here. Um and then we

2:03:47can if we you can get into more detail

2:03:49about it once we've had the you know at

2:03:51the meeting prior to but you you've come

2:03:53here you waited through the whole thing

2:03:54if if I

2:03:55>> give us a little bit a little bit on it

2:03:57so anybody who's watching can see it or

2:03:59goes back and rewatches can see it and

2:04:01we

2:04:02>> point about our town our pre-T town

2:04:03meeting meetings are just typically

2:04:04televised so this is also an opportunity

2:04:06>> just think yeah so I I I if you can if

2:04:09we're we're not going to be asking a lot

2:04:10of followup and in-depth we'll wait till

2:04:12we get the full piece but if you can

2:04:14give us some some context I'd apprei

2:04:16appreciate it.

2:04:17>> And the pjorative hit me, you know,

2:04:19bring all your questions. I'm happy to

2:04:20answer. Uh the elevator pitch is simple.

2:04:23Uh this is a fiduci this is a fiduciary

2:04:27audit that's narrowly scoped that looks

2:04:30and asks solely for the auditor under

2:04:33the described circumstances to provide a

2:04:37review of the in, the transit, the out,

2:04:41the who, what, when, and where of the

2:04:43funds. and at the end provide those

2:04:46answers to the finance committee, the

2:04:48select board and the town for action or

2:04:51interpretation or whatever the case may

2:04:53be.

2:04:56>> And this is specific to the school

2:04:58department student activity funds.

2:05:00>> Correct. So my understanding from the

2:05:04last year of of digging into this shall

2:05:07we say uh slowly and from public

2:05:10documents the school department exposed

2:05:13through the auditor scaner and

2:05:15associates more than a decade of six

2:05:18figure variances that escaped multiple

2:05:21audit cycles and were ignored. So what

2:05:24would happen is DESIE ensures or

2:05:27mandates that at minimum if the town

2:05:30does an audit of student activity funds

2:05:32and fiduciary funds every year they're

2:05:35allowed to only have to use an outside

2:05:37firm every three

2:05:39every third year starting in 2018

2:05:41because there's a black hole of audits

2:05:43from 2012 to 2018 that just either

2:05:45weren't documented weren't performed.

2:05:47Nobody seems to have an answer for that.

2:05:48In 2018 when Scanland produced an

2:05:50opinion they found a six-f figureure

2:05:53variance in the swaps between the school

2:05:55and the town fiduc in the treasurer and

2:05:59CFO's office and those funds sat in an

2:06:03account. Nobody's saying that they're

2:06:04missing or has any evidence that they're

2:06:06missing but they sat there and it would

2:06:09appear from the outside because I've

2:06:11asked for records but they never seemed

2:06:14to. There were lots of reasons why they

2:06:15couldn't appear. There was a $3,000

2:06:17bill. all sorts of things like we had to

2:06:19rumage around in the attic to find

2:06:22spreadsheets.

2:06:24Um

2:06:27those that my understanding is that six

2:06:29figure variance persisted from 2018 to

2:06:32at least 2025 and actually varied in

2:06:35amount because at some point there were

2:06:37varying levels of swaps and differences

2:06:39between school accounts and the school.

2:06:43and money was expended from we don't

2:06:45know where to cover expenditures and

2:06:49estimates and warrants or whatever the

2:06:50case may be from an account that we

2:06:52don't know where and while this money

2:06:55sat in an unnamed account somewhere. In

2:06:59addition, those student activity funds

2:07:02uh went into negative balances because

2:07:04the adviserss were not keeping books and

2:07:06their supervisors were not supervising

2:07:08their keeping of the books. And in

2:07:11November of 25, one of the class

2:07:13adviserss or the club advisers noticed

2:07:16their account went from say

2:07:18approximately 20,000 down into about 6K.

