2026-10-19 - Pre-Town Meeting

00:05Thank you. I want to welcome everyone

00:08here tonight for our annual pre-Town

00:11meeting discussion regarding the warrant

00:14articles that are in the town meeting

00:16warrant for next week. My name is Dory

00:18Veio. I'm the town manager for the town

00:21of Auburn. First, I will have everyone

00:24at the table here introduce themselves

00:26so that you know who you're speaking

00:27with. We'll start over here with

00:29Jennifer.

00:30>> Jennifer Stannic, business manager for

00:32Auburn Public Schools.

00:34>> R.J. Scaza, uh, superintendent.

00:37>> Scott Mills, chief of police.

00:40>> Steve Coleman, fire chief.

00:42>> Paul Dequila, assistant town manager and

00:44director of economic development.

00:46>> Joanna Pacquin, DPW director and town

00:49engineer.

00:50>> Pete Borea, assistant DPW director,

00:53sewer superintendent.

00:54>> Karen Haroy, CFO, town accountant.

00:57Seth Willard, Chief Assessor.

01:00>> Great. Um, I want to just let everyone

01:03know this is not a public meeting or a

01:06public hearing. This is a meeting that I

01:08hold every year um to provide you, our

01:12town meeting members, with any

01:14information that you need so that you

01:17can vote at the town meeting

01:20the way you need to and educated.

01:24Questions and discussions tonight must

01:26stay on topic. If questions go off

01:29topic, I will redirect respectfully.

01:33This is not a place to discredit,

01:35harass, or speak poorly of town

01:37employees or other town meeting members.

01:39If this happens, I will stop the

01:41discussion. We must focus on the goal of

01:44this meeting, which is to provide town

01:46meeting members information related to

01:49warrant articles so they can make an

01:51educated vote at town meeting. Citizens

01:53petitions

01:56will be allowed three minutes to explain

01:57their article but can also answer

01:59questions from town meeting members

02:01about their article. If they need

02:03additional time, just let me know. Town

02:06administration here will answer any

02:09questions that are directed towards us.

02:12Okay. So, let's start the if you don't

02:15have a warrant, we have several up here.

02:17Please help yourself so that you can

02:19follow along.

02:25Um, so we're going to start with article

02:28two. Does anyone have any questions

02:29about article two?

02:38>> Sure, sir. Come on up.

02:40>> If you can please state your name.

02:49>> Hi. Paul Poria from precinct 5

02:52article two um

02:56the first line item says

03:00increase interest by 54 $34,000

03:04etc. It's a big number. Would like an

03:07explanation please?

03:09>> Absolutely. No problem.

03:12>> Sure. So the budget was originally

03:14created with 75,000 which was the

03:17estimate of the short-term interest on

03:21what we normally borrow each year

03:22between1 and $2 million for the CIP. The

03:28increase in this amount is for the fire

03:31station project. We borrowed $14 million

03:34in June. H and this is the interest the

03:37in the increase is the interest

03:39resulting from that borrowing.

03:47>> Does anyone else have any other

03:49questions regarding that question or any

03:52other of the items on article two? Mr.

03:55Rafferty.

04:02Good evening, Al Raffidity. Precinct

04:05one.

04:07Uh, I have multiple questions if I may.

04:11Um,

04:12human resource advertising.

04:16If you could explain that a little bit

04:18more. What exactly is that? Uh, what are

04:20you advertising for?

04:22>> Sure. One of the things that I've

04:24started to do and I think maybe an

04:26answer to a few of your questions, Mr.

04:28Rafferty is

04:30um in this year's budget is the first

04:34year that I have taken over the budget

04:36myself as town manager. We are trying to

04:39budget appropriately versus using a

04:41contingency account and transfer in

04:44later on. What that does when you do

04:46that is it doesn't accurately

04:49budget pretty much. So it it also was

04:52mentioned in the DLS report. It's

04:54something that we did already for fiscal

04:56year 26. And this transfer right here is

05:01making sure that the money that we need

05:02is in that line item. This particular

05:05line item is for most mostly Indeed. We

05:09use Indeed a lot. We also use MMA

05:12depending on what positions open.

05:14Sometimes we use different um magazines

05:17if it's a specialty type job. But that

05:20is all pretty much job postings.

05:24Thank you. Uh I see that we have to pay

05:28an increase for the vet veterans

05:31representative to increase his salary.

05:34I'm just cur curious uh who exactly is

05:37this gentleman? And um I heard that he

05:41can you confirm is he also a counselor

05:43in the town of Southbridge?

05:45>> Yes, Mr. Rafferty, you're correct. He is

05:47a counselor um town counselor in the

05:50town of Southbridge. He's worked for us

05:52for a few years now. He is our veterans

05:54agent. The increase in this line item is

05:56due to an agreement that the town of

05:59Auburn has with South Brbridge. And I do

06:00believe Oxford is included. I think

06:03there's more than one town. Um and it's

06:05the increase that each of the town is

06:08taking on um as part of the contract

06:11that was actually settled after we did

06:13the budget.

06:15I also noticed in article two that

06:17postage is going up by my calculation

06:2030%.

06:21Uh what is the reason for that?

06:24>> So one of the things we've run into um

06:27and I'm I think you guys here probably

06:30feel it as well but in different times

06:32of the year postage increases

06:35um the post office will increase. I I

06:38don't recall them really ever

06:39decreasing, but what we did in this line

06:41item is add the money to make sure that

06:43we had enough postage for the rest of

06:45the year. Part of this um has to do with

06:49elections. A lot of it's the treasur's

06:51office um mailing out bills and things

06:54like that. So, it's a more accurate uh

06:56depiction of what we're going to expend

06:57for this fiscal year.

07:00>> Now, I noticed that in article 2,

07:02building maintenance, the amount has

07:04doubled in the request. Is there any

07:07specific reason for that?

07:09>> Um yes I do believe that is Hold on

07:12Karen that's town hall right?

07:15>> Yeah so most recently we have been um

07:21inspected

07:22to for compliance. This building has

07:25been inspected and there were several

07:29areas that we needed to improve upon.

07:31One was the back ramp. If you notice,

07:34the back ramp is is done over. You can

07:37you have different um handles on each

07:40side. They're within a specific distance

07:43from each other to make them compliant.

07:46That is due to improvements such as that

07:48to town hall.

07:51And that that inspection was done after

07:53the budget was set.

07:56>> Thank you. And finally, uh, if you

07:59combine two requests in article 2 for

08:01heating, gas, oil, and diesel, uh,

08:04apparently heating is up 18%.

08:08And, um, uh, gas, oil, and diesel is the

08:11request has gone up 40%. I don't need

08:14you to answer why that is. I think we

08:18all know that. My only question is uh

08:23previously at a board of selectment

08:25meeting it was suggested it was

08:27predicted that this was going to happen

08:30and there was a suggestion um from a

08:32town meeting member that perhaps we look

08:35into ways of conserving so that we can

08:38minimize the increase in these costs.

08:40Was any effort made at all um to

08:43conserve?

08:48Um, we are looking into other options

08:52for gas and diesel. We currently use a

08:56system where we have to go to a Shell

08:58station to get our gasoline. It's at um

09:01a price that you and I would pay as

09:04well. We are looking to possibly get our

09:07own gas, our own tanks, and see if we

09:11can get it at a lower price, develop a

09:13monitoring system so that it can be

09:15tracked appropriately.

09:17But that is just in the beginning

09:19stages, the discussions on how we can

09:21try to reduce this cost in the future.

09:25Does anyone else have any questions

09:27about article 2? Come on up.

09:36>> Good evening. Eric Richards, precinct 4.

09:39Uh question for Dr. Scaza and in

09:42relation to the salary line in article

09:44two.

09:46So, March, April of 2025, little before

09:50your time, understand you're in the hot

09:52seat though, uh your business manager

09:55stood next to the previous

09:57superintendent and advocated that the 6

10:00to 12 positions that had been cut or

10:04remaining unfilled for the fiscal year

10:07were as a result of budget necessities

10:10to get within town requests.

10:13and we had a director of people's

10:15services at that time. So I'm curious,

10:17was there a payout made to the current

10:19or the former director of people

10:22services? And what has changed in the

10:25last 3 months that negates or causes a

10:29need for the new hires?

10:32>> So there are three new hires in that

10:33article. One being the director of pupil

10:35services. Uh the long and short of that

10:38is uh we went with an experienced

10:40candidate to help manage some of the

10:42deficits that I have identified in that

10:44area. She came with a higher price tag.

10:46She has a lot of experience so we had to

10:48offset some of her salary. Uh we did put

10:51together um a entry or sorry an exit

10:54package if you will for the previous um

10:58director of pupil services where she

10:59left a little earlier. There was a

11:01little bit of an offset there, but uh

11:03unfortunately I had to use that to pay

11:05the cost for an interim uh director of

11:07people services. That was Gregory

11:09Walton. We were fortunate he was able to

11:10fill that role. So when the dust settled

11:13um we needed an offset for the existing

11:16or the new contract for the director of

11:18pupil services that was higher than the

11:20previous director of pupil services.

11:25The buyout is included in the current

11:28amount asked for or is that something

11:29that will come in the future?

11:32>> No buyout.

11:33>> Yeah. Um there was no buyout. The

11:36>> Oh, bio. Sorry.

11:37>> Director of pupil services that gave her

11:39notice. She was paid for the days that

11:41she worked of her contract. There was no

11:43buyout.

11:44>> I only allowed her to end her contract

11:46early.

11:48Is there any future anticipated hiring

11:51in the next six months or things that

11:53you'll need in addition to what's

11:55currently listed here?

11:56>> The only wild card is are the um ABA

11:59staff. So you have children that either

12:02move into the district who require

12:04onetoone services. Sometimes you'll have

12:05an out of district um student who went

12:07out who comes back in who might require

12:09services. That's with one of the

12:11requests in article 2 uh was for the

12:14cost of an ABA technician for a student

12:16who was out of district who returned

12:18back to district and we needed that

12:19staffing for the student. Um so that's

12:22the wild card are the IAS and the ABA

12:25staff in particular teaching staff I

12:26don't foresee any additional requests.

12:29The special education one uh year

12:31position that I requested is specific to

12:34what I inherited at the high school with

12:36a new design and minutes for the

12:40individual education plans that needed

12:42to be met. Uh where we were struggling

12:45to meet those minutes. So uh it was

12:47required that we needed another special

12:48educator. We have not yet hired that

12:50position, I will say. And I did request

12:53only one year because I wanted to get a

12:55handle on the situation and then I

12:57didn't foresee that we were going to

12:58need an additional special education

13:00director once we put I mean uh teacher

13:02once we put uh a nice system into place

13:04for co-eing at the high school. Uh but

13:06it's right now on the uh surface level.

13:09We haven't gotten that system in place

13:10fully and we're just uh putting a

13:12band-aid on that situation. So hopefully

13:15we can hire that position for the

13:16remainder of the year. It would come at

13:17a really limited cost right now because

13:19we're already going into uh November. Um

13:23I have a prospective candidate that

13:25could potentially start in December. So

13:27it would be for less than we originally

13:29asked for and that would help us get

13:31through the remainder of this year to

13:32meet the service uh the IEP minutes for

13:34those students and uh buy us some time

13:37to get a good handle on the structure

13:39for special education at the high

13:40school.

13:41>> These new salary lines will last us

13:43until the beginning of the next fiscal

13:45year.

13:45>> Yes. So the ABA um staff would be for

13:49not just this year but that one year um

13:51special education position would be for

13:53till the remainder of this um school

13:55year.

13:56>> Thank you for the town manager. My

13:59question is uh the DLS report identified

14:01article 2 as being particularly

14:03problematic. So can you identify the

14:05items that are listed in the article

14:07other than the fire station ban that are

14:09unexpected or emergent or not foreseen

14:13in May versus today? Glad you brought

14:15that up.

14:16>> I'm sure you expected it.

14:17>> I did expect it. So, in previous

14:21budgets, as I said earlier, there was a

14:24contingency account that was set aside

14:27that DLS talked about. That contingency

14:29account was used for departmental

14:31transfers throughout the year. If if a

14:34department needed money for salaries, if

14:36they needed money for oil, if they

14:37needed money for an inspection, we need

14:39to put in new ramp, you would never know

14:42about it because it would be an it'd be

14:44a transfer that was done at FINCOM. And

14:45if you weren't watching FINCOM, you

14:47wouldn't know. We have already in

14:51working with DLS through the process

14:52through the summer. I understood what

14:55their issue was and their concern and

14:58Karen and I worked together to make sure

14:59that number one we limit the amount of

15:02transfers that go in front of finance.

15:04So all of these items here are much

15:08different than would have happened in

15:09the past. It is being transparent. It's

15:11putting money where it goes. These items

15:14would typically been transferred at a

15:16finance committee meeting. So there

15:18aren't any here that are of concern. And

15:22I think you'll see a lot more of this as

15:24we as we go through the budgeting

15:26process in the next future, you know,

15:28future years. As you know, when we

15:29budget, we look at past expenses.

15:32There's a lot that's involved in that.

15:34There is um political issues that we

15:37have to consider and diesel costs and

15:39gas costs that fluctuate. So, we watch

15:41them closely. So, we'll always have

15:43changes and amendments, but I'd prefer

15:45to do them this way so that town meeting

15:47knows about them and they can vote. What

15:49I just don't understand is what's become

15:51different in October that was not

15:52present in May for these costs. They

15:55existed then.

15:56>> No, they did not, sir. They did not

15:58exist then. If they did, they would have

15:59been actually the budget's done in

16:01February. It's sort of a midyear cycle

16:03thing. Um, if any of these were known,

16:06they would have been added. We had some

16:08change over in sal in staffing. So, we

16:11have more costs associated with

16:13advertising. We had a inspection that I

16:16explained earlier. We have additional

16:17costs for the ramp. We have rental costs

16:20for equipment and maintenance that they

16:22were not we were not aware of in

16:25February. I don't think there would be

16:27any benefit for us as an administration

16:30or me as a town manager to ignore those

16:32costs in February and come back in the

16:34fall. We we we do our best to try to

16:36estimate.

16:38>> So next fall we can look forward to a

16:41much less robust article too.

16:43>> Oh, I can't tell you that. I don't know

16:44what's going to happen in the world,

16:45Eric. I wish I could.

16:47>> Thank you.

16:51>> Anyone else have any questions about

16:52article 2?

16:55>> Sure. Come on up.

17:04>> Hi, Jeff Leonte. Uh, precinct one one I

17:08think. Um, quick question. I'm just

17:10wondering what the impact of article 2

17:13is on the average tax like what's the

17:16increase by per thousand on residential

17:19commercial from all this or is there any

17:23is that clear?

17:25>> Um yes. Do you want to do you want to

17:27answer this one

17:28>> because there's no

17:30>> there's no

17:33>> sorry the question was the debt

17:34exclusion going up

17:36>> the whole article

17:39>> 94

17:42taxpayers

17:44>> none

17:45>> go ahead

17:48>> if I could the um there is no increase

17:51in taxes that's related to the 900,000

17:55in this article

17:56The funding sources are coming from

17:59increases in state aid, in new growth,

18:03from ambulance. So, it's other sources.

18:05The only increase that you're going to

18:07see is from the interest on the on the

18:11the um note that's related to the fire

18:14station borrowing.

18:18Thank you.

18:21>> Sure. Come up.

18:28Yeah. Um Kim Watts, precinct 2. Um and

18:32how much is that increase?

18:36Um

18:39>> I think we we calculated out at about

18:41$70 to $75

18:44um on the average

18:46single family.

18:49>> 7075 more for the tax. Yeah. And uh

18:56I still don't understand why this was

19:00was missed or not anticipated.

19:03Could you make that clear for somebody

19:07like me?

19:09>> Thank you for asking again. If you don't

19:10understand, I definitely want another

19:12question, Chief.

19:14>> Sure. Um let me try to explain it a

19:16different way.

19:18So what happens is we we obviously know

19:22that we're going to have interest on on

19:24the debt but when the budget was being

19:28put together we did not know what that

19:30interest was because you have to

19:32remember as the manager said the budget

19:34process starts and the budget you know

19:35we're January February we're before the

19:38finance committee a general contractor

19:40for the project hadn't even been brought

19:42on at that time and the general

19:44contractor is is the one who sets what's

19:47called the cash flow. So they determine

19:50how much funds are going to be needed

19:52ahead of time in order to purchase steel

19:54and gravel and have all of the different

19:56phases of the project. So the $75,000

20:00that you see was put in the budget as a

20:02placeholder knowing that that number was

20:05going to increase, but we did not know

20:07what that number was because we weren't

20:09sure how much we were going out to

20:11borrow based on the cash flow. So once

20:14we received the cash flow from the

20:15general contractor, that number was $14

20:18million. We went out, we borrowed the 14

20:21million. So now there has to be an

20:23adjustment from the 75 to what the

20:26interest is that you're being asked to

20:28vote on here. Now, the good news is

20:31because the project came in $2.5 million

20:34under budget,

20:36the amount that we're asking town

20:38meeting to amend for the interest is

20:41actually lower than what it would have

20:44been if the project had come in what was

20:47anticipated. So, the actual need for the

20:50interest is lower because the project

20:52came in 2.5 million. But I just want to

20:54make it clear because this has been

20:56insinuated a couple of times is that

20:58something was missed or that there was a

21:00mistake somewhere. That is not the case.

21:03The the $75,000 was used as a

21:06placeholder until the interest and the

21:09borrowing was known, which we did not

21:11know until June. The the general

21:13contractor provided us the cash flow.

21:16Actually, it was in July when we

21:17actually received the cash flow. So,

21:20this isn't something that was missed. it

21:22was just not a known number during the

21:24budget process. So again, this amendment

21:27covers the $14 million in interest. Um,

21:30but fortunately, it's a lower number

21:33because the project came in 2.5 million

21:35under budget. Now, to uh I I think it

21:39was your question as well in terms of um

21:42how much is the fire station going to

21:44cost the average taxpayer? I I don't

21:46remember it off the off the top of my

21:49head. It is on the fire station building

21:51committee website. But again, because

21:53the project came in under budget, the

21:56mean number or the I'm sorry, the median

21:59number of what we put out there will be

22:03lower than what we put out publicly

22:04because we're not going to borrow as

22:06much money as we anticipated. So, the

22:09advertised number before the voters went

22:12to the polls and voted yes for the

22:13station. the actual annual increase will

22:16be lower than what was publicized

22:18because we're borrowing a lower amount

22:19of money.

22:22>> I would I would just comment that there

22:25must be a way

22:28for you to have done it. So

22:32didn't look the way it was.

22:36>> Well, I anticipating that you know if

22:40the shoe were on the other foot, you

22:42know, why the hell

22:44They just put a bigger number in there.

22:47They knew it was meant to be bigger.

22:49>> Well, I

22:51>> I understand your point, sir, but

22:53without knowing what the number was,

22:55we'd be going from a bigger number to

22:56the real number. Like, at the end of the

22:58day, the end result is the same, there

23:00would have to be an adjustment because

23:01until we know what the exact number is,

23:04which is what the amended number is. I I

23:06get I get and I understand your point,

23:08but it wouldn't have changed anything in

23:11terms of having to adjust a final

23:13number.

23:14>> Correct. It wouldn't have changed the

23:16facts, but it would have changed

23:18reaction.

23:21>> Point taken.

23:24>> Thank you. Does anyone else have any

23:25questions about article two?

23:29>> Sure.

23:33>> Eric Chilton, precinct 4. Um, what are

23:36the operational consequences for the

23:38town if this article fails to pass

23:43because it is so all-inclusive?

23:46So, um, operationally

23:51that would be hard to say because

23:53especially for like our gas and diesel,

23:55those are vehicles for DPW, you know,

23:59snow removal, that type of thing. And

24:01also, you know, just cleaning the

24:03streets and whatnot. Heating and

24:05electricity. I don't even think we could

24:08close a building without putting heat on

24:10in the winter. So, I'm not I'm not sure

24:12if we'd be even able to do that. um

24:17building maintenance, we would have to

24:18defer the maintenance. We wouldn't be

24:21able to do anymore. And I have, you

24:23know, unfortunately a list of items that

24:26we're looking to do because

24:28it was never really budgeted before and

24:30we're trying to budget out um and take

24:33care of some building things. Um

24:36postage,

24:38we could send things via email, but not

24:40everyone receives email. So typically we

24:42do both and people don't necessarily

24:44like their bills one way. So it's really

24:48a lot of this

24:50is to provide services solid waste

24:53collection. Um you know everyone wants

24:56their trash picked up. We just entered

24:59into an agreement um with a new provider

25:02back in July. It actually the contract

25:04didn't um actually get finalized till

25:07the end of June and it was a very

25:10minimal I think it was 4% Darlene you

25:13can correct me if I'm wrong. It was

25:14right a 4% increase but at one time we

25:16were looking at a 40% increase in cost

25:19associated with that that we worked on

25:22to try to get our previous provider

25:25down. we had to go out and get new

25:27quotes and you know so there's a lot

25:30that there's a lot of work that's being

25:32done on the sidelines so I can't really

25:34tell you what would happen the fire

25:36station um interest uh I'm not

25:40>> separate it's a borrowing so that's

25:42>> oh okay so that's borrowing everything

25:44else is free cash right

25:47yeah so um those are those are the thing

25:50electricity those are the things that

25:53stand out to me

25:59Do you have any particular ones though

26:00that you want me to answer any of those

26:02line items

26:08with respect to the folks that might be

26:10listening on the recording? Uh just the

26:12fact that they're all together. So if

26:14you if if any one town member meeting

26:16member had particular you know focus on

26:20one issue contrasted with all the others

26:23um just trying to understand what would

26:25be the implications of making perhaps a

26:28drastic no vote uh proposal at the at

26:31the meeting for yourself. I just wanted

26:33to be educated about what the

26:34consequences of that action were.

26:37>> Okay.

26:56Do I have to stand up again?

26:57>> Yeah. Can you please come to the

27:05>> uh my thought would just be that you you

27:07could either a town meeting

27:09representative could could propose an

27:11amendment.

27:12>> Oh yeah, definitely if that's what he's

27:14asking

27:14>> or you could move to split the question.

27:16>> Yes. I I thought he was asking what what

27:18would happen on this side. So if you did

27:20want a modification, you can do an

27:23amendment on the floor. I'm sorry. I

27:25didn't realize that's what you were

27:26asking. So you can ask the moderator to

27:28amend article 2 by removing or adding

27:32whatever you felt was you wanted to do.

27:35Okay. Sorry about that. I misunderstood

27:37the question.

27:39Sure.

27:40Come on up. Don't be shy.

27:50>> So this is my first one.

27:53>> Welcome.

27:54>> Um

27:54>> don't be afraid. We're we're

27:56So nice.

27:57>> Just for clarity, it seems like what

27:59you're saying is article 2 is just you

28:01being a little bit more transparent

28:03about things that have been done using

28:05other ways to find the money and you're

28:07trying to provide more clarity to the

28:08town ahead of time about where the money

28:10has come from, how you're putting it

28:12together, and all the different places

28:13it's going to be so that we are better

28:15prepared upfront.

28:16>> Yeah, that's correct. But what I've

28:19noticed as we do this, cuz I'm a new

28:21town manager, is it poses a lot of

28:23questions cuz people haven't seen it

28:25before. Mh.

28:25>> So I really respect those questions

28:27because

28:29>> yeah, it's

28:30>> I just wanted I was like this is what

28:31this seems to be but I wanted to make

28:33sure that in fact this is really what

28:35question what article 2 is is just all

28:38the stuff that's already been happening

28:39but put together up front for everyone

28:42to see so we know upfront instead of it

28:44happening behind the scenes.

28:46>> Yes.

28:46>> Perfect. Thank you.

28:48>> She didn't identify herself.

28:50>> Oh, I'm sorry.

28:54>> Sorry. I'm Mallerie Gallater Levy from I

28:57think precinct 2.

28:59>> Thank you, Mallalerie.

29:05>> Anyone else have any questions about

29:06article 2? Miss Mr. Richards,

29:14>> good evening. Eric Richards, precinct 4.

29:16I just noticed that uh snow and ice is

29:19part of this article. Is that correct?

29:20>> That is correct.

29:22>> What was the total for that? The total

29:24overage all said and done.

29:26>> Just one second. We'll answer that.

29:29>> The total snow and ice deficit from the

29:32fiscal year was 445,674.

29:35We are using 257,262,000

29:40in wrap funds which are winter recovery

29:43assistant program and that brings us

29:45down to the net deficit of the 188,411.

29:50>> Excellent. Can somebody in help me

29:52understand who's the chief

29:53administrative officer of the town

29:58>> chief administrative officer? Like

30:00>> so my understanding if you pull up on

30:02your tablet there or your phone chapter

30:044 section 7 fifth A makes the select

30:07board the chief administrative officer

30:09of the town unless there's a charter

30:13provision for it. I couldn't find a

30:14charter provision. Why is that tied into

30:16snow and ice which is what you're about

30:17to ask?

30:18>> I'm not sure, Eric. Um, we'll get back

30:20to you on that though.

30:21>> Okay. Well, it doesn't appear that the

30:23select board voted this year. I couldn't

30:25find any record of minutes or anything

30:27to approve the overage in the deficit

30:29spending of the snow and ice

30:34of the raft and the uh special provision

30:37from the legislature. you have you would

30:39have had to have that peri that

30:41provision and that vote by the select

30:42board and also the CFO would have had to

30:45inform the select board that we're going

30:47into a deficit in advance. Do are you

30:50aware of a record where that's happened?

30:52>> Um yes, Mr. Richards, we've actually had

30:55quite a few conversations with the board

30:56of selectman about the snow and ice

30:58deficits. You're at our meetings. You

30:59know, we've talked about it. We've

31:01talked about how we're going to fund it.

31:03We've talked about the wrap funds.

31:04>> Sure.

31:05>> This is not

31:05>> You did. You talked about the uh the

31:08funding and the means for which you were

31:10going to cover the deficit. There was no

31:12that I'm aware of. There was not a vote

31:13that authorized the spending into

31:16deficit.

31:18>> Anybody?

31:18>> Yes. Actually, um the chair of the board

31:20of selectman wants to say a few words.

31:25>> Hi, Ann Kavanaaugh. Um the snow and ice

31:29accounts are the only accounts that the

31:31state allows deficit spending on.

31:35So we don't have to approve anything the

31:37select board because this it's by law

31:40it's already allowed.

31:41>> Chapter 44 subsection 31 says that with

31:45appro with specific approval once the

31:47account goes into deficit by the board

31:49of selection.

31:50>> Okay. Um so again my knowledge is that

31:54the town does not have to approve it

31:56because state law allows that to be

31:58deficit spend. And what we did at the

32:00select board was talk about how we're

32:02going to pay, what method we would take

32:05to pay for that $188,000.

32:09Did we want to put it on the recap sheet

32:11for next year? Did we want to amortize

32:13it over three years or did we want to

32:16just pay it off now?

32:18>> That's separate from the leg the

32:19legislature made a separate that's a

32:21separate issue. The issue is going into

32:24the deficit in advance without

32:26authorization. Well, I I I honestly I

32:28think we're getting outside the the this

32:31item, but I'd be glad to hear from you,

32:33Eric, and we can work it out.

32:35>> I recommend you have town council take a

32:36look at that.

32:37>> Yeah.

32:39>> Anyone else have any questions about

32:40article two?

32:44Don't be afraid.

32:47>> Okay. So I would like to move on to

32:50article three, but article 3, 4, and six

32:54are all similar, and they all involve

32:56the school department and their field.

33:00So let's talk about 3, four, and six

33:04right now, and we'll go back to five.

33:07Does anyone have any questions about 3,

33:09four, and six?

33:14Sure, Mr. Rafferty, come on up.

33:25Al Rafidy precinct one.

33:29Um, this the field needs to be replaced.

33:33Everything we've heard, yeah, it has to

33:36be replaced. It's pretty much worn out.

33:39However,

33:41what I what was called to our attention

33:43was that the replacement was previously

33:46approved by a town meeting vote years

33:49ago. So, my question is

33:54why didn't we why didn't replace it? And

33:59what happened? Why didn't we replace it?

34:03And if you can, I'd really like to know

34:05who was responsible for that.

34:09Um, okay team. I I'm not familiar with a

34:12previous town meeting vote regarding

34:15this field. Is anyone else?

34:18>> The only thing bear with me month three

34:21here

34:22>> and learned a lot about turf fields in

34:24uh these first three months

34:26>> and trying to find a creative solution

34:28to find a new uh field multi-purpose

34:30field for the high school. It's my

34:31understanding that at previous town

34:33meeting $150,000 was approved for a down

34:36payment on the turf field. However,

34:40since that down payment was approved, um

34:42there was no forward movement with any

34:45additional funding um for engineering

34:48for co uh for materials or for

34:52installation. So again, as soon as I

34:55came on board, one of the first things

34:56that I had learned is that this was in

34:58the works. However, it had only reached

35:00so far with $150,000 as a set aside.

35:06>> Follow up.

35:06>> Sure.

35:11>> Yes. The um the school committee was

35:15involved with this.

35:17This looks like somebody really dropped

35:20the ball. No pun intended.

35:23But

35:24a mistake of this consequence and as we

35:27know I believe the cost to replace the

35:29field is now almost doubled in price

35:32because of this delay.

35:34So I really want to know have you

35:38bothered to check how did this mistake

35:40happen? I can answer that. Um in our

35:44budget meeting last this past year for

35:47the current year that we're in I was

35:49meeting with the school department. um

35:51the previous superintendent at the time

35:53and they had asked about the funding for

35:55the field and I didn't have any records

35:57on my side. The chief accountant didn't

35:59have any records on her side. I'm being

36:01honest. We did not have any numbers

36:04regarding the replacement of this field

36:06that I could see. So, we then came into

36:10the conversation of what about all our

36:12other fields? They're not the only turf

36:14field in the town of Auburn. There's a

36:16lot of turf fields. You look at our CIP,

36:18none of them are in there. That is

36:20something we're going to be working on.

36:21I'll be working very closely with our

36:23school department and also our DPW. All

36:26of those things need to be in our CIP.

36:29It needs to be a long range plan. It

36:32can't just be I don't I actually don't

36:35even know how honestly how it was done.

36:37I I saw a lot of five-year projects in

36:39our five-year plan, but this one needs

36:42to go out more than 5 years because we

36:45should not be in this situation when we

36:47have to come up with money to replace

36:49this because we're going to have to take

36:51it offline. That should never happen.

36:54So, it is a very good question, Mr.

36:56Rafferty because obviously mistakes were

36:59made somewhere along the line, but we

37:02are going to correct them and you're

37:03going to see it in the next budget when

37:05we may not see a lot of um requests in

37:08the next year, but you're going to see a

37:10longer range plan where you'll see these

37:12types of projects.

37:14Did you have any questions?

37:16Yeah. Come on up.

37:24Sarah Libby, precinct 5. Uh, I was just

37:27curious about the current state of the

37:28field because I don't have a kid in the

37:30school. So,

37:31>> can you just repeat the question?

37:32>> I was just curious about the current

37:33state of the field just because I don't

37:35have a kid in the school. So, I have no

37:36idea. We

37:37>> we recently had an assessment done.

37:39There's a shock pad underneath it that

37:41prohibits concussion that was deemed to

37:44meet the standard. So, we're fortunate

37:46there kids are safe to play on the

37:48field. um the length or the

37:52um expected

37:54length of the life of that shock pad, I

37:57don't think will go much longer than

37:59another year. So, what we're hoping to

38:01do is replace this field in the spring.

38:04Uh the field hockey team does like the

38:06current status of the field because it

38:08is uh kind of matted down, the ball runs

38:11fast. Um, but obviously having uh the

38:14safety and well-being of students at the

38:16forefront of our minds, we wanted to

38:17make sure that that shock pad

38:18underneath. Um, for any children that

38:21play on it, because we have youth sports

38:22primarily that uses that field if they

38:24were to uh take a tumble and hit their

38:26head. Um, there is still a shock pad

38:28underneath that did meet that that

38:30rating that they tested for.

38:35>> Anyone else have any questions? Sure.

38:36Come on up.

38:45Yeah, let's relieve precinct 2. I was

38:47just wondering about what the long-term

38:49plan would be. I see that we wanted to

38:51take money from the Binmar school

38:53parking lot plan to put toward the field

38:56instead and having two kids in the

38:59elementary school system, so

39:00experiencing Binmar parking lots. Um, I

39:04was wondering what the plan was going

39:05forward with that because I do see that

39:07their parking situation directly affects

39:10their field and is also not great. So,

39:13is there a plan to go forward and try to

39:14deal with that later or what I

39:17understand that this is all a balancing

39:18of priorities, but I was just curious to

39:20see what the balancing act was kind of

39:22looking like.

39:24I just um so having visited Binmar a

39:29handful of times I think the main issue

39:31is just parking availability the

39:33reservicing of the Binmar parking lot um

39:36that project was handled through the DPW

39:38is my understanding. So the asphalt, the

39:40condition of it, I believe to be in good

39:42shape. That's why we have this uh option

39:44available. If we were to extend the um

39:49amount of acreage or what have you to a

39:51parking lot, uh increase the amount of

39:54spaces or get creative with um the

39:56parking lot design altogether. That

39:58would be something we would be going

39:59through the town for. Uh we would have

40:01to work with the DPW. We'd have to

40:04figure out how we can make that happen.

40:05But as far as I understand, the set

40:07aside that we're looking to reallocate

40:09was for like a reconditioning of the

40:11asphalt itself.

40:12>> Thank you.

40:13>> You're welcome.

40:13>> Thank you.

40:15>> Does anyone else have any other

40:16questions regarding article 3, four? Mr.

40:19Richards

40:213, four or six.

40:27So I think I can help you a little bit

40:28about where the funds were squirreled.

40:31um December 2024 and April 2025, Miss

40:36Stannic gave presentations as part of

40:38the capital improvement budget for the

40:40field in front of the school committee.

40:42And then again in June 26, so at that

40:44point up to April, she re she stated

40:46that there was about 150,000 for the

40:48field in the capital plan. And then the

40:51school committee in June of 26 advanced

40:53another 300,000 for a total of 450. So

40:57my question is for the 25 CIP amount,

41:00was any of that advanced to the school?

41:03Was it put in a holding account with

41:05treasurer? What happened with that cash?

41:11>> There was no cash that was dispensed to

41:15the school for the fields. We were t we

41:18it was not we had talked about

41:21repurposing and the school committee has

41:22to first approve anything that we're

41:25going to do to repurpose. So the things

41:27that were done in the spring are now

41:30brought forward here to fall town

41:32meeting to do the repurposing. But we

41:35have not received any funds. nothing has

41:37been borrowed or any of that for any of

41:39the repurposing or the part of our um

41:45requests for the field other than the

41:47$150,000.