2:07:23And they brought a public records

2:07:25request to the school. They asked some

2:07:26questions. They got a minimum amount of

2:07:29documents disclosed in that request and

2:07:32it generated more questions.

2:07:34And so the school tried to do

2:07:39a public remediation through the school

2:07:41committee over about 6 months or so. And

2:07:44what they did was they only went as far

2:07:46back as 2019.

2:07:49And they started in 2025.

2:07:51They forced their books into balance

2:07:53starting from 2025. And then they worked

2:07:55back only as far as 2019.

2:07:58And there's again this black hole from

2:08:012019 to 2012 that we just don't know

2:08:05what happened there. As part of a public

2:08:07records request that I did, I received

2:08:09documentation from the town and Scanland

2:08:12Associates that disclosed that Scanland

2:08:14had financial data as to the variances

2:08:19and some of the origins and questions

2:08:20which they didn't offer up that went

2:08:23back to 2015. So, nobody despite my

2:08:27asking has been able to explain how

2:08:29Scanland knows where that money is, but

2:08:31the school can't seem to connect the

2:08:33dots between 2019 and 2015. So, what

2:08:36this will do is nobody's alleging

2:08:39malfeasants. Certainly, I'm not. I'm

2:08:41saying that there are questions. There

2:08:44are proof that's not mine. It's not my

2:08:45imagination. It's your documents. It's

2:08:48government documents. And they say these

2:08:50things exist, but nobody can explain

2:08:52them. So, let's explain them. and the

2:08:54school's effort at making a public

2:08:56remediation

2:08:58whitewashed the short term, but it

2:09:00didn't really answer the questions. So,

2:09:02let's answer the question.

2:09:04>> Thank you. Yeah, I I appreciate the uh

2:09:06the kind of context to to what we're

2:09:13>> I I I I really want to see all any other

2:09:16information and everything else to come

2:09:17in and and before I you know and we can

2:09:19ask any followup prior to the meeting,

2:09:21but I I appreciate you providing some

2:09:23color to it.

2:09:23>> Sure.

2:09:24>> In advance.

2:09:25>> This isn't something that this is not

2:09:28right. Everybody hears audit. I know

2:09:30another citizen petitioner in 2025 came

2:09:33before you suggesting an audit and

2:09:35everybody jumped to you're accusing us

2:09:36of stealing. Now, audits, as some of you

2:09:39may know, as financial professionals,

2:09:41they perform other tasks. And so, this

2:09:43is really about aligning the present

2:09:45with reality, especially with a new

2:09:47team, with a new superintendent, with a

2:09:49new uh group, and understanding what

2:09:53actually did happen in the past, so that

2:09:55now we can close that barn door so that

2:09:57everybody doesn't get out again.

2:10:00>> Thank you.

2:10:02>> Any other questions?

2:10:06So

2:10:08again, what I'll say is I think it would

2:10:10make sense uh for us to defer this to

2:10:12the T to our pre-Town meeting, finance

2:10:15committee meeting. Um I would ask that

2:10:17if if if that is what happens that we

2:10:20ask either the business manager or Dr.

2:10:23Scaza to be present. I think they'll

2:10:25also be present for the town meeting. So

2:10:27um hopefully it won't be too big a lift

2:10:28just so that they're there. It's

2:10:30obviously affecting them more than any

2:10:32other departments in town. So um

2:10:36>> another point I would make for color if

2:10:38you will uh to borrow Mr. Sansusi's term

2:10:42this sort of occurred from a period of

2:10:442018 till 2025 when the town and the

2:10:47school seems to feel that they've

2:10:49remediated the situation

2:10:51moving into the 2026 school year.

2:10:53There's a mandatory financial audit from

2:10:55Desi that gets reviewed by Scanland. And

2:10:58again, in the 2026 school years after

2:11:02all of this attention came, there were

2:11:04again 52 variance findings totaling, if

2:11:09you do road edition, and I understand in

2:11:11finance you don't do that, $2.1 million

2:11:14in questionable activity. And if you

2:11:16figure out the pluses and the minuses,

2:11:18meaning the over reporting of a half a

2:11:19million for lunch funds, the under

2:11:21reporting of $300,000 to the state, you

2:11:25come up with a variance in the negative

2:11:26of 1.4 million.