41:50>> So, was that plan voted at town meeting

41:52and capitalized as part of the CIP for

41:54that year? This happened after which

41:58which the $150,000 was done in 2019

42:02prior to me coming into place and in

42:052025.

42:07It was voted on at town meeting because

42:09those are done six years. Those plans

42:11are done six years in advance.

42:13>> So there was no vote in April of 25

42:16>> for the

42:17>> for 150,000 with the school committee

42:19and then again in 26 June of 26 for

42:22another 300. Look at I would have to

42:23look at the school committee minutes.

42:25Again,

42:25>> I'm not alleging the cash went to the

42:27school department. I'm just curious if

42:28the funds were encumbered, if they were

42:30held, if they were ever

42:32>> done, or or these being this total

42:35capital plan, if you'll call it for 450

42:38total, 450,000 as being part of the

42:41package for the field that you're

42:43proposing today that's doubled in cost

42:45in the last year.

42:46>> It wasn't in the last year. The pricing

42:49that they had done originally in 2019

42:51was prior to co. So it hasn't doubled in

42:55cost since the spring. That is not we

42:57have been speaking of that with Dr.

43:00Chamberlain prior to Dr. Scaza. Nothing

43:03has doubled in cost and we're not

43:04sitting on any money at this time.

43:06>> And you have excuse me

43:09>> Mr. Richards Karen did you want to speak

43:11on this? Yep. The only article that has

43:13been brought forward for the all-purpose

43:15fields for the high school was the

43:17annual town meeting on 57 of 24. It was

43:20part of the CIP, which is article 4, and

43:22it was $150,000.

43:25And that we just borrowed on June 29th

43:27of 2026.

43:29So any other discussion that happened at

43:31the board meeting for the school

43:32committee, it has to go through the

43:34school committee and discussed before it

43:37comes to either me um and my board and

43:41finance committee and um town meeting.

43:43>> I'm asking because it was unclear what

43:45happened with those funds and if they

43:46were being if that was part of this

43:48package or they were encumbered

43:50somewhere else or repurposed.

43:52>> Right now there's 150,000 that was

43:54borrowed. That's the down payment. Is

43:56that correct?

43:57>> Yes. And that's what we're starting to

43:59utilize to go out to have it priced out

44:02because we don't have an estimate. We

44:04need it to be engineered and and looked

44:06at.

44:07>> So you don't have a written estimate of

44:08the total cost at this point

44:10>> at this time? No, we do not.

44:11>> So it could be more, do you think? Or

44:14are you

44:14>> I am not a turf field expert.

44:17>> I could not say

44:19>> no.

44:21>> Just curious if in the future we're

44:22going to look at another article for,

44:24you know, a difference.

44:25>> We have a possibility.

44:26>> We could. So, I I don't have a formal

44:28quote or estimate, but we've been

44:30working on some um repairs and uh when

44:34we got that shock pad tested, we had an

44:36organization that is more wellversed

44:38with turf fields than we are. Uh they're

44:40quoting us around just a ballpark

44:43$650,000 for a brand new turf. Thank

44:45you, Phil.

44:47>> Thank you. Anyone else have any

44:49questions?

44:51The turf field,

44:53three, four, and six.

44:56Okay, let's go to article five. Do we

44:58have any questions regarding article 5?

45:16I don't see any. We can always go back

45:18if you guys think of something as we

45:20move forward. This isn't a public

45:22hearing. It can be a little bit more

45:24relaxed. So if you need to, we can go

45:26back. Okay, let's go to article 7. Are

45:29there any questions regarding article 7?

45:32>> Sure, come on up.

45:41>> I was just wondering what is the

45:43economic development strategic plan and

45:45why does it cost 75,000?

45:47>> Great question. Paul Dequila will be

45:50able to answer that.

45:51>> Thank you. Uh the economic development

45:53strategic plan uh it is sets out the

45:55economic development goals and

45:56priorities for the town to attract new

45:58business retain business. The last plan

46:01was issued in early 2017 with most of

46:05the analysis and work done in 2016. So

46:07we are 10 years past the last plan

46:10having been done. And so the funds being

46:12requested would be used to engage a

46:14consulting company as was done with the

46:16previous plan to uh to help us construct

46:19that plan with the with the guidance of

46:21staff in the economic development

46:22committee and do a lot of the data

46:25analysis and data gathering uh that we

46:28need to make informed decisions about

46:30what kinds of businesses we should be

46:31trying to go after, what kind of other

46:33incentives can we be offering, and

46:35ultimately how do we grow the tax base

46:37to lessen the burden on taxpayers

46:39overall.

46:42Does that answer your question? Great.

46:45Anyone else?

46:47>> Sure. Come on up.

46:55>> Should set my coffee cup on the shelf

46:56over here.

46:57>> You should.

46:58>> Is there a requirement for uh this type

47:00of study to be done in anywhere in the

47:02law, the regulations, or is it just one

47:05of those nice to have things?

47:06>> Oh, I wish it was just nice to have. Um

47:09it is necessary to make sure that we

47:12talk to the community, find out what

47:15they want to do economic development

47:17wise and development wise so that we

47:19have a plan to follow versus just

47:22looking around finding property and

47:24trying to get people in. We really want

47:26to listen to residents and find out and

47:29that's what this whole thing you you

47:31know Eric that's what this is all about

47:32is finding out what residents want. It's

47:35a it's a talking exercise. It's learning

47:37what um citizens need. So it and it's a

47:43lengthy process, but it's important so

47:45that we follow some sort of a guideline

47:48as we continue to develop in the town

47:50because as we see by the 40Bs, they're

47:53coming in. They're trying to migrate our

47:54neighborhoods. We're trying to move them

47:55to Route 20 and, you know, away from our

47:58neighborhoods. It's there's a lot of

48:00competition out there. We want to just

48:01make sure that we have some guidelines

48:03from the people um that live in the

48:05community.

48:06>> How will this be used to modify or

48:09inform zoning moving forward?

48:12>> That would be determined as part of the

48:13process. Uh for example, the last plan

48:16identified uh different biotech is

48:20issues that needed to be uh looked at

48:22and also looked at uh changing the

48:25regulations in Drury Square area. Now,

48:27the biotech thing never really took off,

48:29but certainly there was a number of

48:30zoning changes done in the Jury Square

48:32area. Uh it's hard to predict, but

48:34certainly uh usually inevitably

48:36following an economic plan or a

48:38comprehensive plan exercise, there's

48:40generally zoning recommendations that

48:42come out of it.

48:44>> And do you have a certain

48:47population that you're targeting here as

48:49part of your your scope? How is this

48:51scoped, I guess, is what I'm asking. I'm

48:52trying to understand for somebody who

48:55may be watching or in the audience or

48:56even myself where how you arrived at the

48:5975,000.

49:00>> 75,000 was based on I I spoke to a

49:03couple of colleagues that work for

49:04consulting firms. Um it was an estimate

49:08a smaller comm um which town was it? Uh

49:11there was one town that came in at

49:13$50,000 that was less population than

49:16us. There was one that was twice our

49:17population that came in at $125,000.

49:20Uh the estimate we were given said for

49:23town Auburn size that in that would also

49:25include a pretty robust public

49:27engagement plan would be about $75,000.

49:30That was a that was a uh back of the

49:33envelope uh thing, but generally

49:36speaking, we would craft a scope to not

49:38exceed that amount.

49:39>> Can you help me understand why

49:40population would be important to

49:42consider in a random sample type

49:45situation?

49:46>> I I didn't refer to any random sample.

49:48Uh but in terms of population, if you're

49:50doing outreach, you're doing community

49:52engagement, if it's a smaller community,

49:55it's a different scope of service than

49:56if for a larger community.

49:58>> Thank you.

49:59>> Thank you. Anyone else have any

50:01questions?

50:04>> Sure. Come on up.

50:08>> You guys know you can vote right over

50:10there, too, right?

50:12I don't know what time are they going

50:13till. Do you know

50:16>> early voting right next door?

50:19Matthew Denham precinct too. Um I guess

50:22my other question is I know there was

50:24another economic development like survey

50:27or grant that was recently done where

50:29they went through Drury Square in the

50:30town of Auburn. I don't remember exactly

50:32what it was. Um I know there was a

50:34presentation done with a select uh

50:36select board and economic development

50:38committee. How is this how will this be

50:40different compared to that?

50:42>> No, thank you. Yes, I think you're

50:44referring to for your benefit and

50:45everyone else's benefit. I think you're

50:46referring to the Urban Land Institute uh

50:49workshop that we engaged in in June. Uh

50:51we had applied for a grant to get that

50:53done. That was a very tailored study and

50:55it was focused on the Auburn Mall in

50:57Drury Square area. Certainly that's one

50:59of our primary economic areas, but

51:01there's many other areas of town

51:02obviously that we'd want to cover. So

51:04some of the recommendations from that

51:06study uh may make it forward into the

51:08strategic plan, but the strategic plan

51:09would look at the townwide uh through

51:12all the commercial corridors, not just

51:14the Drury Square Mall area.

51:17>> Great. Thank you.

51:19>> Thank you. Anyone else have any

51:21questions regarding article

51:247?

51:27>> Okay, seeing none for now, let's go on

51:29to article 8. Any questions regarding

51:31article 8?

51:40Okay, I don't see any yet. How about

51:42article nine?

51:51>> Okay, article 10.

51:56>> Sure. Come on up.

52:06Uh, let's see. Article 10.

52:10The city of town meeting will vote to

52:12appropriate $70,000 in pre-cash to fund

52:15staffing and operational study for the

52:17town of Auburn.

52:19I just felt compelled to read that

52:21because I noticed we weren't reading any

52:23of the warrant articles uh which would

52:25benefit the uh the viewing public at

52:27home. I I guess my only question is

52:32um

52:34why is this needed and what is the scope

52:38of the study?

52:40>> That's a great question and and I can

52:42easily read the articles except the

52:45really really long ones and you can

52:47check for those online.

52:49Um the staffing study is actually a goal

52:52and objective that the board of

52:54selectmen have given me. They have

52:56concerns about the staffing within the

52:58town. Is it not enough? Is it too much?

53:02Um, it is reasonable to do this a

53:05staffing study. I I I'm not an expert in

53:08it, but I would say, you know, at least

53:09every 10 years. I don't think it's ever

53:11been done here. And I think they the

53:14board of select men want to make sure

53:16that they have a good understanding of

53:19the fact that we're providing we have

53:21enough staff to provide the best

53:22possible services to Auburn residents.

53:24So that's what this is. I have gotten

53:27this quote through the Collins Center in

53:29Boston. They've done this for a lot of

53:30municipalities

53:32and it's an extensive project speaking

53:35with each of the departments, looking at

53:37workloads, looking at job descriptions,

53:39looking at overtime amounts. Um I can

53:43tell you this study does not involve the

53:45fire department because the fire

53:47department already had a staffing study.

53:49So this is not being redundant. We

53:51removed them. Um, but it also gives us

53:54me as a town manager especially, but

53:56also the board of selectmen and town

53:58meeting members a better understanding

54:00of the staffing in the town of Auburn.

54:04Anyone else have any questions?

54:08Okay,

54:09so the next one is article 11. This one

54:13is regarding um $80,000 from free cash

54:17to fund a building study analysis for

54:20all town owned buildings. And before

54:22there's any questions, maybe I'll just

54:24speak on this. Um, this is also a goal

54:26and objective from the board of

54:28selectmen to me. What you've seen

54:31already in our um, budget is you've seen

54:35additional funding for business for

54:36building repairs. You've seen it at the

54:38special town meeting when we had to the

54:40annual town meeting when we had to do

54:42the roof over at the historical

54:44building. Um, you see it as a transfer

54:46because we just had to do the ramp in

54:49the back. Um we have never

54:53really um funded a full building study

54:58or an analysis of our buildings. These

55:00buildings are very old. This includes

55:01the school department as well. We need

55:04to get a better handle of what we're

55:07going to anticipate. Roofs only last so

55:09long. You know, they have to be

55:11compliant. Um they the HVAC in most of

55:15the buildings, those have been updated.

55:16That's um a recent study prior to me

55:20coming on in 2023 and a lot of that work

55:22is being done but it's not just HVAC

55:25it's it's pretty much everything. So

55:28that's what this 80,000 is going to and

55:31when we do this we're going to submit it

55:33to the board of selectmen and we're

55:34going to have the conversation of what

55:36needs to be done prioritize and then

55:39like I said earlier when you look at our

55:41CIP it's not just going to be 5 years

55:43it's going to be a longterm long range

55:46which is also recommended in the DLS

55:48report and it's the best way to do it so

55:50that you don't have surprises like the

55:52fields um or any other issues that you

55:56can have in the building and th This

55:57building in particular is extremely old.

56:00Um, and I don't know what could possibly

56:03go wrong with it, but I want someone to

56:05tell me before it happens.

56:08Anyone have any questions about that?

56:12You guys are really quiet. Oh, Mr.

56:14Ravity, thank you. It's like I mean,

56:16come on. It was way too quiet.

56:21>> It's not a This isn't a public meeting.

56:22We can talk.

56:25I'm sorry for asking so many questions,

56:27but

56:28>> inquiring minds do want to know.

56:29>> I know.

56:31>> Now, this article, you're asking for

56:34$80,000

56:36from free cash for this study. Um,

56:41so I have I have a question and maybe

56:43some followup. Um, is this something

56:46that is um standing out in some of our

56:49buildings that's prompting this study?

56:51Are there any particular buildings?

56:54>> Um, well, the board of selectman is the

56:56group that recommended this. In fact,

56:58um, I think

57:01selectman carpenter is the one that that

57:03recommended this back then. I think that

57:06what they've seen is, you know, the

57:08money for the roof that we didn't

57:10anticipate for the historical commission

57:12or the ramp in the back. There are

57:14things that are popping up and we also

57:16even the key fob system for these

57:18buildings. Um, I think they just want to

57:20know what's going to happen next. And I

57:23I have to agree with them because the

57:25last thing we want to do is be

57:26surprised.

57:28>> And um, my understanding, correct me if

57:31I'm wrong, is a gentleman named Fehee

57:35gave you this estimate.

57:36>> Yes, he did.

57:37>> And and who is this, Mr. Feahhee?

57:40>> Mr. Fehee used to be the um, maintenance

57:45facilities manager. I say facilities

57:48managerities director

57:49>> facilities director for the um Auburn

57:51public schools which is a benefit in

57:53this case because he already has

57:55intimate knowledge of those buildings

57:58and through my time here he's also

58:00worked on a lot of town owned buildings.

58:03He's managing the HVAC program

58:05throughout town. So that's why we were

58:09able to get a lower price because he has

58:11a lot of institutional knowledge. He'll

58:13be coming before the board to discuss

58:15any findings that he has um and talk

58:19about proper planning.

58:22>> Uh it's my understanding that he gave he

58:26gave you the quote and he's slated to

58:28get the contract. Would that be correct?

58:34>> Do you want to speak? Do you want to

58:35speak to it?

58:36>> Sure.

58:39>> Excuse me. Um so in conversations with

58:42Mr. Fehee

58:44uh he is currently a town employee. He

58:46he's still working uh part-time for the

58:48town of Auburn, which is how he is uh

58:51directing the HVAC project. So, it's not

58:55necessarily the contract is going to Mr.

58:58Fehee. He's already a town employee.

59:00He's going to be managing the oversight

59:02of the report. The $80,000 is to bring

59:05in various trades, whether it's masons,

59:08electricians, carpenters, to assist him

59:10in the evaluations of the property. So,

59:13this $80,000 is not being handed to Mr.

59:17Fehee as a as a a payroll expense like

59:20that

59:20>> for for the report. He'd probably love

59:22that, but it's um this is to bring on

59:25the various trades in order to evaluate

59:28the facilities to complete the report.

59:30>> I see. Thank you.

59:32>> Thank you. Anyone else have any

59:34questions? Sure.

59:36>> Conspiracy.

59:39>> Will the scope of that study extend

59:41beyond buildings? Specifically, thinking

59:44about the athletic field, are there

59:45other town facilities

59:48that would also be included?

59:50>> No, this study is is just buildings, but

59:52we do have a dire need to um analyze all

59:56of our fields. That has obviously been

59:59an a topic of discussion tonight, but

1:00:01also in the past couple years. I have

1:00:04met with a couple of the leagues, soccer

1:00:06league, um, baseball, and spoken to them

1:00:10about the condition of town owned

1:00:13fields. So, I have feedback from them

1:00:16and I also work with our DPW who's able

1:00:18to provide us an analysis of what we

1:00:22need to do on our fields. But there is,

1:00:24I'm going to be honest with you, there

1:00:25there's a lot of work to do, whether

1:00:27it's um the turf fields or the non-turf

1:00:31fields. Um we have a lot of leagues that

1:00:34want to have a higher standard field,

1:00:37but we're a town. We can't we can't

1:00:40necessarily build a higher standard

1:00:42standard field where there can be

1:00:44competitions and things like that

1:00:46without coming in front of town meeting

1:00:48and having a very honest conversation

1:00:50because it would be an exorbitant cost.

1:00:54followup. Uh would the study also

1:00:58include telecommunications looking ahead

1:01:00to the next Lauren article?

1:01:02>> Telecommunications

1:01:04in like phones. Yeah, it will look at

1:01:07phones. We are doing a phone system at

1:01:10the police department and we're doing

1:01:11one in town hall now, but the other

1:01:13buildings it it will.

1:01:15>> Thank you.

1:01:16>> Thank you.

1:01:19Anyone

1:01:22else?

1:01:24Okay.

1:01:27Article 12. This is 35,000 from free

1:01:30cash for a new police department phone

1:01:32system

1:01:34um and all required equipment and

1:01:36services. So, as you know, I can have

1:01:38the maybe I should have the chief talk

1:01:39about this, but let me just tell you how

1:01:41this came about. Um over the summer we

1:01:45started experiencing some outage outages

1:01:48at the police department. They're not

1:01:49the emergency lines. They're not the

1:01:51emergency lines. I want to say that out

1:01:53front. It is it is the regular phone

1:01:55system um that handles day-to-day

1:01:58operations. We started having problems

1:02:00with them going out. Um and we spoke to

1:02:05I spoke to Mike Marino who's our IT um

1:02:09expert and he also handles the phone

1:02:11system. talk to him about what the

1:02:13issues were, why they kept going out,

1:02:15are they what the issues, you know, what

1:02:17are we going to do? We can't keep doing

1:02:18this. And part of the problem was that

1:02:20the system so antiquated, we couldn't

1:02:22find the parts to replace what we needed

1:02:24to do. So, it needs to be replaced in

1:02:27its entirety. Um, which is unfortunate,

1:02:30but that's, you know, that's actually

1:02:32common in municipalities when you have

1:02:34phone systems for that long. Um, so

1:02:38this, um, will allow the police

1:02:41department to have a brand new phone

1:02:42system and hopefully have no outages

1:02:46moving forward. And, and it's it's got a

1:02:48backup system as well to that. So,

1:02:52so if anyone has any questions on that

1:02:54one,

1:03:02>> thank you. Thanks. They said I did a

1:03:03good job. They don't have to speak. They

1:03:05don't really want to. That's what it

1:03:06Well, he does. He always wants to speak.

1:03:10No questions. Okay. How about back

1:03:13there, Eric?

1:03:14Nothing. Okay. Bummer. Okay. The next

1:03:18one. Article 13. Appropriate $20,000

1:03:21from free cash to fund a roadway

1:03:23improvement software program. This is a

1:03:25good one. Come on.

1:03:29Nothing. Okay. What this? Thank you, Mr.

1:03:32Richards.

1:03:34Thank you. Thank you.

1:03:40>> To spread the love.

1:03:42>> Absolutely. It's her turn.

1:03:44>> So, TPW,

1:03:46this is How is this contract structured?

1:03:49How have you decided to ensure that

1:03:52we're retaining ownership of the data

1:03:54and that it is secure and not owned by a

1:03:56third party? We recently encountered

1:03:59this with another contract.

1:04:04Uh so I'm not sure of the other contract

1:04:07but uh this data um will integrate into

1:04:10our GIS system. So the data we will own.

1:04:14So if the contract um we are going to be

1:04:18um we're looking to enter into a a

1:04:20one-year agreement. Um and um if we

1:04:25choose not to continue on, we'll own the

1:04:28data. And the agreement is does it have

1:04:31an automatic renewal provision?

1:04:34>> Um

1:04:36we're still evaluating the um the

1:04:40software that we're going to be using.

1:04:42So the structure of the contract is

1:04:44still unknown.

1:04:45>> What are the recurring costs in the

1:04:47future anticipated potentially because

1:04:49we haven't picked anybody.

1:04:51>> So the cost is actually collecting the

1:04:54data. So um it would be similar costs.

1:04:59So, let's say the contract is

1:05:02$17,000. We'd be looking at um the same

1:05:06cost or whichever data we decide to um

1:05:10collect because we can we can choose

1:05:12whether we're collecting, you know,

1:05:14roadway and signage or

1:05:18manhole covers um you know, any sort of

1:05:22um different categories of data. But um

1:05:26but we would be choosing year-to-year

1:05:29what we are paying.

1:05:31>> So there's no recurring SAS creep here.

1:05:34>> I'm sorry.

1:05:34>> There's no recurring SAS creep. What's

1:05:36your expended? What's your anticipated

1:05:39growth in you know recurring cost for

1:05:42services? So most SAS models they have a

1:05:458 or you know 12% creep in the cost.

1:05:48>> So we don't have we don't have that data

1:05:50just yet just just because we don't have

1:05:52an agreement. But um looking at the

1:05:54cost, it doesn't look like they're

1:05:56increasing um like a lot of other um

1:06:00services are um on a yearly basis. I'm

1:06:03sure there's increases, but not what

1:06:04we've seen for, you know, POM mix.

1:06:09>> What sort of technology are we looking

1:06:10to favor here? Is it millimeter wave

1:06:12radar or

1:06:14if I can interrupt just a little bit,

1:06:16Mr. Richards? We don't have a contract

1:06:17yet. It hasn't been decided which um

1:06:20vendor we're going to use. So a lot of

1:06:22these questions we don't know but I do

1:06:24have a question that's on the same

1:06:26premise as yours is if we you know we're

1:06:28going to look to do this which is also

1:06:31you know recommended by the board of

1:06:32selectman that we do a software program

1:06:34so that we can properly track our

1:06:35streets. How often do we have to so they

1:06:38go out we spend $20,000 they go out how

1:06:42good is that data? How long is it? How

1:06:44long is it good for? So that data if

1:06:47we're looking at pavement condition that

1:06:50can change in eight months.

1:06:53>> Okay. Um

1:06:54>> so do we have to do it every year?

1:06:56>> So we typically do it every year. Um

1:06:58with one of the software packages that

1:07:00we've um we've looked at and they said

1:07:03that you know we can use the equipment

1:07:04multiple times a year and re um

1:07:07reevaluate the roads.

1:07:09>> And is there a chance there'll be the

1:07:10same $20,000 recurring cost?

1:07:13>> Um yes. Okay.

1:07:15>> It could be lower. could it. So, um, one

1:07:18of the the packages that we looked at,

1:07:20um, there's a base price of 15, but, um,

1:07:23if we wanted to add, um, signage, you

1:07:27know, if there's street signs that are

1:07:29faded, it's it's good for us to know

1:07:31that ahead of time.

1:07:32>> Um, so there's additional information

1:07:35that we can gather and we can year to

1:07:37year choose to

1:07:39>> change it. Right. Okay. Good. I'm sorry,

1:07:41Mr. Richards, but I think it goes along

1:07:42with your line of questioning is there's

1:07:44a lot we don't know, but I think we we

1:07:47know what we don't want either. I

1:07:49>> I don't think anybody in this room was

1:07:51against better streets.

1:07:52>> No, I don't think so either.

1:07:53>> Just going to say I but I think that

1:07:56better streets at a 60x cost or a 3x

1:08:00cost is nice to know so that we don't

1:08:02get whacked in May.

1:08:04>> Yeah. With surprises.

1:08:05>> I agree.

1:08:07>> Thank you.

1:08:07>> Thank you. Anyone else have any Yeah,

1:08:10sure. Wayne,

1:08:13he hasn't spoken yet. He's so quiet

1:08:15tonight. Mr. Paige,

1:08:18>> I just like to observe and then have a

1:08:20talk at town meeting.

1:08:21>> Okay, that's okay, too. How are you?

1:08:24>> But no, um I was going to ask you, do

1:08:27you have any set plan the way you do the

1:08:30roads and stuff now?

1:08:32>> So, we do. We have evaluated um each

1:08:35road. So, we're going to continue

1:08:37evaluating um all the roads each year.

1:08:40Um this is just going to be using um

1:08:43technology. We're going to be using AI

1:08:45to um to have a more um more object

1:08:50objective way of of um of evaluating

1:08:53those roads. Um we'll also have the

1:08:56ability to collect data um lidar

1:09:00possibly pictures that type of thing so

1:09:02that we can actually um refer back to it

1:09:05see what it what things looked like in

1:09:07the past how things have changed.

1:09:10>> Thank you. Uh one other thing I'd like

1:09:12to say I seen a great improvement in the

1:09:15town with the roads this year. That's

1:09:17why I was kind of wondering if she had a

1:09:19a set plan that she had or is it

1:09:21something new?

1:09:24Uh so we we had some additional funds

1:09:26that came in um and we also had um last

1:09:31year's chapter 90 money that we used in

1:09:34the spring and also um this year's

1:09:36funds. So um so we had more funds

1:09:39available to us than than in the past.

1:09:42>> Okay. Thank you.

1:09:43>> Thank you. Anyone else have any

1:09:45questions?

1:09:47Sure. Come on up.

1:10:02So, it sounds like you're still

1:10:03evaluating vendors. Um, I'm not sure

1:10:06what the processes is going into that um

1:10:09and with staffing, but basically my

1:10:11question is, is there an idea of how

1:10:14much time this will save staff and if

1:10:17this will help improve roadways at a

1:10:20faster pace? I think in some past

1:10:22meetings it seems like there's um like a

1:10:2520-year plan, 30-year plan the way we're

1:10:28at the rate we're going. So, will this

1:10:30help increase um the time in which or

1:10:33improve the timing in which we'll see

1:10:35roadways improved or free up manh hours?

1:10:39Um so, I'm just wondering what this

1:10:41software and capabilities will do for

1:10:43town staff is really what I'm asking.

1:10:46>> Sure. Thank you. Uh so um our

1:10:49engineering division uh drives these

1:10:52roads. So that um this will certainly

1:10:55speed up the time for evaluating the

1:10:57roads. Um it's

1:11:01basically the software is collecting the

1:11:03data. It's not you know driving a road

1:11:07kind of you know evaluating um you know

1:11:09calling the highway superintendent, hey

1:11:11we have a pothole here that needs to be

1:11:13fixed. um we kind of get, you know,

1:11:15sidetracked sometimes when when we're

1:11:17driving the roads just because um we see

1:11:21things that we don't get to, you know,

1:11:23we don't get a chance to see when we're

1:11:24in the office. So, this will give us uh

1:11:27a better opportunity to collect that

1:11:29data. Um those potholes will be um

1:11:32identified uh as part of it. Uh so,

1:11:35there's there's saving savings in in

1:11:38that. um whether or not I don't know how

1:11:42much more roads we would be able to do.

1:11:45That would depend on the the treatment,

1:11:48the roadway treatment. Um unfortunately,

1:11:51roads are expensive. So, um we did a

1:11:55little bit over 5 miles this year. Um,

1:11:58I'm not sure, you know, what we're going

1:12:00to be able to do next year, but this

1:12:02will also give us the ability to

1:12:04evaluate the roads um for other surface

1:12:08treatments as well as um a further

1:12:11budget planning.

1:12:13>> Okay. I I wasn't uh the reason why I

1:12:15asked is just in terms of if it again

1:12:18not knowing just in terms of like the if

1:12:20it evaluates more again in that

1:12:21prioritize prioritization sense um for

1:12:24efficiency. So the reason why I asked

1:12:26the question but thank you.

1:12:27>> Thank you.

1:12:28>> Thank you. Anyone else?

1:12:32>> Okay, let's

1:12:34>> Oh, I got someone where?

1:12:36>> Jeff Le.

1:12:36>> Come on up. Jeff,

1:12:41>> break it up a little.

1:12:43>> Jeff Leonti precinct one. Um, this is

1:12:45sort of a 30,000 foot question. I think

1:12:48probably for our CFO. many if not most

1:12:52of those first uh 12 or 13 articles deal

1:12:54with taking money from free cash. Uh my

1:12:57question is where's our free cash stand

1:13:00now? And I know that's probably on the

1:13:01website and I didn't look it up. Bad me.

1:13:03Um and does taking this amount of money

1:13:06from free cash have any anticipated

1:13:09negative impact on our bond rating and

1:13:11future borrowing cost?

1:13:13>> Great questions. Do you want to answer

1:13:15that, Karen?

1:13:16>> Sure. Um

1:13:19on the free cash balance

1:13:22um there's about just under 8.3 million

1:13:25that's remaining in free cash and these

1:13:29articles here total 800,000.

1:13:33So those would be reducing the amount of

1:13:36our free cash.

1:13:38The um according to the DLS report and

1:13:41of course the town is going to have to

1:13:43update its policies. It recommends that

1:13:46we have um 17% in reserves of our prior

1:13:51year operating budget.

1:13:54So right now as we stand with our

1:13:56reserves, we're just about right around

1:13:59right around the mark where we should

1:14:01be. Um but the the the amounts being

1:14:05added to free cash aren't as much as

1:14:09they were in the prior years, you know,

1:14:11due to the increasing costs. So, we

1:14:14anticipate maybe there's about 300,000

1:14:16that's going to be added to to that

1:14:18amount from for the um certification for

1:14:21fiscal 26. So, we are going to have to

1:14:23keep an eye on it. Um again, you know,

1:14:26it's recommended around 17%. Not a lot

1:14:30of cities and towns, I think, that

1:14:31probably have that. The town of Auburn

1:14:33did have more than that um because of

1:14:37the building up of the reserves. So, um,

1:14:40once we re-evaluate our policies to see

1:14:42exactly where we want to be, um, and you

1:14:45know, what's what's the best for the

1:14:47town, you know, at this point, I we're

1:14:49right around where we where we should be

1:14:51with our percentages.

1:14:56Anyone else?

1:15:00Okay, we can go back if you need to.

1:15:02Article 14, inclusionary zoning. Anyone

1:15:06have any questions?

1:15:10Mr. Aquilla to my left would be happy to

1:15:12answer them.

1:15:15>> Right.

1:15:16>> Absolutely.

1:15:18>> There we go. Mr. Rafferty

1:15:27Rafferty precinct one. I can I can put

1:15:30it in a nutshell and Mr. Delicquilla can

1:15:32correct me if I'm wrong, but this is to

1:15:35prevent 40B from happening in the town.

1:15:38If we can put something out there, put a

1:15:41plan in place and put and and plan and

1:15:44put some uh affordable housing where we

1:15:46want it. 40B we we go over the

1:15:49threshold, we become um I forget what

1:15:51the term is. Um we're safe harbored. 40B

1:15:56can't come in and do anything. Um would

1:15:59that be an accurate summary, Mr.

1:16:01Deloquilla?

1:16:02>> Yes. Uh absolutely. So just for

1:16:04everyone's uh edification, I think what

1:16:06Mr. Raf is referring to is the state

1:16:08requires uh communities to have 10% of

1:16:12their housing stock designated as

1:16:14affordable. If you do not have 10% uh

1:16:17you're susceptible to 40bs, which as

1:16:19we've seen in recent years come in and

1:16:21the thing with 40Bs, I think we can all

1:16:23agree we want more housing in the right

1:16:25places. However, 40B applications

1:16:28override all local regulations. So, they

1:16:30can build them bigger, taller, denser

1:16:33than they might otherwise be in a given

1:16:35neighborhood that would be allowed by

1:16:36right or through the traditional

1:16:38process. As we sit there tonight, we are

1:16:41at 9.92%.

1:16:43We need to generate seven units of

1:16:45affordable housing to reach 10% to reach

1:16:49that quote unquote safe harbor mark. So,

1:16:51this is one tool. So yes, to one extent,

1:16:54yes, this is a tool that will help us uh

1:16:57get to the 10% threshold that would make

1:17:00us not susceptible to 40b. But generally

1:17:02speaking, too, it does have the

1:17:04additional goal as well to create more

1:17:06affordable housing and projects going

1:17:08forward. We don't want to get 10 10%

1:17:11plus one unit. We want to build up a

1:17:13little cushion so that way if things

1:17:15change in the future, we're still above

1:17:17the 10% threshold. So optimistically

1:17:20this measure would be another tool that

1:17:22developments of 10 units or greater

1:17:24would have to require uh provide a

1:17:27certain amount of affordable housing.

1:17:30>> So uh basically this uh Warren article

1:17:34is a what you used to call a no-brainer.

1:17:37Um it should pass easily. Um

1:17:41of course how they consider what's

1:17:43affordable

1:17:4580% in Massachusetts. Well, that's

1:17:48almost like an inside joke actually cuz

1:17:51even if it's 80% of the uh of the medium

1:17:55price,

1:17:57most people it's not going to be

1:17:58affordable. But be that as it may, I

1:18:01want to call just one quick attention to

1:18:03what might be a typo that might have

1:18:06occurred when you cut and paste this uh

1:18:09this warrant article. Uh I looked up the

1:18:11term, let's see, it's on. We don't have

1:18:14page numbers on this thing. Uh but

1:18:18there's a definition local initiative

1:18:22unit. Uh I looked that up online and

1:18:25apparently there's no such term. It's

1:18:27actually I I believe should be called

1:18:30local action unit. So you might just

1:18:32want to check that that that could be

1:18:34corrected. And then my only comments are

1:18:37um apparently there's going to be a

1:18:41description of a lottery. This plan

1:18:43shall include a description of the

1:18:45lottery or other process to be used for

1:18:48selecting buyers or tenants with

1:18:52preferences for town residents or

1:18:55persons employed within town. My only

1:18:57comment is um I would I would much

1:19:01prefer these places could be purchased

1:19:04by people and not force them to become

1:19:07tenants. Um if if that could be

1:19:10restricted that would be wonderful. As

1:19:12far as preferences for town residents or

1:19:15persons employed with the town, I'm all

1:19:17in favor of preferences for town

1:19:18residents so they can stay in the town,

1:19:20but I'm not sure we should uh give a lot

1:19:22of preference to people who are

1:19:25employees of the town. Um uh it's like

1:19:29um it's like I'm not sure why we would

1:19:31give a benefit to them exclusively.

1:19:35Um and um that's about it. Thank you.

1:19:39Thank you.

1:19:41Anyone else have any comments?

1:19:47>> Eric Chilton, Precinct 4, chair of the

1:19:49zoning bylaw review committee that

1:19:51drafted this uh bylaw. The uh intent for

1:19:55uh particularly identifying uh employees

1:19:58of the town as relevant to the lottery

1:20:01was because uh it's nice to have your

1:20:03firefighters and your patrol officers

1:20:05that live in your your neighborhoods.