2:11:29So if we're going to look at risk, if

2:11:31we're going to look at forward tail

2:11:34remediation and actually understanding

2:11:36what's happened so we can solve the

2:11:37problem, 75k is not really a discussion.

2:11:42And if I have to pay for it, unlike no

2:11:44other Warren article or petitioner here,

2:11:47you know, like uh the town's proposed

2:11:49staffing studies and the government's

2:11:51proposed building studies and economic

2:11:53development studies, but they haven't

2:11:55proposed to pay for them or justify

2:11:57them.

2:11:58You know, we could take the 56k that we

2:12:00saw we saved on the flock contract and

2:12:03apply it to the 75k of the audit and do

2:12:05double good.

2:12:08>> All right. Thank you very much. Um,

2:12:10>> good evening. Thanks for the

2:12:11opportunity.

2:12:12>> We have any motions.

2:12:14>> Is it a motion to take

2:12:15>> defer to to pre-Town meeting?

2:12:18>> Like to make a motion to defer article

2:12:1923 to pre-Town meeting to our pre-Town.

2:12:22>> Yeah. Yeah, that sounds right.

2:12:24>> Our pre-Town meeting. Do

2:12:26>> I have a second?

2:12:28>> Second.

2:12:29>> All right. Uh we have a motion and a

2:12:31second to defer voting on this item

2:12:34until our pre-Town meeting. All in

2:12:37favor? I. All right. Thank you very

2:12:40much. That is all of our warn articles.

2:12:45Next on our agenda is tabled items. I

2:12:47don't believe we have any tabled items.

2:12:49Um followed by member items. Uh I will

2:12:52fully admit that both of these are mine.

2:12:54Um we don't have to have a huge

2:12:57discussion on it. I just mostly I just

2:12:59wanted to bring it up because I I saw an

2:13:00article a few uh weeks ago about um

2:13:05Harvard's Kennedy School of Government

2:13:06put out a uh open-source like free

2:13:09technology called Openbook. Um, it's a

2:13:12financial transparency tool that allows

2:13:14you to set up a a website that sort of

2:13:17um seems to have pretty good

2:13:19functionality as far as like making the

2:13:22budget more accessible to um non-town

2:13:26employees and people who maybe are not

2:13:27as familiar with accounting practices.

2:13:30Um, I do not expect any sort of answer

2:13:32today and really I just wanted this on

2:13:33here so I could say it out loud, but I I

2:13:35would love to to get your input on what

2:13:38you thought of of the tool and anything

2:13:40else of Sutton's website. Um, which I I

2:13:43believe is

2:13:45if not the first, it's the one that

2:13:47they're publicizing the most as like a a

2:13:49proof of concept, a town that that has

2:13:51used the software to put it out there.

2:13:53Um, so again, I don't know if anyone had

2:13:55a chance to take a look at it, but

2:13:56generally speaking, it's just it's a

2:13:58free open source tool that can be used

2:14:00to build a a town website for budget

2:14:02transparency purposes. So, it seems like

2:14:04something that that could potentially be

2:14:06useful um in explaining where the money

2:14:09is going to people who have questions.

2:14:14Um, if anyone else has anything to weigh

2:14:17in on that, feel free. Otherwise, we can

2:14:18move on to number two, which is also

2:14:21probably not something that we'll have a

2:14:22huge discussion on, but just um I know

2:14:26that we got the uh report from DLS. Um

2:14:30and one of the takeaways that we had

2:14:33from a previous meeting was just looking

2:14:35at that report and seeing if there were

2:14:36any updates that needed to be made to

2:14:37the financial policy. I mostly just

2:14:39wanted to put on here as like a reminder

2:14:40to myself more than anyone else that

2:14:42this is something I still want to follow

2:14:43up on. So, um, probably not at our next

2:14:46meeting, but hopefully before the end of

2:14:48the year, we can have a discussion about

2:14:49where we're at with the financial

2:14:50policies and whether any of them need to

2:14:52be updated. Um,

2:14:54so yeah, again, um, I don't know if you

2:14:57had a chance to look at it at all, if

2:14:58you have any first impressions that you

2:15:00want to share or not, but but I am very

2:15:02curious, I guess, and I'm sure everyone

2:15:04else's as well. haven't had a [snorts]

2:15:06chance to look at it and I know that the

2:15:08county manager, myself and probably some

2:15:11others in administration want to get

2:15:13together and discuss it.

2:15:14>> Sounds good. Thank you, Karen.

2:15:17Um,

2:15:18>> just add one quick thing under member

2:15:20items. I just um municipal municipal

2:15:23finance is a very unique and tricky

2:15:27situation and I just want to say thank

2:15:28you to you Karen and Chief Coleman as

2:15:30well for kind of walking through a lot

2:15:32of some of those items. I know that um

2:15:36questioning things or asking questions

2:15:38and we we don't mean to be to be leading

2:15:40in any way or or you know make anything

2:15:43present negatively. Um you know and we

2:15:46appreciate you taking the time and

2:15:47having the patience with us to walk

2:15:49through some of the finer items that

2:15:51tend to be um sometimes don't always

2:15:54cross us the way that they're meant to

2:15:56be um taken. And so I I just appreciate

2:15:59you guys being giving us the the grace

2:16:02to to maybe ask the same question five

2:16:05different ways or um you know just to to

2:16:08make sure we're all on the same page. I

2:16:10appreciate it.

2:16:12>> Sometimes it's um you know it's hard to

2:16:15explain you know things that you kind of

2:16:17work at on a on a dayto-day and um you

2:16:21know I apologize if it didn't come

2:16:23across the the right way or anything.

2:16:24you know, we I think we're both trying

2:16:26to get to the same place and I think we

2:16:28got there.

2:16:29>> See, um, just for just for context, I've

2:16:31I've worked in public accounting for a

2:16:34long time and they we have had at some

2:16:37of the biggest firms I've worked at,

2:16:39whole departments dedicated specifically

2:16:41to state and local auditing because it

2:16:44is such a unique um function compared to

2:16:48the normal accounting. So, I know even

2:16:50even just looking at it from the scope

2:16:52of normal debits and credits, it's not

2:16:53exactly, you know, a one for one. So, I

2:16:55know it can be daunting. Um, so again, I

2:16:59just I appreciate the the you taking the

2:17:01time to walk through it with us and and

2:17:03give us the the clarity we need

2:17:05sometimes.

2:17:07>> Agreed.

2:17:09Um, I believe that's it for member

2:17:11items. Next on the agenda is town

2:17:13administration items. There's nothing on

2:17:15here, but I don't know if you had

2:17:16anything you wanted to bring up tonight.

2:17:18I don't have anything at this time. I

2:17:19don't think Chief Coleman or Mr.

2:17:21Delquilla has

2:17:23>> nothing else to add, Mr. Chair.

2:17:26>> Uh, last is the minutes. Um, we got

2:17:28minutes for I think we got all five of

2:17:31these. Um, minutes for April 8th, May

2:17:345th, June 3rd, June 17th, and July 15th.

2:17:37Um, if you had an opportunity to review

2:17:39them and you have any concerns, now is

2:17:41the time. Otherwise, they'll be

2:17:42accepted. Um, and that is it.

2:17:46Do I have a motion to adjurnn?

2:17:48>> Motion to adjurnn and a second.

2:17:50>> Second.

2:17:52>> We're journed.