1:20:08And we thought that that was a community

1:20:10benefit that we wanted to highlight as a

1:20:12part of the language.

1:20:15>> Thank you.

1:20:17>> Anyone else?

1:20:20Sure. Come on up.

1:20:29>> Eric Richards, precinct 4. Quick

1:20:31question that uh developed. We're

1:20:34changing between this bylaw and the next

1:20:36one the heights in the mall overlay

1:20:39district. Are we trying to encourage

1:20:42some more development or residential

1:20:44combination development at the mall site

1:20:46by uh increasing the size of this with

1:20:49Simon or is there a plan in the books or

1:20:51an approach somewhere? Uh I don't know

1:20:54if I want to preempt the I can I can

1:20:56discuss that now or I'll just discuss it

1:20:58now. The the next the next uh article 15

1:21:03deals with the changing the height in

1:21:06the mall district and that was actually

1:21:08something that came out of the ULI

1:21:09project that we discussed earlier that

1:21:12identified a discrepancy in our zoning

1:21:14uh where the a couple years back we had

1:21:17changed the allowable heights in the

1:21:19mall district. However, uh well, excuse

1:21:22me, in the highway business district in

1:21:24which the mall is located. However, that

1:21:27zoning change does not account for the

1:21:28fact that the mall is in a mall overlay

1:21:31district, which has its own separate set

1:21:32of height requirements. And that capped

1:21:35uh height at 35 ft, which is basically

1:21:37the height of the existing parking

1:21:39structures of the mall. So, there's not

1:21:40a specific endeavor, but yes, it

1:21:43certainly would one of the goals would

1:21:44be to make the mall site overall more

1:21:46attractive for redevelopment.

1:21:49And out of curiosity, also for large

1:21:51warehouse sites or distribution, I

1:21:54understand that uh some of the height

1:21:56requirements, they go on the higher

1:21:57side. Is that also something you're

1:21:59possibly potentially considering?

1:22:02>> I'm not sure warehouses are allowed in

1:22:03this district, but uh this would apply

1:22:05to any any any allowable development in

1:22:08the zone.

1:22:10>> And a quick comment about the affordable

1:22:12housing to the gentleman from the bylaw

1:22:14review committee. Thankfully, we don't

1:22:16have many cops who uh need low-income

1:22:18housing in this town, and we're we're

1:22:20grateful for that. I don't anticipate

1:22:23it'll be a problem in the future, but

1:22:24there will be a warrant article coming

1:22:26to ensure that if they're injured that

1:22:29uh that won't happen.

1:22:31>> Thank you. Anyone have any other

1:22:33questions?

1:22:36Okay. So, um Paul discussed article 15,

1:22:40which is the regional mall overlay

1:22:41district. Do we have any questions on

1:22:43that one?

1:22:52Seeing none, article 16.

1:22:57This is regarding an easement. And um

1:23:00let me see.

1:23:03Actually, I think I'll have Joanna

1:23:04discuss this one because I don't really

1:23:07know what it means. No, just kidding.

1:23:09It's easier for her to read.

1:23:13Uh so this article um would allow the

1:23:16board of selectman authority to um

1:23:19approve an easement um in front of 15

1:23:22hard scrabble road within the roadway.

1:23:25So, it will allow the property owner um

1:23:28at 15 Hard Scrubble Road, which is

1:23:30currently Cassella, to um convey their

1:23:33storm water directly from their site um

1:23:37across the street through town property,

1:23:40our right away um and discharge um on

1:23:43the other side of the street. Um

1:23:46currently they are tied into the um town

1:23:49storm water system um which is not

1:23:51ideal. it decreases our capacity um and

1:23:55it has some um some issues as to

1:23:59responsibility.

1:24:00Um so this makes it a lot cleaner. Um

1:24:03they're doing this as part of their

1:24:05storm water improvements. They're doing

1:24:06a lot of treat pre-treatment

1:24:09um as part of their their own permit.

1:24:16Anyone have any questions?

1:24:21Seeing none, I'll move on to article 17.

1:24:24This is um a vote to fund from ambulance

1:24:29receipts items for the fire rescue

1:24:32department. Does anyone have any

1:24:34questions regarding this one?

1:24:45Okay. Article 18. Um, this is regarding

1:24:49the sewer retained earnings. It is a

1:24:51vote to appropriate 99,000 from the

1:24:54sewer retained earnings for the purchase

1:24:56of a sewer truck replacement.

1:24:59Does is there any questions regarding

1:25:00this one?

1:25:08Okay, seeing none, the next one is

1:25:10170,000 from sewer retained earnings for

1:25:13the replacement pump for the Pinrock

1:25:15pump station. Any questions?

1:25:21Sure. M. Come on up.

1:25:30>> A quick question for the sewer

1:25:32department, Eric Richards, precinct 4. I

1:25:34noticed that uh sewer bills recently

1:25:37went out and the 2009 DLS report

1:25:40identified that we are six months behind

1:25:42and recommended 17 years ago that we

1:25:44come up to current billing because there

1:25:46was no technical challenge. So my

1:25:48question for the sewer commissioner is

1:25:50are we behind or is there a discernable

1:25:54important lag in funding that would

1:25:56cause us to have to front some of this

1:25:58cost that may otherwise be made up with

1:26:00revenues?

1:26:05Um, I believe as far as revenues go,

1:26:07they're they're collected on a bannual

1:26:09basis based on how the sewer billing has

1:26:11been done. And there has been no

1:26:13shortage of revenues to cover any cost

1:26:16that the sewer commissioners or any

1:26:18costs that operating costs that have

1:26:20been taken place in the department.

1:26:22>> Okay. Um, as far as the DLS report, uh,

1:26:25I know you've mentioned that a couple

1:26:26times now, and it is something that

1:26:28we'll look at to try and understand what

1:26:30that report recommends and how it's

1:26:32different than what we're currently

1:26:33doing, and then present you some

1:26:35information as to why it's done the way

1:26:37it is and if there needs to be a change

1:26:39to conform with that.

1:26:40>> For clarity, I'm referring to the 2009

1:26:43report. It's recommendation number 35.

1:26:49>> Thank you.

1:26:51>> Anyone else have any questions?

1:26:55Okay,

1:26:58seeing none, um, article 20, a one-year

1:27:02moratorum on the issuance of building

1:27:04permits for electronic data storage

1:27:06projects.

1:27:09Does anyone have any questions?

1:27:14Reason for this is to study the issue

1:27:18um to make sure that someone doesn't

1:27:20come and buy property under 20 before we

1:27:25have a chance to look at what the

1:27:26impacts are on the community.

1:27:30That's what this is. And we'll be doing

1:27:31some work on this and watching what's

1:27:34going on in other communities. We don't

1:27:35want to we don't want this in in here if

1:27:38it's going to hurt our community, our

1:27:40resources, all of it. So,

1:27:45>> come on up, Mr. Richards.

1:27:51>> You ready?

1:27:53>> So, three questions. Um, first is this

1:27:56bylaw has seen quite a bit of revision

1:27:59over the last several weeks, which is a

1:28:00good thing. Uh, but I still notice that

1:28:03there is no exclusion to a primary use

1:28:06or a minimum size.

1:28:08and also that you would remove the

1:28:10language that is pre-existing in the

1:28:12bylaw as to how you will define a data

1:28:15center. And so while I understand from

1:28:17testimony of various committees there is

1:28:19an intent that it doesn't apply to small

1:28:22business or residents or other things

1:28:24but if you read the actual verbiage

1:28:27literally nearly every building could

1:28:30capriciously be termed a data center

1:28:33including the ones the town owns. uh do

1:28:36you have an intent to amend the article

1:28:39or put in a size restriction or can you

1:28:41give some insight as to your cognition

1:28:44on that?

1:28:47>> So um this is for a moratorum. The

1:28:50moratorium is allow us time to come up

1:28:52with the standards you're referring to.

1:28:54As it currently stands, we don't have a

1:28:57clear definition of what would qualify

1:28:58as a data center. Uh the state, as you

1:29:01know, the governor's made some

1:29:02announcements about new regulations at

1:29:03the state level. We know that the state

1:29:05office of economic development will

1:29:07reissuing guidance by the end of the

1:29:09year on this. So our goal is to make

1:29:12sure we're not hurting any current

1:29:13businesses and we're attracting

1:29:15businesses uh that are appropriate uh to

1:29:18town. So there's uh there's nothing

1:29:20capricious here at all. This is in fact

1:29:22foresight because we want to be able to

1:29:23study the issue and not have to react to

1:29:25something. But you put a prohibition on

1:29:28every other district except for one. And

1:29:31the language for example lists routing

1:29:34equipment, networking commitment

1:29:36equipment, data storage and other pieces

1:29:39that frankly I have in my home and many

1:29:42places do and I understand the intent

1:29:45but is that you will not pursue

1:29:48homeowners or small businesses who are

1:29:50starting to scale who may run a follow

1:29:52into this permit but or or this

1:29:54moratorum but a small business thinking

1:29:58of scaling coming into the spring and

1:30:00revenue venue season and earning season,

1:30:03they would need to consider the fact

1:30:04that this moratorum is in place and the

1:30:06language is there. And I almost wonder

1:30:07if we're not shooting ourselves in the

1:30:09foot. And then also, do we know the size

1:30:12of the facility in Charlton that were

1:30:14that started the concern?

1:30:17>> Go ahead.

1:30:17>> I'm not aware of any facility in

1:30:18Charlton.

1:30:21>> So, we're not worried about any

1:30:22facilities coming in at all.

1:30:25We are I don't there is one that was

1:30:27trying to go into Charlton and there is

1:30:29a couple others I believe in the state.

1:30:31Um I just wanted to make sure that we

1:30:35just

1:30:37had all the cards on our on our side

1:30:39like we did not have land come up be

1:30:42sold to a data center without us looking

1:30:45at the issue and protecting um the town

1:30:48of Auburn. It is not meant to stop

1:30:51people from doing things in their house.

1:30:53A data center is a big establishment. Um

1:30:57like Paul said, there is no real

1:30:59definition out there. We're looking at

1:31:01um definitions in addition to um proper

1:31:07proper guidelines for something like

1:31:09this. We we I haven't seen anything like

1:31:11this before and we just want to make

1:31:13sure we protect the town. That's all

1:31:15this is and it's for one year.

1:31:17>> What happens when the one year runs out?

1:31:19We're going to we're going to discuss it

1:31:20again and see what what the the goal is

1:31:23of the town.

1:31:25>> Go ahead.

1:31:25>> Yeah, I was the goal would be the

1:31:27mortorium is that we would have a new

1:31:28bylaw for presentation at w whether it

1:31:32be at springtown meeting or more likely

1:31:33at at next fall town meeting. The year

1:31:36gives us that time to study the issue

1:31:37thoroughly.

1:31:40>> And so can you I'm a simple man of

1:31:43modest gifts. I'm hoping that you can

1:31:45help me understand. We enforce our

1:31:48bylaws which become law based on the

1:31:50actual language on the paper. Is that

1:31:52correct?

1:31:54>> What do you

1:31:56>> I'm not sure what that means.

1:31:57>> What What would you like to know?

1:31:58>> Um

1:32:00>> like

1:32:00>> the law

1:32:00>> not it's not a Q&A when we

1:32:03>> when we go to when we go to town meeting

1:32:05and we vote for this. It's based on

1:32:06what's written on the page

1:32:08>> protect Auburn residents

1:32:09>> goes to the state house

1:32:10>> for the large data center. That's all

1:32:13we're trying to do. We're not trying to

1:32:15hide anything or or

1:32:16>> I don't think you're hiding anything.

1:32:17I'm just I want to make sure that I

1:32:19understand that you're the actual

1:32:22>> enforcability of the language on the is

1:32:24the language on the paper, not the

1:32:26intent. Correct.

1:32:28>> The goal of the moratorum there'll be no

1:32:30building permits for data centers for

1:32:32the next year if it were to pass. So we

1:32:34can craft a new bylaw with specific

1:32:35regulations.

1:32:37>> Thank you.

1:32:38>> Thank you. Anyone else?

1:32:43>> Sure. come on up.

1:32:50>> Yeah. I don't know if this would help at

1:32:53all, but it's to me it seems foolish to

1:32:57only do it for a year.

1:32:59>> We

1:33:00>> if you're if we're dealing with a data

1:33:03center, somebody wants to come in with a

1:33:06data center,

1:33:08we're nothing to them. We're small

1:33:11potatoes.

1:33:13And the issue about the legal language

1:33:16was was addressed to me to my thinking

1:33:19to that that you know at at least

1:33:24we got to hurry up and get something

1:33:26down that's going to

1:33:29be able to slow something a process down

1:33:32if somebody does want to come in. And I

1:33:36I'm not I I know nothing about water use

1:33:40and all that, but I it seems to me we

1:33:43got a lot of water that's not being

1:33:44used.

1:33:46It's, you know, in in ponds that were

1:33:50designed for other other purposes.

1:33:53>> And it would look appealing to me if I

1:33:56were wanting to data.

1:33:58>> I think we're a great location for

1:34:01something like that, but it's it's not

1:34:03what

1:34:05I feel is probably the best use of our

1:34:08land in town. It's not my choice. It's

1:34:10not my decision. It's town meetings. But

1:34:13we need to at least look at the issue.

1:34:16We can come back with another moratorum,

1:34:18I believe, can't we?

1:34:19>> Um

1:34:20>> we do something else.

1:34:21>> That's somewhat unusual because if we're

1:34:22asking for one-year moratorum,

1:34:23>> we might need more time.

1:34:25>> Why? Why one and not two or three?

1:34:29Because you can always back off from a

1:34:30moratorum, can you not? by a vote.

1:34:35>> Yes. But usually if you send much beyond

1:34:37a year because the reason we're doing

1:34:38for the moratorum, if we say we're

1:34:40studying the issue, if we went beyond

1:34:42that, the state reviews all zoning

1:34:44changes. If we were saying we're going

1:34:46beyond a year, it's almost like we're

1:34:48saying we're banning it. So So what?

1:34:53That's that that was that was an op that

1:34:56was an option that was an option that

1:34:58was considered by the planning board but

1:35:00the planning board thought the mortorium

1:35:02was a wiser course of action.

1:35:05>> Yeah. I question their wisdom.

1:35:09Excuse me.

1:35:10>> Thank you. Any more questions?

1:35:15>> None chair.

1:35:17>> Yes. Sure. Come on up.

1:35:18>> Can I ask a question?

1:35:19>> Of course.

1:35:21>> Yes.

1:35:26Just a just a quick question. I I would

1:35:28imagine Chief Coleman can answer this.

1:35:30Um

1:35:30>> Sure.

1:35:31>> Article 17,

1:35:33um you're asking $29,000 for 60

1:35:37waterproof rescue jackets for department

1:35:40members. I'm just curious, is there a

1:35:43specific waterproof rescue jacket you're

1:35:46considering? Because when I researched

1:35:48it online, there's like four or five

1:35:50different ones.

1:35:52Yes. Uh so I I do not have the I I know

1:35:55that the model is the blower. Um we put

1:35:59this out to the department and the

1:36:01department itself selected uh the jacket

1:36:04that they were looking for. So typically

1:36:07what happens is around uh you know every

1:36:1015 years or so and and actually the the

1:36:12button was reset shortly after I took

1:36:14over as the chief 15 years ago. uh we

1:36:17kind of hit the reset button and we get

1:36:20everybody in the department the same

1:36:22jacket and then that becomes the

1:36:24standard over the period of time. The

1:36:26problem is is that the manufacturers

1:36:29like any piece of equipment they change

1:36:32year to year. So over the course of the

1:36:35last you know 14 years we'll say um I

1:36:39have 14 different versions of jacket in

1:36:43the in the department. So what was used

1:36:45to what used to be a standard is no

1:36:47longer a standard because those things

1:36:49don't exist yet. So what we're looking

1:36:51to do um and frankly another one of the

1:36:55deciding factors in this is um we now

1:36:59have eight full-time female firefighters

1:37:02and the jackets that we have are

1:37:04actually they're not appropriate for our

1:37:06female firefighters in terms of cut and

1:37:09length and those kind of things. Uh so a

1:37:12lot of time and effort went into

1:37:13selecting the jacket that we were

1:37:15looking for. Uh so this money from

1:37:17ambulance receipts will purchase uh a

1:37:19new jacket for every member of the

1:37:21department to essentially hit that reset

1:37:23button, get the entire department

1:37:25uniform with the same equipment and then

1:37:28move forward.

1:37:29>> And what exactly do these jackets do?

1:37:33Why do you need them?

1:37:35>> Uh it's a raincoat. So

1:37:37>> the rain coat?

1:37:38>> Yes. It's a the the jackets themselves,

1:37:41they uh they first and foremost, it's a

1:37:44rain coat, but it has reflective

1:37:46striping. It's it's a winter coat

1:37:48essentially. This becomes their winter.

1:37:50This is their winter wear when they are

1:37:52not wearing structural firefighting

1:37:54equipment. So, when they're on an

1:37:55ambulance call, motor vehicle accident,

1:37:57some other incident outside of a fire

1:37:59incident, this is their coat.

1:38:02>> I see. And uh what what's the current um

1:38:05number of staff firefighters that you

1:38:07have? including the chief and the

1:38:09deputy. 54

1:38:11>> 54.

1:38:12So you you basically want to get one for

1:38:15every person. Um

1:38:18plus some to spare. And it and it looks

1:38:20like it comes out to the costwise it

1:38:22comes out to about $500 a jacket which I

1:38:27used to buy uniforms and that's probably

1:38:29not unreasonable quite frankly what they

1:38:31charge but all right. Thank you sir.

1:38:33>> You're welcome.

1:38:35>> Thank you. Yeah.

1:38:40Where were we?

1:38:43Okay. Article 21. This is um town

1:38:48meeting vote to approve water street

1:38:50culvert replacement. The project is

1:38:53totaling $1.4 million.

1:38:56Any questions?

1:39:01Sure,

1:39:07Mr. Aferty.

1:39:15Just hate dead air. Um,

1:39:19replacement of the culvert.

1:39:22Um,

1:39:27my understanding is that this, and

1:39:30correct me if I'm wrong, the DPW uh

1:39:33director, uh, this is something that the

1:39:35selectmen seem to be really pushing you

1:39:37to do. Would that be a a correct

1:39:40assessment?

1:39:43>> Currently, the road is um half the road

1:39:45is blocked off, so we have um the

1:39:48traffic detourred one way. So I think

1:39:51that it it is a priority for the town to

1:39:52get the culbert replaced so that we can

1:39:54have full use of the road.

1:39:56>> Yeah. So I I use that road myself quite

1:39:59often to get to my bank. In fact, I

1:40:01still use it because it is still one

1:40:03lane. Um here's the problem. And I and I

1:40:08know there's been some complaints about

1:40:10this. Apparently,

1:40:13grant money was going to be available

1:40:16for this project and

1:40:19the deadlines to get the grant money

1:40:21were missed. Would that be correct?

1:40:24>> No. Oh,

1:40:26>> go ahead.

1:40:27>> So, um the grant money, so there was a

1:40:31grant available at the beginning of the

1:40:33fiscal year that we applied for for

1:40:36permitting. So, um, we didn't miss any,

1:40:41um, any deadlines. We applied for the

1:40:43grant. We were awarded the grant. We're

1:40:47still waiting for the state to, um, give

1:40:50us a notice to proceed for that grant.

1:40:53We're looking at the possibility,

1:40:57depending on the timing of the project,

1:40:59we might um, reapply for another grant

1:41:03for the construction of the project. So,

1:41:06we can't apply for the construction of

1:41:10the project until we have all the

1:41:11permitting done. So, um if we're not

1:41:14ready for the project to be constructed,

1:41:16we obviously we wouldn't be able we we

1:41:19wouldn't be competitive for that grant,

1:41:21but we haven't missed the deadline.

1:41:24>> Um and and would the state grant uh give

1:41:27us a grant retroactively once the

1:41:29project has started?

1:41:31>> No,

1:41:32>> they wouldn't.

1:41:33>> I don't believe so. um if the project if

1:41:36we don't have a notice to proceed then

1:41:39we wouldn't be able to um

1:41:43we wouldn't be able to expand that money

1:41:45through that grant.

1:41:46>> Now the amount under consideration or

1:41:48what you're requesting is 1.4 million um

1:41:51dollars um for this culvert. Um

1:41:55originally

1:41:56150,000

1:41:58uh was requested

1:42:01probably from town meeting and was

1:42:02granted. what was accomplished with that

1:42:05$150,000?

1:42:07>> So, there was um there was a survey,

1:42:11there was um hydraulic hydraulic um

1:42:16calculations, design um basically the

1:42:20design of the the project.

1:42:23>> So, the 150k was for the design of the

1:42:26project. So, it's it's already designed.

1:42:29So, you just have to uh put it out to

1:42:31bid. Would that be correct?

1:42:33No. So after the design it went to Mass

1:42:36DOT. Mass DOT is now um reviewing the

1:42:40project. There might be some changes in

1:42:42the design based on their comments. Um

1:42:46once those comments are satisfied, then

1:42:48we can move forward with permitting.

1:42:51>> My only question is is why can't we wait

1:42:54on this project? Um because why not wait

1:42:58until the grant money is in hand?

1:43:00because you you're asking you're asking

1:43:02the town to pay for the 1.4. I suppose

1:43:05if you get the grants, maybe you'll give

1:43:07that money back, but why not? Wait, I

1:43:10don't see

1:43:12Did you do a survey of any of the

1:43:14residents? Is there a survey that

1:43:16exists? Did you talk to the residents?

1:43:17Did they care one way or another?

1:43:20Because there has been some options

1:43:23proposed by some people that let's turn

1:43:25it into a culde-sac, which whenever you

1:43:29talk to a real estate agent, they say

1:43:30people just die to get a culde-sac. In

1:43:33other words, you cut off all the traffic

1:43:35driving by your house constantly. Was

1:43:37the survey conducted the residents to

1:43:39see how they felt about it?

1:43:40>> No, there wasn't.

1:43:42>> All right. Thank you.

1:43:51Eric Chilton, precinct 4. Would you be

1:43:52able to address the um the decision-m

1:43:55process between borrowing and uh as was

1:43:59recommended from the the select board or

1:44:01not recommended, but they said that they

1:44:03would approve if the funds came from

1:44:04stabilization uh in this document. Uh

1:44:07that's not a discussion that I was aware

1:44:09of and so I'd just be curious about its

1:44:11nature. Thank you.

1:44:13>> I apologize. I'm not sure if I'm the

1:44:15person to really address the the

1:44:18funding. Um

1:44:21I think the the board of selectman um

1:44:24would prefer to have the funding go

1:44:26through the stabilization

1:44:27>> 4 million. Yes. Oh,

1:44:30>> here we go.

1:44:33>> Todd Crane, vice chair of the uh the

1:44:35select board and uh Cher Kavanagh just

1:44:37asked me to address this. So, we had a a

1:44:39lengthy discussion on the borrowing, and

1:44:41our feeling was that uh when you

1:44:43factored in the interest rate, um it

1:44:45would almost double the cost over a

1:44:4730-year period of the 1.4 million. So,

1:44:50our belief was that we had the funds and

1:44:52stabilization,

1:44:53uh that we would recommend the project

1:44:55move forward with stabilization instead

1:44:57of for the 1.4 million rather than

1:44:59borrow the funding over over 30 years

1:45:02and potentially pay up to 2.4 million

1:45:04for a $1.4 million expense.

1:45:10Thank you.

1:45:16>> Anyone else have any questions?

1:45:18Mr. Richards.

1:45:26Good evening. Eric Richards, precinct 4.

1:45:28I understand in October of last year we

1:45:32this request to replace came up for 1.5

1:45:36million and it was postponed

1:45:38indefinitely. Is that correct?

1:45:43>> We originally looked at funding the

1:45:45design and the construction. Um, and

1:45:49then we had I'm not sure if it was

1:45:52postponement or I'm not sure what the

1:45:56what the motion on the floor was.

1:45:58>> And then the article before was for

1:46:01repair and refurbishment for 150,000. So

1:46:04if we spent that funding on planning,

1:46:08what changed during the planning? And do

1:46:09we have documentation of what is new or

1:46:12different as to why it can't be

1:46:14refurbished or replaced or repaired,

1:46:16shall I say, as per the vote?

1:46:21I think the wording of the and I I

1:46:24apologize I don't have the article in

1:46:25front of me from last town reading but I

1:46:28I think the article gave us flexibility

1:46:30in how we wanted to how we would be

1:46:33proceeding depending on um the

1:46:36recommendation after the survey and the

1:46:39evaluation of the the culverts.

1:46:42>> Did we borrow any of the 150,000 from

1:46:44the previous fall town meeting?

1:46:47The 150,000 was reappropriated from

1:46:51other funds, I believe.

1:46:53>> So, the total cost of this coming into

1:46:56this new article in this town meeting

1:46:58will be at least 1.5. Is that fair?

1:47:00>> Correct.

1:47:01>> And we'll be borrowing the 1.4 over an

1:47:03unknown term. Correct.

1:47:06>> Um, there will most likely be an

1:47:08amendment on the town meeting floor to

1:47:10take that money from stabilization. As

1:47:12we discussed earlier, the board of

1:47:13select men is they feel like it's um

1:47:18important to not borrow. The cost of

1:47:20borrowing in this case is a little bit

1:47:22more than makes sense. Yeah.

1:47:24>> So, we'll probably take it from

1:47:26stabilization, but that needs to be

1:47:27amendment on the floor.

1:47:28>> I agree. It's fiscally irresponsible to

1:47:30borrow or double the cost over 30 years

1:47:32to the taxpayer.

1:47:34>> Anything else?

1:47:35>> Thank you.

1:47:36>> Anyone else have any questions? I did

1:47:38see someone put their hand up.

1:47:41>> No, you're good. Mr. Watts,

1:47:44>> his name.

1:47:44>> Thank you.

1:47:45>> Watts. Watts. Watts. Senator.

1:47:48>> Tim Watts. District two. Um,

1:47:52yeah. For our discussion about what it

1:47:54costs over 30 years, we should have a

1:47:59standard of the rate of inflation

1:48:03and and we're speaking of it as if

1:48:05they're the same dollars, which they

1:48:07aren't. So, I mean, do you um when

1:48:12you're planning the budget and you're

1:48:15deciding these things, do you do you

1:48:17talk about the uh do you have a figure?

1:48:21Do you go like 3%

1:48:25annual inflation assumed or

1:48:284% or what? How how do you handle that?

1:48:31Well, it it actually we do we have that

1:48:33conversation often depending on what the

1:48:35situation is and what the project is in

1:48:38this case. Um and it depends on

1:48:42um

1:48:44where we are financially or like right

1:48:45near right now we're in a decent place

1:48:48financially but it doesn't make sense to

1:48:50borrow such a small amount in this time

1:48:52frame. So, and the the rate of

1:48:54inflation, oh, like we have to do it now

1:48:57because if we don't do it now, then

1:48:59inflation over 3% and 6% or 9% over the

1:49:02next 10 years, it just doesn't make any

1:49:04sense if that's what you're talking

1:49:05about.

1:49:08>> Okay.

1:49:09>> Perhaps not.

1:49:10>> I'm more confused.

1:49:12>> So, can you reward it?

1:49:14>> My my uh

1:49:15>> do you know what he

1:49:16>> my confusion? But uh

1:49:18>> but we do when we look at project costs

1:49:20like for instance when we look at the

1:49:22fire station we do look at the rate of

1:49:24inflation and the rate of what it costs

1:49:26to buy steel now versus next year or

1:49:28what it costs to do electrical work now

1:49:31versus next year. Those things are

1:49:33considered in in all project

1:49:35discussions,

1:49:37>> but it's not necessarily pertinent to

1:49:41borrowing money because

1:49:44you're I mean that's the whole idea of a

1:49:47home mortgage where somebody locks in a

1:49:50rate and they end up paying um

1:49:57less because their last dollars

1:50:01are

1:50:03nominally the same but by less.

1:50:08>> Yeah, it's a good point.

1:50:11>> And and I mean and we're talking and

1:50:13we're our language. We're always talking

1:50:16as if $500 today

1:50:19>> $500

1:50:20>> the same as $500 10 years from now.

1:50:22>> Oh, it's Yeah, but I see I see your

1:50:25point. But absolutely not. They're not

1:50:27the same. They're not even close to the

1:50:29same. It's a bit I mean I'm I'm glad we

1:50:34had this discussion about this. I'm I'm

1:50:36I'm Am I hearing it right that the

1:50:40director of DPW has one opinion and the

1:50:43select board has another?

1:50:44>> No. What what we did this year and and

1:50:47this is one of the things that I've

1:50:50tried to work with my board of

1:50:51selectment on and finance is to include

1:50:53them more in recommendations on how

1:50:55things are funded. So when I brought the

1:50:59articles in front of both boards, there

1:51:01was discussions from all of them

1:51:04regarding each project. So it's not just

1:51:06me or the chief financial officer

1:51:08deciding how things are funded. We have

1:51:10recommendations, but we also hear from

1:51:13my board of selectmen. My board of

1:51:14selectman wants this from stabilization.

1:51:16It makes sense to us. If we did not

1:51:18necessarily agree with that completely,

1:51:21we would have definitely given our

1:51:22opinion. But finance commiti committee

1:51:24is also very much involved in how things

1:51:27are paid for.

1:51:29>> So article

1:51:3221

1:51:34um

1:51:36you're asking for a yes vote.

1:51:40>> Article 21 will be amended on the floor

1:51:42at town meeting to come from

1:51:44stabilization and we're asking for a yes

1:51:46vote so that we can do the work on water

1:51:49street culvert. Yes. And it's going to

1:51:52And so you won't be borrowing.

1:51:56>> Correct. We won't be borrowing

1:51:57>> million.

1:51:58>> Correct. And thank you for bringing this

1:52:00up because it is confusing. We won't be

1:52:01borrowing the 1.4. We're hoping it comes

1:52:04from stabilization if it's voted yes at

1:52:06town meeting, but we're also applying

1:52:08for the grant because if we're able to

1:52:11get the grant in time, it all depends on

1:52:14timelines at the state. We don't want to

1:52:16ignore that. If there's a chance that we

1:52:18can use grant funding, we will. But we

1:52:20can't delay the project for another year

1:52:21and wait for it.

1:52:24>> Thank you.

1:52:24>> Thank you.

1:52:28>> Anyone else?

1:52:31>> Okay.

1:52:31>> Oh, yes. Clarification.

1:52:33>> Um I just need to clarify um something,

1:52:35Mr. Rafferty. Um when I gave you the uh

1:52:37count when you asked how many employees

1:52:40um I neglected to include the staff and

1:52:42the mechanics. So the the request of the

1:52:45jackets for 60 is for the fire rescue

1:52:49department as a whole. So there are no

1:52:50spare jackets. I I just I neglected to

1:52:53add the staff and the mechanic's

1:52:55position and the number that I provided

1:52:56you.

1:52:57>> Close enough. Chief's entitled spares.

1:52:59>> Nope, that's fine. I just wanted to make

1:53:00the clarification for you.

1:53:02>> Thank you. Okay. Article 22. This is a

1:53:07citizens petition. Um Vera, do you want

1:53:11to come up and talk about it? Okay,

1:53:13great.

1:53:20Hello,

1:53:21Vera Karine, the citizen petitioner. Uh,

1:53:25so my warrant article 22 is to terminate

1:53:29the flock contract, which has been done,

1:53:31and to remove the flock cameras, which

1:53:34has also been done, but also to prohibit

1:53:38the town, all departments, municipal law

1:53:40enforcement agencies, etc. from spending

1:53:42funds on contracts or memorandum of

1:53:44understanding or pilot programs with

1:53:47Flock.

1:53:50Additionally, we're requesting that all

1:53:53data, images, uh everything that Flock

1:53:56collected uh be retained by the town

1:53:58that Flock gives it back does not

1:54:01utilize it for its other purposes. Um

1:54:05the the the core concern here is privacy

1:54:08of the Auburn residents. I understand

1:54:12that police want this technology for

1:54:14safety purposes, but Flock is not your

1:54:16standard ALPR. There are a lot of other

1:54:19ALPRs that are just automated license

1:54:21plate readers. Flock is effectively a

1:54:24mass surveillance system. It connects

1:54:26not it collects not just um license

1:54:29plate data. It makes a fingerprint of a

1:54:32vehicle. It collects make, model year,

1:54:34dents, bumper stickers, what have you.

1:54:36It enables searching for people on the

1:54:39street who are not in vehicles. It far

1:54:41exceeds what the normal understanding of

1:54:43an ALPR is. And the response from the

1:54:47community was very strong and very broad

1:54:50that they were not comfortable with that

1:54:52level of surveillance. So this petition

1:54:54is to restrict that sort of

1:54:57surveillance.

1:54:59However, it is non-binding. The intent

1:55:01is well, the intent was to stop the

1:55:04flock surveillance system, but also uh

1:55:07so that town administration and so that

1:55:09the select board would take into account

1:55:12the residents feeling on flock safety as

1:55:16a technology as opposed to something

1:55:18like Axon or Motorola or any of the

1:55:20other companies out there that are their

1:55:22towns use. It's also worth noting that

1:55:25over 40 communities across Massachusetts

1:55:28have terminated or suspended or rejected

1:55:31flock contracts for all of these reasons

1:55:34in addition to the contractual defects

1:55:36that Auburn suspended their flock

1:55:38utilization for.

1:55:43>> Thank you. That was very quick.

1:55:45>> Anyone else have anyone have any

1:55:47questions?

1:55:49Sure. Come on up.

1:56:00Very, you might not want to go too far.

1:56:06The only

1:56:08I agree with these articles being uh

1:56:10voted down, but the only thing I didn't

1:56:12like in the article section two is where

1:56:16it says if necessary, the town will will

1:56:20pay.

1:56:24Last line.

1:56:32Yes, there it is. Yeah. Section two,

1:56:35>> last line,

1:56:42>> expenses of the uh vendor or if

1:56:46necessary the town.

1:56:50>> Sure, you can.

1:56:51>> Maybe I'll get an answer.

1:56:53>> Yeah. Uh Todd Crane, vice chair of the

1:56:54select board. So, my understanding, and

1:56:56the chief can correct me if I'm wrong,

1:56:57they're already removed and they were

1:56:59removed at flocks expense. So, uh, as as

1:57:02the petitioner said, um, articles one

1:57:04and two of of parts one and two of that

1:57:07have already been done. Um, and it's

1:57:09been at flocks, not at the town's

1:57:11expense.

1:57:12>> Thank you. Anyone else have any

1:57:14questions?

1:57:17>> Sure, Mr. Richards.

1:57:25Good evening. Eric Rickerson previous 4.

1:57:28Um, flock gets a lot of hate. There are

1:57:31a lot of controversies around it. I know

1:57:34there is another side. There is a

1:57:35benefit. Uh, it is a tool that can be

1:57:38used for good as well as evil with

1:57:41anything that's dual use. So, I'm

1:57:43curious if uh the chief could comment on

1:57:46crime statistics if we've had a positive

1:57:48influence in our experience with the

1:57:50time that we have access to flock and

1:57:53we've been able to solve 10% or 50% or

1:57:56a,000% more crimes as a result.

1:57:59>> Well, thank you. Well, first of all,

1:58:01honestly, thank you, Mrs. Green, for for

1:58:04the article in general. It was it was a

1:58:06real learning experience. Some of it not

1:58:08so positive at times, but that's okay.

1:58:10It's good to hear, you know, discourse

1:58:12on on anything. Um, and perhaps that was

1:58:15something we probably should have done

1:58:16ahead of it. Um, but I do want to point

1:58:18out that no money was expended. No, no

1:58:21town money was expended. Actually, no

1:58:22money was expended at all because the

1:58:25contract was deficient and it was

1:58:27canceled prior to um any reimbursement

1:58:30being sought through the the grant

1:58:31program. As it pertains to your your

1:58:34question, Mr. Richards. Um,

1:58:37as far as actual crimes being solved

1:58:39there, you know, we recovered or we

1:58:42recovered and or were able to identify a

1:58:44couple of stolen cars during the short

1:58:45time that we had it. It helped verify a

1:58:48uh statement made by a victim of human

1:58:51trafficking. Um, but other than that,

1:58:54there were no, you know, I can't point

1:58:56to a a murder investigation or or an

1:58:58armed robbery or something. you know, I

1:59:00mean, obviously those other cases are

1:59:01significant, but uh the cameras weren't

1:59:04operational long enough for it to to

1:59:06really make a you where we could really

1:59:08glean some long-term data from it and

1:59:11kind of reverse engineer as far, you

1:59:13know, what is the success rate of it.

1:59:15And uh I mean, none of us none of the

1:59:17police officers that that work for the

1:59:20department, I mean, we we don't want to

1:59:22live in nor do we want to contribute to

1:59:24a surveillance state. Um, you know, when

1:59:26we started the the idea of the project

1:59:28well over a year ago, um, maybe a little

1:59:32bit naive on my part. Um, but I looked

1:59:35at it only as a tool to further our

1:59:37mission and and the operation of the

1:59:39department. I wasn't I'm not going to

1:59:42say I wasn't aware of some of the

1:59:43privacy concerns, but those really grew

1:59:46over the period of time while we were

1:59:47going through the process. So, you know,

1:59:50it's uh

1:59:53it was an educational process literally

1:59:55like I came to understand the other side

1:59:56of it a lot more. Not to make it a us

1:59:59versus them kind of situation, but just

2:00:01it it was a good educational thing. I

2:00:03mean, I know that right now uh we have

2:00:05no intention of revisiting flock or any

2:00:09widespread ALPR program. We do have

2:00:12ALPRs in our two traffic cars. We've had

2:00:15them for several years. they're motor

2:00:18vigilant. Um, excuse me. But I guess in

2:00:23brevity to to your question, we do not

2:00:25have any large amount of data because we

2:00:27just didn't have the cameras up long

2:00:29enough for that to be be a difference.

2:00:33>> Thank you. I would just suggest if in

2:00:35the future when you embrace technology

2:00:36and I've said privately, I'll say it

2:00:38publicly uh a million times, you know,

2:00:40law enforcement, fire, you guys have a

2:00:44lot of data, a lot of information that

2:00:46helps you do your job better, but it's

2:00:48locked in different cabinets. And I

2:00:51really think that coming in the future,

2:00:53you're going to need to figure out how

2:00:54to aggregate that data in a safe way.

2:00:56And I hope as you embrace new

2:00:58technologies and you test these things

2:00:59out, you'll also track the performance

2:01:02data so that when controversies arise or

2:01:05things, you'll be able to say, well,

2:01:06gee, we increased our solve rate 50%. Or

2:01:09whatever the number is. Thank you.

2:01:12>> Just thank you.

2:01:13>> Sorry, one one last thing. In a

2:01:16conversation I had with the manager, you

2:01:17know, one of the towns that that did

2:01:19cancel their contract was Salem. And the

2:01:22public statement that they made, the

2:01:23police chief and I believe the town

2:01:25manager made jointly was that, you know,

2:01:27they they listed off all the significant

2:01:29crimes that had helped solve. So for me,

2:01:32that was a real head scratcher from a

2:01:34police perspective, from an

2:01:35investigative perspective where I said

2:01:37it's helped you solve every single

2:01:39significant crime, but yet you're going

2:01:40away from it. But that kind of speaks to

2:01:42the not so much the public outcry, but

2:01:44just the, you know, listening to the

2:01:46public, listening to the community. What

2:01:48what are they saying? And you maybe

2:01:50there was some on my part, I guess,

2:01:52deficiencies there where we didn't have

2:01:54enough back and forth. I just I was sort

2:01:57of tunnel vision on on the efficacy of

2:02:00it and and how it was going to help us

2:02:02be better at what we do. Uh kind of as a

2:02:04force multiplier type of thing. So,

2:02:07>> thank you. Anyone else have any other

2:02:09questions? Mr.

2:02:15Bear is waiting there.

2:02:21>> Yes. When when the issue of flock came

2:02:23up, um like the chief, I didn't know I

2:02:27didn't realize there were any problems.

2:02:29I had I had to be I had to have it

2:02:31explained to me, too. So, I was caught

2:02:33off guard um myself. I probably should

2:02:36have been paying more attention. Um, I

2:02:39do have one question to the chief.

2:02:42Um,

2:02:44the contract has been null and voided.

2:02:49Is the Auburn Police Department

2:02:53using flock technology in any capacity

2:03:00at all today.

2:03:03We don't have, excuse me, we don't have

2:03:06access to any within the town as far as

2:03:10other So, I mean, I'm I'm answering the

2:03:13question, but I want to be completely

2:03:14transparent about things. If our

2:03:17detectives have

2:03:19a case where they can reach out to other

2:03:22departments that may still have it, I

2:03:24would think that they would access that.

2:03:26I would hope that they would access

2:03:27that. So in other words, if other towns

2:03:29are still using flock and there are some

2:03:34um you can access that information.

2:03:37Correct. We could request access to that

2:03:40information. It depends on what

2:03:42safeguards they have in place. Like I

2:03:44mean for our purposes we had a pretty

2:03:48strong I think policy in place. We had

2:03:50robust uh auditing in place. We had

2:03:54controls, you know, internally in place

2:03:57that that I think prohibited any

2:03:59possible misuse. Um, but

2:04:04human beings surprise you with their

2:04:06creativity sometimes. But again, I I

2:04:09would, as I've said up here or at board

2:04:11meetings in the past,

2:04:14one of the things, you know, that we

2:04:16focus on is if you are a victim of a

2:04:18crime, which we hope you never are,

2:04:20we're going to use every possible

2:04:22technology that is available to us to

2:04:24solve that crime. I think we'd be

2:04:28um you know, a little bit deficient if

2:04:30we weren't going to try and access that.

2:04:32But are we routinely searching flock

2:04:35databases through other police

2:04:36departments that may still have them in

2:04:38the state, which I don't think there's a

2:04:40whole heck of a lot anymore. Um, no. We

2:04:42don't routinely check any any other

2:04:45department's flock database. We It would

2:04:47be on a case-by case basis and

2:04:49specifically for that case.

2:04:50>> Thank you.

2:04:52>> Thank you. Anyone else have any

2:04:54questions?

2:04:58>> Vera, you're good.

2:05:02Thank you. Okay,

2:05:05let's look

2:05:08>> article

2:05:1123. Mr. Richards,

2:05:22>> Eric Richards. I'm the citizen

2:05:24petitioner for the article. Uh, it's

2:05:26been a long night on the last article.

2:05:28Everybody's got decision fatigue. I am

2:05:31happy to take any questions. Nominally,

2:05:33this is an article that is asking town

2:05:35meeting to spend up to $75,000

2:05:41to do a review of the fiduciary student

2:05:44accounts and student activity accounts

2:05:47and it's very narrowly scoped. It may

2:05:49cost less, it may cost more. Similar to

2:05:51Mr. Delquilla, I made some calls. I

2:05:54asked a guy behind a guy. I got a number

2:05:57and I did that like three times, maybe

2:06:00four and it seemed to come in for the

2:06:03limited number of accounts somewhere in

2:06:05this bullseye. It may be more, it may be

2:06:08less, but we'll have a good starting

2:06:09point and at the end uh the select

2:06:12board, the finance committee, the town

2:06:14will have data that they can choose to

2:06:15act on or they can put it in a filing

2:06:17cabinet and let it collect dust.

2:06:20Again, I'm happy to go as deep in detail

2:06:22or as shallow as anybody would like.

2:06:24I'll take questions.

2:06:26>> Thank you. Does anyone have any

2:06:27questions? Sure. Come on up. Mr. Watts,

2:06:32>> would you briefly explain

2:06:36the why, the what, and the why

2:06:40of your article?

2:06:41>> Sure. So this article came from a

2:06:45citizen who is a teacher at one of the

2:06:48schools and she submitted a public

2:06:51records request in November 25

2:06:54and

2:06:56got a nominal number of documents from

2:06:58the school department not everything and

2:07:00she'd been putting quite a bit of work

2:07:02and she was one of the adviserss for

2:07:04these clubs and her question generally

2:07:07came from the fact as I understand it uh

2:07:10based on the documents and conversations

2:07:12that I've had that her account for her

2:07:15club of special ed kids shrunk from say

2:07:19$20,000 to $6,000. And she had questions

2:07:22around that. So she started to research

2:07:24it and she found policy of the school

2:07:25committee and other things. And so she

2:07:27asked them to explain and disclose and

2:07:30sort of identify what happened. And she

2:07:34didn't get a lot back or a lot of

2:07:36information. uh it came to my attention

2:07:38and I started to look at it and the

2:07:40school committee started to explore it

2:07:42publicly and basically what happened is

2:07:45the school business manager decided that

2:07:49the quality of the books only started

2:07:52somewhere about 2019 and she used that

2:07:55as her ending point if you will and

2:07:58worked backwards from the current day

2:08:01which at that time was 2025

2:08:04and brought the books manually into line

2:08:06financially

2:08:08so that they were forced to match and

2:08:11then they took their mun data with the

2:08:15superintendent and the business manager

2:08:17and she's here and she can correct me if

2:08:18I'm wrong um went to the teachers and

2:08:21said our mun accounting data and our

2:08:24manual reconciliation says this do you

2:08:28agree that this number is true it may be

2:08:30different than your number just sign on

2:08:31the paper and they had a union steward

2:08:34present I also asked for some documents

2:08:37on a number of occasions and again got

2:08:40incomplete answers back or we don't have

2:08:42answers to those questions that would

2:08:44have answered this. So basically I'm not

2:08:46arriving at a conclusion. I'm not saying

2:08:49that anybody's done anything wrong. What

2:08:51I'm saying is this mirrors almost one to

2:08:54one what was found in the 2026 DS report

2:08:56as far as financial management policies

2:08:58being

2:09:01uh I don't know the best word you would

2:09:02use to describe it. maybe

2:09:05needing some uh repair,

2:09:09>> some updating. And so what this will do

2:09:12is will provide us with an actual answer

2:09:14of the who, what, when, where, and why.

2:09:17It entered the money entered to the

2:09:18school department at this point for

2:09:20these student accounts only. This isn't

2:09:22like go willy-nilly across the whole

2:09:24town. Student accounts, the fiduciary

2:09:25accounts with the treasurer and the

2:09:27school department. It says money entered

2:09:29here. It went through this person. It

2:09:31went through this check. It went to this

2:09:33control. It sat in this account or it

2:09:34was expended. How? And then it will

2:09:37enable the finance committee or the

2:09:40select board or whoever look wants to

2:09:42take a look at it to take further

2:09:43action. And that can be a more in-depth

2:09:46look. It could be an adjustment to

2:09:47policies. It can be any number of things

2:09:49that they decide.

2:09:51>> Does that answer your question, sir?

2:09:56>> Okay. for school department. Do you want

2:09:59to speak to this just your position on

2:10:03>> So I

2:10:06took hold and received the FY24 audit

2:10:10from Scandlin and Associates and it had

2:10:12noted uh discrepancies in some of the

2:10:16accounts. So I immediately had concerns

2:10:18and began working to rectify those

2:10:20concerns in conjunction with the town as

2:10:23well. The total of student activity

2:10:25funds that we have approximately as of

2:10:29September 16th in our munis funding was

2:10:33approximately $123

2:10:36$123,000

2:10:37in total. So um I just want everybody to

2:10:41understand how much funding we are

2:10:44talking about. Mr. Richards made an

2:10:46example of $20,000 in a student activity

2:10:48account. We do not have a student

2:10:50activity account that he is referring to

2:10:52that had that much money in the account.

2:10:54It only had around four or $5,000 in

2:10:58that account. Um, and as he referred to

2:11:02going only back to 2019, that was due to

2:11:07the responsibility to have seven years

2:11:10of fiscal records. And again going back

2:11:13to go through those records was a very

2:11:16timeconsuming line by line audit. We did

2:11:20not say do you agree sign here. The ad

2:11:24class advisors also had records and they

2:11:26brought their records and they did

2:11:28agree. None of it and if they asked for

2:11:31additional time or to look into anything

2:11:34at no time was anybody coerced to sign

2:11:37that they agreed with the balance.

2:11:39>> Thank you. Can you can you tell me if

2:11:41any processes were changed through this

2:11:44process? I know it was um mentioned like

2:11:48Mr. Richard said, it was mentioned in

2:11:49Otter's report, wasn't corrected till

2:11:52later, but were there any processes that

2:11:54were changed throughout this? Um I had

2:11:56actually started correcting processes as

2:11:59soon as I received the report. um they

2:12:02were using Google Sheets as their

2:12:05accounting at that point to track all of

2:12:08that and it was the auditor's

2:12:10recommendation to go to Excel which we

2:12:12had done. We went through our student

2:12:14activities policy and procedure manual

2:12:17made sure that what that was in line

2:12:19with um MASC which is the Massachusetts

2:12:22Association of School Committees along

2:12:24making sure that all of our policies

2:12:26were up to date. I brought forward um

2:12:28the policies that needed to be um

2:12:31updated and there were additional

2:12:34trainings for all of our student

2:12:36activity treasurers as well as all the

2:12:38class adviserss and the principles as

2:12:40well.

2:12:40>> Thank you. Um chief financial officer to

2:12:43Karen, was there an indication that

2:12:45there was money missing?

2:12:48No, we we had an an some certification

2:12:51from our auditor scan and associates and

2:12:55there were some transfers that were

2:12:58supposed to be done because of the fact

2:13:01that the the invoices for student

2:13:03activities were paid from the the

2:13:06general fund and then the student

2:13:07activities would reimburse

2:13:10um those costs. But when the auditors

2:13:13looked at it, no, there are no funds

2:13:16that were considered

2:13:18um missing.

2:13:22>> So I'll reply if I may.

2:13:24>> Sure.

2:13:25>> So Scanland uh Desi requires the school

2:13:27department to go through audits yearly

2:13:30and as part of chapter 71, they require

2:13:32that every third year an outside third

2:13:34party form is the one that does that

2:13:36audit. So there's a black hole of

2:13:38documentation or at least you didn't

2:13:40surrender it when it was asked for by

2:13:41public records request from 2012 to

2:13:442018. And in the 2018 Scanland audit

2:13:47letter, it clearly identifies a sum of

2:13:51133,575

2:13:54as being in question on nobody saying

2:13:58that money was stolen. Could be sitting

2:14:00in an account. It could have never been

2:14:01transferred between departments like it

2:14:03was supposed to. whatever the case may

2:14:04be. And that amount persisted and there

2:14:08were also additional varying amounts

2:14:10across different schools and were noted

2:14:12in an auditor's findings in writing. And

2:14:14by the way, anybody who has an interest,

2:14:16you can public records request that

2:14:17document or feel free to reach out. I'll

2:14:20give you a copy. I have one. Um, much

2:14:24like the 2026 DS report, those auditor

2:14:27finding management letters, if you wish

2:14:29to call them, they were never rectified.

2:14:32There was no plan put in place to ensure

2:14:34that at the next audit cycle they were

2:14:37resolved and DLS flagged that on the

2:14:40town side as well as a near mirror image

2:14:43for audit letters and management letters

2:14:45going unresolved for decades.

2:14:50>> And so in that situation

2:14:51>> so if I may I'm going to I'm going to

2:14:52stop this for now. Um absolutely there

2:14:56were comments in the audit section of

2:14:58the audit that um this issue was carried

2:15:02over year after year and not resolved.

2:15:04This is prior to our time in our

2:15:07positions. Um I did get a letter from

2:15:10scanlin saying upon review with the

2:15:13treasury collector it was determined

2:15:14that the majority of the variance

2:15:16variance was caused by a transfer of

2:15:18134,000 with change that was missed

2:15:21dating back to 2015. It is unclear at

2:15:24this time whether the transfer request

2:15:26was from the school business manager or

2:15:27simply a transfer itself was missed by

2:15:29the treasurer at the time. This lack of

2:15:32transfer has no effect on the town's

2:15:34total cash or the total cash in these

2:15:36accounts. It was simply a reconciliation

2:15:38issue. So when it was cited on the um

2:15:42audit report, which you're absolut

2:15:44you're absolutely right, it was um and

2:15:46they have had um and from when I look

2:15:50through all of the past year's audit

2:15:52reports, there were comments in each of

2:15:55those reports that whether or not they

2:15:58were responded to by previous

2:16:00administrations, I'm unsure. This past

2:16:02year, we recently got an audit report

2:16:05with um findings or concerns that we

2:16:08responded to that are staying in the

2:16:10audits report that are being posted and

2:16:12and justified as to what we're doing to

2:16:15make any changes that they that they

2:16:17recommend. Um that's something different

2:16:19from this. But I think before this goes

2:16:21forward, um it's important for town

2:16:24meeting members to understand it was a

2:16:26reconciliation issue. There's no money

2:16:28missing. But Eric is absolutely right

2:16:30that it was carried over year to year

2:16:33probably I don't even know you'd

2:16:35probably be able to tell me four or five

2:16:36years at least

2:16:38>> at minimum and different amounts and it

2:16:40was consecutively carried. So nobody's

2:16:42saying or I'm not alleging I have seen

2:16:44no evidence that somebody stole

2:16:46anything. What I'm saying is at some

2:16:48point in time, financial management

2:16:50practices are broken. And much like when

2:16:53we did the DLS audit review of uh the

2:16:56townside financial management policies,

2:16:58the school could probably benefit from

2:17:00the same thing. We have a new

2:17:01superintendent. I'm sure he'd love clean

2:17:03books to start from so that you know

2:17:04he's not left explaining other people's

2:17:06issues. Alls we're saying is take a look

2:17:09and answer any questions that may appear

2:17:11and have the data to say this is what

2:17:14happened. This is what didn't happen. We

2:17:16don't know that answer today and it's

2:17:18unclear from the town side. I think we

2:17:20should answer that question.

2:17:22>> Thank you. Anyone have any questions?

2:17:25Sure. Come on up.

2:17:40I just want to make sure I heard

2:17:41everything correctly cuz that was a lot.

2:17:44Um,

2:17:44>> it was

2:17:46>> and lots of audits. Um, or at least

2:17:49again from what I heard. So, from what I

2:17:52heard, it sounds like the school

2:17:53department, and please correct me if I'm

2:17:54wrong, um, the school department gets

2:17:56audited yearly. Is that accurate? Did I

2:17:59hear that accurately? Their financial

2:18:01records, right? Yearly audits.

2:18:03>> Yes. Well, he's Mr. Richard's article is

2:18:06specifically talking about student

2:18:08activities that is audited on a yearly

2:18:10basis and every three years by an

2:18:12outside firm.

2:18:13>> Okay. And then every three years. Okay.

2:18:15And then um because I also wrote the DLS

2:18:17audit because we've also been been

2:18:19hearing that a bunch of times. Um DL DLS

2:18:22audit is on the town side. Correct.

2:18:24>> Yes. So, um, last year or maybe it was,

2:18:28yeah, it was the end of last year, I was

2:18:30working with the board of selectmen to

2:18:31see if DLS could audit our financial,

2:18:35um, policies because I was a new town

2:18:37manager. And, um, that just came in on

2:18:40September 8th, their review of the

2:18:43policies and their recommendations.

2:18:45>> Okay. Uh, the only reason why I ask is

2:18:47because um if we're doing yearly audits,

2:18:49I I try to watch as many town meetings

2:18:51as I can because I'm weird and I try to

2:18:54pay attention to everything going on.

2:18:55Um, I do I've heard like happenings of

2:18:58here and there about the student

2:18:59activity fund um and things that are

2:19:01going on. Um, if there's yearly audits

2:19:04happening um and we're kind of

2:19:08addressing this issue. It sounds like

2:19:09it's been going on for a while. Um I'm

2:19:12just curious why we want to spend more

2:19:15money for an additional audit. Um so

2:19:18maybe Mr. Richards can clarify a little

2:19:20bit more what the difference between a

2:19:23independent financial audit would be

2:19:25versus the yearly regular yearly audit.

2:19:27What we would benefit from that and why

2:19:29we would want to spend additional well

2:19:32the yearly audit I'm assuming just as

2:19:33but why would we be spending 75,000 for

2:19:36this forensic audit? what we would gain

2:19:39from that cuz there's a lot of things

2:19:40we're spending money on right now and

2:19:42what's the true benefit for this

2:19:45forensic audit cuz I'm already hearing

2:19:47we're auditing so what's the difference

2:19:48is what I'm asking

2:19:51>> Richards

2:19:54>> so again I'm sure the school department

2:19:56will collect correct me if I'm wrong or

2:19:58the CFO as I understand it the audits

2:20:01that are performed are random sample

2:20:03well actually first of all they're not

2:20:05audits they are what they call an agreed

2:20:07agreed upon procedures contract.

2:20:10And so, interestingly enough, the school

2:20:12department sets the scope by contract

2:20:15and says to the accounting firm based on

2:20:18the law, Jess does requires us to have

2:20:20you look at these things. You can look

2:20:22at these things and then they set the

2:20:24response in the criteria under which

2:20:26they happen. That's nominally what an

2:20:29AUP is. It's not an audit, though many

2:20:31people call it an audit. um in addition

2:20:34to their endofear review for their

2:20:37finances which um by the way they most

2:20:40recently had in 2025 for the 25 fiscal

2:20:43school year. It's out in the school

2:20:45committee documents. You could get those

2:20:46on the website if they're working today

2:20:49um because the last couple meetings

2:20:52packets they're not present on the

2:20:53website. They uh there's a letter in

2:20:57there from scan. They found 52 variance

2:20:59findings. Now again, no money. I'm not,

2:21:03you know, there was no allegation that

2:21:05money was missing, but there were things

2:21:06like $500,000 of o over reporting,

2:21:10$300,000 of under reporting,

2:21:14133,000 of under reporting. And that

2:21:16continued in the plus and minus column,

2:21:19and that's present day.

2:21:21So I'm not saying that anybody is

2:21:24nominally doing something evil or wrong

2:21:26or mysterious. I'm saying that we're

2:21:27spending this money to understand what

2:21:30has happened because clearly things are

2:21:32not operating in what most of us would

2:21:35understand a nominal fashion or a normal

2:21:37fashion, right? And so if you, for

2:21:39example, if you did that on your taxes,

2:21:42if you over reported $500,000 or $2

2:21:46million and then you went back to the

2:21:47IRS and said, "Oopsy,

2:21:50you know, I I missed 500k here. I missed

2:21:53300k there." they come in and give you a

2:21:55pretty thorough examination

2:21:58and because it's the government they

2:22:01don't necessarily examine the thing the

2:22:03same. So what I would say is that what

2:22:05you're spending is to ensure that moving

2:22:08forward we're coming up to date and

2:22:10understanding what happened in the past

2:22:12and correcting it so that it can't

2:22:13happen again in the future.

2:22:15>> Thank you Mr. Richards. Anyone else have

2:22:17questions for him?

2:22:20Sure. Mr. Rafferty

2:22:29>> now Raffhy precinct one.

2:22:32So Mr. Richards, let me see if I I got

2:22:35this straight.

2:22:36This whole process uh of you bringing

2:22:39forward a warrant article started when a

2:22:42teacher who worked for the Auburn school

2:22:45department went before the school

2:22:48committee and said there are anomalies

2:22:52and she wanted to know why

2:22:55and

2:22:57um

2:22:59apparently you rec you have requested

2:23:02documents from the school department.

2:23:04correct me if I'm wrong and you haven't

2:23:06been getting them.

2:23:09Now, I understand reconciliations were

2:23:11done

2:23:13um manual reconciliations,

2:23:15which means everybody was brought in and

2:23:18everybody agreed

2:23:20that there was no no problems.

2:23:24Um

2:23:26so and you've also explained that

2:23:28there's a difference between the

2:23:30forensic audit that you're requesting

2:23:32and the other audits that were conducted

2:23:35which are limited and narrow in scope

2:23:39and and many times things are looked at

2:23:42randomly.

2:23:44So basically statistically they're

2:23:46saying if there's something wrong we

2:23:48might find it. Is there anything else

2:23:50that that you're concerned with about

2:23:52the school department uh in handling

2:23:55their finances that's causing you to

2:23:57want to do this forensic audit?

2:24:04>> Thank you for your question, Mr. Raerty.

2:24:06Uh actually, I will say this. Uh

2:24:10there were a number of concerns that

2:24:12came up from the documents presented in

2:24:14the school committee meetings and other

2:24:15things. And what I do see is under Dr.

2:24:18Scaza in the last couple meetings that

2:24:20the school committee's had, the school

2:24:22year's just started, they've had two. Um

2:24:24he and the business manager are making

2:24:26progress to address and put into place

2:24:29some policies that would have prevented

2:24:32what we're discussing here from

2:24:34happening.

2:24:35And as to you know any question about

2:24:39missing money or any other thing and the

2:24:42starting point of the school's review

2:24:44and manual reconciliation

2:24:46um the 133,575

2:24:49figure that I mentioned earlier is the

2:24:52subject of a scan letter or follow-on

2:24:56letter from a public records request

2:24:57that I did as a response. What they

2:25:00stated at that time was that they were

2:25:02had knowledge and awareness around it

2:25:06following back to a transfer into 2015.

2:25:09But business manager Stannic on a number

2:25:12of occasions at the school committee has

2:25:13testified that she didn't have accurate

2:25:16books and an accurate look and a great

2:25:18starting point for manual reconciliation

2:25:21before 2019. Whether that's the case,

2:25:24whether that's changed, whether

2:25:25documents have come, I don't know that

2:25:27answer. But again, this is something

2:25:29that it I believe my uh Warren article,

2:25:32if memory serves me correctly, goes back

2:25:33to 2021. And it's because this is not a

2:25:36witch hunt. This is not let's go looking

2:25:39for problems to find problems. What this

2:25:41is is to solve to answer any questions

2:25:44that may be out there. And there are

2:25:46lots of questions, myself included,

2:25:48transparently,

2:25:49um, and provide answers. Nobody's

2:25:52arrived at a conclusion. Does that

2:25:54answer your question, sir?

2:25:55>> Thank you. Anyone else have any

2:25:57questions? Sure. Come on up. Mr.

2:26:07I hope you won't take this wrong because

2:26:10um I have a lot of respect for the

2:26:13research you've done and for everyone

2:26:16that has uh spoken that u

2:26:22uh either as employees or as town

2:26:26meeting members. But uh I I

2:26:31my question essentially is

2:26:35where's the guarantee?

2:26:41It

2:26:43I don't I'm not saying there you or we

2:26:47won't get the answers we want, but

2:26:51there's no guarantee.

2:26:53And it's just like having a trial in a

2:26:57court of law. There is no guarantee that

2:27:00that the

2:27:02absolute actual truth will be present

2:27:06and presented appropriately and yada

2:27:09yada yada. And um that's why I'm very

2:27:15reluctant to support it as much as I

2:27:18admire your efforts. Um and uh I think

2:27:22we're quite blessed to have

2:27:25such a bulldog

2:27:28on the town's um side really. I mean,

2:27:32you put a lot of effort into this, but

2:27:35personally, I um I I am not inclined to

2:27:40to uh want to go ahead with it. Um

2:27:46for the reason that there are no

2:27:48certainties and guarantees, we might not

2:27:50get the information we're looking for.

2:27:54And um I think the fact that this has

2:27:58been brought into the light by itself is

2:28:03probably the most more useful than

2:28:06anything else.

2:28:08>> Thank you, Mr. Watts. Any other

2:28:10questions?

2:28:13>> Sure.

2:28:15>> First to the uh distinguished town

2:28:17meeting member, thank you for your uh

2:28:20comment. I respect that you disagree.

2:28:22There will be lots of people who

2:28:23disagree. This is democracy. It's dirty.

2:28:26We disagree. Um there's no certainties.

2:28:29This is a human-based process. We can't

2:28:30guarantee anything. And if we're not,

2:28:34from my perspective spoke a little bit

2:28:36about intent earlier. My intent here is

2:28:39not coming with a predetermined

2:28:40conclusion. It's just to obtain the data

2:28:43so that if there's an improvement to be

2:28:46made, it could be made. And I would

2:28:48actually to anybody who's undecided in

2:28:50the audience or listening, I would say

2:28:52to you that uh none of the other

2:28:55articles here presented tonight possess

2:28:57the same certainty either. Not a

2:28:59building study, not an economic

2:29:01development study. And this is something

2:29:03I've noticed over time. It's a little

2:29:05bit of a different subject. I don't

2:29:07understand, and I hope somebody you some

2:29:08of you will reflect on this, how citizen

2:29:11petitioners are held to a doubly high

2:29:13standard than the professional staff.

2:29:17We're being forced or expected, shall we

2:29:20say, to come with a completed product

2:29:23that far exceeds anything else presented

2:29:26as a citizen petition and then forced to

2:29:29defend it with less than equal access to

2:29:33tools and pricing and other things. So,

2:29:38I would actually ask all of you to

2:29:40consider maybe flipping that paradigm a

2:29:42little bit. But thank you for your

2:29:43comment.

2:29:44>> Thank you. Anyone else have any

2:29:45questions? Sure.

2:29:48>> Sure. Can you come on up? Thank you so

2:29:50much.

2:29:55>> Annel Ted precinct 3. Um, you know, I

2:29:59was worked in the schools for 20 years

2:30:01and I got to be honest, I don't know who

2:30:04funds the student activity uh fund and

2:30:07who is access to it. So, I think in the

2:30:10meeting maybe it could be explained to

2:30:12us prior to voting on something like

2:30:14this because,

2:30:16you know, I think it would be helpful. I

2:30:18don't even

2:30:18>> I agree actually

2:30:20>> know what to say. So, I'd appreciate

2:30:22adding that to a little brief thing

2:30:24about how it gets funded and how money

2:30:25comes out of it.

2:30:26>> No, that's very Thank you so much.

2:30:28That's very helpful. I will see if

2:30:29Jennifer can explain it.

2:30:31>> Yep. Student activities are accounts

2:30:33that are the funds are raised by the

2:30:36students and they are only expended by

2:30:39students. So everything has to go

2:30:42through an approval process through the

2:30:45class advisor through a student

2:30:47treasurer and approved to deposit funds

2:30:51and also to withdraw funds.

2:30:54>> I think at the next meeting

2:30:56>> yeah that would that would be helpful. I

2:30:57appreciate that. Can I just ask you a

2:30:59question because I know prior um several

2:31:02months ago when we were working with

2:31:03Eric on this um there were systems that

2:31:07you put in place. Are what you're saying

2:31:09now the systems that were put in place

2:31:10or is that something that's always

2:31:12happened or did you put in place?

2:31:14>> No, we added additional systems in

2:31:16place. Those systems were were in the

2:31:18policy and procedure manual but they

2:31:20were not followed all of the time. And

2:31:22then what would happen is sometimes you

2:31:25would get a for instance you get a quote

2:31:28for a bus for a field trip and then the

2:31:32field trip went a little longer so the

2:31:34bus cost a little bit more or that and

2:31:36so what would happen is we would pay the

2:31:39full invoice however it did not get

2:31:42recorded again and adjusted within the

2:31:45spreadsheets as far as what was in the

2:31:48bank and in the accounting system that

2:31:50was always it was the spreadsheets that

2:31:53were kept at the building level by the

2:31:56treasurers that there was the

2:31:58discrepancies and then

2:32:00>> treasures at each school or

2:32:02>> there is a student activity treasure at

2:32:03each of the schools and the schools that

2:32:06have the most student activity funds are

2:32:09the middle school and the high school

2:32:10and the high school because they're

2:32:13they're doing more the classes prom all

2:32:16of those events that they do.

2:32:18>> Great. Thank you. Anyone else have any

2:32:20questions? Sure.

2:32:22Come on up.

2:32:34I was just reading through this quickly

2:32:35one more time. Um, I noticed in the

2:32:37beginning it mentions phase one and then

2:32:39toward the end there's a phase two, but

2:32:41I don't see much about phase two. So,

2:32:44I'm not sure if there's much detail in

2:32:46phase two, if we're missing anything.

2:32:47So, if you could just um speak to that

2:32:50or if this is just all of it. So, I just

2:32:51wanted to ask about phase two.

2:32:58>> Thank you for your question. Um the

2:33:00answer to your question is that uh

2:33:02originally one part of the reason that

2:33:04this article is as long as it is is

2:33:07because as I spoke to a just a moment

2:33:10ago the sort of standard that you all

2:33:12expect a PhD level citizen petition to

2:33:18come forward that's bulletproof. So I

2:33:21did a lot of research to make both make

2:33:24sure that we weren't stepping on the

2:33:26select board or town executive authority

2:33:28or other things and there was a separate

2:33:32spec for phase two and I didn't include

2:33:35it. Uh nominally that's not missing. You

2:33:38have a complete warrant article in front

2:33:39of you. I guess we would for the sake of

2:33:42completeness consider phase two to be uh

2:33:45the review by the select board and the

2:33:47finance committee and the town staff as

2:33:48to what they'd like to do. I sort of

2:33:50deferred to that that other outside

2:33:55hopefully impartial opinion.

2:33:58>> Great. Thank you. Anyone else have any

2:34:00questions for Mr. Richards?

2:34:04Seeing none, how about we're done with

2:34:07the warrant. Does anyone have any

2:34:08questions at all about process? Any

2:34:10other warrant article items?

2:34:13Anything?

2:34:15No. Thank you so much for coming out. If

2:34:18you have any questions between now and

2:34:19then, please feel free to call my

2:34:21office. Thank you.

2:34:22>> Thank you. Have a good night.